pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.23978 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-27 · 💻 cs.RO · cs.HC

Supporting Family-School Partnerships with Robot-Facilitated Home-Based Activities

Michael F Xu , Qiyao Yang , Heather Kirkorian , Bilge Mutlu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 03:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO cs.HC
keywords family-school partnershipssocial robotshome-based activitiesco-designparental facilitationchild-robot interactioneducational technology
0
0 comments X

The pith

A co-designed social robot supports family-school partnerships by facilitating home-based activities and school discussions.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper shows that a social robot placed in the home can help families overcome barriers like time constraints and weak communication by supporting activities and talks about school topics. These partnerships matter for children's development, yet many families struggle to maintain them. The authors worked with parents and children to design the system, then tested it during a week in ten homes. The results describe how families wove the robot into daily routines, how parents guided its use in distinct ways, and how participants saw both practical value and drawbacks. This approach points to robots as one possible tool for strengthening connections between home and school.

Core claim

Through interviews and co-design sessions, we developed a modular robotic system that supports family communication about school topics and home-based activities. In a week-long in-home study with 10 families, we observed how families integrated the robot into daily life, how parental facilitation styles shaped its use, and how families perceived both its helpfulness and its challenges. We contribute empirical insights into these interactions, the modular system itself, and design implications for family- and child-robot interactions that support educational partnerships.

What carries the argument

the modular social robotic system that prompts and supports family discussions and activities related to school topics.

If this is right

  • Families incorporate the robot into daily routines for school-related talks and activities.
  • Different parental facilitation styles lead to varying levels of engagement and use.
  • Participants view the robot as helpful for strengthening home-school ties while noting challenges such as privacy.
  • Design implications guide future family- and child-robot systems for educational partnerships.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Longer deployments could test whether initial integration persists after novelty fades.
  • Clear privacy protections may be needed before wider adoption across diverse families.
  • The modular design could be adapted to support other home-based learning connections beyond school topics.

Load-bearing premise

Observations from ten families over one week reflect general patterns of use rather than effects tied to novelty or researcher involvement.

What would settle it

A larger controlled study that measures time spent on school topics and parent-child communication frequency in families with and without the robot over several weeks would show whether the robot produces sustained gains.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.23978 by Bilge Mutlu, Heather Kirkorian, Michael F Xu, Qiyao Yang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: To systematically explore how social robots can facilitate home-based activities for school-related communication, view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Examples of existing family strategies for information acquisition and management. (a) Physical calendars and view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Example interactions from the three Core Activities. The view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of the interaction flow and the system components. view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Screenshots of the Google Sheets template families used to provide input. Content is based on a real participant but view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Timeline of robot interactions and usage for a representative family (F9). For the view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) Representative usage pattern from F9. This heatmap summarizes information shown in the earlier timeline view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Usage patterns from two other families. (a) F7 (Low Engagement) and (b) F8 (Strongly Parent-led). For F7, there are view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Family-school partnerships (FSP) are critical to children's development, yet families often face barriers such as time constraints, fragmented communication, and limited opportunities for meaningful engagement. As a step toward facilitating broader family-school partnerships, we explore a novel approach that integrates a social robot into family settings, specifically supporting home-based activities. Through interviews and co-design sessions, we designed and developed a robotic system informed by both parents and children, that supported, among other interactions, family communication about school topics. We evaluated the robot in a week-long, in-home study with 10 families. Our findings show how families integrated the robot into daily life, how parental facilitation styles shaped use, and how families perceived both the helpfulness and challenges of the robot. We contribute empirical insights, a modular system, and design implications for family- and child-robot interactions. We discuss ethical and privacy considerations, and broaden the design space for technologies supporting family-school partnerships.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper describes the co-design and development of a modular social robotic system to support home-based family activities aimed at strengthening family-school partnerships, addressing barriers like time constraints and communication gaps. Through interviews and co-design sessions with parents and children, the system enables interactions such as family discussions on school topics. It reports results from a one-week in-home deployment study with 10 families, highlighting patterns of daily integration, parental facilitation styles, family perceptions of helpfulness and challenges, along with design implications, ethical considerations, and privacy issues.

Significance. If the attribution of effects to the robot can be better substantiated, this work would offer timely empirical insights into naturalistic family-robot interactions in educational contexts. It expands the design space for social robots supporting family-school engagement and provides a modular system that could serve as a foundation for future interventions addressing fragmented home-school communication.

major comments (2)
  1. [Evaluation] The evaluation section provides no pre-deployment baseline period, non-robot control arm, or explicit measures to account for researcher presence and novelty effects in the one-week in-home study with 10 families. This directly undermines the central claims regarding how families integrated the robot into daily life, how parental facilitation styles shaped use, and perceptions of helpfulness, as these cannot be isolated from the co-design process, study context, or Hawthorne effects.
  2. [Methods] The methods description lacks any details on qualitative analysis procedures, including coding schemes, inter-rater reliability, or bias mitigation strategies. Given that the findings rest entirely on qualitative data from a small sample of 10 families, this omission makes it difficult to evaluate the robustness and generalizability of the reported patterns in integration and perceptions.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would benefit from briefly noting the qualitative nature of the analysis and the sample size to better contextualize the findings for readers.
  2. [Findings] Consider including more direct participant quotes or vignettes in the findings section to illustrate specific parental facilitation styles and integration patterns.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

Thank you for the constructive and detailed feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully reviewed the major comments and provide point-by-point responses below, outlining how we will strengthen the paper through revisions while maintaining the integrity of our exploratory study design.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Evaluation] The evaluation section provides no pre-deployment baseline period, non-robot control arm, or explicit measures to account for researcher presence and novelty effects in the one-week in-home study with 10 families. This directly undermines the central claims regarding how families integrated the robot into daily life, how parental facilitation styles shaped use, and perceptions of helpfulness, as these cannot be isolated from the co-design process, study context, or Hawthorne effects.

    Authors: We agree that the absence of a pre-deployment baseline, control condition, and explicit controls for novelty or researcher effects limits the ability to isolate causal impacts of the robot. Our study was intentionally designed as an exploratory, naturalistic deployment following co-design to observe real-world integration patterns, consistent with many HRI papers on initial family-robot systems. The claims in the manuscript focus on observed behaviors, facilitation styles, and family-reported perceptions rather than direct attribution of effects. In revision, we will add a dedicated Limitations subsection that explicitly discusses these factors, including the one-week duration, potential Hawthorne influences from pre/post interviews, and the role of prior co-design participation. We will also revise phrasing in the abstract, findings, and discussion to emphasize descriptive insights and patterns without overstating causality. This addresses the concern while preserving the value of the deployment data. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Methods] The methods description lacks any details on qualitative analysis procedures, including coding schemes, inter-rater reliability, or bias mitigation strategies. Given that the findings rest entirely on qualitative data from a small sample of 10 families, this omission makes it difficult to evaluate the robustness and generalizability of the reported patterns in integration and perceptions.

    Authors: We appreciate this observation and acknowledge the need for greater transparency in our qualitative methods. The data from semi-structured interviews and observation logs were analyzed via thematic analysis: two researchers independently reviewed transcripts, generated initial codes, iteratively refined a codebook through consensus meetings, and derived themes. In the revised manuscript, we will insert a new subsection under Methods detailing the full procedure (familiarization, coding, theme generation, and review), report inter-rater reliability (e.g., Cohen's kappa or agreement percentages), and describe bias mitigation steps such as reflexive notes, independent coding before discussion, and participant validation of summaries where feasible. These additions will allow better assessment of the findings' rigor given the sample size. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical claims grounded directly in study observations

full rationale

The paper reports results from a qualitative week-long in-home deployment with 10 families, with all central claims (integration patterns, facilitation styles, perceptions of helpfulness/challenges) derived from direct interview and observation data collected during the study. There are no equations, fitted parameters, predictive models, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes that could reduce to self-definitions or self-citations. The design process (interviews and co-design) is described as input to system development, not as a circular justification for the evaluation findings. This is a standard empirical HCI/robotics study whose validity rests on external data collection rather than internal derivation chains.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on domain assumptions about family barriers and robot utility, plus the introduction of a new system without external validation of its components.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Families face barriers such as time constraints, fragmented communication, and limited opportunities for meaningful engagement with schools.
    Explicitly stated in the opening of the abstract as motivation for the work.
  • domain assumption A social robot can be integrated into family settings to support home-based activities and communication about school topics.
    Core premise underlying the system design and evaluation.
invented entities (1)
  • Modular robotic system for family-school partnership activities no independent evidence
    purpose: To facilitate home-based interactions and family communication about school
    New system designed and developed in the paper, informed by co-design sessions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5467 in / 1317 out tokens · 103644 ms · 2026-05-08T03:07:50.065534+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    [n. d.]. https://www.freepik.com/. Accessed: 2024-12-20

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Nida Itrat Abbasi, Micol Spitale, Joanna Anderson, Tamsin Ford, Peter B Jones, and Hatice Gunes. 2022. Can robots help in the evaluation of mental wellbeing in children? an empirical study. In2022 31st IEEE international conference on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, 1459–1466

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Muneeb Imtiaz Ahmad, Omar Mubin, and Joanne Orlando. 2017. Adaptive social robot for sustaining social engagement during long-term children–robot interaction.International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction33, 12 (2017), 943–962

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Tawfiq Ammari, Jofish Kaye, Janice Y Tsai, and Frank Bentley. 2019. Music, search, and IoT: How people (really) use voice assistants.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI)26, 3 (2019), 1–28

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Sean Andrist, Xiang Zhi Tan, Michael Gleicher, and Bilge Mutlu. 2014. Conversa- tional gaze aversion for humanlike robots. InProceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction. 25–32

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Tony Belpaeme, James Kennedy, Aditi Ramachandran, Brian Scassellati, and Fumihide Tanaka. 2018. Social robots for education: A review.Science robotics3, 21 (2018), eaat5954

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Erin Beneteau, Ashley Boone, Yuxing Wu, Julie A Kientz, Jason Yip, and Alexis Hiniker. 2020. Parenting with Alexa: exploring the introduction of smart speakers on family dynamics. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–13

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Erin Beneteau, Olivia K Richards, Mingrui Zhang, Julie A Kientz, Jason Yip, and Alexis Hiniker. 2019. Communication breakdowns between families and Alexa. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–13

    work page 2019

  9. [9]

    Cindy L Bethel, Zachary Henkel, Kristen Stives, David C May, Deborah K Eakin, Melinda Pilkinton, Alexis Jones, and Megan Stubbs-Richardson. 2016. Using robots to interview children about bullying: Lessons learned from an exploratory study. In2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, 712–717

    work page 2016

  10. [10]

    Pierre Bourdieu. 2018. The forms of capital. InThe sociology of economic life. Routledge, 78–92

    work page 2018

  11. [11]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology3, 2 (2006), 77–101

    work page 2006

  12. [12]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2019. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative research in sport, exercise and health11, 4 (2019), 589–597

    work page 2019

  13. [13]

    Urie Bronfenbrenner. 1979. Contexts of child rearing: Problems and prospects. American psychologist34, 10 (1979), 844. 2https://osf.io/fcqr4/ Supporting FSP with Robot-Facilitated Home-Based Activities IDC ’26, June 22–25, 2026, Brighton, United Kingdom

    work page 1979

  14. [14]

    David Byrne. 2022. A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis.Quality & quantity56, 3 (2022), 1391–1412

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    Bengisu Cagiltay, Hui-Ru Ho, Joseph E Michaelis, and Bilge Mutlu. 2020. In- vestigating family perceptions and design preferences for an in-home robot. In Proceedings of the interaction design and children conference

    work page 2020

  16. [16]

    Bengisu Cagiltay, Rebecca M Jonas, Allison K Tanaka, and Norman Makoto Su

    work page

  17. [17]

    InProceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    RIP Moxie: Lessons for Supporting Emotional Detachment at Product End-of-Life through a Case Study of a Social Companion Robot. InProceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–18

    work page 2026

  18. [18]

    Bengisu Cagiltay and Bilge Mutlu. 2024. Supporting long-term hri through shared family routines. InCompanion of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 97–99

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    Bengisu Cagiltay and Bilge Mutlu. 2024. Toward Family-Robot Interactions: A Family-Centered Framework in HRI. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI 24). 76–85

    work page 2024

  20. [20]

    Bengisu Cagiltay, Nathan Thomas White, Rabia Ibtasar, Bilge Mutlu, and Joseph Michaelis. 2022. Understanding factors that shape children’s long term engage- ment with an in-home learning companion robot. InProceedings of the 21st annual ACM interaction design and children conference. 362–373

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    Meng-Ying Chan, Yi-Hsuan Lin, Long-Fei Lin, Ting-Wei Lin, Wei-Che Hsu, Chia- yu Chang, Rui Liu, Ko-Yu Chang, Min-hua Lin, and Jane Yung-jen Hsu. 2017. WAKEY: assisting parent-child communication for better morning routines. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. 2287–2299

    work page 2017

  22. [22]

    Huili Chen, Yubin Kim, Kejia Patterson, Cynthia Breazeal, and Hae Won Park

    work page

  23. [23]

    Social robots as conversational catalysts: Enhancing long-term human- human interaction at home.Science Robotics10, 100 (2025), eadk3307

    work page 2025

  24. [24]

    Huili Chen, Anastasia K Ostrowski, Soo Jung Jang, Cynthia Breazeal, and Hae Won Park. 2022. Designing Long-term Parent-child-robot Triadic Inter- action at Home through Lived Technology Experiences and Interviews. In2022 31st IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, 401–408

    work page 2022

  25. [25]

    2010.Handbook of school-family part- nerships

    Sandra Christenson and Amy L Reschly. 2010.Handbook of school-family part- nerships. Routledge New York, NY

    work page 2010

  26. [26]

    James S Coleman. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital.American journal of sociology94 (1988), S95–S120

    work page 1988

  27. [27]

    Scott Davidoff. 2010. Routine as resource for the design of learning systems. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM international conference adjunct papers on Ubiquitous computing-Adjunct. 457–460

    work page 2010

  28. [28]

    Maartje MA de Graaf, Somaya Ben Allouch, and Jan AGM van Dijk. 2016. Long- term evaluation of a social robot in real homes.Interaction studies17, 3 (2016), 462–491

    work page 2016

  29. [29]

    Anind K Dey and Gregory D Abowd. 2000. Cybreminder: A context-aware system for supporting reminders. InInternational Symposium on Handheld and Ubiquitous Computing. Springer, 172–186

    work page 2000

  30. [30]

    Elizabeth Englander. 2025. Teens Are Flocking to AI Chatbots. Is this Healthy? Scientific American(2025). https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/teens- are-flocking-to-ai-chatbots-is-this-healthy/

    work page 2025

  31. [31]

    Joyce L Epstein. 1987. Toward a theory of family-school connections.Social intervention: Potential and constraints1 (1987), 121–136

    work page 1987

  32. [32]

    Joyce L Epstein. 1995. School/family/community partnerships.Phi delta kappan 76, 9 (1995), 701

    work page 1995

  33. [33]

    Inner-Voice

    Cathy Mengying Fang, Yasith Samaradivakara, Pattie Maes, and Suranga Nanayakkara. 2025. Mirai: A Wearable Proactive AI" Inner-Voice" for Contextual Nudging. InProceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–9

    work page 2025

  34. [34]

    Radhika Garg and Subhasree Sengupta. 2020. He is just like me: A study of the long-term use of smart speakers by parents and children.Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies4, 1 (2020), 1–24

    work page 2020

  35. [35]

    Sarah Gillet, Wouter Van Den Bos, Iolanda Leite, et al . 2020. A social robot mediator to foster collaboration and inclusion among children.. InRobotics: Science and Systems. 1–9

    work page 2020

  36. [36]

    2011.Applied thematic analysis

    Greg Guest, Kathleen M MacQueen, and Emily E Namey. 2011.Applied thematic analysis. sage publications

    work page 2011

  37. [37]

    Xinning He, Michael F Xu, Bengisu Cagiltay, and Bilge Mutlu. 2025. Developing Robot Prototypes to Explore Robot-Facilitated Family Routines. In2025 20th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 1342– 1346

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    2007.Beyond the bake sale: The essential guide to family-school partnerships

    Anne T Henderson. 2007.Beyond the bake sale: The essential guide to family-school partnerships. The New Press

    work page 2007

  39. [39]

    Anne T Henderson and Karen L Mapp. 2002. A New Wave of Evidence: The Impact of School, Family, and Community Connections on Student Achievement. Annual Synthesis, 2002. (2002)

    work page 2002

  40. [40]

    Hui-Ru Ho, Nitigya Kargeti, Ziqi Liu, and Bilge Mutlu. 2025. SET-PAiREd: De- signing for Parental Involvement in Learning with an AI-Assisted Educational Robot. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–20

    work page 2025

  41. [41]

    Hui-Ru Ho, Nathan Thomas White, Edward M Hubbard, and Bilge Mutlu. 2023. Designing parent-child-robot interactions to facilitate in-home parental math talk with young children. InProceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference. 355–366

    work page 2023

  42. [42]

    Kathleen V Hoover-Dempsey and Howard M Sandler. 1995. Parental involvement in children’s education: Why does it make a difference?Teachers college record 97, 2 (1995), 310–331

    work page 1995

  43. [43]

    Kathleen V Hoover-Dempsey and Howard M Sandler. 1997. Why do parents become involved in their children’s education?Review of educational research67, 1 (1997), 3–42

    work page 1997

  44. [44]

    Kathleen V Hoover-Dempsey and Howard M Sandler. 2005. Final performance report for OERI Grant# R305T010673: The social context of parental involvement: A path to enhanced achievement. (2005)

    work page 2005

  45. [45]

    Garry Hornby and Rayleen Lafaele. 2011. Barriers to parental involvement in education: An explanatory model.Educational review63, 1 (2011), 37–52

    work page 2011

  46. [46]

    Jeff Horwitz. 2025. Meta’s AI rules have let bots hold ‘sensual’ chats with kids, offer false medical info.Reuters(2025). https://www.reuters.com/investigates/ special-report/meta-ai-chatbot-guidelines/

    work page 2025

  47. [47]

    William H Jeynes. 2005. A meta-analysis of the relation of parental involvement to urban elementary school student academic achievement.Urban education40, 3 (2005), 237–269

    work page 2005

  48. [48]

    William H Jeynes. 2007. The relationship between parental involvement and urban secondary school student academic achievement: A meta-analysis.Urban education42, 1 (2007), 82–110

    work page 2007

  49. [49]

    William H Jeynes. 2010. The salience of the subtle aspects of parental involvement and encouraging that involvement: Implications for school-based programs. Teachers College Record112, 3 (2010), 747–774

    work page 2010

  50. [50]

    Tejinder K Judge, Carman Neustaedter, and Andrew F Kurtz. 2010. The family window: the design and evaluation of a domestic media space. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2361–2370

    work page 2010

  51. [51]

    Waki Kamino, Bengisu Cagiltay, Bilge Mutlu, Malte F Jung, and Selma Šabanović

    work page

  52. [52]

    InProceedings of the 21st ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction

    Kept alive, bricked, revived: Community articulation work and value renegotiation beyond a robot’s commercial failure. InProceedings of the 21st ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 447–455

    work page

  53. [53]

    Takayuki Kanda, Michihiro Shimada, and Satoshi Koizumi. 2012. Children learn- ing with a social robot. InProceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE interna- tional conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 351–358

    work page 2012

  54. [54]

    SunKyoung Kim, Masakazu Hirokawa, Atsushi Funahashi, and Kenji Suzuki. 2022. What Can We Do with a Robot for Family Playtime?. In2022 17th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. IEEE

    work page 2022

  55. [55]

    Annette Lareau. 1987. Social class differences in family-school relationships: The importance of cultural capital.Sociology of education(1987), 73–85

    work page 1987

  56. [56]

    Christine P Lee, Bengisu Cagiltay, and Bilge Mutlu. 2022. The unboxing experi- ence: Exploration and design of initial interactions between children and social robots. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–14

    work page 2022

  57. [57]

    Leigh Levinson, Jessica McKinney, Christena Nippert-Eng, Randy Gomez, and Selma Šabanović. 2024. Our business, not the robot’s: family conversations about privacy with social robots in the home.Frontiers in Robotics and AI11 (2024), 1331347

    work page 2024

  58. [58]

    Jieun Lim, Youngji Koh, Auk Kim, and Uichin Lee. 2024. Exploring context- aware mental health self-tracking using multimodal smart speakers in home environments. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–18

    work page 2024

  59. [59]

    Roni Mermelshtine. 2017. Parent–child learning interactions: A review of the literature on scaffolding.British Journal of Educational Psychology87, 2 (2017), 241–254

    work page 2017

  60. [60]

    Angelica Moè, Idit Katz, and Marianna Alesi. 2018. Scaffolding for motivation by parents, and child homework motivations and emotions: Effects of a training programme.British journal of educational psychology88, 2 (2018), 323–344

    work page 2018

  61. [61]

    Anouk Neerincx, Thirza Hiwat, and Maartje De Graaf. 2021. Social robot for health check and entertainment in waiting room: Child’s engagement and par- ent’s involvement. InAdjunct proceedings of the 29th ACM conference on user modeling, adaptation and personalization. 120–125

    work page 2021

  62. [62]

    Carman Neustaedter, AJ Bernheim Brush, and Saul Greenberg. 2009. The calen- dar is crucial: Coordination and awareness through the family calendar.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI)16, 1 (2009), 1–48

    work page 2009

  63. [63]

    Laura M Padilla-Walker, Sarah M Coyne, and Ashley M Fraser. 2012. Getting a high-speed family connection: Associations between family media use and family connection.Family Relations61, 3 (2012), 426–440

    work page 2012

  64. [64]

    Aswati Panicker, Chia-Fang Chung, and Selma Šabanović. 2025. Haru in the Kitchen: Investigating Family Members’ Perceptions Toward a Social Robot Me- diator of Food Experiences. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 222–235

    work page 2025

  65. [65]

    Yvette Pearson. 2020. Child-robot interaction: What concerns about privacy and well-being arise when children play with, use, and learn from robots?American Scientist108, 1 (2020), 16–22

    work page 2020

  66. [66]

    Laura R Pina, Sang-Wha Sien, Teresa Ward, Jason C Yip, Sean A Munson, James Fogarty, and Julie A Kientz. 2017. From personal informatics to family informatics: IDC ’26, June 22–25, 2026, Brighton, United Kingdom Michael F. Xu, Qiyao Yang, Heather Kirkorian, and Bilge Mutlu Understanding family practices around health monitoring. InProceedings of the 2017 ...

    work page 2017

  67. [67]

    Catherine Plaisant, Aaron Clamage, Hilary Browne Hutchinson, Benjamin B Bederson, and Allison Druin. 2006. Shared family calendars: Promoting symmetry and accessibility.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI)13, 3 (2006), 313–346

    work page 2006

  68. [68]

    Olivia K Richards. 2022. Understanding and designing technologies for family health routines: Supporting children in the digital age. InCompanion Publica- tion of the 2022 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. 228–231

    work page 2022

  69. [69]

    John Sanford. 2025. Why AI companions and young people can make for a dan- gerous mix.Stanford Medicine(2025). https://med.stanford.edu/news/insights/ 2025/08/ai-chatbots-kids-teens-artificial-intelligence.html

    work page 2025

  70. [70]

    Ji Youn Shin, Minjin Rheu, Jina Huh-Yoo, and Wei Peng. 2021. Designing tech- nologies to support parent-child relationships: a review of current findings and suggestions for future directions.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction5, CSCW2 (2021), 1–31

    work page 2021

  71. [71]

    Tyler E Smith, Susan M Sheridan, Elizabeth M Kim, Sunyoung Park, and S Natasha Beretvas. 2020. The effects of family-school partnership interventions on aca- demic and social-emotional functioning: A meta-analysis exploring what works for whom.Educational Psychology Review32 (2020), 511–544

    work page 2020

  72. [72]

    Roger Andre Søraa, Pernille Nyvoll, Gunhild Tøndel, Eduard Fosch-Villaronga, and J Artur Serrano. 2021. The social dimension of domesticating technology: In- teractions between older adults, caregivers, and robots in the home.Technological Forecasting and Social Change167 (2021), 120678

    work page 2021

  73. [73]

    Xiaoran Sun, Yunqi Wang, and Brandon T McDaniel. 2026. AI companions and adolescent social relationships: Benefits, risks, and bidirectional influences.Child Development Perspectives(2026), aadaf009

    work page 2026

  74. [74]

    Caroline L Van Straten, Jochen Peter, and Rinaldo Kühne. 2020. Child–robot relationship formation: A narrative review of empirical research.International Journal of Social Robotics12, 2 (2020), 325–344

    work page 2020

  75. [75]

    Luke Jai Wood, Kerstin Dautenhahn, Austen Rainer, Ben Robins, Hagen Lehmann, and Dag Sverre Syrdal. 2013. Robot-mediated interviews-how effective is a humanoid robot as a tool for interviewing young children?PloS one8, 3 (2013), e59448

    work page 2013

  76. [76]

    Michael F Xu, Bengisu Cagiltay, Joseph Michaelis, Sarah Sebo, and Bilge Mutlu

    work page

  77. [77]

    In2024 33rd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (ROMAN)

    Robots in family routines: Development of and initial insights from the family-robot routines inventory. In2024 33rd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (ROMAN). IEEE, 1070–1077

    work page

  78. [78]

    Michael F Xu and Bilge Mutlu. 2025. Exploring the Use of Robots for Diary Studies. In2025 20th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 174–182

    work page 2025

  79. [79]

    Proceedings of the 21st ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction

    Michael F. Xu, Enhui Zhao, Yawen Zhang, Joseph Michaelis, Sarah Sebo, and Bilge Mutlu. 2026. Designing Robots for Families: In-Situ Prototyping for Contextual Reminders on Family Routines. InProceedings of the 21st ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI ’26). 356–365. doi:10.1145/3757279. 3788654

    work page doi:10.1145/3757279 2026