Learning Number Conversions Through Embodied Inter

Technology, Knowledge and Learning
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09557-8
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Learning Number Conversions Through Embodied

Interactions
Xinhao Xu1 · Fengfeng Ke2
Accepted: 11 July 2021

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2021
Abstract
In this paper, the researchers report an experimental study on conceptual knowledge learn-
ing and application through embodied interactions, expecting that bodily movements
would facilitate learning in a positive manner. The intervention was enabled by Unity3D
and Kinect V2, and taught novice adult learners the concepts of and conversions between
binary and decimal numbers. Fifty-three adult participants were recruited, and randomly
assigned into the experimental and control groups. During the intervention, participants
in the experimental group manipulated and interacted with the learning materials through
their body movements enabled by Kinect; while those in the control group learned the same
content but interacted using conventional mouse and keyboard. Pre- and posttests results
indicated that embodied interactions facilitated conceptual learning for the participating
adult learners. However, compared with the mouse interaction, the embodied interactions
did not lead to significantly better knowledge retention and application results. The study
outcome implies that embodied interactions do not necessarily lead to better learning per-
formances over traditional mouse-based interactions, and the ‘how’ and ‘how much’ may
play critical roles for such interventions. Suggestions and challenges in designing learning
systems utilizing embodied interactions enabled by novel technologies are provided.
Keywords Embodied interaction · Embodied learning · Human–computer interaction ·

Learning technology · Number conversions
1 Introduction
This study examined the effect of embodied interactions on the learning of a STEM-related
subject in a computer-assisted learning environment for adult learners. In our discussion,
we regard embodied learning as learning activities that are enabled or facilitated with bod-
ily movements or gestures, and embodied interactions as any motoric movements a learner
* Xinhao Xu
xuxinhao@missouri.edu
Fengfeng Ke
fke@fsu.edu
1
University of Missouri, 221H Townsend Hall, Columbia, MO 65211, USA
2
Florida State University, 205C Stone Building, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
X. Xu, F. Ke
does during an embodied learning context. In prior research on embodied interactions and
STEM-related learning, topics such as mathematical education has been popular (e.g., Ali-
bali & Nathan, 2007, 2012; Arzarello et al., 2009; Edwards, 2009; Goldin-Meadow et al.,
2009; Reynolds & Reeve, 2001). Math is a foundational topic for many other subject areas
and a critical skill in peoples’ everyday life. Educational researchers have been studying
varied instructional interventions on math, including teaching through embodied interac-
tions. Gestures provided alternative approaches to organizing and embodying information
that a learner could not normally explain completely in speech (Arzarello et al., 2009).
In these early studies, there was no or very little involvement of technologies related to
embodied interactions. In the recent decade, technologies have been transforming our daily
lives in an unprecedented way. Researchers interested in embodied interaction and learn-
ing have also brought technologies like body joint-tracking devices on board (e.g., Hsiao
& Chen, 2016; Kosmas et al., 2019; Lan et al., 2018; Lindgren et al., 2016; Shakroum
et al., 2018). Xu and Ke (2014) discussed the affordances that technology-enabled embod-
ied interactions could bring to learning, and advocated that embodied interactions could
facilitate learners’ cognitive process in multiple ways.
Some recent research studies brought technology, embodied interactions, and STEM-topic
learning together (e.g., Kang et al., 2018; Magana & Balachandran, 2017a, b; Merkouris
et al., 2019). However, most of the previous studies were mainly about concept understanding
and retention, or the perception and attitude toward the learning experience. Learning STEM
content and the knowledge application enabled by embodied interactions remains an interest-
ing research topic to explore. It is commonly known that STEM topics are widely applied and
implemented in our daily lives. Consequently, it is important to teach STEM content with not
only the concept but also its application. From Bloom’s taxonomy (Bloom, 1956, 1994) point
of view, knowing of a concept is remembering and/or understanding; employing the concept
to solve a problem involves higher-level cognitive processes such as applying and analyzing.
In such a context, it would be interesting to fill in such a research gap by teaching a STEM
concept and its application together through embodied interactions, and examining if bodily
movements help both lower and higher levels of learning.
In this paper, we reported an experimental study on adult learners’ conceptual under-
standing and applications of a topic in computer foundations (numeric systems and con-
versions) under two learning conditions–embodied interaction enabled by Kinect versus
conventional mouse-based interaction. The concept was about the binary and decimal
systems, which is a topic that we have many years of teaching experience on. The corre-
sponding application was about how to calculate and convert between these two number
systems. We chose this content topic because, a) the topic and its corresponding calcu-
lations are of moderate complexity, which is neither too simple for a learner to guess
the answer nor too hard that needs complicated derivation; b) this numeric system topic
serves as a fundamental subject matter for multiple STEM disciplines such as computer
science, electronic engineering, communication engineering, and so on; and c) the con-
tent can be represented and mapped to body movements (see Table 1 for example), thus
working as the implementation context for the study of embodied interaction for learn-
ing. For the baseline condition, we chose the mouse-based learning interaction because
for multiple disciplines the “traditional” way of teaching and learning has shifted from
chalk-and-blackboard to PowerPoint-and-projector and we regard using mouse to inter-
act with learning materials as the baseline condition. The main research question of this
study was: Will embodied interactions, compared to conventional mouse-based interac-
tions, lead to greater knowledge acquisition in learning binary-decimal conversions in a
virtual learning environment for adult learners? By addressing the research question, we
13
Learning Number Conversions Through Embodied Interactions
Table 1 Design conjectures on embodied interactions for learning

Scenes or Steps* in the Embodied interactions and how they facilitate learning
instructional materials
Scene 2—how decimal Moving arms to control floating hands over the numbers and waving from
and binary numbers right to left (or left to right) will embody the concept of lower-weight digit and
represent numbers (refer to higher-weight digits
scene 2 picture in Appen- Hovering the hand over the digit for the corresponding weight** will relate
dix A) the position information between the hand and the digit to the connections of
weight values and positions
Scene 3—Practice of Using the right arm to control the lower four digits, and using the left arm
conversion from binary to to control the higher four digits will strengthen the relationships among the
decimal (refer to scene 3 concept of weight and the corresponding sequence of the weight values
picture in Appendix A) The body is virtually divided into the right part and the left part, which will
embody and reinforce the cognitive schema of the weight value distributions
of a number
Positioning arms up for the “on” button and down for the “off” button will
reinforce the idea of binary symbols of 1 and 0, which corresponds to the high
voltage level and low voltage level in the learning context
Scene 4—Practice of The locations and directions to which a learner’s arm puts and moves will be
conversion from decimal critical to embody the positioning information of the corresponding digits,
to binary (refer to scene 4 forming a connection between the abstract idea and the actual body move-
picture in Appendix A) ments
Moving the digits by arms encodes the calculation process in its unique
modality
Body movements add to the cognitive strategies to familiarize the calculation
procedure
Moving the digits by arms involves more muscular activity than using fingers
to click the mouse alone. It is more challenging to position a digit at a des-
ignated place. Doing this will lay deeper impression in the working memory
regarding the positioning and procedural information (information may be
more difficult to decay)
*Please refer to Appendix A for detailed instructional content; the numbers here are for identification only.
** Weight value—the value based on the position of each digit
examined data-driven heuristics and challenges in designing learning systems that inte-
grate embodied interactions. And with our discussions about the study results, we hope
to provide reference for future embodied interaction design for learning, and to inform
designers and scholars of embodied learning environments on meaningful design ele-
ments to be considered and further examined in future research.
2 Literature Review
2.1 Body Movements Facilitate Information Processing
Learning involves not only cerebral activities but also body movements (Hannaford, 1995;
Jensen, 2000). Body movements may serve to supplement other modalities to process infor-
mation, and provide more channels for learning activities, which helps the transfer and
understanding of knowledge. While processing information, the working memory serves as
a critical buffer or storage to retain blocks of transient information in mind, and to connect
13
X. Xu, F. Ke
the real-world to the perception and cognitions in mind (Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968; Bad-
deley & Hitch, 1974; Driscoll, 2005; Richey, 1986). When real-world information comes in,
a learner encodes it, which normally leads to effective linkages between the working and the
long memories. Cook et al. (2010) suggested that gestures might influence the way that infor-
mation was stored in and retrieved from memory by offering another modality as the input
and output channel for the information processing. Meanwhile, early studies such as Donald
(1991) has suggested that through the use of bodies and interactions with the surroundings,
people may off-load some memory buffer and simplify the nature of cognitive processing.
Macedonia and von Kriegstein (2012) conducted a comprehensive review of gestures and
foreign language learning, and asserted that gestures enhanced such learning. They observed
that a learner’s body movements could enrich memory coding in a complex and deep way.
The coded information involving the motor image “is deep and so improves retrievability and
resistance to decay” (Macedonia & von Kriegstein, 2012, p. 397). Chang et al. (2011) incorpo-
rated the embodied cognition framework when talking about embodied interactions for voca-
tional learning. The researchers built a gesture recognition system with Kinect to prompt two
young adults with cognitive impairments to complete certain tasks when doing their vocational
task practice of pizza making. The study compared the baseline condition (without Kinect-
enabled body movement prompt) and intervention condition (with Kinect-enabled body move-
ment prompt). Results showed that the Kinect-based intervention, significantly improved the
vocational performance of the participants. Chao et al. (2013) recruited 27 participants to
study the embodied effects on the mnemonic performance enabled by Kinect. The participants
in the experimental group used Kinect to trigger certain feedback from the computer screen
when memorizing 13 action phrases like ‘throw a ball’, ‘cut a cake’, ‘hold a book’, and so on.
The control group simply used a mouse to trigger the feedback. Results showed that the exper-
imental group performed better in immediate cued recall and delayed (next day) free recall
tests. In a recent study, Lan et al. (2018) studied language learning effects from different types
of embodied interactions and acknowledged the positive influence of embodiment. A common
feature shared by these studies is that the body gestures and movements are meaningful, which
carry semantic meaning, concrete ideas, abstract concepts, or directional information. Such
gestures and movements construct motor images to represent and metaphorize concepts so that
people may explain and digest ideas in a nonverbal manner.
Body movements propagate information in its specific modality, and assist interpretation
and representation of messages during instructional communication. Valenzeno et al. (2003)
regarded gestures as a secondary communicative channel, and advocated that body move-
ments offer a second opportunity for student to comprehend the messages. Alibali and Nathan
(2007) conducted observational research on gestures accompanying algebraic sentences
when a teacher taught equalities and inequalities. Besides the communicational functionality
that such gestures brought to the students, the authors also stated that gestures served as the
teacher’s own indices of cognitive states and helped understanding, organizing, and explain-
ing the algebraic ideas. Gestures were not only communicative during instructions, but also
cognitively functional for those who made the gestures themselves (Alibali & Nathan, 2007).
While learning, one communicates with him/herself, which is part of his/her own thinking
and cognitive process. Body movements may help such ‘inner’ communication.
Reviewing empirical studies from both neuroscience and education fields, Kiefer and
Trumpp (2012) noted that actions representing words or concepts may be reactivated, there-
fore can facilitate memory retrieval; sensory-motor experiences develop richer conceptual
compositions than experiences lacking sensory-motor involvement because of the repeated
meaningful interactions with the referent; and with meaningful relationship to learning
targets, the embodied experiences could be stronger, and enhance learning. Research on
13
embodied interactions and cognitive processes “has important implications for education
because it highlights the relevance of appropriate sensory and motor interactions during
learning for the efficient development of human cognition” (Kiefer & Trumpp, 2012, p. 15).
2.2 Body Movements Enhance Learning in Math and Other STEM Fields
In an early article, Cook and Goldin-Meadow (2006) examined how young learners used
gestures to solve math problems by adding three integral numbers together with both equiv-
alent and nonequivalent addends on two sides of the equation. The researchers found ges-
tures effective for learning this content. Broaders et al. (2007) carried out a series of stud-
ies on gestures and math learning that were similar to Cook and Goldin-Meadow (2006),
and discovered that gestures were used to encode and process the math-related ideas and
knowledge. Such studies indicated multiple potential reasons for the learning effective-
ness of gestures. First, gestures could reduce the cognitive load of math; second, gestures
could directly influence new representation storage in the online memory process; third,
gestures could prompt learners to construct imaginative representations for later retrieval;
and fourth, gestures could link the real-world problem to the learners’ mental model. Tall
(2008) advocated “School mathematics builds from embodiment of physical conceptions
and actions: playing with shapes; putting them in collections; pointing and counting; shar-
ing; measuring” (p. 9). Kontra et al. (2015) found a positive effect of embodied interactions
on the learning of angular momentum. They also found the activation of students’ sensori-
motor brain regions while they were reasoning about the topic.
Although there may be varied perspectives of embodiment, most views on embodiment
can find that their origin in psychological processes influenced by the body (Glenberg,
2010). Arzarello et al. (2009) analyzed a math teaching–learning process regarding equa-
tions and their graphical representations. The researchers noted that embodied interactions
were part of the multimodal system for the transfer of knowledge. Moreover, body move-
ments provided alternative approaches to organizing and embodying information which a
learner could not normally explain completely in speech. For example, showing tangent
lines on a graph with gestures eased the learners’ understanding of the related equations and
calculations. The study revealed how gestures help in expressing and absorbing complex
concepts by serving as one modality of the thinking process. Yoon et al. (2011) applied a
case study on two participants to see how they performed the multimodal use of gestures
and speech pertaining to math learning. They discovered that participants positioned their
hands to represent downhill slope as a metaphor for the abstract concept of a negative gra-
dient. Nathan and Walkington (2017), and Walkington et al. (2014) argued that dynamic
depictive gestures or dynamic gestures were motion-based transformations of multiple states
of mathematical ideas. Dynamic gestures bring motor experience into mental encoding pro-
cess. Ozcelik and Sengul (2012) constructed a virtual 3D environment and used Kinect to
teach concept of vectors. Participants were able to move their arms in the air to control the
full body of an avatar and to draw 3D vectors in a virtual classroom. Although it was only an
exploratory test in building a 3D simulation with embodied technology, Ozcelik and Sengul
(2012) did show the possibility to embody obscure STEM concepts through the embodied
interactions enabled by computer-mediated 3D simulations. Parmar et al. (2016) explored
embodied interactions in an immersive virtual learning environment and reported positive
attitudes of middle school students toward computational thinking.
Johnson-Glenberg et al. (2014) studied embodied interactions and learning through a
computer-mediated immersive multimedia environment that offered learners the possibility
13
X. Xu, F. Ke
to interact with the learning interventions using their body movements and gestures. Those
movements and gestures were designed to represent the learning contents. For instance,
using the arm to make circles indicated the circling of a designated object in the multime-
dia learning scenario, which reflected specific concepts in physics. Johnson-Glenberg et al.
(2014) introduced their empirical studies on two STEM subjects learning – titration in a
chemistry class and disease transmission. The researchers asserted that their learning mod-
ule activated “multiple afferent and efferent neuronal pathways in the learner’s motor system,
and these movements” (Johnson-Glenberg et al., 2014, p. 91) were specifically designed to
match the knowledge to be learned. In contrast with the regular instruction, study results
favored the learning with embodied interactions in their research designs. In a later study on
embodied interactive learning of concepts in electric fields (Coulomb’s law for example),
Johnson-Glenberg and Megowan-Romanowicz (2017) further elaborated their perspectives
on the levels of embodiment. Amount of sensorimotor engagement, gesture-content congru-
ency, and degree of immersion were listed as three facets leveraging the degrees of embodi-
ment that could lead to varied learning effects depending on a different combination of the
embodiment facets (Johnson-Glenberg & Megowan-Romanowicz, 2017).
Lindgren et al. (2016) asked 7th-grade students to act out the trajectory of an aster-
oid based on their conceptual understanding of gravity. Compared with the control group
using desktop version simulation, the embodied group showed significant learning gains,
and more engagement and positive attitudes in the study results. Hung et al. (2014) utilized
Kinect to track a 5th-grade student’s hand gestures to control the light beams and candle
positions in order to understand some fundamental optics knowledge. Better learning per-
formance was found for the embodied group compared with the control group who used
mouse and keyboard to interact with the simulation. Skulmowski et al. (2016) studied the
impact of the embodied learning interaction by asking a group of university students to hold
and control a 3D plastic human heart model equipped with motion tracking sensors. Being
manipulated by hands and arms, the plastic heart was mapped to the learning materials on
a screen with its position and orientation information captured in real-time. Results showed
that the learning performance of the embodied group surpassed that of their mouse coun-
terpart with statistical significance. In Kang et al. (2018), undergraduate students employed
four gestures, representing two linear and two exponential operations, to interact with an
earthquake simulation system. Results were in favor of such an embodied simulation in
training students the ideas of numerical linearity and exponent. Li et al. (2019) focuses on a
specific kind of body gesture–pointing. The researchers designed a multimedia instructional
material in which a human-like animated figure used different ways of pointing gestures
when teaching undergraduates knowledge about nervous system. Results about learning per-
formance showed that gestures pointing at which part the students should exactly look at on
the learning material outperformed general pointing (reminder to look at the material) and
non-pointing gestures (social gestures). Price (2020) conducted a qualitative study on how
moving one’s body could help ideas about geometry such as space and coordinates.
2.3 Literature Summary
Prior research suggested that embodied interactions could have positive effects on learn-
ing activities. Body movements facilitate a learner’s cognitive activities, reinforce the con-
tent in working memory, and help encode the perception and observation. Early studies
about learning STEM-related topics with body movements featured few gestures in face-
to-face classroom settings and were mostly for children learners (e.g., Alibali & Nathan,
2007, 2012; Arzarello et al., 2009; Edwards, 2009; Goldin-Meadow et al., 2009; Reynolds
13
& Reeve, 2001). Some recent studies utilized computer-mediated settings and the emerg-
ing body tracking technology studying body movements and learning across disciplines
(e.g., Johnson-Glenberg et al., 2014; Hung & Chen, 2018; Johnson-Glenberg & Megowan-
Romanowicz, 2017; Lan et al., 2019). Multiple studies addressed STEM-related subjects
and concepts like friction, gravity, electromagnetism, human organs, geometry, and so on
(e.g., Kang et al., 2018; Lindgren et al., 2016; Magana & Balachandran, 2017a, b; Merk-
ouris et al., 2019; Price et al., 2020; Skulmowski et al., 2016). However, one common limi-
tation among these studies is that most of the content knowledge taught in these studies
concerned only concept retention and understanding. For instance, Lindgren et al. (2016)
involved the conceptual knowledge about the gravity without any calculations, and the
“environment uses an embodied metaphor that is fairly literal in the sense that the motion
of one’s body represents the motion of an asteroid” (p. 183). Hung et al. (2014) connected
arm movements to some fundamental optics about the propagation of light, and tested how
much the elementary school students understood the principles of light transmission.
In this current study, we aimed to further study the learning effectiveness and mean-
ingful design of embodied interactions in the setting of informal STEM learning for adult
learners with regard to not only how they comprehend the concepts and principles, but also
how they could apply such concepts and principles to do actual calculations associated.
3 Methods
We focused on examining whether embodied interactions could lead to greater knowledge

acquisition and application in math calculations about numeric systems, when compared to
traditional mouse-based interactions, in a virtual learning environment for adult learners.
3.1 Study Intervention, Procedure, and Participants
We constructed the computerized learning intervention using Unity3D and the Kinect. We
chose Kinect because it was one of the most popular consumer-lever body sensing devices
programmable and could help us realize the embodied interactions in the study. The inter-
vention was constructed and programmed with C# in Unity3D 5.x. For the experimental
group intervention, we applied the Kinect V2 for Windows SDK 2.0 and a wrapper appli-
cation package from the Unity3D asset store, as well as Kinect v2 with MS-SDK (Ver-
sion2.6, Filkov, 2015), to implement the embodied interactive functionalities. And for the
system hardware, besides the Kinect V2, we edited and ran the program on a Dell Precision
mobile workstation and displayed the learning materials on a 65″ widescreen TV. Other
peripherals include a Logitech optical mouse, a Bose SoundLink portable speaker, and
a power surge protector. The intervention took place in a multifunctional media room at
reserved time slots. No interruptions were present during the reserved time periods.
The learning materials consisted of concepts about the numeric weight, conversion from
binary to decimal, and conversion from decimal to binary. In the Kinect group, a learner
stood in front the widescreen, and used their body movements to go over the learning mate-
rials and exercises (see Fig. 1 left). Such movements were carefully designed not only to
maneuver various objects on the screen, but also to externally represent what the learning
contents designated. For instance, when learning the concept “weight”, which is closely
related to the position of a digit, a learner moved the arm and hovered the animated hand over
a certain digit for the corresponding weight at that certain space/position. Such embodied
13
X. Xu, F. Ke
interactions of moving and positioning could bring cognitive connections to the digit posi-
tions carrying varied weights. Table 1 provides more examples of how such movements were
intrinsically related to the processing of the learning content, and Appendix A lists the details
of the instructional materials. More information is provided at the Discussion section as well.
In the control group, a participant, sitting in front of the widescreen at the same distance
as a Kinect group counterpart, maneuvered the same instructional materials through mouse
clicks or drags (see Fig. 1 right). During the intervention session, a participant was randomly
assigned to either of the two study groups on site. The participant took a pretest on the learning
content, and then started the intervention applying in either condition. After that, an immediate
posttest was applied. Three days later, the participant was asked to complete a delayed posttest.
The researchers recruited 68 adult participants, and 53 of them completed the study
intervention and both tests. Among the 53 participants, one participant went through the
study intervention without any attention or effort at all, leaving all zero scores for the pre-
and posttests. This participant’s test entry was removed. A majority (90.38%, n = 47) of
the participants were registered students at a US university. The rest (9.62%, n = 5) were
full-time staff members in that university with postsecondary degrees. Table 2 shows the
demographic information of the participants (n = 52) in the study.
3.2 Instruments and Data Analysis
The study featured an experimental study with pre- and posttests. Each test had 10 mul-
tiple-choice questions worth a total of 10 points (1 point per item). The items chosen
were closely related to the content taught in the intervention–four items on the concept
of weight, three on binary to decimal conversion, and three on decimal to binary con-
version (see Appendix B). The correct answers to the 10 items were evenly distributed
among choices A (20%), B (30%), C (30%), and D (20%) to minimize the effects of
guessing. Items in pretest and posttest 1 (the immediate posttest) were identical, with
the sequence of questions shuffled. Posttest 1 and posttest 2 (the delayed posttest) were
carefully designed to be homogenous. In this way, all items testing the same content
across the tests had the same level of difficulty. To further validate the test items, we
also had the chosen items reviewed by two subject matter experts separately and both
agreed that the items were valid in examining the target content. The actual Cronbach’s
α for the pretest, posttest 1 and posttest 2 were 0.72, 0.82, and 0.76 respectively, which
indicated acceptable to good reliability (George & Mallery, 2003).
The posttest scores (dependent variable) and the pretest scores (covariate variable)
were both continuous. The type of interaction (independent variable) was categorical.
Fig. 1 Learning through embodied interactions (left); Learning with mouse (right)
13
Table 2 Demographic Kinect Group Mouse

information of the participants (n = 25) Group
(n = 27)
Gender
Male 9 9
Female 16 18
Average age
25.64 24.33
Educational background
Business and administration 0 3
Education 11 2
Engineering 0 1
Liberal arts 1 4
Science 6 8
Social sciences 4 7
Other* 3 2
*Some participants chose not to provide the details
Participants in each group experienced only one type of interaction, so that their perfor-
mances on the learned content (reflected by the test scores) were independent. We used
ANCOVA to do the data analysis, minimizing the confounding effect of the pretest
(Table 3).
After finishing the intervention, the participant was also provided a questionnaire (see
Tables 4 and 5) through the Qualtrics online service. While the pre- and post-tests focused
on the knowledge acquisition after the intervention and directly answered the research
question, the survey was used as a supplementary means to collect learners’ perceived
learning and satisfaction with the intervention and learning experiences.
4 Results
The descriptive statistics of the tests for both the experimental and control groups are listed
in the following table.
Assumptions for the ANCOVA test were inspected: The participants were indepen-
dently and randomly assigned to the two research groups. The tests scores were not nor-
mally distributed. The non-significant Levene’s test results (F = 3.57, p > 0.05; F = 1.62,
p > 0.05; F = 0.06, p > 0.05) showed the homogeneity of the variances. Statistics (F = 0.01,
p > 0.05; F = 0.85, p > 0.05) further informed that the covariate (pretest) was independent
of the instructional treatments (Kinect and mouse) in the two posttests. Since ANCOVA
bears satisfying robustness of when there is violation of data normality but without viola-
tion of the variance homogeneity (Harwell & Serlin, 1988; Olejnik & Algina, 1984; Rhein-
heimer & Penfield, 2001), we proceeded to use ANCOVA as the measuring tool.
Results from ANCOVA tests showed that for posttest 1, there was no statistical sig-
nificance (F = 0.13, p > 0.05) between the Kinect and the mouse groups. For posttest 2, we
found no statistical significance (F = 0.04, p > 0.05) between the two groups either. Cor-
respondingly, statistical results revealed that embodied interactions enabled by the Kinect
brought no statistically better knowledge retention and application than traditional mouse
13
X. Xu, F. Ke
Table 3 Descriptive data in the Measurements

tests
Pretest Posttest 1 Posttest 2
(delayed)
M SD M SD M SD
Kinect-group 3.08 2.27 5.84 2.99 6.72 2.57

