Welfare – Education
The robot can teach topics, thought processes, and routines.
Education is one of the most consistently discussed positive roles for social robots in human-robot interaction. It appears in contexts ranging from children's homework support to broader learning processes, where robots are considered not only as tools for delivering content but also as companions that structure attention, encourage practice, and support motivation. At the same time, these expectations are shaped by clear boundaries: education is seen as valuable when it complements human teaching rather than replacing it. From the perspective of our review, education is framed as part of broader welfare-related benefits. Robots are described as supporting users both mentally and physically, with educational roles extending beyond simple instruction to include guidance on routines and ways of thinking. Importantly, this is not positioned as a substitute for traditional education systems. Instead, the emphasis is on augmentation: robots can assist learning processes, provide structured support, and help maintain engagement. In educational settings specifically, this often translates into assistance with homework, supervision of tasks, and motivational feedback. Focus group findings also underline that such systems should operate within clear constraints, especially in contexts involving children, where appropriate timing and usage boundaries are important.
The empirical literature reflects these nuances in concrete ways. Robots are proposed as sources of educational information, including awareness of potential negative consequences of certain behaviours, positioning education as part of behaviour moderation as well as knowledge transfer. Parents describe robots as potential academic aids for their children, including supporting homework and even acting as a form of supervision that helps children stay focused, while also providing parents with a sense of reassurance. The same study notes that robots are expected to support learning tasks in ways that can complement parental involvement. Similarly, multiple stakeholders outline both opportunities and limits: children express interest in robots that can coach and motivate them, while teachers emphasise the value of patience and emotional neutrality in supporting learning. However, they also draw a clear line, arguing that deeper forms of education, such as explaining reasoning processes rather than just providing answers, remain a fundamentally human responsibility.
Excerpts from the paper:
About the value "Welfare"
Finally, the topics that cover the positive influence of interacting with a robot were grouped under the value of welfare as identified during the scoping review. These span from the mental to the physical welfare of the user. Notably, while we found prescriptive instructions about how the robot should be made safe, we did not find many topics expressed in negative terms. For this reason, there are no topics with negative valence for this value. This might suggest that the capabilities of social robots are not considered advanced enough to pose a risk in this sense. However, we anticipate this could change in the future. Focus groups participants emphasised that welfare is crucial, particularly regarding usage constraints, such as ensuring a robot is not used by a child at night.
About "Education"
Robots can play a significant role in education, not only by teaching users about various topics but also by educating them about thought processes and routines, as emerged from the scoping review. This educational role can be particularly valuable as a support to traditional learning methods, and not as an alternative.