Advertisement

Embodied Learning: Somatically Informed Instructional Design

  • Jessica J. RajkoEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Wearable technology is moving closer to and even into human bodies, effectively rendering it invisible. Coined by Weiser as Invisible Computing, wearable technologies now “weave themselves into the fabric of everyday life until they are indistinguishable from it.” While technologies may appear invisible to the naked eye and continue to demand less of our visual attention, our understanding of the world is created not just through our eyes but through our multisensory, corporeal experiences. Therefore, the movement of technologies from our hands onto our skin should, but often does not, account for broader, felt experiences. Entering into the wearable technology design field as a professional dance and somatic practitioner, I place somatically informed practices at the center of the wearable technology design process. This is made possible by handmade rapid prototyping wearable technology bands I designed specifically for pedagogical use. In this chapter, I share my curricular model for engaging somatically informed practices in wearable technology design. More specifically, I provide a brief overview of the field of somatic practices, describe my curricular design methods, and discuss my in-class experiences teaching the curriculum.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am very grateful to Stjepan Rajko for co-teaching the course with me at DHSI and for his detailed comments and discussion on this chapter. I am also grateful to Eileen Standley for her contributions to the early stages of curriculum design. Special thanks to the Digital Humanities Summer Institute for supporting and hosting the course.

References

  1. Alexander, F. M. (1923). Constructive conscious control of the individual. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  2. Bales, M., & Nettl-Fiol, R. (2008). The body eclectic: Evolving practices in dance training. Illinois: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  3. Batson, G. (2007). Revisiting overuse injuries in dance in view of motor learning and somatic models of distributed practice. Journal of Dance Medicine and Science, 11(3), 70–75.Google Scholar
  4. Batson, G., Quin, E., & Wilson, M. (2012). Integrating somatics and science. Journal of Dance & Somatic Practices, 3(1–2), 183–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Candau, Y., Franoise, J., Alaoui, S. F., & Schiphorst, T. (2017). Cultivating kinaesthetic awareness through interaction: Perspectives from somatic practices and embodied cognition. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Movement Computing. ACM.Google Scholar
  6. Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989 (pp. 139–167).Google Scholar
  7. de Lima, C. (2013). Trans-meaning – Dance as an embodied technology of perception. Journal of Dance and Somatic Practices, 5(1), 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eddy, M. (2009). A brief history of somatic practices and dance: Historical development of the field of somatic education and its relationship to dance. Journal of Dance and Somatic Practices, 1(1), 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eddy, M. (2016). Mindful movement: The evolution of the somatic arts and conscious action. Bristol: Intellect.Google Scholar
  10. Erkut, C., & Dahl, S. (2017). Embodied interaction through movement in a course work. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Movement Computing. ACM.Google Scholar
  11. Fdili Alaoui, S., Schiphorst, T., Cuykendall, S., Carlson, K., Studd, K., et al. (2015). Strategies for embodied design: The value and challenges of observing movement. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition. ACM.Google Scholar
  12. Hanna, T. (1970). Bodies in revolt. California: Freeperson Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hanna, T. (1988). Somatics: Reawakening the mind’s control of movement, flexibility, and health. Massachusetts: Da Capo Press.Google Scholar
  14. Ingalls, T., James, J., Qian, G., Thornburg, H., Campana, E., Rajko, S., et al. (2007). Response: An applied example of computational somatics. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Enactive Interfaces. ACM.Google Scholar
  15. Irrigate, artist-led creative placemaking toolkit. Springboard for the Arts. https://springboardforthearts.org/programs/irrigate/. Accessed February 6, 2017.
  16. Kozel, S. (2012). FCJ-150 AffeXity: Performing affect with augmented reality. The Fibreculture Journal, 21, 72–97 (2012).Google Scholar
  17. Lee, W., Youn-kyung L., & Richard S. (2014). Practicing somaesthetics: Exploring its impact on interactive product design ideation. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. ACM.Google Scholar
  18. Lerman, L. Blind Lead. The Dance Exchange Toolbox. Liz Lerman Dance Exchange. http://www.d-lab.org/toolbox/view/-Blind-Lead Accessed May 3, 2018.
  19. Loke, L., Khut, G. P., Slattery, M., Truman, C., Muller, L., & Duckworth, J. (2013). Re-sensitising the body: Interactive art and the Feldenkrais method. International Journal of Arts and Technology, 6(4), 339–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Martinez, C., Mumford, J., Rajko, S., Tolentino, L., Campana, E., Ingalls, T., et al. (2009). HandJabber: An enactive framework for collaborative creative expression. In Proceedings of the Seventh ACM Conference on Creativity and Cognition (pp. 395–396). ACM.Google Scholar
  21. Rajko, J. (2018). A call to action: Embodied thinking and human-computer interaction design. In J. Sayers (Ed.) The Routledge companion to media studies and digital humanities (pp. 195–203). Oxfordshire: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Rouhiainen, L. (2008). Somatic dance as a means of cultivating ethically embodied subjects. Research in Dance Education, 9(3), 241–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schiphorst, T. (2009a). Body matters: The palpability of invisible computing. Leonardo, 42(3), 225–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schiphorst, T. (2009b). Bridging embodied methodologies from somatics and performance to human computer interaction. PhD Thesis, University of Plymouth.Google Scholar
  25. Schiphorst, T., & Andersen, K. (2004). Between bodies: Using experience modeling to create gestural protocols for physiological data transfer (pp. 1–8). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  26. Schupp, K. (2017). The transgressive possibilities of foregrounding somatic values. Research in Dance Education, 18(2), 161–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shear, J., & Varela, F. J. (1999). The view from within: First-person approaches to the study of consciousness. Devon: Imprint Academic.Google Scholar
  28. Shusterman, R. (1999). Somaesthetics: A disciplinary proposal. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 57(3), 299–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Swaminathan, D., Thornburg, H., Mumford, J., Rajko, S., James, J., Ingalls, T., et al. (2009). A dynamic Bayesian approach to computational laban shape quality analysis. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, 2009(2), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Warburton, E. C. (2011). Of meanings and movements: Re-languaging embodiment in dance phenomenology and cognition. Dance Research Journal, 43(2), 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Whatley, S. (2017). Somatic practices: How motion analysis and mind images work hand in hand in dance. In Handbook of human motion (pp. 1–15). New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Arizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations