Cognitive psychology has undergone a paradigm shift in the ways we understand how knowledge is acquired and represented within the brain, yet the implications for how this impacts students’ learning of material across disciplines has yet to be fully applied. In this article, we present an integrative review of embodied cognition, and demonstrate how it differs from previously held theories of knowledge that still influence the ways in which many subjects are taught in the classroom. In doing so, we review the literature of embodied learning in the areas of reading instruction, writing, physics, and math. In addition, we discuss how these studies can lead to the development of new learning strategies that utilized the principles of embodied cognition.

In this perspective piece, we briefly review embodied cognition and embodied learning. We then present a translational research model based on this research to inform teachers, educational psychologists, and practitioners on the benefits of embodied cognition and embodied learning for classroom applications. While many teachers already employ the body in teaching, especially in early schooling, many teachers’ understandings of the science and benefits of sensorimotor engagement or embodied cognition across grades levels and the content areas is little understood. Here, we outline seven goals in our model and four major “action” steps. To address steps 1 and 2, we recap previously published reviews of the experimental evidence of embodied cognition (and embodied learning) research across multiple learning fields, with a focus on how both simple embodied learning activities—as well as those based on more sophisticated technologies of AR, VR, and mixed reality—are being vetted in the classroom. Step 3 of our model outlines how researchers, teachers, policy makers, and designers can work together to help translate this knowledge in support of these goals. In the final step (step 4), we extract generalized, practical embodied learning principles, which can be easily adopted by teachers in the classroom without extensive training. We end with a call for educators and policy makers to use these principles to identify learning objectives and outcomes, as well as track outcomes to assess whether program objectives and competency requirements are met.

This study explores the utility of an alternative approach that incorporates dynamic assessment in the identification of gifted culturally and linguistically diverse learners in first to fifth grades (approximate age ranges from six to eleven) in a school with a majority of culturally diverse students. From a total population of 473 students in a Pennsylvania (USA) school, 60 percent of whom come from either immigrant or ethnic minority backgrounds, this study identified 25 (5 percent) who qualified for inclusion in the school district’s special program for academically gifted students. The distribution of cultural backgrounds of the students who qualified for the classes for gifted students paralled the proportion of representation of students from these backgrounds in the school. Previously, the number of children identified from this school ranged between two to four students (< 1 percent). The total percentage of gifted children identified within the entire district within which this school is located is typically 5 percent and the number of children identified within this school by this study matches this proportion. The study demonstrates the contribution of dynamic assessment to the identification of gifted minority children. The study also offers evidence of construct and concurrent validity of the dynamic assessment procedure based on the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test.

Simulation has evolved from basic practice to Immersive Extended Reality (I-XR). This systematic review examined 56 published studies on the impact of I-XR, including virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and mixed reality (MR), on the education of medical and nursing students, specifically their skill competency, and knowledge acquisition. The results demonstrate the significant potential of I-XR in healthcare education, with 42.5% of VR studies, 42.9% of AR studies, and the single MR study also demonstrating greater improvements in clinical skills and knowledge acquisition compared to non-immersive (non-I-XR) training conditions. In contrast, only 2.5% of VR studies and 7.14% of AR studies favored non-I-XR methods. It is important, however, to acknowledge the 26.8% of studies that showed mixed results (some evidence for the I-XR methods on some outcomes, but also some evidence for the non-I-XR methods, on other outcomes). Notably, the review also identified a critical gap in the theoretical foundations of I-XR learning, highlighting the urgent need for research to inform the effective pedagogical implementation of these powerful tools. We offer a preliminary framework to address the lack of learning theory in healthcare I-XR training, with implications for pedagogical practices.