↓ Skip to main content

Embodied learning: introducing a taxonomy based on bodily engagement and task integration

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
147 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
276 Mendeley
Title
Embodied learning: introducing a taxonomy based on bodily engagement and task integration
Published in
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s41235-018-0092-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexander Skulmowski, Günter Daniel Rey

Abstract

Research on learning and education is increasingly influenced by theories of embodied cognition. Several embodiment-based interventions have been empirically investigated, including gesturing, interactive digital media, and bodily activity in general. This review aims to present the most important theoretical foundations of embodied cognition and their application to educational research. Furthermore, we critically review recent research concerning the effectiveness of embodiment interventions and develop a taxonomy to more properly characterize research on embodied cognition. The main dimensions of this taxonomy are bodily engagement (i.e. how much bodily activity is involved) and task integration (i.e. whether bodily activities are related to a learning task in a meaningful way or not). By locating studies on the 2 × 2 grid resulting from this taxonomy and assessing the corresponding learning outcomes, we identify opportunities, problems, and challenges of research on embodied learning.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 276 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 276 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 49 18%
Student > Master 37 13%
Researcher 27 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 22 8%
Lecturer 16 6%
Other 51 18%
Unknown 74 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 40 14%
Psychology 26 9%
Computer Science 24 9%
Arts and Humanities 19 7%
Sports and Recreations 12 4%
Other 69 25%
Unknown 86 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 August 2022.
All research outputs
#3,224,463
of 23,072,295 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#122
of 323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,423
of 332,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#4
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,072,295 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,681 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.