Embodiment and embodied design

The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, Second Edition

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 358-376

  Abrahamson, Dor ^a   Lindgren, Robb ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84943370903     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139519526.022     Document Type: Chapter

References (77)

1. Abrahamson, D. (2009). Embodied design: Constructing means for constructing meaning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(1), 27-47. (Electronic supplementary material at http://edrl.berkeley.edu/publications/journals/ESM/Abrahamson-ESM/).
2. Abrahamson, D. (2012). Mathematical Imagery Trainer - Proportion (MIT-P) IPhone/iPad application (Terasoft): iTunes. Retrieved from https://itunes.apple.com/au/app/mathematical-imagery-trainer/id563185943.
3. Abrahamson, D. (Chair & Organizer). (2012). You’re it! Body, action, and object in STEM learning. In J. V. Aalst, K. Thompson, M. J. Jacobson, & P. Reimann (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences: Future of Learning (ICLS 2012) (Vol. 1: Full papers, pp. 283-290). Sydney: University of Sydney /ISLS.
4. Abrahamson, D. (2013). Toward a taxonomy of design genres: Fostering mathematical insight via perception-based and action-based experiences. In J. P Hourcade, E. A. Miller, & A. Egeland (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th Annual Interaction Design and Children Conference (IDC2013) (pp. 218-227). New York: The New School and Sesame Workshop.
5. Abrahamson, D., Lee, R. G., Negrete, A. G., & Gutiérrez, J. F. (in press). Coordinating visualizations of polysemous action: Values added for grounding proportion. In F. Rivera, H. Steinbring, & A. Arcavi (Eds.), Visualization as an epistemological learning tool (Special issue). ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education.
6. Abrahamson, D., Trninic, D., Gutiérrez, J. F, Huth, J., & Lee, R. G. (2011). Hooks and shifts: A dialectical study of mediated discovery. Technology, Knowledge, and Learning, 16(1), 55-85.
7. Antle, A. N., Corness, G., & Bevans, A. (in press). Balancing justice: Exploring embodied metaphor and whole body interaction for an abstract domain. To appear in International Journal of Arts and Technology, Special Issue on Whole Body Interaction.
8. Antle, A. N., Wise, A. F., & Nielsen, K. (2011). Towards utopia: Designing tangibles for learning. In P. Blikstein & P Marshall (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Annual Interaction Design and Children Conference (IDC 2011) (Vol. "Full Papers," pp. 11-20). Ann Arbor, MI: IDC.
9. Artigue, M., Cerulli, M., Haspekian, M., & Maracci, M. (2009). Connecting and integrating theoretical frames: The TELMA contribution. In M. Artigue (Ed.), Connecting approaches to technology enhanced learning in mathematics: The TELMA experience (Special issue). International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 14, 217-240.
10. Bamberger, J., & diSessa, A. A. (2003). Music as embodied mathematics: A study of a mutually informing affinity. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 8(2), 123-160.
11. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577-660.
12. Becvar Weddle, L. A., & Hollan, J. D. (2010). Scaffolding embodied practices in professional education. Mind, Culture & Activity, 17(2), 119-148.
13. Bernstein, N. A. (1996). On dexterity and its development. In M. L. Latash & M. T. Turvey (Eds.), Dexterity and its development (pp. 3-244). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14. Birchfield, D., & Johnson-Glenberg, 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.
15. Chemero, A. (2009). Radical embodied cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16. Clark, A. (2013). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 181-253.
17. Clement, J. (1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students’ preconceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1241-1257.
18. Dede, C., Salzman, M. C., Loftin, R. B., Brusilovsky, P, Kommers, P, & Streitz, N. (1996). The development of a virtual worldfor learning Newtonian mechanics: Multimedia, hypermedia, and virtual reality B2 - multimedia, hypermedia, and virtual reality. Berlin: Springer/Verlag.
19. Dewey, J. (1958). Experience and nature. New York: Dover Publications. (Original work published 1927).
20. Dienes, Z. P. (1971). An example of the passage from the concrete to the manipulation of formal systems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 3(3/4), 337-352.
21. diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2-3), 105-225.
22. diSessa, A. A. (2008). A note from the editor. Cognition and Instruction, 26(4), 427-429.
23. 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 intersections of nature and culture (pp. 103-120). New York: Routledge.
24. Edwards, L. (1995). Microworlds as representations. In A. A. diSessa, C. Hoyles, & R. Noss (Eds.), Computers and exploratory learning (pp. 127-154). New York: Springer.
25. Enyedy, N., Danish, J. A., Delacruz, G., & Kumar, M. (2012). Learning physics through play in an augmented reality environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(3), 347-378.
26. Even, R., & Ball, D. L. (Eds.) (2003). Connecting research, practice, and theory in the development and study of mathematics education (Special issue). Educational Studies in Mathematics, 54(2-3), 139-146.
27. Fischbein, E. (1987). Intuition in science and mathematics. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel.
28. 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.
29. Gallese, V, & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3-4), 455-479.
30. Goldin-Meadow, S., & Beilock, S. L. (2010). Action’s influence on thought: The case of gesture. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(6), 664-674.
31. Goldstone, R. L., Landy, D. H., & Son, J. Y (2009). The education of perception. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(2), 265-284.
32. Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 603-633.
33. Hall, R., & Nemirovsky, R. (Eds.) (2012). Modalities of body engagement in mathematical activity and learning (Special issue). Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(2).
34. Harel, G., & Confrey, J. (Eds.) (1994). The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics. New York: State University of New York.
35. Harnad, S. (1990). The symbol grounding problem. Physica D, 42, 335-346.
36. Hatano, G., Miyake, Y, & Binks, M. (1977). Performance of expert abacus operators. Cognition, 5, 57-71.
37. Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I., & Pulvermüller, F. (2004). Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron, 41 (2), 301-307.
38. 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.
39. Hutto, D. D., & Myin, E. (2013). Radicalizing enactivism: Basic minds without content. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40. Ingold, T. (2011). The perception of the environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling, and skill. Second Edition. New York: Routledge.
41. Jasmin, K., & Casasanto, D. (2012). The QWERTY effect: How typing shapes the meanings of words. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(3), 499-504.
42. Johnson-Glenberg, M. C., Birchfield, D., Megowan-Romanowicz, C., Tolentino, L., & Martinez, C. (2009). Embodied games, next gen interfaces, and assessment of high school physics. International Journal of Learning and Media, 1(2).
43. Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgement and choice. American Psychologist, 58(9), 697-720.
44. Kamii, C. K., & DeClark, G. (1985). Young children reinvent arithmetic: Implications of Piaget’s theory. New York: Teachers College Press.
45. Kirsh, D. (2013). Embodied cognition and the magical future of interaction design. In P. Marshall, A. N. Antle, E. v.d. Hoven, & Y. Rogers (Eds.), The theory and practice of embodied interaction in HCI and interaction design (Special issue). ACM Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, 20(1), 3:1-30.
46. Kiverstein, J., & Clark, A. (Eds.) (2009). Introduction: Mind embodied, embedded, enacted: One church or many? Topoi, 28(1), 1-7.
47. Koschmann, T., Kuuti, K., & Hickman, L. (1998). The concept of breakdown in Heidegger, Leont’ ev, and Dewey and its implications for education. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 5(1), 25-41.
48. Kosslyn, S. M. (2005). Mental images and the brain. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3/4),333-347.
49. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. L. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
50. Levy, S. T. (2012). Young children’s learning of water physics by constructing working systems. International Journal of Technology Design Education.
51. Lindgren, R. (2012). Generating a learning stance through perspective-taking in a virtual environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1130-1139.
52. Lindgren, R., & Bolling, A. (2013). Assessing the learning effects of interactive body metaphors in a mixed reality science simulation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
53. Lindgren, R., & Moshell, J. M. (2011). Supporting children’s learning with body- based metaphors in a mixed reality environment. Paper presented at the Interaction Design and Children, Ann Arbor, MI.
54. Marshall, P., Antle, A. N., Hoven, E. V.D., & Rogers, Y. (Eds.) (2013). The theory and practice of embodied interaction in HCI and interaction design (Special issue). ACM Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, 20 (1).
55. Melser, D. (2004). The act of thinking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
56. Montessori, M. (1967). The absorbent mind. (E. M. 1, Trans.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. (Orignal work published 1949).
57. Nemirovsky, R., & Borba, M. C. (2004). PME Special Issue: Bodily activity and imagination in mathematics learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 57, 303-321.
58. Núñez, R. E., Edwards, L. D., & Matos, J. F. (1999). Embodied cognition as grounding for situatedness and context in mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 39, 45-65.
59. Overton, W. F. (2012, May). Relationism and relational developmental systems: A paradigm for the emergent, epigenetic, embodied, enacted, extended, embedded, encultured, mind. Paper presented at the "Rethinking Cognitive Development" - the 42nd annual meeting of the Jean Piaget Society, Vancouver.
60. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.
61. Petrick, C. J., & Martin, T. (2011). Hands up, know body move: learning mathematics through embodied actions. Manuscript in progress (copy on file with author).
62. Piaget, J. (1956). The child’s conception of physical causality. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams and Company.
63. Piaget, J. (1968). Genetic epistemology (E. Duckworth, Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press.
64. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child (H. Weaver, Trans.). New York: Basic Books (Original work published 1966).
65. Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards apost-criticalphilosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
66. Pratt, D., & Noss, R. (2010). Designing for mathematical abstraction. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 15(2), 81-97.
67. Rick, J. (2012). Proportion: A tablet app for collaborative learning. In H. Schelhowe (Ed.), Proceedings of the 11th Annual Interaction Design and Children Conference (IDC 2012) (Vol. "Demo Papers," pp. 316-319). Bremen, Germany: ACM-IDC.
68. Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligences with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2-9.
69. Sfard, A., & McClain, K. (Eds.) (2002). Analyzing tools: Perspectives on the role of designed artifacts in mathematics learning (Special Issue). Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11 (2 & 3).
70. Sklar, A. Y, Levy, N., Goldstein, A., Mandel, R., Maril, A., & Hassin, R. R. (2012). Reading and doing arithmetic nonconsciously. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(48), 19614-19619.
71. Spencer, John P., Austin, Andrew, & Schutte, Anne R. (2012). Contributions of dynamic systems theory to cognitive development. Cognitive Development, 27(4), 401-418.
72. Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
73. Trninic, D., & Abrahamson, D. (2012). Embodied artifacts and conceptual performances. In J. v. Aalst, K. Thompson, M. J. Jacobson, & P. Reimann (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences: Future of Learning (ICLS 2012) (Vol. 1: Full papers, pp. 283-290). Sydney: University of Sydney /ISLS.
74. Van Rompay, T., Hekkert, P., & Muller, W. (2005). The bodily basis of product experience. Design Studies, 26(4), 359-377.
75. Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
76. 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.
77. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1934).