Embodied Learning is the idea that learning requires and should involve the whole body. Using and incorporating the body doesn’t just enhance learning, it is an essential part of the equation. In the Lindgren and Johnson-Glenberg (2013) article, they explain that “…human cognition is deeply rooted in the body’s interactions with its physical environment” (p. 446). When thought about in this way, this is how we learn. We see, hear, touch, and smell the world around us to make sense and learn how to survive. Historically, this is how we have learned anything and everything. The experiences with our senses are so foundational for sense and meaning making. Why would this be any different in a classroom?
In Lindgren and Johnson-Glenberg’s (2013) article they explore an idea that was thought provoking for me. They describe that embodied learning benefits everyone, even though learning styles or multiple intelligences tell us that some learners are more predisposed to learning kinesthetically. Taking issue with this, they argue that “…this idea obscures the fundamental relationship that body activity has to cognitive processes generally and the notion that prescribed physical engagement with learning content can be conceptual development benefits that apply to all students” (Lindgren & Johnson-Glenberg, 2013, p. 448). There are important developments and milestones all students need that are generated from embodied learning, from using the senses and our first hand, active experiences. By only offering these opportunities through multiple intelligence or learning style choices, students are denied meaning making in their own environment, with their own tools.
Over the last few years I have been giving a lot of thought to the ideas and notions around learning styles and multiple intelligences. Every once and a while, an article comes across my screen that tries to sway me one way or another but my feet seem to be firmly planted in Switzerland. I am curious about what your experiences are; have they been successful? Do you feel that multiple intelligences provide students with pathways to success that they might not otherwise have? Or do you think that they are another set of labels that pigeonhole students into making the same choices? What value is there is students knowing their learning styles and/or multiple intelligences?
If you are interested, give this article a quick read: https://www.edutopia.org/article/learning-styles-real-and-useful-todd-finley
Lindgren, R., & Johnson-Glenberg, M. (2013). Emboldened by Embodiment. Educational Researcher, 42(8), 445-452. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189×13511661
Núñez, R. (2012). On the Science of Embodied Cognition in the 2010s: Research Questions, Appropriate Reductionism, and Testable Explanations. Journal Of The Learning Sciences, 21(2), 324-336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.614325
Winn, W. (2003). Learning in artificial environments: Embodiment, embeddedness and dynamic adaptation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition And Learning, 1(1), 87-114.
Thanks for your interesting take on this week’s readings, Allison!
I had a few thoughts. First, your first sentence states that that embodied learning requires the involvement of the whole body. Does this mean that interaction through only, say, physical manipulation of a slider on an online math application does not suffice? To what extent must the whole body be involved? Hands, arms, feet, legs, neck, head, ears, etc? Can embodied learning still take place for those who are only able to incorporate certain parts of the body into their learning? Where’s the line?
(no need to reply to every one of those hehe)
Second, you mention learning styles. How do you feel about research that suggests there is actually no such thing as different learning styles, and that everyone learns better with visual aids?
Thanks for getting my mind going!
Scott
I see the limitation in that definition and the implications for those that can’t use their whole body. However I wonder, the difference between hands on learning and embodied learning. Are they the same thing? Is there more meaning in learning from moving a slide in an online game? Or is there more?
I have yet to be swayed by any of the research regarding learning styles, as I mentioned above I am Switzerland. In theory, in makes sense to me but sometimes I wonder if we are just giving ourselves permission to learn or present in ways we are most comfortable, never exploring a new style or intelligence. How do you feel?
Hey Allison,
That’s a very good question. Maybe I’m wrong but I feel that embodied learning encompasses hands-on learning; if you’re physically working with something, surely this “counts”. In my particular interpretation of this whole approach, I feel like it all comes down to feedback. The question I ask is “Is there immediate feedback when I manipulate something?” and if the answer is “yes” I feel like it is essentially embodied learning. I think it is spectacularly powerful to interact with something that reacts immediately to an input, something that has a sort of “life”, even if that object is almost laughably simple. This includes a slider in my previous post. Sure, a slider in Desmos, for example, may only do something simple like stretch or squish a graph, or move it up or down. However, that slider manipulation allows for instant tactile feedback that could (and often does) take hours to explain in words without that “living” manipulative. I just made this in Desmos if you want to see what I mean: https://www.desmos.com/calculator/mbepwkloms
In short, I think (…and I could really be quite wrong here, but I’m trying to comprehend…) that the power lies not in whether or not something is “hands on” or “embodied” but whether an approach allows for instantaneous non-verbal feedback.
As for your question, I think that if a given teacher is only presenting things from a preferred “learning style angle” then they don’t understand the theory behind learning styles. If learning styles “exist” then the ideal would be to always work toward creating lessons and materials that cater to all styles, ideally simultaneously. If this isn’t possible teachers should at least provide options for students in terms of the approach taken to complete activities. It should be pretty much irrelevant which what learning style the teacher is most comfortable with. If a given teacher focuses solely on one learning style, kinesthetic for example, then they are fundamentally disadvantaging students just as badly as if they catered solely to auditory learners (which is often the case for lecture-style lessons).
Thanks for the great questions! I’d love to hear others’ responses!
Scott
I strongly agree with your statement that “human cognition is deeply rooted in the body’s interactions with its physical environment” and wonder about how physical interaction with our environment differs from when we interact with it via a digital tool. Manipulating a cube in our hands is different than manipulating it on an ipad or through a VR tool. There is some danger in disconnecting our senses from one another. Seeing is not the same as holding, where we can not only look at how the object looks but also feel its texture and feel its weight.
As someone who completed my bachelor of education about twenty years ago, multiple intelligences were foundational knowledge in our teacher training. Professors very much promoted the idea that teachers needed to teach in the mode that learners learn. More important than matching a learner to the way in which they are smart is, as Hattie suggests, to provide students with many ways to access content improves learning, to provide learners students with multiple ways to demonstrate knowledge, and to inform our instruction by knowledge about our students’ areas of strength and areas for growth.