Article Summary

School dogs are becoming increasingly common in educational settings, offering comfort, lowering anxiety, and motivating learners. However, many schools cannot realistically host a live animal due to allergies, phobias, safeguarding, dog‑welfare concerns, staffing demands, and financial constraints. As a result, educators are beginning to explore whether virtual, robotic, or mixed‑reality dogs could provide some of the same social and emotional benefits.

Early research, including my quasi‑experimental study, shows that while live dogs remain strongly preferred, structured interactions with virtual dogs can still support emotional regulation, working memory, and motivation.

A global 2023 survey found that attitudes toward live dogs in schools are largely positive; but the main barriers are practical and ethical rather than ideological. Emerging technologies may therefore extend access to animal‑assisted benefits without compromising welfare or safety. This article examines how alternative dog‑based experiences may complement or enhance future classroom practice.

Main Article

Introduction: Rethinking Human–Animal Connections in Schools

Across the past decades, therapy and school dogs have become increasingly common in classrooms and corridors. They bring comfort, reduce anxiety, and inspire reluctant learners to read aloud or self-regulate more effectively. Yet despite their growing popularity, not every school can safely, ethically, or practically accommodate a live animal. Concerns over allergies, child safety, dog welfare, staff capacity, and cost remain significant barriers. This raises a timely question for educators and school leaders: if not a real dog, then what? Could virtual dogs, robotic companions, or mixed-reality environments offer similar social and emotional benefits for interacting with animals? Emerging research suggests they can, in different but complementary ways.

The Power of the Real Dog: What We Already Know

The positive influence of ‘live’ dogs in educational settings is well-documented (eg Gee, Fine and McCardle, 2017; Lewis and Grigg, 2024), however working with dogs in alternative ‘virtual’ or alternative contexts is less well researched, despite the rapid advancements in technology, including virtual reality headsets and haptic (touch) devices. Will it eventually be possible to recreate a virtual dog in its entirety, and have the same effects on motivation and learning in classrooms as a ‘live’ dog?
In my own research, Dogs, Working Memory and Educational Achievement (Oostendorp Godfrey, 2021), I used a quasi-experimental approach to compare how structured classroom interactions with the same, trained therapy dogs both in physical ‘live’ form and recorded in VR headsets could still enhance emotional regulation, working memory and focus in both children and adults. My conclusions showed that while not all individual results directly translate into measurable academic outcomes, the indirect gains: reduced stress, heightened motivation, and greater classroom cohesion, could still create a more empathetic, fertile ground for learning. While both children and adults preferred the live dogs to be present, VR could still assist adults in motivation for mental maths and vocabulary tasks.
So, could a virtual dog be a future member of the classroom?

Not every school can have a dog.

In 2023, a large-scale worldwide survey, exploring educators’ views of live dogs in schools revealed that the most common barriers to including live dogs were practical and ethical constraints, rather than attitudinal (Lewis, Oostendorp Godfrey and Knight, 2023). Educators identified several key barriers to working with a live dog, including a lack of alignment with educational priorities, concerns about allergies and phobias, considerations around dog welfare, and uncertainty about how to source or train an appropriate dog. Interestingly, dislike of dogs ranked lowest, suggesting that attitudes to having live dogs in schools were largely positive but logistics and safeguarding drove hesitation.

When the Real Dog Isn’t Possible: Emerging Alternatives

Enter a fascinating new frontier: virtual, robotic, and mixed-reality animal companions. These technologies do not seek to replace living dogs but to extend access to the relational and motivational benefits they bring, especially where live animals are not feasible. These different approaches can also reduce the situational stress upon the animals themselves and prepare the way for more positive interactions between dogs and different groups of people.

Robotic Dogs: Consistency Without Complexity

For example, Van der Steen, Kamphorst, and Griffioen’s (2025) randomised controlled trial compared dog-assisted and robot-dog-assisted therapy for children with autism and Down Syndrome. Both interventions fostered engagement and improved mood, although the live dogs produced deeper affective and social responses. However, the robotic dog offered notable advantages: consistent behaviour, reduced risk, and accessibility for children who might be allergic or fearful. As well as a useful alternative, it could be argued that working with a robotic dog could be a precursor to working with live animals. Children could develop understanding of how to behave safely with the robot before interacting with the live dog.

Virtual Dogs: The Rise of Immersive Companions

In fact, the use of virtual reality can also assist with training appropriate behaviours around animals. At the 2024 ISAZ Conference, Anna Baatz presented her study ‘Looking for a reaction’, which examined children’s responses to realistic canine behaviours within the Dog Assisted Virtual Environment (DAVE) system (Oxley et al., 2022). DAVE helps children understand and interpret canine signals safely, supporting empathy, emotional literacy, and animal safety education. Within the safety of the headset, students can learn to visualise, focus on signs, signals and movement to develop their understanding of how a dog may behave in certain situations and prepare the way for more appropriate and successful interactions back in the classroom (or home).

Virtual Companions for Health and Behavioural Change

Studies by Ahn et al. (2015) and Johnsen et al. (2012) have also demonstrated the potential of virtual and mixed-reality pets through ‘apps,’ to positively influence personal behaviour through social cognitive engagement. In Ahn’s experiment, children who cared for virtual pet dogs were more likely to emotionally engage in the task’s goal, in this case to increase fruit and vegetable consumption, while Johnsen’s work showed that mixed-reality pets promoted physical activity and healthier lifestyle choices. Chen et al. (2011) found that nurturing virtual pets fostered persistence and effort-making in learning environments.

Introduction: Rethinking Human–Animal Connections in Schools

Across the past decades, therapy and school dogs have become increasingly common in classrooms and corridors. They bring comfort, reduce anxiety, and inspire reluctant learners to read aloud or self-regulate more effectively. Yet despite their growing popularity, not every school can safely, ethically, or practically accommodate a live animal. Concerns over allergies, child safety, dog welfare, staff capacity, and cost remain significant barriers. This raises a timely question for educators and school leaders: if not a real dog, then what? Could virtual dogs, robotic companions, or mixed-reality environments offer similar social and emotional benefits for interacting with animals? Emerging research suggests they can, in different but complementary ways.

The Power of the Real Dog: What We Already Know

The positive influence of ‘live’ dogs in educational settings is well-documented (eg Gee, Fine and McCardle, 2017; Lewis and Grigg, 2024), however working with dogs in alternative ‘virtual’ or alternative contexts is less well researched, despite the rapid advancements in technology, including virtual reality headsets and haptic (touch) devices. Will it eventually be possible to recreate a virtual dog in its entirety, and have the same effects on motivation and learning in classrooms as a ‘live’ dog?

In my own research, Dogs, Working Memory and Educational Achievement (Oostendorp Godfrey, 2021), I used a quasi-experimental approach to compare how structured classroom interactions with the same, trained therapy dogs both in physical ‘live’ form and recorded in VR headsets could still enhance emotional regulation, working memory and focus in both children and adults. My conclusions showed that while not all individual results directly translate into measurable academic outcomes, the indirect gains: reduced stress, heightened motivation, and greater classroom cohesion, could still create a more empathetic, fertile ground for learning. While both children and adults preferred the live dogs to be present, VR could still assist adults in motivation for mental maths and vocabulary tasks.

So, could a virtual dog be a future member of the classroom?

Not every school can have a dog.

In 2023, a large-scale worldwide survey, exploring educators’ views of live dogs in schools revealed that the most common barriers to including live dogs were practical and ethical constraints, rather than attitudinal (Lewis, Oostendorp Godfrey and Knight, 2023). Educators identified several key barriers to working with a live dog, including a lack of alignment with educational priorities, concerns about allergies and phobias, considerations around dog welfare, and uncertainty about how to source or train an appropriate dog. Interestingly, dislike of dogs ranked lowest, suggesting that attitudes to having live dogs in schools were largely positive but logistics and safeguarding drove hesitation.

When the Real Dog Isn’t Possible: Emerging Alternatives

Enter a fascinating new frontier: virtual, robotic, and mixed-reality animal companions. These technologies do not seek to replace living dogs but to extend access to the relational and motivational benefits they bring, especially where live animals are not feasible. These different approaches can also reduce the situational stress upon the animals themselves and prepare the way for more positive interactions between dogs and different groups of people.

Robotic Dogs: Consistency Without Complexity

For example, Van der Steen, Kamphorst, and Griffioen’s (2025) randomised controlled trial compared dog-assisted and robot-dog-assisted therapy for children with autism and Down Syndrome. Both interventions fostered engagement and improved mood, although the live dogs produced deeper affective and social responses. However, the robotic dog offered notable advantages: consistent behaviour, reduced risk, and accessibility for children who might be allergic or fearful. As well as a useful alternative, it could be argued that working with a robotic dog could be a precursor to working with live animals. Children could develop understanding of how to behave safely with the robot before interacting with the live dog.

Virtual Dogs: The Rise of Immersive Companions

In fact, the use of virtual reality can also assist with training appropriate behaviours around animals. At the 2024 ISAZ Conference, Anna Baatz presented her study ‘Looking for a reaction’, which examined children’s responses to realistic canine behaviours within the Dog Assisted Virtual Environment (DAVE) system (Oxley et al., 2022). DAVE helps children understand and interpret canine signals safely, supporting empathy, emotional literacy, and animal safety education. Within the safety of the headset, students can learn to visualise, focus on signs, signals and movement to develop their understanding of how a dog may behave in certain situations and prepare the way for more appropriate and successful interactions back in the classroom (or home).

Virtual Companions for Health and Behavioural Change

Studies by Ahn et al. (2015) and Johnsen et al. (2012) have also demonstrated the potential of virtual and mixed-reality pets through ‘apps,’ to positively influence personal behaviour through social cognitive engagement. In Ahn’s experiment, children who cared for virtual pet dogs were more likely to emotionally engage in the task’s goal, in this case to increase fruit and vegetable consumption, while Johnsen’s work showed that mixed-reality pets promoted physical activity and healthier lifestyle choices. Chen et al. (2011) found that nurturing virtual pets fostered persistence and effort-making in learning environments.

Virtual Human–Animal Interaction (VHAI): A New Field

A ‘virtual’ dog, does not necessarily mean a dog within a VR headset. Virtual can also mean observing or interacting with a ‘live’ dog through a laptop. Tardif-Williams and Binfet (2024) situate these types of ‘virtual’ innovations within a broader framework of social connection and wellbeing, showing that virtual interactions can replicate many of the psychosocial functions of live animal contact while eliminating health and ethical risks. This was particularly relevant for their work during the Covid pandemic (2020) where therapy dog visits were simply recorded online, continuing relationships and wellbeing with their clients, while also allowing for new safeguarding protocols to be developed for working hours online.

Integrating Technology with Pedagogy: Lessons from Practice

As with all the research emphasised, the success of dog-assisted or virtual interventions depends on intentional design. Schools, whether with ‘live’ dogs or virtual, should still ensure sessions have clear learning goals, structured delivery, and opportunities for reflection. When incorporated purposefully, even a virtual or robotic dog can become a catalyst for relational learning and self-regulation.

Ethical and Emotional Literacy

Ethical literacy must underpin all forms of animal-related pedagogy. Simulated interactions allow children to explore empathy and understand canine distress without risk to real animals. For children with additional needs, such as autism, robotic dogs may reduce social anxiety and offer predictable, confidence-building interactions.

Practical Recommendations for Educators and School Leaders

Practical recommendations for schools to work with alternative forms to ‘live’ dogs still need to:
1. Audit class need, and readiness (both for individuals and project) and cost for technology
2. Start small and pilot.
3. Prioritise welfare and inclusion for all involved.
4. Integrate with the curriculum.
5. Reflect and evaluate.
6. Collaborate and share practice.

Key takeaways or keywords

1. Live dogs provide well established educational benefits.
   School dogs can reduce stress, support emotional regulation, boost motivation, and help reluctant learners engage more confidently.
2. Practical and ethical barriers limit their use.
   Allergies, phobias, safeguarding requirements, dog welfare concerns, staffing capacity, and cost mean many schools cannot host a live dog, even though attitudes toward them are generally positive.
3. Virtual, robotic, and mixed reality dogs offer promising alternatives.
   Rapid advances in VR, robotics, and haptic technology raise the possibility of delivering some social–emotional benefits without the logistical challenges of a live animal.
4. Research shows virtual dogs can still enhance learning.
   My study found that although learners preferred real dogs, VR interactions still improved emotional regulation, working memory, and motivation in certain tasks.
5. Technology can complement—not replace—real animals.
   These tools broaden access where live dogs aren’t feasible, reduce stress on animals, and may help prepare learners for more positive interactions with dogs in real life.

Reflection points

1. How can I maximise the benefits of animal assisted learning while ensuring ethical, safe, and inclusive practice?
   Reflect on whether your current classroom environment can support meaningful, low stress interactions with a live dog, or whether allergies, phobias, welfare concerns, or staffing capacity limit what is possible. Consider how inclusion, safeguarding, and dog wellbeing shape your decision-making.
2. Could virtual, robotic, or mixed reality animals enhance learning where a live dog isn’t feasible?
   Think about where technology mediated interactions might support emotional regulation, engagement, or motivation for certain students. How could these tools complement, not replace real animals, and what opportunities might they offer that live dogs cannot?

Glossary

Affective Response
An emotional reaction such as comfort, calm, engagement, or reduced anxiety.

AIBO
A robotic dog developed by Sony, commonly used in research and therapeutic contexts.

Animal-Assisted Education (AAE)
The structured use of animals in educational settings to support learning, wellbeing, and social–emotional development.

DAVE (Dog Assisted Virtual Environment)
A virtual reality system used to teach children to recognise and interpret dog behaviour safely.

Dog Welfare
The physical and emotional wellbeing of dogs, including stress levels, rest, safety, and ethical treatment.

Emotional Regulation
The ability to manage emotions in ways that support attention, behaviour, and learning.

Haptic Technology
Systems that simulate touch and physical sensation in digital environments.

Mixed Reality (MR)
Technology that combines physical and digital environments so they interact in real time.
Quasi-experimental Study
Research comparing conditions without full random assignment.

Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT)
A study in which participants are randomly allocated to conditions to test effectiveness.

Robotic Dog
A physical robot designed to resemble a dog and interact socially with humans.

Safeguarding
Procedures that ensure the safety and protection of children and vulnerable individuals.

SEND (Special Educational Needs and Disabilities)
A UK term describing children who need additional support due to learning differences, disabilities, or developmental needs.

Social–Emotional Learning (SEL)
Educational processes that develop emotional awareness, empathy, and self-management.

Therapy Dog / School Dog
A specially trained and assessed dog, working with a qualified handler, to support pupils’ emotional regulation, motivation, and learning.

Virtual Human–Animal Interaction (VHAI)
Digital or remote interactions with animals that replicate some psychosocial functions of live contact.

Virtual Reality (VR)
Immersive computer-generated environments experienced through headsets.

Working Memory
The mental system used to temporarily hold and manipulate information during learning tasks.

References

• Ahn, S. J. G., Johnsen, K., Moore, J., Brown, S., Biersmith, M., & Ball, C. (2015). Using virtual pets to increase fruit and vegetable consumption in children. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(11), 635–641.
• Baatz, A. (2024, July). Looking for a reaction: Do children gain enjoyment from aggressive behavioural responses domestic dogs may demonstrate to triggering stimulus such as teasing? Paper presented at ISAZ Conference, Hartpury, Gloucestershire.
• Chen, Z.-H., Liao, C., Chien, T.-C., & Chan, T.-W. (2011). Animal companions: Fostering children’s effort-making by nurturing virtual pets. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(1), 136–148.
• Gee, N.R., Fine, A.H., & McCardle, P, (2017). How Animals Help Students Learn – Research and Practice for Educators and Mental-Health Professionals. Routledge: New York
• Juro Hosoi, Du Jin Yuki Ban, Shin’ichi Warisawa (2025). Voluminous Fur Stroking Experience Through Interactive Visuo-Haptic Model in Virtual Reality. IEEE Transactions on Haptics, Vol.18 No.1
• Johnsen, K., Ahn, S. J., Moore, J., Brown, S., Robertson, T. P., & Marable, A. (2012). Mixed reality virtual pets to reduce childhood obesity. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 32(4), 55–60.
• Lewis, H., & Grigg. R. (2024). Dogs in Schools – Pedagogy and Practice for Happy, Healthy and Humane Interventions. Routledge: New York
• Lewis, H., Oostendorp Godfrey, J., & Knight, C. (2023). Tales of the Unexpected: Teachers’ experiences of working with children and dogs in schools. Human–Animal Interactions, 1(2), 40.
• Oxley, J., Meyer.G., Cant, I., Bellantuano, G.M., Butcher, M., Levers, A., & Westgarth, C. (2022). A pilot study investigating human behaviour towards DAVE (Dog Assisted Virtual Environment) and interpretation of non-reactive and aggressive behaviours during a virtual reality exploration task. PLoS One 17 (9) e0274329
• Oostendorp Godfrey, J. (2021). Dogs, Working Memory and Educational Achievement: Barking up the wrong tree or an effective mechanism for facilitating cognitive acuity? [Doctoral dissertation]. http://eprints.glos.ac.uk/8621/
• Tardif-Williams, C. Y., & Binfet, J.-T. (2024). Virtual human–animal interactions: Supporting learning, social connections and well-being. Routledge.
• Van der Steen, S., Kamphorst, E., & Griffioen, R. E. (2025). A randomized controlled trial of the effects of dog-assisted versus robot dog-assisted therapy for children with autism or Down syndrome. PLoS ONE. 20 (3): e0319939