Actionable companion · Motivation & engagement
Learning with agency: A child-robot theater afterschool program can promote children’s conceptualization of social robots’ mental capacities and engagement in learning
AI-assisted editorial implementation guide, separate from the original research. Proposed actions are not claims or recommendations attributed to the source authors. No independent peer review of this guide is asserted.
Evidence and context
Title and abstract screening; stage labels describe reported settings, not verified numerical ages. Design labels require full-text appraisal. Reported stage(s): Primary school, K–12 · mixed / unspecified, Children · stage unspecified. Verify the participant population and task before transferring the findings.
Original authors’ abstract, reproduced under the linked source license:
Research on integrating emerging technologies, such as robots, into K-12 education has been growing because of their benefits in creating engaging learning environments and preparing children for appropriate human-robot interactions in the future. However, most studies have focused on the impact of robots in formal educational settings, leaving their effectiveness in informal settings, such as afterschool programs, unclear. The present study developed a 9-week afterschool program in an elementary school to promote STEAM (STEM + Art) education for elementary school students. The program incorporated four modules (Acting, Dancing, Music & Sounds, and Drawing), each with specific learning objectives and concluding with a theater play at the end. This program facilitated hands-on activities with social robots to create engaging learning experiences for children. A total of 38 students, aged 6–10 years, participated in the afterschool program. Among these students, 21 took part in research activities, which included answering questions about their perceptions of robots compared to other entities (i.e., babies and beetles), learning interest and curiosity, and their opinions about robots. In addition, four teachers and staff participated in interviews, sharing their reflections on children’s learning experiences with robots and their perceptions of the program. Our results showed that 1) children perceived robots as having limited affective and social capabilities but gained a more realistic understanding of their physiological senses and agentic capabilities; 2) children were enthusiastic about interacting with robots and learning about robot-related technologies, and 3) teachers recognized the importance of embodied learning and the benefits of using robots in the afterschool program; however, they also expressed concerns that robots could be potential distractions and negatively impact students’ interpersonal relationships with peers in educational settings. These findings suggest how robots can shape children’s perceptions of robots and their learning experiences in informal education, providing design guidelines for future educational programs that incorporate social robots for young learners.
What kind of evidence is this?
Embodied learning agents · Qualitative / mixed methods
Stage: Primary school; K–12 · mixed / unspecified; Children · stage unspecified. Screening labels describe reported context and study-design language. They are not a risk-of-bias rating or proof of effectiveness for an age band.
Participant ages · source passage
A total of 38 students, aged 6–10 years, participated in the afterschool program.
Study methods · source passage
The afterschool program was conducted in a Title 1 elementary school, selected based on the high proportion of low-income students. This economic criterion was determined by the Virginia Tech Center for Educational Networks and Impacts (CENI), the superintendent, and the Virginia Boys and Girls program. Children participated in the program from September to December 2022, involving a total of 38 children between the ages of 6 and 10 years (M = 7.6 years, SD = 1.39). In each module, 10–18 children participated (M = 14.5, SD = 2.88). Child assent and parental consent forms were collected before the program with the assistance of the program director at the school. Students’ attendance was not mandatory, meaning their participation may only have occurred in parts of the robot theater program sessions. Four teachers and staff participated in the program to assist the researchers with attendance roll calls and classroom discipline. Each week, the researchers set up the robots in the library space, and then afterschool teachers escorted the children to the library. Throughout the sessions, at least two to three afterschool teachers were present to facilitate children’s engagement in activities.
Limitations and uncertainty · source passage
There were a few limitations to the present afterschool program that need to be considered in future studies. First, children’s fluctuating attendance posed a challenge to consistent data collection in the present study. Students were not required to participate in the study for the entire program and could attend and leave at any time. This inconsistent nature of the attendance may have influenced the students’ responses to interview questions, as children may not have participated in every session of the program. To improve the data collection process, future studies can conduct a controlled experiment that ensures children’s attendance and a more standardized data collection process. Second, the low accessibility of research robots in educational settings may pose a challenge for other educators and researchers when attempting to replicate the current program in the future. Children were not able to interact with the research robots all the time as they needed to take turns during the program. The present studies compensated for this challenge by providing children with other low-fidelity robot toys that enabled continuous interactions with robots. Future research studies should consider having additional resources or equipment that allow children to access emerging technologies during their learning experiences.
Design the system before the pilot
Compare the embodied interaction with an equivalent human-led or screen-based activity. Separate the effects of novelty and social presence from learning. Review physical access, sensory needs and adult supervision.
- Measure engagement separately from achievement. Check whether novelty-driven participation persists and whether it translates to independent performance.
A 90-day district pilot
- Days 1–15 · Appraise. Have the curriculum lead and a teacher read the methods and limitations. Record the study design, sample, comparator, outcomes and evidence gaps. Define a local question that the study can help inform.
- Days 16–30 · Design. Pilot one teacher-led unit with short guided turns. The tutor asks for an explanation and offers a graduated hint before any worked solution. Use concrete examples and an equivalent task without AI. Name an accountable owner and set the baseline, success threshold and budget before implementation.
- Days 31–60 · Test. Start with a small voluntary cohort, preserve an accessible non-AI route and require teacher review. Use synthetic or de-identified examples; approve data handling and tool terms through district processes.
- Days 61–90 · Decide. Use an age-appropriate independent post-task and a delayed parallel task. Score explanation quality and transfer, not the number of agent messages or completion rate alone. Compare with baseline, document uncertainty and stop or revise if learning worsens, access is unequal or critical errors persist.
The board decision brief
Report the learning problem, evidence quality, participating population, total cost including review time, measured benefit, errors, access differences and remaining uncertainties. Make a dated recommendation to stop, revise or expand. A positive perception survey alone does not establish learning improvement.
Attribution and reuse
Jiayuan Dong; Shuqi Yu; Koeun Choi; Myounghoon Jeon. A child-robot theater afterschool program can promote children’s conceptualization of social robots’ mental capacities and engagement in learning. Frontiers in Robotics and AI (2025-03-14). https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2025.1529421
Companion prepared 2026-10-30. Original authorship and DOI are preserved. The abstract is an attributed source extract; the implementation plan is new AI-assisted editorial material, offered under the same CC BY 4.0 license. This guide has not undergone independent peer review.