International Journal of School & Educational Psychology

ISSN: 2168-3603 (Print) 2168-3611 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/usep20

The role of embodied cognition for transforming

learning

Jennifer M. B. Fugate, Sheila L. Macrine & Christina Cipriano

To cite this article: Jennifer M. B. Fugate, Sheila L. Macrine & Christina Cipriano (2018): The
role of embodied cognition for transforming learning, International Journal of School & Educational
Psychology, DOI: 10.1080/21683603.2018.1443856

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2018.1443856

Published online: 01 Aug 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 4

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=usep20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCHOOL & EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2018.1443856

ARTICLE

The role of embodied cognition for transforming learning

a b a
Jennifer M. B. Fugate , Sheila L. Macrine , and Christina Cipriano
a
Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, North Dartmouth, Massachusetts, USA; bDepartment of STEM Education
and Teacher Development, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, North Dartmouth, Massachusetts, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Cognitive psychology has undergone a paradigm shift in the ways we understand how knowl- embodied cognition;
edge is acquired and represented within the brain, yet the implications for how this impacts embodied learning;
students’ learning of material across disciplines has yet to be fully applied. In this article, we classroom body-based
learning
present an integrative review of embodied cognition, and demonstrate how it differs from
previously held theories of knowledge that still influence the ways in which many subjects are
taught in the classroom. In doing so, we review the literature of embodied learning in the areas of
reading instruction, writing, physics, and math. In addition, we discuss how these studies can lead
to the development of new learning strategies that utilized the principles of embodied cognition.

Traditional theories of cognition emphasize the body as a The antecedents of embodied cognition in psychology
“passive” observer to the brain, and necessary only in the reach back to the work of William James (1884) and John
execution of motor actions. Moreover, such mental repre- Dewey (1925/1958). It was not until the pioneering per-
sentations within the brain are usual (if not always) ceptual work of James Gibson (1979), however, that psy-
abstractions of the original information (i.e., mental repre- chology understood that the brain has direct access to
sentations). Said another way, the body is seen as “serving action th rough distributed networks. According to
the mind” (cf. Leitan & Chaffey, 2014, p. 3). Theories of Gibson’s “ecological theory,” the environment provides
embodied cognition, on the other hand, suggest that numerous options to action, called “affordances” (Gibson,
information is grounded in both perception and action, 1979). The notion of affordance integrates perceptual, cog-
and that cognition is deeply dependent upon features of nitive, and motor functions, so that perceiving an object,
the physical body of an agent (e.g., Barsalou, 1999, 2008; conducting cognitive operations on it, and executing motor
see also Clark, 2008; Golonka & Wilson, 2012; Lakoff & actions with it cannot be considered as independent func-
Johnson, 1999; Pfeifer & Bongard, 2007; Shapiro, 2011; tions (Pellicano, Borghi, & Binkofski, 2017). Accordingly,
Willems & Francken, 2012; Winn, 2003; for varying the- action and perception are not seen as two separate entities.
ories of embodiment). Embodied cognition is being For example, in traditional views of cognition, think-
researched internationally in different fields. Outlined in ing about writing is fundamentally different from the
the fields of robotics and computer science (e.g., Arbib, action of writing itself, where thinking about writing
2006; Ziemke, 2002), linguistics (Lakoff, 2012), and phi- would activate knowledge from semantic memory (e.g.,
losophy (e.g., Chemero, 2009; Hutto & Myin, 2013; Noë, the symbolic storage of words, including feature lists)
2004; Shapiro, 2011; Ziemke, 2002), Krois and colleagues but not that involved in the actual motor movements
(2007) also mention the fields of art history, literature, associated with writing. As a result, such amodal the-
history of science, religious studies, biology, and neuro- ories provide the knowledge used in cognitive pro-
anthropology. Embodied cognition, argue Krois and col- cesses, but do not reflect the original sensorimotor
leagues (2007), has transformed the scientific study of states themselves (see Barsalou, 1999, 2003, 2008). In
intelligence and has the potential to reorient cultural terms of the brain, amodal descriptions are created
studies. This embodied cognition perspective demon- when the original content is translated into a new,
strates that cognition is grounded in bodily interactions symbolic format and stored in areas of the association
with the environment and culture, and that abstract con- cortex, clearly separate from the sensory and motor
cepts are tied to the body’s sensory and motor system cortices within the brain. Theories of embodied cogni-
(Leung, Qiu, Ong, & Tam, 2011). tion, on the other hand, propose that knowledge is
reenacted (i.e., simulated) through the perceptual and

CONTACT Jennifer M. B. Fugate [email protected]

© 2018 International School Psychology Association
2 J. M. B. FUGATE ET AL.

sensory systems (e.g., auditory, visual, motor, and learning in a variety of classroom content areas. In
somatosensory) such that thinking about an action doing this, we review demonstrations of embodied
will evoke the same visual stimuli, motor movement, learning strategies in the domains of reading, writing,
and tactile sensations that occur during the act itself physics, and math within the classroom. Ultimately, we
(Barsalou, 2003, 2008). The experience is captured by show how and why embodied approaches can lead to
the sensory and perceptual systems and can be later improved student learning and how they can be incor-
used to recreate (through simulation) the experience porated into existing curriculum.
without the actual stimulus (i.e., when just thinking
about the knowledge).1 Such simulations can be partial,
biased, and even occur without awareness (Barsalou, Methods
2003). Accordingly, any knowledge associated with a This paper utilizes an integrative review method that
concept is often represented by numerous simulations, allows for the combination of diverse methodologies
specific to individual instances or encounters with the (i.e., experimental and nonexperimental research), and
stimulus. As a result, no sole simulation gives a com- has the potential to play a greater role in evidence-
plete account of the entire concept, and multiple simu- based practice (Whittemore & Knalfl, 2005). Data col-
lations underlie any concept (Barsalou, 2003, 2008). lection involved keyword searches of electronic data-
While there are a number of theories of embodied bases, including PsycINFO, NCBI, PubMED,
cognition, they all share an emphasis on the body func- MEDLINE, EBM Reviews, and Google Scholar in
tioning as a “constituent of the mind” rather than second- October–November of 2016 and follow-up searches in
ary to it (cf. Leitan & Chaffey, 2014, p. 3; see also Shapiro, May–June of 2017. We used search terms that included
2007). Today, embodied cognition encompasses a loose- “embodied cognition,” “embodiment,” “embodied lan-
knit family of cognitive science research programs that guage,” “affordance,” “embodied mind,” and “embo-
often share a commitment to replacing traditional died learning.” Interestingly, a keyword search on
approaches to cognition and cognitive processing (R. Google Scholar using “embodied cognition” alone
Wilson & Foglia, 2017). In sum, these theories recognize revealed over twenty thousand books and articles pub-
a full range of perceptual, cognitive, and motor capacities lished since the year 2000. Part 1 of this review focuses
that are dependent upon features of the physical body. on empirical behavioral and neuroscientific evidence
That said, no single theory of embodied cognition for embodied cognition, mainly from psychology (out-
captures all the nuances of this idea, and there remain side the classroom). Part 2 focuses on demonstrations
no shortage of individual theories. In fact, some of embodied learning in the classroom in the content
researchers speculate up to six types of embodiment areas of reading, writing, physics, and math. Table 1
(see M. Wilson, 2002). Although there are many indivi- includes the empirical experiments referenced in Part 2.
dual views of embodied cognition, nearly all ascribe to Although the review focuses mainly on empirical stu-
two shared features: (a) Cognition involves the body and dies, we also included theoretical pieces and systematic
its interactions with the world, and (b) such interactions reviews describing processes and models for assessing
of the body with the world are represented in the brain educational research related to embodied cognition.
in a nonabstracted sense (e.g., Barsalou, 1999, 2008;
Lakoff & Johnson, 1999; for reviews see also Borghi &
Caruana, 2015; Shapiro, 2011; L. B. Smith, 2005). While Part 1: Theories of embodied cognition
the ideas of embodied cognition (sometimes also called Embodied cognition has gained much traction over the
“grounded cognition”) are becoming more accepted in past 20 years and is supported by numerous empirical
the fields of cognitive psychology and neuroscience, the research at the behavioral and neurological levels. Here
implications of what this means for how individuals best we highlight in brief some of the key demonstrations of
learn in formal settings such as the classroom (and also embodied cognition in concept understanding and
for how teachers teach) are less explored. reading, but refer the reader to extensive reviews for
The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, we review more in-depth understanding in each of these areas
the significant behavioral and neuroscientific findings (e.g., Barsalou, 2008; Glenberg & Kaschak, 2002). The
of embodied cognition from the laboratory. Second, we goal is not to provide a comprehensive review of
detail how embodied learning strategies make use of demonstrations of embodiment but rather to provide
embodied cognitive principles to improve student readers, who may be unfamiliar with embodied
1
In some theories of embodied cognition, simulation refers only to the motor system, whereas simulation of the other systems
amounts to “mental imagery” (e.g., Jeannerod, 2006; Decety & Grèzes, 2006).
Table 1. Empirical studies reviewed in Part II of paper.
Authors Year Area Sample Procedure Significant effects/Statistic value
Glenberg, et al., 2004 Reading 25 first and second Participants simulated the meaning of a sentence by either Participants who manipulated toys had better free recall, p = .004 and
(Study 1 & 3) graders (Study 1); 25 first manipulated toys (Study 1) or imagining manipulating them (Study 3) cued recall, p = .001 (Study 1) and better recall, p = .005
and second graders to simulate meaning of the sentence or reread the sentences (control). free recall only (Study 3) vs. control participants.
(Study 3)
Glenberg, 2011 Reading 53 first and second Participants manipulated toys physically (PM condition) or electronically Participants in both simulation conditions had higher comprehension
Goldberg, et al. graders toys (on a computer screen; CM condition) to simulate the meaning of scores of familiar sentences vs. control participants, p = .01 (CM),
the sentence, or reread sentences (control); multiple session training; p = .05 (PM).
Moved by Reading Technique.
Glenberg, 2011 Reading 97 third and fourth Participants physically manipulated sentences, then imagined Participants in the physical/imagined condition solved more problems
Willford al. graders manipulating sentences or reread sentences (control); Moved by correctly, had greater proportion of correct solution procedures, and
Reading Technique. included less irrelevant information vs. controlparticipants, all ps < .05.
Marley et al. 2007 Listening 45 third through seventh Participants listened to narratives in which they manipulated the action, Participants in the manipulate and visual conditions had better cued
Comprehension graders with learning observed the action (visual), or thought about the action (control). recall, p < .05, and better free recall, p < .05, vs. control participants, all
difficulties ps < .05.
James & 2012 Handwriting 15 children, four-yr and Participants trained in typing, tracing, or writing letters; fMRI when Participants; trained to handwrite letters showed a greater activation
Engelhardt five-yr-old children shown those letters. of their left posterior and their left anterior fusiform gyrus when
viewing letters that they trained on vs. those who traced or typed
those letters, p < .001.
Kiefer et al. 2015 Handwriting 23 five-yr-old children Participants engaged in handwritten or typed letter training. Participants in the handwriting condition showed improved letter
recognition (p < .0003), and improved letter naming (p < .001) vs. the
typing condition.
Longcamp et al. 2005 Handwriting 13 adults Participants shown single letters, single pseudoletters, or a control Participants showed more activation in motor areas of the brain when
stimulus while being analyzed by fMRI. viewing letters and pseudoletters vs. when viewing control stimuli, p <
.001.
Longcamp et al. 2005 Handwriting 76 children, three- Participants either learned letters by typing or writing. Participants who learned the letters by writing had more correct
andfive-yr olds responses in letter recognition tests vs. those who learned by typing in
the older children, p < .02.
Longcamp, et al. 2006 Handwriting 12 adults, mean age 25 Participants learned 10 unknown characters in a period of 3 weeks, Participants in group who wrote the characters had a better ability to
either by typing the characters or by physically writing them. discriminate between correct and incorrectly oriented characters after
training vs. those who typed, p < .001.
Mueller & 2014 Handwriting 67 undergraduate Participants given TED Talks to watch and instructed to take notes on Participants who took notes with a laptop performed significantly
Oppenheimer * students them using their normal note-taking strategy (either with a laptop or worse on conceptual questions vs. those who took handwritten notes,
with a notebook). p = .03.
Peverly et al. * 2013 Handwriting 70 undergraduate Participants’ notes analyzed after watching a videotaped lecture. The quality of the participants’ handwritten notes was correlated with
students sustained attention, p < .01, and written recall, p = .01.
Chao et al. * 2013 Gesture 32 adults Participants assigned into either an action-based (performance) or a Participants in the action-based condition had better free recall of
computer-based condition (repeated learning) to memorize phrases. learned phrases vs. repeated learning condition, p = .003.
Hwang et al. * 2014 Gesture 39 tenth graders Participants taught vocabulary words either in a body interactive Participants in the body interactive mechanism condition had better
mechanism teaching condition or through a computer program free recall of phrases vs. control group, p < .05.
(control). Participants in the experimental condition had better retention for the
words vs. the control group on follow, p < .05.
Macedonia & 2014 Gesture 29 German Participants learned words either by A-V (read, heard, and spoke) or Participants in the gesture condition improved vocabulary learning
Klimesch * undergraduate students gesture (with an accompanying gesture). over time vs. A-V condition, p < .001.
Rauscher et al. * 1996 Gesture 41 undergraduate Participants described spatial information (or non-spatial) with gesture Participants who were prevented from gesturing had less fluent
students allowed or gesture prevented. speech for spatial information only vs. those allowed to gesture,
p < .001.
Johnson- 2017 Physics 166 undergraduate Participants either assigned to text or game-like multimedia instruction Participants had greater learning in “high embodied” conditions
Glenberg & Psychology students (high or low embodiment) of physics; Kinect Sensor; 1 hr learning; pre– vs.“low/text” conditions, p < .05, and higher engagement for “high
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCHOOL & EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

Megowan- post. embodiment” conditions vs. “low/text” conditions, p < .001.

Romanowicz *
(Continued )
3
 4

Table 1. (Continued).
Authors Year Area Sample Procedure Significant effects/Statistic value
Johnson- 2016 Physics 109 undergraduate Participants learned about centripetal force either through high or low Participants in all conditions improved in declarative knowledge pre–
J. M. B. FUGATE ET AL.

Glenberg et al. Psychology students embodied condition on one of three learning platforms (SMALLab, post, ps < .001. High embodiment conditions vs. low embodiment had
Whiteboard, desktop); pre–post & follow-up. higher generative knowledge on follow-up, p = .03 (interaction term)
Kontra, et al. 2015 Physics 44 (Study 1); 36 (Study 2) Participants assigned in pairs (one active and one observed) to learn Participants only in active group improved pre–post, p = .006 (Study
(Study 1 & 2) undergraduate students about angular momentum; pre–post. 1); p = .031 (Study 2).
Kontra, et al. 2015 Physics 35 college-age students Participants assigned to either active or observed condition of angular Participants in active group improved more than observed group pre–
(Study 3) momentum while undergoing fMRI; pre–post. post, p = .049. Activation in L M1/S1 predicted performance gain for
either group, p = .009.
Badets and 2010 Math 160 undergraduate Participants shown large or small numbers with congruent or Participants took longer to respond to small numbers with an
Pesenti students incongruent hand grip. incongruent grip, p < .001. Participants also took longer to respond to
large numbers with an incongruent grip, p < .02.
Berteletti and 2015 Math 40 children 8–13 yrs old Participants solved small and large math tasks; behavioral and fMRI. Participants performed more slowly and less accurately on larger tasks
Booth vs. smaller, p < .001. More complex tasks were correlated with greater
activation of motor regions in the brain, p < .05.
Broaders, et al., 2007 Math 106 third and fourth Participants divided into 3 groups and asked to solve and explain math Participants told to gesture while giving their own explainations solved
(Study 1) graders problems on a chalkboard, either with or without gesturing while more math problems correctly post vs. those who did not gesture, p <
explaining their results. .04. Participants who added gesture had better post-test performance,
p < .03.
Broaders, et al., 2007 Math 70 third and fourth Participants divided into groups and asked to solve math problems on Participants told to gesture while giving their own explanations solved
(Study 2) * graders chalkboard (as in Study 1), but allowed to supplement gestures to see more math problems correctly on their posttest vs. students who did
whether increased problem knowledge. not gesture during their explanation, p < .04.
Di Luca et al. 2006 Math 122 undergraduate Participants trained finger-digit mapping based on Arabic numbers 0–9. Participants who were trained in finger-digit mappings that were
students Either assigned training comparable with global SNARC orientation SNARC-congruent mappings were faster with their responses vs. those
(small numbers on left and larger numbers on right hand) or opposite trained in SNARC-incongruent mappings, p < . 001.
orientation.
Domahs, et al. 2007 Math 137 children Participants tested individually on simple and complex math tasks for Participants showed a greater amount of split-five errors compared to
(approximately 7 yrs old) number of split-five errors common for finger counting; longitudinal other errors for complex math tasks, ps < .01.
study.
Martin & 2005 Math 32 children, between 9 Participants filmed solving problems with physical pie wedges or Participants in physical manipulate-condition were more likely to try
Schwartz * and 10-yrs old pictorially. several strategies and were more accurate vs. drawing-condition,
ps < 001.
Srinivasan et al. * 2016 Special 36 ASD children, ASD children assigned to either whole-body rhythm (e.g., imitation, and Participants in the whole-body rhythm showed higher social bids (total
Populations– between 5 and12-yrs old movement based on rhythm, melody, and phrasing), robotic (e.g., word count) after intervention vs. other conditions, p < .03. Robotic
ASD samebut with robots), or standard (tabletop) therapies; pre–post. group vs. other conditions showed more greater self-directed
vocalization vs. other conditions, ps = .001. No difference between
conditions post on the joint attention task (JTAT).
“Empirical evidence not referenced in text, but in which readers might be interested.”
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCHOOL & EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 5

