Expressive Robotics

  • Viet VuEmail author
  • David Liu
  • Kreshnik Begolli


The purpose of this chapter is to describe a new STEAM curriculum that integrates expressive movement into a robotics curriculum. Based on previous research of art and STEM learning, a new two-week summer camp curriculum was developed by the Beall Center for Art and Technology. In this two-week summer program, junior high and high school students learn and apply movements drawn from art, theater, and dance to their learning about computer programming and robotic design. Through student comments and project designs, we see that this new robotics curriculum has unique opportunities to engage students in an integrated arts-based STEM curriculum. New innovations in STEAM education have opened doors for students to engage in science where creativity is relevant and humanistic.


  1. Andrzejczak, N., Trainin, G., & Poldberg, M. (2005). From image to text: Using images in the writing process. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 6(12).Google Scholar
  2. Barker, S., & Ansorge, J. (2007). Robotics as means to increase achievement scores in an informal learning environment. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 229–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Begolli, K. N., Richland, L. E., Jaeggi, S. M., Lyons, E. M., Klostermann, E. C., & Matlen, B. J. (2018). Executive function in learning mathematics by comparison: Incorporating everyday classrooms into the science of learning. Thinking & Reasoning, 24(2), 280–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Booth, J. L., McGinn, K. M., Barbieri, C., Begolli, K. N., Chang, B., Miller-Cotto, D., Young, L. K., & Davenport, J. L. (2017). Evidence for cognitive science principles that impact learning in mathematics. In Acquisition of complex arithmetic skills and higher-order mathematics concepts (pp. 297–325).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonvillian, W. B. (2002). Science at a crossroads. The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology Journal, 16, 915–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Common Core State Standards. (2010). National governors association center for best practices. Washington D.C.: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School.Google Scholar
  7. Cooperrider, K., Gentner, D., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2016). Spatial analogies pervade complex relational reasoning: Evidence from spontaneous gestures. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 1(28).Google Scholar
  8. Fisher, E., & Mahajan, R. (2010). Embedding the humanities in engineering: Art, dialogue, and a laboratory. In Trading zones and interactional expertise (pp. 209–230).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fisher, E., & Mahajan, R. L. (2003). Humanistic enhancement of engineering: Liberalizing the technical curriculum. In Paper presented at the proceedings international conference on engineering education.Google Scholar
  10. Frank, M., & Barner, D. (2012). Representing exact number visually using mental abacus. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(1), 134–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gick, M., & Holyoak, K. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hatano, G., Miyake, Y., & Binks, M. (1977). Performance of expert abacus operators. Cognition, 5, 47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hendrix, R., Eick, C., & Shannon, D. (2012). The integration of creative drama in an inquiry- based elementary program: The effect on student attitude and conceptual learning. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(7), 823–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hynes, M., & Swenson, J. (2013). The humanistic side of engineering: Considering social science and humanities dimensions of engineering in education and research. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 3(2), 31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kirsch, D. (2013). Embodied cognition and the magical future of interaction design. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 20(1).Google Scholar
  17. Koedinger, K. R., Booth, J. L., & Klahr, D. (2013). Instructional complexity and the science to constrain it. Science, 342(6161), 935–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lichtenberg, J., Woock, C., & Wright, M. (2008). Ready to innovate: Are educators and executives aligned on the creative readiness of the U.S. workforce? The Conference Board.Google Scholar
  19. Maeda, J. (2012). STEM to STEAM: Art in K-12 is key to building a strong economy. Retrieved from
  20. Mayer, R. E. (2012). Advances in applying the science of learning to education: An historical perspective. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1(4), 249–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  22. Next Generation Science Standards. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  23. Obama, B. (Ed.). (2011). Strategy for American innovation: Driving towards sustainable growth and quality jobs. DIANE Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books Inc.Google Scholar
  25. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2017). Beyond the three Rs: Voter attitudes toward 21st century skills. Tucson, AZ.Google Scholar
  26. Pashler, H., Bain, P. M., Bottge, B. A., Graesser, A., Koedinger, K., McDaniel, M., & Metcalfe, J. (2007). Organizing instruction and study to improve student learning. IES Practice Guide. NCER 2007–2004. National Center for Education Research.Google Scholar
  27. Pfeifer, R., & Bongard, J. (2007). How the body shapes the way we think. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Richland, L. E., & Begolli, K. N. (2016). Analogy and higher order thinking: Learning mathematics as an example. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(2), 160–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Richland, L. E., Begolli, K. N., Simms, N., Frausel, R. R., & Lyons, E. A. (2017). Supporting mathematical discussions: The roles of comparison and cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 29(1), 41–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Richland, L. E., & Simms, N. (2015). Analogy, higher order thinking, and education. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 6(2), 177–192.Google Scholar
  31. Roediger, H. L., III, & Pyc, M. A. (2012). Inexpensive techniques to improve education: Applying cognitive psychology to enhance educational practice. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1(4), 242–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rogers, C., & Portsmore, M. (2004). Bringing engineering to elementary school. Journal of STEM Education, 5(3&4), 17–28.Google Scholar
  33. Schwartz, D., Bransford, J., & Sears, D. (2005). Efficiency and innovation in transfer. Transfer of Learning from a Modern Multidisciplinary Perspective, 1–51.Google Scholar
  34. Schwartz, D., & Martin, T. (2004). Inventing to prepare for future learning: The hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2), 129–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schwartz, D., Chase, C., Oppezzo, M., & Chin, D. (2011). Practicing versus inventing with contrasting cases: The effects of telling first on learning and transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(4), 759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Star, J. R., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2009). It pays to compare: An experimental study on computational estimation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 4(102), 408–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. The Dana Foundation. (2009). Neuroeducation: Learning, arts, and the brain. Retrieved from
  38. The White House. (2009). Press release: President Obama launches ‘educate to innovate’ campaign for excellence in science, technology, engineering & mathematics (STEM) education. Retrieved from
  39. Varela, J., Thomson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  40. Watson, A., & Watson, G. (2013). Transitioning STEM to STEAM: Reformation of engineering education. The Journal of Quality & Participation, 36(3), 1–4.Google Scholar
  41. Weisberg, S. M., & Newcombe, N. S. (2017). Embodied cognition and STEM learning: Overview of a topical collection in CR: PI.Google Scholar
  42. Wulf, W. A. (2004). Some thoughts on engineering as a humanistic discipline. International Journal of Engineering Education, 20(3), 313–314.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of California IrvineIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations