How does technology-based embodied learning affect learning effectiveness? – Based on a systematic literature review and meta-analytic approach
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the in-depth research on embodied learning in educational psychology, technology-based embodied learning (TBEL) has gained widespread popularity in the field of education. However, the impact of TBEL on learning efficiency remains controversial. The objective of this study is to determine the effect of TBEL on learning efficiency and identify the main factors influencing this efficiency. The research method employed is a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of 44 relevant English papers published over the past decade. The study found that TBEL has a statistically significant positive effect on learning outcomes (SMD = 0.41, p < .01). Four moderators—educational level, subject, type of embodiment, and experiment duration—have significant moderating effects on learning outcomes. Therefore, technology-based embodied learning can effectively improve students' learning effectiveness. In the future, efforts should be made to deepen and expand multidimensional embodied learning, providing guidance and inspiration for global educational practices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it