Mouse-group 2.07 1.36 5.63 2.31 6.11 2.44
interactions for adult learners when learning binary and decimal systems conversions in
both the immediate posttest, and the delayed posttest. Since the test scores were not strictly
normally distributed, to further validate the study results, we conducted the non-parameter
Mann–Whitney U test to examine if ANCOVA brought misinterpretation of the data. The
Mann–Whitney U tests showed the same statistical results (U = 318.0, p > 0.05; U = 285.5,
p > 0.05) in terms of learning effects comparisons between the two groups, endorsing the
robustness and the results of the ANCOVA tests.
At the same time, paired t-tests informed that for both groups, the immediate posttest
results increased significantly (t = 8.00, p < 0.001; t = 4.49, p < 0.001), and the delayed
posttest results increased significantly (t = 9.35, p < 0.001; t = 6.47, p < 0.001) as well, com-
pared with the pretest results (Fig. 2).
The survey questions for the mouse group were mainly about how the participants per-
ceived their learning experiences, as shown in Table 4.
The survey questions for the Kinect group were about how the participants perceived
their learning experiences, especially how they perceived the role of the embodied interac-
tions in learning, shown in Table 5.
The first three questions for both groups were similar in asking to what extent the learners
found the intervention instructive, easy to use, and how much they had learned. It is interest-
ing to notice that although both groups found the intervention instructive (89% and 84% posi-
tive; χ2(1) = 0.27, p > 0.05), less than half thought they had learned the content well (33% and
44% positive; χ2(1) = 0.62, p > 0.05) with the Kinect group feeling slightly better. Perhaps it
was because the contents itself was too hard at the first place for adults without any related
background. Close to half (48%) of the participants in Kinect group found it not easy to inter-
act with the learning materials while the mouse group did not think the interaction a problem.
And it was statistically significant (48% and 8% negative; χ2(1) = 10.87, p < 0.05) that par-
ticipants in the Kinect group encountered more difficulty during the interactive process than
those in the mouse group. The extra three questions in the Kinect group reflected how partici-
pants perceived their embodied learning experience. Although a majority (60%) of learners
realized that their body movements were part of the instruction, only less than half (44%) of
them seemed to have actually benefited from it. Consequently, in the last survey question, a
slight majority (52%) thought that mouse interactions might be more helpful.
5 Discussion
Previous studies have shown that embodied interactions (body gestures and movements)
could facilitate learning and cognition (Chang et al., 2013; Hung & Chen, 2018; Johnson-
Glenberg et al., 2014; Lee et al., 2012; Yoon et al., 2011). The results of this study are
13
Fig. 2 Mean scores for both 9

groups increased significantly 6.72
Mean Scores
7 5.84
5 6.11
3.08 5.63
3
1 2.07
Pretest Pos est 1 Pos est 2
Kinect Group Mouse Group
consistent with existing ones, and have added another piece of empirical evidence suggest-
ing that embodied interactions could facilitate learning in a STEM-related topic for adults.
However, the study findings on the relative learning effectiveness of embodied interactions
in comparison with mouse interactions are not statistically significant. A conclusion of these
findings is that embodied interactions do benefit the participating adult learners but do not
necessarily bring better learning effects than those that conventional mouse-based interac-
tions do. In the following section, we discuss the potential reasons for the findings and their
implications on the design and implementation of embodied interactions for learning.
Research has shown that body movements facilitate a learner’s cognitive activities,
reinforce the content in working memory, and help encode the perception and observation
(Alibali & Nathan, 2012; Arzarello et al., 2009; De Koning & Tabbers, 2013; Glenberg &
Kaschak, 2002; Lee et al., 2012; Johnson-Glenberg et al., 2014; Tran et al., 2017; Valen-
zeno et al., 2003; Weisberg & Newcombe, 2017). Test results in this study indicated signif-
icant learning effects in the retention of concepts related to binary and decimal systems and
their applications after the interventions for both Kinect and mouse groups. Although no
statistically significant differences were found, the test results of Kinect group in both the
immediate and delayed posttests showed numerically higher average scores than the mouse
group. In the Kinect group, when learning the concept “weight”, a learner moved his/her
arms to control the floating hand over the numbers and waved from right to left (or left to
right). Such movements embodied the concept of lower-weight digits and higher-weight
digits. When a learner moved the arm, and hovered a hand over a certain digit for the cor-
responding weight, such movements related the hand positioning information to the digit
positions carrying varied weights. While practicing conversion from the binary to the deci-
mal, a learner used the right arm to control the lower four digits, and the left arm to control
the higher four digits of the eight-digit binary number for practice. This strengthened, and
reinforced the cognitive schema of the weight distribution of a binary number as well as
the corresponding calculations. For the conversions from decimal to binary numbers, the
locations and directions of the moving arms were critical to embody the positioning infor-
mation of the corresponding remainders (residues after divisions) to construct the binary
digits, forming a connection between the abstract calculations and the body movements.
And moving the digits with arms from a certain spot to another encoded the binary number
reconstruction process in its unique modality. In this sense, such embodied interactions
could off-load parts of the demands for the working memory and free the necessary visual-
spatial buffer needed to process the numeric conversions. Body movements used during the
intervention reinforced the information processing for learning.
The study results did not show that the embodied interactive group had outperformed
the mouse group. Several potential reasons should be noted. First, as noticed from the
13
X. Xu, F. Ke
Table 4 Survey results for the mouse group

Strongly Somewhat Neither Some- Strongly
agree (%) agree (%) agree what disagree
nor disa- (%)
disagree gree
(%) (%)
I think the learning session I have just experi- 52 37 4 4 4

enced is instructive in general
I found it easy using the mouse to interact with 63 22 7 4 4
the learning material
I think I have mastered the knowledge about the 11 22 22 22 22
topic through this intervention
survey results, 84% and 89% of the learners in the Kinect and the mouse groups regarded
the intervention as instructive. Such a perception from the learners suggests that the com-
puter-aided instructional material about numeric systems itself is informative regardless of
what kind of interactions the learners use. Polycarpou et al. (2011), and Polycarpou (2014)
introduced a computer-aided learning environment for undergraduate students to practice
conversions from decimal to binary, and reported that the students found it easier to per-
form the conversions after the treatment. Moreover, in both conditions of our study, the
instruction itself features a basic virtual-reality-based learning environment, of which the
positive instructional effects are supported by various empirical studies (e.g., Gregory &
Masters, 2012; Kaufmann et al., 2000; Merchant et al., 2012; Mikropoulos & Natsis, 2011;
Pan et al., 2006; Samadbeik et al., 2018; Smith & Klumper, 2018; Tolentino et al., 2009).
Thus, the computer-enabled learning setting could have helped learners in both groups in
the first place, the mental simulations could have been sufficient, and other forms of modal-
ity are not required and necessary anymore (Reed, 2006). Even if the embodied interac-
tions in the Kinect group own a numerical advantage as indicated by the descriptive data
(the mean scores), the effect is not enough to contribute a statistically significant difference.
Second, for the Kinect group, the actual interactive experience is not that pleasant based
on the survey results. Based on multimedia theories (Mayer, 2009; Mayer & Chandler,
2001; Mayer & Moreno, 2003), an effective learning environment is a system that induces
active involvement of a learner’s varied information processing channels (e.g., audio, vis-
ual, verbal, non-verbal) while maintaining a reasonable cognitive load in order not to over-
load the learner’s processing capacity. In this study, embodied interactions are designed to
serve as another non-verbal channel or modality to help learning (Arzarello et al., 2009;
Cook et al., 2010; Yoon et al., 2011), while at the same time, such interactions should
not have increased the extraneous cognitive load or brought redundant information (Mayer,
2009; Reed, 2006). However, for the lack of training before the actual intervention, the user
experiences in the Kinect group may have increased the cognitive load because some of the
participants had to spend more effort in concentrating on the mechanics of the interaction
itself, which could have consequently created irrelevant information and redundancy dur-
ing the learners’ cognitive processing. Although body movements reduced the cost associ-
ated with cognitive activities related to the content knowledge (Alibali & DiRusso, 1999;
Cook & Goldin-Meadow, 2006; Gallagher & Lindgren, 2015), the added load related to
usability should have counterbalanced the advantage of embodied interactions, in addition
to the frustration associated that could have influenced emotions and motivations of the
learners (Domagk et al., 2010; Shakroum et al., 2018). Shakroum et al. (2018) studied the
13
Table 5 Survey results for the kinect group

Strongly Some- Neither Some- Strongly
agree (%) what agree what disagree
agree nor disa- (%)
(%) disagree
gree (%)
(%)
I think the learning session I have just experienced is 28 56 8 8 0

instructive in general
I found it easy using my body gestures to interact with 8 36 8 24 24
the learning material
I think I have mastered the knowledge about the topic 16 28 12 40 4
through this intervention
During the intervention, I realized that using my body 40 20 24 12 4
movements and gestures was part of my learning process
I think that using the body movements and gestures as 20 24 28 24 4
prompted in the intervention has helped my understand-
ing the learning content
I think I can learn better if I use the mouse to interact 16 36 32 12 4
with the learning materials rather than using the Kinect-
enabled body movements to interact
statistical relationship between the embodied interactive features of a gesture-based learn-

ing system (GBLS) and the learning outcomes, and found that the GBLS features has no
direct effect on the learning outcomes. The researchers further claimed that “intrinsic moti-
vation mediates the effect of GBLS’s features on learning outcomes” (Shakroum et al.,
2018, p. 99). Furthermore, even though the bodily actions are designed to be congruent
with the learning content and to reflect the procedures for the calculations (see Table 1 for
reference), the redundant body movements (e.g., multiple trials) maneuvering the learning
materials may have diminished the anticipated congruency, and diluted the effects that such
congruency are expected to bring.
Third, learners in a computer-mediated instruction should be actively engaged in the
interactions with instructional materials that correspond with varied levels of learning out-
comes (Domagk et al., 2010; Mayer, 2009). In this study, the learning outcomes and pro-
cess dimensions are knowledge retention, understanding, and application. To accomplish
the learning outcomes, “the learning environment, learners’ behavioral activities, cognitive
and metacognitive activities, and motivation and emotion” (Domagk et al., 2010, p. 1026)
should work seamlessly to contribute to learning. Discussing the design of task-embodi-
ment integration in embodied learning, Skulmowski and Rey (2018) proposed that embodi-
ment should be integrated into the learning task to be effective while avoiding unnecessary
movements that increase cognitive load. In order to accomplish this, we carefully designed
the embodied interactions to weave such elements and processes together by enabling
learners to control the information delivery, content selection and segmentation, and learn-
ing pacing. Unfortunately, during the actual intervention, because of the different technol-
ogy acceptance levels of the learners, embodied interactions have not played the antici-
pated role well so that it somehow breaks the dynamic links among the above elements
and processes, which, consequently, does not help much to integrate new information into
coherent knowledge structures (Domagk et al., 2010). Ideally, the technology part should
13
X. Xu, F. Ke
blend “perfectly into the activity, so that you are not blinded by it but you are able to fully
focus on the content” (Tran et al., 2017, p. 15). As noticed in the survey results, 60% par-
ticipants realized that using their body movements and gestures was part of their learning
process, although only 44% participants claimed perceived benefits from such movements.
The less-than-a-half rate echoed the finding that perceived learning effectiveness acted a
first-order factor of learning outcomes (Shakroum et al., 2018).
Fourth, the learning content for numeric systems requires comprehension, rational think-
ing, and calculation, which reflects factual, conceptual, and procedural dimensions of knowl-
edge (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). The participants of this study are educated adults
with at least an undergraduate background in an accredited university. As observed, these
participants possess sound mentality to comprehend, to reason, to infer, and to think ration-
ally. Even if the participants in the mouse group do not have the privilege to use their body
movements to help encode and reinforce the content knowledge, they will still be able to
utilize their already-owned learning ability to compensate for the lack of an extra modality. In
other words, the background and mentality of the current participants should have inherently
brought a positive influence to the learning results. In the context of this study, the partici-
pants’ understanding and application of the numeric systems in both groups can be inherently
brought by the advanced learning proficiencies and backgrounds of the participants (Judson,
2012; Rifkin, 2005). Consequently, such an influence blurs the boundaries among the out-
comes from the ways of interaction, the multimedia instructions, and the participants’ exist-
ing learning competencies, and has limited the effect of the embodied interactions.
To summarize, a reasonable conclusion is that body movements have helped the embod-
ied interactive learning group in learning binary and decimal systems and their conversions.
However, the positive effects in the current study turned out to be not sufficient to significantly
enhance learning over the conventional mouse interaction. At the same time, the learning abil-
ities of the participants may have further reduced the differences between the two groups.
6 Implications and Limitations
The study contributes to the literature of embodied learning by shedding light on the design
of embodied interactive learning of a STEM-related topic for adult learners. It illustrates the
processes and lessons in the design and implementations of embodied interactions for learn-
ing. For both researchers and practitioners, the study findings provide empirical evidence for
and serve as a reference of how to complement the pedagogical efforts with proper embodied
interactions to foster the learners’ cognitive processing without creating cognitive overload.
Researchers (e.g., Johnson-Glenberg et al., 2014; Johnson-Glenberg & Megowan-
Romanowicz, 2017; Nathan & Walkington, 2017; Segal et al., 2010; Segal, 2011; Tran et al.,
2017) have discussed the congruency design inquiry–how body movements are congruent
with the learning content during the embodied learning process. In our study, we found that
the design inquiry involves both ‘how’ and ‘how much’ considerations. The ‘how’ refers to
the degree to which certain anticipated embodied interaction is in agreement with the con-
tent. For example, the angles formed by moving arms in Nathan and Walkington (2017) cor-
responds to the learning content of triangle angles. Researchers categorized different types
of body movements and gestures based on what they imply and how they relate to the con-
tent areas. Alibali and Nathan (2012) classified body gestures into three types: pointing, rep-
resentational, and metaphoric, which facilitate learning and cognition in various ways. As
the names suggest, pointing gestures direct learners’ attention to a certain part of interest;
13
representational and metaphoric gestures are those illustrate ideas and concepts with repre-
sentations and metaphor, which carry particular meanings in a nonverbal manner. So et al.
(2012) viewed body gestures from two simple perspectives – meaningful and nonmeaning-
ful gestures. If the bodily movements carry ideas, show analogies, and govern directions,
such motoric actions are meaningful; if the bodily movements appear as accompanies to the
discourse simply following the rhythm of the speech or sound, such motoric actions are non-
meaningful (in the sense of learning content). Meaningful movements include those repre-
sentational, metaphoric, and pointing ones. When designing an embodied interactive learn-
ing environment, people strive to assure how to connect the bodily movements to the actual
learning content to make the learners’ interactions meaningful. In Kang et al. (2018), users
interacted with the system with mathematical operations through body movements meta-
phorically such as making a folding gesture to represent multiplication. In Lindgren et al.
(2016), learners utilized their body gestures to manipulate the trajectories that asteroids
would move along under the influence of different forces. Bodily movement in these stud-
ies are designed to represent the learning content. In our study, moving the remainders and
placing them to their corresponding positions represents the exact process of decimal-binary
conversion. Nevertheless, another example in our study, using the right arm to control the
lower four digits and the left to control the higher four in order to illustrate the relationships
between the concept of the digit weight and its distributions in a binary number, is not strin-
gently a direct reflection of the content. Rather, the embodied interaction needs an exclusive
cognitive schema that purposively associate the positioning of arms with the distributions of
numerical weight, and is not fully congruent with the content.
The ‘how much’ refers to the ratio or percentage of effective embodied interactions out
of all the bodily movements in relation to the encoding of or interaction with the content.
While the ‘how’ lies in the designing phase of an intervention and is supposed to be fully
controlled by the designers restricted only by technical possibilities, the ‘how much’ is
more at the phase of the actual intervention. When designing the embodied interventions,
we anticipated the performance of conjectured and meaningful body movements enabled
by the technology. However, because of technical glitches and different learner perfor-
mance, the desirable movements may not always happen whereas irrelevant or mistaken
ones emerged. Those unanticipated movements bring noise into the embodied learning sys-
tem, which might create extra cognitive load and bring unpleasant experience. Hence a
noise-tolerant, embodied interaction mechanism should be studied to increase the reliabil-
ity of the interaction interface in diverse contexts. From the current study, we may advocate
that embodied interactions that are relevant to the learning content should be those mean-
ingful and operational. A body movement may represent or metaphorize a concept, point at
certain directions, or operate the learning materials. If, in an embodied interactive learning
intervention, we denote the numbers of meaningful and operational movements as Nm and
No respectively, and the number of redundant movements (the noise) as n, we may want to
increase the ratio of (Nm + No)/(Nm + No + n) for the learners to employ their body move-
ments more efficiently to reach the learning goals. Normally, when we design the interven-
tion, the anticipated meaningful and operational movements can be expected, and Nm + No
stays relatively as a constant. So, it is the designer’s goal to decrease n as much as possible.
Such a formulation about the how and the how much inspired by our study findings may
contribute to the future research and practice of embodied learning by illustrating the pos-
sibility to quantify the learning materials and learning behaviors. Further study about this
will be promising to quantify the efficiency of embodied interactive learning.
The study findings also imply that, like many other instructional designs, the learning
effectiveness of embodied interactions should be content-dependent. For subject areas that
13
X. Xu, F. Ke
require more comprehension, reasoning, and rational thinking, embodied interactions may
not be the dominant contributor to the learning effects. Once a learner comprehends and
grasps the procedure and reasoning, such knowledge stays with the learner. For subject
areas that require more imagination, visualization, and direct memorizing, learning through
embodied interactions is expected to outperform learning through conventional approaches.
For the limitations, it should be noted that the adult participants in this study could be less
representative because of their above-average educational background and mentality, as well
as their being from a same university. The intervention time of the study was barely an hour.
The short duration may have failed to reflect the learning effect of embodied interactions in
a timely manner. Some learners might be still struggling to familiarize themselves with the
operations when their session was terminated. And also, for the restraints (e.g., accuracy,
range, etc.) of the Kinect device, the movements that the participants were asked to perform
were not optimally congruent with the learning content, and the embodied interactions with
the learning materials were not as user-friendly as expected. Some participants became frus-
trated after failures, and some placed too much concentration on the learning control rather
than the content knowledge itself. At last, it should be noted that in this study the experi-
ence survey was used mainly as a supplementary data-collection method to corroborate and
explain the knowledge acquisition test results. A more comprehensive learning experience
questionnaire or investigation can be considered for a future study.
This study was conducted to empirically examine the potential added value (or relative
effectiveness) of self-embodied interactions in comparison with conventional mouse-based
interaction. Even though the study indicated non-significant results on the relative effective-
ness of the embodied interaction in this current design, we regard it be of value to report
to the research community with the abundant discussions about the reasons and lessons to
learn. The study showed that in a technology-enhanced learning environment, not all forms
of embodiment necessarily increase learning performance. Future research should introduce
an orientation session specifically training the operational embodied interactions before the
actual intervention, so that the novice and usability issue will not jeopardize the learning
process. Moreover, it is suggested to apply such a study to people with more diverse profiles,
and to extend both the length and the scope of content knowledge of the study. Researchers
may also explore the embodied learning interactions applied to other STEM subjects like
signal processing. In future studies on embodied learning, the knowledge assessment can be
designed to focus on the items that echo the features of embodiment. At last, it will also be
of research interest to quantify the ratios between effective interactions and the attempted
ones, and to study the relationship among such ratios, cognitive load, and learning perfor-
mance. Researchers should pay more attention to the balance of the ‘noise’ and learning
effects introduced by embodiment during learning interactions.
Appendix A
Instructional Materials
Instructional Objective
Given decimal and binary numbers, students will be able to identify the weight of each
digit, and convert given numbers between the two numeric systems.
13
Estimated Time
45 minutes
Learning Content
The instructional material is adopted from an existing course, Computer Basics, from an
accredited university. The learning environment is in the first-person view, and displays
necessary learning information on the screen. At the same time, oral instructions on the
content and how to interact with the on-screen materials will accompany the intervention.
Key Points
• Weight of each digit in the two numeric systems

• Conversion of numbers from binary to decimal
• Conversion of numbers from decimal to binary
Table 6 lists the four scenes in this part with the corresponding scripts necessary, as
well as some screen captures showing the key interventions.
Table 6 Instructional scenarios and corresponding scripts for numeric systems learning

Scenes Narration scripts
Scene 1 Hello, my friend. Welcome to this mini introductory course on

Walking on the motherboard, and how to convert numbers between different numeric systems.
warming-up: As people living in this modern age, we cannot live without
Some basic background knowledge computers every day. We use computers to communicate,
about the topic to calculate, and to solve many kinds of problems. Imagine
now you are shrunk and have entered a computer. Notice that
you are stepping on the mother board, which is basically a
complicated integrated circuit board. This is the CPU, and this
is the memory. Whenever you want a computer to do something
for you, it is essentially doing some calculations as simple as
summations. And the numbers a computer is using is nothing
but only 1 s and 0 s, and we call this the binary numeric system.
It is because that a computer runs on electric power and the
simplest states in such a context are the power “on” and “off”.
Naturally, we use the two states, 1 (on) and 0 (off) to represent
numbers. In other words, a computer uses 1 s and 0’ to com-
pute. Of course, there are more rationales for the designing of
computers, which are beyond our scope today.
Well, to put it simple, a computer uses only two numeric

symbols, 1’s and 0 s, to represent numbers, unlike our daily
decimal system which uses symbols 0–9 to show numbers and
quantities. For historical and convenient reasons, we are more
used to using the decimal system to show quantities. But it does
not mean that such a system is the only way to numbering quan-
tities. Just like different languages showing an identical object,
different numeric systems indicate a same quantity in different
numeric forms. Consequently, we need to “translate” between
numeric systems, like languages, and we call such translation
the conversion between numeric systems.
13
X. Xu, F. Ke
Table 6 (continued)
Scene 2 First, let’s see how a decimal number and a binary number
How decimal and binary numbers represent a quality. When writing numbers, we put the digits
represent numbers in order from left to right. Each digit has a certain weight of
quantity. Yes, we call this the Weight of a digit, which shows
the actual value that a 1 represents at a certain position. The
higher (more to the left) the position, the more weight a digit
has. For a decimal number, like the one you see on the top, if
you could use your mouse (hand) to hover on each digit, you
may find the weight of the corresponding digit. The one with
the lowest weight is the one at the farthest right, the first digit.
It has a weight of 1, which is 10 to the power of 1–1 = 0. The
second one has a weight of 10, which is 10 to the power of
2–1 = 1. And then 100, 1000, 10,000, … Notice that for a deci-
mal system, the weight of a digit is always some exponential
of 10. For example, for the third digit, it is 10 to the power of
2. The fourth, the power of 3 … The rule here is that for the kth
digit, the weight is 10 to the power of k–1. If we want to know
what the exact quantity the number represents, we simple have
the numeric symbol on each digit multiply by its corresponding
weight, and add them all together.
Now let’s look at the binary number below. Same rule applies
here: the lowest digit at the farthest right has the smallest
weight. The higher (more to the left) the position, the more
weight a digit has. The right most one, the first digit, has a
weight of 1, which is 2 to the power of 1–1 = 0. The second one
has a weight of 2, which is 2 to the power of 2–1 = 1. And then
4, 8, 16, … Notice that for a binary system, the weight of a digit
is always some exponential of 2. For example for the third digit,
it is 2 to the power of 2. The fourth, the power of 3 … If you
could use your mouse (hand) to hover on each digit, you may
find the weight of the corresponding digit. The rule here is that
for the kth digit, the weight is 2 to the power of k–1. Same as
before, if we want to know what the exact quantity the number
represents, we simple have the numeric symbol on each digit
multiply by its corresponding weight, and add them all together.
This is essentially how we convert a binary number into its
decimal counterpart. The only thing you will feel unusual this
time is that there are only two symbols here, 1 s and 0 s, and the
weight is always powers of 2. It is all because that we are in the
binary numeric system.
13
Table 6 (continued)
Scene 3 Now let’s practice how to convert a binary number into a decimal
Practice of conversion from binary to one. On the screen you may see some buttons–the ones on top
decimal are “On”s, and the ones at the bottom are “Off”s. Those “X”es in
the middle are binary digits that you can assign either a “1” or a
“0” by pressing those on and off buttons. Each digit is controlled
by the on and off buttons directly above and below it. Intuitively,
when you press an on button, you assign a 1 to the corresponding
digit; and an off, a 0. Please always remember that the more to the
left a digit is, the higher the weight it has. For simplicity reasons,
we only deal with binary numbers with eight effective digits at
the most.
(mouse version) Please use your mouse to turn on or off the but-
tons to assign 1 or 0 to a corresponding digit. When you finish
assigning the digits, use your mouse to press the calculation but-
ton on the top right to see how it is calculated.
(Kinect version) You may use your right hand to assign 1 or 0 to

the lower four digits, that are to the right; use your left hand to
manipulate the upper four digits to the left. When you are done,
use your right hand to press the calculation button on the top right
to see how it is calculated.
Scene 4 Binary to decimal, pretty easy, huh? Now for the a-little-bit-
Practice of conversion from decimal more-tricky part–conversion from decimal to binary. I believe
to binary you do not want to see the boring mathematical derivation.
Let’s skip to the simple rules directly. The key here is to do
divisions of 2, take the residues, and rearrange the residues
in order. Let’s go over the procedure all together. Think of an
integral number that is less than 256, and let’s write it down in
this box.
Now use your mouse (hand) to click the “divide by 2” button,

you will find the result here. More importantly, you will find
the residue of each division appearing in this column from top
to the bottom. Notice that whenever an integer is divided by 2,
the residue can either be 1 or 0. We do the division continu-
ously and list the corresponding residue in this column starting
from the top, until we reach the result of 1 after the division.
One cannot be divided by 2 by having an integer number, and
naturally, the last residue is 1. After the divisions, we enter the
critical step–we will rearrange the residues from bottom up, and
list them from the left to the right.
You see eight empty spaces up there? These are empty binary
digits for you to fill in. Please use your mouse (use your hand)
to move the most bottom-down residue to the left most spot;
the second most bottom residue to the second left most spot …
until we move the first residue at the top to the first digit spot
at the right most. A binary number appears, right? Believe it
or not, this binary number formed by the residues here in these
spots is simply the binary conversion of the decimal integer we
have just put in the box.
Now let’s try more integer numbers (less than 256)
13
X. Xu, F. Ke
Appendix B: Test Items and Answer Keys
Pretest and Posttest 1
1. What is the weight in any numeric system?
A. The actual value that a “1” represents at a certain position in a number

B. The exponential of 2 that the symbol in a certain position represents
C. The force on the object due to gravity
D. The amount or quantity of heaviness or mass
Key: A
2. For a number in a certain numeric system, the position with the highest weight is:
A. The digit on the farthest right side

B. The digit at the middle if the number has an odd number of digits
C. The digit on the farthest left side
D. The two digits at the middle if the number has an even number of digits
Key: C
3. 2015, in the decimal system, the weight of the third digit starting from the right is:
A. 0
B. 10
C. 3
D. 100
Key: D
4. 1101, in the binary system, the weight of the third digit starting from the right is:
A. 0
B. 4
C. 3
D. 2
Key: B
5. The binary number 1001 is ______ in decimal system.
A. 7
B. 8
C. 9
D. 10
Key: C
13
A. 126
B. 127
C. 128
D. 129
Key: D
A. 58
B. 127
C. 44
D. 73
Key: C
8. The decimal number 98 is ______ in binary system.
A. 1100010
B. 1100100
C. 1101010
D. 1110010
Key: A
A. 10110001
B. 11011111
C. 11000101
D. 11101111
Key: B
A. 00010001
B. 00100101
C. 11000101
D. 00110110
Key: B
Posttest 2
1. What is the weight in any numeric system?
A. The actual value that a “1” represents at a certain position in a number

B. The exponential of 2 that the symbol in a certain position represents
13
X. Xu, F. Ke
C. The force on the object due to gravity

D. The amount or quantity of heaviness or mass
Key: A
2. For a number in a certain numeric system, the position with the lowest weight is:
A. The digit on the farthest left side

B. The digit at the middle if the number has an odd number of digits
C. The digit on the farthest right side
D. The two digits at the middle if the number has an even number of digits
Key: C
3. 9457, in the decimal system, the weight of the second digit starting from the right is:
A. 0
B. 100
C. 3
D. 10
Key: D
4. 1101, in the binary system, the weight of the second digit starting from the right is:
A. 0
B. 2
C. 3
D. 4
Key: B
A. 10
B. 11
C. 12
D. 13
Key: C
A. 126
B. 127
C. 136
D. 137
Key: D
13
A. 53
B. 110
C. 51
D. 78
Key: C
A. 1011001
B. 1100010
C. 1110011
D. 1100010
Key: A
A. 10110001
B. 11001010
C. 11000100
D. 11100110
Key: B
A. 00100101
B. 00101011
C. 11001101
D. 00110110
Key: B
Declarations
Conflict of interest The author declared that there is no conflict of interest.
References
Alibali, M. W., & DiRusso, A. A. (1999). The function of gesture in learning to count: More than keeping
track. Cognitive Development, 14(1), 37–56.
Alibali, M. W., & Nathan, M. J. (2007). Teachers’ gestures as a means of scaffolding students’ understand-
ing: Evidence from an early algebra lesson. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. J. Derry (Eds.),
Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 349–365). Erlbaum.
13
X. Xu, F. Ke
Alibali, M. W., & Nathan, M. J. (2012). Embodiment in mathematics teaching and learning: Evidence from
learners’ and teachers’ gestures. Journal of Learning Science, 21(2), 247–286.
Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of
Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Arzarello, F., Paola, D., Robutti, O., & Sabena, C. (2009). Gestures as semiotic resources in the mathemat-
ics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(2), 97–109.
Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Chapter: Human memory: A proposed system and its control pro-
cesses. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. Two,
pp. 89–195). Academic Press.
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning
and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. Eight, pp. 47–89). Academic Press.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. David
McKay Co., Inc.
Bloom, B. S. (1994). Reflections on the development and use of the taxonomy. In L. W. Anderson & L.
A. Sosniak (Eds.), Bloom’s Taxonomy: A Forty-Year Retrospective (pp. 1–8). National Society for the
Study of Education.
Broaders, S. C., Cook, S. W., Mitchell, Z., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2007). Making children gesture brings
out implicit knowledge and leads to learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(4),
539.
Chang, C. Y., Chien, Y. T., Chiang, C. Y., Lin, M. C., & Lai, H. C. (2013). Embodying gesture-based multi-
media to improve learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(1), 5–9.
Chang, Y. J., Chen, S. F., & Chuang, A. F. (2011). A gesture recognition system to transition autonomously
through vocational tasks for individuals with cognitive impairments. Research in Developmental Dis-
abilities, 32(6), 2064–2068.
Chao, K. J., Huang, H. W., Fang, W. C., & Chen, N. S. (2013). Embodied play to learn: Exploring Kinect-
facilitated memory performance. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(5), 151–155.
Cook, S. W., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2006). The role of gesture in learning: Do children use their hands to
change their minds? Journal of Cognition and Development, 7(2), 211–232.
Cook, S. W., Yip, T. K., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2010). Gesturing makes memories that last. Journal of
Memory and Language, 63(4), 465–475.
De Koning, B. B., & Tabbers, H. K. (2013). Gestures in instructional animations: A helping hand to under-
standing non-human movements? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(5), 683–689.
Domagk, S., Schwartz, R. N., & Plass, J. L. (2010). Interactivity in multimedia learning: An integrated
model. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 1024–1033.
Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of Learning for Instruction (3rd ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
Edwards, L. D. (2009). Gestures and conceptual integration in mathematical talk. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 70(2), 127–141.
Gallagher, S., & Lindgren, R. (2015). Enactive metaphors: Learning through full-body engagement. Educa-
tional Psychology Review, 27(3), 391–404.
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update
(4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
Glenberg, A. M. (2010). Embodiment as a unifying perspective for psychology. Wiley Interdisciplinary
Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1(4), 586–596.
Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. P. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,
9(3), 558–565.
Goldin-Meadow, S., Cook, S. W., & Mitchell, Z. A. (2009). Gesturing gives children new ideas about math.
Psychological Science, 20, 267–272.
Gregory, S., & Masters, Y. (2012). Real thinking with virtual hats: A role-playing activity for pre-service
teachers in Second Life. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(3), 420–440.
Hannaford, C. (1995). Smart moves: Why learning is not all in your head. Great Ocean Publishers, Inc.,
1823 N. Lincoln St., Arlington, VA.
Hsiao, H. S., & Chen, J. C. (2016). Using a gesture interactive game-based learning approach to improve
preschool children’s learning performance and motor skills. Computers & Education, 95, 151–162.
Hung, I. C., & Chen, N. S. (2018). Embodied interactive video lectures for improving learning comprehen-
sion and retention. Computers & Education, 117, 116–131.
Hung, I. C., Lin, L. I., Fang, W. C., & Chen, N. S. (2014). Learning with the body: An embodiment-based
learning strategy enhances performance of comprehending fundamental optics. Interacting with Com-
puters, 26(4), 360–371.
Jensen, E. (2000). Moving with the brain in mind. Educational Leadership, 58(3), 34–38.
13
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.
Johnson-Glenberg, M. C., & Megowan-Romanowicz, C. (2017). Embodied science and mixed reality: How
gesture and motion capture affect physics education. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications,
2(1), 24.
Judson, E. (2012). Learning about bones at a science museum: Examining the alternate hypotheses of ceil-
ing effect and prior knowledge. Instructional Science, 40(6), 957–973.
Kang, J., Lindgren, R., & Planey, J. (2018). Exploring emergent features of student interaction within an
embodied science learning simulation. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 2(3), 39.
Kaufmann, H., Schmalstieg, D., & Wagner, M. (2000). Construct3D: A virtual reality application for math-
ematics and geometry education. Education and Information Technologies, 5(4), 263–276.
Kiefer, M., & Trumpp, N. M. (2012). Embodiment theory and education: The foundations of cognition in
perception and action. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 1(1), 15–20.
Kontra, C., Lyons, D. J., Fischer, S. M., & Beilock, S. L. (2015). Physical experience enhances science
learning. Psychological Science, 26(6), 737–749.
Kosmas, P., Ioannou, A., & Zaphiris, P. (2019). Implementing embodied learning in the classroom: Effects
on children’s memory and language skills. Educational Media International, 56(1), 59–74.
Lan, Y. J., Fang, W. C., Hsiao, I. Y., & Chen, N. S. (2018). Real body versus 3D avatar: The effects of differ-
ent embodied learning types on EFL listening comprehension. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 66(3), 709–731.
Lee, W., Huang, C., Wu, C., Huang, S., & Chen, G. (2012). The effects of using embodied interactions to
improve learning performance. Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), 2012 IEEE 12th Interna-
tional Conference on, 4–6 July 2012, 557–559.
Li, W., Wang, F., Mayer, R. E., & Liu, H. (2019). Getting the point: Which kinds of gestures by pedagogical
agents improve multimedia learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(8), 1382.
Lindgren, R., Tscholl, M., Wang, S., & Johnson, E. (2016). Enhancing learning and engagement through
embodied interaction within a mixed reality simulation. Computers & Education, 95, 174–187.
Macedonia, M., & von Kriegstein, K. (2012). Gestures enhance foreign language learning. Biolinguistics,
6(3–4), 393–416.
Magana, A. J., & Balachandran, S. (2017a). Students’ development of representational competence through
the sense of touch. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(3), 332–346.
Magana, A. J., & Balachandran, S. (2017b). Unpacking students’ conceptualizations through haptic feed-
back. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(5), 513–531.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E., & Chandler, P. (2001). When learning is just a click away: Does simple user interaction foster
deeper understanding of multimedia messages? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 390.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educa-
tional Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52.
Merchant, Z., Goetz, E. T., Keeney-Kennicutt, W., Kwok, O., Cifuentes, L., & Davis, T. J. (2012). The
learner characteristics, features of desktop 3D virtual reality environments, and college chemistry
instruction: A structural equation modeling analysis. Computers & Education, 59(2), 551–568.
Merkouris, A., Chorianopoulou, B., Chorianopoulos, K., & Chrissikopoulos, V. (2019). Understanding
the Notion of Friction Through Gestural Interaction with a Remotely Controlled Robot. Journal of
Science Education and Technology, 28(3), 209–221.
Mikropoulos, T. A., & Natsis, A. (2011). Educational virtual environments: A ten-year review of empiri-
cal research (1999–2009). Computers & Education, 56(3), 769–780.
Nathan, M. J., & Walkington, C. (2017). Grounded and embodied mathematical cognition: Promoting
mathematical insight and proof using action and language. Cognitive Research: Principles and
Implications, 2(1), 9.
Ozcelik, E., & Sengul, G. (2012). Gesture-based interaction for learning: Time to make the dream a real-
ity. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(3), E86–E89.
Pan, Z., Cheok, A. D., Yang, H., Zhu, J., & Shi, J. (2006). Virtual reality and mixed reality for virtual
learning environments. Computers and Graphics, 30(1), 20–28.
Parmar, D., Isaac, J., Babu, S. V., D’Souza, N., Leonard, A. E., Jörg, S., ... & Daily, S. B. (2016). Pro-
gramming moves: Design and evaluation of applying embodied interaction in virtual environ-
ments to enhance computational thinking in middle school students. In Virtual Reality (VR), 2016
IEEE (pp. 131–140). IEEE.
13
X. Xu, F. Ke
Polycarpou, I., Krause, J., & Noring, M. (2011). Binary Blaster: An Educational Game for Practicing
Binary Number Conversions. In the Proceedings of the Int’l Conf. Frontiers in Education: CS and
CE (FECS’11) (pp. 492–497).
Polycarpou, I. (2014). Decimal to Binary Number Conversion can be Fun. In Proceedings of the Inter-
national Conference on Frontiers in Education: Computer Science and Computer Engineering
(FECS) (pp. 1–6).
Price, S., Yiannoutsou, N., & Vezzoli, Y. (2020). Making the Body Tangible: Elementary Geometry
Learning through VR. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 6, 213–232.
Reed, S. K. (2006). Cognitive architectures for multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 87–98.
Reynolds, F. J., & Reeve, R. A. (2001). Gesture in collaborative mathematics problem-solving. Journal
of Mathematical Behavior, 20, 447–460.
Richey, R. C. (1986). The Theoretical and Conceptual Bases of Instructional Design. London/New
York: Kogan Page Ltd.
Rifkin, B. (2005). A ceiling effect in traditional classroom foreign language instruction: Data from Rus-
sian. The Modern Language Journal, 89(1), 3–18.
Samadbeik, M., Yaaghobi, D., Bastani, P., Abhari, S., Rezaee, R., & Garavand, A. (2018). The appli-
cations of virtual reality technology in medical groups teaching. Journal of Advances in Medical
Education & Professionalism, 6(3), 123–129.
Segal, A., Black, J., & Tversky, B. (2010). Do gestural interfaces promote thinking? Congruent gestures
promote performance in math. Presented at the 51st annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, St.
Louis (Missouri, USA)
Segal, A. (2011). Do gestural interfaces promote thinking? Embodied interaction: Congruent gestures
and direct touch promote performance in math. ProQuest LLC.
Shakroum, M., Wong, K. W., & Fung, C. C. (2018). The influence of gesture-based learning system
(GBLS) on learning outcomes. Computers & Education, 117, 75–101.
Skulmowski, A., Pradel, S., Kühnert, T., Brunnett, G., & Rey, G. D. (2016). Embodied learning using a
tangible user interface: The effects of haptic perception and selective pointing on a spatial learning
task. Computers & Education, 92, 64–75.
Skulmowski, A., & Rey, G. D. (2018). Embodied learning: Introducing a taxonomy based on bodily
engagement and task integration. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 3(1), 1–10.
Smith, K., & Klumper, D. (2018). VIRTUALLY in the classroom: Virtual reality platforms can give
preservice teachers opportunities to develop real classroom management skills. Educational Lead-
ership, 76(1), 60–65.
Tall, D. (2008). The transition to formal thinking in mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Jour-
nal, 20(2), 5–24.
Tolentino, L., Birchfield, D., Megowan-Romanowicz, C., Johnson-Glenberg, M. C., Kelliher, A., & Mar-
tinez, C. (2009). Teaching and learning in the mixed-reality science classroom. Journal of Science
Education Technology, 18(6), 501–517.
Tran, C., Smith, B., & Buschkuehl, M. (2017). Support of mathematical thinking through embodied cogni-
tion: Nondigital and digital approaches. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 2(1), 16.
Valenzeno, L., Alibali, M. W., & Klatzky, R. (2003). Teachers’ gestures facilitate students’ learning: A les-
son in symmetry. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 187–204.
Walkington, C., Boncoddo, R., Williams, C., Nathan, M. J., Alibali, M. W., Simon, E., & Pier, E. (2014).
Being mathematical relations: dynamic gestures support mathematical reasoning. In W. Penuel, S. A.
Jurow, & K. O’Connor (Eds.), Learning and becoming in practice: Proceedings of the Eleventh Inter-
national Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 479–486). Boulder, CO: University of Colorado.
Xu, X., & Ke, F. (2014). From psychomotor to ‘motorpsycho’: Learning through gestures with body sensory
technologies. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(6), 711–741.
Yoon, C., Thomas, M. O. J., & Dreyfus, T. (2011). Grounded blends and mathematical gesture spaces: Devel-
oping mathematical understandings via gestures. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 78(3), 371–393.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
13
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center
GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers
and authorised users (“Users”), for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all
copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By accessing,
sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of
use (“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and
students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and
conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any
conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription (to
the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of
the Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may
also use these personal data internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share
it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise
disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies
unless we have your permission as detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial
use, it is important to note that Users may not:
1. use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale
basis or as a means to circumvent access control;
2. use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any
jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
3. falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association
unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in writing;
4. use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
5. override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
6. share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a
systematic database of Springer Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a
product or service that creates revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as
part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal content cannot be
used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large
scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not
obligated to publish any information or content on this website and may remove it or features or
functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature may revoke
this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content
which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or
guarantees to Users, either express or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and
all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law, including
merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published
by Springer Nature that may be licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a
regular basis or in any other manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer
Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com

Learning Number Conversions Through Embodied Inter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Learning Number Conversions Through Embodied Inter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technology, Knowledge and Learning

Learning Number Conversions Through Embodied

Accepted: 11 July 2021

Keywords Embodied interaction · Embodied learning · Human–computer interaction ·

Table 1 Design conjectures on embodied interactions for learning

2.1 Body Movements Facilitate Information Processing

2.2 Body Movements Enhance Learning in Math and Other STEM Fields

We focused on examining whether embodied interactions could lead to greater knowledge

3.1 Study Intervention, Procedure, and Participants

3.2 Instruments and Data Analysis

Fig. 1 Learning through embodied interactions (left); Learning with mouse (right)

Table 2 Demographic Kinect Group Mouse

*Some participants chose not to provide the details

Table 3 Descriptive data in the Measurements

Kinect-group 3.08 2.27 5.84 2.99 6.72 2.57

Fig. 2 Mean scores for both 9

Kinect Group Mouse Group

Table 4 Survey results for the mouse group

I think the learning session I have just experi- 52 37 4 4 4

Table 5 Survey results for the kinect group

I think the learning session I have just experienced is 28 56 8 8 0

statistical relationship between the embodied interactive features of a gesture-based learn-

• Weight of each digit in the two numeric systems

Table 6 Instructional scenarios and corresponding scripts for numeric systems learning

Scene 1 Hello, my friend. Welcome to this mini introductory course on

Well, to put it simple, a computer uses only two numeric

(Kinect version) You may use your right hand to assign 1 or 0 to

Now use your mouse (hand) to click the “divide by 2” button,

Now let’s try more integer numbers (less than 256)

Appendix B: Test Items and Answer Keys

1. What is the weight in any numeric system?

A. The actual value that a “1” represents at a certain position in a number

A. The digit on the farthest right side

1. What is the weight in any numeric system?

A. The actual value that a “1” represents at a certain position in a number

C. The force on the object due to gravity

A. The digit on the farthest left side

5. The binary number 1100 is ______ in decimal system.

6. The binary number 10001001 is ______ in decimal system.

7. The binary number 110011 is ______ in decimal system.

Conflict of interest The author declared that there is no conflict of interest.

You might also like

Table 1 Design conjectures on embodied interactions for learning

2.1 Body Movements Facilitate Information Processing

2.2 Body Movements Enhance Learning in Math and Other STEM Fields

3.1 Study Intervention, Procedure, and Participants

3.2 Instruments and Data Analysis

Fig. 1 Learning through embodied interactions (left); Learning with mouse (right)

Table 2 Demographic Kinect Group Mouse

Table 3 Descriptive data in the Measurements

Fig. 2 Mean scores for both 9

Table 4 Survey results for the mouse group

Table 5 Survey results for the kinect group

Table 6 Instructional scenarios and corresponding scripts for numeric systems learning