Educational Psychology Review

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 391–404 | Cite as

Enactive Metaphors: Learning Through Full-Body Engagement

Review Article

Abstract

Building on both cognitive semantics and enactivist approaches to cognition, we explore the concept of enactive metaphor and its implications for learning. Enactive approaches to cognition involve the idea that online sensory-motor and affective processes shape the way the perceiver-thinker experiences the world and interacts with others. Specifically, we argue for an approach to learning through whole-body engagement in a way that employs enactive metaphors. We summarize recent empirical studies that show enactive metaphors and whole-body involvement in virtual and mixed reality environments support and improve learning.

Keywords

Metaphor Enactive cognition Simulation Pretense Learning 

References

  1. Abrahamson, D., Trninic, D., Gutiérrez, J. F., Huth, J., & Lee, R. G. (2011). Hooks and shifts: a dialectical study of mediated discovery. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 16(1), 55–85.Google Scholar
  2. Alibali, M. W., & DiRusso, A. A. (1999). The function of gesture in learning to count: more than keeping track. Cognitive Development, 14(1), 37–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alibali, M. W., & Nathan, M. J. (2012). Embodiment in mathematics teaching and learning: evidence from learners’ and teachers’ gestures. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(2), 247–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Antle, A.N., Droumeva, M., & Corness, G. (2008). Playing with The Sound Maker: do embodied metaphors help children learn? In the Proceedings of the Conference on Interaction Design for Children IDC ’08. ACM, New York, NY, 178–185.Google Scholar
  5. Cameron, L. (2002). Metaphors in the learning of science: a discourse focus. British Educational Research Journal, 28(5), 673–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Christidou, V., Kouladis, V., & Christidis, T. (1997). Children’s use of metaphors in relation to their mental models: the case of the ozone layer and its depletion. Research in Science Education, 27(4), 541–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chu, M., & Kita, S. (2008). Spontaneous gestures during mental rotation tasks: insights into the microdevelopment of the motor strategy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137(4), 706–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cole, J., Gallagher, S., & McNeill, D. (2002). Gesture following deafferentation: a phenomenologically informed experimental study. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 1(1), 49–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Currie, G. (2004). Arts and minds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Currie, G., & Ravenscroft, I. (2002). Recreative minds: imagination in philosophy and psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Danziger, S., Levav, J., & Avnaim-Pesso, L. (2011). Extraneous factors in judicial decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(17), 6889–6892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Jaegher, H., & Di Paolo, E. (2007). Participatory sense-making: an enactive approach to social cognition. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 6(4), 485–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dewey, J. (1896). The reflex arc concept in psychology. Psychological Review, 3(4), 357–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Di Paolo, E. A. (2009). The social and enactive mind. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 8(4), 409–415. doi:10.1007/s11097-009-9143-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Di Paolo, E. A., Rohde, M., & De Jaegher, H. (2010). Horizons for the enactive mind: values, social interaction, and play. In J. R. Stewart, O. Gapenne, & E. A. Di Paolo (Eds.), Enaction: toward a new paradigm for cognitive science (pp. 33–87). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Dominey, P. F., Prescott, T., Bohg, J., Engel, A.K., Gallagher, S. Heed, T., Hoffmann, M., Knoblich, G., Prinz, W., & Schwartz, A. (2015). Implications of action-oriented paradigm shifts in cognitive science. In Where’s the action? The pragmatic turn in cognitive science. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Druyan, S. (1997). Effect of the kinesthetic conflict on promoting scientific reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(10), 1083–1099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education, 75(6), 649–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Enyedy, N., Danish, J. A., Delacruz, G., & Kumar, M. (2012). Learning physics through play in an augmented reality environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(3), 347–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  21. Gallagher, S. (2013a). The socially extended mind. Cognitive Systems Research, 25–26, 4–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gallagher, S. (2013b). Enactive hands. In Z. Radman (Ed.), The hand: an organ of the mind (pp. 209–225). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gallagher, S. (2005). How the body shapes the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gallagher, S., & Bower, M. (2014). Making enactivism even more embodied. AVANT / Trends in Interdisciplinary Studies (Poland), 5(2), 232–247.Google Scholar
  25. Gallagher, S., & Varela, F. (2003). Redrawing the map and resetting the time: phenomenology and the cognitive sciences. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 29, 93–132. (Supplementary).Google Scholar
  26. Gentner, D., & Wolff, P. (2000). Metaphor and knowledge change. In E. Districh & A. Marbnau (Eds.), Cognitive dynamics: conceptual change in humans and machines (pp. 295–342). Mahwah: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  27. Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing: toward an ecological psychology (pp. 67–82). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  28. Glenberg, A. M. (2008). Embodiment for education. In P. Calvo & T. Gomila (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive science: an embodied approach (pp. 355–372). New York: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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(3), 424–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Goldin-Meadow, S., Kim, S., & Singer, M. (1999). What the teacher’s hands tell the student’s mind about math. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 720–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Goldin-Meadow, S., Nusbaum, H., Kelly, S. D., & Wagner, S. (2001). Explaining math: gesturing lightens the load. Psychological Science, 12(6), 516–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Han, I., & Black, J. B. (2011). Incorporating haptic feedback in simulation for learning physics. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2281–2290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Huttenlocher, J., & Higgins, E. T. (1978). Issues in the study of symbolic development. In W. Collins (Ed.), Huttenlocher Minnesota symposia on child psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 98–140). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. Jeannerod, M. (1997). The cognitive neuroscience of action. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  35. Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: the bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  36. Johnson-Glenberg, M. C., Birchfield, D. A., Tolentino, L., & Koziupa, T. (2014). Collaborative embodied learning in mixed reality motion-capture environments: two science studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(1), 86–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kendon, A. (1990). Conducting interaction: patterns of behavior in focused encounters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Kirsh, D. (2013). Embodied cognition and the magical future of interaction design. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 20(1), 3.Google Scholar
  39. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  41. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: the embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  42. Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: a field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Leslie, A. (1987). Pretense and representation: the origins of “theory of mind”. Psychological Review, 94, 412–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lindgren, R., & Moshell, J. M. (2011). Supporting children’s learning with body-based metaphors in a mixed reality environment. Proceedings of the Interaction Design and Children Conference. ACM: New York, 177--180. doi:10.1145/1999030.1999055.
  45. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lindgren, R., Tscholl, M., Wang, S. & Johnson, E. (2015). Enhancing learning and engagement through embodied interaction within a mixed reality simulation. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  47. Malafouris, L. (2013). How things shape the mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  48. Martin, T., & Schwartz, D. L. (2005). Physically distributed learning: adapting and reinterpreting physical environments in the development of fraction concepts. Cognitive Science, 29(4), 587–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: what gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  50. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception (trans C. Smith). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  51. Milgram, P., & Kishino, A. F. (1994). Taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, E77-D(12), 1321–1329.Google Scholar
  52. Mitchell, R. W. (Ed.). (2002). Pretending and imagination in animals and children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Nathan, M. J. (2012). Rethinking formalisms in formal education. Educational Psychologist, 47(2), 125–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Noë, A. (2004). Action in perception. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  55. Ortman, S. (2000). Conceptual metaphor in the archaeological record. American Antiquity, 65(4), 613–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Plummer, J. D. (2009). Early elementary students’ development of astronomy concepts in the planetarium. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(2), 192–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rucinska, Z. (2014). Basic pretending as sensorimotor engagement. Contemporary Sensorimotor Theory, 15, 175–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sainsbury, R. M. (2009). Fiction and fictionalism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. Shoval, E. (2011). Using mindful movement in cooperative learning while learning about angles. Instructional Science, 39(4), 453–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Solomon, J., Bevan, R., Frost, A., Reynolds, H., Summers, M., & Zimmerman, C. (1991). Can pupils learn through their own movements? A study of the use of a motion sensor interface. Physics Education, 26(6), 345–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stull, A. T., Hegarty, M., Dixon, B., & Stieff, M. (2012). Representational translation with concrete models in organic chemistry. Cognition and Instruction, 30(4), 404–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sutton, J. (2006). Introduction: memory, embodied cognition, and the extended mind. Philosophical Psychology, 19(3), 281–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sutton, J., & Williamson, K. (2014). Embodied remembering. In L. Shapiro (Ed.), Routledge handbook of embodied cognition (pp. 315–325). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  64. Thompson, E. (2007). Mind in life: biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Thompson, E., & Varela, F. J. (2001). Radical embodiment: neural dynamics and consciousness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(10), 418–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  67. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Winner, E., McCarthy, M., Kleinman, S., & Gardner, H. (1979). First metaphors. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 1979(3), 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of MemphisMemphisUSA
  2. 2.Faculty of Law, Humanities and ArtsUniversity of WollongongWollongongAustralia
  3. 3.Department of Curriculum, College of EducationUniversity of Illinois Urbana-ChampaignChampaignUSA

Personalised recommendations