Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Viewpoint, embodiment, and roles in STEM learning technologies

  • Development Article
  • Published:
Educational technology research and development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper describes a framework for making explicit the design decisions in the development of immersive and interactive STEM learning technologies. This framework consists of three components: (1) visual viewpoint, the location from which a visual simulation depicts observable components; (2) embodied interaction, the ways in which a learner can physically engage with the simulation interface; and (3) learners’ roles, the purpose and the participation structure the technology presents to the learner. The recent literature on the design of STEM learning technologies is reviewed with the lens of how the three components have been leveraged and what, if any, rationale is provided for the design decisions that were made. The definition and review of each component is followed by a set of reflective questions intended to prompt researchers and designers to be more explicit about these decisions and the ways they are intended to impact student learning in both the design process and the reporting of their work. The paper concludes with a discussion of how the three components interact, and how their articulation can support theory building as well as the proliferation of more effective STEM learning technology designs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrahamson, D., & Lindgren, R. (2014). Embodiment and embodied design. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 358–376). Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Abrahamson, D., & Sánchez-García, R. (2016). Learning is moving in new ways: The ecological dynamics of mathematics education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(2), 203–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altmeyer, K., Kapp, S., Thees, M., Malone, S., Kuhn, J., & Brünken, R. (2020). The use of augmented reality to foster conceptual knowledge acquisition in STEM laboratory courses—theoretical background and empirical results. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(3), 611–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antle, A. N., & Wise, A. F. (2013). Getting down to details: Using theories of cognition and learning to inform tangible user interface design. Interacting with Computers, 25(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ares, N. (2008). Cultural practices in networked classroom learning environments. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(3), 301–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnseth, H. C., & Krange, I. (2016). What happens when you push the button? Analyzing the functional dynamics of concept development in computer supported science inquiry. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(4), 479–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S. A., Gresalfi, M., & Ingram-Goble, A. (2010). Transformational play: Using games to position person, content, and context. Educational Researcher, 39(7), 525–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S., Thomas, M., Dodge, T., Carteaux, R., & Tuzun, H. (2005). Making learning fun: Quest Atlantis, a game without guns. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(1), 86–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barsalou, L. W., Niedenthal, P. M., Barbey, A. K., & Ruppert, J. A. (2003). Social embodiment. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 43, pp. 43–92). Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baylor, A. L. (2011). The design of motivational agents and avatars. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(2), 291–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birchfield, D., & Megowan-Romanowicz, C. (2009). Earth science learning in SMALLab: A design experiment for mixed reality. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(4), 403–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, J. B., Turner, T. J., & Bower, G. H. (1979). Point of view in narrative comprehension, memory, and production. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(2), 187–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogost, I. (2015). Why gamification is bullshit. In S. P. Walz & S. Deterding (Eds.), The gameful world: Approaches, issues, applications (pp. 65–80). The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, S. L. (2010). The functions of role-playing games: How participants create community, solve problems and explore identity. McFarland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cai, Y., Chiew, R., Nay, Z. T., Indhumathi, C., & Huang, L. (2017). Design and development of VR learning environments for children with ASD. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(8), 1098–1109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calabrese Barton, A., & Tan, E. (2019). Designing for rightful presence in STEM: The role of making present practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(4–5), 616–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, M. T., Huang, W. Y., & Hsu, M. E. (2020). Does emotion matter? An investigation into the relationship between emotions and science learning outcomes in a game-based learning environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(6), 2233–2251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, N., Gupte, A., Nguyen, J., Sukhin, S., Wang, G., & Mirizio, J. (2017). Using virtual reality for an immersive experience in the water cycle. In 2017 IEEE MIT Undergraduate Research Technology Conference (URTC) (pp. 1–4). IEEE.

  • Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Killingsworth, S. S. (2016). Digital games, design, and learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 79–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colella, V. (2000). Participatory simulations: Building collaborative understanding through immersive dynamic modeling. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 471–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crick, T. (2011). The game body: Toward a phenomenology of contemporary video gaming. Games and Culture, 6(3), 259–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowder, E. M. (1996). Gestures at work in sense-making science talk. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(3), 173–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuendet, S., Dehler-Zufferey, J., Ortoleva, G., & Dillenbourg, P. (2015). An integrated way of using a tangible user interface in a classroom. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(2), 183–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Angelo, C., Rutstein, D., Harris, C., Bernard, R., Borokhovski, E., & Haertel, G. (2014). Simulations for STEM learning: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SRI International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E. (2012). Viewpoint in language: A multimodal perspective. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Danish, J. A., Enyedy, N., Saleh, A., & Humburg, M. (2020). Learning in embodied activity framework: A sociocultural framework for embodied cognition. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 15, 49–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLiema, D. & Sweetser, E. (2016). Rethinking gestural viewpoint as multidimensional rather than a dichotomy. Paper presented at the International Society of Gesture Studies conference, Paris, France

  • DeLiema, D., Enyedy, N., & Danish, J. A. (2019). Roles, rules, and keys: How different play configurations shape collaborative science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(4–5), 513–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLiema, D., Enyedy, N., Steen, F., & Danish, J. A. (2021). Integrating viewpoint and space: How lamination across gesture, body movement, language, and material resources shapes learning. Cognition and Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2021.1928133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dettori, G., & Paiva, A. (2009). Narrative learning in technology-enhanced environments. In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. de Jong, A. Lazonder, & S. Barnes (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning (pp. 55–69). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dourish, P. (2001). Where the action is. MIT press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Einstein, A. (1951). Autobiographical notes. In P. A. Schlipp (Ed.), Albert Einstein: Philosopher-scientist (pp. 2–75). Tudor Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enyedy, N. (2005). Inventing mapping: Creating cultural forms to solve collective problems. Cognition and Instruction, 23(4), 427–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enyedy, N., Danish, J. A., & DeLiema, D. (2015). Constructing liminal blends in a collaborative augmented-reality learning environment. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(1), 7–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldler, T. (2019, March 28). Teaching with NYT virtual reality across subjects. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/28/learning/lesson-plans/teaching-with-nyt-virtual-reality-across-subjects.html. Accessed 2 April 2022.

  • Fields, D., & Enyedy, N. (2013). Picking up the mantle of “expert”: Assigned roles, assertion of identity, and peer recognition within a programming class. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 20(2), 113–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frasca, G. (2003). Simulation versus narrative: Introduction to ludology. In M. Wolf & B. Perron (Eds.), The video game theory reader (pp. 221–236). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garzón, J., & Acevedo, J. (2019). Meta-analysis of the impact of augmented reality on students’ learning gains. Educational Research Review, 27, 244–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerloni, I.G., Carchiolo, V., Vitello, F.R., Sciacca, E., Becciani, U., Costa, A., Riggi, S., Bonali, F.L., Russo, E., Fallati, L., Marchese, F., Tibaldi, A., 2018. Immersive virtual reality for earth sciences. In 2018 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS) (Vol 15, pp. 527–534).

  • Gerofsky, S. (2010). Mathematical learning and gesture: Character viewpoint and observer viewpoint in students’ gestured graphs of functions. Gesture, 10(2–3), 321–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldin-Meadow, S., Alibali, M. W., & Church, R. B. (1993). Transitions in concept acquisition: Using the hand to read the mind. Psychological Review, 100(2), 279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, M. H. (1990). Tactical uses of stories: Participation frameworks within girls’ and boys’ disputes. Discourse Processes, 13(1), 33–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutiérrez, K. D., Baquedano-López, P., & Tejeda, C. (1999). Rethinking diversity: Hybridity and hybrid language practices in the third space. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6(4), 286–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrington, C. M., Kavanagh, D. O., Quinlan, J. F., Ryan, D., Dicker, P., O’Keeffe, D., Traynor, O., & Tierney, S. (2018). Development and evaluation of a trauma decision-making simulator in Oculus virtual reality. The American Journal of Surgery, 215(1), 42–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hontvedt, M., & Arnseth, H. C. (2013). On the bridge to learn: Analysing the social organization of nautical instruction in a ship simulator. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(1), 89–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horn, M., & Bers, M. (2019). Tangible computing. In S. A. Fincher & A. V. Robins (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of computing education research. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hostetter, A. B., & Alibali, M. W. (2008). Visible embodiment: Gestures as simulated action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(3), 495–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannidou, A., Repenning, A., Webb, D., Keyser, D., Luhn, L., & Daetwyler, C. (2010). Mr. Vetro: A collective simulation for teaching health science. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(2), 141–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaber, L. Z., & Hammer, D. (2016). Learning to feel like a scientist. Science Education, 100(2), 189–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson-Glenberg, M. C. (2019). The necessary nine: Design principles for embodied VR and active STEM education. In P. Díaz, A. Ioannou, K. K. Bhagat, & J. M. Spector (Eds.), Learning in a digital world: Perspective on interactive technologies for formal and informal education (pp. 83–112). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M. (2016). Examining productive failure, productive success, unproductive failure, and unproductive success in learning. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 289–299.

  • Karlsson, G. (2010). Animation and grammar in science education: Learners’ construal of animated educational software. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(2), 167–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ke, F. (2019). Mathematical problem solving and learning in an architecture-themed epistemic game. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(5), 1085–1104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keifert, D., Lee, C., Dahn, M., Illum, R., DeLiema, D., Enyedy, N., & Danish, J. (2017). Agency, embodiment, & affect during play in a mixed reality learning environment. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 268–277). Stanford, CA: ACM.

  • Keifert, D., & Stevens, R. (2019). Inquiry as a members’ phenomenon: Young children as competent inquirers. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(2), 240–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, E. F. (1983). A feeling for the organism: The life and work of Barbara McClintock. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y., Thayne, J., & Wei, Q. (2017). An embodied agent helps anxious students in mathematics learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(1), 219–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klopfer, E., & Squire, K. (2008). Environmental detectives—the development of an augmented reality platform for environmental simulations. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(2), 203–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamb, R. L., Etopio, E., Hand, B., & Yoon, S. Y. (2019). Virtual reality simulation: Effects on academic performance within two domains of writing in science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28(4), 371–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, P. U., & Tversky, B. (2001). Costs of switching perspectives in route and survey description. In J. Moore & K. Stenning (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-third annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 574–579). Mahwah, NJ Erlbaum.

  • Lester, J. C., Spires, H. A., Nietfeld, J. L., Minogue, J., Mott, B. W., & Lobene, E. V. (2014). Designing game-based learning environments for elementary science education: A narrative-centered learning perspective. Information Sciences, 264, 4–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, M. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). Game-based learning in science education: A review of relevant research. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(6), 877–898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, L., Parmar, D., Babu, S. V., Leonard, A. E., Daily, S. B., & Jörg, S. (2017). How character customization affects learning in computational thinking. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Perception (pp. 1–8).

  • Lindgren, R. (2015). Getting into the cue: Embracing technology-facilitated body movements as a starting point for learning. In V. Lee (Ed.), Learning technologies and the body: Integration and implementation in formal and informal learning environments (pp. 39–54). Taylor and Francis Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindgren, R., Tscholl, M., Wang, S., & Johnson, E. (2016). Enhancing learning and engagement through embodied interaction within a mixed reality simulation. Computers & Education, 95, 174–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, L., Slattery, B., Jimenez, P., Lopez, B., & Moher, T. (2012). Don’t forget about the sweat: Effortful embodied interaction in support of learning. In S. Spencer (Ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded and Embodied Interaction (pp.77–84). ACM.

  • Ma, J. Y. (2017). Multi-party, whole-body interactions in mathematical activity. Cognition and Instruction, 35(2), 141–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magliano, J. P., & Zacks, J. M. (2011). The impact of continuity editing in narrative film on event segmentation. Cognitive Science, 35(8), 1489–1517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin-San Jose, J. F., Juan, M. C., Mollá, R., & Vivó, R. (2017). Advanced displays and natural user interfaces to support learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(1), 17–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathayas, N., Brown, D. E., Wallon, R. C., & Lindgren, R. (2019). Representational gesturing as an epistemic tool for the development of mechanistic explanatory models. Science Education, 103(4), 1047–1079.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, J. H. (2017). Hamlet on the Holodeck, updated edition: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. MIT press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nasir, N. S. (2002). Identity, goals, and learning: Mathematics in cultural practice. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4(2–3), 213–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nathan, M. J., & Walkington, C. (2017). Grounded and embodied mathematical cognition: Promoting mathematical insight and proof using action and language. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 2(1), 9.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2011). Learning science through computer games and simulations. National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, B. C., & Ketelhut, D. J. (2008). Exploring embedded guidance and self-efficacy in educational multi-user virtual environments. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(4), 413–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, B., Ketelhut, D. J., Clarke, J., Bowman, C., & Dede, C. (2005). Design-based research strategies for developing a scientific inquiry curriculum in a multi-user virtual environment. Educational Technology, 45, 21–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nigro, G., & Neisser, U. (1983). Point of view in personal memories. Cognitive Psychology, 15(4), 467–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nivala, M., Rystedt, H., Säljö, R., Kronqvist, P., & Lehtinen, E. (2012). Interactive visual tools as triggers of collaborative reasoning in entry-level pathology. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(4), 499–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ochs, E., Gonzalez, P., & Jacoby, S. (1996). “When I come down, I’m in a domain state”: Grammar and graphic representation in the interpretive activity of physics. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 328–369). Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • O'Malley, C., & Fraser, D. S. (2004). Literature review in learning with tangible technologies. A NESTA Futurelab Research Report 12.

  • Parong, J., & Mayer, R. E. (2018). Learning science in immersive virtual reality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(6), 785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parrill, F. (2009). Dual viewpoint gestures. Gesture, 9(3), 271–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parrill, F., & Sweetser, E. (2004). What we mean by meaning: Conceptual integration in gesture analysis and transcription. Gesture, 4(2), 197–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pathak, S. A., Kim, B., Jacobson, M. J., & Zhang, B. (2011). Learning the physics of electricity: A qualitative analysis of collaborative processes involved in productive failure. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(1), 57–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1960). The child’s conception of physical causality. Littlefield, Adams.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, S., Roussos, G., Falcão, T. P., & Sheridan, J. G. (2009). Technology and embodiment: Relationships and implications for knowledge, creativity and communication. Beyond Current Horizons, 29, 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radianti, J., Majchrzak, T. A., Fromm, J., & Wohlgenannt, I. (2020). A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: Design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Computers & Education, 147, 103778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rick, J. (2012). Proportion: A tablet app for collaborative learning. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual Interaction Design and Children Conference, IDC (pp. 316–319). New York, NY: ACM Press.

  • Roberts, J., & Lyons, L. (2020). Examining spontaneous perspective taking and fluid self-to-data relationships in informal open-ended data exploration. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 29(1), 32–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, N. (2019, October 1). This is what a "second-person" video game would look like [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mC8QoRa8y_Q. Accessed 2 April 2022.

  • Ros, M., Neuwirth, L. S., Ng, S., Debien, B., Molinari, N., Gatto, F., & Lonjon, N. (2021). The effects of an immersive virtual reality application in first person point-of-view (IVRA-FPV) on the learning and generalized performance of a lumbar puncture medical procedure. Education Technology Research and Development. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10003-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, L. J., & Weinberger, A. (2019). Fourth graders’ dyadic learning on multi-touch interfaces—versatile effects of verbalization prompts. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(3), 519–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, B. B., De Groot, R., Mavrikis, M., & Dragon, T. (2015). Learning to learn together with CSCL tools. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(3), 239–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sengupta, P., & Wilensky, U. (2009). Learning electricity with NIELS: Thinking with electrons and thinking in levels. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 14(1), 21–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shah, N., & Lewis, C. M. (2019). Amplifying and attenuating inequity in collaborative learning: Toward an analytical framework. Cognition and Instruction, 37(4), 423–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, L. (2019). Embodied cognition. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sklar, R. (1994). Movie-made America: A cultural history of American movies. Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skulmowski, A., Pradel, S., Kühnert, T., Brunnett, G., & Rey, G. D. (2016). Embodied learning using a tangible user interface: The effects of haptic perception and selective pointing on a spatial learning task. Computers & Education, 92, 64–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, Y., & Sparks, J. R. (2019). Building a game-enhanced formative assessment to gather evidence about middle school students’ argumentation skills. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(5), 1175–1196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stec, K. (2012). Meaningful shifts: A review of viewpoint markers in co-speech gesture and sign language. Gesture, 12(3), 327–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steen, F., & Owens, S. (2001). Evolution’s pedagogy: An adaptationist model of pretense and entertainment. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 1(4), 289–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strawhacker, A., & Bers, M. U. (2019). What they learn when they learn coding: Investigating cognitive domains and computer programming knowledge in young children. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(3), 541–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweetser, E. (2012). Introduction: Viewpoint and perspective in language and gesture, from the ground down. In B. Dancygier & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Viewpoint in language: A multimodal perspective (pp. 1–22). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, K. H. (2017). Learning along lines: Locative literacies for reading and writing the city. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26(4), 533–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tissenbaum, M., Berland, M., & Lyons, L. (2017). DCLM framework: Understanding collaboration in open-ended tabletop learning environments. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12(1), 35–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobin, V. (2017). Viewpoint, misdirection, and sound design in film: The conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 122, 24–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallon, R. C., & Lindgren, R. (2017). Considerations for the design of gesture-augmented learning environments. In M. J. Spector, B. B. Lockee, & M. D. Childress (Eds.), Learning, design, and technology: an international compendium of theory, research, practice and policy (pp. 1–21). Springer International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, A. S., & Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2001). Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday sense-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 529–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Washinawatok, K., Rasmussen, C., Bang, M., Medin, D., Woodring, J., Waxman, S., Marin, A., Gurneau, J., & Faber, L. (2017). Children’s play with a forest diorama as a window into ecological cognition. Journal of Cognition and Development, 18(5), 617–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • White, T. (2006). Code talk: Student discourse and participation with networked handhelds. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 359–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wigdor, D., & Wixon, D. (2011). Brave NUI world: Designing natural user interfaces for touch and gesture. Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thinking in levels: A dynamic systems approach to making sense of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolters, C. (1998). Self-regulated learning and college students’ regulation of motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 224–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, S. A., Elinich, K., Wang, J., Steinmeier, C., & Tucker, S. (2012). Using augmented reality and knowledge-building scaffolds to improve learning in a science museum. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(4), 519–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview and analysis. In B. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 1–37). Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zipp, S. A., & Craig, S. D. (2019). The impact of a user’s biases on interactions with virtual humans and learning during virtual emergency management training. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67, 1385–1404 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09647-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This material is partially based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Nos. IIS-1441563 and DUE-1432424. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. We would also like to thank Shafagh Hadinezhad for her assistance with the figure design. In addition, David would like to thank Noel Enyedy and Joshua Danish for inviting him to participate in the Science Through Technology Enhanced Play (STEP) project, which also received support from the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1323767. For David, STEP was one of the central inspirations for this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Curriculum & Instruction, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, 394 Education Building, 1310 S. Sixth St., Champaign, IL, 61820, USA

    Robb Lindgren

  2. Educational Psychology, University of Minnesota, Room 161 EdSciB, 56 E River Pkwy, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA

    David DeLiema

Authors
  1. Robb Lindgren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David DeLiema
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The authors declare that the work of creating this manuscript was shared equally across the two co-authors and credit should be acknowledged accordingly.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robb Lindgren.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lindgren, R., DeLiema, D. Viewpoint, embodiment, and roles in STEM learning technologies. Education Tech Research Dev 70, 1009–1034 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10101-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10101-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation