TechTrends

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00543-y

ORIGINAL PAPER

Developing, Enacting and Evaluating a Learning Experience Design

for Technology-Enhanced Embodied Learning in Math Classrooms
Yiannis Georgiou 1,2 & Andri Ioannou 1,2

# Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2020

Abstract
The turn of the millennium has witnessed an increased interest in technology-enhanced embodied approaches for learning in
mathematics due to the rapid advancement of motion-based technologies. However, the emergence of technology-enhanced
embodied learning brings to the foreground new challenges due to the lack of learning experience (LX) designs, ensuring its
successful introduction in real classroom settings. This paper presents a large-scale study on the implementation and systematic
evaluation of a LX design, developed and enacted by a cohort of eight primary education teachers to support their students’
engagement and learning in mathematics. The LX design was structured around an embodied educational app for learning in
mathematics and was implemented in 13 primary education classrooms (n = 213 children). Analysis of the data collected via pre-
post conceptual tests, students’ engagement surveys and testimonials, as well as teachers’ interviews, provided empirical sub-
stantiation to the LX design, while also supporting the effectiveness of technology-enhanced embodied learning.

Keywords Technology-enhanced embodied learning . Learning experience (LX) design . Co-design . Authentic educational
settings . Mathematics education

Introduction on the evaluation of technology-enhanced embodied ap-

Prior research has highlighted the importance of incorporating
aspects of embodiment, motion, and physicality in educational
activities to support learning in mathematics (Tran et al.
2017). Aligned with this call, the emergence of motion-
based technologies (e.g., touch devices, Kinect cameras, leap
motions, interactive floors) has opened the doors for
technology-enhanced embodied learning, which integrates
bodily movement into the act of learning. Despite the promise
that technology-enhanced embodied learning may hold, re-
search about its learning effectiveness has mainly taken place
at highly controlled and idealized laboratory settings,
employing small student samples (Malinverni and Pares
2014). On other hand, the limited number of studies focusing
* Yiannis Georgiou
y.georgiou@rise.org.cy; yiannis@cyprusinteractionlab.com
1
Research Center on Interactive Media, Smart Systems & Emerging
Technologies, Nicosia, Cyprus
2
Cyprus Interaction Lab, Department of Multimedia & Graphic Arts,
Cyprus University of Technology, Limassol, Cyprus
proaches in real classroom settings has not always been suc-
cessful in promoting students’ learning (e.g., Anderson and
Wall 2016; Hung et al. 2014).
The integration and large-scale evaluation of technology-
enhanced embodied learning in math classrooms introduces
new challenges due to the lack of learning experience (LX)
designs, ensuring its effective deployment (Georgiou et al.
2019; Ioannou et al. 2019; Ioannou et al. 2020). Classroom
design for the successful implementation of technology-
enhanced embodied learning requires, perhaps, new LX de-
signs, taking into account teachers’ needs and expectations,
while also considering the school curricula, both content-wise
and timewise (Karakostas et al. 2017). Aiming to contribute to
this emerging field, after a literature review on the topic, we
present a LX design, co-designed by a cohort of eight in-
service teachers in order to ensure the effective integration
of technology-enhanced embodied learning in their maths
classrooms. We, next, present the results of a large-scale study
in which the participating teachers implemented the LX de-
sign in their classrooms to support their students’ engagement
and learning in mathematics. Finally, we reflect on our find-
ings seeking to shed light on the strengths of the LX design as

well as on the emerging challenges, as perceived by the par-
ticipating teachers and their students.
Theoretical Background
Technology-Enhanced Embodied for Learning in
Mathematics
The relation between learning and embodied cognition counts
a long history of research, with an increasing corpus of studies
indicating that various aspects of mathematical understanding
are embodied (Nemirovsky et al. 1998). In a recent review
study, Tran et al. (2017) have reported that, according to prior
research, embodied learning can facilitate students’ mathe-
matical understanding, for various reasons. Body movement
and gestures allow, for instance, the contextualization of ab-
stract mathematical ideas in physical experiences, which fa-
cilitates the development of mental representations of the con-
cepts being studied (Alibali and Nathan 2012; Hall and
Nemirovsky 2012). In addition, embodied learning supports
students’ multimodal interactions in the context of psychomo-
tor activities, thus allowing deeper levels of processing of the
learning content (Anastopoulou et al. 2011). Overall, accord-
ing to Hall and Nemirovsky (2012), how we can understand
mathematics depends on our opportunities to engage in phys-
ical movement, interaction and expression; as such, embodied
learning has been largely embraced in mathematics education.
What’s relatively new nowadays is the widespread popu-
lation of affordable motion-based technologies (e.g.,
Nintendo Wii, Microsoft Kinect, Leap Motion), which have
opened the doors for technology-enhanced embodied ap-
proaches in mathematics education (Abrahamson and
Lindgren 2014; Lindgren et al. 2016). Tran et al. (2017) have
highlighted that motion-based technologies can augment the
learning potential of conventional embodied approaches due
to a set of additional affordances. First, in technology-
enhanced embodied learning the body is cued, and this results
in the development of physical representations, which support
students’ learning (Lindgren 2014). Second, technology-
enhanced embodied learning allows more effective mo-
dalities for feedback provision, as it supports the visu-
alization of the body movement in relation to the learn-
ing goals to be achieved (Han and Black 2011; Tran
et al. 2017). At the same time, embodied digital envi-
ronments are argued to be highly immersive, especially
those ones based on virtual or mixed reality settings
(Johnson-Glenberg et al. 2014). However, despite the
promise that technology-enhanced embodied learning
may hold for mathematics education, there is still lack
of LX designs allowing its migration from highly con-
trolled laboratory contexts in real classroom settings.
TechTrends
Integrating Technology-Enhanced Embodied
Learning in Real Classroom Settings
Nowadays, educational technologies have become an integral
part of instruction at all levels of education. This is not sur-
prising when considering that technology-enhanced learning
environments can result in learning gains, which can some-
times hardly be attained in conventional learning environ-
ments (Chang et al. 2015; Mayer and Mayer 2005; Noroozi
et al. 2012; Wu et al. 2013). At the same time, owing to the
rapid technological development, new educational ap-
proaches, like technology-enhanced embodied learning,
which is placed in the focus of the present study, have ap-
peared at the foreground. However, integrating novel technol-
ogies into a typical school setting is a complex and dynamic
process, which introduces new challenges (Liu et al. 2017;
Ritzhaupt et al. 2012; Salinas et al. 2017). One of these chal-
lenges, common to novel technologies, is the lack of LX de-
signs, pointing out effective ways of merging the enacted
technology with pedagogy to ensure its successful integration
in real classroom settings (Georgiou and Ioannou 2019a;
Ioannou 2019).
At the moment, there is, for instance, a general lack of
LX designs supporting the effective introduction of
technology-enhanced embodied learning in real class-
rooms settings. This can be attributed to several reasons.
First of all, motion-based technologies and embodied dig-
ital activities are relatively new to the educational arena
(e.g., Georgiou and Ioannou 2019a; Kosmas and Zaphiris
2019; Kosmas et al. 2018; Kosmas et al. 2017 ); as such,
embodied interfaces present challenges and affordances
which are essentially different from traditional desktop-
based interfaces (Malinverni et al. 2016). Second, re-
search on technology-enhanced embodied learning has
mainly taken place in highly controlled laboratory set-
tings, focusing on the victory narratives of technology,
rather than being oriented towards establishing their learn-
ing effectiveness in authentic educational contexts
(Karakostas et al. 2017). At the same time, the design of
embodied technologies has usually derived from a top-
down approach, as teachers are usually excluded from this
process (Antle 2013; Georgiou and Ioannou 2020;
Malinverni et al. 2016). As an outcome, teachers are not
confident enough, or they are feeling reluctant in integrat-
ing technology-enhanced embodied learning within their
classrooms and teaching practices (Georgiou and Ioannou
2019b; Karakostas et al. 2017). Consequently, while
technology-enhanced embodied learning has been largely
employed in out-of-school contexts for experimental pur-
poses (e.g., Homer et al. 2014; Lindgren et al. 2016), only
a few embodied digital environments have been integrated
in the educational curricula, taking the form of an alter-
native teaching approach (e.g., Anderson and Wall 2016;
TechTrends
Birchfield and Johnson-Glenberg 2012). Overall, research
regarding the technology integration of digitally enhanced
embodied learning is still in its infancy and there is still
not a clear vision of how to introduce effectively this
pedagogical innovation in real classroom settings.
Rationale and Research Questions
This study is motivated by the lack of LX designs, bridging
successfully embodied technologies and pedagogies for
supporting students’ learning in mathematics. Taking into ac-
count the crucial role of in-service teachers in the integration
process, we present a LX design, co-designed by a cohort of
eight in-service teachers in order to ensure the effective de-
ployment of technology-enhanced embodied learning. We,
next, present the results of a large-scale study in which the
participating teachers implemented the LX design in their
classrooms for supporting their students’ engagement and
learning in mathematics.
The overarching research questions guiding the present
study were:
(a) How was the LX design perceived by the teachers and
their students?
(b) What was the impact of the LX design on students’ en-
gagement and subsequent conceptual learning gains?
The Learning Experience (LX) Design
The LX design was situated in geometry education for ele-
mentary students and, in particular, it focused on the concep-
tualization of angles. This topic was selected, taking into ac-
count prior research demonstrating that it is one of the most
challenging ones in primary education mathematics
(Clements and Battista 1992; Keiser 2004; Smith et al. 2014).
The LX design was structured around the Angle-makers
embodied learning app. The Angle-makers is a non-
commercial Kinect-based app, which uses the Kinect camera
to track students’ arm-movement and create a visual represen-
tation of the body movement on the screen. More specifically,
a student or a pair of students are invited to stand in front of the
screen and in specific distance from the Kinect camera. The
students can see their avatar on the screen while they form an
angle. Feedback in relation to the students’ performance is
provided in real-time, during the movement (e.g. 90o, 40o,
65o etc.), and the solution locks when the arms remain stable
in the pre-defined timeframe of five seconds. Final feedback is
presented on screen, in relation to the correctness of the angle
created (Fig. 1).
The LX design was developed in the context of a teachers’
professional development programme (Georgiou and Ioannou
2019b), where the participating teachers in collaboration with
the university researchers endeavoured to co-design the class-
room experience. In its essence the LX design was grounded
on the 4E learning framework bringing together the following
four elements: (a) Embodied learning, i.e. the body contrib-
utes to the actual cognitive processes, (b) Enactive learning,
i.e. the relationship between body and the learning environ-
ment is geared towards action, (c) Extended learning, i.e. in-
struments, objects and things in the learning environment con-
stitute in cognition, and (d) Embedded learning i.e. the body is
coupled to the learning environment, not just the physical but
also sociocultural one (Lund et al. 2019; Varela et al. 1993).
To achieve this, the participating teachers developed a LX
design adopting the Learning Stations Rotation model
(Fig. 2).
The Learning Stations Rotation model took into account
the relatively limited space of classrooms, the time required
for setting up the equipment, the number of the students (i.e.,
15–20 students per classroom), as well as the limited access in
equipment due to its high cost (i.e. one Kinect camera per
classroom, was deemed as the ideal scenario by the teachers).
According to this model, the teachers decided to assign their
students in mixed ability groups of 4–5 as well as to have four
learning stations in each classroom, tasking the student groups
to rotate through learning stations on a fixed schedule, i.e.
15 min per learning station.
Two of the learning stations utilized technology while the
other two utilized paper-and-pencil tools and conversional
mathematics props. The first technology-enhanced station in-
cluded the Angle-makers embodied leaning app, which was
projected on a portable screen-surface. The second one was a
robotics-based learning station, equipped with beebots or
bluebots, which students were requested to code in order to
form pre-defined types of angles during their movement. The
other two learning stations were not technology-enhanced and
included hands-on activities, using traditional mathematics
props and paper-and-pencil tasks to support students’ under-
standing of angles (e.g., forming and identifying different
types of angles and geometrical shapes with the use of
pinboards or with solving angle-based problems using tradi-
tional clocks with hour and minute hands). An overview of the
learning stations is presented in Fig. 3a–d.
Students at the technology-enhanced learning stations were
taking turns, with only one student or one pair of students
using the technologies, while the others stayed aside to pro-
vide feedback and support. The completion of worksheets on
the topic was part of the LX design per learning station, help-
ing students to stay focused on the learning activities. Overall,
the learning stations were conceptually connected, and the
activities built on each other to promote students’ conceptual
understanding.

Fig. 1 The Angle-makers app
Methodology
This pilot study was based on a mixed methods research de-
sign, as it included both a qualitative and quantitative data
collection and analysis. According to Creswell and Plano
Clark (2011), collecting, analyzing, and mixing both quanti-
tative and qualitative data in a single study can provide a better
understanding of the research problem.
Context
The present study is situated in the context of the INTELed
[INnovative Training via Embodied Learning and multi-
sensory techniques for inclusive Education] project. The
Fig. 2 The Learning Stations
Rotation model
TechTrends
INTELed project (https://www.inteled.org/) addressed to in-
service teachers, in both special and mainstream education
settings, and aimed at supporting them in acquiring knowl-
edge and skills to adopt technology-enhanced embodied
learning in inclusive educational contexts (Martínez-Monés
et al. 2019).
Sample
The sample of this study was comprised by (a) the 8 in-service
primary schools teachers, who participated in the co-design
and enactment of the LX design in their classrooms (n = 13
intact classrooms), at 8 public primary schools of Cyprus, and
(b) a total of 213 primary school students (3rd-5th graders),
TechTrends
Fig. 3 a–d An overview of the four learning stations
who were in the teachers’ classrooms and benefitted from the
pilot of the LX design. Focusing on the 8 participating
teachers, six of them were females (75%) and two were males
(25%), with an average teaching experience of 13 years (SD =
4.28). The teachers were recruited with the use of an open call
disseminated at all the primary schools of Cyprus via e-mail,
as well as at various educational groups, leveraging the
affordances of social media. The participating teachers were
selected according to their availability to participate in a series
of professional development workshops as well as to imple-
ment technology-enhanced embodied learning in their class-
rooms. None of the teachers had prior experience with
technology-enhanced embodied learning or motion-based
technologies. As such, what motivated teachers’ participation
in the project was their desire to enrich their teaching reper-
toire with technology-enhanced embodied learning, as a pow-
erful pedagogy, which could contribute to their students’ aca-
demic and socio-emotional development. Focusing on the 213
participating students, 113 were girls (53%) and 100 were
boys (47%), with a mean age of 9.6 years old (SD = .06).
Students were of mixed academic abilities. Before the inter-
vention, consent forms were obtained from the students’ legal
guardians regarding the data collection.
The Learning Intervention
The learning intervention had a total duration of 80 min and
during the intervention students were divided and worked in
mix-ability groups of 4–5 students. The lesson started with a
10-min short presentation delivered by the classroom teacher
to introduce students to the topic of the lesson as well as to the
Learning Stations Rotation model. Subsequently, each stu-
dent group had 15 min to work in every learning station.
Students’ transition from station to station was enacted by a
bell ringed at the end of the rotation, and the total time for the
transitions was approximately 10 min. Between those transi-
tions the classroom teacher allocated time to summarize and
debrief the learning activities, moving from the small group
level to classroom plenary discussions.
Data Collection and Analysis
The data collection included various data sources such as post-
activity teachers’ interviews, students’ testimonials on the LX
design, as well as pre-post conceptual tests and engagement
surveys completed by the students.
Teachers’ Interviews
After the implementations, an in-depth interview was con-
ducted with each one of the participating teachers. Each inter-
view had an average duration of 30 min and was based on a
semi-structured protocol with open-ended questions, seeking
to collect teachers’ perceptions about the affordances and lim-
itations of the Angle-makers app as well as of the broader LX
design (e.g., What aspects have worked successfully or unsuc-
cessfully around the integration of the Angle-makers app in
your classroom?, What challenges or opportunities have
emerged during the implementation of the LX design with
the use of the learning stations model?). We then conducted
a quantitative content analysis of the verbal data according to
the multi-step procedure proposed by Chi (1997), as follows:
(a) reduction of the transcribed protocols (keeping for analysis
only the teachers’ perceptions of the LX design), (b) segmen-
tation of the reduced protocols according to stand-alone “units
of meaning”, (c) open coding for ideas (codes) related to the
perceived strengths and weaknesses of the LX design in rela-
tion the embodied app and grouping of codes under higher
order categories, (d) review of the coded evidence and agree-
ment upon the final descriptions of categories and sub-catego-
ries, (e) representation of the coded data in a tabular form, (f)
inclusion of numeric counts to the instances of codes, and (g)
interpretation and discussion of the categories and subcate-
gories, focusing on the most salient topics.
Students’ Testimonials
After the implementation, the participating students were
asked to write down their impressions (positive or

negative) about the LX design, in the form of a short
reflective testimonial. As part of this study reflective
testimonials were collected by a total of 184 students.
The length of the testimonials ranged from 2 words
(e.g., wonderful experience) to 123 words (providing
in-depth insights for the learning experience), and the
average number of words was equal to x =35.14,
(SD = 23.10). The testimonials were analyzed using the
quantitative content analysis proposed by Chi (1997), as
in the case of teachers’ interviews.
Pre-Post Mathematics Test
The pre-post mathematics test used in the present study was
developed in collaboration with an experienced primary
school teacher in mathematics education, hence, ensuring its
face validity. The pre-post mathematics test was comprised of
five tasks. One ordering task asked students to rank four pizza
pieces from smallest to largest, taking into account the angle
size of each pizza piece. The second task asked students to
name the four different angle types (right, straight, obtuse and
acute). Two other tasks asked students to identify the (a) the
angles which were smaller than a right angle (namely, the
acute ones) and (b) the angles which were bigger than a right
angle but smaller than a straight angle (namely, the obtuse
ones). Finally, the last task asked students to match the differ-
ent types of angles (right, straight, obtuse and acute)
with a set of given degrees (90 o, 57o , 130o , 180o ).
Each correct task was scored with 2 marks and the
maximum possible score was 10 marks. The statistical
analysis involved the investigation of the differences
between pre- and post-test scores on students’ learning
scores, employing t-tests for dependent means.
Engagement Survey
Engagement was measured using a post-interventional
survey with 13 Likert-scale items derived from the
Student Engagement in Mathematics Scale (Rimm-
Kaufman 2010; Leis et al. 2015). The scale is com-
prised of three subscales: (a) Cognitive engagement
(e.g., Today in math class I worked as hard as I could),
(b) Emotional engagement (e.g., I enjoyed thinking
about math today) and (c) Social engagement (e.g.,
Students in my math class helped each other learn
today). Each item is evaluated in a Likert-scale 1–4.
The 3 dimensions have a Cronbach’s alpha internal con-
sistency of .91, .98, and .89 respectively. The statistical
analysis involved the descriptive analysis of students’
cognitive, emotional and social engagement (mean
values, standard deviation, max. and min. values).
TechTrends
Findings
Teachers’ Perceptions
According to the analysis of teachers’ statements, the teachers
provided much more emphasis to the positive aspects related
to the integration of the Angle-makers embodied app in their
classrooms, rather than to the negative ones (Table 1).
Focusing on the positive aspects, according to the teachers,
the integration of the Angle-makers app into their classrooms
contributed to their students’ knowledge acquisition as well as
to their students’ engagement and motivation. At the same
time, as the teachers stated, the LX design contributed to the
students’ collaboration and communication. In particular, the
teachers explained that the Angle-makers app supported
knowledge acquisition as it provided various opportunities
for their students bodily involvement (i.e. learning via mean-
ingful movements and gestural interactions), multisensory
learning (i.e. involving visual, auditory and kinesthetic path-
ways), visualization of abstract representations (i.e. perceptual
representations around the concept of “angles” situated in
physical experiences) and real-time feedback (i.e. available
hints and scaffolds). Likewise, the teachers highlighted their
students’ motivation and engagement with the learning pro-
cess due to the playful nature of the app (i.e. ludic activities
and tasks), the novelty of the learning approach (i.e.
technology-enhanced embodied learning as an alternative ap-
proach), the use of a novel interface for the children (i.e. in-
novative and interactive technologies), the usability of the app
(i.e. user-friendliness due to the natural interface interaction),
as well as its immersiveness (i.e. feeling of presence due to the
use of real-based avatars). Last, the teachers explained how
the LX design resulted into the improvement of their students’
collaboration and communication as it allowed teamwork (i.e.
productive collaboration around the learning stations) as well
as peer feedback (i.e. provision of tips / support by the team-
mates during the learning process).
While the teachers’ emphasis was on the positive aspects
derived from the technology integration of the Angle-makers in
their classrooms, teachers did also report some negative aspects
related to a set of technological limitations and classroom
constraints. In particular, the teachers referred to some techno-
logical limitations they dealt with, related to the Kinect camera’s
functionality (i.e. the Kinect getting stacked due to the inappro-
priate proximity of the students from the camera or the intense
direct lighting from the windows) as well as related to the app
features (i.e. the requirement for the arms to remain stable in the
pre-defined timeframe was tiring for some of the students).
Finally, the teachers referred to classroom constraints affecting
the learning effectiveness of the embodied app, such as the exis-
tence of one and only embodied digital app (i.e. limited time
of exposure and interaction with the app) and the classroom noise
(i.e. noise due to close distance to the other stations).
TechTrends

Table 1 Categorization of teachers’ perceptions about the LX design and the technology integration of the embodied app

N of statements Issues discussed

Positive aspects 1.Knowledge acquisition 39 Students’ academic development

1.1 Bodily involvement
1.2 Multisensory learning
1.3 Visualization of abstract concepts
1.4 Real-time feedback
2. Engagement & Motivation
2.1 Playful nature
2.2 Novelty of the learning approach
2.3 Novel interface
2.4 Usability of the app
2.5 Immersiveness
3. Collaboration & communication
3.1 Teamwork
3.2 Peer feedback
Negative aspects 4. Technological limitations
4.1 Kinect’s camera functionality
4.2 Body cueing process
5. Classroom constraints
5.1 One and only embodied digital app
5.2 Classroom noise
15 Learning via movement & gestural interactions
4 Involvement of visual, auditory and
kinesthetic pathways
3 Perceptual representations situated in
physical experience
2 Available hints and scaffolds
37 Students’ active participation
10 Ludic activities and tasks
4 Embodied learning as an alternative approach
3 Innovative and interactive technologies
2 User-friendliness due to the natural
interface interaction
1 Feeling of presence due to the use of real-based avatars
16 Students’ social interactions
10 Productive collaboration around the learning stations
4 Provision of tips / support by the teammates
16 Embodied app limitations
13 Tech. problems due to room lighting &
students’ position
3 Requirement for stability in a pre-defined timeframe
9 Classroom set-up limitations
5 Limited time of exposure and interaction with the app
4 External noise due to close distance to the
other stations

Students’ Perceptions activities supported by the app). According to the students’

The qualitative analysis of the testimonials in relation to the
LX design showed that students’ reflections focused on the
following aspects: (a) the Angle-makers embodied app, (b) the
overall LX design, (c) the experienced emotions, as well as (d)
students’ perceived learning gains (Table 2). What follows
below is an overview of the core themes, sub-themes and
issues discussed by the students.
Angle-Makers
The students highlighted several positive aspects of the em-
bodied app such as its collaborative mode (i.e. collaborative
tasks allowing students to co-create angles in pairs), its playful
nature (i.e. game-like tasks and challenges about the creation
of different types of angles), its immersive affordances (i.e. the
use of real avatars), its interface (i.e. use of novel technolo-
gies), its controls (i.e. user friendliness of the natural user
interface), its real-time feedback (i.e. available hints and scaf-
folds), its graphics (i.e. immersive virtual objects and ele-
ments), as well as its exergaming affordances (i.e. improve-
ment of users’ physical condition due to the motion-based
statements, the most salient theme discussed was the embod-
ied affordances of the app, namely the gestural congruency
with the educational content to be learned. Only a limited
number of statements indicated some negative aspects of the
Angle-makers app, such as the body-cueing process (i.e. the
requirement for arms to remain stable in the pre-defined
timeframe was tiring for some of the students) or the app’s
inability to capture full-body interactions (i.e. as the app was a
gesture-based one). According to the number of students’
statements, the most salient negative aspect discussed was
the technical limitations of the Kinect technology, such as
the camera getting stacked from time to time due to inappro-
priate proximity of the students.
LX Design
Most of the coded statements reflected students’ positive im-
pressions about the LX design. The students highlighted sev-
eral positive aspects of the LX design, such as the game-based
learning approach underlying the learning stations (i.e. all the
learning activities had a playful nature), collaboration and
teamwork (i.e. students were asked to work collaboratively
 TechTrends

Table 2 Summarization of core themes, sub-themes and issues discussed by the students

Core themes Sub-themes Issues discussed N of statements

Angle-makers Positive aspects Embodied affordances 68

Collaborative mode 12
Playful nature 9
Use of real avatars 8
Motion-based camera 6
Real-time feedback 2
Graphics 2
Exergaming 2
Negative aspects Technical limitations 6
Body cueing process 5
Lack of full-body involvement 1
LX design Positive aspects Use of robotics 41
Game-based learning 30
Collaboration & teamwork 25
Use of technologies 21
Hands-on activities 19
Novelty 11
Variety of activities 4
Scaffolds and supports 3
Negative aspects Limited time exposure 8
High level of difficulty 6
Fighting over turn-taking 4
Classroom noise 1
Emotions Positive aspects Enjoyment 56
Excitement 12
Interest 8
Anxiety 3
Happiness 2
Negative aspects Boredom 10
Confusion 3
Learning gains Conceptual understanding Understanding of angles 48
Understanding of geometrical shapes 6
Skills Digital skills 1
Educational robotic skills 2
Attitudes Intention to participate 38
Positive stance towards mathematics 7

in each one of the learning stations), the use of technology (i.e.
use of computers and tablets to programme the bluebots), the
hands-on activities (i.e. all the learning stations were based on
experiential learning as they were grounded on a “learning by
doing” approach), novelty (i.e. working within an innovative
educational context rather different than the traditional one),
variety of educational activities (i.e. different learning sta-
tions with a variety of activities), as well as the avail-
able learning scaffolds (i.e. the learning stations were
equipped with instruction cards providing supportive
guidelines for each one of the educational activities).
The most reported positive aspect was the use of
robotics. Only, few statements indicated some negative
aspects of the LX design, such as the high level of
difficulty (i.e. some activities were not clear to some
of the students or seemed to be challenging at first),
students’ fighting over turn-taking in the learning sta-
tions with the Angle-makers app and the robotics, and
the classroom noise, which in some cases could distract
students’ attention from the learning process. However,
the most reported negative factor was the relatively lim-
ited time of exposure in the learning stations.
TechTrends
Emotions
A significant corpus of the coded statements reflected stu-
dents’ positive emotions experienced during the interven-
tion. In particular, the students talked about positively
valanced emotions such as happiness, anxiety and
interest. The most reported emotions were students’
enjoyment and excitement. However, some limited state-
ments indicated that, in a few cases, students felt boredom
at the technology-enhanced learning stations (due to the
waiting time between students’ turns) and confusion
(when it was not straightforward how students were ex-
pected to work at a learning station).
Learning Gains
Finally, as part of the testimonials the students highlighted
their perceived learning gains via their statements. In particu-
lar, the students talked about the improvement of their con-
ceptual understanding referring to their understanding of an-
gles as well as to their understanding of angle-based geomet-
rical shapes (e.g. triangles, rectangular, squares, polygons,
etc.). The students referred also to the contribution of the LX
design to development of their digital skills (i.e. working with
novel technologies) as well as their educational robotic skills
(i.e. computational thinking). Last, students mentioned the
impact of the LX design on their attitudes; they expressed their
intention to participate again in similar learning experiences
as well as on their positive stance towards learning in
mathematics. The most salient learning gains discussed were
students’ conceptual understanding of angles as well as their
positive attitudes expressed via their intention to participate
again in similar interventions.
Students’ Knowledge Acquisition
The comparison of learning scores, before and after the inter-
vention, in terms of students’ conceptual understanding, indi-
cated a statistically significant increase after the intervention.
According to our findings, the mean value of students’ con-
ceptual understanding before the learning intervention was x
=6.40 (SD = 2.48), while the mean value after the intervention
increased to x =7.27, (SD = 2.34), t = −5.63, p < 0.01, with a
medium effect size (d = 0.36).
Students’ Engagement
Focusing on students’ engagement, scores were computed for
every student by calculating an un-weighted mean score for
the items in each of the three engagement scales (cognitive,
emotional, and social engagement). These mean-scores were
well above the midpoint of the scale (Table 3).
According to our findings the mean value of students’ cog-
nitive engagement was x ¼ 3:50 ðSD ¼ 0:57Þ, the mean value
of students’ emotional engagement was x ¼ 3:48 (SD = 0.62),
while the mean value of social engagement was x ¼ 3:19
(SD = 0.70), demonstrating the success of the LX design in
engaging the leaners.
Discussion
Technology-enhanced embodied environments are assumed
to facilitate students’ learning in mathematics due to their
affordances of multimodal interactions, dynamic feedback,
physical representations, and playful activities (Abrahamson
and Lindgren 2014; Antle 2013). However, according to the
literature, an open research issue is how to enact technology-
enhanced embodied learning into schools and how to conduct
systematic evaluation studies to investigate its potential value
in authentic educational contexts (Karakostas et al. 2017;
Kourakli et al. 2017). In this paper we have presented a novel
LX design structured around the Angle-makers embodied app,
adopting the learning stations rotation model, to support stu-
dents’ 4E [Embodied, Enacted, Extended, & Embedded learn-
ing] learning (Lund et al. 2019). The LX design was co-
designed and applied by a cohort of 8 in-service teachers,
taking into consideration the significance of bottom-up ap-
proaches for the success and viability of an educational inno-
vation (Georgiou and Ioannou 2019b, 2020; Kyza and
Georgiou 2014; Malinverni et al. 2017).
The LX design was implemented successfully allowing the
effective integration of technology-enhanced embodied learn-
ing in 13 math classrooms, to promote students’ engagement
and conceptual learning. According to our findings the pro-
posed LX design contributed to students’ cognitive, emotional
and social engagement and had a positive impact on their
conceptual understanding of angles. These findings are in line
with research claims supporting that technology-enhanced
embodied learning can support students’ learning of complex
concepts in mathematics (Abrahamson and Trninic 2015;
Smith et al. 2014; Tran et al. 2017). These findings provide
also empirical substantiation to prior research supporting that
when emerging technologies are situated within well-crafted
LX designs, this can promote students’ learning (Georgiou
Table 3 Descriptive statistics for students’ engagement
Scales Min. value Max. value Mean SD
Cognitive engagement 1.00 4.00 3.50 0.57
Emotional engagement 1.00 4.00 3.48 0.62
Social engagement 1.00 4.00 3.19 0.70

et al. 2020; Georgiou and Ioannou 2019b; Ioannou et al. 2020;
Jowallah et al. 2018; Martín-Gutiérrez et al. 2017).
The value of this study expands also on the evaluation of
teachers’ and students’ perceptions of the technology-
enhanced embodied learning. The evaluation of teachers’
and students’ perceptions of technology use in the classroom
is deemed crucial. While teachers’ and students’ voices are
often neglected, they could shed light on the learning experi-
ence (Chang et al. 2015; Koul et al. 2011). Indeed, the analysis
of teachers’ and students’ perceptions has revealed two signif-
icant breakthroughs. Firstly, the emerged learning gains, as
perceived by the teachers and their students, were not only
limited to knowledge acquisition but they were expanded to
skills empowerment (e.g. collaboration and communication
skills, digital skills) and attitudes development (e.g. ICT
attitudes, positive attitudes towards mathematics). This find-
ing is encouraging given that recent review studies (Georgiou
and Ioannou 2019a) have reported that most of the empirical
studies evaluating technology-enhanced embodied learning
are limited only to the evaluation and reporting of students’
conceptual learning gains. As part of this study, we provide
empirical evidence regarding the potential impact of
technology-enhanced learning on other types of learning out-
comes. Secondly, the analysis of teachers’ and students’ per-
ceptions has provided useful insights about the features of the
LX design as these have shaped the learning experience.
Fraser (2012) has stated that identifying the salient features
of a learning environment based on the participants perspec-
tives is critical as this can offer vast potential for shaping the
educational practice. Aligned with this position, we next pres-
ent a set of LX design guidelines derived from the analysis and
synthesis of teachers’ and students’ perceptions. It is our belief
that these guidelines can support future endeavors of re-
searchers and practitioners in integrating technology-
enhanced embodied learning in real classroom settings.
LX Design Guidelines
The integration of technology-enhanced embodied learning in
the classroom affords not only opportunities but also con-
straints in the classroom ecosystem as well as in the learning
process, which need to be taken into account. Reflecting on
our findings about the opportunities and challenges derived
from the enactment of the proposed LX design, we have for-
mulated a set of guidelines around the implementation of
technology-enhanced embodied learning in authentic educa-
tional contexts, as follows:
& Target for appropriate forms of embodied interaction.
Select embodied apps that integrate intuitive movements,
which are aligned to the content to be learned.
& Target for a collaborative learning approach: Task the
students to work in group of mixed abilities comprised
TechTrends
of 3–4 members in order to promote their collaboration
and social interactions during the learning process.
& Create learning stations. Aim to have up to 4 learning
stations for students’ groups to work concurrently. All
stations should be conceptually connected and build on
each other to promote students’ conceptual understanding
of the selected topic.
& Increase the number of technology-enhanced learning
stations: Alternative technology-enhanced learning sta-
tions (e.g. educational robotics) can be included, so that
all the students can engage in more extended technology-
enhanced experiences.
& Enrich the non-digital learning stations with instruments
and props: Non-digital learning stations can work equally
successfully if they are enriched with conventional instru-
ments and props (e.g. pinboards, clocks), which can sup-
port students’ hands-on experiences on the topic, while
also constituting in students’ cognition.
& Set the Kinect-based app at the right place. The Kinect-
based app should be placed (a) in the back space of the
classroom letting enough space for students to move when
using the app and isolating the group from other students
who could intervene and (b) away from windows - as
direct sunlight could cause system’s error.
& Maximize students’ exposure to the embodied app.
Integrate two learning stations with the embodied app, if
space permits, and/or increase the duration of the interven-
tion (e.g., allocate 2 lessons of 80 min).
Overall, the aforementioned guidelines can contribute to
the successful introduction of technology-enhanced embodied
learning in real classroom settings, grounded on the 4E learn-
ing framework (Lund et al. 2019; Varela et al. 1993), where:
(a) students’ bodily involvement contributes to their learning
(Embodied learning), (b) students are learning by doing
(Enactive learning), (c) the learning environment is enriched
with instruments, objects and things supporting students’ cog-
nition (Extended and learning) and (d) learning activities are
coupled not only with the physical environment but also with
the socio-cultural one (Embedded learning).
Limitations and Future Studies
This work does not come without limitations. The present
study focused on a particular embodied learning app, a partic-
ular age-range (i.e. primary school students), and a specific
domain (i.e. learning in Mathematics). Future studies should
investigate the proposed LX design with a broader range of
embodied apps, as well as, students of different ages and in
different domains, to examine the consistency of the reported
findings in other contexts and settings (i.e., ecological validi-
ty). Along the same lines, the sample of this study comprised
of the teachers who co-designed and enacted the LX design
TechTrends
and their students, which limits the generalizability of the
findings. Future studies should investigate for instance the
effectiveness of the LX design with additional teachers, who
have not participated in the co-design process, to explore the
transferability of the findings. Future studies should also aim
at extending their duration. This study presents a relatively
short intervention, which increases the possibility of an enthu-
siastic student reaction to the technology and overall learning
environment, being confused with true impact of the experi-
ence (i.e., novelty effect). Put simply, according to the novelty
effect, the observed short-boost in students’ performance may
relate to the excitement provoked when participating in a nov-
el technology-enhanced learning environment, and not to any
actual improvement in learning. Finally, while the present
study has focused on the evaluation of a specific learning
experience (LX) design built around an embodied app for
learning mathematics, the study did not include a control
group (i.e. comparing and evaluating how the lesson can be
approached with and without the use of technology-enhanced
embodied learning). However, this comparison is beyond the
scope of the present study, given that our research focus was
not on investigating the impact of technology-enhanced learn-
ing in comparison to other educational approaches, but rather
on how we can integrate effectively technology-enhanced em-
bodied learning in real classroom settings.
Despite these limitations, the present study contrib-
utes to the field via the proposal and empirical valida-
tion of a LX design allowing the successful introduction
of technology-enhanced embodied learning in math
classrooms. Prior research has demonstrated that, it is
not simple to transfer the laboratory success of
technology-enhanced embodied learning in real-world
educational contexts (e.g., Anderson and Wall 2016;
Hung et al. 2014). The present work could support the
future endeavors of researchers and practitioners in in-
tegrating technology-enhanced embodied learning in real
classroom settings.
Acknowledgements This work is part of the project that has received
funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innova-
tion program under grant agreement No.739578 and the government of
the Republic of Cyprus through the Directorate General for European
Programmes, Coordination and Development.
This work is also part of the INTELed Project [INnovative Training
via Embodied Learning and multi-sensory techniques for inclusive
Education] (Project 2017-1-CY01-KA201-026733), which is cofunded
by the Erasmus+Programme of the European Union.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
Ethical Approval All procedures performed in the study involving hu-
man participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the
institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration
and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual
participants included in the study.
References
Abrahamson, D., & Lindgren, R. (2014). Embodiment and embodied
design. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the
Learning Sciences, Second Edition (pp. 358–376). Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139519526.022.
Abrahamson, D., & Trninic, D. (2015). Bringing forth mathematical con-
cepts: Signifying sensorimotor enactment in fields of promoted ac-
tion. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(2), 295–306. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11858-014-0620-0.
Alibali, M. W., & Nathan, M. J. (2012). Embodiment in mathematics
teaching and learning: evidence from learners’ and teachers’ ges-
tures. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(2), 247–286. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10508406.2011.611446.
Anastopoulou, S., Sharples, M., & Baber, C. (2011). An evaluation of
multimodal interactions with technology while learning science con-
cepts. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(2), 266–290.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01017.x.
Anderson, J. L., & Wall, S. D. (2016). Kinecting physics: conceptualiza-
tion of motion through visualization and embodiment. Journal of
Science Education and Technology, 25(2), 161–173. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10956-015-9582-4.
Antle, A. N. (2013). Research opportunities: embodied child-computer
interaction. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction,
1(1), 30–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2012.08.001.
Birchfield, D., & Johnson-Glenberg, M. (2012). A next gen interface for
embodied learning: SMALLab and the geological layer cake. In R.
E. Ferdig & S. de Freitas (Eds.), Interdisciplinary Advancements in
Gaming, Simulations and Virtual Environments: Emerging Trends
(pp. 51–60) IGI Global.
Chang, H.-Y., Wang, C.-Y., Lee, M.-H., Wu, H.-K., Liang, J.-C., Lee, S.
W.-Y., et al. (2015). A review of features of technology-supported
learning environments based on participants’ perceptions.
Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 223–237.
Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: a
practical guide. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271–315.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0603_1.
Clements, D. H., & Battista, M. T. (1992). Geometry and spatial reason-
ing. Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and
Learning, 420–464.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Choosing a mixed methods
design. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, 2, 53–
106.
Fraser, B. J. (2012). Classroom environment (Vol. 234). Routledge.
Georgiou, Y., & Ioannou, A. (2019a). Embodied learning in a digital
world: A systematic review of empirical research in K-12 education.
In Learning in a Digital World (pp. 155–177) Singapore: Springer.
Georgiou, Y., & Ioannou, A. (2019b). Teachers’ concerns about adopting
technology-enhanced embodied learning and their mitigation
through Professional Development. Journal of Technology and
Teacher Education, 27(3), 335–371.
Georgiou, Y., Ioannou, A., & Ioannou, M. (2019). Investigating immer-
sion and learning in a low-embodied versus high-embodied digital
educational game: Lessons learned from an implementation in an
authentic school classroom. Multimodal Technologies and
Interaction, 3(4), 68.

Georgiou, Y., & Ioannou, A. (2020, July). A co-design approach for the
development and classroom integration of embodied learning apps.
In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp.
217–229). Cham: Springer.
Georgiou, Y., Tsivitanidou, O., Eckhardt, C., & Ioannou, A. (2020, June).
Work-in-Progress—A learning experience design for immersive vir-
tual reality in physics classrooms. In 2020 6th International
Conference of the Immersive Learning Research Network (iLRN)
(pp. 263–266). IEEE.
Hall, R., & Nemirovsky, R. (2012). Introduction to the special issue:
modalities of body engagement in mathematical activity and learn-
ing. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(2), 207–215. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10508406.2011.611447.
Han, I., & Black, J. B. (2011). Incorporating haptic feedback in simula-
tion for learning physics. Computers and Education, 57(4), 2281–
2290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.012.
Homer, B. D., Kinzer, C. K., Plass, J. L., Letourneau, S. M., Hoffman, D.,
Bromley, M., et al. (2014). Moved to learn: the effects of interactiv-
ity in a Kinect-based literacy game for beginning readers.
Computers and Education, 74, 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compedu.2014.01.007.
Hung, I. C., Lin, L. I., Fang, W. C., & Chen, N. S. (2014). Learning with
the body: an embodiment-based learning strategy enhances perfor-
mance of comprehending fundamental optics. Interacting with
Computers, 26(4), 360–371. https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwu011.
Ioannou, A. (2019). A model of gameful design for learning using inter-
active tabletops: enactment and evaluation in the socio-emotional
education classroom. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 67(2), 277–302.
Ioannou, M., Georgiou, Y., Ioannou, A., & Johnson, M. (2019). On the
understanding of students’ learning and perceptions of technology
integration in low-and high-embodied group learning. In Computer
Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 304–311). Lyon: ISLS.
Ioannou, M., Ioannou, A., Georgiou, Y., & Retalis, S. (2020). Designing
and orchestrating the classroom experience for technology-
enhanced embodied learning. In International Conference of the
Learning Sciences (pp. 1079–1086). Nashville: ISLS.
Johnson-Glenberg, M. C., Birchfield, D. A., Tolentino, L., & Koziupa, T.
(2014). Collaborative embodied learning in mixed reality motion-
capture environments: two science studies. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 106(1), 86–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034008.
Jowallah, R., Bennett, L., & Bastedo, K. (2018). Leveraging the
affordances of virtual reality systems within K-12 education:
responding to future innovations. FDLA Journal, 3(1), 7.
Karakostas, A., Palaigeorgiou, G., & Kompatsiaris, Y. (2017). WeMake:
A framework for letting students create tangible, embedded and
embodied environments for their own steam learning. In Lecture
Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in
Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics). https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70284-1_1.
Keiser, J. M. (2004). Struggles with developing the concept of angle:
comparing sixth-grade students’ discourse to the history of the angle
concept. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(3), 285–306.
Kosmas, P., Ioannou, A., & Retalis, S. (2017, September). Using embod-
ied learning technology to advance motor performance of children
with special educational needs and motor impairments. In European
conference on technology enhanced learning (pp. 111–124). Cham:
Springer.
Kosmas, P., Ioannou, A., & Retalis, S. (2018). Moving bodies to moving
minds: A study of the use of motion-based games in special educa-
tion. TechTrends, 62(6), 594–601.
Kosmas, P., & Zaphiris, P. (2019). Words in action: investigating stu-
dents’ language acquisition and emotional performance through em-
bodied learning. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching,
1–16.
TechTrends
Koul, R. B., Fisher, D. L., & Shaw, T. (2011). An application of the
TROFLEI in secondary-school science classes in New Zealand.
Research in Science & Technological Education, 29(2), 147–167.
Kourakli, M., Altanis, I., Retalis, S., Boloudakis, M., Zbainos, D., &
Antonopoulou, K. (2017). Towards the improvement of the cogni-
tive, motoric and academic skills of students with special education-
al needs using Kinect learning games. International Journal of
Child-Computer Interaction, 11, 28–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijcci.2016.10.009.
Kyza, E. A., & Georgiou, Y. (2014). Developing in-service Science
teachers’ ownership of the profiles pedagogical framework through
a technology-supported participatory design approach to profession-
al development. Science Education International, 25(2), 57–77.
Leis, M., Schmidt, K. M., & Rimm-Kaufman, S. E. (2015). Using the
partial credit model to evaluate the student engagement in mathe-
matics scale. Journal of Applied Measurement, 16(3), 251–267.
Lindgren, R. (2014). Getting into the cue: Embracing technology-
facilitated body movements as a starting point for learning. In V.
R. Lee (Ed.), Learning Technologies and the Body (pp. 51–66).
Routledge.
Lindgren, R., Tscholl, M., Wang, S., & Johnson, E. (2016). Enhancing
learning and engagement through embodied interaction within a
mixed reality simulation. Computers and Education, 95, 174–187.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.01.001.
Liu, F., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Dawson, K., & Barron, A. E. (2017).
Explaining technology integration in K-12 classrooms: a multilevel
path analysis model. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 65(4), 795–813.
Lund, K., Niccolai, G. P., Lavoué, E., Hmelo-Silver, C., Gweon, G., &
Baker, M. (2019). A Wide Lens: Combining Embodied, Enactive,
Extended, and Embedded Learning in Collaborative Settings.
International Society of the Learning Sciences [ISLS].
Malinverni, L., & Pares, N. (2014). Learning of abstract concepts through
full-body interaction: a systematic review. Educational Technology &
Society, 17(4), 100–116 https://doi.org/10.2307/jeductechsoci.17.4.100.
Malinverni, L., Schaper, M. M., & Pares, N. (2016). An evaluation-driven
design approach to develop learning environments based on full-
body interaction. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 64(6), 1337–1360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-
016-9468-z.
Malinverni, L., Mora-Guiard, J., Padillo, V., Valero, L., Hervás, A., & Pares,
N. (2017). An inclusive design approach for developing video games
for children with autism Spectrum disorder. Computers in Human
Behavior, 71, 535–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.01.018.
Martín-Gutiérrez, J., Mora, C. E., Añorbe-Díaz, B., & González-Marrero,
A. (2017). Virtual technologies trends in education. EURASIA
Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 13(2),
469–486.
Martínez-Monés, A., Villagrá-Sobrino, S., Georgiou, Y., Ioannou, A., &
Ruiz, M. J. (2019, June). The INTELed pedagogical framework:
Applying embodied digital apps to support special education chil-
dren in inclusive educational contexts. In Proceedings of the XX
International Conference on Human Computer Interaction (pp. 1–4).
Mayer, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multi-
media learning. Cambridge University Press.
Nemirovsky, R., Tierney, C., & Wright, T. (1998). Body motion and
graphing. Cognition and Instruction, 16(2), 119–172.
Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., & Chizari,
M. (2012). Argumentation-based computer supported collaborative
learning (ABCSCL): a synthesis of 15 years of research.
Educational Research Review, 7(2), 79–106.
Rimm-Kaufman, S. E. (2010). Student engagement in mathematics scale
(SEMS). Social Development Lab. Retrieved from&. https://static1.
squarespace.com/static/5b994ff4af209646fb51faa5/t/
5c7eb8389140b7803eccb0c8/1551808568480/Student+
Engagement+in+Mathematic+Scale.pdf
TechTrends
Ritzhaupt, A. D., Dawson, K., & Cavanaugh, C. (2012). An investigation
of factors influencing student use of technology in K-12 classrooms
using path analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
46(3), 229–254.
Salinas, Á., Nussbaum, M., Herrera, O., Solarte, M., & Aldunate, R.
(2017). Factors affecting the adoption of information and commu-
nication technologies in teaching. Education and Information
Technologies, 22(5), 2175–2196.
Smith, C. P., King, B., & Hoyte, J. (2014). Learning angles through
movement: Critical actions for developing understanding in an em-
bodied activity. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 36, 95–108.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2014.09.001.
Tran, C., Smith, B., & Buschkuehl, M. (2017). Support of mathematical
thinking through embodied cognition: nondigital and digital
approaches. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications,
2(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-017-0053-8.
Varela, F. J., Rosch, E., & Thompson, E. (1993). The embodied mind.
Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge,
Massachusetts, London, England: The MIT Press.
Wu, H. K., Lee, S. W. Y., Chang, H. Y., & Liang, J. C. (2013). Current
status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in educa-
tion. Computers and Education, 62, 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compedu.2012.10.024.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.