cognition, with empirical support from specific areas in Evidence for embodied language
psychology that have significance for embodied learn-
A large number of empirical studies suggest that part of
ing in the classroom.
a person’s ability to comprehend language involves his
or her ability to simulate the action involved in the
meaning. In one study, participants were faster to
Evidence for embodied concepts advance sentences presented as a narrative on a com-
puter screen when the action in the sentence matched
Embodied theories of cognition often suggest that the action needed to move the text forward (Zwaan &
concepts are understood via sensorimotor simula- Taylor, 2006). For example, participants who turned a
tions (Borghi & Pecher, 2011). Feature verification knob counterclockwise to advance the sentence, “When
paradigms are often used to test one’s understanding he walked into the room, John turned down the radio,”
of a concept. For example, a participant is asked did so faster than those who were asked to turn the
whether a certain physical property is characteristic knob clockwise (Zwaan & Taylor, 2006). Therefore,
or diagnostic of a group (i.e., Do birds have wings?). movements of the body congruent to the written con-
In one classic study of image scaling, participants tent facilitated reading. According to the Indexical
were slower to verify that a cat has eyes when the Hypothesis (Glenberg, 1999), these experiential compo-
cat was imagined next to an elephant, but faster to do nents are crucial for language comprehension.
so when it was imagined next to a flea (Kosslyn, Therefore, understanding language consists of indexing
1975). This classic finding suggests that a judgment words to perceptual symbols, deriving affordances (or
about size of an imagined object relies on the actual structural relations) from those symbols, and meshing
size of the object as experienced (at least as ima- those affordances to create a simulation of the
gined) by the visual system. If real-world size was described situation (Glenberg & Robertson, 1999; see
not a part of the concept itself (as predicted by a Kaschak & Jones, 2014, for a review).
traditional view), then manipulating the relative size Neuroimaging studies are also consistent with embo-
of the cat in one’s mind would have no bearing on died language comprehension. For example, partici-
the speed that participants can use that information. pants who read or listened to words or phrases of
Likewise, when participants read text that mentioned words about specific bodily actions showed activation
birds in flight, they were faster at recognizing a within the brain consistent with moving that part of the
picture of a bird with its wings outstretched than a body. To illustrate, participants who simply read an
picture of the same bird with its wings folded action word (e.g., kick) showed strikingly similar acti-
(Zwaan, Stanfield, & Yaxley, 2002). The results vation of the region of the motor cortex dedicated to
demonstrated that new information can be verified moving one’s foot as those who actually kicked their leg
by simulating previous knowledge that bears some while in the scanner (Hauk, Johnsrude, & Pulvermüller,
resemblance. 2004; for additional examples, see Aziz-Zadeh &
Other evidence of embodied concepts comes from Damasio, 2008; Tettamanti et al., 2005).
neuroscientific inquiries. For instance, when people are Even the rules of syntax can be embodied. For exam-
asked about objects, they often imagine the use or ple, Glenberg and Gallese (2012) propose that syntax
function of that object (i.e., “action features”). To sup- emerges from action control of the body. They believe
port this supposition, participants who viewed pictures that the motor system is functionally organized in terms
of tools while undergoing neuroimaging showed activa- of goal-directed actions (e.g., Rochat et al., 2010), not just
tion in the parts of the brain that are involved in motor actions, such that the brain uses contextually
movement (e.g., motor cortex; Martin, 2007). appropriate action to solve syntactical meaning. In early
Therefore, when participants thought about tools, they language acquisition, a child’s syntactical knowledge is
thought about physically manipulating them as if they limited by the syntactic constructions he or she has
were actually using them (Grèzes, Tucker, Armony, experienced, and therefore is not likely to be the same as
Ellis, & Passingham, 2003; Tucker & Ellis, 1998). an adult’s. Said another way, the ability to generalize and
Patients with naturally occurring lesions to the motor integrate individual tokens into types is limited by what
cortex were found to be selectively impaired for con- the child has experienced or witnessed so far in life. As a
ceptual processing of action-related verbs, but not child experiences more action outcomes, the outcomes
nouns (which typically do not activate action features; are incorporated into the system and eventually become
see Martin, 2007). more heavily weighted in further simulations.
6 J. M. B. FUGATE ET AL.

We believe that the more the initial information with developmental psychological research on the
engages the sensory and motor cortices, the richer the acquisition of language. Many studies show that lan-
simulation, and ultimately the better the recall and use guage (e.g., words) can serve as a placeholder to
of the material. For example, imagine that a child first teach category members (Xu, Cote, & Baker, 2005),
learns about an airplane when someone points to one and that words facilitate learning new categories
in the sky and labels it. The child encodes the richness (Lupyan, Rakison, & McClelland, 2007). Therefore,
of the visual experience, the movement associated with a word, through its phonetic form, can bind together
looking upward, the sounds the airplane makes, as well individualized action outcomes into a meaningful
as the sound the person makes to label it. These category representation. Said another way, individual
“experiential traces” are later reactivated when acces- tokens are thereby linked into cohesive types (con-
sing the category “airplane.” Fundamentally, these cepts) through words. For a similar view, see the
traces bear a resemblance to the perceptual and action language-as-context hypothesis, which suggests that
processes that generated them (Barsalou, 1999). As a words provide an internal context that helps con-
result, the more initial input into the experience, the strain the flow of information (see Barrett, 2009).
richer the later simulation. Similarly, other theories suggest that words are an
One common criticism of many embodied theories of effective means of propagating neural activity because
language is that they are ill-equipped to deal with abstract they can activate a distributed representation of
information (Zwaan & Madden, 2005; see also Borghi & related content that can be assigned to multiple cate-
Caruana, 2015). Several criticisms of EC have been noted, gories depending on context and goal-relevancy (see
including that the theories offer nothing new, or are Lupyan & Clark, 2015).
unfalsifiable (Mahon, 2015). In that context, some Both of these views represent a modern-day
researchers have tried to suggest that embodied and tradi- Whorfian hypothesis for how language affects
tional theories are no longer dichotomous and that there thought. To this end, words within a language set
is room for both. Specifically, Mahon believes that there is the stage for what will become meaningful concepts,
a middle ground that combines the two perspectives, such which in turn enable the simulations underlying cog-
that sensory and motor information may instantiate nitive thought. Said another way, the structural
online abstract and symbolic processing (Mahon & aspects of any language produce a tangible grounding
Caramazza, 2008). However, several approaches to this of embodied experiences to produce unified cate-
problem have been introduced. One such solution is that gories in the brain, where the contents of these cate-
abstract representations are created from concrete repre- gories can then, in turn, be accessed by words. The
sentations by way of metaphorical extension (Gallese & greater the number and precision of words that are
Lakoff, 2005; Lakoff, 1987, 2012; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). linked to the category, the more likely words can be
Lakoff extensively documented the use of metaphoric used as analogical mapping tools to further ground
language to ground spatial and body-centric metaphors abstract categories. In this sense, words are not only
in concrete representations (e.g., “life is a journey,” “in human inventions; they are also inventors of new
over one’s head”; see Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). Therefore, connections. Therefore, in a language that has no
the function for such extensive use of metaphors in word or few words to label an experience, informa-
English, as well as other languages, is not only to com- tion will be represented and stored differently com-
municate such abstract concepts but also to provide a pared to a language that has many words to describe
tangible “grounding” to the body and to the physical and make meaningful the same experience.
world. It is likely that some sensory and motor involve- While we believe that language (including indivi-
ments led to better metaphoric extension than others. dual words) is often embodied, we are not suggesting
Once new action outcomes are acquired, they are that language is always so. Likewise, we do not
unified into a category by application of the same believe that all embodied instances are anchored by
label or word. Such a label or word can serve as an words: those that afford direct action may be stored
anchor to later simulate the initial action. As a result, in absence of semantic networks. Thus, even in the
as multiple tokens and experiences with the word absence of linguistic mapping, some action outcomes
build up within the brain, the word alone can come can still be simulated, but only when the context of
to serve as the catalyst of the simulation. This view is that initial action is replicated with near-perfect fide-
similar to that proposed by Borghi and colleagues, in lity. Similar ideas have been put forth by “hybrid”
which words serve as “social tools” (Borghi & approaches to conceptual processing (Barsalou,
Binkofski, 2014; Borghi, Scorolli, Caligiore, Santos, Simmons, & Wilson, 2008; Connell &
Baldassarre, & Tummolini, 2013). It is also consistent Lynnot, 2013; Louwerse, 2011; see reviews by
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCHOOL & EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 7

Andrews, Frank, Vigliocco, 2014).2 According to processes occur has not been well defined. Embodied
some of these hybrid views, meaning can occur cognition is relevant to these pedagogical ideas and
through embodied simulations, but also through offers potentially useful tools for educators. Some edu-
more “shallow” processing, which does not require cators, however, argue that perceptually rich practices
embodiment, but rather draws upon distributed lin- are not optimal and may even be detrimental (e.g.,
guistic shortcuts. Finkelstein et al., 2005; Pouw, Van Gog, & Paas,
2014). While embodied cognition is one theory for
understanding learning, we acknowledge that some
Summary information might be better acquired through other
In part one of this paper, we identified how psychology approaches. The purpose of this paper, however, is to
has undergone a paradigm shift in understanding the highlight embodied cognitive strategies in classroom
workings of the brain. Rather than knowledge being learning.
recoded and removed from the initial sensory and
motor experience, embodied cognition posits that the
brain simulates these details when recalling and using Reading and instruction
the knowledge garnered through that experience. The Indexical Hypothesis, introduced in Part 1, sug-
Therefore, the richer and more nuanced the encoding, gests that language is learned and understood by evok-
the richer and more nuanced the simulation of that ing the sensorimotor systems to simulate the situation
information will be (i.e., in the use or recall of that or the intention of the action described by the language
information). Individual words within a language are (Glenberg & Robertson, 1999; Glenberg & Gallese,
often mapped to embodied instances and set the stage 2012; Kaschak & Glenberg, 2000; see Kaschak &
for the category learning. As a result, words come to Jones, 2014). Therefore, according to an embodied
serve as shortcuts in the later simulation of those learning view, physically moving or engaging the body
instances. Language can also help ground abstract and senses in ways that are congruent with the actions
information through linguistic metaphor. of the situation and what the situation affords should
enhance beginning reading instruction.
Glenberg and colleagues created the Moved by
Part II: The embodied cognition classroom
Reading approach that incorporates embodied learning
Embodied learning as an extension of embodied cogni- in children’s reading comprehension and teaches simu-
tion is at odds with traditional views of cognition that are lation or “acting-out” reading in two stages (Glenberg,
described in Part 1. Many educators have noted the effec- Goldberg, & Zhu, 2011). In the first stage, called physical
tiveness of body-based learning in the classroom, yet manipulation, children manipulate toys to simulate the
among teachers there is often confusion as to why these story they are reading. The approach is meant to
strategies are effective and how they relate to embodied increase comprehension by indexing the major content
cognition. In addition, there is often confusion between words to images or objects, on a word-by-word basis
embodied learning and technology-based learning. While that does not require understanding the full sentence. It
there are many embodied learning strategies that make also does so by constraining the objects the words index.
use of technology (some which we review below), simply After a child succeeds in this stage, they can transition
having students use technology or move their bodies does relatively easily to the imagined manipulation stage.
not constitute embodied learning. Now children can imagine or mentally simulate doing
Theories of experiential and hands-on learning have these actions themselves while they read. Glenberg and
been around for more than a century, describing pro- colleagues showed that first and second graders who
cesses that drive learning (Dewey, 1925/1958; Kolb, underwent this approach recalled 33% more information
2014). For example, the Montessori (1966) learning (compared to those who had toys or objects present but
approach emphasizes independence, freedom within were not allowed to manipulate them; Glenberg,
limits, hands-on learning, and respect for a child’s Gutierrez, Levin, Japuntich, & Kaschak, 2004). In a
natural psychological, physical, and social development. Web-based follow-up study, children manipulated the
Yet, the specific mechanism through which these objects or images on a computer screen rather than
2
More radical views of embodied cognition completely reject the idea of representations of any kind within the brain, such that
cognition is considered a dynamical system in which continuously changing variables are interdependent on one another for
meaning (see Spivey, 2007; Borghi & Caruana, 2015 for a review). In these views, since there are no mental representations,
reenactment of them becomes impossible.
8 J. M. B. FUGATE ET AL.

directly hands-on (Glenberg, Goldberg, & Zhu, 2011; suggest that future empirical studies test this notion
Glenberg, Willford, Gibson, Goldberg, & Zhu, 2011). specifically.
They reported a similar-sized effect to the original Other studies support this idea as well. Physically writ-
study. Importantly, the effect transferred to other genres, ing letters and words prompt students to be more
as well (e.g., mathematical problem stories), demonstrat- thoughtful and engaged, improving their written commu-
ing that this approach can be applied across domains nication and improving later reading comprehension
and tasks. More intriguingly, this approach seems to be (James & Engelhardt, 2012). In addition, the National
effective with students with learning differences. One Early Literacy Panel (2008) identified handwriting as a
study, utilizing this approach, found that children with predictor of later reading ability and general learning
learning disabilities had better free and cued recall for abilities, even after controlling for IQ and socioeconomic
propositions, objects, and actions than those in the con- status (see Graham & Santangelo, 2012, for a meta-ana-
trol condition (where children simply listened to the lysis). Further, both preschool children and adults show
experimenter and were instructed to think about each better letter recognition when learning to write letters by
sentence; Marley, Levin, & Glenberg, 2007). hand rather than by typing them (Longcamp, Anton,
Glenberg’s (2011) findings also support the decades- Roth, & Velay, 2003; Longcamp, Zerbato-Poudou, &
old multisensory–multimodal approaches to reading Velay, 2005). The same stored motor programs in the
remediation particularly suggested for students with brain used for handwriting are activated when simply
learning disabilities. In 1943, Dr. Grace Fernald devel- reading letters (Longcamp et al., 2003). These findings
oped a multisensory intervention called the Fernald provide a close functional relationship between reading
Method of VAKT—Visual, Auditory, Kinesthetic and and handwriting movements (see James & Engelhardt,
Tactile. Today’s VAKT continues as a successful and 2012). In another study, participants who learned new
prescribed reading intervention for students with learn- characters by copying them by hand (compared to typing
ing disabilities and cognitive challenges. This approach them on a keyboard) made fewer mistakes about the
uses a combination of verbal and auditory input, while at orientation of letters later on. Specifically, they were less
the same time tactically tracing the letters on the back of likely to confuse mirror images of the characters for the
the student or on sandpaper to make a “kinesthetic correct ones (Longcamp, Boucard, Gilhodes, & Velay,
imprint on the brain” (Fernald, 1943). In Fernald’s 2006). Therefore, the ability to remember correctly was
time, it was unclear why this approach worked well facilitated by the specificity of the movements associated
and more so than other methods. Today, however, we with learning them.
can attribute the method’s success to the principles Taken together, these studies demonstrate that hand-
underlying embodied cognition. Specifically, this writing is critical to setting the foundations for learning
includes the idea that perceptual simulations in modal- to read and to understand information at a higher level.
ity-specific systems underlie conceptual processing. These findings come on the heels of a rigorous effort of
many school districts to remove writing (namely, cur-
sive) from the curriculum. Many schools view cursive as
Writing
a long-lost art, replaceable by typing electronically. We
Kiefer and colleagues (2015) examined whether handwrit- argue that nothing is further from the truth.
ing and reading comprehension differed in children who Handwriting (i.e., the physical and tactile act of moving
engaged mainly in modes of digital writing (e.g., compu- one’s pen) provides more stimulation and precision for
ters, tablet PCs, or mobile phones) compared to physical the brain to capture—and therefore recall—than any
writing (Kiefer et al., 2015). They found that physically keystroke associated with typing. Some state administra-
writing improved the processes of letter recognition, nam- tors, who originally dropped handwriting, have now
ing, and composition, and increased reading comprehen- reinstated handwriting and cursive instruction into
sion. They argued that physically writing linked the form to their curriculum (Hochman & MacDermott-Duffy,
the concept, which promoted the mental representation 2015) Writing, whether print or cursive, provides a
needed to write and comprehend language at a higher, range of individualized movements associated with
more symbolic level (see also Kiefer & Trumpp, 2012). each letter. This specificity has a fuller, more nuanced
Specifically, we suggest that the benefit comes from the representation in the brain for this information.
embodied nature of the information acquisition.
Handwriting, compared to typing, requires increased
Math and physics
motor movements. These increased movements provide
a richer encoding of the information, which allows a better Embodied learning has been shown to be effective in
representation from which they can later draw. We advancing students’ STEM achievement, particularly
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCHOOL & EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 9

mathematics (e.g., Clements, 2000; Martin & Schwartz, learn about compound probability problems through
2005). Historically, finger-counting was disapproved of embodied games. The project uses both traditional
within formal education and shamed by the public media (marbles, cards, crayons) and computer-based
(Moeller, Martignon, Wessolowski, Engel, & Nuerk, modules (NetLogo simulations), which allow students
2011). Current evidence, however, suggests that both to work off their basic intuitions to establish mathema-
hand and finger representations positively influence tical models. As part of the project, students often learn
children’s and adults’ numerical processing (Badets & how their preanalytic judgments are incorrect. The idea
Pesenti, 2010; Di Luca & Pesenti, 2008; Domahs, is that students will modify their erroneous theory in
Krinzinger, & Willmes, 2008). For example, when the face of empirical evidence that contradicts their
8–12-year-old students are given complex subtraction inferences (Abrahamson, 2012). With this hands-on
problems to solve without using their fingers, there is approach of bridging informal and formal visualiza-
still increased activation in the somatosensory area of tions of probability experiments, students in Grades
the brain that is normally activated by tactile sensations 4–6 show better abilities to predict probabilities
(e.g., using the fingers to count) (Berteletti & Booth, (Abrahamson, 2012).
2015). Interestingly, the more complex the math pro- In another applied-math learning project called the
blem (i.e., subtraction), the more activation of the Kinemathics project, students (Grades 4–6) move their
somatosensory area of the brain. In a math meta-ana- arms in proportional distances to measurements of
lysis of children ages 7–11 years, instruction involving similar magnitude displayed on a screen
concrete manipulatives provided children with the (Abrahamson, Trninic, Gutiérrez, Huth, & Lee, 2011).
most benefit. Older children benefited less than Correct answers make a screen turn green, and incor-
younger children, however, a finding that can be partly rect make the screen turn red. Using this embodied
explained by their increased ability to reason abstractly learning strategy, students mainly engaged in trial and
(Carbonneau, Marley, & Selig, 2013). error to learn the rules underlying the relationship.
Other demonstrations show that the better knowl- Qualitative data suggest that students who learned
edge of one’s fingers is in the first grade, the better the through this strategy were more productive in their
number comparison and estimation in the second problem solving (Abrahamson et al., 2011).
grade (Boaler & Chen, 2016). Such knowledge even Outside of math, there are emerging applications for
predicts students’ calculus scores in college (Berteletti effective embodied learning strategies in the STEM
& Booth, 2015; see also Penner-Wilger & Anderson, fields. One successful example with college-aged stu-
2013). Finally, when students are told to use gestures dents comes from physics (Kontra, Lyons, Fischer, &
when solving math problems (including finger count- Beilock, 2015). Students were tested on their knowledge
ing), they produce new and novel insights into problem about angular momentum after actually feeling forces
solving, as well as benefiting more from formal instruc- (by spinning a wheel) or watching someone else per-
tion compared to those students who do not gesture form the same action. Brief exposure to actually feeling
(Broaders, Cook, Mitchell, & Goldin-Meadow, 2007). the force (the embodied manipulation) improved quiz
This suggests that finger-based numerical representa- scores by approximately 10% (Kontra et al., 2015,
tions are beneficial for later numerical development, Experiment 1). Moreover, when these students under-
and that children might build upon concrete structured went neuroimaging, the activation in the sensorimotor
representations to learn mental representations cortices predicted the improvement and understanding
(Moeller et al., 2011). Furthermore, embodied mathe- of the properties associated with angular momentum.
matical cognition is thought to broaden the range of In one specialized application, Abrahamson and
activities and emerging technologies that count as Lindgren (2014) developed MEteor, an interactive MR
mathematical, and helps students to envision alterna- simulation that uses a laser and floor-projected imagery
tive forms of engagement with mathematical ideas (e.g., to help middle-schoolers develop ideas about how
De Freitas & Sinclair, 2014). Here cultural influences on objects move through space. In this application, a stu-
the representation of numbers come into play: Finger- dent becomes an asteroid by attaching himself to a digital
based counting and other body-based counting is per- asteroid that is launched into a simulated outer space
formed differently in different cultures (e.g., Liutsko, where other objects affect the asteroid’s movement. The
Veraksa, & Yakupova, 2017; Selin, 2001), resulting in student must move his or her body to move the digital
different embodied representations of numbers within asteroid around objects that are coming toward him or
the brain. her. This requires learning about formal concepts such
The Seeing Change Project brings these ideas to life as gravitational acceleration and mass. In one evaluation
in the classroom (Abrahamson, 2012). Here, students of the technology, students improved their performance
10 J. M. B. FUGATE ET AL.

by 76% on the second trial compared with 51% for those differently within the brains of different individuals since
who used the simulation without bodily cues (as their perceptual and motor systems will have a different set
reported in Abrahamson & Lindgren, 2014). of experiences that inform the current. Second, the repre-
In another study, college students engaged in one of sentation of this information will be different for different
three different simulated conditions to learn about centri- cultures, which have different priorities, rules, words, and
petal force (Johnson-Glenberg, Megowan-Romanowicz, linguistic metaphors to explain the world around them. To
Birchfield, & Savio-Ramos, 2016). Each had a low and illustrate: Consider that Westerners tend to adopt a first-
high embodied condition, in which the “high embodied” person perspective in which social interactions are often
condition had students physically move their bodies to referenced from an egocentric point of view, whereas
examine the construct. The “low embodied” condition Easterners tend to adopt a third-person point of view (cf.
replaced the individual activities with button pushes depict- Leung et al., 2011). European Americans tend to describe
ing the same information. Students’ learning of the lesson actions as going toward others, whereas Asian Americans
was significantly better across all “high embodiment” con- are more likely to describe action as coming toward them
ditions compared to the “low embodiment” condition. (Leung & Cohen, 2007). The body will not only represent
Moreover, only students in the “high embodiment” condi- the action differently in each case, but also such metaphors
tion maintained their knowledge after one week (Johnson- will further affect the representation and understanding of
Glenberg et al., 2016). These demonstrations show the this information.
value of physical experience in science learning, and lead Wilson (2010) calls the effects of culture on cogni-
the way for classroom practices where movement with the tive thought cognitive retooling, in which an individual’s
physical world is an integral part of learning. cultural knowledge and experiences not only shape (in
We recommend that students in the STEM fields development) but also reshape his or her cognitive
engage in various learning modalities that utilize multi- system over their lifetime. Kövecses (2002) describes
ple sensory and motor domains. These could include this idea eloquently when he writes: “Social construc-
project-based learning and haptic technology (e.g., tions are given bodily basis and bodily motivation is
touch-screen tablet displays with feedback in visual and given social-cultural substance” (p. 14).
auditory domains). Other potentially beneficial haptic
technologies might include new motion-tracking tech-
nologies, augmented reality, and gesture recognition.
Summary and significance for designing
These instructional strategies can be adapted and gen-
embodied curriculum
eralized to support young children’s and older students’ In this paper, we reviewed how embodied cognition
science and mathematics learning in the classroom. differs from traditional theories of cognitive function-
ing, while summarizing some of the key empirical
laboratory-based demonstrations in concept learning
Importance of cross-cultural considerations in
and reading. We also showed how these principles
embodied cognition and learning
can be applied in the classroom to facilitate learning
An embodied cognition approach can help educators to in the fields of reading, writing, math, and physics.
rethink their pedagogy and consider ways of learning that Specifically, we proposed that the more nuanced the
are inclusive of both individual and cultural perspectives encoding (including the more the senses and the body
(Cohen & Leung, 2009; Cohen, Leung, & Ijzerman, 2009; are involved, as well as the more instances of encoding),
Leung et al., 2011). To the extent that a person’s interaction the better the recall and use of that information.
with the world is individualized (acquired through their Although we have reviewed numerous applications of
own motor and perceptual systems), and that those embodied learning in the classroom, there is still much
instances are made meaningful by previous interactions, room for systematic empirical studies that compare
they will be influenced by culture (see Leung et al., 2011). embodied versus traditional theories back-to-back. In
Therefore, particular instances will be situated differently addition, we need more research to help researchers
in various cultures, as well as the degree to which particular and others to further implement embodied cognition
instances are utilized (see also Gibson, 1979; Schubert & into students’ curriculum (including mandatory curricu-
Semin, 2009; Varela, Thompson, & Rosch, 1991). Simply lum), to assess the gains in knowledge as a result, to
put, the cognitive structure of an individual, as defined by develop teacher pedagogy, and finally to leverage this
his or her own experiences and those supported by cultural knowledge for curriculum and policy makers in the
norms and language, informs how information is first future. One key thing to consider is that assessments
experienced, as well as later simulated. This implies two should be developed in tandem with the curriculum,
things: First, similar actions will be integrated and mapped such that assessments that emphasize the format in
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCHOOL & EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 11

which the material was learned may show better out- published numerous articles, grants and books including:
comes, especially for early learners who are more driven Critical Pedagogy in Uncertain Times: Hope and Possibilities.
by concrete manipulatives. Christina Cipriano, PhD, is an Assistant Professor at the
Increased understanding of embodied cognition University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. Her research focuses
among educators will likely show improved learning in on serving vulnerable youth through systematic examination
the classroom. For example, providing teachers with of the interactions within their homes, schools, and commu-
nities to promote pathways to optimal developmental out-
instruction in neuroscience and cognitive functioning
comes. She is a Service Learning Fellow, Community
has the potential to directly transform teacher prepara- Engaged Research Scholar, and Principle Investigator of the
tion and professional development, and ultimately to Recognizing Excellence in Learning and Teaching (RELATE)
affect how students think about their own learning (e.g., Project. She directs several research initiatives and regularly
Dubinsky, Roehrig, & Varma, 2013). Then, when tea- disseminates her science in both academic journals and pro-
chers shared that knowledge with their students, the fessional development workshops for pre-service and inser-
vice educators and school personnel.
students’ own metacognitive awareness for their perfor-
mance is increased (e.g., Dubinsky et al., 2013).
To conclude, it is important for contemporary cognitive ORCID
science to continue to investigate the implications of
Jennifer M. B. Fugate http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0831-
embodied cognition, including testing the success of
4234
newly developed body-based learning strategies in the Sheila L. Macrine http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8600-0938
classroom. It should also be understood and highlighted Christina Cipriano http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7414-1821
that different individuals—from different cultures with a
different set of cultural norms and habits and speaking
different languages—might have vastly different represen- References
tations within the brain because any new experience is
Abrahamson, D. (2012). Seeing chance: Perceptual reasoning
grounded within previous experiences. As a result, more as an epistemic resource for grounding compound event
cross-cultural research is needed to address individual spaces. ZDM—International Journal on Mathematics
differences within and across cultures in how particular Education, 44(7), 869–881. doi:10.1007/s11858-012-0454-6
cognitive tasks are embodied while being cognizant of Abrahamson, D., & Lindgren, R. (2014). Embodiment and
local cultural variations. In sum, embodied cognition embodied design. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge
handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed.). Cambridge,
shows promise for learning effectiveness and this under- UK: Cambridge University Press.
standing can further the deployment of embodied teaching Abrahamson, D., Trninic, D., Gutiérrez, J. F., Huth, J., & Lee,
and learning in the classroom and in teacher education. R. G. (2011). Hooks and shifts: A dialectical study of
mediated discovery. Technology, Knowledge and Learning,
16(1), 55–85.
Andrews, M., Frank, S., & Vigliocco, G. (2014). Reconciling
Acknowledgments embodied and distributional Accounts of meaning in lan-
guage. Topics in Cognitive Science, 6, 359–370.
A special thank you to B. Mcloughlin, who helped with the Arbib, M. A. (Ed.). (2006). Action to language via the mirror
table. neuron system. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Aziz-Zadeh, L., & Damasio, A. (2008). Embodied semantics
for actions: Findings from functional brain imaging.
About the authors Journal of Physiology-Paris, 102(1), 35–39. doi:10.1016/j.
Jennifer Fugate, PhD, is an Assistant Professor at the jphysparis.2008.03.012
University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. Her research focuses Badets, A., & Pesenti, M. (2010). Creating number semantics
on how language shapes emotion percepts, and the role that through finger movement perception. Cognition, 115(1),
language plays in grounding abstract categories. She is the 46–53. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.11.007
author of several book chapters and articles, and her work on Barrett, L. F. (2009). The future of psychology: Connecting
facial depictions of emotion has received recognition in sev- mind to brain. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(4),
eral popular press books and in the Court of Law. She is a 326–339. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01134.x
certified FACS-coder. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems.
Behavioral Brain Sciences, 22(4), 577–660.
Sheila Macrine, PhD, is a Professor at the University of Barsalou, L. W. (2003). Abstraction in perceptual symbol
Massachusetts Dartmouth. Her research interests focus on systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of
two areas: 1) school psychology including alternative assess- London B: Biological Sciences, 358(1435), 1177–1187.
ment and embodied cognition; and 2) connecting the cul- doi:10.1098/rstb.2003.1319
tural, political, and institutional contexts of critical pedagogy Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review
as they relate to the public sphere, democratic education and Psychology, 59, 617–645. doi:10.1146/annurev.
social imagination. She is a critical feminist and has psych.59.103006.093639
12 J. M. B. FUGATE ET AL.

Barsalou, L. W., Santos, A., Simmons, K. W., & Wilson, C. D. Decety, J., & Grèzes, J. (2006). The power of simulation:
(2008). Language and simulations in conceptual proces- Imagining one’s own and other’s behavior. Brain
sing. In M. De Vega, A. M. Glenberg, & A. C. Graesse Research, 1079(1), 4–14. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2005.12.115
(Eds), Symbols, embodiment, and meaning (pp. 245–283). Dewey, J. (1925/1958). The later works, 1925–1953 (Vol. 16).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Berteletti, I., & Booth, J. R. (2015). Perceiving fingers in Di Luca, S., Granà, A., Semenza, C., Seron, X., & Pesenti, M.
single-digit arithmetic problems. Frontiers in Psychology, (2006). Finger–digit compatibility in Arabic numeral pro-
6(226), 1–10. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00226 cessing. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,
Boaler, J., & Chen, L. (2016). Why kids should use their 59(9), 1648–1663.
fingers in math class. Atlantic, 1–14. Retrieved from Di Luca, S., & Pesenti, M. (2008). Masked priming effect with
http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/04/ canonical finger numeral configurations. Experimental Brain
why-kids-should-use-their-fingers-in-math-class/478053/ Research, 185, 27–39. doi:10.1007/s00221-007-1132-8
ntary-jo-boaler?newsletter=true Di Luca, S., & Pesenti, M. (2011). Finger numeral representa-
Borghi, A. M, & Caruana, F. (2015). Embodiment theories. tions: More than just another symbolic code. Frontiers in
In: J. D. Wright (Ed), International encyclopedia of the Psychology, 2, 272. Retrieved from https://www.frontiersin.
social & behavioral sciences (2nd ed.,). Vol 7. Oxford: org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00272/full
Elsevier (pp. 317–333). Domahs, F., Domahs, U., Schlesewsky, M., Ratinckx, M.,
Borghi, A. M., & Binkofski, F. (2014). Words as social tools: Verguts, E., Willmes, T., Domahs, K. & Nuerk, H. –C.
An embodied view on abstract concepts. New York, NY: (2007). Neighborhood consistency in mental arithmetic:
Springer Science & Business Media. Behavioral and ERP evidence. Behavioral and Brain
Borghi, A. M., & Pecher, D. (2011). Introduction to the Functions, 3(1), 66. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.
special topic embodied and grounded cognition. Frontiers 1186/1744-9081-3-66
in Psychology, 2, 187. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011. Domahs, F., Krinzinger, H., & Willmes, K. (2008). Mind the gap
00187 between both hands: Evidence for internal finger-based num-
Borghi, A. M., Scorolli, C., Caligiore, D., Baldassarre, G., & ber representations in children’s mental calculation. Cortex,
Tummolini, L. (2013). The embodied mind extended: 44, 359–367. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2007.08.001
Using words as social tools. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1– Dubinsky, J., Roehrig, G., & Varma, S. (2013). Infusing neu-
10. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00214 roscience into teacher professional development.
Broaders, S. C., Cook, S. W., Mitchell, Z., & Goldin-Meadow, Education Researcher, 42(6), 317–329. doi:10.3102/
S. (2007). Making children gesture brings out implicit 0013189X13499403
knowledge and leads to learning. Journal of Experimental Fernald, G. M. (1943). Remedial techniques in basic school
Psychology: General, 136(4), 539–550. doi:10.1037/0096- subjects. New York, NY : McGraw-Hill.
3445.136.4.539 Finkelstein, N. D., Adams, W. K., Keller, C. J., Kohl, P. B.,
Carbonneau, K. J., Marley, S. C., & Selig, J. P. (2013). A meta- Perkins, K. K., Podolefsky, N. S., . . . LeMaster, R. (2005).
analysis of the efficacy of teaching mathematics with con- When learning about the real world is better done vir-
crete manipulatives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105 tually: A study of substituting computer simulations for
(2), 380–400. doi:10.1037/a0031084 laboratory equipment. Physical Review Special Topics—
Chao, K. J., Huang, H. W., Fang, W. C., & Chen, N. S. (2013). Physics Education Research, 1(1), 101–103. doi:10.1103/
Embodied play to learn: Exploring kinect-facilitated mem- PhysRevSTPER.1.010103
ory performance. British Journal of Educational Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain’s concepts: The
Technology, 44(5), 151–155. doi:10.1111/bjet.12018 role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge.
Chemero, A. (2009). Radical embodied cognitive science. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22, 455–479. doi:10.1080/
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 02643290442000310
Clark, A. (2008). Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual percep-
cognitive extension. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. tion (Classic ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Clements, D. H. (2000). “Concrete” manipulatives, concrete Glenberg, A. (1999). Why mental models must be embodied.
ideas. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 1(1), 45–60. Advances in Psychology, 128(C), 77–90.
doi:10.2304/ciec.2000.1.1.7 Glenberg, A., Willford, J., Gibson, B., Goldberg, A., & Zhu, X.
Cohen, D., & Leung, A. K. Y. (2009). The hard embodiment (2011). Improving reading to improve math. Scientific
of culture. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(7), Studies of Reading, 1–25. doi:10.1080/
1278–1289. doi:10.1002/ejsp.671 10888438.2011.564245
Cohen, D., Leung, A. K. Y., & Ijzerman, H. (2009). Culture, Glenberg, A. M. (2011). How reading comprehension is
psyche, and body make each other up. European Journal of embodied and why that matters. International Electronic
Social Psychology, 39(7), 1298–1299. doi:10.1002/ejsp.698 Journal of Elementary Education, 4(1), 5–18.
Connell, L., & Lynnot, D. (2013). Flexible and fast: Linguistic Glenberg, A. M., & Gallese, V. (2012). Action-based lan-
shortcut affects both shallow and deep conceptual proces- guage: A theory of language acquisition, comprehension,
sing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(3), 542–550. and production. Cortex, 48(7), 905–922. Epub April 27,
doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0368-x 2011. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2011.04.010
De Freitas, E., & Sinclair, N. (2014). Mathematics and the Glenberg, A. M., Goldberg, A. B., & Zhu, X. (2011).
body: Material entanglements in the classroom. New York, Improving early reading comprehension using embodied
NY: Cambridge University Press. CAI. Instructional Science, 39, 27–39.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCHOOL & EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 13

Glenberg, A. M., Gutierrez, T., Levin, J. R., Japuntich, S., & embodied learning and digital platform on the retention
Kaschak, M. P. (2004). Activity and imagined activity can of physics content: Centripetal force. Frontiers in
enhance young children’s reading comprehension. Journal Psychology, 7(1819), 1–22. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01819
of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 424–436. doi:10.1037/ Kaschak, M. P., & Glenberg, A. M. (2000). Constructing mean-
0022-0663.96.3.424 ing: The role of affordances and grammatical constructions in
Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. P. (2002). Grounding lan- sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language,
guage in action. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9(3), 43(3), 508–529. doi:10.1006/jmla.2000.2705
558–565. doi:10.3758/BF03196313 Kaschak, M. P., & Jones, J. L. (2014). Grounding language in
Glenberg, A. M., & Robertson, D. A. (1999). Indexical under- our bodies. In T. M. Holtgraves (Eds.), The Oxford hand-
standing of instructions. Discourse Processes, 28(1), 1–26. book of language and social psychology (pp. 317–329). New
doi:10.1080/01638539909545067 York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Goldinger, S. D., Papesh, M. H., Barnhart, A. S., Hansen, Kiefer, M., Schuler, S., Mayer, C., Trumpp, N., Hille, K., &
W. A., & Hout, M. C. (2016). The poverty of embodied Sachse, S. (2015). Handwriting or typewriting? The influ-
cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 23(4), 959– ence of pen or keyboard-based writing training on reading
978. doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0860-1 and writing performance in preschool handwriting.
Golonka, S., & Wilson, A. D. (2012). Gibson’s ecological Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 11(4), 136–146.
approach. Avant: Trends in Interdisciplinary Studies, 3(2), doi:10.5709/acp-0178-7
40–53. Kiefer, M., & Trumpp, N. M. (2012). Embodiment theory and
Graham, S., & Santangelo, T. (2012, January). A meta-analy- education: The foundations of cognition in perception and
sis of the effectiveness of teaching handwriting. Paper pre- action. Trends Neuroscience and Education, 1, 15–20.
sented at Handwriting in the 21st Century? An doi:10.1016/j.tine.2012.07.002
Educational Summit, co-sponsored by American Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the
Association of School Administrators and Zaner Bloser, source of learning and development. Upper Saddle Ridge,
Washington, DC. NJ: Pearson.
Grèzes, J., Tucker, M., Armony, J., Ellis, R., & Passingham, R. E. Kontra, C., Lyons, D. J., Fischer, S. M., & Beilock, S. L.
(2003). Objects automatically potentiate action: An fMRI study (2015). Physical experience enhances science learning.
of implicit processing. European Journal of Neuroscience, 17, Psychological Science, 26(6), 737–749. doi:10.1177/
2735–2740. doi:10.1046/j.1460-9568.2003.02695.x 0956797615569355
Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I., & Pulvermüller, F. (2004). Kosslyn, S. M. (1975). Information representation in visual
Somatotopic representation of action words in human images. Cognitive Psychology, 7(3), 341–370. doi:10.1016/
motor and premotor cortex. Neuron, 41(2), 301–307. 0010-0285(75)90015-8
doi:10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00838-9 Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. New
Hochman, J., & MacDermott-Duffy, B. (Spring 2015). York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Effective writing instruction: Time for a revolution. Krois, J. M., Rosengren, M., Steidele, A., & Westerkamp, D.
Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 31–37. Retrieved (Eds.). (2007). Embodiment in cognition and culture (Vol.
from http://1ll76r4coqvu2q936a2i0d2h.wpengine.netdna- 71). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/4-Hochman- Lakoff, G. (1987). Fire, women and dangerous things: What
Effective-Writing-Spring-2015-copy.pdf categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: Chicago
Hutto, D., & Myin, E. (2013). Radical enactivism: Basic minds University Press.
without content. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lakoff, G. (2012). Explaining embodied cognition results.
Hwang, S. O.,Seegers, S., Lepic, R., Hodgdon, E., Nozomi, T., Topics in Cognitive Science, 4(4), 773–785. doi:10.1111/
& Ilkbasaran, D. (2014). Organizing a lexicon with pat- tops.2012.4.issue-4
terned iconicity. In: Proceedings of the 6th Conference of Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Conceptual metaphor in
the International Society for Gesture Studies.San Diego: CA. everyday language. The Journal of Philosophy, 77(8), 453–
Retrieved from http://www.gesturestudies.com/files/isgs 486. doi:10.2307/2025464
conferences/ISGS14Abstracts_talks.pdf Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The
James, K. H., & Engelhardt, L. (2012). The effects of handwriting embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New
experience on functional brain development in pre-literate York, NY: Basic books.
children. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 1(1), 32–42. Leitan, N. D., & Chaffey, L. (2014). Embodied cognition and its
JOUR. doi:10.1016/j.tine.2012.08.001 applications: A brief review. Sensoria: A Journal of Mind,
James, W. (1884). What is an emotion? Mind, 9(34), 188–205. Brain & Culture, 10(1), 3–10. doi:10.7790/sa.v10i1.384
doi:10.1093/mind/os-IX.34.188 Leung, A. K., & Cohen, D. (2007). The soft embodiment of
Jeannerod, M., (2006). Motor cognition: What actions tell the culture: Camera angles and motion through time and
self. Oxford: Oxford University Press. space. Psychological Science, 18(9), 824–830.
Johnson-Glenberg, M. C., & Megowan-Romanowicz, C. Leung, A. K. Y., Qiu, L., Ong, L., & Tam, K. P. (2011).
(2017). Embodied science and mixed reality: How gesture Embodied cultural cognition: Situating the study of embo-
and motion capture affect physics education. Cognitive died cognition in socio-cultural contexts. Social and
Research: Principles and Implications, 2(24). doi:10.1186/ Personality Psychology Compass, 5(9), 591–608.
s41235-017-0060-9 doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00373.x
Johnson-Glenberg, M. C., Megowan-Romanowicz, C., Liutsko, L., Veraksa, A. N., & Yakupova, V. A. (2017).
Birchfield, D. A., & Savio-Ramos, C. (2016). Effects of Embodied finger counting in children with different
14 J. M. B. FUGATE ET AL.

cultural backgrounds and hand dominance. Psychology in National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early lit-
Russia, 10(4), 86–92. eracy: Report of the national early literacy panel.
Longcamp, M., Anton, J. L., Roth, M., & Velay, J. L. (2003). Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
Visual presentation of single letters activates a premotor Noë, A.. (2004). Action in perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
area involved in writing. NeuroImage, 19(4), 1492–1500. Pellicano, A., Borghi, A. M., & Binkofski, F. (2017). Editorial:
doi:10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00088-0 Bridging the theories of affordances and limb apraxia.
Longcamp, M., Boucard, C., Gilhodes, J. C., & Velay, J. L. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11(March), 10–12.
(2006). Remembering the orientation of newly learned doi:10.3389/fnhum.2017.00148
characters depends on the associated writing knowledge: Penner-Wilger, M., & Anderson, M. L. (2013). The relation
A comparison between handwriting and typing. Human between finger gnosis and mathematical ability: Why rede-
Movement Science, 25(4–5), 646–656. doi:10.1016/j. ployment of neural circuits best explains the finding.
humov.2006.07.007 Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 877. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00877
Longcamp, M., Zerbato-Poudou, M. T., & Velay, J. L. (2005). Peverly, S. T.,Vekaria, P. C., Reddington, L. A., Sumowski, J.
The influence of writing practice on letter recognition in F., Johnson, K. R., & Ramsay, C. M. (2013). The relation-
preschool children: A comparison between handwriting ship of handwriting speed, working memory, language
and typing. Acta Psychologica, 119(1), 67–79. doi:10.1016/ comprehension and outlines to lecture note-taking and
j.actpsy.2004.10.019 test-taking among college students, Applied Cognitive
Louwerse, M. (2011). Stormy seas and cloudy skies: Conceptual Psychology, 27, 115–126.
processing is (still) linguistic and perceptual. Frontiers in Pfeifer, R, & Bongard, J. (2007). How the body shapes the way we
Psychology, 2, 1–4. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00105 think: A new view of intelligence. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Lupyan, G., & Clark, A. (2015). Words and the world: Pouw, W. T. J. L., Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2014). An
Predictive coding and the language-perception-cognition embedded and embodied cognition review of instructional
interface. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(4), manipulatives. Educational Psychology Review, 26(1), 51–
279–284. doi:10.1177/0963721415570732 72. doi:10.1007/s10648-014-9255-5
Lupyan, G., Rakison, D. H., & McClelland, J. L. (2007). Rauscher, F. H., Krauss, R. M., & Chen, Y. (1996). Gesture,
Language is not just for talking: Redundant labels facilitate speech, and lexical access: The role of lexical movements in
learning of novel categories. Psychological Science, 18(12), speech production. Psychological Science, 7(4), 226–231.
1077–1083. Rochat, M. J., Caruana, F., Jezzini, A., Intskirveli, I.,
Macedonia, M., & Klimesch, W. (2014). Long–term effects of Grammont, F., Gallese, V., . . . Umiltà, M. A. (2010).
gestures on memory for foreign language words trained in Responses of mirror neurons in area F5 to hand and tool
the classroom. Mind, Brain, and Education, 8, 74–88. grasping observation. Experimental Brain Research, 204(4),
Mahon, B. Z. (2015). The burden of embodied cognition. 605–616. doi:10.1007/s00221-010-2329-9
Canadian Journal Experimental Psychology, 69(2), 172– Schubert, T. W., & Semin, G. R. (2009). Embodiment as a
178. doi:10.1037/cep0000060 unifying perspective for psychology. European Journal of
Mahon, B. Z., & Caramazza, A. (2008). A critical look at the Social Psychology, 39(7), 1135–1141. doi:10.1002/ejsp.v39:7
embodied cognition hypothesis and a new proposal for Selin, H. (Ed.). (2001). Mathematics across cultures: The his-
grounding conceptual content. Journal of Physiology, 102, tory of non-western mathematics. New York, NY: Springer.
59–70. Shapiro, L. (2007). The embodied cognition research pro-
Marley, S. C., Levin, J. R., & Glenberg, A. M. (2007). gramme. Philosophy Compass, 2(2), 338–346. doi:10.1111/
Improving Native American children’s listening compre- phco.2007.2.issue-2
hension through concrete representations. Contemporary Shapiro, L. A. (2011). Embodied cognition: Lessons from
Educational Psychology, 32(3), 537–550. doi:10.1016/j. linguistic determinism. Philosophical Topics, 39(1), 121–
cedpsych.2007.03.003 140. doi:10.5840/philtopics201139117
Martin, A. (2007). The representation of object concepts in Smith, L. B. (2005). Cognition as a dynamic system:
the brain. Annual Review Psychology, 58, 25–45. Principles from embodiment. Developmental Review, 25
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190143 (3), 278–298. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2005.11.001
Martin, T., & Schwartz, D. L. (2005). Physically distributed Spivey, M. J. (2007). The continuity of mind. New York:
learning: Adapting and reinterpreting physical environ- Oxford University Press.
ments in the development of fraction concepts. Cognitive Srinivasan, S. M., Eigsti, I. M., Gifford, T., & Bhat, A. N. (2016).
Science, 29(4), 587–625. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0000_15 The effects of embodied rhythm and robotic interventions
Moeller, K., Martignon, L., Wessolowski, S., Engel, J., & on the spontaneous and responsive verbal communication
Nuerk, H. C. (2011). Effects of finger counting on numer- skills of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD): A
ical development: The opposing views of neurocognition further outcome of a pilot randomized controlled trial.
and mathematics education. Frontiers in Psychology, 2 Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 27, 73–87.
(328), 75–79. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00328 Tettamanti, M., Buccino, G., Saccuman, M. C., Gallese, V.,
Montessori, M. M. (1966). The human tendencies and Danna, M., Scifo, P., & Perani, D. (2005). Listening to
Montessori education. Amsterdam: Association action-related sentences activates fronto-parietal motor
Montessori Internationale. circuits. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(2), 273–
Mueller, P., & Oppenheimer, D. (2014). The pen is mightier 281. doi:10.1162/0898929053124965
than the keyboard: ad- vantages of longhand over laptop Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (1998). On the relations between seen
note taking, Psychological Science, 25, 1–10. objects and components of potential actions. Journal of
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCHOOL & EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 15

Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Winn, W. (2003). Learning in artificial environments:
Performance, 24, 830–846. doi:10.1037/0096- Embodiment, embeddedness and dynamic adaptation.
1523.24.3.830 Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 87–114.
Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied Xu, F., Cote, M., & Baker, A. (2005). Labeling guides object
mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, individuation in 12-month-old infants. Psychological Science,
MA: MIT Press. 16(5), 372–377.
Whittemore, R., & Knalfl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Ziemke, T. (2002). Introduction to the special issue on situ-
Update methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(3), ated and embodied cognition. Cognitive Systems Research,
546–553. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x 3(3), 271–274. doi:10.1016/S1389-0417(02)00068-2
Willems, R. M., & Francken, J. C. (2012). Embodied cogni- Zwaan, R. A., & Madden, C. J. (2005). Embodied sentence com-
tion: Taking the next step. Frontiers in Psychology, 3(582). prehension. In D. Pecher & R. Zwaan (Eds.), Grounding cogni-
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.0 tion: The role of perception and action in memory, language,
Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. and thought (pp. 224–245). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625–636. University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511499968.010
doi:10.3758/bf03196322 Zwaan, R. A., Stanfield, R. A., & Yaxley, R. H. (2002).
Wilson, M. (2010). The re-tooled mind: How culture re-engineers Language comprehenders mentally represent the shapes
cognition. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 5(2–3), of objects. Psychological Science, 13(2), 168–171.
180–187. doi:10.1093/scan/nsp054 doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00430
Wilson, R. A., & Foglia, L. (2017). Embodied cognition. In Zwaan, R. A., & Taylor, L. J. (2006). Seeing, acting, under-
E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy standing: Motor resonance in language comprehension.
(Spring 2017 ed.). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(1), 1–11.
edu/archives/spr2017/entries/embodied-cognition/ doi:10.1037/0096-3445.135.1.1