# Rethinking Teaching and Learning Practices Through Educational Robotics: The Case of The Socio-Emotional Robot Buddy

Ismail Badache, Elisabeth Colombo

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Ismail Badache, Elisabeth Colombo. Rethinking Teaching and Learning Practices Through Educational Robotics: The Case of The Socio-Emotional Robot Buddy. 2025. hal-05337559

HAL Id: hal-05337559

https://hal.science/hal-05337559v1

Submitted on 29 Oct 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Rethinking Teaching and Learning Practices
Through Educational Robotics: The Case of The
Socio-Emotional Robot Buddy

Ismail Badache

Aix-Marseille University

CNRS, LIS

Marseille, France

ismail.badache@lis-lab.fr

Elisabeth Colombo

L'odyssée d'Elise

37, rue Chardon Lagache 75016

Paris, France

contact@elisabeth-colombo.fr

***Abstract***—This paper explores the use of Buddy robot in educational and learning contexts, focusing on two key uses. First, at the National Higher Institute of Teaching and Education in Aix-Marseille, with future teachers and digital pedagogy students. Second, as an emotional and artistic mediator in art learning. The paper examines how Buddy can enhance teaching practices by stimulating creativity, interaction, and emotional and educational support. Acting as a mediator between the learner and their environment, particularly in storytelling, art, and informational assistance, Buddy highlights the potential of robotics to develop inclusive pedagogical practices where art and technology converge to promote learning and emotional resilience. Through these experiments, Buddy serves as a learning catalyst, opening avenues for interdisciplinary research involving computer engineering, psychology, and education. The current technical limitations of Buddy offer opportunities to design educational scenarios that demystify artificial intelligence, shedding light on its biases and limitations.

***Index Terms***—AI, Social Robotics, Art, Education, Pedagogy.

## I. INTRODUCTION

In a rapidly changing educational context, where emotional expression and creativity are increasingly recognised as essential skills to be developed in students [1], traditional approaches sometimes struggle to promote engagement, self-esteem and emotional resilience. At the crossroads of the arts, technology and educational sciences, emotional robotics is emerging as a promising avenue for reconciling technopedagogical innovation and educational humanism.

Social robots such as **Buddy**, designed to interact in an affective and empathetic manner, open up new possibilities for teaching methods that are particularly well suited to the challenges of arts and socio-emotional education. By leveraging the ability of these technological artefacts to mediate personal expression and stimulate reflective processes, emotional robotics becomes a lever for strengthening students' emotional

autonomy, interpersonal communication and emotional intelligence.

This paper is part of a research initiative focused on integrating robotic technologies into educational systems, particularly in the context of human-robot interaction (HRI) applied to education. It aims to analyse the educational uses of the social robot **Buddy** through two separate but complementary preliminary exploratory studies. The approach adopted is interdisciplinary, drawing on both educational science and computer science.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

**Experiment 1** focused on arts education, uses **Buddy** as a creative companion and facilitator of emotional storytelling. Through artistic activities incorporating body language, voice and drawing, students are invited to project their emotions and construct a story with the robot, drawing on mechanisms of emotional recognition and empathetic feedback.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

**Experiment 2** extends this approach by integrating **Buddy** into educational situations aimed at developing broader socio-emotional skills, including emotion identification, affective regulation and empathy, through interactive narrative scenarios and simulated exchanges.

Although these two experiments are distinct in terms of their disciplinary focus (artistic on the one hand, socio-emotional and educational on the other), they are based on the same hypothesis: the potential of the **Buddy** robot to act as an educational mediator, promoting a caring, expressive learning environment that is conducive to student development.

The paper is organised into four complementary sections: it begins with a literature review on the contributions of social and emotional robotics in education, drawing on recent work in education sciences and human-machine interaction; it then presents in detail the two educational experiments conducted
with the robot **Buddy**, describing their contexts, objectives and teaching methods; a cross-analysis of the results then identifies the effects observed on student engagement, emotional verbalisation and peer cooperation; Finally, a discussion puts into perspective the contributions, limitations and prospects of emotional robotics as a lever for educational innovation, in relation to the contemporary challenges of a more inclusive, expressive and empathetic education.

## II. ROBOTS IN EDUCATION: AN OVERVIEW

Robots are increasingly being adopted in the use of multimedia technologies, mainly due to technological advances and their increasingly central role in the field of education [2]. A social/educational robot is an autonomous or semi-autonomous device designed to interact meaningfully with humans/learners. Thanks to the artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning algorithms these robots are equipped with, they can perceive and respond to individuals' emotions (simulation), actions and social cues. These robots are often programmed to mimic human characteristics, such as voice, gestures and facial expressions [3]. According to several researchers, some of the behavioural effects of this type of robot in schools explain various forms of human-robot interaction. Thus, robots with specific functionalities could be used as educational tools to introduce students to technology [4].

Unlike traditional educational robots, social robots have the ability to interpret and express simulated emotions, giving them transformative potential in educational contexts. Their introduction into schools is likely to change teaching practices, promote personalised teaching approaches, influence learning outcomes and redefine the role of the teacher. As social entities, they rely on advances in AI and human-machine interaction, incorporating a social interface which, combined with their anthropomorphic appearance and relational function, makes them perceived as social agents in their own right [5].

Equipped with the ability to interact socially, these robots can communicate, learn and adapt to their human or artificial interlocutors [6], [7]. To promote their acceptance and wider deployment, it is essential to understand these interactional dynamics [5]. Their anthropomorphic design highlights their emotional intelligence, socio-cognitive skills, physical embodiment, and orientation towards rich and meaningful interpersonal exchanges [8].

As affective agents, social robots are capable of detecting and expressing emotional variations, displaying advanced social skills, receptivity to social cues, and marked sociability [9], [10]. As a result, analysing the quality of their engagement with users becomes a necessity in order to measure their real impact [11].

These characteristics make social robots serious candidates for effective integration not only in educational systems, but also in other areas of application [12]. However, given the wide variety of existing models (Nao, Buddy, Pepper, Haru, Qtrobot, Kebbi, etc.) with diverse functionalities, the choice of the most relevant robot for each learning context must be made with care [13].

Unlike dematerialised educational technologies, social robots are distinguished by their physical presence, which plays a decisive role in improving academic performance, particularly in emotional and cognitive terms, especially when they take on the role of tutors or learning peers [14]. When assigned specific tasks, their educational effects can be comparable to those observed with human teachers [14], [15].

In this context, it seems crucial to pay particular attention to the social behaviour of these devices and how they interact with the various actors in education [16]. This dimension takes on even greater importance in the context of special education.

Social robots can thus become true educational partners, both in formal and informal learning contexts [17], with identified benefits for both students and teachers [18]. Teachers also express generally favourable perceptions of them.

Nevertheless, several issues must be anticipated before these devices can be widely integrated into educational environments: ethical and moral issues [18], as well as technical, organisational and economic challenges [19]. It is therefore important to temper sometimes overly optimistic expectations about their disruptive potential in education. Instead, it would be better to develop solid reference frameworks and precise guidelines to guide their design and pedagogical integration [13], [15], to strengthen the robustness and standardisation of their hardware and software components [2], and rigorously analyse the concrete effects of their use on teaching and learning processes [20].

## III. WHAT IS BUDDY?

**Buddy** is a social robot developed by Blue Frog Robotics<fnref n="1" /> (see Figure 1), a French company based in Paris. Its main purpose is to be a friendly companion robot for the whole family. It is designed as a new type of partner, halfway between human-animal interaction and human-human interaction. The emphasis is on intuitive and natural communication with the user [21].

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1: Views of the robot **Buddy** from different angles</figcaption></figure>

Below are the characteristics of Buddy [21]:

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

It measures 56 centimetres (more details in Tables I and II) and has an attractive design with an anthropomorphic

<footnote n="1">¹https://www.bluefrogrobotics.com/fr/</footnote>
<table><caption>TABLE I: General characteristics of the **Buddy** robot</caption><thead><tr><td>Specification</td><td>Value</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Dimensions (Height x Width x Depth)</td><td>560 mm x 350 mm x 350 mm</td></tr><tr><td>Weight</td><td>8 kg</td></tr><tr><td>Battery</td><td>Lithium-ion &lt; 100 Wh</td></tr></tbody></table>

face capable of expressing emotional reactions. Its size and behaviour are reminiscent of a pet, which enhances its accessibility and emotional appeal. Its entire appearance is specifically designed to promote human-robot interaction (HRI).

* ✓ It is designed to be a companion for the whole family, offering a type of interaction that is halfway between human-animal and human-human relationships. In addition, it is also intended as a tool for research and education, thanks in particular to a dedicated SDK that allows it to be used in educational and scientific contexts.

* ✓ It behaves proactively, actively seeking out users in its environment and suggesting activities, which reinforces its role as a social and engaging interlocutor.

* ✓ It incorporates advanced navigation and environment detection functions thanks to various sensors (see Table II above), including a Time Of Flight sensor, ultrasounds, a 3D camera and floor sensors. These devices enable it to avoid obstacles and falls, ensuring safe movement in its environment.

* ✓ It supports multimodal interaction with the user. It is capable of processing natural language, understanding and generating statements to facilitate fluid communication. Thanks to its microphones, it can also listen and respond to voice commands. Finally, it responds to touch via its touchscreen and touch sensors, enabling intuitive and affective physical interaction.

