CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 191Visual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesInteractive and Immersive DisplaysAugmented Reality Applications

Embodied science and mixed reality: How gesture and motion capture affect physics education

Open access
Johnson-Glenberg, Mina C., Megowan-Romanowicz, Colleen·2017·Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
DOI 10.1186/s41235-017-0060-9PMC PMC5442198
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

A mixed design was created using text and game-like multimedia to instruct in the content of physics. The study assessed which variables predicted learning gains after a 1-h lesson on the electric field. The three manipulated variables were: (1) level of embodiment; (2) level of active generativity; and (3) presence of story narrative. Two types of tests were administered: (1) a traditional text-based physics test answered with a keyboard; and (2) a more embodied, transfer test using the Wacom large tablet where learners could use gestures (long swipes) to create vectors and answers. The 166 participants were randomly assigned to four conditions: (1) symbols and text; (2) low embodied; (3) high embodied/active; or (4) high embodied/active with narrative. The last two conditions were active because the on-screen content could be manipulated with gross body gestures gathered via the Kinect sensor. Results demonstrated that the three groups that included embodiment learned significantly more than the symbols and text group on the traditional keyboard post-test. When knowledge was assessed with the Wacom tablet format that facilitated gestures, the two active gesture-based groups scored significantly higher. In addition, engagement scores were significantly higher for the two active embodied groups. The Wacom results suggest test sensitivity issues; the more embodied test revealed greater gains in learning for the more embodied conditions. We recommend that as more embodied learning comes to the fore, more sensitive tests that incorporate gesture be used to accurately assess learning. The predicted differences in engagement and learning for the condition with the graphically rich story narrative were not supported. We hypothesize that a narrative effect for motivation and learning may be difficult to uncover in a lab experiment where participants are primarily motivated by course credit. Several design principles for mediated and embodied science education are proposed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s41235-017-0060-9

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In Johnson-Glenberg and Megowan-Romanowicz (2017), when learners used full-body controls instead of low-interactivity keyboard controls during learning, their test performance was higher if they used a highly interactive test method involving a graphics tablet instead of a mouse.

    “When learners had used these full-body controls instead of low-interactivity keyboard controls during the learning phase of this study, their test performance was higher if they used a highly interactive test method involving a graphics tablet instead of a mouse.”

    From Understanding Cognitive Load in Digital and Online Learning: a New Perspective on Extraneous Cognitive Load (2022) · cites this paper as Johnson-Glenberg & Megowan-Romanowicz, 2017

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • For interactivity, a motion-based assessment type can be considered a well-aligned test type, since interactive controls may trigger procedural learning as a form of germane processing.

    “In the example of interactivity, a motion-based assessment type can be considered a well-aligned test type, since interactive controls may trigger procedural learning as a form of germane processing (Johnson-Glenberg & Megowan-Romanowicz, 2017).”

    From Understanding Cognitive Load in Digital and Online Learning: a New Perspective on Extraneous Cognitive Load (2022) · cites this paper as Johnson-Glenberg & Megowan-Romanowicz, 2017

    The Discussion’s “Test sensitivity” section reports that a gesture-facilitated Wacom assessment was more closely aligned with embodied learning and revealed greater gains than a keyboard test. The “Being active” section suggests that controlling content through congruent gestures may deepen learning, but the paper does not characterize this as procedural learning or germane processing. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. Abrahamson D Embodied design: Constructing means for constructing meaning Educational Studies of Mathematics 2009 70 27 47 10.1007/s10649-008-9137-1 · DOI
  2. Adams DM Mayer RE MacNamara A Koenig A Wainess R Narrative games for learning: Testing the discovery and narrative hypotheses Journal of Educational Psychology 2011 104 1 235 249 10.1037/a0025595 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Alibali MW Nathan MJ Embodiment in mathematics teaching and learning: Evidence from learners’ and teachers’ gestures Journal of the Learning Sciences 2012 21 2 247 286 10.1080/10508406.2011.611446 · DOI
  4. Barsalou LW Perceptual symbol systems Behavioral & Brain Sciences 1999 22 577 660 11301525
  5. Birchfield, D., & Johnson-Glenberg, M. C. (2012). A Next Gen Interface for Embodied Learning: SMALLab and the Geological Layer Cake. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations (Interdisciplinary Advancements in Gaming, Simulations and Virtual Environments: Emerging Trends), 2(1), 51–60.
  6. Brooks N Goldin-Meadow S Moving to Learn: How Guiding the Hands Can Set the Stage for Learning Cognitive Science 2016 40 7 1831 1849 10.1111/cogs.12292 26400648 · DOI
  7. Campos JJ Anderson DI Barbu-Roth MA Hubbard EM Hertenstein MJ Witherington D Travel broadens the mind Infancy 2000 1 2 149 219 10.1207/S15327078IN0102_1 32680291 · DOI
  8. Cook S Goldin-Meadow S The role of gesture in learning: do children use their hands to change their minds Journal of Cognition and Development 2006 7 2 211 232 10.1207/s15327647jcd0702_4 · DOI
  9. Day, B. D., Motz, B., & Goldstone, R. (2015). The cognitive costs of context: The effects of concreteness and immersiveness in instructional examples. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(1). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01876 PMC4665226 26648905 · DOI
  10. Dede, C., Jacobson, J., & Richards, J. (In Press). VR in Education. Eds. Chris Dede, Jeffrey Jacobson and Johnson Richards. Chapter 1. Springer- Verlag Heidelberg.
  11. Dunleavy M Design principles for augmented reality learning TechTrends 2014 58 1 28 34 10.1007/s11528-013-0717-2 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Dunleavy M Dede C Spector MDMJM Elen J Bishop MJ Augmented reality teaching and learning The Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology 2014 4 New York Springer 31
  13. Garner R Gillingham MG White CS Effects of ‘Seductive Details’ on macroprocessing and microprocessing in adults and children Cognition and Instruction 1989 6 1 41 57 10.1207/s1532690xci0601_2 · DOI
  14. Glenberg AM Calvo P Gomila A Embodiment for education Handbook of Cognitive Science: An Embodied Approach 2008 Amsterdam Elsevier 355 372
  15. Glenberg AM Kaschak MP Grounding language in action Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2002 9 3 558 565 10.3758/BF03196313 12412897 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Goldin-Meadow S Learning through gesture WIREs Cognitive Science 2011 2 595 607 10.1002/wcs.132 24187604 PMC3813017 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Goldstone R Landy D Son JY DeVega M Glenberg AM Graesser AC A well-grounded education: The role of perception in science and mathematics Symbols, Embodiement and Meaning: A Debate 2008 Cambridge, UK Oxford University Press
  18. Graesser AC Singer M Trabasso T Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension Psychological Review 1994 101 371 395 10.1037/0033-295X.101.3.371 7938337 · DOI
  19. Hauk O Johnsrude I Pulvermüller F Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex Neuron 2004 41 2 301 307 10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00838-9 14741110 · DOI
  20. Hestenes D Toward a modeling theory of physics instruction American Journal of Physics 1987 55 5 440 454 10.1119/1.15129 · DOI
  21. Hostetter AB Alibali MW Visible embodiment: Gestures as simulated action Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2008 15 495 514 10.3758/PBR.15.3.495 18567247 · DOI
  22. James, K. H., & Swain, S. N. (2011). Only self‐generated actions create sensori‐motor systems in the developing brain. Developmental science,14(4), 673–678. PMC4176697 21676088
  23. Jeannerod M Neural simulation of action: a unifying mechanism for motor cognition NeuroImage 2001 14 1 103 109 10.1006/nimg.2001.0832 11373140 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Johnson-Glenberg MC Birchfield D Koziupa T Tolentino L Collaborative embodied learning in mixed reality motion-capture environments: Two science studies Journal of Educational Psychology 2014 106 1 86 104 10.1037/a0034008 · DOI
  25. Johnson-Glenberg MC Megowan-Romanowicz MC Birchfield D Savio-Ramos C Effects of embodied learning and digital platform on the retention of physics content: Centripetal force Frontiers in Psychology 2016 7 1819 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01819 27933009 PMC5122822 · DOI
  26. Johnson-Glenberg, M. C., Savio-Ramos, C., Perkins, K. K., Moore, E. B., Lindgren, R., Clark, D., et al. (2014). Science Sims and Games: Best Design Practices and Fave Flops. Boulder: Paper presented at the The International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS).
  27. Johnson-Glenberg, M. C., Birchfield, D., Megowan-Romanowicz, M. 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). doi:10.1162/ijlm.2009.0017 · DOI
  28. Johnson-Glenberg, M. C., Birchfield, D., Megowan-Romanowicz, M. C., & Snow, E. L. (2015). If the gear fits, spin it! Embodied education and in-game assessments. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-based Simulations, 7(4), 40–65.
  29. Kang S Tversky B From hands to minds: Gestures promote understanding Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications 2016 1 4 28180155 PMC5256437
  30. Kersey, A. J., & James, K. H. (2013). Brain activation patterns resulting from learning letter forms through active self-production and passive observation in young children. Frontiers in Psychology, 23. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00567 PMC3780305 24069007 · DOI
  31. Koch SC Glawe S Holt DV Up and down, front and back: Movement and meaning in the vertical and sagittal axes Social Psychology 2011 42 3 214 224 10.1027/1864-9335/a000065 · DOI
  32. Koenig, A. (2008). Exploring effective educational video game design: The interplay between narrative and game -schema construction. (Ph.D.), Arizona State University. Retrieved from http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&res_dat=xri:pqdiss&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&rft_dat=xri:pqdiss:3303246. Accessed Aug 2016.
  33. Kontra C Lyons D Fischer S Beilock SL Physical experience enhances science learning Psychological Science 2015 26 737 749 10.1177/0956797615569355 25911125 · DOI
  34. Lindgren R Johnson-Glenberg MC Emboldened by embodiment: six precepts regarding the future of embodied learning and mixed reality technologies Educational Researcher 2013 42 8 445 452 10.3102/0013189X13511661 · DOI
  35. Lindgren R Tscholl M Wang S Johnson E Enhancing learning and engagement through embodied interaction within a mixed reality simulation Computers & Education 2016 95 174 187 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.01.001 · DOI
  36. Marsh T Xuejin C Li Z Osterweil S Klopfer E Haas J Fun and learning: the power of narrative 2011 Bordeaux Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Foundations of Digital Games
  37. Mayer RE Griffith E Jurkowitz ITN Rothman D Increased interestingness of extraneous details in a multimedia science presentation leads to decreased learning Journal of Experimental Psychology 2008 14 4 329 339 19102616
  38. Milgram P Kishino AF Taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays IEICE Trans. Information and Systems 1994 E77-D 12 1321 1329
  39. Nathan MJ Walkington C Boncoddo R Pier EL Williams CC Alibali MW Actions speak louder with words: The roles of action and pedagogical language for grounding mathematical reasoning Learning and Instruction 2014 33 182 193 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.07.001 · DOI
  40. Parmar, D., Isaac, J., Babu, S. V., D’ Souza, N., Leonard, A. E., Gundersen, K., & Daily, S. B. (2016). Programming moves: Design and evaluation of embodied interaction in virtual environments to enhance computational thinking in middle school students. IEEE Virtual Reality (VR), 131–140.
  41. Salen K Zimmerman E Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals 2004 Cambridge MIT Press
  42. Segal, A. (2011). Do Gestural Interfaces Promote Thinking? Embodied Interaction: Congruent Gestures and Direct Touch Promote Performance in Math (Dissertation). from ERIC. ISBN 978-1-1246-2610-9.
  43. Segal A Black J Tversky B Do Gestural Interfaces Promotoe Learning? Congruent Gestures Promote Performance in Math 2010 St. Louis Paper presented at the 51st Meeting of the Psychonomic Society Conference
  44. Slater M Spanlang B Corominas D Simulating virtual environments within virtual environments as the basis for a psychophysics of presence ACM Transactions on Graphics 2010 29 4 1 9 10.1145/1778765.1778829 · DOI
  45. Wilson M Six views of embodied cognition Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2003 9 4 625 636 10.3758/BF03196322 12613670 · DOI · Paper page
  46. Yoon SA Elinich K Wang J Steinmeier C Tucker S Using augmented reality and knowledge-building scaffolds to improve learning in a science museum Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 2012 7 519 541 10.1007/s11412-012-9156-x · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Johnson-Glenberg, M. C., & Megowan-Romanowicz, C.
ORCID
Megowan-Romanowicz, Colleen
Venue
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2017-05-24
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
24-24
ISSN
2365-7464 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s41235-017-0060-9
PMC
PMC5442198
OpenAlex
W2611629825
Cited by
191
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 3
FWCI
14.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Cognitive Research Principles and Implications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Arizona State University Library Digital Repository (Arizona State University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (102067)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Interactive and Immersive Displays
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Augmented Reality Applications
Keywords
embodied learning, mixed reality, gesture-based interaction, motion capture, physics education, electric field, narrative in learning, student engagement, learning assessment, Wacom tablet, Kinect sensor

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review