This research resides at the intersection of design, education, and psychology. The diagram below visualizes this intersection, highlighting key terminologies from each field. Click on terms to see brief explanations and related papers for further exploration. This diagram aims to help you develop a comprehensive understanding of the design challenge's context.
Most existing frameworks for embodied learning focus on taxonomies. The Design for Embodied Learning Experiences (ELEs) framework developed in this research integrates key design considerations from five existing frameworks to ensure the principles of embodied learning are met. Below describes these six frameworks.
The Backward Design Model describe a method of planning educational curriculum begins with identifying desired learning outcomes. Educators will then work backward to create lessons and assessment to achieve the learning objectives.
Reference:
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understandingby design (2nd ed.). Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment (ASCD).
How I utilized this resource:
This model is not specifically related to embodied learning; rather, it pertains to learning in general. However, this method is used as a foundation for our design by defining the learning objectives first and then designing the learning experience to meet these objectives effectively.
The Somatic Learning Model identified four types of somatic learning: kinesthetic, sensory, affective, and spiritual.
Reference:
Horst, T. (2008). The Body in Adult Education: Introducing a Somatic Learning Model. Adult Education Research Conference.
How I utilized this resource:
To encourage designers to consider these four types of somatic learning, I incorporated different modalities of the sensory-motor system into the “Solution Map” in the Develop stage of the framework. Designers are also encouraged to think about collaborative play in the Define stage. Additionally, these four quadrants are used to evaluate the levels of embodiment in the Deliver stage.
This framework describes a progression from physical enactment (Direct, Surrogate, or Augmented) to imagined embodiment, culminating in tasks that facilitate the transfer of learned content. In other words, to ensure effective cognitive processing, learners first engage in an embodied experience, followed by learning to imagine that embodied experience. This sequential approach leverages physical actions and sensory inputs to solidify learning, which is then internalized through mental visualization.
Reference:
Black, J.B., Segal, A., Vitale, J. and Fadjo, C. (2012). Embodied cognition and learning environment design. In D. Jonassen and S. Lamb (Eds.) Theoretical foundations of student-centered learning environments.
How I utilized this resource:
In the “Solution Map” of the Develop stage within the framework, I guide designers to consider two kinds of learning tasks: first through physical embodiment, followed by imagined embodiment. This approach ensures the effectiveness of the learning experience by leveraging both physical interaction and cognitive processing.
The Tangible Learning Design Framework offers a structured approach to designing Tangible User Interface (TUI) learning environments by focusing on five key elements: physical objects, digital objects, actions on objects, informational relations, and learning activities. This framework illustrates the interrelationships between these design elements, demonstrating how the design of a learning environment can influence learners' perception and actions.
Reference:
Antle, A. N., & Wise, A. F. (2013). Getting Down to Details: Using Theories of Cognition and Learning to Inform Tangible User Interface Design. Interacting with Computers,25(1), 1–20.
How I utilized this resource:
I integrated the five design elements from this framework into my framework, guiding designers to conceive and design these elements individually and then integrate them to realize the complete system.
This taxonomical framework described seven dimensions to categorize embodied educational games and simulations, along with corresponding design choices for each dimension.
Reference:
Melcer, E. F., & Isbister, K. (2021). Learningwith the Body. Chapman and Hall/CRC EBooks, 161–195.
How I utilized this resource:
This is a very insightful framework to describe interaction design for embodied learning, which contains both physical interaction with the designed learning environment and social interaction among people. I used the dimensions of physicality, mode of play, and environment in my framework.
SpEED reimagines accessibility in educational environments by applying the principles of embodied cognition. This approach focuses on adapting instructional methods to accommodate the diverse sensorimotor abilities of learners, particularly those with special needs. SpEED is built around three key parameters: media, modalities, and semiotic modes. This model illustrates the reciprocal relations among these parameters and how learners' perceptions and actions are realized through this loop.
Reference:
Tancredi, S., Chen, R., Krause, C., & Siu, Y.(2022). The Need for SpEED: Reimagining Accessibility through Special Education Embodied Design.
How I utilized this resource:
I used the SpEED model in the Develop stage to clarify the dynamic relationship between the learner, learning content, and design media. This model emphasizes leveraging learners' existing embodied resources and guides designers in creating media and instructional methods that align with learners' sensory modalities. I also provided a list of various modalities for designers to consider.