* ✓ It has the ability to express emotions through its expressive face, the use of coloured LEDs, motors, sounds and its synthetic voice, thereby enhancing the emotional dimension of the interaction. At the same time, it manages an internal state, composed of desires and emotions, which evolves according to environmental stimuli and past interactions. This state directly influences its behaviour, both in terms of the substance and form of the actions it undertakes.

* ✓ It is a scalable, collaborative platform accessible via an App Store open to the community. It offers a variety of applications tailored to the needs of different family members. For children, it offers edutainment content such as memory and maths games. For adults, it includes useful tools such as a connected object controller (IoT), weather services and videoconferencing. In this way, **Buddy** establishes itself as a versatile companion for everyone.

* ✓ It comes with an intuitive software development kit (SDK), formerly based on the Unity game engine, which gives developers access to all of the robot's hardware and software components. This SDK currently includes

high-level functions essential to human-robot interaction (HRI), such as autonomous navigation, displaying emotional behaviours, managing the graphical interface and managing dialogues, thus facilitating the creation of customised, interaction-rich applications.

## IV. EXPERIENTIAL SCENARIOS WITH BUDDY

This section presents two experiences of using the **Buddy** robot. The first is in the context of arts education, while the second focuses on its discovery and implementation at the INSPE (National Institute for Teacher Training, in French: Institut National Supérieur du Professorat et de l'Éducation) at Aix-Marseille University.

### A. Experiment 1: Arts education

The experiment with **Buddy** in the context of arts education involves two scenarios developed to explore **Buddy**'s abilities to act as an artistic mediator, a medium for creativity and emotional expression, and a poetic storyteller. These two scenarios are detailed below:

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

* Shared emotion: from interpretation to expression.

This scenario offers a progressive exploration of emotion, from reception to creation. First, visual works from the author's artistic work are presented. For each one, **Buddy** is invited to offer a sensitive interpretation: 'I see courage in this deep blue... What do you think?'. The children or participants then respond in turn: orally, with a word, a drawing or a colour.

This dialogue between the robot's projected emotions, those felt by the participants, and the author's artistic intention serves as a springboard for a second, more introspective phase: **Buddy** invites everyone to express a personal emotion through a free work, asking simple and kind questions: "How are you feeling today? Draw it for me."

**Buddy** welcomes every production without judgement, sometimes gently rephrasing ('You mean that shadow makes you sad?'), and creates a safe environment for self-expression.

This scenario reinforces emotional verbalisation, listening to others, self-esteem and creativity, relying on the robot's mediating role as a sensitive interpreter, partial mirror and emotional facilitator.

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

* Symbolic narration: **Buddy**'s whispers.

Inspired by the author's artistic series, this scenario features **Buddy** in an illustrated story alongside a Scarlet Warrior, a figure of resilience born out of adversity. Each episode addresses an emotion or inner struggle (loneliness, doubt, hope) through poetic narration and robotic interaction. Students or participants are invited to create a work related to the theme, while **Buddy** comments, questions or reacts to the emotion expressed. This scenario combines storytelling, art and AI in a pedagogy of reconstruction and symbolic introspection. It illustrates the potential of the robot as a poetic actor
<table><caption>TABLE II: Components and Features of the Buddy Robot</caption><thead><tr><td>No.</td><td>Component/Feature</td><td>Description</td><td>Main Purpose</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>8" Touch Screen</td><td>Graphical interface for user interaction</td><td>Display, navigation, facial expressions</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>LEDs + Accessory Connectors (x2)</td><td>Lighting + extension ports</td><td>Visual signals, peripheral addition</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Heart LED</td><td>Expressive LED at the center of the torso</td><td>Non-verbal emotional communication</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Speaker</td><td>Audio output</td><td>Voice, alerts, music</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Ultrasonic Sensors (x2)</td><td>Medium-range distance sensors</td><td>Obstacle avoidance</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Infrared Sensors (x4)</td><td>Short-range proximity sensors</td><td>Navigation, safety</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>13 MP Camera (80°)</td><td>Front-facing medium-angle camera</td><td>Facial recognition, interactions</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>Lighting LED</td><td>Front lighting</td><td>Improved image capture</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>13 MP Camera (130°)</td><td>Wide-angle camera</td><td>Wide vision, mapping</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>Touch Sensors (x6)</td><td>Sensors distributed across the body</td><td>Touch response</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>Omnidirectional Microphones</td><td>360° sound-capturing microphones</td><td>Voice recognition, communication</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>Infrared Cliff Sensors (x7)</td><td>Cliff detectors under the robot</td><td>Fall prevention (stairs, edges)</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>On/Off Switch</td><td>Power button</td><td>Robot startup/shutdown</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>Power Connectors</td><td>Port for manual charging</td><td>Battery recharge</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>Charging Connectors</td><td>Docking station connections</td><td>Automatic charging</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>Nano SIM Slot (4G)</td><td>SIM card slot</td><td>Mobile connection (Internet, telephony)</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>USB Port</td><td>Standard connector</td><td>Updates, accessories</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>Camera Status LED</td><td>Rear camera activity indicator</td><td>Privacy protection</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>TABLE III: Participants' characteristics</caption><thead><tr><td>Group</td><td># participants</td><td>Age range</td><td>Context</td><td>Particularities</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Group A</td><td>30</td><td>7–10 years</td><td>Primary school art workshops</td><td>Typical classroom setting</td></tr><tr><td>Group B</td><td>18</td><td>8–11 years</td><td>Mediation workshops</td><td>Children identified as shy, inhibited or with mild social difficulties</td></tr></tbody></table>

and symbolic mediator, serving a sensitive and inclusive pedagogy.

The workshops, designed to unfold the two scenarios, were conducted in an open artistic setting, where **Buddy** was configured to alternate between expressive behaviors, empathetic formulations and symbolic postures inspired by the story of the *Scarlet Warrior*. A total of 48 children participated in the experiment, divided into two groups according to the context, as shown in Table III, which summarizes the characteristics of the participants. The table presents each group's size, age range, the context in which the activities took place, and any relevant particularities. Group A consisted of 30 children aged 7–10 years who participated in primary school art workshops in a typical classroom setting. Group B included 18 children aged 8–11 years who attended mediation workshops. These children were identified as shy, inhibited, or exhibiting mild social difficulties.

Note. Parental consent was obtained for all participants, and the workshops lasted 4 weeks with two sessions per week (8 sessions total). As per parental request, the data related to their children will not be disclosed or published.

1) What artistic uses are targeted?: By using **Buddy** in learning, we can reconnect with active and embodied pedagogical approaches, similar to those advocated by Seymour Papert<fnref n="2" /> through the Logo language [22]. Where a child gives an abstract command to a cursor on a screen, **Buddy** can physically execute that command, while verbalising it: 'I am moving forward 5 lengths.'

This type of mediation engages verbal memory, motor coordination and spatial understanding, while reinforcing attention through the physical presence of the robot.

In an educational context marked by a growing concern for reducing screen time among children, **Buddy** offers a credible alternative. Its embodied form stimulates oral interaction, limits the use of traditional digital interfaces, and promotes more sustained cognitive and emotional engagement.

In this respect, **Buddy** is not just an interactive tool: it becomes a hybrid educational interlocutor, capable of linking language, action and perception in a learning dynamic rooted in reality.

These scenarios (detailed in Table IV below) aim to develop artistic, emotional and reflective skills. The challenge is not only to produce a work of art, but also to enable feelings to be expressed in words or forms, drawing on the robot's simulated emotional intelligence.

<table><caption>TABLE IV: Examples of educational scenarios</caption><thead><tr><td>Scenario</td><td>Teaching skills used</td><td>Teaching methods</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Shared emotion: from interpretation to expression</td><td>Emotional recognition, verbalisation, active listening, creativity</td><td>Analysis of works, verbal/visual interaction, free expression</td></tr><tr><td>Symbolic narration: Buddy's whispers</td><td>Narration, symbolism, introspection, constructing meaning through art</td><td>Storytelling, inspired artistic creation, poetic dialogue</td></tr></tbody></table>

2) Results, discussion and limitations: Quantitative observations revealed high levels of engagement, emotional expression, and creative output among the participants. Specifically, 83% of children (40/48) actively participated in the sessions, compared to 62% in traditional art workshops observed previously. In terms of emotional verbalisation, 71% of participants were able to explicitly name at least one emotion during the sessions (compared to 46% without Buddy). Regarding

<footnote n="2">²https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Papert</footnote>
creative production, 90% of children produced at least one artwork that integrated an emotion or a symbolic element directly inspired by **Buddy**'s interaction. Furthermore, among the inhibited children in Group B, 67% showed an increased willingness to share their work orally after three sessions, indicating enhanced confidence and participation.

Qualitative observations revealed that initial feedback highlights the positive impact of **Buddy**'s non-verbal expressiveness on children's engagement, particularly among those who are reserved or struggle to express themselves in social contexts. The robot's use of expressive gestures, consistent body postures, and subtle light and sound modulations has fostered a climate of trust that encourages active participation. This embodied expressiveness acts as a lever for socio-emotional engagement, facilitating children's identification with the robot and thus stimulating their involvement in the activities offered [14].

The narrative scenarios used in the sessions also encouraged better emotional verbalisation, providing a safe and structured environment for expressing feelings that are often difficult to put into words. Interaction with **Buddy**, through co-constructed stories or emotional role-playing, stimulated the children's creativity while offering them opportunities to explore and name their emotions, thereby strengthening their socio-emotional skills.

Compared to traditional digital devices such as tablets or screens, interacting with a social robot with stylised anthropomorphic features, such as **Buddy**, elicits a distinct emotional and cognitive engagement. Indeed, **Buddy**'s design, with its expressive face, large eyes and animated mouth reminiscent of a cartoon character, fosters a warmer and more accessible relationship than that afforded by more abstract interfaces or realistic humanoid robots, which are sometimes perceived as disturbing or creepy due to the *uncanny valley* [23]. This type of stylised anthropomorphism, by moving away from a faithful imitation of humans, allows empathy to be aroused without generating discomfort, while facilitating the recognition of emotions and the interpretation of the robot's intentions.

However, these encouraging results must be tempered by certain limitations. The introduction of an emotional robot into an artistic educational setting raises ethical and pedagogical questions, particularly with regard to the authenticity of the emotions expressed and the risk of excessive attachment to the robot. Some children may develop forms of emotional projection onto **Buddy**, attributing intentions or feelings to it that exceed its actual capabilities, which raises questions about the boundary between an educational relationship and an emotional relationship with a technological artefact. Furthermore, the mechanisms underlying this emotional interaction are still only partially understood, requiring further research to identify its determinants, stability over time and impact on children's emotional and social development.

Finally, further consideration should be given to the long-term effects of introducing such artificial agents into educational practices, so as not to overestimate their potential at the expense of a critical and humanistic approach to

the educational relationship. Technology should not replace humans, but rather serve as a mediating tool in the service of pedagogy, learning and the overall development of the child.

## B. Experiment 2: Learning with **Buddy** at INSPE

The experiment conducted at INSPE of Aix-Marseille and other departments of Aix-Marseille University (AMU) is part of an educational framework aimed at integrating innovative technologies, such as educational robotics, into courses for future primary, middle and high school teachers. This project also involved educational engineers and high school students. The aim is to explore how robots such as **Buddy**, in combination with generative AI tools, can enrich teaching practices and facilitate the learning of technological skills among students and pupils in an interactive and engaging way.

<table><caption>TABLE V: Distribution of participants in the study on the educational use of **Buddy**</caption><thead><tr><td>Level</td><td>Number of participants</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>High school students</td><td>79</td></tr><tr><td>Students at INSPE</td><td>59</td></tr><tr><td>Other students</td><td>23</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>161 participants</td></tr></tbody></table>

The table V above shows the distribution of participants who took part in the observational study conducted as part of the analysis of the educational use of **Buddy**, a conversational agent used in an educational context. This study involved a diverse sample of high school students, students in initial training at the INSPE in Aix-Marseille, and other students from various university programmes. The diversity of profiles aims to enable a comparative analysis of the uses and perceptions of the agent according to the participants' level of education.

1) *What educational uses?:* This section explores the various educational applications of **Buddy**, as investigated in our study.

a. Technological awareness and design of educational resources. One of the first uses of **Buddy** was to help students become aware of the potential of educational robotics for the design of educational resources. By manipulating **Buddy**, students were able to imagine concrete applications of robotics in the teaching of scientific subjects, particularly with regard to coding, algorithmic logic, and system modelling.

b. Introducing young children to coding through an attractive robot. One of the main applications of **Buddy** in this experiment was to introduce children to coding and reasoning (e.g., tracing a path) from an early age. The robot, with its cartoon-inspired appearance and robotic voice, is particularly suited to children who may be intimidated by robots that look too realistic. **Buddy** is designed to be both reassuring and engaging, offering a playful interface that allows young students to learn complex concepts in a gradual and entertaining way.

c. **Buddy** as an intelligent assistant for student engagement. **Buddy**, which incorporates a large language model (LLM), also played a crucial role as an interactive assistant for students. By answering their questions in a contextual and personalised manner, the robot promoted student engagement, mo-
tivation and active participation. This dynamic, conversation-
based interaction helped maintain student interest throughout
the learning sessions, while facilitating their understanding of
educational concepts.

d. Demystifying AI and the limits of technology. Finally, a fundamental aspect of using **Buddy** was to highlight the technical limitations of the robot and AI by explaining the technical basics of an LLM. Indeed, despite technological advances, **Buddy** has shortcomings that make robotics and AI open to critical analysis. These imperfections served as a concrete example to illustrate the current limitations of AI, particularly in terms of contextual understanding, complex reasoning abilities, and authentic interactions.

2) *Results, discussion and limitations:* This section provides an analysis of preliminary data collected as part of the observational study on the use of the **Buddy** robot in an educational context. The results are presented according to several criteria in order to highlight the trends observed and to enrich our understanding of how this robotic agent is used by the various audiences concerned.

The radar chart in Figure 2 shows that criterion b (ap-
preciation of humanoid posture and expressive face) was
highly rated, with 148 participants (92%) expressing positive
responses. Similarly, criterion f (learner engagement) gather
ed 150 participants (93%). In contrast, criterion c (fluency
of voice interaction) received the lowest approval, with 92
participants (57%). The distribution for the other criteria was
as follows: criterion a (ease of use) with 114 participants
(71%), criterion d (usefulness for language learning) with 88
participants (55%), criterion e (usefulness for learning coding)
with 127 participants (79%), and criterion g (recommendation
of robotics in teaching practices) with 138 participants (86%).

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2: Distribution of participant responses by each criteria</figcaption></figure>

a. Ease of use (71%). The fact that 71% of users find the robot easy to use indicates a fairly positive adoption rate, but there is still room for improvement. This figure suggests that some users may encounter difficulties, either in getting started or in integrating the robot into a learning environment. It would be useful to carry out qualitative analyses to better understand the obstacles encountered by users.

b. Appreciation of the humanoid posture and expressive face (92%). A very large majority of users (92%) seem to appreciate the humanoid appearance of the robot and its expressive face. This feature could play a key role in the emotional engagement of learners, making the robot more accessible and stimulating for interactions.

c. Fluency of voice interaction with Buddy (57%). The score of 57% for voice interaction fluency may reflect certain limitations in the robot's speech recognition or generation. A reassessment of the quality of the microphone and/or natural language processing (NLP) and the intelligibility of responses may be necessary to improve this interaction.

d. Useful for language learning (88%). The robot appears to have great educational value in language teaching, with 88% of users considering the tool useful in this area. This may be due to the robot's ability to practise conversations, correct pronunciation errors and provide immediate feedback.

e. Useful for learning coding (79%). Although slightly lower, the score of 79% also indicates good usefulness for learning coding. Buddy could be used for activities such as introducing programming concepts or simulating certain computer processes in interactive environments.

f. Learner engagement (93%). Such a high engagement rate (93%) demonstrates the positive impact of the tool in terms of motivation and interaction. The use of robots in classrooms appears to play a crucial role in stimulating student attention and participation.

g. Recommendation of robotics in teaching practices (86%). The fact that 86% of respondents recommend robotics in teaching highlights the perceived effectiveness of this innovative approach. The integration of robotics in the classroom seems to be well received by teachers and learners, probably because of its fun and interactive nature.

h. Activities with Buddy. The activities offered, such as the conversation tool, pronunciation check, instant feedback, translation, and communication with non-native speakers, demonstrate the versatility of **Buddy** in various educational contexts. Furthermore, the inclusion of remote students (e.g., hospitalised students) demonstrates Buddy's potential to promote broader educational inclusion at a relatively acceptable cost, but institutional commitment is necessary.

i. Students' opinions of Buddy. Students perceive Buddy as:

*   Cute and attractive: This playful aspect seems to work well in attracting students' attention.

*   Emotional attachment: The humanoid appearance and emotional interaction probably contribute to a stronger bond with the student.

*   Playful and fun: The playful aspect is often an important factor in student engagement, especially for those who learn in a more practical way.

*   Introduction to the world of robotics and AI: Students may be inspired by the opportunity to interact with advanced technology, which could spark their curiosity about robotics and artificial intelligence.
<table><caption>TABLE VI: Participant responses by evaluation criterion (N = 161)</caption><thead><tr><th>ID</th><th>Evaluation Criterion</th><th>Number</th><th>Percentage</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>a.</td><td>Ease of use</td><td>114</td><td>71%</td></tr><tr><td>b.</td><td>Appreciation of the humanoid posture and expressive face</td><td>148</td><td>92%</td></tr><tr><td>c.</td><td>Fluency of voice interaction with Buddy</td><td>92</td><td>57%</td></tr><tr><td>d.</td><td>Useful for language learning</td><td>142</td><td>88%</td></tr><tr><td>e.</td><td>Useful for learning coding</td><td>127</td><td>79%</td></tr><tr><td>f.</td><td>Learner engagement</td><td>150</td><td>93%</td></tr><tr><td>g.</td><td>Recommendation of robotics in teaching practices</td><td>138</td><td>86%</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><strong>Total number of participants</strong></td><td>161</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>TABLE VII: Illustrative micro-narratives for each evaluation criterion</caption><thead><tr><th>Criterion</th><th>Micro-Narrative Example</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Ease of use</td><td>In a primary school robotics introduction session, the teacher was able to configure Buddy in less than 10 minutes thanks to its intuitive interface. Students quickly learned to launch activities via the touchscreen, allowing more time for vocabulary learning instead of solving technical issues.</td></tr><tr><td>Appreciation of humanoid posture and expressive face</td><td>During an emotion-awareness workshop, Buddy was introduced as a "class assistant" capable of smiling, blinking, and raising its arms to congratulate learners. These expressive signals immediately created a sense of trust, encouraging participation from children who were usually reluctant to speak.</td></tr><tr><td>Fluency of voice interaction</td><td>In an English speaking practice activity, Buddy was expected to understand and answer simple questions. Some students had to repeat themselves several times because the voice recognition was not optimal in a noisy classroom. Despite this obstacle, students persevered, but the teacher noted that improving voice fluency would further enhance the experience.</td></tr><tr><td>Useful for language learning</td><td>In a middle school classroom, Buddy was integrated as a "conversation partner" for Spanish dialogues. Students interacted with the robot through role-plays such as "at the restaurant" or "at the hotel," which supported memorizing key phrases with high engagement and visible enjoyment.</td></tr><tr><td>Useful for learning coding</td><td>During a Scratch and robotics workshop, students programmed Buddy to perform movements and mimic emotions based on if-else conditions. This tangible approach helped them to grasp abstract programming concepts, boosting motivation even among students who were usually less interested in computer science.</td></tr><tr><td>Learner engagement</td><td>A teacher observed that introducing Buddy at the beginning of a sequence immediately captured the attention of a sometimes disruptive class. The playful interactions and physical presence of the robot transformed the group dynamic, leading to richer exchanges and better focus on the tasks.</td></tr><tr><td>Recommendation of robotics in teaching practices</td><td>At the end of a pilot project, several teachers reported they wanted to integrate Buddy into their regular teaching practice, especially in language learning and coding. They highlighted that robotics brought a stimulating "novelty effect" while aligning with official educational objectives.</td></tr></tbody></table>

To complement the quantitative results presented above, the following table VII presents illustrative micro-narratives describing how each evaluation criterion was experienced in real educational contexts. These narratives were constructed to reflect typical classroom situations reported by teachers and learners during the pilot study. They help to contextualise and humanise the data, illustrating how **Buddy**'s features were perceived and used in practice. By offering concrete examples rooted in stories, these narratives enrich the interpretation of the numerical results and can inform future pedagogical design and decision-making.

Overall, feedback seems to indicate that **Buddy** is a promising educational tool, particularly for language learning and student engagement. However, there are areas for improvement, including the fluidity of voice interaction and overall ease of use. The approach focused on playful and emotional interaction seems to play a key role in its effectiveness, particularly in terms of student engagement and motivation.

Following this study, several recommendations can be made with a view to optimising the educational integration of

**Buddy**. Firstly, improving voice interaction is a priority: enhancing voice recognition performance and the quality of the robot's responses would make exchanges more fluid and reduce communication barriers. Furthermore, it seems essential to offer training sessions for teachers to help them learn how to use the tool and integrate it into their teaching practices. Finally, greater personalisation of the interactions and activities offered by **Buddy**, based on the specific needs of students, such as skill level or interests, would help to enhance the educational relevance of the robotic agent.

## V. CONCLUSION

Exploring the integration of robots such as **Buddy** into teaching practices raises as many questions as it does fascination. While these devices, devoid of biological emotions, cannot claim emotional authenticity, their ability to elicit emotional and reflective responses in humans opens up new educational possibilities. By embodying a technological mediator endowed with expressiveness, **Buddy** transcends the status of a functional tool to become a catalyst for interactions, stimulating introspection, creativity and social bonding. Its
potential lies less in the simulation of emotions than in its
ability to reveal, by contrast, the complexity and richness of
human dynamics.

Current technical limitations, such as repetitive expressions,
remind us that these robots are evolving partners, encouraging
greater collaboration between engineering, cognitive science,
the arts and education. Far from marginalising the role of the
teacher, this technology refocuses them as an ethical pillar
and creator of meaning, ensuring that the use of the machine
remains rooted in an emancipatory purpose. By combining
artistic mediation, reflexivity and an ethical framework, Buddy
illustrates a vision of education where technology does not
alienate, but enriches the dialogue between the student, the
trainer and generative AI enriched by multiple sources of
data and confirmations from our world in all its dimensions
(cultural, political, etc.).

This paper invites us to rethink pedagogy not as a field to be
automated, but as a space of resonance where machines, mir-
roring our emotions, question our humanity and intelligence.
The challenge is not to compete with humans, but to cultivate,
through these new interfaces, a more empathetic, inclusive and
conscious educational relationship. The future of educational
robotics is therefore taking shape in this demanding balance:
making technology an ally to better celebrate what makes us
irreplaceable, putting it at the service of teaching, learning and
pedagogy, and not the other way around.

REFERENCES

[1] UNESCO, *Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education*. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2021, report of the International Commission on the Futures of Education. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379381. [Online]. Available: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379707

[2] T. Pachidis, E. Vrochidou, V. G. Kaburlasos, S. Kostova, M. Bonković, and V. Papić, "Social robotics in education: State-of-the-art and directions," in *Advances in Service and Industrial Robotics*, N. A. Aspra-gathos, P. N. Koustoumpardis, and V. C. Moulianitis, Eds. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2019, pp. 689–700.

[3] C. Breazeal, "Social interactions in HRI: the robot view," *IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews)*, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 181–186, 2004.

[4] X. Tang and J. Chu, "Inclusive design: Task specified robots for elderly," *Advances in Education, Humanities and Social Science Research*, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 82–82, 2022.

[5] F. Hegel, C. Muhl, B. Wrede, M. Hielscher-Fastabend, and G. Sagerer, "Understanding social robots," in *2009 Second International Conferences on Advances in Computer-Human Interactions*, 2009, pp. 169–174.

[6] C. Breazeal, *Designing sociable robots*. MIT press, 2004, pp. 27–50, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6280040.

[7] T. Fong, I. Nourbakhsh, and K. Dautenhahn, "A survey of socially interactive robots," *Robotics and Autonomous Systems*, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 143–166, 2003, socially Interactive Robots. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092188900200372X

[8] C. Breazeal, K. Dautenhahn, and T. Kanda, *Social Robotics*. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2016, pp. 1935–1972. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32552-1_72

[9] R. Kirby, J. Forlizzi, and R. Simmons, "Affective social robots," *Robotics and Autonomous Systems*, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 322–332, 2010, towards Autonomous Robotic Systems 2009: Intelligent, Autonomous Robotics in the UK. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921889009001547

[10] C. Breazeal, “Toward sociable robots,” *Robotics and Autonomous Systems*, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 167–175, 2003, socially Interactive Robots. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921889002003731

[11] S. M. Anzalone, S. Boucenna, S. Ivaldi, and M. Chetouani, "Evaluating the engagement with social robots," *International Journal of Social Robotics*, vol. 7, pp. 465–478, 2015.

[12] I. Leite, C. Martinho, and A. Paiva, "Social robots for long-term interaction: a survey," *International Journal of Social Robotics*, vol. 5, pp. 291–308, 2013.

[13] H. Mahdi, S. A. Akgun, S. Saleh, and K. Dautenhahn, "A survey on the design and evolution of social robots — past, present and future," *Robotics and Autonomous Systems*, vol. 156, p. 104193, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921889022001117

[14] T. Belpaeme, J. Kennedy, A. Ramachandran, B. Scassellati, and F. Tanaka, "Social robots for education: A review," *Science Robotics*, vol. 3, no. 21, p. eaat5954, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/scirobotics.aat5954

[15] H. Woo, G. K. LeTendre, T. Pham-Shouse, and Y. Xiong, "The use of social robots in classrooms: A review of field-based studies," *Educational Research Review*, vol. 33, p. 100388, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1747938X21000117

[16] R. van den Berghe, J. Verhagen, O. Oudgenoeg-Paz, S. van der Ven, and P. Leseman, "Social robots for language learning: A review," *Review of Educational Research*, vol. 89, no. 2, pp. 259–295, 2019.

[17] W. Johal, "Research trends in social robots for learning," *Current Robotics Reports*, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 75–83, 2020.

[18] M. Smakman, P. Vogt, and E. A. Konijn, "Moral considerations on social robots in education: A multi-stakeholder perspective," *Computers & Education*, vol. 174, p. 104317, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131521001949

[19] T. Belpaeme and F. Tanaka, "Social robots as educators," in *OECD Digital Education Outlook 2021: Pushing the Frontiers with Artificial Intelligence, Blockchain and Robots*. OECD Publishing Paris, 2021, p. 143.

[20] E. Barakova, K. Väänänen, K. Kaipainen, and P. Markopoulos, "Benefits, challenges and research recommendations for social robots in education and learning: A meta-review," in *2023 32nd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN)*, 2023, pp. 2555–2561.

[21] G. Milliez, "Buddy: A companion robot for the whole family," in *Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction*, ser. HRI '18. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2018, p. 40. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3173386.3177839

[22] S. Papert, *Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas*. USA: Basic Books, Inc., 1980, https://dl.acm.org/doi/book/10.5555/1095592.

[23] M. Mori, K. F. MacDorman, and N. Kageki, "The uncanny valley [from the field]," *IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine*, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 98–100, 2012.

[24] I. Badache and P. Bellet, "Intelligence artificielle: usage pédagogique et esprit critique," in *16ème édition du colloque Interactions Multimodales Par ÉCran, IMPEC 2024*, 2024, https://hal.science/hal-04659335v1.