



























 

Feldenkrais Research Journal​ • ​volume 6​ (2018-2019) 
 
Hypothesis and Theory 
 
 

Co-constructing Movement in Mathematics and Dance: 
An Interdisciplinary Pedagogical Dialogue on Subjectivity and 
Awareness 

 
Dor Abrahamson 
PhD; Professor, Graduate School of Education, University of California Berkeley 

Ami Shulman 
Rehearsal Director at the GöteborgsOperans Danskompani, Sweden. Choreographer, educator, 
movement artist, and Feldenkrais Method practitioner. 

Contact: ​Dor Abrahamson: ​dor@berkeley.edu 
 

Abstract 
A physical movement can be construed in many ways. For some researchers of mathematics education 
informed by embodiment theories this is important, as they perceive a mathematical concept as a 
polysemous structure grounded in multiple interrelated sensorimotor constructions. In this dance is no 
different. Similarly in both disciplines, the more ways one has of thinking about a movement and the more 
connections one builds across these different constructions, the deeper and richer one’s understanding 
and proficiency in enacting the movement and the greater one’s capacity to transpose the learning to new 
contexts. In both mathematics and dance, instructors thus seek to create conditions for students to 
develop diverse subjective constructions of the movements they are learning to enact and to explore 
relations across these different constructions. Any pedagogical discussion of movement, whether in 
dance or mathematics, must be a discussion of the individual’s subjective phenomenology and increasing 
awareness. In reflection, the very possibility of the authors’ interdisciplinary dialogue is testimony to the 
cohesive potential in systemic conceptualizations of human movement. 

Keywords 
dance, design, educational technology, enactivism, Feldenkrais Method, mathematics education, 
movement, Phenomenology, ratio and proportion 

Copyright ©:​ The copyright for this paper remains with the author(s). 

Please cite:​ (First published in the) ​Feldenkrais Research Journal, volume 6​; 2018-2019. 

  

 
Published by the International ​Feldenkrais​®​ Federation (IFF) ​https://feldenkrais-method.org 
Available online at ​https://feldenkraisresearchjournal.org 
 

 
 

mailto:dor@berkeley.edu
https://feldenkrais-method.org/
https://feldenkraisresearchjournal.org/


 

Service marks:​ The terms Feldenkrais​®​, Feldenkrais Method​®​, Awareness Through Movement​®​, ATM​®​, 
Functional Integration​®​, and FI​® ​are service marked terms of the International ​Feldenkrais​®​ Federation 
(IFF) and Feldenkrais professional guilds and associations in many countries. In keeping with academic 
conventions, they will not be service marked in the entire text as may be required in nonacademic use, 
but only for the first and most prominent use of the terms. In recognition that these phrases are formal 
terms referring to specific practices within the Method, and to the Method as a whole, capitalization of all 
the words in each term has been retained.  

 
Abrahamson and Shulman • ​Feldenkrais Research Journal, volume 6​ (2018-2019) 2
 



 

Hypothesis and Theory 
 
 

Co-constructing Movement in Mathematics and Dance: 
An Interdisciplinary Pedagogical Dialogue on Subjectivity and 
Awareness 

 
Dor Abrahamson 
PhD; Professor, Graduate School of Education, University of California Berkeley 

Ami Shulman 
Rehearsal Director at the GöteborgsOperans Danskompani, Sweden. Choreographer, educator, 
movement artist, and Feldenkrais Method practitioner. 

 
1. Introduction: Invitation to an Interdisciplinary Pas de Deux 

Learning is the developing of new skills for responding effectively to situations relevant to 
survival and the accomplishment of natural and cultural objectives. Yet no two situations are 
ever quite the same. For skills to be useful, they should therefore embrace variation across 
situations. Thus for a cognitive architecture to be adaptive, it should allow for embracing 
variation. It follows that learning is modifying what we know to do so as to cope with new 
situations; in so doing, we expand what we perceive as familiar situations. The perceived 
novelty of a situation, which is a subjective perception, can be anywhere from minor to major, 
with minor novelty going unnoticed but greater novelty requiring exploring the problem space in 
search of effective adaptation. The process is iterative, leading to growth in the individual’s 
adaptiveness to its manifold ecology. 

This generic description of learning is pervasive in psychology theory and discourse. The Swiss 
cognitive development psychologist Jean Piaget (1968) used the terms ​assimilation​ to describe 
the individual’s adaptive endorsement of a novel situation as a variant on a familiar situation; 
and ​accommodation​ to describe the corresponding change in the individual’s capacity to interact 
in this situation which thus effects its assimilation. In his systemic theory of genetic 
epistemology, Piaget conceptualized situations as subjective, action-oriented perceptual 
constructions. Similarly, the movement scholar, therapist, and methodologist Moshe Feldenkrais 
underscored the importance of diversity in knowledge (Beringer 2010; Buchanan and Ulrich 
2001; Feldenkrais 1981). In order for someone to know to do something, Feldenkrais is reported 
to have said, they must be able to do it in a hundred different ways. Feldenkrais further argued 
for the pivotal role of awareness and reflection in individuals changing how they move: 

Without conscious attention to what one is feeling during an action and without applying 
the attention directly to the entire movement resulting from these actions, no 

 
Abrahamson and Shulman • ​Feldenkrais Research Journal, volume 6​ (2018-2019) 3
 



 

development will occur—simple mechanical repetition will never make this come about 
(Feldenkrais 1988, reprinted in Berigner 2010: 15). 

This essay draws on Piaget and Feldenkrais to argue that theorizing and working with diversity 
in students’ subjective constructions of movement is important for teaching and learning in both 
dance and mathematics and that bringing these subjective constructions to students’ conscious 
awareness and reflection is instrumental in achieving these pedagogical objectives.  

Building on this foundational interdisciplinary consensus respecting the ontology and 
epistemology of movement, we—a mathematics-education researcher inspired by embodiment 
theory (Abrahamson) and a dance educator, movement director, and Feldenkrais Method​® 
practitioner (Shulman)—will explore in search of common grounds through which educational 
scholars and practitioners of mathematics and dance may benefit through conversation. That is, 
we will present results of our collaborative search for phenomena of common interest across our 
respective realms of inquiry, and we will demonstrate how our shared philosophical and 
theoretical perspectives on these phenomena enable a lingua franca for discussing human 
movement—its nature and pedagogy. We therefore assume that these shared perspectives on 
learning could offer productive views on teaching, and in fact we will argue for a systemic view 
on teaching and learning as irreducibly collaborative. Whereas this essay in and of itself may 
not offer either of our fields any new insight on their scholarship or practice, it is our hope that 
the essay will encourage and enable scholars from our own and other fields to enter in 
interdisciplinary dialogue on the phenomenology and pedagogy of human movement. At the 
very least, preparing this manuscript has compelled the two of us to share, debate, and refine 
central constructs pertaining to individual construction of movement and its potential 
affordances for instruction in our own disciplines and possibly beyond. 

In a theoretical text below (Section 2), Abrahamson will present intellectual foundations for an 
enactivist conceptualization of mathematical activity as profoundly sensorimotor. These ideas 
are then anchored and contextualized through a brief description of an experimental application 
to mathematics pedagogy in the form of an interactive technological device, the Mathematics 
Imagery Trainer. The device was designed so as to foster students’ sensorimotor 
micro-movements prior to engaging in quantitative re-modeling of these movements in 
mathematical forms per the concept they are studying. Next, Shulman will respond by 
characterizing aspects of this proposed mathematics pedagogy as resonating with ideas and 
principles from movement direction inspired by both Feldenkrais Method and phenomenological 
philosophy. Therein, Shulman will focus on: (1) ​subjectivity​ in the individual’s orientation to, and 
experience of, movement; and (2) ​awareness​ as a bridge from movement to reflection and utility 
(Section 3). We conclude with a summary of our argument as well as an invitation to expand the 
dialogue between scholars of dance and mathematics pedagogy (Section 4). 

