Category Archives: C. Embodied Learning

I was inspired by much of the literature pertaining to the adoption of virtual reality found within innovative learning designs.  These technologies have an enormous potential to completely redefine what experiential learning looks and feels like within the contexts of math and science education.  I can still remember the many field trips I took as a child and the power of experiential and hands-on learning. Many of these experiences opened my eyes to science at an early age.  Novel environments coupled with long bus rides and hands-on activities grounded my learning to something real and secured newly-formed knowledge into my long-term memory for life. VR technology has the potential to dramatically improve student access to experiential learning opportunities and promote student curiosity.

While field trips have enormous pedagogical value, they are expensive, logistical nightmares and a pain to organize.  I am excited by the affordances that emerging technology provide classrooms to explore the world like never before without ever stepping foot outside of the school.  I see promise in the continued developments into Google Earth’s Street View and virtual reality technology which continue to allow students to explore their world in ways never before imagined.   Who knows, Google Earth might one day house a virtual world where online communities share, collaborate and learn from one and other, in turn, completely disrupting the status quo in education and truly transforming the nature of how we teach and learn.

“The same way that you use Internet Explorer or Chrome or Safari to go and visit websites, you’d use Google Earth to go and visit places, and you could author information about those places within Google Earth and then share those things.  For example, ‘this is where I went on holiday,’ or ‘this is my view of the political geography of South Africa,’ and use Google Earth as a tool for making that story available to people.” -Ed Parsons (Google Earth’s Chief Geospatial Technologist)

While I acknowledge nothing beats hands-on learning in the real world, virtual learning experiences are far more economical and time efficient.  There is no question that VR will become a standard educational tool in every classroom. Soon, it will become common practice for science teachers to take their students for walks along the beaches of Galapagos, for students to virtually stand on top of Mt Everest to conduct experiments and fly across the Arctic to survey the sea ice melt.  There will truly be an infinite number of possible ways for teachers to inspire their students to understand the world and draw deeper connections with the curriculum.

This future is not without concern.  The questions I have for you are:

1) How will schools adopt VR in their classrooms?  Will schools invest in VR “carts” or will students be expected to bring their own device similar to BYOD?

2) What are some limitations to using VR in education?  When conducting scientific inquiry, does a lack of touch, smell and taste hinder the learning process?

3) What will be lost in the learning process if hands-on experiences are increasingly replaced by virtual experiences?  Are virtual experience less memorable than real experiences? If so, how does one improve the “stickiness” of a virtual experience?

Winn (2003) introduces a new “conceptual framework for studying learning in artificial environments” (abstract), which I’ve dubbed E2A, standing for Embodiment, Embeddedness, and Adaptation. These three concepts, he proposes, are to be taken holistically and provide a theoretical framework for considering how learning occurs from the perspective of cognitive neuroscience and systems theory. E2A considers how to explain how learning occurs when students work with “complex, computer-supported simulations of natural environments, referred to as ‘artificial environments’” (Winn, 2003, abstract).

Winn (2003) creates deliberate distance between E2A and several key aspects of constructivism.  When educational researchers moved away from a computational view of learning, most sought answers through studying the contexts of learning under the umbrellas of “situated cognition” and “constructivism” but others began to study the act of learning as a result of adaptations between students and their environment which they viewed as a kind of complex system, thus applying principles of “systems theory” in their explanation of how the human mind learns.  These educators turned to explanations for cognition related to the neurosciences, stating that “explanations of learning and cognition can be reduced no further than those emerging from the cognitive neurosciences” regardless of how complex directly describing and analysing learning processes proves when taking this paradigm as the starting point (Winn, 2003, p.3).  These researchers propose an alternative framework to constructivism “based on the assumption that learning occurs when people adapt to their environment” wherein the learner is both embedded and physically active (Winn, 2003, p.3). From this arises the claim that cognition can be thought of as an “embodied” as well as a “cerebral” activity.  Proponents of E2A take issue not with constructivism’s epistemelogical premise, but with its conclusions, citing it leans “dangerously towards solipsism” (p.12). Thus, “we arrive at a description of learning that is quite different from accounts given by traditional cognitive psychology and constructivism…The framework brings together recent research and theory that extend the purview of cognitive activity from the brain, through the body, to the environment itself” (p.22).  Although Winn (2003) and other E2A proponents agree with constructivists that “cognition activity depends on the context in which it takes place” (p.5), they locate the construction of mental models (referred to as mental representations) in the scientific actions within the brain, via cognitive neuroscience, rather than occurring without attempted explanation of the phenomena by constructivists.

The foundation for this conceptual framework is the proposed cementing of three, previously separate ideas, into one “completely interdependent” self-organizing system:

(1) Cognition is embodied in physical activity which is,

(2) Embedded in an environment specifically designed to create learning, but that

(3) Learning does not occur passively or merely mentally, rather learning is the result of the “adaptation of the learner to the environment and the environment to the learner” (Winn, 2003, abstract).

The Four Learning Models & TELEs in E2A

I was intrigued by the theory of embodied learning and, although it stands apart from the metaphysical conclusions of constructivism, I sought to connect it to those previous learning frameworks from Module B.  The concept of the body as our first STEM manipulative is a compelling one but I believe this goes beyond the simple (yet very valuable) truth that moving parts of the body in gesture or moving around in a physical space to literally embody the concepts of an object in motion are excellent, and under-utilized,  ways to help students gain a more comprehensive understanding of STEM concepts. This description is only one way in which learning can be understood as “embodied” (Winn, 2003, p.11).

The concept of environment, specifically the environment-of-perspective referred to by Winn (2003) as the Umwelt lends a powerful hand to the case for artificial environments in learning.  It is here that I began to see the connections of E2A to the other learning frameworks. “Beyond scaffolding (Linn, 1995), we can now embed pedagogical strategies into the very fabric of the environment. Since learning arises from adaptation to the environment, it can be guided by the behavior of the environment itself” (Winn, year, p.23). E2A therefore, seems to take SKI through the affordances of the WISE TELE as its starting point and then build upon that so that the technology is not simply the skeleton of the knowledge building experiences but actually couples the student within the artificial environment until that Umwelt actually becomes those experiences. “Learning is considered to arise from the reciprocal interaction between external, embodied, activity and internal, cerebral, activity, the whole being embedded in the environment in which it occurs. Learning is no longer confined to what goes on in the brain” (Winn, 2003, p.22).

The role and value of artificial environments are elevated when adopting this theory because the concept of embedded embodiment as the medium through which cognition (aka thinking) occurs is constrained by the limitations of our physical bodies. “The bandwidth of the data we can detect in the environment is limited” in terms of what a human can experience of light and sound and scales of space and time (Winn, 2003, p.7). However, such limitations can be reduced by the advances of artificial environments used as simulations of our natural environment. “Artificial environments can use computer technology to create metaphorical representations in order to bring to students concepts and principles that normally lie outside the reach of direct experience” (p.7).  Using artificial environments such as a TELE is desirable, therefore, for an E2A pedagogy of learning.  Dealing with misconceptions to create truer learning, they suggest using similuations to so what practitioners of TGEM do, that is, “to persuade students to reject such misconceptions and scientifically accurate conceptions in their place” (p.16) by actively propelling students into their Zone of Proximal Development through the deliberately timed release of confirming and confounding examples.  As an example of a TELE, he referenced a really interesting looking (Minecraft-esque) study prepared for a PhD dissertation by S.L. Gabert 2001 called Phase World of Water where the author designs a VR environment for college students to explore a 3D graph of state of matter changes:  Students’ VR avatars move through the 3 axis which aids students in developing deeper understanding of temperature, pressure, and volume in changes of state.

Winn (2003) draws on Hedden’s work on computer game design strategies which references Lepper and Malone’s theory of motivation that proposes the deliberate “direction of attention [through] challenge, curiosity, and fantasy” creates a circumstance called “flow” which corresponds to the “engagement, immersion and enjoyment” characterized by coupling or “presence”.  They claim that these strategies in cognitively-driven virtual environments, as opposed to affectively-driven gaming envorinments, promote challenge and curiousity but “do not encourage fantasy” (p.18) but I disagree. I believe that the use of narrative is actually a better description of “fantasy”, in that it is the deliberate creation of a sense of “story” whether the ability to envision a real or imaginary setting, Puget Sound or a game world, and use the imagination to place oneself within that setting that is part of the draw of the narrative, a compelling sense of “place and time”, as well as of “character” or “events”.  Everything students are doing in Virtual Puget Sound relies on the fantasy narrative in that the students are embedded within an Umwelt designed to evoke inquiry that is not actually the external, real life, environment. This is fundamentally no different than the narrative that is utilized in the Jasper series wherein students are invited to participate.

Winn (2003) cites recent suggestions that the term “embedded” is too passive, suggesting the student is being passively carried along by changes in the environment and, at least where participation in an artificial environment is concerned, is more accurately described by the concepts of “coupling”, “presence”, and “flow” between the student and the Umwelt, as is deliberately done by video game designers who program for affective (emotional) connectedness keeping players “engaged with their products for extended periods of time” (p.14).  When it comes to the ability to describe cognitive processes and learning therefore, passivity is counterproductive because “successful students are anything but passive”.  If successful coupling of learner to Umwelt (which she likens to the interconnectedness one might experiences when trying to catch a hamster with a pair of tongs) occurs “students can learn in an artificial environment in the same way that they learn in the natural world — intuitively, constructively and actively” (p.14).

Unsurprisingly, virtual immersion (ie. through VR HUDs rather than desktop computer simulations) increases presence because it increases coupling and thus cognitive gains increase proportionally.  “Exposure to an environment can lead to physical changes in the brain, resulting in heightened perceptual sensitivity, which leads a person to actually see things differently in the environment” and enables students to “make distinctions [among objects and phenomena in the environment] with more certainty” (p.18).  Examples given in support of this include Inuit seeing differences in snow, chicken sexers, or professional beer tasters heightened perceptions. “We have seen that tight coupling between a student and a learning environment leads to change in both the student and the environment. Adaptation is mutual” (p.20).

Winn (2003) brings out a really powerful idea by Varela et al. (1991) that “all of cognition is ‘enactive'” in the sense that “the way we organize ideas directly reflects how we act in the world” suggesting a “view of cognition that is based, not on the idea that the mind is a mirror of the environment, but that cognition consists of the constant, reciprocal, interaction between the mind and the environment”  (Winn, 2003, p.11, emphasis added).  All in all, E2A is a very powerful vehicle for considering human cognition and I believe it has significant applications to guiding pedagogical choices for educators.

Questions

(1) In what other ways is E2A different from the constructivist epistemology we’ve studied in MET thus far?

(2) Which of the theories in Module B best fit within an E2A framework, in your opinion?

There were multiple interesting articles this week to consider. I decided to focus on primary learners for the simple fact I have had the least exposure to them and want to hone my practice. I’m also very curious about how embodied learning effects children’s learning in terms of gestures and participatory technology.

Embodied learning is the concept that the whole body is participating in learning activities, not simply the brain. We learn through full body actions, not just brain processing (Winn, 2003). Winn rejected the idea that the mind and body should be thought of as separate entities and insisted that the environmental interactions are critical to learning. If the environmental learning experience is not there, the student is limited in terms of adaptation and are robbed of an authentic learning experience.

If we consider this from a primary based perspective it makes complete sense. Play based and project based learning benefits are widely accepted as being goals to strive for.

Winn (2003) discussed embodiment a “physical dimension of cognition” and regarded emeddedness, as the “interdependence of cognition and the environment”. Embodiment, to Winn, was the physical realm. In primary this translates very easily into math and science units. As Winn states though, our sensory perception is limited and artificial environments offer possibilities to explore concepts currently beyond our direct grasp. Winn was a proponent of 3D spacial environments and their potential to create deeper learning.

Barab & Dede (2007) explored mobile technologies and their potential to allow students to be “coupled.” They proposed that mobile technology would facilitate full immersion in virtual scenarios, where they would participate in the scientific process or real life investigation. They saw large potential for game based technology, which continues to gain in popularity and usage. Minecraft and other such platforms have proven to be educational and a great deal of fun for young learners and it is easy to the benefits of incorporating this into the classroom.

Zurin & Williams (2011) was particularly interesting to me and the concept of embodied learning. They discussed gesticulation and how children used it to solve problems. What interested me most about this was the realization that gestures play a major role in all of our teaching. With this being the case I wonder how I communicate physically effects the learning of concepts?

More questions I was left with:

• Gestures are very easy to observe in real life environments but how well does this translate into virtual reality? Are we at the stage that artificial environments can replicate human gestures with the same nuance?

• What types of embodied actions should teachers be striving for to better help their students?

Barab, S., & Dede, C. (2007). Games and immersive participatory simulations for science education: an emerging type of curricula. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 1-3.

Winn, W. (2003). Learning in artificial environments: Embodiment, embeddedness, and dynamic adaptation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 87-114. Full-text document retrieved on January 17, 2013.

Zurina, H., & Williams, J. (2011). Gesturing for oneself. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 77(2-3), 175-188.

When I search the term embodied learning on Google, it is defined as “Embodied learning is an educational method that has been around for a while in (primary) education. In this method, one does not only offer an intellectual way of teaching, but also involve the whole body. One can think of e.g. doing math while throwing small bags of sand to each other”.  I am taking from this the importance of engaging the body as a whole.

Winn (2003) discusses the interaction between a person and their environment.  It is specified that this interaction is not just the brain processing the environment; however, it is the entire body that uses the senses to interact with the surroundings.  As Kim, Roth and Thom (2010) state “when asked to talk about knowledge, many individuals point to their heads as if to suggest that this is where knowledge resides” (p. 207).  Their study found that children’s bodied constitute an integral part of knowing thinking, and learning.  As well, they found that students engaged in co-gesturing which allowed for a collective understanding.

As I think of my students, I completely agree that their learning is enhanced through their physical movements.  For example, we were completing a unit on 3-D geometric shapes.  I recall holding up a triangular prims and asked students what 2-D shapes made up this 3-D shape (rectangles and triangles).  I watched as some of my students began using their hands to create the shape before answering.  The motion/gesture of creating the shape allowed them to recall from their memory the name.  It would be my guess that their previous teachers had them creating the shapes with their hands or other objects while learning the shapes.

Referring back to the above definition, it refers to embodied learning as a form of hands-on learning primarily done in primary grades.  Is embodied learning and hands-on-learning the same thing?  Does the definition provided by google truly encompass all that is embodied learning?  In your experience, where have you asked students or seen students use gestures as a way of expressing their knowledge?  Did you present the gesture to the student as a way of processing information?  Or did they create it themselves/collaboratively with others?

Shayla

Kim, M., Roth, W. M., & Thom, J. (2011) Children’s gestures and the embodied knowledge of geometry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(1), 207-238.

Winn, W. (2003). Learning in artificial environments: Embodiment, embeddedness, and dynamic adaptation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 87-114.

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.  

(Merleau-Ponty, 2004) argues that our engagement with the world is not just cognitive or theoretical, but involves the emotional, practical, aesthetic and so on. He said that human experiences connect strongly with the notion that learning involves the exploration of the world from where one is and a clear understanding of how things relate to each other and to ourselves in the world. This resonate to me but does not give me answers on how we actually learn. I have read various theories of learning, such as behaviourism, constructivism, cognitivism and other teaching and learning empirical findings, all very interesting and describing different learning experiences. Also, the use of technology has been very helpful in designing a learning experience that the students can understand meaningfully.

However, regardless of the type of the instruction designed in classroom. In general, I always have different level and quality of understanding in class. Contemporary studies on education show that students have different and multiple intelligences, they perceive the world around them differently and therefore learn differently. Mathematics can be represented and perceived in various ways, and how the students come to learn math is equally varied and diverse. I use technology to provide the students with comprehensive activities through which they can experience learning and meaningfully grasp and understand the concepts being taught. It remains that some students learn better than others. Why do some learn better than others? Is this related to the instructional design or to an intrinsic inert ability? Check out this video.

I watched this video where students in a primary school are playing an interactive math game on the floor. I understand that students easily get and stay engaged with embodied learning. However, I am not seeing in this video any cognitive learning pertaining to the body taking place. Is embodied learning only about engaging students?

Reference

Stolz, S. A. (2015). Embodied learning. Educational philosophy and theory, 47(5), 474-487.

I first became interested in the idea of VR years ago when I read an article about the future of video games. The author predicted that the near-ish future would involve games where the player was practically unable to distinguish the virtual world from reality. At the time, the thought of this sounded incredible. Imagining a world in which I could play in the NHL with the speed and quickness of Paul Kariya? Could I take to the soccer pitch and have skills akin to that of David Beckham?

While the predictions in that article have yet to come true, it seems we are well on a way to fully immersive virtual worlds. I first became interested in VR/AR a few years ago while working on a MET project. Through the assignment I was able to see the great educational potential for this technology and have incorporated it into my teaching in a handful of ways. This past month, I was able to use an AR app called Quiver to achieve a modified outcome for a developmentally delayed student. Quiver is an app that turns coloring pages into 3D-interactive characters with the help of an iPad. For this specific assignment, the class was tasked with creating a 3D model of a vehicle using Tinkercad. Unfortunately, due to neuromuscular and cognitive challenges, this student was unable to complete the same project as the rest of the class. With the help of Quiver, she was able to stylize and bring to life her very own 3D model (similar to the picture below). This consistent with the benefits of AR/VR described by Adamo-Villani & Wilbur (2007), in which they applaud VR/AR’s ability to create safe, barrier-free environments for special needs students.

In working through the material this week, I happened upon the app VR MATH. This app is an interesting way of letting students manipulate and interact with different geometric shapes. It has the potential to be incredibly effective as it is highly engaging and provides students the ability to move, explore and interact. (Winn, 2002) While it is held back by its focus on Google Cardboard viewers and not more immersive VR platforms, VR MATH is an exciting indication of where this style of learning is headed. It won’t be long before a student is able to virtually stand in a room as it slowly fills with 1cm cubes. As these games continue to develop, the interaction available to students is set to increase. This movement adds to students’ ability to learn as it often primes the mind for the construction of knowledge. (Lindgren & Johnson-Glenberg, 2013)

VR/AR is still definitely in its early stages. The physical technology is developing rapidly, and the software needs some time to catchup. My only caution related to this has to do with a 100-year-old French cartoon we were presented at a recent PD opportunity.

As you can see, the prediction was that students seem fairly unengaged in their learning. The teacher is on the side feeding knowledge into a grinder, and it is somehow being imparted into their brains. Are we on track to be in a similar position, with VR headsets instead of headphones?

My questions for this technology would be as follows:
1) Is the scenario in the cartoon all that bad? If the technology is effective, should we shy away from it?

2) How can we prevent what we see in the cartoon? Specifically in regards to VR, if it is the best way to experience a math/science lesson, how do we responsibly manage it?

3) As the technology advances, will we as educators push to have more Embodied learning elements (movement etc.)? Or will we be at the mercies of tech companies as we so often are?

Adamo-Villani, N., & Wilbur, R. (2007, July). An immersive game for K-5 math and science education. In Information Visualization, 2007. IV’07. 11th International Conference (pp. 921-924). IEEE.

Lindgren, R., & Johnson-Glenberg, M. (2013). Emboldened by embodiment: Six precepts for research on embodied learning and mixed reality. Educational Researcher, 42(8), 445-452.

Winn, W. (2003). Learning in artificial environments: Embodiment, embeddedness and dynamic adaptation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 87-114.

I am a person who speaks with her hands, so picking an article from the list given in the module was not so difficult for me. I chose to read Alibali and Nathan’s article on embodiment in mathematics and how teachers’ and learners’ gestures are the proof of it. It was very interesting to see that the authors described gestures as being the evidence for the body to be involved in thinking and speaking about the ideas expressed through those gestures. They even stated, “gestures are taken as evidence that the knowledge itself is embodied” (Alibali and Nathan, 2012, p. 248). I have always felt more comfortable expressing myself when I am able to use my hands and gestures while talking, it does not only help me express myself better but also helps me ‘make knowledge personal’. What I mean by making knowledge personal is that I feel that the main source of knowledge is that it comes from the inside of a person with probing from the outside, but by being able to use gestures and hands while expressing that knowledge, one can take that knowledge back inside. This is my definition of ‘making knowledge personal’ or one may call it embodiment.

Furthermore, it is sad to see that the prominent way of teaching in today’s world does not involve embodiment of knowledge at all. It is one person standing in front of the class, standing at the desk by the board, pouring knowledge out to the students sitting stationary in their seats. Winn puts it beautifully by saying, “The idea that cognitive activity depends on the context in which it takes place has been used as an argument for the ineffectiveness of instructional strategies that are employed uniformly with different kinds of students and in different contexts” (Winn, 2002, p. 5). I found this quote to be really powerful as it shows us the reality of today’s prominent teaching styles. The majority of the PCK in a typical classroom involves instructional strategies that do make learning to be a cognitive thing with no connection with the body.

As I was still thinking about the quote above and what Winn meant by the idea that cognitive activity depends on the context or how could one apply this in a math classroom, I came across an article that made me realize that it can be done. This article by Schaen, Hayden, & Zydney on “Now we have an app for that” talks about a project that involved elementary students to create their own apps to teach a math concept/ practice a math concept. I think this is a great idea to help students use their imagination and create something concrete that they can test their knowledge at. The TPCK taking place in this class is exceptional while the students are able to express their knowledge through creating an app that will reflect their knowledge on a certain subject.

I think I could use this website (www.tinytap.it) in my high school classroom where students create an app as a group where they can test themselves and others on certain topics learned in the unit. I think this is a great way to engage students in ‘hands-on learning’ while providing a TELE where students feel comfortable using technology to express themselves. This way students will be able to take ownership of their learning and at the same time ‘make learning personal’.

A few questions that I want to pose to my fellow learners:

1. Can embodiment learning takes place in an environment that lacks technology?
2. Can embodiment learning be uncomfortable for children with disability, who cannot physically function as well as other children? What could be some solutions for such situation?

References:

Martha W. Alibali & Mitchell J. Nathan (2012) Embodiment in Mathematics Teaching and Learning: Evidence From Learners’ and Teachers’ Gestures, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21:2, 247-286

Schaen, R. J., Hayden, G., & Zydney, J. M. (2016). “Now” We Have an App for That. Teaching Children Mathematics, 22(8), 506-509.

Winn, W. (2003). Learning in artificial environments: Embodiment, embeddedness, and dynamic adaptation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 87-114. Full-text document retrieved on January 17, 2013

Winn’s (2003) article was an interesting read. Winn (2003) describes embodiment as, “the physical dimension of cognition” (p.7) and discusses how there is a real connection between cognitive activity and the environment. Winn (2003) also discusses how the three concepts, “embodiment, embeddedness and adaptations form a viable theoretical framework” (p. 6). When reading the article this part stood out for me, “To say cognition is embodied is to say that it involves our entire bodies not just our brains” (p. 8).  This means that our bodies and movement contribute to learning and understanding of concepts.

Thinking about my practice as a learning support specialist teacher in Mathematics I incorporate collaborative activities and use hands-on on manipulatives regularly, as the movements and physical presence of objects help my students understand concepts. Roschelle & Singleton’s (2008) article describes the benefits of graphic calculators. The benefits of using graphic calculators include “chang[ing] how students learn by reducing the cognitive load, increasing opportunities for complex and multi-step problem solving and enabling teachers to emphasize mathematical reasoning, not just calculation” (p. 951). This is an area that I have been working on with my students this past term. Even though we are not at that level of using graphing calculators, we do use regular calculators to help with multi-step word problems and application so students don’t need to focus on computation. Roschelle & Singleton (2008) state that “40% of high school mathematics classrooms use graphing calculators, whereas only 11% of mathematics classroom use computers” (p. 952). This shows that graphing calculators are a powerful handheld tool that support student learning. Further, Roschelle & Singleton (2008) mention that school districts are providing professional development opportunities around the use of graphing calculators to enhance teaching and learning. Another affordance discussed in the article includes allowing students to check their work and to help justify their answers. I encourage this in my classroom as it gives students responsibility and ownership of their learning. Roschelle et al. (2010) discuss using TechPALS, a small handheld device that provides feedback to students working together in small groups when solving fractions. This was compared to students using a desktop application which provided feedback to the student individually as the student works on tasks independently. The study showed that when students worked together and collaborated using TechPALS, this enhanced student learning vs when students worked independently. This emphasizes the importance of repeated practice in activities where students learn by exploring and discussing in a collaborative form.

Questions:

1. Winn (2003) suggests that cognition involves our entire bodies not just our brains. How can the use of technology such as personal devices be used to involve our entire bodies?

2. Roschelle & Singleton (2008) show how powerful graphing calculators are to student learning. If this is the case, why at the elementary level are calculators looked down upon by many educators?

Roschelle, J., & Singleton, C. (2008). Graphing calculators: Enhancing math learning for all students. (pp. 951-959). Boston, MA: Springer US.10.1007/978-0-387-73315-9_60

Roschelle, J., Rafanan, K., Bhanot, R., Estrella, G., Penuel, B., Nussbaum, M., & Claro, S. (2010). Scaffolding group explanation and feedback with handheld technology: Impact on students’ mathematics learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(4), 399-419. 10.1007/s11423-009-9142-9

Winn, W. (2003). Learning in artificial environments: Embodiment, embeddedness, and dynamic adaptation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 87-114. Full-text document retrieved on January 17, 2013, from: http://www.hitl.washington.edu/people/tfurness/courses/inde543/READINGS-03/WINN/winnpaper2.pdf

The last 2 years has seen a surge of VR and AR becoming one of the hottest trends in education. The 2016 ISTE conference and the 2017 FETC conference was flooded with workshops and vendors supporting these technologies in education. The question is, are these sustainable and effective technologies in the classroom? Before we examine how and why these technologies are being used in the classroom. Lets define exactly what VR and AR are.

Virtual reality (VR)  is a computer-generated experience that can simulate physical presence in real or imagined environments. Augmented reality (AR) refers to technology that allows for digital information – videos, photos, links, games, etc. – to be displayed on top of real world items when viewed through the lens of a smartphone, tablet or wearable device. Mixed reality is a blend of the two.

Thanks to the Oculus Rift, Hololens, Playstation 4, Pokemon Go and the new Google Daydream, the world has gone mixed reality crazy! Yet many question that despite the consumer entertainment popularity, what place could this possibly have in education. Will bringing a technology tool meant for entertainment purposes support the academic rigour necessary for our K-12 schools and beyond. Consider this site by Kathy Schrock suggesting we can use Pokemon Go as a classroom tool. Should we mold entertainment platforms into educational ones? Winn proposes an exciting opportunity for educators to consider an embodied environment where we are not just offering an intellectual platform to learn, but one that includes a physical experience in order to increase engagement and learning (2003). We are faced with an exciting time in education where we have to offer more than simple information and call it learning. The whole body experience we offer to the student is quite simply what will set us apart from becoming a basic Google search. We can establish “presence” and really allow students to transcend this 2 dimensional experience of the paper we have traditionally offered in our classrooms (Winn, 2003).  Even though educational VR and AR apps are only a small fraction of in the market, this small fraction represents billions of dollars and is growing rapidly. With this VR and AR content being specifically created FOR education vs entertainment, educators can confidently try VR and AR in their classrooms and when they are ready they can even easily make their own!

Using existing classroom technology such as iPads or allowing BYOD of mobile devices in upper grades, this type of technology is low to no cost allowing educators to take learning and make it come to life! Imagine taking your students on a field trip on the other side of the world like with Google Expeditions, or inside places they wouldn’t be able to go…like my backyard beehive.  AR and VR make the impossible possible and allow students to be part of the reality instead of just having to imagine it. This experience is a true stage for “flow” where are students are fully engaged, learning, and enjoying every second without the distractions from their learning (Winn, 2003).

While there is no doubt to the educational value these experiences have had over the past 5 months. The most impactful experience has been the effect on using both AR and VR with students with special needs. I have been filming filming trips for students with Autism and anxiety to experience ahead of time, allowing students in wheelchairs to go skiing and swimming, and letting students with learning disabilities have their stories and mathematics come to life. These students are engaged and excited to learn in ways that were not possible before. These applications are enhancing their face to face experience. VR has the potential to transform our learning environments. Virtual reality is a “compelling method for storytelling, allowing users to feel the experience throughout their bodies” (Adams, Freeman, Giesinger, Cummins & Yuhnke, 2016, p. 42). Rather than simply viewing a story that is told for example in a video or animation, I wanted my students to have this head to toe experience. Beyond the growing availability of educational VR, from field trips around the world, to dissections in science, teachers have the ability to create their own customized VR learning that meets the needs of their students while also covering specific curriculum. VR  is a “prime enabler of student-centered, experiential, and collaborative learning” (Adams et al., 2016). But more than that he result has been for my students with special needs place based trips that teach literacy and numeracy, reduce anxiety and provide an on the spot opportunity to be transported to another environment regardless of limitations imposed by their disabilities. These 3D worlds have the potential to contribute significantly to the needs of these students by enhancing therapeutic treatment, education and quality of life of students with disabilities and/or phobias (Khushalani, 2010).

In Kevin Kelly’s book the Inevitable, he describes the 12 technological forces that will shape our future. The interactivity of VR and AR in one of the inevitable forces. This mixed reality of interacting with the digital world within our day to day lives is something that is growing daily especially with the internet of things. Education will not be immune to the need to go beyond what we can touch or read in front of us. In fact many believe these applications will improve and enhance the learning experience.The goal of VR is not to suspend belief, but to ratchet up belief (Kelly, 2016,  p. 212) If we apply this to education then we can in fact “ratchet” up learning by letting students learn beyond the walls of the classroom. In most ways, the AR class will be superior to the real world class (Kelly, 2016, p.217). Eventually we will need to ask ourselves if our future mixed reality classrooms will become superior to the real world face to face classrooms?

The NMC Horizon report for K-12 education recognizes that students immersed in mixed reality enable complete focus with less distraction and are more likely to adopt VR and AR in education as they are already experiencing the technology in entertainment and gaming. This technology is considered a prime enabler of student  centered , experiential and collaborative learning. Students can engage in new situations and activities in realistic settings, fostering greater knowledge retention than textbook learning (Adams Becker, Freeman, Giesinger, Cummins & Yuhnke, 2016, p.42) When we can create a more engaged and authentic learning opportunity with VR and AR, we can overcome the shortcomings of relying on theory with a lack of concrete experiences. If educators are open to it, the mixed reality classroom can be a great equalizer among students allowing them to share experiences with each other that only a few could experience in real life. VR engages students in a fun and exciting way that increases retention (Adams Becker et al, 2016, p.43) The great power of VR and AR is allowing for students to transcend bricks and mortar. Yet if this technology is only ever used to take virtual field trips then we have wasted the potential to transform teaching and learning. VR allows us to transcend time and space that limits learning to the walls and school day” (Snelling, 2017, p.29) The key is not the tool but how it is being used. As with any technology, it is about pedagogy first and technology second. Technology enables education; it doesn’t drive education. Adopting VR is just another one of those changes that requires a growth mindset, a school culture that expects innovation” (Snelling, 2017, p.26)

With any type of technology adoption in schools we have to also consider the limitations and cautions.

1. There are many things to consider such as how do we convince stakeholders of the academic rigour and see it as more than a game?
2. In a generation consumed by screen time and virtual worlds, do we want to introduce more technology that reduces face to face educational encounters?
3. How can we ensure resources and professional development so that teachers are not left behind with this rapidly changing technology?
4. And finally, if we fail to adopt this type of technology are we robbing students of transformative learning?

It is up to us to ensure that the VR and AR experience is part of and enhances the face to face teaching environments in ways that would not have otherwise been possible and allow for tasks that were previously inconceivable, not act as a simple replacement to traditional teaching and learning.

Undoubtedly the future of education is going to be impacted with mixed realities. I personally am excited to see what the future brings. I was fortunately able to register to be part of the UBC Summer Institute on VR in the classroom and I hope to gain even more insight to the potential this technology of embodied learning will bring.

Trish

References

Adams Becker, S., Freeman, A., Giesinger Hall, C., Cummins, M., & Yuhnke, B. (2016). NMC/CoSN Horizon Report: 2016 K.

Kelly, K. (2017). The inevitable: understanding the 12 technological forces that will shape our future. Penguin.

Khushalani, K. (2010). How Does Virtual Reality Enrich the Lives Of Special Children?. In Conference’10.

Winn, W. (2003). Learning in artificial environments: Embodiment, embeddedness, and dynamic adaptation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 87-114.

Snelling, J, (2017, January). Future or fad; Bringing the new realities of AR, VR to the classroom. Entrsekt, 24-29.