An Embodied/Grounded Cognition Perspective on Educational Technology

Abstract

This chapter applies perceptually grounded or embodied cognition to the design and use of educational technology to increase student learning and understanding. This approach uses various kinds of educational technology to create mental perceptual simulations of topics being learned in addition to the usual symbolic mental representations. The goal is to have students have a “feel” (the perceptual simulation) for the topics in addition to “knowing” (the symbolic representation) about them. Educational technologies covered include interactive graphic computer simulations using movement and animation, graphic simulations that involve force feedback in addition to interaction, video game playing and creation, and robot creation and programming. Research results have indicated that these embodied ways of using educational technologies increases student learning and understanding as shown by memory and problem solving tests.

References

  1. Ahn, J. (2007). Application of experiential learning cycle in learning from a business simulation game. Doctoral Dissertation, New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  2. Bai, X., & Black, J. B. (2010). Enhancing intelligent tutoring systems with the agent paradigm. In S. Stankov, M. Rosov, and V. Glavinic (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems in eLearning environments: Design, implementation and evaluation (pp. 195–218). Hershey, PA: IGI Global Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Black, J. B. (2007) Imaginary worlds. In M. A. Gluck, J. R. Anderson, & S. M. Kosslyn (Eds.), Memory and mind. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  5. 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, 187–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bransford, J., & Schwartz, D. (2001). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in education (Vol. 24, pp. 61–100). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  7. Chan, M. S., & Black, J. B. (2006). Direct-manipulation animation: Incorporating the haptic channel in the learning process to support middle school students in science learning and mental model acquisition. Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
  8. Chase, C., Chin, D. B., Oppezzo, M., & Schwartz, D. (2009). Journal of Science Education and Technology.Google Scholar
  9. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Touchstone.Google Scholar
  10. Fadjo, C., Hallman, G. Jr., Harris, R., & Black, J. (2009). Surrogate embodiment, mathematics instruction and video game programming. In Proceedings of world conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications 2009 (pp. 2787–2792). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hallman, G., Paley, I., Han, I., & Black, J. (2009). Possibilities of haptic feedback simulation for physics learning. In Proceedings of world conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications 2009 (pp. 3597–3602). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
  13. Hammer, J., & Black, J. (2009). Games and (preparation for future) learning. Educational Technology, 49, 29–34.Google Scholar
  14. Han, I., Black, J., Paley, I., & Hallman, G. (2009). Feel, imagine and learn: Learning from visual and haptic simulations. Subway Summit 2009. New York: Fordham University.Google Scholar
  15. Li, D., Kang, S., Lu, C., Han, I., & Black, J. (2009). Case studies of developing programming skills via embodied experiences in an after-school LEGO Robotics Program for elementary school students. In Proceedings of world conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications 2009 (pp. 2209–2216). Chesapeake, VA.Google Scholar
  16. Martin, A. (2007). The representation of object concepts in the brain. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McVeigh, D., Black, J., & Flimlin, G. (2008). How system simulations improve student learning by assisting in the creation of clear mental models. In K. McFerrin et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of society for information technology and teacher education international conference 2008 (pp. 1767–1773). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
  18. Schwartz, D., Blair, K., Biswas, G., Leelawong, K., & Davis, J. (2007). Animations of thought: Interactivity in the teachable agents paradigm. In R. Lowe & W. Schnotz (Eds.), Learning with animation: Research and implications for design. UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Solomon, K., & Barsalou, L. (2004). Perceptual simulation in property verification. Memory and Cognition, 32, 244–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Teachers CollegeColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations