Instructional Science

, Volume 39, Issue 1, pp 27–39 | Cite as

Improving early reading comprehension using embodied CAI

  • Arthur M. Glenberg
  • Andrew B. Goldberg
  • Xiaojin Zhu
Article

Abstract

An embodied approach to reading comprehension suggests that emerging readers must learn to map words and phrases onto their remembered experiences, but this is made difficult by the necessity of focusing attention on decoding. Having children manipulate toys to correspond to what they are reading overcomes this problem, but introduces its own problem for the classroom, namely having to provide a classroom full of children with manipulative. In this article, we demonstrate that having first- and second-grade children manipulate images of toys on a computer screen benefits their comprehension as much as physical manipulation of the toys. In addition, manipulation on one day facilitates reading in the same domain one week later. These findings encourage the use of manipulation of text-relevant images as an educational technology for enhancing early reading comprehension. The findings also set constraints on theoretical accounts of embodiment while reading.

Keywords

Reading comprehension Embodiment Educational technology Emerging readers Computer aided instruction 

References

  1. Barab, S., Zuiker, S., Warren, S., Hickey, D., Ingram-Goble, A., & Kwon, E.-J. (2007). Situationally embodied curriculum: Relating formalisms and contexts. Science Education, 91, 1–33. doi:10.1002/sce.20217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660.Google Scholar
  3. Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning. New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  5. Gee, J. P. (2007). Good video games + good learning: Collected essays on video games learning and literacy. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  6. Gee, J. P. (2008). Learning and games. In K. Salen (Ed.), The ecology of games: Connecting youth, games, and learning. The John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur foundation series on digital media and learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Glenberg, A. M. (2008). Embodiment for education. In P. Calvo & A. Gomila (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive science: An embodied approach (pp. 355–372). Elsevier: Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Glenberg, A. M., Brown, M., & Levin, J. R. (2007a). Enhancing comprehension in small reading groups using a manipulation strategy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 389–399. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.03.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Glenberg, A. M., Brown, M., & Levin, J. R. (2009a). Improving reading comprehension in the classroom using manipulatives (in preparation).Google Scholar
  10. Glenberg, A. M., Gutierrez, T., Levin, J. R., Japuntich, S., & Kaschak, M. P. (2004). Activity and imagined activity can enhance young children’s reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 424–436. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Glenberg, A. M., Jaworski, B., Rischal, M., & Levin, J. R. (2007b). What brains are for: Action, meaning, and reading comprehension. In D. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 221–240). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. P. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 558–565.Google Scholar
  13. Glenberg, A. M., & Mehta, S. (2008). On the limits of learning from covariation: Structure but not meaning. In M. de Vega, A. M. Glenberg, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Symbol, embodiment, and meaning (pp. 11–32). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Glenberg, A. M., & Mehta, S. (2009b). Constraints on covariation: It’s not meaning. Italian Journal of Linguistics, in press.Google Scholar
  15. Glenberg, A. M., & Robertson, D. A. (1999). Indexical understanding of instructions. Discourse Processes, 28, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Glenberg, A. M., Sato, M., Cattaneo, L., Riggio, L., Palumbo, D., & Buccino, G. (2008). Processing abstract language modulates motor system activity. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 905–919. doi:10.1080/17470210701625550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harnad, S. (1990). The symbol grounding problem physica D. Nonlinear Phenomena, 42, 335–346. doi:10.1016/0167-2789(90)90087-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kintsch, W. (2008). Symbol systems and perceptual representation. In M. de Vega, A. M. Glenberg, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Symbol, embodiment, and meaning (p. XXXX). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211–240. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marley, S. C., Levin, J. R., & Glenberg, A. M. (2007). Improving Native American children’s listening comprehension through concrete representations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 537–550. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.03.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McNeil, N. M., Uttal, D. H., Jarvin, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (2009) Should you show me the money?. Concrete objects both hurt and help performance on mathematics problems. Learning and Instruction (in press).Google Scholar
  23. Oakhill, J. V., Cain, K., & Bryant, P. E. (2003). The dissociation of single-word reading and text comprehension: Evidence from component skills. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 443–468. doi:10.1080/01690960344000008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pulvermüller, F. (2008). Grounding language in the brain. In M. de Vega, A. M. Glenberg, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Symbols, embodiment, and meaning (pp. 85–116). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Richmond, E. K., & Glenberg, A. M. Levin. (2009). Learning science from text: The importance of grounding written words (in preparation).Google Scholar
  26. Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains and programs. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 417–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Semin, G. R., & Smith, R. E. (2008). Embodied grounding: Social cognitive, affective, and neuroscientific approaches. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Triona, L. M., & Klahr, D. (2003). Point and click or grab and heft: Comparing the influence of physical and virtual instructional materials on elementary school students’ ability to design experiments. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 149–173. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI2102_02.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wideman, H. H., Owston, R. D., Brown, C., Kushniruk, A., Ho, F., & Pitts, K. C. (2007). Unpacking the potential of educational gaming: A new tool for gaming research. Simulation & Gaming, 38, 10–30. doi:10.1177/1046878106297650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zwaan, R. A., & Taylor, L. J. (2006). Seeing, acting, understanding: Motor resonance in language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 135, 1–11. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.135.1.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arthur M. Glenberg
    • 1
    • 2
  • Andrew B. Goldberg
    • 3
  • Xiaojin Zhu
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Computer SciencesUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations