Content uploaded by Pirita Ihamäki
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Pirita Ihamäki on Jan 07, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL LEARNING WITH A
ROBOT DOG: TECHNOLOGY, EMPATHY AND
PLAYFUL LEARNING IN KINDERGARTEN
2020 HAWAII UNIVERSITY INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES
ARTS, HUMANITIES, SOCIAL SCIENCES, & EDUCATION JANUARY 6 - 8, 2020
HAWAII PRINCE HOTEL WAIKIKI, HONOLULU, HAWAII
IHAMÄKI, PIRITA
PRIZZTECH LTD.
PORI, SATAKUNTA
FINLAND
HELJAKKA, KATRIINA
SCHOOL OF HISTORY, CULTURE AND ARTS STUDIES
CULTURAL PRODUCTION AND LANDSCAPE STUDIES
UNIVERSITY OF TURKU
PORI, SATAKUNTA
FINLAND
Dr. Pirita Ihamäki
Prizztech, Ltd,
Pori, Finland
Dr. Katriina Heljakka
School of History, Culture and Arts Studies, (Degree Program of)
Cultural Production and Landscape Studies, University of Turku
Finland
Social and Emotional Learning with a Robot Dog:
Technology, Empathy and Playful Learning in Kindergarten
Synopsis
Robotic ‘pets,’ technological emulations of companion animals, have become increasingly
complex and broadly disseminated to teaching empathy. They are part of a trend toward
anthropomorphized social robots, computer technology embedded within forms that emulate
biological entities (Melson et al. 2009). The goal of this study is to investigate potential links
between empathy development and social and emotional learning when using a robot dog
(Golden Pup) as an educational tool in the Kindergarten context.
Social and Emotional Learning with a Robot Dog:
Technology, Empathy and Playful Learning in Kindergarten
Abstract
When you think of empathy, it is a part of what makes us human and humane, and it has become
a core component of the Social Awareness competency of Social and Emotional Learning
(SEL) (CASEL, 2019). SEL fosters the understanding of others’ emotions, which is the basis
of Theory of Mind skills and frames the development of empathy (Walker & Wedenbenner,
2019). The purpose of this study is to trace potential links between empathy development and
social and emotional learning when using a robot dog as a learning tool as part of preschool-
aged children’s education in kindergarten. The robot dog under scrutiny, namely Golden Pup
by company Joy for All, has ‘all the love in the world to give’. According to its marketing
materials, thanks to built-in sensors and speakers the robot dog can recreate some of the more
‘delightful moments of owning a dog including being a best friend for aging loved ones’
(RobotShop, Golden Pup 2019). In the study at hand, the Golden Pup robot dog was observed
while being first used by preschool-aged children during free-play. Social robots like robot toy
dogs bring new opportunities for designers to rethink areas of change concerned with how
children relate to their peers (nurturing), learning (empathy), and play (social interaction). In
the paper at hand, the Golden Pup is seen as an educational instrument in assessing and teaching
socio-emotional skills. Our tentative results show how child-robot toy interaction may facilitate
emphatic responses and playful learning of empathy skills when used as part of guided play.
Keywords: Emotional Learning, Social Learning, Robot Dog, Social Robots, Empathy, Early
Education
Figure 1. Preschool children play with the robot dog Golden Pup in a Finnish early
education environment.
1. Introduction
Children are eager explorers, when using objects like the one employed in our case study—
a robot dog—to play while learning about how the world works (Piaget 2013, Smith 2017,
Vygotsky 1967). Researchers present that the usage of toys during play have shown to
contribute to healthy cognitive development (Singer & Singer 2009). New generations are born
into a world in which technological objects merge increasingly with toys, including smart-
phones, tablets, coding toys, smart toys and connected playthings—the Internet of Toys. This
means that the emergence of technologies for children has led to changes in both play objects
and related play patterns, as more digital and interactive smart toys and environments enter the
market. One example of such toys are social robots employed in the context of learning.
Educational robots are of importance as the creation of new teaching methods and tools
remains a highly relevant, active and growing research field in both academic and industry
fields (Wu et al. 2018). Research has shown that children are willing to use and interact with
technology (Becker 2000, McKenney & Voogt 2010, Plowman & McPake 2013), and that
new technologically-enhanced playthings such as the Internet of Toys (IoToys), smart toys and
social robot toys can have positive benefits in children’s learning (Billard 2003, Heljakka &
Ihamäki 2018, Heljakka & Ihamäki 2019a, Heljakka & Ihamäki 2019b, Ihamäki & Heljakka
2018a, Ihamäki & Heljakka 2018b, Ihamäki & Heljakka 2018c).
Several researchers have conducted studies on children interacting with educational
robots, and the Internet of Toys in a learning environment (Alves-Oliveira et al. 2017, Westlund
et al. 2017). On many occasions, educational robots have an assisting role in teaching. For
example, Breazeal et al. (2016) present studies in which children have treated robots as
interlocutors. Hall et al. (2016) present results on map reading with an empathic robot tutor, and
showed this scenario with the Nao robot interacting with students reading a map.
This paper takes an interest in the potential of a robot toy to be employed as a part of early
education with a specific interest in social and emotional learning. What guides our interest in
particular is to focus on empathy mediated by a robot dog, Golden Pup.
Empathy is a uniquely human emotion facilitated by abstract thinking and language (Walker &
Weidenbenner 2019). Preschool environments offer opportunities to observe the relationship
between social and emotional learning, the balance between learner-centered and adult-directed
activities, and the benefits of using a robot toy in studying preschool-aged children’s firsthand
empathic responses. The study presented in the paper explores links between empathy
development and social and emotional learning with a robot dog as a learning tool in
kindergarten. Our investigation begins with the presumption that motion-based play is a way of
teaching prosocial behavior by using robot dogs as a learning tool. We hypothesize that the
recognition of emotions, such as empathy and other socio-communication skills children learn
at a very young age through child-robot communication and playful learning can be a venue for
adding on to the understanding of empathy development for preschool-aged children.
