Abstract

Shaping OurSpace was an urban planning project asking children to propose plans for a housing project phased for redevelopment.  Our primary aim was building visual-spatial thinking.  McCormack’s (1988, 2011) hierarchical framework was used to operationalize visual-spatial thinking, and we believe that embodied cognition served as a vehicle for fostering visual-spatial thinking not only in rudimentary ways but also more conceptually.  Thus, although our study did not depend on Piaget and Inhelder’s (1956) developmental approach to spatial reasoning, their work provides theoretical insight that supports assumptions underlying our work. We highlight two areas of connection between Piaget and Inhelder’s theory on spatial reasoning development and our methodology across the 2 phases of our project:  1) Piaget and Inhelder privilege sensorimotor experiences as the bases for spatial reasoning, and 2) Piaget and Inhelder argue that spatial reasoning occurs in 2 phases – via perception and via imagination and thought.  We argue that Piaget and Inhelder’s arguments about spatial reasoning remain decidedly relevant in understanding how to potentially facilitate this reasoning in children.

Keywords

References

• Alerby, E., Hagstrӧm, E., & Westman, S. (2014). The embodied classroom: A phenomenological discussion of the body and the room. Journal of Pedagogy, 5(1), 11-23. doi: 10.2478/jped-2014-0001
• Boal, A. (1979). Theatre of the Oppressed. New York, NY: Theatre Communications Group.
• Bruner, J.S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Butterwick, S., & Selman, J. (2012). Embodied knowledge and decolonization: Walking with theater’s powerful and risky pedagogy. New Directions for Adults and Continuing Education, 2012 (134), 61-69. doi: 10.1002/ace
• Clark, K.R. & Vealé, B.L. (2018). Strategies to enhance data collection and analysis in qualitative research. Radiologic Technology, 89(5), 482-486.
• Concannon, J. (1970). A review of research on haptic perception. The Journal of Educational Research, 63, 250-252.
• Crabtree, B. F., & Miller, W. L. (1992). A template approach to text analysis: Developing and using codebooks. In B.F. Crabtree and W.L. Miller (Eds.) pp. 93-109. Doing Qualitative Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Creswell, J. W. & Plano-Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Cummins, A., Piek, J.P., & Dych, M.J. (2005). Motor coordination, empathy, and social behavior in school-aged children. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 47(7), 437-441.
• De Bruin, L., Strijbos, D., & Slors, M. (2014). Situating emotions: From embodied cognition to mindreading. Topoi, 33, 173-184
• Dixon, M. & Senior, K. (2011). Appearing pedagogy: From embodied learning and teaching to embodied pedagogy. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 19(3), 473-484.
• Ellsworth, E. (2005). Places of learning: Media architecture pedagogy. New York, NY: Routledge.
• Estola, E. & Elbaz-Luwisch, F. (2003). Teaching bodies at work. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35, 697-719.
• Forgasz, R., & McDonough. S. (2017). “Struck by the way our bodies conveyed so much”: A collaborative self-study of our developing understanding of embodied pedagogies. Studying Teacher Education, 13(1), 52-67. doi: 10.1080/17425964.2017.1286576
• Francesconi, D., & Tarozzi, M. (2012). Embodied education: A convergence of phenomenological pedagogy and embodiment. Studia Phaenomenologica, 12, 263-288.
• Gangopadhyay, N. (2014). Introduction: Embodiment and empathy, current debates in social cognition. Topoi, 33, 117-217. doi: 10.1007/s11245-013-9199-2
• Gibbs, R.W., Jr. (2005). Embodiment and cognitive science. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
• Gibson, J. J., & Gibson, E. J. (1955). Perceptual learning: Differentiation or enrichment? Psychological Review, 62, 32-41.
• Henriksen, D., Good, J., Mishra, P., & the Deep Play Research Group. (2015). Embodied thinking as a trans-disciplinary habit of mind. Tech Trends, 59, 6-11.
• Ingerslev, L.R. (2014). Why the capacity to pretend matters for empathy. Topoi, 33, 201-213. doi: 10.1007/s11245-013-9202-y
• Leitan, N.D., & Chaffey, L. (2014). Embodied cognition and its applications: A brief review.
• Sensoria: A Journal of Mind, Brain, & Culture, 10(1), 3-10. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.7790/sa.v10i1.384
• Lincoln, Y. S., & Denzin, N. K. (1994). The fifth moment. In Y. S. Lincoln & N. K. Denzin (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp.575-586). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Mackenzie, C., & Scully, J.L. (2007). Moral imagination, disability and embodiment. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 24(4), 335-351.
• Mahayana, I.T., Banissy, M.J., Chen, C-Y, Walsh, V., Juan, C-H., & Muggleton, N.G. (2014). Motor empathy is a consequence of misattribution of sensory information in observers. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 1-7. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00047
• Marshall, P.J. (2016). Embodiment and human development. Child Development Perspectives, 10(4), 245-250. doi: 10.111.cdep.12190
• McCormack, A. J. (2011). Don’t verbalize, visualize! NSTA WebNews Digest. Retrieved from http://www.nsta.org/publications/news/story.aspx?id=58298
• McCormack, A. J. (1988). Visual/spatial thinking: An essential element of elementary school science. Washington, DC: Council for Elementary School Science.
• Milston, S.I., Vanman, E.J., & Cunnington, R. (2012). Cognitive empathy and motor activity during observed actions. Neuropsychologia, 51, 1103-1108
• Moje, E. (2000). Changing our minds, changing our bodies: Power as embodied in research relations. Qualitative Studies in Education, 13(1), 25-42.
• Nguyen, D.J., & Larson, J.B. (2015). Don’t forget about the body: Exploring the curricular possibilities of embodied pedagogy. Innovative Higher Education, 40(4), 331-344. doi: 10.1007/s10755-015-9319-6
• Perry, M. & Medina, C. (2011). Embodiment and performance in pedagogy research: Investigating the possibility of the body in curriculum experience. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 27(3), 62-75.
• Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1956). The child’s conception of space (F.J. Landgon & J.L. Lunzer Trans.). New York, NY: The Humanities Press.
• Probyn, E. (2004). Teaching bodies: Affects in the classroom. Body and Society, 10(4), 21-43.
• Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22, 63-75.
• Shum, P. (2014). Avoiding circularities on the empathic path to transcendental intersubjectivity. Topoi, 33, 143-156.
• Vygostsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychologic processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Slaby, J. (2014). Empathy’s blind spot. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, 17, 249-258.
• Smith, L.B., & Sheya, A. (2010). Is cognition enough to explain cognitive development? Topics in Cognitive Science,2(4), 1-11.
• Spolin, V. (1999). Improvisation for the Theatre. Chicago, IL: Northwestern University Press.
• Teske, J.A. (2013). From embodied to extended cognition. Zygon, 48, 759-787.
• Wells. G. (1993). Reevaluating the IRF sequence: A proposal for the articulation of theories of activity and discourse for the analysis of teaching and learning in the classroom. Linguistics and Education, 5, 1-37.
• Wellsby, M., & Pexman, P.M. (2014). Developing embodied cognition: Insights from children’s concepts and language processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1-10.
• Zaporozhets, A.V. (1965). The development of perception in the preschool child. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), European Research In Cognitive Development (pp. 82-101). Monograph of the Society for Research in Child Development, 30, (Serial No. 100).

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.