↓ Skip to main content

Support of mathematical thinking through embodied cognition: Nondigital and digital approaches

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
87 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Support of mathematical thinking through embodied cognition: Nondigital and digital approaches
Published in
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s41235-017-0053-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cathy Tran, Brandon Smith, Martin Buschkuehl

Abstract

Research on mathematics education has shown that learners' actions can influence how they think and vice versa. Much of this work has been rooted in the use of manipulatives, gestures, and body movements. Our article dissects the mechanisms that underscore the impact of embodied activities and applies this lens to explore how to harness the affordances of new technology to enhance mathematical thinking. This is especially crucial given the increasing accessibility of technology-such as digital touch devices, 3D printers, and location sensors-for constructing embodied experiences. Providing guidance for incorporating those tools, we focus on the role that embodied cognition can play in communicating mathematical concepts as well as in allowing learners to experiment and evolve their ideas. To inspire future integration of theory in the development of technologically enhanced embodied mathematics experiences, we provide examples of how this can be done. Finally, we outline future directions in the areas of design, implementation, and assessment of embodied learning of mathematics.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 86 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 21%
Researcher 12 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 10%
Lecturer 4 5%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 15 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 17 20%
Psychology 11 13%
Mathematics 8 9%
Computer Science 7 8%
Arts and Humanities 6 7%
Other 19 22%
Unknown 19 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 May 2020.
All research outputs
#2,288,597
of 15,507,362 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#53
of 158 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,012
of 260,898 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,507,362 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 158 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 260,898 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them