We wish to note that we are not the first scholars to point to a connection between the 
Feldenkrais Method and mathematics. Cole (2004) relates a personal growth story, in which a 
quest to rehabilitate his injured hands through the Method led him to new capacity for 

 
Abrahamson and Shulman • ​Feldenkrais Research Journal, volume 6​ (2018-2019) 4
 



 

mathematical reasoning: 

As I gained in my ability to become aware of myself as a whole body, following the 
gesture of the movement instead of trying to keep track of the component parts, 
something in my mind specific to mathematics was changing…. The pieces I had lacked 
in my mathematical understanding I had lacked in my physical vocabulary as well. By 
improving my ability to experience and move within space I had discovered for myself a 
more accessible way to navigate among abstract mathematical concepts (17). 

We, too, will be speaking about movement in space. Our focus will be on students’ subjective 
discovery and cultivation of tacit schemes that mediate the enactment of the movements they 
are to perform; schemes that, once rising to consciousness, at times through attentive 
instructional intervention, lend personal meanings for these movements and empower us to 
move better, think better. 

2. Theoretical Foundations: Learning as Adaptive Interaction 

2.1 Embodiment Theory of Mathematics Learning 

Per Piaget (1968, 1971), the nature of a situation—what it is—is necessarily its contextual, ​ad 
hoc​, ​in situ​, and subjective meaning for the specific individual engaged in some goal-oriented 
activity; the situation is constructed, in the sense that the individual attends to certain perceptual 
assemblies relevant to managing potential goal-oriented actions while ignoring other, irrelevant 
assemblies. Regularities in perceptually guided action give rise to sensorimotor schemes, 
whereupon the fragile assemblies coalesce into figures, ​bona fide​ things in the world, new 
phenomenal categories. It is these schemes that adapt to perceived variations in situations. 

Thus all learning, at least pre-conceptual learning, consists of developing sensorimotor 
schemes, where the “sensori-” captures how the individual is organizing perception for action 
(what the figures are in the situation), and the “-motor” captures how the individual is organizing 
perceptually-oriented motor action (neuromuscular coordinations). For example, if you drive an 
unfamiliar motor vehicle, initially its size and shape requires for you to pay attention in a 
particular way to include the new bounds of this object so that you can maneuver it around 
safely. After several days, it becomes very easy and fluent to drive this vehicle, navigating 
around the streets and parking effortlessly, as this object has now become integrated into your 
self-image​ (see below). You are now able to make choices from an embodied 
perspective—from an internal sense of knowing. This marks an accommodation of your 
sensorimotor scheme so as to assimilate this and prospective cases of driving vehicles of 
different magnitudes. As Piaget (1971) writes, ‘Knowing does not really imply making a copy of 
reality but, rather, reacting to it and transforming it (either apparently or effectively) in such a 
way as to include it functionally in the transformation systems with which these acts are linked’ 
(6). 

 
Abrahamson and Shulman • ​Feldenkrais Research Journal, volume 6​ (2018-2019) 5
 



 

Although his views of cognitive development have been cashiered over the past few decades, 
recent literature has been reviving Piaget’s theory, vindicating it from misreadings and bringing it 
back to the proscenium of research discourse (Abrahamson, Shayan, Bakker, and Van der 
Schaaf 2016; Allen and Bickhard 2013; Arsalidou and Pascual-Leone 2016). These publications 
are generally motivated by the disposition that cognitive science by and large is not treating 
human phenomenology of self-movement as constitutive of development and learning (as 
emphatically argued in Sheets-Johnstone 2015). The field’s enduring preference for 
investigating visual perception of static images rather than multimodal experience of dynamical 
enactment could in part be attributed also to historical limitations of technology and 
methodology for documenting, representing, and analyzing individuals’ phenomenology of 
movement (Abrahamson, Lee, Negrete, and Gutiérrez 2014); limitations that are now being 
overcome (Worsley and Blikstein 2014; Worsley ​et al​. 2016). 

Theoretical models of movement learning resonant with Piagetian views abound. We find them 
in dynamical systems theory (Thelen and Smith 1994), enactivism (Varela, Thompson, and 
Rosch 1991), coordination dynamics (Kelso 1995, 2000), and various kinesiological theories 
derived from the work of Bernstein (1996) on dexterity and/or Gibson (1977) on ecological 
psychology, such as constraints-based models (Newell 1986, 1996; Newell and Ranganathan 
2010) and ecological dynamics (Araújo ​et al​. 2009; Chow ​et al​. 2016). Whereas these 
publications emanate from distinct academic circles and often employ different constructs and 
methodologies, across the board one can discern in all these lines of work an adoption of 
post-Cartesian systemic conceptualizations of human activity: Subjective competence emerges 
through the individual’s adaptive goal-oriented interactions within the natural and cultural 
ecology; awareness, either through experience of breakdown or possibly through feedback from 
more experienced cultural agents, occasions opportunities to reflectively reorganize one’s 
functional relations with the ecology and thus improve the effectiveness of one’s movement. Our 
objective is not to differentiate among these bodies of work as much as to build on their 
common grounds and draw innovative implications for the dance-mathematical interdisciplinary 
pedagogical dialogue. 

Whereas these latter explications of learning have treated motor rather than conceptual 
learning, there is a growing sense among cognitive scientists that conceptual activity, too, is 
embodied in the sense that it is grounded in sensorimotor action that is either tacit, consciously 
simulated, or even externally manifest and materially engaged through various representational 
machinery and its manipulation routines (Anderson 2003; Barsalou, 2010; Kirsh 2013; Wilson 
2002). As Varela (1999) explains: 

[T]here are strong indications that within the loose federation of sciences dealing with 
knowledge and cognition—the cognitive sciences—the conviction is slowly growing that 
this [Rationalist/Cartesian/objectivist] picture is upside down and that a radical paradigm 
shift is imminent. At the very center of this emerging view is the conviction that the 
proper units of knowledge are primarily concrete, embodied, incorporated, lived; that 

 
Abrahamson and Shulman • ​Feldenkrais Research Journal, volume 6​ (2018-2019) 6
 



 

knowledge is about situatedness; and that the uniqueness of knowledge, its historicity 
and context, is not a “noise” concealing an abstract configuration in its true essence. The 
concrete is not a step toward something else: it is both where we are and how we get to 
where we will be (7). 

In fact, certain readings of Piaget, too, or, for that matter, the Belarus cultural-historical 
psychologist Lev Vygotsky, implicate the sensorimotor quality of cognitive activity in conceptual 
and specifically mathematical reasoning. Piaget writes that ’mathematics uses operations and 
transformations (‘groups,’ ‘operators’) which are still actions although they are carried out 
mentally’ (1971: 6). Vygotsky maintains that ‘Even the most abstract thoughts of relations that 
are difficult to convey in the language of movement, like various mathematical formulas, 
philosophical maxims, or abstract logical laws, even they are related ultimately to particular 
residues of former movements now reproduced anew’ (1997: 162). This evolving assertion that 
what we call the human mind is ecologically situated dynamical activity has been named 
variably as embodiment theory or the corporeal turn in the cognitive sciences, with certain 
important distinctions and nuances labeled as grounded, embodied, embedded, and extended 
cognition (Kiverstein and Clark 2009). 

Inspired by embodiment theories, our views on how people learn dance (Shulman) and 
mathematics (Abrahamson) generally agree with Piagetian constructivism even as we hold 
complementary Vygotskian perspectives on the social mediation of cultural forms (see 
Abrahamson and Trninic 2015). In particular, enactivist theory has informed Abrahamson’s 
research program to implicate and leverage the action roots of mathematical reasoning. This 
research program is vested in educational design practice. Specifically, Abrahamson’s 
design-research laboratory conceives, engineers, implements, and evaluates interactive 
environments where students learn mathematical concepts through: (a) first solving movement 
problems; and only then (b) reflecting on and representing those solutions, initially ​qualitatively 
in natural multimodal discourse and later, by way of appropriating and utilizing mathematical 
frames of references, ​quantitatively​ then ​symbolically​ (Abrahamson 2014). Abrahamson’s 
research team is treating phenomena of movement learning also from the perspectives of 
phenomenology (Merleau-Ponty 1964) and Feldenkrais Method (Beringer 2010; Feldenkrais, 
1981) so as to foreground the primary and constitutive role of individual movement experience 
in considerations of learning and, therefore, teaching. Importantly for this essay, Abrahamson’s 
research team differentiates between movements as observable dynamical phenomena—where 
physical movements are labeled “proximal” and their technologically mediated effects on the 
world are labeled “distal”—and the underlying subjective sensorimotor schemes by which 
individuals generate these movements (Abrahamson and Bakker 2016). As we will soon 
elaborate, below, these latter views share essential precepts with the corporeal turn. 

2.2 Open Questions for the Pedagogy of Dance and Mathematics 

As educators as well as scholars of education, our questions around learning ​ipso facto​ carry 
questions about teaching. And certainly the question of learning cultural skills such as the 

 
Abrahamson and Shulman • ​Feldenkrais Research Journal, volume 6​ (2018-2019) 7
 



 

choreography of movement in dance or mathematics compels us to inquire into the role and 
technique of instructors. Yet what might be the implications of all these theories of learning, 
which we have cited, for the practice of teaching? 

Teaching is not the sheer communication of procedures. Teachers can teach neither movement 
nor mathematical concepts directly. Rather, they can create conditions for students to learn. 
These conditions may include a setting, a task, and means of accomplishing the task; in the 
course of attempting to accomplish the task, students bring to bear their skills. Along the way, 
the teacher influences how students perceive the situation and plan prospective action. 
Vygotsky (2001) has argued that when a teacher and student enter in joint pedagogical activity, 
they converge into a single and irreducibly collaborative sensorimotor system. The teacher, by 
attending to the world as the student does yet also bearing in mind ideal orientations, occasions 
opportunity for the student to adjust their perceptions and actions. It is thus that the student 
grows in the zone of proximal development (for an elaboration, see Shvarts and Abrahamson 
2018). It follows that teachers need somehow to engage with each student’s current orientation 
toward the enactment of movement and intervene so as to modify this orientation, rendering it 
better aligned with the desired performance. But how exactly do teachers do this? 

As we view movement teaching and learning within the cultural practices of dance and 
mathematics, we perceive strong convergence between pedagogical routines across these two 
domains, at least per the corporeal turn in the cognitive sciences, and in particular from the 
perspectives of phenomenology and the Feldenkrais Method. From these mutual grounds we 
argue for the potential of dialogue between scholars and educators across the disciplines of 
dance and mathematics as informing theories of teaching and learning more generally. In order 
to contextualize this dialogue, we will now demonstrate a case of learning a mathematical 
concept by learning to move in new ways. This case study will hopefully clarify why we think of 
mathematics pedagogy as designing and directing movement structures. 

2.3 Case Study of Embodied Mathematics Pedagogy: The Mathematics Imagery Trainer 

Abrahamson has developed an instructional methodology in which students learn to move in 
new ways prior to signifying these movements mathematically (Howison ​et al​. 2011).  

Students work with a technological device called the Mathematics Imagery Trainer (see Figure 
1) that senses and responds to the position of their hands in space. Students are tasked to 
discover a particular two-hand movement scheme that will effect the external state of making a 
screen turn green. In the particular case of the Mathematics Imagery Trainer for Proportion, the 
device has been programmed so that the screen will be green only as long as the hands’ 
respective heights above the monitor base relate by a specific ratio, for example 1:2. As the 
hands move in the case of the 1:2 ratio, keeping the screen consistently green, the right hand 
must at all times be double as high up along the monitor as compared to the left hand. This 
means that as the two hands rise simultaneously, the vertical interval between them increases 
(and vice versa for descent). 

 
Abrahamson and Shulman • ​Feldenkrais Research Journal, volume 6​ (2018-2019) 8
 



 

 

 

 
Figure 1.​ The Mathematics Imagery Trainer for Proportion: schematic activity sequence. The trainer is here set at a 
1:2 ratio, so that the favorable sensory feedback (a green background) is activated only when the right hand is twice 
as high along the monitor as the left hand. Glossing over idiosyncratic variability, this figure sketches out our Grade 4 
– 6 study participants’ paradigmatic interaction sequence toward discovering one effective operatory scheme: (a) 
while exploring, the student first positions the hands incorrectly (red feedback); (b) stumbles upon a correct position 
(green); (c) raises hands maintaining a fixed interval between them (red); and (d) corrects position (green). Compare 
1b and 1d, the two green configurations, to note the different vertical intervals between the cursors. The child might 
conclude that, “The higher my hands go, the bigger the interval.” She learns to move in a new way centered on a new 
object. (Abrahamson and Bakker 2016: 8) 
 
 

 
 
Legend:​ LC (left-hand cursor); RC (right-hand cursor); ∆ (vertical & diagonal magnitude of interval between cursors); 
v (velocity). 

Figure 2.​ Student-generated solution strategies for the make-the-screen-green problem (the case of a 1:2 ratio): (i) 
Fixed Interval–maintaining ∆ constant regardless of RC-and-LC elevation (incorrect solution); (ii) Changing 
Interval—modifying ∆ correlative to RC-and-LC elevation (correct if proportion is preserved); With the introduction of 
the grid–Additive, either (iii) Co-Iterated Composite Units—both LC and RC either ascend or descend at respective 
constant values a and b (a-per-b), or (iv) LC rises by a (usually 1), RC by 1 box more than the previous ∆; (v) 
Multiplicative—relocating to a next “green” position as a function of the height of only one of the cursors (given LC at 
x and RC at y, 2x = y; x = ½ y), e.g., determining LC y-axis value, then doubling to find RC, or determining RC value, 
then halving for LC; and (vi) Speeds—LC and RC ascend/descend at different constant velocities (v1 < v2) or more 
specifically, RC velocity is double LC velocity (2v1 = v2; v1 = ½ v2) (Abrahamson ​et al​. 2014: 85)   

 
Abrahamson and Shulman • ​Feldenkrais Research Journal, volume 6​ (2018-2019) 9
 



 

Research has revealed multiple and diverse ways that individual students discovered for 
orienting productively toward the task of moving the hands while keeping the screen green. For 
example, students raise their hands ensuring that: (a) the interval between them keeps 
increasing; (b) one hand is always double as high as the other; (c) one hand moves faster than 
the other; (d) one hand rises in quotas that are double as large as the other hand (see Figure 2 
for a technical elaboration of these and other strategies). Each of these orientations captures 
one essence of the mathematical notion of proportionality. Moreover, reflecting ​across​ these 
ways of moving appears to create opportunities conducive to deep conceptual understanding 
(Abrahamson ​et al​. 2014). For example, switching between perceiving the movement as 
focused on the varying interval and as focused on relative heights supports students’ conceptual 
transition from additive to multiplicative conceptual structures. Teachers play critical roles in 
steering students to reflect on the movement they enact and adopt mathematical framings on 
this movement. 

We have now introduced the intellectual grounds of embodied mathematics pedagogy as well 
as the instructional activity that constituted the empirical context for Abrahamson’s 
investigations of embodied mathematics learning. Next we turn to Shulman’s response from the 
scholarship and practice of dance pedagogy, as contextualized by the above case of the 
Mathematics Imagery Trainer for Proportion. 

3. Movement Pedagogy: Embracing Diversity, Fostering Awareness 

Organized movement is an expression of intention through time and space. The enactment of 
movement is a subjective experience; awareness of this experience may lead to greater skill. 
Learning through the body provides not just the understanding of the movement itself—it offers 
direct insight into other possibilities implicit within the movement. Often, understanding 
movement requires deconstructing it into smaller increments, where each is not just a fragment 
of the whole but contains within it new potentials. Through awareness, the dancer can use those 
elements in infinite combinations and situations. 

These and other principles of dance pedagogy, it turns out, are applicable also to mathematics 
pedagogy, or at least to enactivist mathematics pedagogy (Abrahamson and Trninic 2015; Reid 
and Mgombelo 2015). Children who study mathematics in Abrahamson’s approach learn 
through movement to incorporate, spatialize, and conjure objects in the environment. By 
applying these skills across a range of situations bearing parametric variations, discussing their 
orientation to the movements, comparing and contrasting different orientations, and signifying 
the movement using formal frames of reference, vocabulary, and symbolic notation, the children 
come to understand how to transpose these concepts into new situations. In this section some 
key parallels between mathematics and dance pedagogy will be highlighted as they pertain to 
the Mathematics Trainer for Proportion. 

The assertions and analyses offered in this section draw on Shulman’s experience as a dancer 
and movement director whose pedagogical approach is inspired by the principles of the 

 
Abrahamson and Shulman • ​Feldenkrais Research Journal, volume 6​ (2018-2019) 10 
 



 

Feldenkrais Method. This method offers a systemic approach for individuals to differentiate, 
integrate, and diversify their motor coordination patterns, which in turn creates new possibilities 
in human functioning through awareness and movement. 

3.1 Movement Enactment as Subjective Composition: Implications for Instruction 

Virtuosity in movement and dance is often thought of as the performer’s acts that transcend our 
perceptions of human capability. Yet the human body is capable of an expression that is far 
more intricate, far more expressive and as unique to each person as their fingerprint. Here, we 
are regarding the individual pathways of movement that pass through the body—the movement 
within the movement. There is not just one way to do a movement or to think of a movement, no 
matter how precise the movement is. A pedagogical approach inclusive of integrating this 
knowledge and understanding of the body asks not ​whether​ a dancer has replicated a ‘step’ but 
rather ​how​ the dancer was moving between Point A and Point B. This notion of how to move 
between two points retains the integrity of each unique system in movement, even as task 
specificities keep the movement material visually similar across a diverse group of dancers. The 
dancer’s constant negotiation in making choices for every given movement between the two 
points give them a sense of agency, embodying their movement with a sense of knowing and 
choice. Dancers who learn these principles of movement within one context can generalize 
them to a variety of contexts. 

In like vein, Abrahamson’s study participants arrive at a broad set of diverse sensorimotor 
solutions to the rather rudimentary movement of raising two hands at different speeds. (Even 
this expression, “raising two hands at different speeds,” is not an objective description but itself 
is one of numerous particular ways of orienting toward the movement.) None of these solutions 
is better than another. Rather, the solution expresses a student’s corporeal composition as 
implicated within a particular task at that moment.  

Eliciting an individual response bears advantages for teaching. In a sense, telling a student what 
to do but not how to do it creates for that student an opportunity to tailor the movement to tacit 
nuances of their personal characteristics and particular aptitudes; to their own way of knowing 
and relating. This approach is a form of implicit instruction (see also Chow ​et al​. 2016; Newell 
1986, 1996; Newell and Ranganathan 2010). 

Implicit instruction allows each student to learn through a process of self-discovery. Feldenkrais 
spoke of the potency of a learning that comes from this type of discovery and claimed that it is 
the only way to ‘know’ something. He also said that to know something you need to be able to 
do it in many different ways, which promotes an integrated sense of self-use (Feldenkrais 1984). 
In turn, multifarious knowing is conducive to prospective appropriation of the new knowledge in 
diverse settings. Only when a student understands a movement idea through action will you see 
it appearing in other contexts. 

 
Abrahamson and Shulman • ​Feldenkrais Research Journal, volume 6​ (2018-2019) 11 
 



 

3.2 Sensitivity to Change / Differences as Opportunity for Infinite Discovery 

Our habitual ways of being, thinking, and moving are often so ingrained in us that sometimes we 
are able to detect differences only when encountering a completely new situation. The work of 
Feldenkrais magnifies our sensitivity to change, enabling us to experience these incremental 
differences, which he demonstrated were not arbitrary but exponential in their outcome, much 
as in Abrahamson’s work incremental deviation of motion along two parallel lines at the base of 
the screen engenders significant difference higher up. Feldenkrais lessons typically introduce a 
new task by bringing attention to a familiar pattern while introducing new movement possibilities. 
In Feldenkrais work, we create the conditions for students to diversify their habitual patterning 
without imposing a particular outcome. Immersed in a movement pattern, the goal is not to 
achieve the movement structure itself, but to expand beyond the student’s current realm of 
functioning by sensing incremental differences, similar to how the mathematics students have to 
detect the incremental moment where the screen is no longer green. This state of heightened 
awareness facilitates an integration of the information potentials, which are by design latent to 
the situation, through the person’s subjective lens. It is an unconscious process, albeit the 
person may later become conscious of it as a felt difference. 

As students engage with Abrahamson’s Trainer task, initially they attempt to raise their hands 
keeping constant the spatial interval between the hands, and yet the device has been 
programmed such that the correct movement requires varying the interval between the 
hands—the interval should increase as the hands ascend and decrease as they descend 
(compare Figures 2i and 2ii). Notably, it is not the case that the children are biomechanically or 
psychologically incapable of the correct movement. Rather, in attempting to solve the task, they 
initially bring to bear what they tacitly believe to be the reality of the situation. It is only once this 
tacit belief is refuted that the belief surfaces to consciousness, so that the student becomes 
aware of their belief and can then begin to modify it concordant with ongoing feedback from the 
technological system. 

3.3 Embracing Diverse Subjectivity by Repositioning Movement as a Means to a Common Goal 

Eliciting from dancers optimal performance requires acknowledging and incorporating their 
subjective perspective so as to preserve within their system a cohesive integrity. Yet this 
embodied subjectivity poses for the pedagogy of ensemble work the challenge of working with a 
plurality of individual perspectives whilst trying to achieve specificity within a collective goal. One 
pedagogical solution is to position the movement not as an end in and of itself but as a means 
to an end—some well-articulated common end. 

This pedagogical strategy of repositioning movement as a means to an end is exercised in 
Abrahamson’s Mathematics Imagery Trainer for Proportion, where the students are all 
attempting, in their diverse subjective ways, to achieve one and the same well-defined goal 
state of the technological system, namely to make the screen green. A correlation from a dance 
perspective would be a case where an instructor seeks to achieve unison across the 

 
Abrahamson and Shulman • ​Feldenkrais Research Journal, volume 6​ (2018-2019) 12 
 



 

ensemble’s collective movement whilst embracing each individual dancer’s optimal 
performance. Consider the example of using full-bodied spinal movement. Regardless of 
dancers’ diverse articulations of the body, there is a tendency for them either to fall into one of 
two extreme inclinations of either overusing or to underusing their spine. Typically, those who 
overuse the spine need to develop more ease of movement, whereas those who underuse the 
spine need more clarity. How does an instructor achieve unified external movement across such 
dichotomous internal orientations? 

A pedagogical approach to this conundrum is to assign all the dancers two experiential tasks 
that expand each dancer’s thinking and movement from their habitual use to include more of the 
other perspective. Task A guides the dancer’s attention to the two most ​distal points​ of the 
spine, the head and the pelvis. When dancers thus attend to this relationship between the head 
and the pelvis, they engage the spine in its full use. Task B focuses on the ​line​ of the spine, 
directing the dancer to perceive its shape, for example as a chain. This task foregrounds the 
movement of the spine. Combining these two tasks creates for the ensemble common grounds 
between the two extreme inclinations of clarity versus ease, producing among dancers a shared 
physical language that facilitates their movement unison. As such, the instructor eschews a 
focus on unison ​per se​, which is liable to reduce the individual’s optimal performance, instead 
educating all dancers about the movement of the spine. Enabling all individual dancers to 
discover these subtleties for themselves makes them better performers and potentially able to 
transpose this skill into different contexts. 

For both mathematics and dance, perceiving movement as a means of achieving a well-defined 
goal may foster productive responses in prospective encounters within new yet apparently 
similar situations that would likely elicit the same movement as a response. 

3.4 Movement as Polysemous Meanings: Potential for Learning Through Moving 

When a person moves, they are orienting toward the movement in one particular way. They are 
immersed through movement, not looking at it. Yet when we stop to think about movement, we 
could potentially re-imagine it in a different way. This is just like an ambiguous visual figure (see 
Figure 3). You are not seeing it ​as​ a duck or a rabbit—you are simply seeing duck or seeing 
rabbit (Wittgenstein 1953: 194-197). 

 
Abrahamson and Shulman • ​Feldenkrais Research Journal, volume 6​ (2018-2019) 13 
 



 

 
 
Figure 3.​ The Duck–Rabbit ambiguous figure by Joseph Jastrow (1863–1944), which has served countless 
philosophers and psychologists in their investigations and expositions on sensory perception, meaning, and 
communication (Wittgenstein 1953: 194-197) 
 

Yet when we stop to think about our seeing, those who saw duck only may be steered to see 
rabbit, and vice versa (Gopnik and Rosati 2001). As such, one could speak of movement as 
“containing” a plethora of potential meanings. This potentiality of diverse perspectives all implicit 
within any given movement constitutes the key to an innovative pedagogical process. More 
broadly, developing capacity to decouple ​how​ we are seeing something from ​what​ we are 
looking at, that is, to disengage from one perspective on the world and consider another, is a 
powerful pan-domain skill that could support both richer reasoning on specific concepts and 
possibly greater social tolerance to others’ views. 

Let us refer back to the dance example above. Whilst the movement of the spine as a line is a 
completely different concept to the independent co-ordinates that constitute the extreme points 
of the spine, the movement itself is essentially the same. However, the perception of the 
relational movement of the head/pelvis is as distinctly different from the perception of the 
spine-as-a-line as the duck is from the rabbit. Both aspects are implicit within the movement, 
and it is a wealth that we can simultaneously recognize their difference and their commonality. 

As Abrahamson points out with respect to students working with the Trainer device, perhaps the 
greatest pedagogical potential of movement polysemy lies in attempting to link up across 
different perceptions of the same movement. Unlike the duck/rabbit ambiguous image, where 
the two meanings are mutually exclusive, in the case of movement, the alternative sensorimotor 
orientations are biomechanically and conceptually complementary, so that shifting across these 
orientations creates opportunities for productive reasoning (Abrahamson ​et al​. 2009; 
Abrahamson ​et al​. 2014). In dance, these shifts make for more versatile coordinations and 
richer expressivity. 

 
Abrahamson and Shulman • ​Feldenkrais Research Journal, volume 6​ (2018-2019) 14 
 



 

3.5 On the Ontology and Epistemology of Movement: Challenges and Solutions 

Movement is the process of action; it is ephemeral, dynamical, continuous. And yet when we 
reason and speak of movement, we are liable to reify it as static moments. Our discursive minds 
tend to “language” movement into a linear succession of elements that can be grasped and 
pinned down for scrutiny, measurement, description, and instruction. Consequently, the 
pedagogy of movement is liable paradoxically to fragment it, to contain it by attempts to 
measure it. 

One way out of this quandary is to perceive movement for one implicit characteristic—it is 
relational in its nature. Movement can be in relation to: gravity; the environment; spatial 
considerations; the biomechanical integrity of the body through which it is expressed along with 
the senses; the self; and the movement of others. By putting our attention on a select relational 
aspect of movement, we can sustain its dynamicism even as we thematize it. Understanding 
movement in this regard made me reconsider my pedagogical approach to dance education: I 
stopped being interested in ​what​ I was teaching but instead focused on ​how​ I was teaching it. 
Similarly I focused on ​how​ a dancer approached the movement rather than ​what​ the movement 
was. I became more interested in the process of the movement and how the dancer got from 
one point to another, focusing not on the points themselves but through specific directives. This 
was a task-oriented approach with specificity: “How can your elbow reach your knee?”; you 
become very clear about where those two parts are in order to ​use​ them. In this way it became 
a functional task. 

The way a dancer would move within those points would actually ​familiarize​ them with their 
instrument. I would take an exercise and each day reframe it from a different perspective. 
Gradually, the dancers would begin to understand the relational body – the body in action; the 
dancer understood how to think about movement and not about the shapes that they would 
pass through. This style of pedagogy set up unique conditions for learning, as it required of 
dancers a consciousness to their self-use. Its suggestive approach also allowed more 
developmental expansion in comparison to its alternative corrective approach. This implicit 
mode of instruction was permissive, inclusive and became exponential in developing an 
understanding of the body through movement. It ​familiarized​ the dancer with the territory of their 
body in a ​functional reality​, and this had a major impact on their understanding of dynamic 
movement, which was also an implicit result of this methodology. I was teaching the dancer how 
to think, not what to think. 

As Abrahamson reports, when students work in the Trainer activity they may initially analyze 
their hand movements as traversing measurable quotas (see Figures 2iii and 2iv); doing so, 
students shift their bimanual movement from simultaneous (both hands at the same time) to 
sequential (one hand followed by the other). Eventually, however, by way of reasoning about 
the hands’ respective speeds (Figure 2vi) the students can reclaim simultaneous movement 
even as they bear in mind the measured intervals traversed by each hand. 

 
Abrahamson and Shulman • ​Feldenkrais Research Journal, volume 6​ (2018-2019) 15 
 



 

In dance, similarly, once you have understood a pattern of movement, you refine its 
co-ordination as a gestalt rather than thinking of two separate things going on simultaneously. 

3.6 Awareness of Movement as the Epistemic Bridge to Conceptual Understanding 

Awareness of movement is a defining aspect in the learning process, as it actuates changes in 
the nervous system. Without awareness we would likely just repeat our habitual impulses 
without the attention required to make the optimal choice for that particular situation. 
Abrahamson mentions how after his students had achieved the desired outcome, they reflected 
on what they had been doing in the attempt to describe it. This act of describing what one has 
done elicits a somatic awareness, which in turn integrates the learning into conceptual matter 
(see also Morgan and Abrahamson 2016, 2018). 

An essential principle in the Feldenkrais practice is to create guided opportunities for students to 
untangle their action complexes into simpler motor components, modify these components, and 
then selectively reintegrate into more salubrious complexes. Importantly, students must assume 
a degree of agency in achieving novel motion complexes. As Ginsburg (2010) clarifies: 
‘Learning itself is not conscious. The integration process itself is not conscious. Nevertheless, 
the process depends on conscious processes in feeling and detecting changes. The 
consequence is felt as difference’ (185). This notion—that unconscious, subtle interactions drive 
adaptations to behavior, and that consciousness plays a post facto appraisal role in making 
sense of these changes—is crucial to our thesis of conceptual knowledge emerging from guided 
interaction through a felt sense of difference. 

The gap between what we think is available to us versus what is actually possible is like a blind 
spot in consciousness. The work of Feldenkrais helps bridge this gap by clarifying the image of 
perceived potentials and limitations in our physical capacity—what we call the self-image—with 
an actual, integrated roadmap of possibilities, so that there is more similarity between the 
desired action and the action itself. This is done through awareness, where information registers 
and somatic changes become possible. 

3.7 On Degrees of Difference: Towards a Systemic Movement Pedagogy 

When introducing a new movement pattern to a student, if the information is too foreign or too 
threatening to the integrity of their system, it will be rejected. The information itself has to be 
accessible to the person through the current organization of their system. Functional 
Integration​®​, a feature of the Feldenkrais Method, requires of the practitioner to attend closely to 
the systemic state of an individual student and use light touch so as to shift the student’s 
systemic organization into a new dynamical configuration, ultimately improving the student’s 
overall movement functioning. That is, smaller intervention may curiously generate greater effect 
on the system than the bigger, more global intervention. Though the global change may be 
more easily adopted as a whole, this would occur not as a gradual systemic shift (an 
accommodation) but as a break, similar to the arguments from dynamical systems theory cited 

 
Abrahamson and Shulman • ​Feldenkrais Research Journal, volume 6​ (2018-2019) 16 
 



 

earlier (Kostrubiec ​et al​. 2012; Smith and Thelen 2003; Vygotsky 2001). By integrating some of 
the more incremental variations within the whole, the person, while retaining a sense of agency, 
is better able to clarify their self-image and improve their self-use. 

Functioning analogously, the Mathematics Imagery Trainer for Proportion guides students to 
shift gradually from additive to multiplicative reasoning: Students who initially believe the interval 
between their hands should remain invariant as they raise the hands are ushered to 
accommodate this reasoning so as to assimilate the target movement pattern. A gentle 
suggestion or intriguing invitation at the appropriate timing can open up for the student new 
possibilities for movement, whereby the interval between the hands changes with the rising of 
the hands—a new way of moving that works within an existing choreographic envelope yet 
departs from it, swaying it into new dynamical equilibrium that is manifestly better adapted to the 
micro-ecology of this field of promoted action. Thus students are led to conceptualize 
multiplicative structures (multiplication, division, fractions, ratio, and proportion) not as isolated 
from additive structures (counting, adding, subtracting) but as related variants on these 
structures.  1

4. Conclusion 

Within mundane sociocultural landscapes, mathematics and dance occupy dramatically 
disparate spaces. And yet the embodiment turn in the cognitive sciences is implicating these 
foreign disciplines as corporeally cognate—both transpire as sensorimotor activity, both avail 
from reflection. The interdisciplinary pas de deux presented herewith has only bolstered our 
growing conviction that our respective pedagogical worlds have much to share and debate. We 
have only scratched the surface. 

When mathematical learning is conceptualized as sensorimotor exploration and entrainment, 
mathematics and dance appear to have similar pedagogical practices. Both center on students’ 
subjective and idiosyncratic phenomenology of movement and both attempt to stimulate 
students’ awareness of their action such that the students diversify the action so as better to 

1 Resonance with this Feldenkrais Method technique of focused, nuanced intervention is found in 
discussions of coordination dynamics, wherein researchers transform the state of a system by 
manipulating the values of select attributes that thus serve as control parameters. Kelso (2000) explains 
the idea of control parameters as follows: 
 

These are analogous to what a social or behavioral scientist might call an independent variable. 
But the concept is entirely different, and the implications for experimental design in the social, 
behavioral, and cognitive sciences far reaching….In physical systems, control parameters refer to 
naturally occurring environmental variations or specific experimental manipulations that move the 
system through patterned states and cause them to change (65). 

 
Complexity researchers are wont to reflect on the great efforts they invest in identifying a system’s control 
parameter. Again, parallels to the work of Feldenkrais should not surprise us, given his training as a 
physicist during the dawn of cybernetics. 

 
Abrahamson and Shulman • ​Feldenkrais Research Journal, volume 6​ (2018-2019) 17 
 



 

accord with a desired outcome and further mastering/cultivation of the subject matter. From a 
systemic perspective, learning in both dance and mathematics transpires as a search, in real or 
imagined spatial-temporal domains of enactment, for movement that is both subjectively 
coherent and objectively effective. The new movement adapts personal resources to meet 
multiple constraints of organism, task, and environment. Learning is the embodied cognitive 
work of building new coherence by reorienting to the enactive domain. We adapt our functioning 
sensorimotor schemes by perceiving in the domain latent dynamical patterns affording the 
enactment of new coordinated motor actions. Instructors can help students toward new 
coherence by formulating these patterned potentialities that augment on our extant orientation 
toward in enactive domain. To do so, instructors use multimodal expression to suggest familiar 
cultural forms. These suggestions, such as metaphorical images, constitute new constraints that 
the students inhabit and assimilate (Abrahamson, Sánchez–García, and Smyth 2016). 

Movement as an objective construct is experienced and enacted via a myriad of subjective 
sensorimotor dispositions. Instructors should not shy away from this diversity of perspectives but 
rather leverage it by creating opportunities for individual students to bring to bear their own 
perspectives, discover and assimilate new meanings, surface, reflect on, and accommodate 
existing meanings, and integrate these different meanings as conceptually complementary for 
the practice. One instructional methodology for achieving these results is to create conditions 
that reposition movement as a means of achieving an end, that is, as a tool for wielding 
environmental change. Within this framework, instructors should strive to maintain a dynamical 
construction of movement even as the analytic discursive formulations of movement are liable to 
stop and stave action. In all this, awareness of one’s own movement is essential for bringing 
forth productive change. Instructors minded by this systemic approach to the phenomenology of 
movement stand a greater chance to foster critical and generative change through nuanced 
intervention. 

The systemic approach to instructional methodology obtains across the disciplines of 
mathematics and music. At its core is a philosophical, theoretical, and practical commitment to 
the principle that the body, or rather the sensorimotor system, is at the vanguard of cognitive 
activity. Pedagogy that recognizes the essential role of the body in problem solving creates 
environments that are auspicious for movement-based reasoning, where these environments 
may include technological devices that support customized facilitation. As Glenberg (2006) 
cautions, in evaluating the mainstay of available educational designs, ‘one can view most of my 
reasons for skepticism as challenges for the future development of technology that is sensitive 
to the principles of biological cognitive systems‘ (271). It is this sensitivity to principles of 
biological cognitive systems that effective movement directors in dance practice intuitively. In 
mathematics education, the field is making tentative strides (Nathan ​et al​. 2017). 

As we step back to evaluate our collaboration in building this manuscript, we recognize an 
elephant dancing in the room: Through the prism of our mutual interest in movement we have 
witnessed an astonishing convergence of essential ideas from strange bedfellows—distant 

 
Abrahamson and Shulman • ​Feldenkrais Research Journal, volume 6​ (2018-2019) 18 
 



 

schools of philosophical, theoretical, and empirical thought and cultural practice that rarely 
converse yet agree on the systemic conceptualization of human behavior, reasoning, and 
learning. This gives us hope that the embodiment turn in the cognitive sciences will permeate 
and consolidate diverse disciplines into a cohesive doctrine. 

 

Authors Note 
This paper expands on our presentation at Movement: Brain, Body, Cognition, 2017 
(Abrahamson and Shulman, 2017). 

 
References 

Abrahamson, D. (2014) ‘Building Educational Activities for Understanding: An Elaboration on 
the Embodied-design Framework and its Epistemic Grounds’. ​International Journal of 
Child-Computer Interaction ​2​ ​(1), 1-16 

Abrahamson, D., and Bakker, A. (2016) ‘Making Sense of Movement in Embodied Design for 
Mathematics Learning’. in Embodied Cognition and STEM Learning [Special issue] ed. by 
N. Newcombe and S. Weisberg. ​Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications ​1 (1), 
1-13 

Abrahamson, D., Bryant, M. J., Gutiérrez, J. F., Mookerjee, A. V., Souchkova, D., and Thacker, 
I. E. (2009) ‘Figuring It Out: Mathematical Learning as Guided Semiotic Disambiguation of 
Useful Yet Initially Entangled Intuitions’. in S. L. Swars, D. W. Stinson, and S. 
Lemons-Smith​ ​(eds.)​ Proceedings of the Thirty-First Annual Meeting of the 
North-American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics 
Education​ (5). held 23-26 September, 2009 at Georgia State University. Atlanta, GA: 
Georgia State University, 662-670 

Abrahamson, D., Lee, R. G., Negrete, A. G., and Gutiérrez, J. F. (2014) ‘Coordinating 
Visualizations of Polysemous Action: Values Added for Grounding Proportion’. ​ZDM 
Mathematics Education ​46​ ​(1), 79-93 

Abrahamson, D., Sánchez-García, R., and Smyth, C. (2016) ‘Metaphors are Projected 
Constraints on Action: An Ecological Dynamics View on Learning Across the Disciplines’. 
in C.-K. Looi, J. L. Polman, U. Cress, and P. Reimann (eds.) ​Proceedings of the 
International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2016),​ ‘Transforming Learning, 
Empowering Learners’.​ ​held 20-24 June 2016 at Nanyang Technology University. 
Singapore: International Society of the Learning Sciences, 1 [Full Papers], 314-321 

 
Abrahamson and Shulman • ​Feldenkrais Research Journal, volume 6​ (2018-2019) 19 
 



 

Abrahamson, D., Shayan, S., Bakker, A., and Van der Schaaf, M. F. (2016) ‘Eye-tracking 
Piaget: Capturing the Emergence of Attentional Anchors in the Coordination of 
Proportional Motor Action’. ​Human Development ​58​ ​(4-5), 218-244 

Abrahamson, D., and Shulman, A. (2017) ‘Constructing Movement in Mathematics and Dance: 
An Interdisciplinary Pedagogical Dialogue on Subjectivity and Awareness’. ​First Annual 
Meeting of Movement 2017: Brain, Body, Cognition​. held 9–11 July 2017 at Oxford 
University, UK 

Abrahamson, D., and Trninic, D. (2015) ‘Bringing Forth Mathematical Concepts: Signifying 
Sensorimotor Enactment in Fields of Promoted Action’. ​ZDM Mathematics Education ​47 
(2), 295–306 

Allen, J. W. P., and Bickhard, M. H. (2013) ‘Stepping Off the Pendulum: Why Only an 
Action-based Approach Can Transcend the Nativist–Empiricist Debate’. ​Cognitive 
Development ​28​ ​(2), 96-133 

Anderson, M. L. (2003) ‘Embodied Cognition: A Field Guide’. ​Artificial Intelligence ​149, 91-130 

Araújo, D., Davids, K. W., Chow, J. Y., Passos, P., and Raab, M. (2009) ‘The Development of 
Decision Making Skill in Sport: An Ecological Dynamics Perspective’. in ​Perspectives on 
Cognition and Action in Sport​. ed. by D. Araújo and H. Ripoll. Hauppauge: Nova Science 
Publishers, Inc, 157-169 

Arsalidou, M., and Pascual-Leone, J. (2016) ‘Constructivist Developmental Theory is Needed in 
Developmental Neuroscience’. ​Npj Science of Learning ​1, 16016 

Barsalou, L. W. (2010) ‘Grounded Cognition: Past, Present, and Future’. ​Topics in Cognitive 
Science ​2​ ​(4), 716-724 

Beringer, E. (ed.) (2010) ​Embodied Wisdom: The Collected Papers of Moshe Feldenkrais​. 
Berkeley: North Atlantic Books 

Bernstein, N. A. (1996) ‘On Dexterity and its Development’. in ​Dexterity and its Development​. 
ed. by M. L. Latash and M. T. Turvey. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 3-235 

Buchanan, P. A., and Ulrich, B. D. (2001) ‘The Feldenkrais Method: A Dynamic Approach to 
Changing Motor Behavior’. ​Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport ​72​ ​(4), 315-323 

Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., Button, C., and Renshaw, I. (2016) ​Nonlinear Pedagogy in Skill 
Acquisition: An Introduction​. New York: Routledge 

Cole, A. (2004) ‘Mathematics and the Feldenkrais Method: Discovering the Relationship’. ​The 
Feldenkrais Journal ​17, 17-26 

 
Abrahamson and Shulman • ​Feldenkrais Research Journal, volume 6​ (2018-2019) 20 
 



 

Feldenkrais, M. (1984) The Master Moves. Cupertino: Meta Publications 

Feldenkrais, M. (1988/2010) ‘Bodily Expressions’. trans. by T. Hanna. in ​Body Wisdom​, ed. by 
E. Beringer. Berkeley: North Atlantic Press, 3-25 (Reprinted from ​Somatics ​6, 1988. 
Original French text published in 1964) 

Feldenkrais, M. (1981) ​The Elusive Obvious​. Soquel: Meta Publications 

Gibson, J. J. (1977) ‘The Theory of Affordances’. in ​Perceiving, Acting and Knowing: Toward an 
Ecological Psychology​. ed. by​ ​R. Shaw and J. Bransford. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum 
Associates, 67-82 

Ginsburg, C. (2010) ​The Intelligence of Moving Bodies: A Somatic View of Life and Its 
Consequences​. Santa Fe: AWAREing Press 

Glenberg, A. M. (2006) ‘Radical Changes in Cognitive Process Due to Technology: A Jaundiced 
View’. in ‘Distributed Cognition [Special Issue]’. ed. by S. Harnad, and I. E. Dror. 
Pragmatics ​and​ Cognition ​14​ ​(2), 263-274 

Gopnik, A., and Rosati, A. (2001) ‘Duck or Rabbit? Reversing Ambiguous Figures and 
Understanding Ambiguous Representations’. ​Developmental Science ​4​ ​(2), 175-183 

Howison, M., Trninic, D., Reinholz, D., and Abrahamson, D. (2011) ‘The Mathematical Imagery 
Trainer: From Embodied Interaction to Conceptual Learning’. in G. Fitzpatrick, C. Gutwin, 
B. Begole, W. A. Kellogg, and D. Tan (eds.) ​Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of The 
Association for Computer Machinery Special Interest Group on Computer Human 
Interaction, ‘​Human Factors in Computing Systems​.’ (CHI 2011)​. held 7-12 May, 2011 at 
Vancouver, BC, Canada. New York: ACM Press, 1989-1998 (Full Papers) 

Kelso, J. A. S. (1995) ​Dynamic Patterns: The Self-organization of Brain and Behavior​. 
Cambridge: MIT Press 

Kelso, J. A. S. (2000) ‘Principles of Dynamic Pattern Formation and Change for a Science of 
Human Behavior’. in L. Lars, R. Bergman, R. B. Cairns, L. G. Nilsson, and L. Nystedt 
(eds.) ​Developmental Science and the Holistic Approach (Proceedings of a Conference at 
Wiks Castle and the Nobel Institute, Stockholm, Sweden).​ Mahwah: Erlbaum 

Kirsh, D. (2013) ‘Embodied Cognition and the Magical Future of Interaction Design’. in The 
Theory and Practice of Embodied Interaction in HCI and Interaction Design [Special 
issue], ed. by P. Marshall, A. N. Antle, E. v.d. Hoven, and Y. Rogers. ​ACM Transactions 
on Human–Computer Interaction ​20​ ​(1), 3: 1-30 

Kiverstein, J., and Clark, A. (eds.) (2009) ‘Introduction: Mind Embodied, Embedded, Enacted: 
One Church or Many?’ ​Topoi​ 28​ ​(1), 1-7 

 
Abrahamson and Shulman • ​Feldenkrais Research Journal, volume 6​ (2018-2019) 21 
 



 

Kostrubiec, V., Zanone, P.-G., Fuchs, A., and Kelso, J. A. S. (2012) ‘Beyond the Blank Slate: 
Routes to Learning New Coordination Patterns Depend on the Intrinsic Dynamics of the 
Learner: Experimental Evidence and Theoretical Model’. ​Frontiers in Human 
Neuroscience ​6: 222 doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00222 

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1964) ​The Primacy of Perception, and Other Essays on Phenomenological 
Psychology, the Philosophy of Art, History and Politics​. trans. by C. Smith. Evanston: 
Northwestern University Press 

Morgan, P., and Abrahamson, D. (2016) ‘Cultivating the Ineffable: The Role of Contemplative 
Practice in Enactivist Learning’. ​For the Learning of Mathematics ​36​ ​(3), 31-37 

Morgan, P., and Abrahamson, D. (2018) ‘Applying Contemplative Practices to the Educational 
Design of Mathematics Content: Report from a Pioneering Workshop’. ​The Journal of 
Contemplative Inquiry ​5 (1), 107-119 

Nathan, M. J., Williams-Pierce, C., Abrahamson, D., Ottmar, E. R., Landy, D., Smith, C., 
Walkington, C., DeLiema, D., Soto-Johnson, H., Alibali, M. W., Boncoddo, R. (2017) 
‘Embodied Mathematical Imagination and Cognition (EMIC) Working Group’. in E. Galindo 
and J. Newton (eds.) ​“Proceedings of the 39​th​ Annual Conference of the North-American 
chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education​ ‘Synergy 
at the Crossroads’​.​ held 5-8 October, 2017 at Indianapolis, IN. Indianapolis, IN: Hoosier 
Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators, 1497-1506 

Newell, K. M. (1986) ‘Constraints on the Development of Coordination’. in ​Motor Development in 
Children: Aspects of Coordination and Control​. ed. by M. G. Wade and H. T. A. Whiting. 
Amsterdam: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 341-361 

Newell, K. M. (1996) ‘Change in Movement and Skill: Learning, Retention, and Transfer’. in 
Dexterity and its Development. ​ed. by​ ​M. L. Latash and M. T. Turvey. Mahwah: Lawrence 
Erlbaum Associates, 393-429 

Newell, K. M., and Ranganathan, R. (2010) ‘Instructions as Constraints in Motor Skill 
Acquisition’. in ​Motor Learning in Practice: A constraints-led Approach​. ed. by. I. 
Renshaw, K. Davids, and G. J. P. Savelsbergh. Florence: Routledge, 17-32 

Piaget, J. (1968) ​Genetic Epistemology​. trans. by E. Duckworth. New York: Columbia University 
Press 

Piaget, J. (1971) ​Biology and Knowledge: An Essay on the Relations Between Organic 
Regulations and Cognitive Processes.​ trans. by B. Walsh. Chicago: The University of 
Chicago Press 

 
Abrahamson and Shulman • ​Feldenkrais Research Journal, volume 6​ (2018-2019) 22 
 



 

Reid, D. A., and Mgombelo, J. (2015) ‘Survey of Key Concepts in Enactivist Theory and 
Methodology’. ​ZDM Mathematics Education ​47​ ​(2), 171–183 

Sheets-Johnstone, M. (2015). ‘Embodiment on Trial: A Phenomenological Investigation’. 
Continental Philosophy Review ​48 (1), 23-39 doi:10.1007/s11007-014-9315-z 

Shvarts, A., and Abrahamson, D. (2018) ‘Towards a Complex Systems Model of Enculturation: 
A Dual-eye-tracking Study.’ ​Annual conference of the American Educational Research 
Association (Special Interest Group: Learning Sciences).​ held 13-17 April, 2018 at New 
York City 

Smith, L. B., and Thelen, E. (2003) ‘Development as a Dynamic System’. ​Trends in Cognitive 
Sciences ​7 (8), 343-348 

Thelen, E., and Smith, L. B. (1994) ​A Dynamic Systems Approach to the Development of 
Cognition and Action​. Cambridge: MIT Press 

Varela, F. J. (1999) ​Ethical Know-how: Action, Wisdom, and Cognition​. Stanford: Stanford 
University Press 

Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., and Rosch, E. (1991) ​The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and 
Human Experience​. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press 

Vygotsky, L. S. (2001) ‘​Lektsii po Pedologii​ ​[Lectures on Pedology].​ Izhevsk: Izdatel’kii dom 
Udmurtskii Universitet’. (Original work partially published 1935) 

Vygotsky, L. S. (1997) ​Educational Psychology.​ trans. by R. H. Silverman.Boca Raton: CRC 
Press LLC. (Original work published 1926) 

Wilson, M. (2002) ‘Six Views of Embodied Cognition’. ​Psychonomic Bulletin ​and​ Review ​9​ ​(4), 
625-636  

Wittgenstein, L. (1980) ​Remarks on the Philosophy of Psychology​. Chicago: University of 
Chicago Press 

Wittgenstein, L. (1953). ​Philosophical Investigations.​ trans by G. E. M. Anscombe. Upper 
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall 

Worsley, M., Abrahamson, D., Blikstein, P., Bumbacher, E., Grover, S., Schneider, B., and 
Tissenbaum, M. (2016) ‘Workshop: Situating Multimodal Learning Analytics’. in C.-K. Looi, 
J. L. Polman, U. Cress, and P. Reimann (eds.) ​Proceedings of the International 
Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2016), ​‘Transforming Learning, Empowering 
Learners’.​ ​held 20-24 June 2016 at Nanyang Technology University. Singapore: 
International Society of the Learning Sciences, 1346-1349 

 
Abrahamson and Shulman • ​Feldenkrais Research Journal, volume 6​ (2018-2019) 23 
 



 

Worsley, M., and Blikstein, P. (2014) ‘Using Multimodal Learning Analytics to Study Learning 
Mechanisms’. in Stamper, Z. Pardos, M. Mavrikis, and B. M. McLaren (eds.) ​Proceedings 
of the 7​th​ International Conference on Educational Data Mining.​ held 4-7 July, 2014 at 
Institute of Education London. London: Institute of Education, 431-432 

 
Biographies 

Dor Abrahamson 

Dor Abrahamson, PhD, is a Professor of Cognition and Development with a Secondary 
Mathematics appointment at the Graduate School of Education, University of California 
Berkeley, where he runs the Embodied Design Research Laboratory (https://edrl.berkeley.edu). 
Abrahamson is a design-based researcher, who develops and evaluates theoretical models of 
mathematics learning and teaching by analyzing empirical data collected during 
implementations of his pedagogical design. Drawing on embodiment and sociocultural 
perspectives, Abrahamson theorizes conceptual learning as students’ reconciliation of 
perceptually immediate and culturally mediated constructions of dynamical situated phenomena. 

Ami Shulman 

Ami Shulman choreographed for the National Theatre of London; the Shakespeare Theatre 
Company, for which she received a Helen Hayes Award, and has co-created works with the 
Cirque Du Soleil, the National Ballet of Canada, and Ballet British Columbia. Ami performed with 
dance companies Marie Chouinard, Flak, and the DanceOn Ensemble Berlin, and has taught 
throughout Europe, Canada, and the USA, including for the Juilliard School, Alvin Ailey School, 
Brown University, UCSD, and Jacob’s Pillow. Ami is currently Rehearsal Director at the 
Gothenburg Opera Danskompani, Sweden. She co-authored a chapter for the anthology ‘Back 
to the Dance Itself: Phenomenologies of the Body in Performance’. Ami is a certified 
Feldenkrais Practitioner. 

 

 

 

 
Abrahamson and Shulman • ​Feldenkrais Research Journal, volume 6​ (2018-2019) 24 
 


