I have been on the hunt for scientific research on the connection between cognitive processing and movement based learning. As I feared, this specific research has been difficult to find. Books and articles on the anecdotal achievements of movement based teaching and learning as well as practical approaches for the classroom are quite prolific - I am enjoying the first hand perspective of educators who find this style of teaching successful.
Today I read an article called "Brain and Language," written by Antonio and Hanna Damasio. While it did not layer movement based learning over cognitive language processing, motor learning was discussed.
What's the story?
The Damasio's define language as
... The ability to use words (or signs, if our language is one of the sign languages of the deaf) and to combine them in sentences so that concepts in our minds can be transmitted to other people. We also consider the converse: how we apprehend words spoken by others and turn them into concepts in our own minds, (p. 89).
Words have many representations within the brain, and thus processing language is complicated. It is believed the brain has three structures in place to process language. 1) Neural systems in both central hemispheres make sense of sensory and motor interactions. 2) a few neural systems in the left hemisphere process phoneme and syntax rules for word and sentence formation. 3) The last set of structures, mostly in the left hemisphere, connect these first two processes through turning a concept into language or language into a concept.
Is it useful?
The sections of this article that pertain to my research naturally related directly to this first brain process - making sense of sensory and motor interactions.
Damasio and Damasio believe "... There are no permanently held 'pictorial' representations of objects or persons... Instead the brain holds, in effect, a record of the neural activity that takes place in the sensory and motor cortices during interaction with an object," (p. 91). This implies that layering movement on top of English content could more firmly cement that information in the brain. The question, of course, becomes how does one interact physically with language? Perhaps students could use white boards to write words and punctuation and then move around the classroom, writing properly punctuated sentences with their bodies. Maybe when discussing symbolism or imagery in poetry or prose students could interact with physical representations - a stuffed animal bear, for example. "Because the brain categorizes perceptions and actions simultaneously along many different dimensions, symbolic representations such as metaphor can easily emerge from this architecture," (p. 91).
"Brain and Language" also discusses how language processing is disrupted by brain injury. They mention a patient named Boswell who suffered a lesion in the anterior and middle region of both temporal lobes. This impaired his conceptual system.
Curiously, when it comes to other classes of nonunique entities, Boswell's cognition is apparently unimpaired. He can recognize and name objects, such as a wrench, that are manipulable and have a specific action attached to them, (p. 92).
This has major implications for layering movement onto learning. Those objects (and presumably ideas) with which Boswell physically interacted, are still accessible to him. Those he only learned abstractly are no longer understandable.
Conclusion
Tying movement to learning can improve recall of that object or fact. This article does tie movement more specifically to physical objects or actions than ideas, but I am lead to believe that if abstract concepts could be manipulated to be dealt with physically, improved recall and understanding would follow.
References
Damasio, A.R, Damasio, H. (1992). Brain and language. Scientific American, 267(3), 89 - 95.