Creative Movement and Physiological Synchronization: Exploring Embodied Learning

Abstract

Despite growing recognition of the body–mind connection in learning, traditional frontal teaching remains dominant. Both practice and research suggest that movement-based approaches support academic and socio-emotional dimensions across educational levels [1]. One example of an embodied learning approach is creative movement – an active, body-based method for students to express, shape, and create educational content through movement [2].

Classroom dynamics can be examined behaviorally, psychologically, and physiologically. Studies show that individuals’ physiological responses can align, a phenomenon known as physiological synchronization (PS). PS is linked to shared cognitive or emotional states and is increasingly applied in educational research [3]. Using a recently developed group synchronization index, we investigate PS during traditional and embodied teaching, aiming to answer: How does students' PS differ between traditional frontal instruction and embodied learning?

The study combines quantitative and qualitative methods. Twenty first-year university students from two different study programs wore BIOPAC Research Rings during two lectures to record electrodermal activity (EDA), heart rate, temperature, and movement. In each lecture, both frontal teaching and creative movement were applied. The lectures were video-recorded. Afterwards, students participated in short semi-structured interviews.

Analysis is ongoing. EDA, heart rate, and temperature data will be preprocessed using standard procedures (e.g., filtering, outlier removal). Video timestamps will segment the data by teaching approach. These physiological signals will be used to calculate a group synchronization index, estimating the alignment of physiological states across participants over time, reflecting shared arousal or engagement. Statistical comparisons will be made between teaching conditions. Interview data will be analyzed qualitatively to identify patterns in students’ subjective experiences. A triangulation framework will be used to interpret results by comparing physiological data with interview content and video observations, aiming to clarify whether PS aligns with reported engagement or other classroom dynamics.

This study is limited by its small sample size and single-session design, constrained by institutional and logistical factors. The naturalistic setting restricts control over confounding variables. Moreover, PS is complex to interpret; heightened synchronization may indicate engagement or negative states such as confusion or stress. Despite these limitations, this study contributes to understanding embodied learning. By integrating physiological and qualitative data, it offers a novel perspective on student engagement across teaching methods.

References

[1] G. Geršak and V. Geršak, “Je mogoče učiti in poučevati laboratorijske vaje iz elektrotehnike z gibanjem, s pomočjo kinestetične metode?,” in Proc. 23rd Int. Electrotechnical and Computer Science Conf. ERK,  B. Zajc and A. Trost, Eds., 2014, pp. 185–188. [Online]. Available: https://erk.fe.uni-lj.si/2014/gersak(je_mogoce)p.pdf [Accessed: May 5, 2025].

[2] V. Geršak, “Ustvarjalni gib kot celostni učni pristop v osnovni šoli”, Ph.D. dissertation, Fac. Educ., Univ. Ljubljana, Ljubljana, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://repozitorij.uni-lj.si/Dokument.php?id=204596&lang=slv [Accessed: May 28, 2025].

[3] R. V. Palumbo et al., “Interpersonal autonomic physiology: A systematic review of the literature,” Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev., vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 99–141, 2017.