Advertisement

Learning, Becoming, Embodying: A Review of Embodiment in an Era of Learning with Contemporary Media

  • Azilawati JamaludinEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Education Innovation Series book series (EDIN)

Abstract

In recent times, there exists an increasing interest in the concept of embodiment in all disciplines dealing with knowledge and intelligent behaviour, especially that of the learning sciences. While embodiment has often been used in its simplest form, i.e. ‘intelligence requires a body’ (Weigmann 2012), there now exist deeper issues concerning the complex interplay between problems of physical-virtual embodiment, complexities of the environment, and the principles of neural development within today’s evolved culture of participation where more and more students communicate, interact, and socialise through immersive new media environments, represented by avatars. This chapter looks at the major conceptual developments in embodiment research from the works of ancient philosopher Aristotle to contemporary roboticist Moravec, positing that the current state of embodiment research reverberates of dichotomised conceptualisations of natural states vis-à-vis artificial forms of embodiment. Against this binary backdrop, concepts of autopoiesis and allopoiesis are reconceptualised in the context of twenty-first century media, pointing to the need for a new theoretical understanding of embodying. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the pedagogical possibilities in this realm of new media and learning where conventional constraints of embodiment are challenged, advocating the need for educators to devise creative pedagogical approaches that work with these new articulations.

Keywords

Embodiment Immersive environments Bodily knowing Embodied cognition 

References

  1. Anderson, J., Reder, L., & Simon, H. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher, 25, 5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arkin, R. (1998). Behavior-based robotics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Arnold, M. (2002). The glass screen. Information, Communication and Society, 5(2), 225–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barlow, J. P. (1996). A declaration of the independence of cyberspace. San Francisco: Electronic Frontier Foundation.Google Scholar
  5. Barsalou, L., Niedenthal, P., Barbey, A., & Ruppert, J. (2003). Social embodiment. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation. San Diego: Academic. Retrieved December 10, 2012, from http://www.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html
  6. Bayne, T. (2004). The bodies of learners. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Publishing.Google Scholar
  7. Benjamin, A. (1994). Affordable, restructured education: A solution through information technology. RSA Journal, 142, 45–49.Google Scholar
  8. Breazeal, C., & Scassellati, B. (2000). Infant-like social interactions between a robot and a human caregiver. Adaptive Behavior, 8(1), 47–72.Google Scholar
  9. Brooks, R. (1991). Intelligence without representation. Artificial Intelligence, 47, 139–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brooks, R. A., & Stein, A. (1993). Building brains for bodies (Memo No. 1439). Cambridge, MA: MIT AI Laboratory.Google Scholar
  11. Burkitt, I. (1999). Bodies of thought: Embodiment, identity and modernity. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Chee, Y. S. (2007). Embodiment, embeddedness, and experience: Game-based learning and the construction of identity. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 2(1), 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chomsky, N. (1965). Cartesian linguistics. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  14. Clark, A. (1997). Being there: Putting brain, body and world together again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Clark, A. (1999). Embodied, situated, and distributed cognition. In W. Betchel & G. Graham (Eds.), A companion to cognitive science. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  16. de Freitas, S. (2006). Using games and simulations for supporting learning. In C. Martin & L. Murray (Eds.), Learning, media and technology special issue on gaming, 31(4), 343–358.Google Scholar
  17. Dreyfus, H. L. (2001). On the Internet. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Everard, J. (2000). Virtual states: The internet and the boundaries of the nation-state. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Gallagher, S. (2005). How the body shapes the mind. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Greeno, J. (1996) On claims that answer the wrong questions (Response to Anderson et al.). Educational Researcher, 25, 5–11.Google Scholar
  21. Haugeland, J. (1998). Mind embodied and embedded. In J. Haugeland (Ed.), Having thought(pp. 3–38). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hayles, N. K. (1999). How we became posthuman. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hayles, N. K. (2002). Flesh and metal: Reconfiguring the mindbody in virtual environments. Configurations, 10, 319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hocking, B., Haskell, J., & Linds, W. (2001). Unfolding bodymind: Exploring possibility through education. Brandon: Foundation for Educational Renewal.Google Scholar
  25. Hoffman, G. (2012). Embodied cognition for autonomous interactive robots. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4, 759–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hurley, S. (1998). Consciousness in action. London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Jenkins, H. (2012). Quentin Tarantino’s star wars? Digital cinema, media convergence, and participatory culture. In M. G. Durham & D. Kellner (Eds.), Media and cultural studies: Keyworks (pp. 567–568). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  29. Kelso, S. (1995). Dynamic patterns. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Kirsh, D. (1992). Today the earwig, tomorrow man? In D. Kirsh (Ed.), Foundations of artificial intelligence (pp. 161–184). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Klich, R. (2007). Performing posthuman perspective: Can you see me now? Journal of Media Arts Culture, 4(1). Retrieved December 10, 2014, from http://scan.net.au/scan/journal/display.php?journal_id=91
  32. Krois, J. M., Rosengren, M., Steidele, A., & Westerkamp, D. (2008). Embodiment in cognition and culture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Retrieved December 10, 2014, from http://scan.net.au/scan/journal/display.php?journal_id=91 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. Land, R. (2004). Issues of embodiment and risk in online learning. In R. Atkinson, C. McBeath, D. Jonas-Dwyer, & R. Phillips (Eds.), Beyond the comfort zone: Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE conference (pp. 530–538). Perth: ASCILITE.Google Scholar
  35. Linden Lab. (2014). Linden Lab is developing the next-generation virtual world. Retrieved July 11, 2014, from http://www.lindenlab.com/releases/linden-lab-is-developing-the-next-generation-virtual-world
  36. Marocco, D., Cangelosi, A., Fischer, K., & Belpaeme, T. (2010). Grounding action words in the sensorimotor interaction with the world: Experiments with a simulated iCub humanoid robot. Frontiers in Neurorobotics, 4.Google Scholar
  37. Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McWilliam, E., & Taylor, P. (1996). Pedagogy, technology and the body. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  39. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). The phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Moravec, H. (1988). Mind children: The future of robot and human intelligence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Peters, M. (2002). Dreyfus on the Internet: Platonism, body talk and nihilism. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 34(4), 403–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pfeifer, P., & Bongard, J. (2007). How the body shapes the way we think: A new view of intelligence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  43. Port, R., & van Gelder, T. (1995). Mind as motion: Dynamics, behavior, and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  44. Poster, M. (2001). Cyberdemocracy: The Internet and the public sphere. In M. Poster (Ed.), The information subject. Amsterdam: G + B Arts International.Google Scholar
  45. Regier, T. (1996). The human semantic potential. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  46. Resnick, M. (1994). Turtles, termites and traffic jams. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  47. Shapiro, S. (1994). Re-membering the body in critical pedagogy. Education and Society, 12(1), 61–79.Google Scholar
  48. Sharkey, N., & Ziemke, T. (2001). Mechanistic vs. phenomenal embodiment – Can robot embodiment lead to strong AI? Cognitive Systems Research, 2(4), 251–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shim, Y., & Husbands, P. (2012). Chaotic exploration and learning of locomotion behaviours. Neural Computation, 24(8), 2185–2222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Suchman, A. (1987). Plans and situated actions. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Thelen, E., & Smith, L. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  52. Turing, A. M. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59, 433–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Turkle, S. (1996). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. London: Phoenix.Google Scholar
  54. Turvey, M., & Carello, C. (1995). Some dynamical themes in perception and action. In R. Port & T. van Gelder (Eds.), Mind as motion (pp. 373–401). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  55. Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  56. Von Uexkull, J. (1934). A stroll through the worlds of animals and men. In C. Schiller (Ed.), Instinctive behavior. New York: International Universities Press.Google Scholar
  57. Weigmann, K. (2012). Does intelligence require a body? Science and Society, 13(12), 1066–1069.Google Scholar
  58. Weiss, H. (1948). Aristotle’s teleology and Uexkull’s theory of living nature. The Classical Quarterly, 42(1/2), 44–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9(4), 625–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ziemke, T. (1999). Rethinking grounding. In A. Riegler et al. (Eds.), Understanding representation in the cognitive science. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  61. Ziemke, T. (2001). The construction of ‘reality’ in the robot. Foundations of Science, 6(1), 163–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ziemke, T. (2002). Introduction to the special issue on situated and embodied cognition. Cognitive Systems Research, 3(3), 271–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Ziemke, T. (2003). What’s that thing called embodiment? In R. Alterman & D. Kirsh (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 1134–1139). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  64. Zlatev, J. (1997). Situated embodiment: Studies in the emergence of spatial meaning. Stockholm: Gotab.Google Scholar
  65. Zlatev, J. (2001). The epigenesis of meaning in human beings, and possibly in robots. Minds and Machines, 11, 155–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute of EducationNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations