Cited by 31Social Robot Interaction and HRICreativity in Education and NeuroscienceEducational Robotics and Engineering

Fostering children’s creativity through LLM-driven storytelling with a social robot

Open access
Elgarf, Maha, Salam, Hanan, Peters, Christopher·2024·Frontiers in Robotics and AI

Abstract

Creativity is an important skill that is known to plummet in children when they start school education that limits their freedom of expression and their imagination. On the other hand, research has shown that integrating social robots into educational settings has the potential to maximize children’s learning outcomes. Therefore, our aim in this work was to investigate stimulating children’s creativity through child-robot interactions. We fine-tuned a Large Language Model (LLM) to exhibit creative behavior and non-creative behavior in a robot and conducted two studies with children to evaluate the viability of our methods in fostering children’s creativity skills. We evaluated creativity in terms of four metrics: fluency, flexibility, elaboration, and originality. We first conducted a study as a storytelling interaction between a child and a wizard-ed social robot in one of two conditions: creative versus non-creative with 38 children. We investigated whether interacting with a creative social robot will elicit more creativity from children. However, we did not find a significant effect of the robot’s creativity on children’s creative abilities. Second, in an attempt to increase the possibility for the robot to have an impact on children’s creativity and to increase the fluidity of the interaction, we produced two models that allow a social agent to autonomously engage with a human in a storytelling context in a creative manner and a non-creative manner respectively. Finally, we conducted another study to evaluate our models by deploying them on a social robot and evaluating them with 103 children. Our results show that children who interacted with the creative autonomous robot were more creative than children who interacted with the non-creative autonomous robot in terms of the fluency, the flexibility, and the elaboration aspects of creativity. The results highlight the difference in children’s learning performance when inetracting with a robot operated at different autonomy levels (Wizard of Oz versus autonoumous). Furthermore, they emphasize on the impact of designing adequate robot’s behaviors on children’s corresponding learning gains in child-robot interactions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/frobt.2024.1457429

Cites

78 of 78 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Script and story generation translates children's imagination into performable texts, improving reading fluency, narrative detail, and creative self-efficacy.

    “Script and story generation translates children's imagination into performable texts, improving reading fluency, narrative detail, and creative self-efficacy [115,116].”

    From A Systematic Review of Generative AI in K–12: Mapping Goals, Activities, Roles, and Outcomes via the 3P Model (2025) · cites this paper as [115]

    Section 3.4.5.1 reports that children in the creative-robot conditions gave more elaborate story ideas than those in the non-creative conditions, supporting the narrative-detail part. But its fluency measure is fluency of story ideas, not reading fluency; the paper does not establish improved creative self-efficacy or describe generating performable scripts. The findings concern a robot-assisted storytelling game, not script generation generally. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In visual arts, learners employ Midjourney, DALL·E, and related text-to-image tools, repeatedly adjusting prompts to refine visual detail and aesthetics.

    “In visual arts, learners employ Midjourney, DALL·E, and related text-to-image tools, repeatedly adjusting prompts to refine visual detail and aesthetics [111-116,132,143]”

    From A Systematic Review of Generative AI in K–12: Mapping Goals, Activities, Roles, and Outcomes via the 3P Model (2025) · cites this paper as [115]

    The Background (§2.3; page unavailable) mentions AI-generated drawings and paintings, but does not discuss learners using text-to-image tools. Searches for Midjourney, DALL·E, and iterative prompt refinement found no passage in our copy supporting the attributed claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Some students make no substantive revisions after receiving AI feedback.

    “This shallow interaction shows up when some students make no substantive revisions after receiving AI feedback [115], or when teacher feedback is taken up more than AI feedback [130].”

    From A Systematic Review of Generative AI in K–12: Mapping Goals, Activities, Roles, and Outcomes via the 3P Model (2025) · cites this paper as [115]

    The Methodology (§3.2) and Discussion (§4; page numbers unavailable) describe children co-creating stories with a robot, including frustration with some of its story ideas. A search for feedback and subsequent revisions found no passage reporting that students made no substantive revisions after receiving AI feedback. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Elgarf M. Skantze G. Peters C. (2021b). “ Once upon a story: can a creative storyteller robot stimulate creativity in children?,” in Proceedings of the 21st ACM international conference on intelligent virtual agents, 60– 67.
  2. Kafai Y. B. (2012). Minds in play: computer game design as a context for children’s learning. Oxfordshire, United Kingdom: Routledge.
  3. Robinson K. Lee J. R. (2011). Out of our minds. Wiley Online Library.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Elgarf, M., Salam, H., & Peters, C.
Affiliations
  • New York University Abu Dhabi (AE)
  • KTH Royal Institute of Technology (SE)
Corresponding author
Elgarf, Maha
Venue
Frontiers in Robotics and AI
Published
2024-12-13
Volume
11
Pages
1457429-1457429
ISSN
2296-9144 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4405383493
Cited by
28
References
78
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 13
FWCI
13.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Robotics and AI (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Framework Programme
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Educational Robotics and Engineering
Keywords
children's creativity, large language models, social robots, storytelling, child-robot interaction, robot autonomy, Wizard of Oz, creativity metrics, educational robotics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review