Students exposed to robot storytelling report significantly higher enjoyment than students exposed to robot explanation in a 1-week classroom study¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · checked against its sources 2026-10-19 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Year 2-1 (storytelling) students enjoyed the Monday and Tuesday activities significantly more than Year 2-2 (explanation) students. → Tozadore 2025 q2 i? The two classes also differed in enjoyment of the Thursday language activity, which both did in the same form, while on Wednesday, when both had storytelling, they did not differ; so part of the class difference may not come from the condition. → Tozadore 2025 (2)

Evidence¶

Tozadore 2025¶

Tozadore, D., Ertug, N., Chaker, Y., & Abderrahim, M. (2025). RoboBuddy in the Classroom: Exploring LLM-Powered Social Robots for Storytelling in Learning and Integration Activities. https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.16706 doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.16706

q2 · i? · causal · r1

In the 1-week classroom study, one class (Year 2-1) received Lecture-to-Storytelling mode and the other (Year 2-2) Robot Lecture Explanation mode; students rated enjoyment on a 5-point Likert scale. The article reports "A significant difference was found" on both days, with the printed W and p-values; no effect size is given.

"A significant difference was found between the enjoyment of activities with storytelling, performed with student from Year 2-1, and with explanation group, Year 2-2, both on Monday (W=25, p-value=0.033) and on Tuesday (W=86, p-value=0.024)."

Tozadore 2025 (2)¶

Tozadore, D., Ertug, N., Chaker, Y., & Abderrahim, M. (2025). RoboBuddy in the Classroom: Exploring LLM-Powered Social Robots for Storytelling in Learning and Integration Activities. https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.16706. doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.16706

q2 · i? · design · r2

In the Thursday activity both classes did the same thing: each child shared a word from their own or another language and the robot made up a short English paragraph using it. The article reports "a significant difference was found" between the classes on it (W=72, p-value=0.04); on Wednesday, the one day both classes had storytelling, no difference was found (W=73, p-value=0.177). Enjoyment was rated for every activity on the Friday. No effect size is printed.

"Again, a significant difference was found (W=72, p-value=0.04) in the language activity on Thursday."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Interest — outcome: instruction changes it
• Achievement Emotions — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Students' preferred activity diverged between classes: Year 2-1 most often chose the primary-language activity, Year 2-2 the teacher-controlled storytelling session — related
• Children's drawings suggested they noticed the robot's embedded integration elements and shifted attention from the robot to peer communication — related
• Students across competitive-preference levels reported enjoying the Kahoot activities consistently throughout the semester, with no detectable wear-out effect — related
• Participants identified children under 10 as the intended target group for the storytelling robot, significantly more than all other age groups — related
• Students preferred robot-assisted storytelling and some students treated the robot as a more equal communication partner than the instructor — related
• Classroom activities and targeted interventions—peer collaboration, mind mapping, storytelling, and perspective-taking—improve children's divergent thinking — related