Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Learning Number Conversions Through Embodied Interactions

  • Original research
  • Published:
Technology, Knowledge and Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, the researchers report an experimental study on conceptual knowledge learning and application through embodied interactions, expecting that bodily movements would facilitate learning in a positive manner. The intervention was enabled by Unity3D and Kinect V2, and taught novice adult learners the concepts of and conversions between binary and decimal numbers. Fifty-three adult participants were recruited, and randomly assigned into the experimental and control groups. During the intervention, participants in the experimental group manipulated and interacted with the learning materials through their body movements enabled by Kinect; while those in the control group learned the same content but interacted using conventional mouse and keyboard. Pre- and posttests results indicated that embodied interactions facilitated conceptual learning for the participating adult learners. However, compared with the mouse interaction, the embodied interactions did not lead to significantly better knowledge retention and application results. The study outcome implies that embodied interactions do not necessarily lead to better learning performances over traditional mouse-based interactions, and the ‘how’ and ‘how much’ may play critical roles for such interventions. Suggestions and challenges in designing learning systems utilizing embodied interactions enabled by novel technologies are provided.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alibali, M. W., & Nathan, M. J. (2007). Teachers’ gestures as a means of scaffolding students’ understanding: Evidence from an early algebra lesson. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 349–365). Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alibali, M. W., & Nathan, M. J. (2012). Embodiment in mathematics teaching and learning: Evidence from learners’ and teachers’ gestures. Journal of Learning Science, 21(2), 247–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arzarello, F., Paola, D., Robutti, O., & Sabena, C. (2009). Gestures as semiotic resources in the mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(2), 97–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Chapter: Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. Two, pp. 89–195). Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. Eight, pp. 47–89). Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. David McKay Co., Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S. (1994). Reflections on the development and use of the taxonomy. In L. W. Anderson & L. A. Sosniak (Eds.), Bloom’s Taxonomy: A Forty-Year Retrospective (pp. 1–8). National Society for the Study of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broaders, S. C., Cook, S. W., Mitchell, Z., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2007). Making children gesture brings out implicit knowledge and leads to learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(4), 539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, C. Y., Chien, Y. T., Chiang, C. Y., Lin, M. C., & Lai, H. C. (2013). Embodying gesture-based multimedia to improve learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(1), 5–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, Y. J., Chen, S. F., & Chuang, A. F. (2011). A gesture recognition system to transition autonomously through vocational tasks for individuals with cognitive impairments. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32(6), 2064–2068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chao, K. J., Huang, H. W., Fang, W. C., & Chen, N. S. (2013). Embodied play to learn: Exploring Kinect-facilitated memory performance. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(5), 151–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, S. W., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2006). The role of gesture in learning: Do children use their hands to change their minds? Journal of Cognition and Development, 7(2), 211–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, S. W., Yip, T. K., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2010). Gesturing makes memories that last. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(4), 465–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Koning, B. B., & Tabbers, H. K. (2013). Gestures in instructional animations: A helping hand to understanding non-human movements? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(5), 683–689.

    Google Scholar 

  • Domagk, S., Schwartz, R. N., & Plass, J. L. (2010). Interactivity in multimedia learning: An integrated model. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 1024–1033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of Learning for Instruction (3rd ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, L. D. (2009). Gestures and conceptual integration in mathematical talk. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(2), 127–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, S., & Lindgren, R. (2015). Enactive metaphors: Learning through full-body engagement. Educational Psychology Review, 27(3), 391–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glenberg, A. M. (2010). Embodiment as a unifying perspective for psychology. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1(4), 586–596.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. P. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(3), 558–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldin-Meadow, S., Cook, S. W., & Mitchell, Z. A. (2009). Gesturing gives children new ideas about math. Psychological Science, 20, 267–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, S., & Masters, Y. (2012). Real thinking with virtual hats: A role-playing activity for pre-service teachers in Second Life. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(3), 420–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannaford, C. (1995). Smart moves: Why learning is not all in your head. Great Ocean Publishers, Inc., 1823 N. Lincoln St., Arlington, VA.

  • Hsiao, H. S., & Chen, J. C. (2016). Using a gesture interactive game-based learning approach to improve preschool children’s learning performance and motor skills. Computers & Education, 95, 151–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hung, I. C., & Chen, N. S. (2018). Embodied interactive video lectures for improving learning comprehension and retention. Computers & Education, 117, 116–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hung, I. C., Lin, L. I., Fang, W. C., & Chen, N. S. (2014). Learning with the body: An embodiment-based learning strategy enhances performance of comprehending fundamental optics. Interacting with Computers, 26(4), 360–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, E. (2000). Moving with the brain in mind. Educational Leadership, 58(3), 34–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson-Glenberg, M. C., & Megowan-Romanowicz, C. (2017). Embodied science and mixed reality: How gesture and motion capture affect physics education. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 2(1), 24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Judson, E. (2012). Learning about bones at a science museum: Examining the alternate hypotheses of ceiling effect and prior knowledge. Instructional Science, 40(6), 957–973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang, J., Lindgren, R., & Planey, J. (2018). Exploring emergent features of student interaction within an embodied science learning simulation. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 2(3), 39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann, H., Schmalstieg, D., & Wagner, M. (2000). Construct3D: A virtual reality application for mathematics and geometry education. Education and Information Technologies, 5(4), 263–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiefer, M., & Trumpp, N. M. (2012). Embodiment theory and education: The foundations of cognition in perception and action. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 1(1), 15–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kontra, C., Lyons, D. J., Fischer, S. M., & Beilock, S. L. (2015). Physical experience enhances science learning. Psychological Science, 26(6), 737–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kosmas, P., Ioannou, A., & Zaphiris, P. (2019). Implementing embodied learning in the classroom: Effects on children’s memory and language skills. Educational Media International, 56(1), 59–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lan, Y. J., Fang, W. C., Hsiao, I. Y., & Chen, N. S. (2018). Real body versus 3D avatar: The effects of different embodied learning types on EFL listening comprehension. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(3), 709–731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, W., Huang, C., Wu, C., Huang, S., & Chen, G. (2012). The effects of using embodied interactions to improve learning performance. Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), 2012 IEEE 12th International Conference on, 4–6 July 2012, 557–559.

  • Li, W., Wang, F., Mayer, R. E., & Liu, H. (2019). Getting the point: Which kinds of gestures by pedagogical agents improve multimedia learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(8), 1382.

    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 

  • Macedonia, M., & von Kriegstein, K. (2012). Gestures enhance foreign language learning. Biolinguistics, 6(3–4), 393–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magana, A. J., & Balachandran, S. (2017a). Students’ development of representational competence through the sense of touch. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(3), 332–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Chandler, P. (2001). When learning is just a click away: Does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merchant, Z., Goetz, E. T., Keeney-Kennicutt, W., Kwok, O., Cifuentes, L., & Davis, T. J. (2012). The learner characteristics, features of desktop 3D virtual reality environments, and college chemistry instruction: A structural equation modeling analysis. Computers & Education, 59(2), 551–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merkouris, A., Chorianopoulou, B., Chorianopoulos, K., & Chrissikopoulos, V. (2019). Understanding the Notion of Friction Through Gestural Interaction with a Remotely Controlled Robot. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28(3), 209–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mikropoulos, T. A., & Natsis, A. (2011). Educational virtual environments: A ten-year review of empirical research (1999–2009). Computers & Education, 56(3), 769–780.

    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 

  • Ozcelik, E., & Sengul, G. (2012). Gesture-based interaction for learning: Time to make the dream a reality. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(3), E86–E89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pan, Z., Cheok, A. D., Yang, H., Zhu, J., & Shi, J. (2006). Virtual reality and mixed reality for virtual learning environments. Computers and Graphics, 30(1), 20–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parmar, D., Isaac, J., Babu, S. V., D'Souza, N., Leonard, A. E., Jörg, S., ... & Daily, S. B. (2016). Programming moves: Design and evaluation of applying embodied interaction in virtual environments to enhance computational thinking in middle school students. In Virtual Reality (VR), 2016 IEEE (pp. 131–140). IEEE.

  • Polycarpou, I., Krause, J., & Noring, M. (2011). Binary Blaster: An Educational Game for Practicing Binary Number Conversions. In the Proceedings of the Int’l Conf. Frontiers in Education: CS and CE (FECS’11) (pp. 492–497).

  • Polycarpou, I. (2014). Decimal to Binary Number Conversion can be Fun. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Frontiers in Education: Computer Science and Computer Engineering (FECS) (pp. 1–6).

  • Price, S., Yiannoutsou, N., & Vezzoli, Y. (2020). Making the Body Tangible: Elementary Geometry Learning through VR. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 6, 213–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, S. K. (2006). Cognitive architectures for multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 87–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, F. J., & Reeve, R. A. (2001). Gesture in collaborative mathematics problem-solving. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 20, 447–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richey, R. C. (1986). The Theoretical and Conceptual Bases of Instructional Design. London/New York: Kogan Page Ltd.

  • Rifkin, B. (2005). A ceiling effect in traditional classroom foreign language instruction: Data from Russian. The Modern Language Journal, 89(1), 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samadbeik, M., Yaaghobi, D., Bastani, P., Abhari, S., Rezaee, R., & Garavand, A. (2018). The applications of virtual reality technology in medical groups teaching. Journal of Advances in Medical Education & Professionalism, 6(3), 123–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Segal, A., Black, J., & Tversky, B. (2010). Do gestural interfaces promote thinking? Congruent gestures promote performance in math. Presented at the 51st annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, St. Louis (Missouri, USA)

  • Segal, A. (2011). Do gestural interfaces promote thinking? Embodied interaction: Congruent gestures and direct touch promote performance in math. ProQuest LLC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shakroum, M., Wong, K. W., & Fung, C. C. (2018). The influence of gesture-based learning system (GBLS) on learning outcomes. Computers & Education, 117, 75–101.

    Article  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 

  • Skulmowski, A., & Rey, G. D. (2018). Embodied learning: Introducing a taxonomy based on bodily engagement and task integration. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 3(1), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K., & Klumper, D. (2018). VIRTUALLY in the classroom: Virtual reality platforms can give preservice teachers opportunities to develop real classroom management skills. Educational Leadership, 76(1), 60–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tall, D. (2008). The transition to formal thinking in mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20(2), 5–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tolentino, L., Birchfield, D., Megowan-Romanowicz, C., Johnson-Glenberg, M. C., Kelliher, A., & Martinez, C. (2009). Teaching and learning in the mixed-reality science classroom. Journal of Science Education Technology, 18(6), 501–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tran, C., Smith, B., & Buschkuehl, M. (2017). Support of mathematical thinking through embodied cognition: Nondigital and digital approaches. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 2(1), 16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valenzeno, L., Alibali, M. W., & Klatzky, R. (2003). Teachers’ gestures facilitate students’ learning: A lesson in symmetry. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 187–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walkington, C., Boncoddo, R., Williams, C., Nathan, M. J., Alibali, M. W., Simon, E., & Pier, E. (2014). Being mathematical relations: dynamic gestures support mathematical reasoning. In W. Penuel, S. A. Jurow, & K. O’Connor (Eds.), Learning and becoming in practice: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 479–486). Boulder, CO: University of Colorado.

  • Xu, X., & Ke, F. (2014). From psychomotor to ‘motorpsycho’: Learning through gestures with body sensory technologies. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(6), 711–741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, C., Thomas, M. O. J., & Dreyfus, T. (2011). Grounded blends and mathematical gesture spaces: Developing mathematical understandings via gestures. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 78(3), 371–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Missouri, 221H Townsend Hall, Columbia, MO, 65211, USA

    Xinhao Xu

  2. Florida State University, 205C Stone Building, Tallahassee, FL, 32306, USA

    Fengfeng Ke

Authors
  1. Xinhao Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fengfeng Ke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xinhao Xu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declared that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Appendices

Appendix A

1.1 Instructional Materials

Instructional Objective

Given decimal and binary numbers, students will be able to identify the weight of each digit, and convert given numbers between the two numeric systems.

Estimated Time

45 minutes

Learning Content

The instructional material is adopted from an existing course, Computer Basics, from an accredited university. The learning environment is in the first-person view, and displays necessary learning information on the screen. At the same time, oral instructions on the content and how to interact with the on-screen materials will accompany the intervention.

Key Points

  • Weight of each digit in the two numeric systems

  • Conversion of numbers from binary to decimal

  • Conversion of numbers from decimal to binary

Table 6 lists the four scenes in this part with the corresponding scripts necessary, as well as some screen captures showing the key interventions.

Table 6 Instructional scenarios and corresponding scripts for numeric systems learning
Full size table

Appendix B: Test Items and Answer Keys

2.1 Pretest and Posttest 1

1. What is the weight in any numeric system?

  1. A.

    The actual value that a “1” represents at a certain position in a number

  2. B.

    The exponential of 2 that the symbol in a certain position represents

  3. C.

    The force on the object due to gravity

  4. D.

    The amount or quantity of heaviness or mass

Key: A

2. For a number in a certain numeric system, the position with the highest weight is:

  1. A.

    The digit on the farthest right side

  2. B.

    The digit at the middle if the number has an odd number of digits

  3. C.

    The digit on the farthest left side

  4. D.

    The two digits at the middle if the number has an even number of digits

Key: C

3. 2015, in the decimal system, the weight of the third digit starting from the right is:

  1. A.

    0

  2. B.

    10

  3. C.

    3

  4. D.

    100

Key: D

4. 1101, in the binary system, the weight of the third digit starting from the right is:

  1. A.

    0

  2. B.

    4

  3. C.

    3

  4. D.

    2

Key: B

5. The binary number 1001 is ______ in decimal system.

  1. A.

    7

  2. B.

    8

  3. C.

    9

  4. D.

    10

Key: C

6. The binary number 10000001 is ______ in decimal system.

  1. A.

    126

  2. B.

    127

  3. C.

    128

  4. D.

    129

Key: D

7. The binary number 101100 is ______ in decimal system.

  1. A.

    58

  2. B.

    127

  3. C.

    44

  4. D.

    73

Key: C

8. The decimal number 98 is ______ in binary system.

  1. A.

    1100010

  2. B.

    1100100

  3. C.

    1101010

  4. D.

    1110010

Key: A

9. The decimal number 223 is ______ in binary system.

  1. A.

    10110001

  2. B.

    11011111

  3. C.

    11000101

  4. D.

    11101111

Key: B

10. The decimal number 37 is ______ in binary system.

  1. A.

    00010001

  2. B.

    00100101

  3. C.

    11000101

  4. D.

    00110110

Key: B

2.2 Posttest 2

1. What is the weight in any numeric system?

  1. A.

    The actual value that a “1” represents at a certain position in a number

  2. B.

    The exponential of 2 that the symbol in a certain position represents

  3. C.

    The force on the object due to gravity

  4. D.

    The amount or quantity of heaviness or mass

Key: A

2. For a number in a certain numeric system, the position with the lowest weight is:

  1. A.

    The digit on the farthest left side

  2. B.

    The digit at the middle if the number has an odd number of digits

  3. C.

    The digit on the farthest right side

  4. D.

    The two digits at the middle if the number has an even number of digits

Key: C

3. 9457, in the decimal system, the weight of the second digit starting from the right is:

  1. A.

    0

  2. B.

    100

  3. C.

    3

  4. D.

    10

Key: D

4. 1101, in the binary system, the weight of the second digit starting from the right is:

  1. A.

    0

  2. B.

    2

  3. C.

    3

  4. D.

    4

Key: B

5. The binary number 1100 is ______ in decimal system.

  1. A.

    10

  2. B.

    11

  3. C.

    12

  4. D.

    13

Key: C

6. The binary number 10001001 is ______ in decimal system.

  1. A.

    126

  2. B.

    127

  3. C.

    136

  4. D.

    137

Key: D

7. The binary number 110011 is ______ in decimal system.

  1. A.

    53

  2. B.

    110

  3. C.

    51

  4. D.

    78

Key: C

8. The decimal number 89 is ______ in binary system.

  1. A.

    1011001

  2. B.

    1100010

  3. C.

    1110011

  4. D.

    1100010

Key: A

9. The decimal number 202 is ______ in binary system.

  1. A.

    10110001

  2. B.

    11001010

  3. C.

    11000100

  4. D.

    11100110

Key: B

10. The decimal number 43 is ______ in binary system.

  1. A.

    00100101

  2. B.

    00101011

  3. C.

    11001101

  4. D.

    00110110

Key: B

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xu, X., Ke, F. Learning Number Conversions Through Embodied Interactions. Tech Know Learn 28, 253–278 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09557-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09557-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation