Dor Abrahamson
ABSTRACT
Recent, empirically supported theories of cognition indicate that human reasoning, including mathematical problem solving, is based in tacit spatial-temporal simulated action. Implications of these findings for the philosophy and design of instruction may be momentous. Here, we build on design-based research efforts centered on exploring the potential of embodied interaction (EI) for mathematics learning. We sketch two emerging, reciprocal contributions: (1) a sociocognitive view on the role of automated feedback in building the perceptuomotor schemes that undergird conceptual development; and (2) a heuristic EI design framework. We ground these ideas in vignettes of children engaging an EI design for proportion. Increasing ubiquity and access to mobile devices geared to avail of EI principles suggests the feasibility of mass-disseminating materials evolving from this line of research.
- Abrahamson, D. 2010. A tempest in a teapot is but a drop in the ocean: action-objects in analogical mathematical reasoning. In K. Gomez, L. Lyons & J. Radinsky (Eds.), Learning in the Disciplines: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2010). International Society of the Learning Sciences, Chicago IL, 492--499. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Abrahamson, D. 2009. Embodied design: Constructing means for constructing meaning. Educational Studies in Mathematics 70, 1, 27--47.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Abrahamson, D., Gutiérrez, J. F., Lee, R. G., Reinholz, D., & Trninic, D. 2011. From tacit sensorimotor coupling to articulated mathematical reasoning in an embodied design for proportional reasoning. In R. Goldman (Chair), H. Kwah & D. Abrahamson (Organizers), and 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, April, 2011).Google Scholar
- Alibali, M. W., Bassok, M., Olseth, K. L., et al. 1999. Illuminating mental representations through speech and gesture. Psychological Science 10, 4, 327--333.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Alibali, M. W., Flevares, L. M., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (1997). Assessing knowledge conveyed in gesture: do teachers have the upper hand? Journal of Educational Psychology 89, 1, 183--193.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Antle, A. N., Corness, G., and Droumeva, M. 2009. What the body knows: Exploring the benefits of embodied metaphors in hybrid physical digital environments. Interacting with Computers 21, 66--75. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bamberger, J. and Schön, D. 1991. Learning as reflective conversation with materials. In Steier, F. ed., Research and Reflexivity, Sage, London, 186--209.Google Scholar
- Barsalou, L. W. 2010. Grounded cognition: past, present, and future. Topics in Cognitive Science 2, 716--724.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bartolini Bussi, M. G., & Mariotti, M. A. 2008. Semiotic mediation in the mathematics classroom: Artefacts and signs after a Vygotskian perspective. In English, L. D. eds., Handbook of international research in mathematics education, 2nd revised edition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, 720--749.Google Scholar
- Blikstein, P., & Wilensky, U. 2009. An atom is known by the company it keeps: constructing multi-agent models in engineering education. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning 14, 2, 81--119.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Brock, W. H., & Price, M. H. 1980. Squared paper in the nineteenth century: Instrument of science and engineering, and symbol of reform in mathematical education. Educational Studies in Mathematics 11, 4, 365--381.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Brown, M. C., McNeil, N. M., & Glenberg, A. M. 2009. Using concreteness in education: real problems, potential solutions. Child Development Perspectives 3, 160--164.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Church, R. B. and Goldin-Meadow, S. 1986. The mismatch between gesture and speech as an index of transitional knowledge. Cognition 23, 43--71.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Cress, U., Fischer, U., Moeller, et al. 2010. The use of a digital dance mat for training kindergarten children in a magnitude comparison task. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, 105--112. Google ScholarDigital Library
- diSessa, A. A. 2008. A note from the editor. Cognition and Instruction 26, 4, 427--429.Google ScholarCross Ref
- diSessa, A. A., & Cobb, P. 2004. Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 13, 1, 77--103.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dourish, P. 2001. Where the action is: the foundations of embodied interaction. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, MA. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dreyfus, H. L. 1990. Being-in-the-world: a commentary on Heidegger's Being and Time, Division I. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- Edwards, L. 1995. Microworlds as representations. In A. A. diSessa, C. Hoyles & R. Noss (Eds.), Computers and exploratory learning. Springer, New York, 127--154.Google Scholar
- Edwards, L., Radford, L., & Arzarello, F. 2009. Gestures and multimodality in the construction of mathematical meaning {Special Issue}. Educational Studies in Mathematics 70, 2.Google Scholar
- Forman, G. 1988. Making intuitive knowledge explicit through future technology. In G. Forman & P. B. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
- Freudenthal, H. 1986. Didactical phenomenology of mathematical structures. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google 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 (Eds.), Proceedings of the ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kaput, J., & West, M. M. (1994). Missing-value proportional reasoning problems: Factors affecting informal reasoning patterns. In G. Harel & J. Confrey (Eds.), The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics. SUNY, Albany, NY, 237--287.Google Scholar
- Karmiloff-Smith, A. 1992. Beyond modularity: a developmental perspective on cognitive science. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- Kirsh, D. 2006. Distributed cognition: a methodological note. In Harnad, S. ed., Distributed cognition {Special issue}. Pragmatics & Cognition 14, 2, 249--262.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
- Lakoff, G. and Nuúez, R. E. 2000. Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
- Lamon, S. J. 2007. Rational numbers and proportional reasoning: Toward a theoretical framework for research. In Lester, F. K. ed. Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning, Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC, 629--667.Google Scholar
- Lave, J., & Wenger, E. 1991. Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
- Lee, J. C. 2008. Hacking the Nintendo Wii Remote. IEEE Pervasive Computing 7, 3, 39--45. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lee, C., & Majors, Y. 2000. Cultural modeling's response to Rogoff's challenge: Understanding apprenticeship, guided participation and participatory appropriation in a culturally responsive, subject matter specific context. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.Google Scholar
- Marshall, P., Cheng, P. C. -H., and Luckin, R. 2010. Tangibles in the balance: a discovery learning task with physical or graphical materials. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, 153--160. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nemirovsky, R. 2003. Three conjectures concerning the relationship between body activity and understanding mathematics. In R. Nemirovsky & M. Borba (Coordinators), Perceptuo-motor activity and imagination in mathematics learning (Research Forum). In N. A. Pateman, B. J. Dougherty & J. T. Zilliox (Eds.), Twenty Seventh Annual Meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Eric Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education, Columbus, OH, 105--109.Google Scholar
- Nemirovsky, R., Tierney, C. and Wright, T. 1998. Body motion and graphing. Cognition and Instruction 16, 2, 119--172.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. 1989. The construction zone: working for cognitive change in school. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
- Núñez, R., Edwards, L., & Matos, J. F. 1999. Embodied cognition as grounding for situatedness and context in mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics 39, 1, 45--66.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Pirie, S. E. B. and Kieren, T. 1994. Growth in mathematical understanding: How can we characterize it and how can we represent it? Educational Studies in Mathematics 26, 165--190.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Radford, L. 2003. Gestures, speech, and the sprouting of signs: A semiotic-cultural approach to students' types of generalization. Mathematical Thinking and Learning 5, 1, 37--70.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rogoff, B. 1990. Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford University Press, NY.Google Scholar
- Roth, W. -M. 2009. Mathematical representation at the interface of body and culture. In Sriraman, B. ed., International perspectives on mathematics education---cognition, equity, and society. Information Age Publishing, Charlotte.Google Scholar
- Saxe, G. B. and Esmonde, I. 2005. Studying cognition in flux: a historical treatment of fu in the shifting structure of Oksapmin mathematics. Mind, Culture, and Activity 12, 3--4, 171--225.Google Scholar
- Schoenfeld, A. H. 2004. The math wars. Educational Policy 18, 253--286.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Schwartz, J. L., & Yerushalmy, M. 1993. The Geometric Super Supposer: a laboratory for mathematical exploration, conjecture and invention. Sunburst Communications, Pleasantville, N.Y.Google Scholar
- Sloutsky, V. M., Kaminski, J. A., & Heckler, A. F. 2005. The advantage of simple symbols for learning and transfer. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 12, 3, 508--513.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Stavy, R., & Strauss, S. (Eds.). 1982. U-shaped behavioral growth. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
- Thompson, P. W. 1993. Quantitative reasoning, complexity, and additive structures. Educational Studies in Mathematics 3, 165--208.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Vergnaud, G. 1983. Multiplicative structures. In R. Lesh & M. Landau (Eds.), Acquisition of mathematical concepts and processes. Academic Press, New York, 127--.174Google Scholar
- Wilensky, U., & Papert, S. 2010. Restructurations: reformulations of knowledge disciplines through new representational forms. In J. Clayson & I. Kallas (Eds.), Proceedings of the Constructionism 2010 Conference. Paris.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Toward an embodied-interaction design framework for mathematical concepts
Recommendations
The mathematical imagery trainer: from embodied interaction to conceptual learning
CHI '11: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsWe introduce an embodied-interaction instructional design, the Mathematical Imagery Trainer (MIT), for helping young students develop grounded understanding of proportional equivalence (e.g., 2/3 = 4/6). Taking advantage of the low-cost availability of ...
Toward a taxonomy of design genres: fostering mathematical insight via perception-based and action-based experiences
IDC '13: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and ChildrenIn a retrospective analysis of my own pedagogical design projects over the past twenty years, I articulate and compare what I discern therein as two distinct activity genres for grounding mathematical concepts. One genre, "perception-based design," ...
The choreography of conceptual development in computer supported instructional environments
IDC '12: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Interaction Design and ChildrenA key affordance of computational learning environments is that they can be designed to instantiate specific rules and causal relationships between user inputs and perceptual output. In this sense, designers can attempt to engineer specific trajectories ...
Comments