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.
- Embodied interaction
- Sociocultural theory
- Educational technology
- Learning sciences
- Embodied artifact
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
We invite the reader to compare our “embodied artifact” with the construct of “organizational routines” (Feldman & Pentland, 2003). Though organizational routines share commonalities with embodied artifacts in terms of constituting structured procedures, our construct serves particular interests both in the embodiment of knowledge and in learning from an artifact-mediated perspective.
By naming this sequence with a phrase commonly used in the context of this particular cultural practice, we are anticipating that it will be signified as a “chunked” performance.
Esther Gokhale (2008) argues that embodied artifacts, such as those found in traditional dances, serve to encapsulate and preserve traditional physiological knowledge, not unlike how a recipe may preserve traditional (tacit) nutritional knowledge.
As the mathematician G. H. Hardy famously stated, not without pride: “I have never done anything ‘useful’.”
It is telling that the most popular workshop at the CHI 2011 conference on Human-Computer Interaction was titled “Embodied Interaction”—and yet the idea of that very workshop was considered untenable in the previous years at the same venue.
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9xVC76PlWc for a video.
Students initially worked with a 1:2 ratio, though the protocol included 1:3, 2:3 ratios and beyond. These more challenging scenarios were introduced only after a student displayed confidence with a 1:2 ratio.
Abrahamson, D. (2009a). Embodied design: Constructing means for constructing meaning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(1), 27–47.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Barsalou, L. W. (2010). Grounded cognition: Past, present, and future. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, 716–724.
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.
Brooks, R. A. (1991). Intelligence without representation. Artificial Intelligence, 47, 139–159.
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.
Chemero, A. (2009). Radical embodied cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
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.
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.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston: D.C. Heath.
Dourish, P. (2001). Where the action is: The foundations of embodied interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dove, G. (2009). Beyond perceptual symbols: A call for representational pluralism. Cognition, 110(3), 412–431.
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.
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.
Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 94–118.
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.
Fodor, J. A. (1975). The language of thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Freudenthal, H. (1983). Didactical phenomenology of mathematical structures. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
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.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Gokhale, E. (2008). 8 steps to a pain-free back. Stanford, CA: Pendo Press.
Goldstone, R. L., Landy, D. H., & Son, J. Y. (2010). The education of perception. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, 265–284.
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.
Karmiloff-Smith, A., & Inhelder, B. (1975). If you want to get ahead, get a theory. Cognition, 3(3), 195–212.
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.
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.
Kirsh, D., & Maglio, P. (1994). On distinguishing epistemic from pragmatic action. Cognitive Science, 18(4), 513–549.
Kiverstein, J., & Clark, A. (Eds.). (2009). Introduction: Mind embodied, embedded, enacted: One church or many? Topoi, 28(1), 1--7.
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.
Lee, J. C. (2008). Hacking the Nintendo Wii Remote. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 7(3), 39–45.
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.
Melser, D. (2004). The act of thinking. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligences with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2–9.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2004). The math wars. Educational Policy, 18(1), 253–286.
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.
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
Sheets-Johnstone, M. (1990). The roots of thinking. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
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.
Tulving, E. (1983). Elements of episodic memory. New York: Oxford University Press.
Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
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.
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.
Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1987). Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design. Boston: Addison-Wesley Professional.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: design and methods. London: Sage.
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.
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Trninic, D., Abrahamson, D. (2013). Embodied Interaction as Designed Mediation of Conceptual Performance. In: Martinovic, D., Freiman, V., Karadag, Z. (eds) Visual Mathematics and Cyberlearning. Mathematics Education in the Digital Era, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2321-4_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-2320-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-2321-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)