Visual Mathematics and Cyberlearning pp 119-139 | Cite as

# Embodied Interaction as Designed Mediation of Conceptual Performance

## Abstract

Can conceptual understanding emerge from embodied interaction? We believe the answer is affirmative, provided that individuals engaged in embodied-interaction activity enjoy structured opportunities to describe their physical actions using instruments, language, and forms pertaining to the targeted concept. In this chapter, we draw on existing literature on embodiment and artifacts to coin and elaborate on the construct of an *embodied artifact*—a cognitive product of rehearsed performance such as, for example, an arabesque penchée in dance or a flying sidekick in martial arts. We argue that embodied artifacts may encapsulate or “package” cultural knowledge for entry into disciplinary competence not only in explicitly embodied domains, such as dance or martial arts, but also implicitly embodied domains, such as mathematics. Furthermore, we offer that current motion-sensitive cyber-technologies may enable the engineering of precisely the type of learning environments capable of leveraging embodied artifacts as both means of learning *and* means for studying how learning occurs. We demonstrate one such environment, the Mathematical Imagery Trainer for Proportion (MIT–P), engineered in the context of a design-based research study investigating the mediated emergence of mathematical notions from embodied-interaction instructional activities. In particular, we discuss innovative features of the MIT–P in terms of the technological artifact as well as its user experience. We predict that embodied interaction will become a focus of design for and research on mathematical learning.

## Keywords

Embodied interaction Sociocultural theory Educational technology Learning sciences Mathematics Proportion Embodied artifact## Notes

### Acknowledgments

The notion of an embodied artifact originates in Abrahamson’s earlier publications on the Mathematical Imagery Trainer. We gratefully appreciate Mira-Lisa Katz for her comments on an earlier draft. This research was supported by a UC Berkeley Committee on Research Faculty Research Grant and an Institute of Education Sciences pre-doctoral Research Training grant R305B090026.

## References

- Abrahamson, D. (2009a). Embodied design: Constructing means for constructing meaning.
*Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70*(1), 27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Abrahamson, D. (2009b). Orchestrating semiotic leaps from tacit to cultural quantitative reasoning – The case of anticipating experimental outcomes of a quasi-binomial random generator.
*Cognition and Instruction, 27*(3), 175–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Abrahamson, D., Gutiérrez, J. F., Lee, R. G., Reinholz, D., & Trninic, D. (2011, April 8–12). From tacit sensorimotor coupling to articulated mathematical reasoning in an embodied design for proportional reasoning. In R. Goldman (Chair), H. Kwah, & D. Abrahamson (Organizers), & R. P. Hall (Discussant),
*Diverse perspectives on embodied learning: what’s so hard to grasp?*Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (SIG Advanced Technologies for Learning). New Orleans.Google Scholar - Alač, M., & Hutchins, E. (2004). I see what you are saying: Action as cognition in fMRI brain mapping practice.
*Journal of Cognition and Culture, 4*(3), 629–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Antle, A. N., Corness, G., & Droumeva, M. (2009). What the body knows: Exploring the benefits of embodied metaphors in hybrid physical digital environment.
*Interacting with Computers, 21*(1/2), 66–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Barsalou, L. W. (2010). Grounded cognition: Past, present, and future.
*Topics in Cognitive Science, 2*, 716–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Birchfield, D., & Johnson-Glenberk, M. C. (2010). A next gen Interface for embodied learning: SMALLab and the geological layer cake.
*International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulation, 2*(1), 49–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Brooks, R. A. (1991). Intelligence without representation.
*Artificial Intelligence, 47*, 139–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Campbell, S. R. (2003). Reconnecting mind and world: Enacting a (new) way of life. In S. J. Lamon, W. A. Parker, & S. K. Houston (Eds.),
*Mathematical modeling: A way of life*(pp. 245–256). Chichester, England: Horwood Publishing.Google Scholar - Chemero, A. (2009).
*Radical embodied cognitive science*. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar - Clinton, K. A. (2006).
*Being-in-the-digital-world: how videogames engage our pre-linguistic sense-making abilities*. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar - Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O’Shea (Eds.),
*New directions in educational technology*(pp. 15–22). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Dewey, J. (1933).
*How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process*. Boston: D.C. Heath.Google Scholar - Dourish, P. (2001).
*Where the action is: The foundations of embodied interaction*. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar - Dove, G. (2009). Beyond perceptual symbols: A call for representational pluralism.
*Cognition, 110*(3), 412–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1999). The challenge of Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology of embodiment for cognitive science. In G. Weiss & H. F. Haber (Eds.),
*Perspectives on embodiment: The intersection of nature and culture*. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar - Ericsson, K. A. (2002). Attaining excellence through deliberate practice: Insights from the study of expert performance. In M. Ferrari (Ed.),
*The pursuit of excellence in education*(pp. 21–55). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar - Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change.
*Administrative Science Quarterly, 48*, 94–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Fischer, U., Moeller, K., Bientzle, M., Cress, U., & Nuerk, H.-C. (2011). Sensori-motor spatial training of number magnitude representation.
*Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18*(1), 177–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Fodor, J. A. (1975).
*The language of thought*. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar - Freudenthal, H. (1983).
*Didactical phenomenology of mathematical structures*. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar - Fuson, K. C., & Abrahamson, D. (2005). Understanding ratio and proportion as an example of the apprehending zone and conceptual-phase problem-solving models. In J. Campbell (Ed.),
*Handbook of mathematical cognition*(pp. 213–234). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar - Gibson, J. J. (1979).
*The ecological approach to visual perception*. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar - Gokhale, E. (2008).
*8 steps to a pain-free back*. Stanford, CA: Pendo Press.Google Scholar - Goldstone, R. L., Landy, D. H., & Son, J. Y. (2010). The education of perception.
*Topics in Cognitive Science, 2*, 265–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Howison, M., Trninic, D., Reinholz, D., & Abrahamson, D. (2011). The Mathematical Imagery Trainer: From embodied interaction to conceptual learning. In G. Fitzpatrick, C. Gutwin, B. Begole, W. A. Kellogg & D. Tan (Eds.),
*Proceedings of the annual meeting of The Association for Computer Machinery Special Interest Group on Computer Human Interaction: ``Human Factors in Computing Systems'' (CHI 2011), Vancouver, May 7--12, 2011*(Vol. ``Full Papers'', pp. 1989--1998). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar - Karmiloff-Smith, A., & Inhelder, B. (1975). If you want to get ahead, get a theory.
*Cognition, 3*(3), 195–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Kirsh, D. (2009). Projection, problem space and anchors. In N. Taatgen, H. van Rijn, & L. Schomaker (Eds.),
*Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society 2009*(pp. 2310–2315). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar - Kirsh, D. (2010). Thinking with the body. In S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone (Eds.),
*Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society 2010*(pp. 2864–2869). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar - Kirsh, D., & Maglio, P. (1994). On distinguishing epistemic from pragmatic action.
*Cognitive Science, 18*(4), 513–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Kiverstein, J., & Clark, A. (Eds.). (2009). Introduction: Mind embodied, embedded, enacted: One church or many?
*Topoi, 28*(1), 1--7.Google Scholar - Lamon, S. J. (2007). Rational numbers and proportional reasoning: Toward a theoretical framework for research. In F. K. Lester (Ed.),
*Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning*(pp. 629–667). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar - Lee, J. C. (2008). Hacking the Nintendo Wii Remote.
*IEEE Pervasive Computing, 7*(3), 39–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Leontiev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.),
*The concept of activity in soviet psychology*(pp. 37–71). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar - Melser, D. (2004).
*The act of thinking*. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar - Namirovsky, R. (2003). Three conjectures concerning the relationship between body activity and understanding mathematics. In N. A. Pateman, B. J. Dougherty, & J. T. Zilliox (Eds.),
*Proceedings of PME 2003*(Vol. 1, pp. 105–109). Columbus, OH: Eric Claringhouse.Google Scholar - Pirie, S., & Kieren, T. (1994). Growth in mathematical understanding: How can we characterize it and how can we represent it?
*Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26*(2–3), 165–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Rosenbaum, D. A., Kenny, S. B., & Derr, M. A. (1983). Hierarchical control of rapid movement sequences.
*Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9*, 86–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Roth, W.-M., & Thom, J. S. (2009). Bodily experience and mathematics conceptions: from classical views to phenomenological reconceptualization. In L. Radford, L. Edwards, & F. Arzarello (Eds.), Gestures and multimodality in the construction of mathematical meaning [Special issue].
*Educational Studies in Mathematics*,*70*(2), 175–189.Google Scholar - Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligences with intelligent technologies.
*Educational Researcher, 20*(3), 2–9.Google Scholar - Schoenfeld, A. H. (2004). The math wars.
*Educational Policy, 18*(1), 253–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Schoenfeld, A. H., Smith, J. P., & Arcavi, A. (1991). Learning: The microgenetic analysis of one student’s evolving understanding of a complex subject matter domain. In R. Glaser (Ed.),
*Advances in instructional psychology*(pp. 55–175). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar - Schön, D. (1983).
*The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action*. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar - Sheets-Johnstone, M. (1990).
*The roots of thinking*. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar - Trninic, D., Gutiérrez, J. F., & Abrahamson, D. (2011). Virtual mathematical inquiry: Problem solving at the gestural-symbolic interface of remote-control embodied-interaction design. In G. Stahl, H. Spada, N. Miyake, & N. Law (Eds.),
*Proceedings from CSCL 2011*(Vol. 1, pp. 272–279). Hong Kong: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar - Tulving, E. (1983).
*Elements of episodic memory*. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar - Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991).
*The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience*. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar - Vérillon, P., & Rabardel, P. (1995). Cognition and artifacts: A contribution to the study of thought in relation to instrumented activity.
*European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10*(1), 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Vygotsky, L. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R. Rieber & A. Carton (Eds.),
*The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky*(Vol. 1, pp. 39–285). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar - Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1987).
*Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design*. Boston: Addison-Wesley Professional.Google Scholar - Yin, R. K. (2009).
*Case study research: design and methods*. London: Sage.Google Scholar