Introducing the Robot Dog – Golden Pup
The Golden Pup is a low cost interactive robotic pet originally developed by toy company
Hasbro, and later marketed by Joy for All, called “Joy for All Companion Pets”, first made
available in 2016. Robotic pets in the companion pets line include three different cats and one
dog robot toy—Golden Pup. The battery-operated robot pets respond to nursing and hugging
with motion sensors responding to motion and touch. The fur and weight of the robot dog feels
like a real dog. Movements and sounds the robot makes simulate a real animal, especially
purring, barks and head turning (McBride et al. 2017).
“This pup looks, feels, and sounds like a real dog. Its thumping heartbeat enhances its life-
like qualities. This beautiful, soft dog responds to petting, hugging, and motion much like the
dogs you know and love, without the care issues.” (Golden Pup marketing texts, Amazon.com).
According to the toy marketer, the envisioned play patterns of the chosen dog toy robot
represent mobile play: The Golden Pup reacts to touch “with puppy-like movements and
sounds”; haptic/object play: The Golden Pup features a “realistic coat”; and auditive play: The
Golden Pup comes with a “simulated heartbeat, and authentic sounds and “responds to sounds
with ‘Bark Back’ technology”.
2. Related work
In this section, we contextualize the robot toy Golden Pup within the general field of
Human-Robot Interaction and Child-Robot Interaction, especially with the educational context
in mind. We frame the development of robot toy technology with the possibilities of playful
learning including learner-centered techniques, and theories about child empathy development,
personality and creativity.
2.1. Human-Robot Interaction
Human-robot interaction is a research field dedicated to the design and evaluation of robotic
systems that interact with humans (Goodrich and Schultz 2007). These robots have been
designed with the ability to “communicate and interact with us, understand and even relate to us,
in a personal way” (Breazeal 2004).
An earlier study shows how human-robot interaction demonstrates different embodiments,
using a rich taxonomy of expressive behaviors (Fong et al. 2003) and operate in an application
field (Ben-Ari & Mondada 2018). Human-robot interaction modalities range from emotional
expression (Paiva et al. 2018) including empathy (Paiva et al. 2017), body gestures (Salem et
al. 2012, Salem et al. 2013), and expressive lights (Baraka & Veloso 2018) to color, motion
and sound (Löffler et al. 2018, Heljakka & Ihamäki 2019a/b). Research has shown that highly
successful interactions with humans tend to occur when the interactive and expressive
modalities of robots match their physical embodiment (Mori 1970). There are studies according
to which a robot’s embodiments express human-like appearance (Kanda & Ishiguro 2016,
Matsui et al. 2018) to non-humanlike shapes (Bretan et al. 2015, Zaga et al. 2017, Cha et al.
2018). According to Nocentini et al. (2019), when a social robot interacts with human users,
empathy represents one of the key factors to increase natural Human Robot Interaction.
Emotional models are fundamental for social abilities to reach empathy with users. For
example, previous work demonstrated that combining the robot’s empathy with the user’s state
contributed to a better appreciation of a personal assistant (Liu & Picard 2005). Looije et al.
(2010) have conducted experiments with the I-Cat robot, where they have provided a computer-
based assistant that could persuade and guide elderly people to behave in a healthy way. The
I-Cat features an emotional model that makes it able to smile and express sadness. Authors
implemented natural cues such as understanding, listening, and looking, to perform different
roles for the robot—educator, buddy and motivator.
2.2. Child-Robot Interaction
A wide range of research in new technology development used in play by children,
especially social robots, coding robots, and playthings in the category of the Internet of Toys,
has been developed, with associated benefits for education (Belpaeme et al. 2018, Heljakka &
Ihamäki 2019a, Heljakka & Ihamäki 2019b, Ihamäki & Heljakka 2018b, Ihamäki & Heljakka
2018c) and social play (Tarpley 2001, Ihamäki & Heljakka 2018a). When robots are skillfully
used by the teachers and aligned with the students’ educational needs (Benitti 2012) benefits
include positive achievement, as an increase in motivation for learning and improvement in
collaborative learning (Spolaôr & Benitti 2017). Benefits for learning with robots have been
reported to support of learning styles through play (Turkle 1990), especially when robots are
applied to foster creative thinking and creative expression (Resnick 2006). As researchers have
shown, robots are used as a learning tool in a variety of different school subjects. Successful
examples of social robots that engage children and increase learning acquisitions are the Logo
Turtle (Papert 1980), Curlybot (Frei et al. 2000), Robota (Billard 2003), Sphero (Rafferty et al.
2015), KIBO (Elkin et al. 2016), Shybo (Lupetti et al. 2017), Fisher-Price’s Smart Toy Bear
(Ihamäki & Heljakka 2018b), and Dash by Wonder Workshop (Heljakka & Ihamäki 2019b).
These novel learning robot toys (that in many cases represent Internet of Toys, IoToys) have
been supported by emerging theoretical frameworks, such as the Digital Playful Learning
Framework, that intends to guide future social and emotional learning in association with
technological objects that help in developing empathy skills. The area of study of Child-Robot
Interaction has emerged, with an emphasis on understanding the types of characteristics that
children find important in robots (Sciutti et al. 2014), and whether robots can serve as tutors,
helping children learn classroom material (e.g. Wit et al. 2018, Kennedy et al. 2016).
Social robots are part of a trend toward personal embodied agents, computer technology
embedded within forms that emulate biological entities like robotic pets Sony’s AIBO, the seal
robot Paro etc. Technology innovation and diffusion are making robotic animals more
accessible to children. Social robots bring new opportunities for designers to rethink how
children For example, in Japan, “robot-assisted activities” (RAA) and “robot- assisted therapy”
(RAT) are used in pediatric hospitals and child clinical interventions (Yokoyama 2001). Social
robots bring new opportunities for designers to rethink how children play socially and
simultaneously, learn. The combination of play and learning demonstrates the potential of
social robots in influencing scientific domains of knowledge – such as mathematics and
languages – approachable for children (see e.g. Ihamäki & Heljakka 2018, Heljakka & Ihamäki
2019a, Heljakka & Ihamäki 2019b). With our studies, we contribute to this emerging field of
Child-Robot Interaction by exploring preschool children’s social and emotional learning, the
balance between learner-centered and adult-directed activities, and the benefits of using a robot
toy in studying preschool-aged children’s firsthand emphatic responses.
2.3 Robot toys within Playful Learning
Robot toys are the most likely applications of social robots in the future (Druin 1998).
Educational robots are being used extensively in preschools and schools, both in classrooms
and in extracurricular activities. Many educational robots are designed as pre-assembled mobile
robots, for example the Dash robot by Wonder Workshop (Melson et al. 2009). An earlier study
by Friedman et al. (2003) found that among 34- to 74-month old children who had an initial 20
minutes play session with a robotic dog, 46% accorded biological properties, 66% mental sates,
76% social rapport and 63% moral standing. When Japanese and Swiss preschoolers
(Yokoyama et al. 2004) interacted with a robotic dog for a 5-minute session weekly over 10
weeks, their behaviors included social bids, greetings, ‘conversation’ and affectionate touch
(Melson et al. 2009). Movellan et al. (2009) present assessment of children’s learning from a
robot. In their study, toddlers aged 18-24 months interacted with a social robot, RUBI. The
RUBI displayed images of four objects on a 12-inch touch screen located on its body and asked
the child to touch one of the displayed objects (e.g., “Touch the yellow”). At pre-test, children’s
choices were little better than chance. Breazeal et al. (2016) studied RUBI over a 2- week period
and they showed significant improvement on taught words, but no improvement on control
words. These results demonstrate modest learning, but they cast no light on how RUBI was
construed by children. Arguably, they conceptualized RUBI simply as a display screen with a
recorded voice but not as an informative interlocutor whom they could question and learn from.
Furthermore, Breazeal et al. (2016) have investigated how far children display to socially
transmitted information when they interact with a robot rather than a human being. Their study
shows that children readily treat anthropomorphic robots as social companions, for example,
when robots interacted via gestures and utterances with visitors to a science museum, children
and adults described them as interesting and friendly. In addition, children expressed an interest
in museum exhibits after being led to them or having them explained by the robot (Shiomi et
al. 2006). Moreover, Breazeal et al. (2016) discuss how children learned and maintained
information from a robot and also whether they were more receptive if the robot display the
attentiveness that usually characterized human conversation. With the framework of these
studies, play has been brought into the center of the debate about education as a crucial aspect
of human learning together with the importance of artefacts (Ackermann 2004). By playing,
children have an opportunity to unconsciously learn those habits necessary for their intellectual
growth (Bettelheim 1987).
Additionally, play also has the particular function of letting children deal with new objects
and situations in a process that Piaget calls assimilation (Piaget 2013). Thus toys, daily life
objects and the whole surrounding environment represent an expansion of the individual
abilities for building knowledge (Ackermann 1996). Through the play with an artefact has the
chance to become an “object-to- think-with”, whether they are computers or tablets, robots or
non-technological objects (Papert 1980). This practice-based, explorative, and intrinsically
motivating (Malone & Lepper 1987), approach to education takes the name of playful learning.
Following UNESCO, successful education requires new competencies from teachers to: a)
structure the learning environment in new ways, b) merge new technology with a new
pedagogy; and c) develop socially active classrooms by encouraging collaborative learning and
group work (UNESCO, 2011). Again, the successful implementation of playful learning
requires from teachers a readiness to improvise and take a playful stance (Nousiainen et al.
2018). According to Fisher et al. (2011) in playful learning, children that approach academic
contents through free and guided play acquire greater cognitive and social skills than via
traditional and direct instruction practices. Kangas (2017) sees playful learning as a key
competence in teaching and learning. Kangas defines the goal of playful learning as follows: It
is curriculum-based learning that is enriched with play, games and technological affordances.
Playful learning is a mind-on, hands-on and body-on activity that is supposed to promote
learners’ key competencies for knowledge co-creation and finally, playful learning can be
promoted at all school levels, from preschool to university studies (e.g. Hyvönen, 2008;
Kangas, 2010; Kangas et al. 2011; Kangas et al. 2017, Kangas, 2017).
Playful learning challenges educators, teachers, researchers and designers to carry out
projects and activities able to support playful experiences by enriching the environment with
artefacts that provide experiential learning opportunities, and by supporting and guiding children
in their exploration (Fisher et al. 2011). These theories demonstrate many opportunities, in which
innovative educational activities, as well as artefacts can be explored. Thus, the implications
of using a robot toy in facilitation of children’s playful learning, were investigated through the
empathy development of a novel robot dog Golden Pup. This robot dog gives the possibility of
letting children construct their knowledge; the Golden Pup is designed to be used as a pet toy
in imaginative playing as well as teaching of abstract concepts, such as identifying emotional
intelligence. In fact, to play with the Golden Pup within in a group and in a social learning
situation, children have to train social interaction (sharing the robot dog with other children),
negotiation skills (through collaborative play) and emotional intelligence (to ‘nurture’ the robot
dog, showing empathy skills both to the robot dog and their peers).
3. Interaction elements
To sustain playful, social and emotional interaction with children, the robot dog under
investigation makes use of implicit interaction modalities, such as heartbeat and eye-and-head
movements, to communicate with children. In this section, the interactive elements of the robot
dog Golden Pup are described in more detail.
3.1 Shape, movements and sound reminding of real pets as imagination triggers
The robot dog—Golden Pup—has a shape that resembles a Golden retriever and when touching
the toy robot, one can feel it is very soft fur, which associates with a real dog. The robot dog
looks like a real dog and follows the sound and movements of the real dog (including heartbeat),
but does not walk. Sound and movement were chosen as the main interaction modalities
between the robot and children as this combination was recognized as one of the most efficient
nonverbal multi-modal communication for non-anthropomorphic robots (Löffler et al. 2018).
The Golden Pup’s sound, moving eyes and head may be seen as an invitation both to interaction
and imaginative play. For example, when the robot exhibits an introvert personality, it would
use less sound and behaviors with smooth transitions between them; when exhibiting an
extrovert personality the sound is more powerful and behavior would happen with more
frequency and at faster speeds of transition (Alves-Oliveira et al. 2017). The Golden Pup
interacts with children by making use of sound and making eye contact with blinking its eyes
and creating different emotional expressions by using sounds that create the impression of so-
called emotional intelligence.
3.2 Touch for shared control
Children are usually in full control of their toys. However, this is not the case when they interact
with autonomous social robots and robot toys, as interactive technology performs actions that
are not controllable by children due to their autonomous nature. During an interaction, this can
lead to positive effects, such as engagement due to novelty, but according to previous research,
can also create frustration and sometimes even fear in children, possibly leading to interaction
breakdowns with robots (Serholt 2016). To address this aspect, Golden Pup moves by itself,
but a player can control and turn off the robot dog (by turning a switch), which when played
by children, gives the control to them, similarly to what occurs during interactions with their
traditional toys. This is made possible by using capacitive touch sensors in the robot’s ‘skin’.
When children touch the robot, the capacitive touch sensor is activated and the robot dog
continues to mimic dog behavior. This shared control enables children to have the control they
are used to with their traditional toys at certain levels of the interaction, and at the same time
enables the robot to perform autonomously (Alves-Oliveira et al. 2017).
3.3 Motion-based play – nurturing
A study by Cooney et al. (2014) proposes that motion-based play with robots combines several
ideas: 1) enjoyment can be provided via play, 2) play often involves moving an artifact and
obtaining feedback from its motion, 3) people will move a small held humanoid robot, 4) such
gestures can be detected by an inertial sensor inside the robot. Fasola and Mataric (2012)
described enjoyable motion-based interactions involving a person exercising with an
autonomous humanoid robot. Müller et al. (2011) present how flying robots with excellent
mobility could provide enjoyment in ball games. Earlier research described several enjoyable
motion-based haptic scenarios, but did not indicate how we could provide enjoyment in a
playful interaction with a small humanoid robot when a person is free to choose how they wish
to play. DiSalvo et al. (2003) have designed a teleoperated robot to transmit affectionate hugs to a
remote person. Teh et al. have built a hug conveying system for the case of parents
communicating with a child (Teh et al. 2008). In this case study, the robot toy under
investigation, Golden Pup, has motion-based haptic features like heartbeat, a moving head,
blinking eyes and sounds reminding of a real dog.
These features allow motion-based interaction and play for the children. Previously, motion-
based play and learning has been used in “pet therapy”. A study by Chia & Li (2012) describes a
Kinect application enabling touchless motion based interaction with virtual dolphins, and
proposes a detailed questionnaire to measure the effects on the experience. Based on earlier
studies of motion-based play concerning the promotion of engagement and the creation of a
stronger affective experience, this type of play also assists in learning of emotional
development processes.
4. Empathy Development – Social and Emotional Learning
Social learning includes learning by imitation, that is, learning through the observation of
others’ behavior, and social facilitation, where others enhance the learning tasks. In a recent
review of studies on social-emotional competence (SEC), the development of children’s social,
emotional and behavioral skills have been linked to greater educational success, improvements
in behavior, increased inclusions, improved learning, greater social cohesion and
improvements in mental health (Weare & Gray 2003, Lancaster et al. 2004).
As Internet-related technologies are still young, we still need to be aware of that children
who are raised interacting regularly in virtual worlds and playing with smart toys will develop
empathy in a different manner than other generations (Walker & Weidenbenner 2019).
Empathy development, from growth to internationalization, is a complex process that begins
in early childhood. Empathy describes an individual’s “ability to understand and feel the other”
(Dvash and Shamay-Tsoory 2014, 282).
As we see children grow and observe the world, and learn from interactions with others,
caregivers play a critical role in helping children make to understanding others’ distress.
Empathy development places significant cognitive demands, when children do not fully
develop their perspective-taking abilities until they have the ability to think abstractly (around
age 12). In fact, empathy expands on the understanding other’s mental sates, or “mentalizing”
(Frith, 1999), encompassing the emotional aspect of other’s experiences (Dvas and Shamay-
Tsoory, 2014). Dvas and Shamay-Tsoory (2014) have concluded that “empathy is the link
between knowing the thoughts and feelings of others, experiencing them, and responding to
others in caring, supportive ways”. More specifically, to understanding self and others’ mental
states and is at the root of empathy (Ibid.). Therefore, social and emotional development cannot
occur without the development of cognitive skills (Walker & Weidenbenner 2019). During the
past 10 years researchers have identified a number of social skills that robots ought to be
provided with. These include the ability to recognize others, to interpret gestures and verbal
expressions, to recognize and to express emotions (Dautenhahn 1995).
5. Methodology
This tentative study uses a mixed-method approach combining a play-test with focus group
interview with preschool-aged children. In our research, we have conducted a play test with a
group consisting of preschool aged children (n=7). In Finland, this means age groups: for
preschool children ages 5-6 years.
Focus group interview and play test: Guided play with a Robot Dog
We invited preschool children aged 5–6 years to join a play session, in which they were
first asked to their own chosen plush toy and later the robot dog Golden Pup. Participants had
the possibility to discuss and play together with the Golden Pup, while one researcher acted as
facilitator, and the other researcher made observations, and a third person video recorded the
session. The observer kept in the background but joined the conversation when it felt natural.
While the children interacted with the robot dog, their teachers were supervising the situation,
but did not contribute to the collecting of data by asking specific questions or such.
In the play session children were asked to present their plush toys (which they had brought
with them to the play-test from their homes) their possible real pets (if they have any) or their
most memorable experiences of pets in the home environment in general. Children were later
introduced to the Golden Pup, proposed to play with the robot dog and finally, to share their
experiences of this toy in a group interview. Before the participants were allowed to play with
the Golden Pup, they were asked about their general experiences with domestic animals, both in
the past and in the present. Our approach was to interfere as little as possible in these
engagements.
The children were given an opportunity to exploratory play with the unfamiliar robot dog,
in which all 7 preschool-children first engaged with the robot dog together, then playing with
it one by one. Children’s opinions of playing with the robot dog were assessed via several
different measures. Finally, children’s gaze behavior during the interactions with the robots
was video-recorded and analyzed.
The study was designed to examine two questions: First, we asked if young children are
willing to learn social skills (sharing of the robot toy with other participants and playing
together with it) and empathy (negotiate with other preschoolers about nurturing for the robot
dog). Second, we asked, how children will play with this robot dog alone or a group with
preschool friends. To answer this question, we observed how children were playing with the
robot dog and how they shared their experiences with others.
6. Results
Focus play-tests and group interview analysis: Findings of the test-playing session
In this study, we introduced 7 preschool-aged children ages 5-6 to a robot dog, Golden
Pup. The participants engaged with the toy robot in a focus play-test and group interview
situation for 60 minutes in the context of Finnish preschool. This section describes the key
findings from the firsthand results of our study.
Before introducing the Golden Pup, the preschoolers were given the possibility to present
the plush toy animals they had brought with them; which kind of animals they are, what their
names are, and how the children usually play with the toys at home. All of the toys had the
appearance of known animals (if extinct, as in the case of a dinosaur), such as a squirrel, dogs
and (teddy)bears. Generally, most of the children reported to use the plush toys as companions,
which are brought to bed.
Then we asked the children about their own live-pets and most memorable aspects of their
experiences with these domestic animals. Only two of the children reported to have either a
dog or cats at their home. In this way, considering the children, the ones who currently have
pets as family members, were the minority. The preschool-children reported in generally to
have had good relations to their pets, playing with them and treating them as companions.
When the group was introduced with the Golden Pup, the preschoolers responded with interest
and excitement. First, the preschoolers gathered on the floor to each take their turn to interact
with the Golden Pup. The robot dog simulates a real dog’s heartbeat, eye movements, head
movements and dog voices, which make robot dog very realistic. In our study, one of the child
participants even asked: “Is it a real dog?”
Based on the findings of this study, the response of preschoolers aged 5-6 years was as
emphathetic to the robot dog: The Golden Pup was considered “cute” and open for playful
engagement: All of the participants wished to engage with the robot dog by touching and
“petting” it, holding it in their hands and talking to it. According to our findings, then, there are
three facets of interaction that effect the social and emotional learning with a robot dog like
Golden Pup, as demonstrated with earlier research on social robots:
1) The shape, movement and sound as reminding of a real dog trigger the imagination
of the players by adding experiences of its ‘realness’: The preschoolers envisioned,
how they would play with the robot dog as if it was a real dog (although it does not
walk). Due to sensors, movement and touch of the players engaging with the toy allow
shared control of the robot dog, which makes it especially suitable for social play.
(Haptic/object play, social play)
2) Again, motion-based play gave the players a chance to physically move, and by their
own movement, also make contact with the robot dog individually, showing that each
individual’s interaction with the robot, has an effect on how the robot dog responds,
showing the capacity of the toy robot to be used as a part of satisfactory solitary play
as well. (Mobile play, solitary play)
3) Above all, the realistic appearance, which at the same time was considered “cute”
(aesthetics), together with the gentle sounds, seemed to attract the preschoolers the
most. (Auditive play, solitary and social play)
With these findings in mind, the authors believe that a robot dog like Golden Pup could well be
introduced to the early education context as a pet-substitute in (emotional and social learning)
situations where caring for a real pet (dog) would not be possible, and where the goal is to learn
about empathic responses of others towards a companion robot and other players.
7. Conclusions
Currently, the technological aspect of contemporary toys is becoming a more normalized
part of the toy design process as character toys such as animal companions are becoming
increasingly digitalized and computerized. Educational robot pets are expected to facilitate
children’s learning and they may improve their literacy and creativity (Serholt et al. 2016). For
example, an educational robot-based playful learning system can improve motivation and
interest in learning empathy by expressing simulated emotions. Therefore, it is of crucial
importance to investigate the interaction of children with these technologically-enhanced toys,
to know how they respond to the toys and, which kind of experiences these toys may offer, for
example, in terms of playful learning.
The purpose of the study was to investigate preschool-children’s first-hand responses to a
dog robot introduced in a setting allowing Child-Robot Interaction. We choose the play test
with focus group interview as key action, because play is useful to investigate as people of all
ages engage in such behavior (Ellis 1973).
Our investigation began with the presumption that motion-based play is a way of teaching
prosocial behavior by using robot dogs as a learning tool. According to our findings, the
movement of the robot dog makes it very true compared to a live canine. Therefore, we believe,
that the ‘liveliness’ of the robot dog makes it a great tool in learning of empathy skills related
to interaction with living beings. The movements of Golden Pup also made it interesting in
terms of social play (sharing of the toy in play)—in a group situation the sensors of the toy
directed its ‘interest’ towards a specific player, and the preschoolers needed to take turns to
interact with the robot toy.
The tentative results show, how the key dimensions of the Golden Pup were its welcoming
appearance (aesthetics, soundscape and gentle movement) that attracted the children. When
asked, preschoolers reported to be mainly interested in interacting with the toy through
engagements demonstrating activities that would be carried out with a normal pet—engaging
with it in the name of mobile play; taking it outdoors, giving it toys, playing ‘house’ with it and
generally, treating the toy robot as a furry friend and companion.
As the results of our firsthand analysis of the play-test conducted illustrate, a robot dog like
the Golden Pup is suitable to be used as a part of a guided play session. Furthermore, the robot
dog seems to facilitate emotional learning as well: According to the responses shown by the
preschoolers who joined our study, it could be a potentially valuable tool to be used in playful
learning interested in teaching about the importance of empathy and social sharing as key facets
of interaction between actual living beings.
Acknowledgements
We wish to express our gratitude to the children and their preschool teachers for participating
in our study.
References
Ackermann, E. K. (2004) Constructing knowledge and transforming the world. In (eds.) Tokoro,
M. and Steels, L. A Learning Zone of One’s Own: Sharing Representations and Flow in
Collaborative Learning Environments. IOS Press: Clifton, N.J., USA, Part 1, Chapter 2,
15–37.
Ackermann, E. K. (1996) Perspective-taking and object construction: Two keys to learning. In
(eds.) Kafai, Y. and Resnick, M. Constructionism in Practice: Designing, Thinking, and
Learning in a Digital World. Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, N.J., USA, 1, 25–35.
Alves-Oliveira, P. Arriaga, P., Paiva, A. & Hoffman, G. (2017) Yolo a robot for creativity: a co-
design study with children. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Interaction Design
and Children, ACM, 2017, 423–429, https://doi.org/10.1145/3078072.3084304.
Baraka, K. & Veloso, M. M. (2018) Mobile service robot state revealing through expressive
lights: formalism, design, and evaluation. International Journal of Social Robotics 10(1),
65–92.
Belpaeme, T., Kennedy, J., Ramachandran, A., Scassellati, B. & Tanaka, F. (2018) Social robots
for education: a review. Science Robotics 3 (21),
https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aat5954, eaat5954.
Ben-Ari, F. & Mondada, F. (2018) Elements of Robotics. Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62533-1
Benitti, F. B. V. (2012) Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: a systematic
review. Computer Education 58 (3), 978–988.
Bettelheim, B. (1987) The importance of play. Atlantic, 259, 35–46.
Billard, A. (2003) Robota: Clever toy and Educational tool. Robotics and Autonomous Systems
42, 259–269, https://doi:10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00380-9
Breazeal, C. L., Harris, P. L., DeSteno, D., Westlund J. M. K., Dickens, L. & Jeong, S. (2016)
Young children treat robots as informants. Topics in Cognitivity Science, 8(2), 481–491.
DOI:10.1111/tops.12192
Breazeal, C. L. (2004) Designing Sociable Robots. MIT Press.
Bretan, M., Hoffman, G. & Weinberg, G. (2015) Emotionally expressive dynamic physical
behaviors in robots. International Journal of Human Computing Studies, 78, 1–16.
CASEL (2019) Core SEL competencies, https://casel.org/core-competencies/ (accessed August
11, 2019).
Cha, E., Kim, Y., Fong, T. & Mataric, M. J. (2018) A Survey of Nonverbal Signaling Methods
for Non-Humanoid Robots, Foundations and Trends. Robotics 6 (4), 211–323.
Chia, N. K. H. & Li, J. (2012) Design of a generic questionnaire for reflective evaluation of a
virtual reality-based intervention using virtual dolphins for children with autism.
International Journal of Special Education, 27(3), 1–9.
Cooney, M., Kanda, T., Alissandrakis, A. & Ishiguro, H. (2014) Designing enjoyable motion-
based play interactions with a small humanoid robot. International Journal of Social
Robot, 6, 173–193.
Becker, H. J. (2000) Who's wired and who's not: Children's access to and use of computer
technology. The future of children, 44–75.
Dautehahn, K. (1995) Getting to Know Each Other – Artificial Social Intelligence for
Autonomous Robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 16, 333–356.
De Wit, J., Schodde, T., Willemsen, B., Bergmann, K., Kopp, S. & Vogt, P. (2018) The
effect of a robot’s gestures and adaptive tutoring on children’s acquisition
of second language vocabularies. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM/IEEE
International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 2018, 50–58.
DiSalvo, C., Gemperle F., Forlizzi J. & Montgomery E. (2003) The Hug: An Exploration of
Robotic Form for Intimate Communication. In Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International
Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN 2003).
Druin, A. (Ed.) (1998) The Design of Children’s Technology. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers
Inc.: San Francisco, C.A., USA.
Dvash, J. & Shamay-Tsoory, S. G. (2014) Theory of Mind and empathy as multidimensional
constructs. Topics in Language Disorders, 34(4), 282–295.
Elkin, M., Sullivan, A. & Bers, M. U. (2016) Programming with the Kibo Robotics Kit in
Preschool Classrooms. Computer Schools 33(3), 169–186.
Ellis, M. J. (1973) Why people play. Prentice-Hall: New Jersey, N.J., USA.
Fasola J. & Matarić, M. J. (2012) Using Socially Assistive Human-Robot Interaction to Motivate
Physical Exercise for Older Adults. In Proceedings of the IEEE 100: 2512−2526.
Fisher, K., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., Singer, D. G. & Berk, L. (2011) Playing around
in school: Implications for learning and educational policy. In (eds.) Nathan, P. E., &
Pellegrini, A. D. The Oxford Handbook of the Development of Play, Oxford University
Press: Oxford, London.
Fong, T., Nourbakhsh, I. & Dautenhahn, K. (2003) A survey of socially interactive robots.
Robotics Autonomous Systems 42 (3–4), 143–166.
Frei, P., Su, V., Mikhak, B. & Ishii, H. (2000) Curlybot: designing a new class of computational
toys. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems,
ACM, 2000, 129–136, https://doi.org/10.1145/332040.332416.
Friedman, B., Kahn, P. H. Jr., & Hagman, J. (2003). Hardware companions? What online AIBO
discussion forums reveal about the human–robotic relationship. In Proceedings of the
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 273−280). Association for
Computing Machinery Press: New York, NY, USA.
https://www.amazon.com/Joy-All-Companion-Pets-Golden/dp/B01L9B5JYU
Frith, C. D. (1999) Interacting minds: a biological basis. Science, 286, 1692–1695.
Golden Pup marketing texts, Amazon, Assessed 26 of November,
Goodrich, M.A. & Schultz, A.C. (2007) Human–robot Interaction: A survey. Foundation and
Trends in Human–Computer Interaction, 1(3), 203–275.
Hall, L., Hume, C., Tazzyman, S., Deshmukh, A., Janartham, S., Hastie, H., Aylett, R.
Castellano, G., Papadopoulous, F., Jones, A., Corrigan, L. J., Paiva, A., Oliveira, P. A.,
Ribeiro, T., Barendregt, W., Serholt, S. & Kappas, A. (2016) Map reading with an
Empathic Robot Tutor. In Eleventh ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human
Robot Interaction (HRI ’16), Christchurch, New Zealand, 7-10 March 2016, 567,
https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2016.7451859
Heljakka K. & Ihamäki P. (2019a) Ready, Steady, Move! Coding Toys, Preschoolers, and Mobile
Playful Learning. In (eds.) Zaphiris P. & Ioannou A. Learning and Collaboration
Technologies. Ubiquitous and Virtual Environments for Learning and Collaboration.
HCII 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 11591, pp. 68–79, Springer, Cham.
Heljakka, K. & Ihamäki, P. (2019b) Persuasive Toy Friends and Preschoolers: Playtesting
IoToys. In (eds.) Mascheroni, G. & Holloway, D. (2019) Internet of Toys –Practices,
Affordances and the Political Economy of Children's Smart Play, pp. 159–178. Palgrave
Macmillan.
Heljakka, K. & Ihamäki, P. (2018) Preschoolers Learning with the Internet of Toys: From Toy-
Based Edutainment to Transmedia Literacy. Seminar.net – International Journal of
media, technology and lifelong learning, 14 (1), 85–102.
Hyvönen, P. (2008) Affordances of playful learning environment for tutoring playing and
learning (Doctoral Dissertation). Acta Universitatis Lappoensis 152. University of
Lapland, Faculty of Education, Finland. Rovaniemi: University of Lapland Printing
Centre.
Ihamäki, P. & Heljakka, K. (2018a) The Internet of Toys, Connectedness and Character-based
Play in Early Education. In (Eds.) Arai, K. et al: FTC 2018, AISC 880, 1079-1096.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02686-8_80
Ihamäki, P. & Heljakka, K. (2018b) Smart Toys for Game-based and Toy-based Learning. A
Study of Toy Marketers’, Preschool Teachers’ and Parents’ Perspectives on Play. In The
Eleventh International Conference on Advances in Human-Oriented and Personalized
Mechanisms, Technologies and Services, CENTRIC 2018, 14–18.10.2018, Nice, France.
Ihamäki, P. & Heljakka, K. (2018c) Smart, Skilled and Connected in the 21st Century:
Educational Promises of Internet of Toys (IoToys). 2018 Hawaii University International
Conferences, Art, Humanities, Social, Sciences & Education, January 3–6, 2018, Prince
Waikiki Hotel, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Kanda, T. & Ishiguro, H. (2016) Human-robot interaction in social robotics. Foundation and
Trends in Human–Computer Interaction 1(3), 203–275.
Kangas, M. (2017) University students as playful learners and knowledge co-creators.
(Conference presentation) Media Education Conference, 27–28.11.2017, University of
Lapland, Rovaniemi, Finland.
Kangas, M. (2010) Creative and playful learning: Learning through game co-creation and games
in a playful learning environment. Thinking Skills and Creativity 5, 2010, 1–15.
Kangas, M., Kultima, A. & Ruokamo, H. (2011) Children’s Creative Collaboration – a View of
Narrativity. In (eds.) Faulkner, D. and Coates, E. (2011) Exploring Children’s Creative
Narratives, 63–85. Oxon: Routledge.
Kangas, M., Siklander, P., Randolph, J. & Ruokamo, H. (2017) Teachers’ engagement and
students’ satisfaction with a playful learning environment. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 63, 274–284.
Kennedy, J., Baxter, P., Senft, E. & Belpaeme, T. (2016) Social robot tutoring for child
second language learning. In 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-
Robot Interaction (HRI), 231–238.
Lancaster, G. A., Dodd, S. & Williamson, P. R. (2004) Design and analysis of pilot studies:
recommendations for good practice. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 10 (2),
307–312.
Liu, K. & Picard, R. (2005) Embedded empathy in continuous, interactive health assessment. In
Proceedings of the CHIWorkshop on HCI Challenges in Health Assessment, Portland,
Oregon, 2–7 April, 2005.
Looije, R., Neerincx, M.A. & Cnossen, F. (2010). Persuasive robotic assistant for health self-
management of older adults: Design and evaluation of social behaviors. International
Journal of Human Computer Study, 68, 386–397.
Lupetti, M. L., Yao, Y., Mi, H. & Germak, C. (2017) Design for children’s playful learning with
robots. Future Internet, 9 (3), 52–70, https://doi.org/10.3390/fi9030052.
Löffler, D., Schmidt, N. & Tscharn, R. (2018) Multimodal expression of artificial emotion in
social robots using color, motion and sound. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE
International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, ACM, 2018, 334–343.
Malone, T. W. & Lepper, M. R. (1987) Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic
motivations for learning. In (eds.) Snow, R.E. & Farr, M.J. Aptitude, Learning, and
Instruction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers: Hillsdale, N.J., USA, 3, 223–253.
Matsui, D., Minato, T., MacDorman, K. F. & Ishiguro, H. (2018) Generating natural motion in
an android by mapping human motion. In 2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on
Intelligent Robots and Systems. Edmonton, Alta., Canada, 2018, 1–8.
McBride, V., Adorno, A., Monaco, A. & Ferrini, R. (2017) Robocats/Robopups: Awakening the
Isolated with Robotic Animals, Participant’s Choice Award 2017 Poster Session,
California Association of Long Term Care Medicine.
McKenney, S. & Voogt, J. (2010) Technology and young children: How 4–7 year olds
perceive their own use of computers. Computer Human Behavior 26(4), 656–664.
Melson, G. F., Khan, P. H., Beck, A., Friedman, B., Roborts, T., Garrett, E. & Gill, B. T. (2009)
Children’s behavior toward and understanding of robotic and living dogs. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 30, 99–102. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2008.10.011
Mori, M. (1970) The uncanny valley. Energy 7(4), 33–35.
Movellan, J., Eckhardt, M., Virnes, M. & Rodriguez, A. (2009) Sociable robot improves toddler
vocabulary skills. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on
Human Robot Interaction, 307–308.
Müller, M., Lupashin S. & D’Andrea, R. (2011) Quadrocopter Ball Juggling.
IEEE/RSJ
International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems
, IROS, 5113–5120.
Nocentini, O., Fiorini, L., Acerbi, G., Sorrentino, A., Mancioppi, G. & Cavallo, F. (2019) A
Survey of Behavioral Models for Social Robots. Robotics, 8 (54), 1–35.
doi:10.3390/robotics8030054
Nousiainen, T., Kangas, M., Rikala, J. & Vesisenaho, M. (2018). Teacher Competencies in
Game-Based Pedagogy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 74, 85–97.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.04.012
Paiva, A., Mascarenhas, S., Petisca, S. Correia, F & Alves-Oliveira, P. (2018) Towards more
humane machines: Creating emotional social robots, In (eds.) Silva, S. G. New
Interdisciplinary Landscapes in Morality and Emotion. Chapter 9, Routledge, 2018,
139–153.
Paiva, A., Leite, I., Boukricha, H. & Wachsmuth, I. (2017) Empathy in virtual agents and robots:
A survey. In
ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent System (TiiS)
7(3), 11.
Papert, S. (1980) Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. Basic Books, Inc.:
New York, N.Y., USA.
Piaget, J. (2013) Play, Dreams and Imitation in Childhood. Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 25.
Plowman, L. & McPake, J. (2013) Seven myths about young children and technology.
Childhood Education, 89 (1), 27–33, https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2013.757490.
Rafferty, L., Kroese, B. & Hung, P. C., K. (2015) Toy Computing Background. In (eds.) P.
C. K. Hung (2015) Mobile Services for Toy Computing, International Series on
Computer Entertainment and Media Technology. Springer International Publishing.
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-21323-1_2
RobotShop, Golden Pup, https://www.robotshop.com/en/ageless-innovations-golden-pup-
interactive-robot-toy-dog.html
Resnick, M. (2006). Computer as a paint brush: Technology, play, and the creative society.
Play = learning: How play motivates and enhances children's cognitive and social-
emotional growth, 192-208.
Salem, M., Kopp, S., Wachsmuth, I., Rohlfing, K. & Joublin, F. (2012) Generation and
evaluation of communicative robot gesture. International Journal of Social Robotics 4
(2), 201-217.
of robot gesture on perceived anthropomorphism and likability. International Journal of
Social Robotics 5(3), 313–323.
Salem, M., Eyssel, F., Rohlfing, K., Kopp, F. & Joublin, F. (2013) To err is human(-like): effects
Sciutti, A. Rea, F. & Sandini, G. (2014) When you are young, (robot’s) looks matter.
Developmental changes in the desired properties of a robot friend. In Proceedings of
the 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive
Communication, 567–573.
Shiomi, M., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H. & Hagita, N. (2006) Interactive anthropomorphic robots for
a science museum. In (eds.) M. Goodrich, A. C. Schultz, & D. J. Bruemmer Proceedings
of the 1st ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 305–
312). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
Singer, D. G., & Singer, J. L. (2009) The House of Make-Believe: Children’s Play and the
Developing Imagination. Harvard University Press.
Smith, P. K. (2017) Children’s Play: Research Developments and Practical Applications.
Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315179667.
Spolaor, N., & Benitti, F.B.V. (2017). Robotics applications grounded in learning theories on
tertiary education: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 112, 97-107.
Tarpley, T. (2001) Children, the Internet, and Other New Technologies. In (eds.) Singer, D. G.,
& Singer, J. L. Handbook of Children and the Media, 547–556.
Teh, J. K. S., Cheok, A. D., Peiris, R. L., Choi, Y., Thuong, V. & Lai, S. (2008) Huggy Pajama:
a mobile parent and child hugging communication system. In Proceedings of the 7th
International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC), 250–257.
UNESCO. (2011) ICT Competency Framework for Teachers, Version 2.0, UNESCO.
Turkle, S. (1990). Style as substance in educational computing. In The information society:
Evolving landscapes (pp. 145-160). Springer, New York, NY.
Competence and Wellbeing? Research Report RR456, Department for education and
skills, creating opportunity, releasing potential, achieving excellence,
https://www.cornwallhealthyschools.org/documents/RR456_what_works.pdf
Westlund, J. M. K., Jeong, S., Park, H. W., Ronfard, S., Adhikari, A., Harris, P. L., DeSteno, D.
& Brezeal, C. L. (2017) Flat vs. Expressive Storytelling: Young Children’s Learning and
Retention of a Social Robot’s Narrative. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 11(295),
2017. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00295
Wu, Q., Cao, J., Zhou, C., Huang, J., Li, Z., Cheng., S-M., Cheng, J. & Pan, G. (2018) Intelligent
Smoke Alarm System with Wireless Sensor Network using ZigBee. In Wireless
Communications and Mobile Computing, Vol. 2018.
Yokoyama, A. (2001) The trial of RAA (Robot Assisted Activity) with AIBO in the pediatrics
ward at the general hospital. Correspondences on Human Interface, 3, 1−4.
Yokoyama, A., Ribi, F. N. & Turner, D.C. (2004) A comparison of Japanese and Swiss
children's behavior toward a pet robot. International Conference on Human–Animal
Interactions, Glasgow, Scotland.
Zaga, C., de Vries, R. A., Li, J., Truong, K. P. & Evers, V. (2017) A simple nod of the head:
The effect of minimal robot movements on children’s perception of a low
anthropomorphic robot. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems, ACM, 2017, 336–341,
https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025995
Vygotsky, L. S. (1967) Play and its role in the mental development of the child.
Soviet Psychology 5(3), 6–18.
Walker, G. & Weidenbenner, J. V. (2019) Social and Emotional Learning in the age of virtual
play: Technology, empathy, and learning. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching
& Learning vol. 12, No. 2, 116-132. DOI 10.1108/JRIT-03-2019-0046
Weare, K. & Gray, G. (2003) What Works in Developing Children’s Emotional and Social
Serholt, S., Barendregt, W., Vasalou, A., Alves-Oliveira, P., Jones, A., Petisca, S. & Paiva, A.
(2016) The case of classroom robots: teachers’ deliberations on the ethical tensions. AI
& SOCIETY, 1–19.
