Category Archives: C. Embodied Learning

Embodied Learning and Virtual Spaces

 

For my readings this week, I chose to look readings that were more focuses in on virtual and augmented reality. What really drew me to this was a quote in Winn (2003) that talked about how our cognition is really just a way of “embodying distinctions.” Winn (2003) posed  that learning follows this process:

  1. Declaring a break (in the environment)
  2. Drawing a distinction (between what the environment usually does and is currently doing)
  3. Ground the distinction (to make it compatible with is already known)
  4. Embodying the distinction (to apply it in other situations)

Looking at learning from this point of view would find countless situations to use virtual reality and augmented reality in the classroom, as it would allow students to experience and to draw distinctions in situations that they may not normally be able to (due to location or size).

For example, Zydney & Warner (2016) reviewed numerous mobile apps that could be used in the classroom. Looking at what they examined, I did my own search of the app store to see what else has been added since they wrote their review. Numerous apps exist that, in true Ms. Frizzle fashion, allow students to shrink down to microscopic sizes and really experience what is going on at that minuscule level. Experiences like these allow students to have that moment of a break, draw, ground, and embody a distinction so that learning can take place.

*One such app is called InCell VR for Cardboard. This free app allows students to explore a cell using the assistance of the Google Cardboard VR viewer. When in the app, students can explore a cell, try to save it from agents that may destroy it, and even try to survive a virus that takes attempts to take it over. This blending of VR, action, gamification, and science is sure to leave a lasting impression and give students a chance to truly embody the learning.

Previously, these types of role-playing activities may not have been done in the classroom as they would have been “too childish” or too inaccessible to try and recreate a human cell in a meaningful way. But nowadays, with the full computation power of the devices in the classroom, these experiences are able to come to life in full HD experiences. With the cost efficientness of Google Cardboard and other VR devices, students are now able to be transported into experiences that before would have been relegated to museums or field trips. These experiences are invaluable to students, as role-playing affords students the opportunities to be fully immersed in their own world when before, it would have simply been something that could only be illustrated in a textbook.

Yet with all of these experiences, it will take a particular set of TPCK in the teacher to be able to manage and develop these types of learning situations. Many of these apps are not aligned to standards and have varying levels of scientific accuracy. Added on top of that the level of technological knowledge that would be necessary to implement this in the classroom, and the pedagogical knowledge necessary to be able to manage and develop all the resources together into a way that will be beneficial to the students. However, when done correctly, the introduction of these resources poses a strong potential for bringing experiences and learning to life for the students.

 

Questions:

  1. Do you think that there is a difference, theoretically speaking, in an experience that is virtual as compared to one that is physical? Are they both able to bring that “break” in the environment that Winn (2003) would say is necessary for learning?
  2. What special considerations would a teacher need to have in order to implement a VR experience in their classroom with solid TPCK?

 

References:

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

Zydney, J. M., & Warner, Z. (2016). Mobile apps for science learning: Review of research. Computers & Education, 94, 1-17.

 

(*For my final project, I am doing the ePortfolio option, so I am also combining this post with my posting for that, as I wish to keep them all together. A question that was addressed in my posting was: 

  • According to Resnick and Wilensky (1998), while role-playing activities have been commonly used in social studies classrooms, they have been infrequently used in science and mathematics classrooms.
    • Speculate on why role-playing activities may not be promoted in math and science and elaborate on your opinion on whether activities such as role-playing should be promoted.)

 

Embodied learning – just costly solutions looking for problems?

According to Winn (2003), brain, body and the world cannot be separated, and that consequently cognition involves the whole body, not only the brain. Cognitive activity is thus connected to the environment through physical action, which means according to Winn (2003, p. 87): Cognition is embodied in physical activity; activity is embedded in a learning environment; and learning is the result of adaptation of the learner to the environment and vice versa.

Lindgren (2013) defines embodiment somewhat differently as “the enactment of knowledge and concepts through the activity of our bodies” (Lindgren, 2013, p. 445). This definition does not include the learning environment. Yet the idea is the same: learning can be fostered when the body is used to incorporate new concepts. Recent studies have shown that embodied learning leads to “greater chance of retrieval and retention” (Lindgren, 2013, p. 446). Lindgren (2013) then presents two examples of embodiment as “mixed reality”: A MEteor simulation where a student learns about how objects move in space, and a SMALLab chemistry simulation where up to four students immerge in simulations. Both environments include real-time audio and video feedback.

I then chose the topic “mobile apps” and read the review of (Zydney, 2016). He summarizes around 30 mobile apps for science learning. I will select one of those apps for the resource sharing forum.

Regarding applying these approached in my teaching, I was first a bit reluctant: I teach university students, and they probably would hesitate if I told them to use their bodies to learn about computer science J. But I did a quick look at EBSCO and found some paper on embodied learning at university settings, such as: Using pointing and tracing gestures for learning anatomy (Macken, 2014), or using embodied haptic feedback to understand electric force (Magana, 2017). So when thinking about it a bit closer, I could use VR technology to immerge students in a simulated reality where they can see – and maybe feel – the different application systems and their connections in a hospital information systems. Students could follow, for example, the flow of information between the systems. This would be quite interesting to develop – but quite expensive.

When thinking about my idea and after reading all these papers, I couldn’t stop thinking whether augmented reality/virtual reality/mixed reality environments are really worth the effort. Lindgren (2013, p. 449) also discussed this topic without giving a clear answer. Yes, the examples presented in Lindgren (2013) look enjoyable and motivating, and will probably lead to effective learning on the presented concept. Yet, e.g. in MEteor, only a limited set of physical concepts is dealt with. Thus, for other scientific concepts, you would need new or at least adapted environments. This costs a lot of money and time to develop. Also, technology advances fast at the moment, thus MEteor and other examples may be outdates quite soon.

So my question to you:

Q1. Are complex technical environments that support embodied learning only “solutions looking for problems”? Are they worth the effort, compared to other TELE that we have discussed before?

Q2. How can we reduce the costs of developing and maintaining (!) environments for embodied learning?

 

References

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

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

Magana, A.J. & Balachandran, S. (2017). Unpacking students’ conceptualizations through haptic feedback. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(5), 513-531.

Macken, L. & Ginns, P. (2014). Pointing and tracing gestures may enhance anatomy and physiology learning. Medical Teacher, Vol 36(7), 596-601.

Zydney, J. M., & Warner, Z. (2016). Mobile apps for science learning: Review of research. Computers & Education, 94, 1-17.

Embodied learning and virtual environments

According to Winn (2003), the term ‘embodiment’ refers to “how our physical bodies serve to externalize the activities of our physical brains in order to connect cognitive activity to the environment” (p. 7). An example of this could be students using hula hoops to move around while learning about the position of each planet in the solar system or using virtual reality to understand abstract concepts. This plays an important role in learning because “bodily activity is often essential to understanding what is going on in an artificial environment” (Winn, 2003). The idea is that students will be able to better understand and be able to think more deeply about that topic/concept while also having fun.

In the article, ‘Children’s participation in a virtual epidemic in the science classroom: making connections to natural infectious diseases,’ by Neulight et al (2007), the authors examined the integration of a multi-user virtual environment (MUVE), called Whyville, within classroom curriculum about infectious diseases. The study consisted of 46 sixth-grade students who became part of Whyville; each student had their own avatar and during the four-week period, each student experienced an outbreak of a virtual epidemic called Whypox. One of the most interesting things was “when an avatar had the disease, the avatar’s appearance and ability to chat were affected… the feature of having the avatar’s appearance change allows users to experience diseases without direct physical harm to the participant which would be difficult to replicate in real life” (Neulight et al, 2007). By using a virtual environment in which students are able to touch, feel, observe and experience a complex topic such as infectious diseases, increases conceptual understanding of the disease and its effect. In traditional science classrooms, there is a heavy emphasis put on textbooks, videos and worksheets, however, by integrating a virtual environment in this context, students were able to experience what it would be like not only to have an infectious disease, but also were able to figure out cause and effect of infectious diseases. By giving students an opportunity for higher motor action and combining that with pre-conceived notions, it allowed students to expand their thinking of what they thought they knew and brought them into an environment where they were able to physically experience disease without having to actually experience it in real life.

In the article, ‘Games and immersive participatory simulations for science education: an emerging type of curricula, by Barab & Dede (2007), the authors “are focused on understanding how game-design principles and immersive participatory simulations …establish rich inquiry-based contexts for engaging scientific issues.” The authors discuss how game-like virtual learning experiences “can provide a strong sense of engagement and opportunities to learn for all students.” I think that game-like environments can increase motivation for students but there needs to be a purpose for teachers to want to use game-like principles with their students.

I would use an embodied learning approach with my math students that I have discussed in previous posts because of their struggle with the subject. I think that if my learners were not just using their brains but also their bodies to learn math, it might make a difference with the conceptual challenges that they face. These learners are always moving around so I think that this may be an approach that I would try. However, I need to research it further in order to understand it thoroughly.

Questions:

  1. Does one have to have to be an expert in PCK in simulations or virtual environments in order to integrate it into their practice?
  2. Can Embodied Learning work in all subjects at all levels of education?

References:

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).

Dede, C. (2000). Emerging influences of information technology on school curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(2), 281-303.

Neulight, N., Kafai, Y., Kao, L., Foley, B., & Galas, C. (2007). Children’s participation in a virtual epidemic in the science classroom: making connections to natural infectious diseases. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 47-58.

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