Reading to dogs in schools: an exploratory study of teacher perspectives

ABSTRACT

Background

Reading to Dogs (RTD) interventions have become increasingly prevalent in UK primary schools. However, there is a need for research examining teachers’ perspectives on RTD, as this could be key in influencing the uptake and adherence to school RTD interventions.

Purpose

This study sought to examine primary school teachers’ views of RTD in schools, exploring perceived benefits and challenges, in addition to their experience of RTD interventions.

Methods

The sample was gathered through voluntary/self-selecting participation in an open questionnaire-based survey shared through UK online teaching forums. In total, 253 UK primary school teachers (with varying knowledge and experience of RTD) completed the questionnaire, which focused on benefits and challenges associated with RTD identified in existing literature. More specifically, teachers’ perspectives of reading, social, emotional and behavioural benefits, and challenges (e.g. paperwork, time commitment, allergies, child/staff/dog welfare) were examined. Also, 59 teachers provided additional written comments regarding benefits and challenges associated with RTD.

Results

Teachers’ perspectives on RTD were generally very positive; perceptions of benefits to social, emotional and behavioural outcomes were more positive than those associated with reading outcomes. Furthermore, teachers perceived greater benefits to children’s reading affect (e.g. motivation, confidence) than their reading frequency or skill. In general, teachers reported low concerns about the challenges associated with RTD; qualitative responses suggested that, while these challenges were real, they were not seen as insurmountable. Finally, teachers with greater knowledge and/or experience of RTD were more positive about its benefits and had fewer concerns about the challenges, although there were some exceptions. Additional written responses provided qualitative insights into teachers’ experiences of RTD.

Implications and conclusion

Overall, UK primary school teachers in our sample were very positive about RTD; while they acknowledged challenges, these were not regarded as barriers to implementation. Furthermore, teachers could provide useful insights into the benefits and challenges associated with RTD from a practical and pedagogical perspective. Indeed, this study highlights the importance of gaining teachers’ perspectives of interventions that affect them and their pupils. Understanding teachers’ varied perspectives, and experiences, of educational interventions is essential to ensure that their professional and pedagogical knowledge feeds into future intervention design and implementation, in addition to future research and evaluation.

KEYWORDS:

• reading to dogs (RTD)
• reading
• wellbeing
• teacher perspectives
• educational intervention
• animal-assisted learning

Introduction

With an increase in the popularity and prevalence of Reading to Dogs (RTD) interventions designed to support children’s literacy, mental health and wellbeing (Brelsford et al. 2017; Hall, Gee, and Mills 2016; Reilly, Adesope, and Erdman 2020), there is a need for more research to understand and examine the experiences and impact of including dogs in educational settings (Lewis and Grigg 2021).

In recent years, two systematic reviews of RTD and animal-assisted learning research have been conducted by Hall, Gee, and Mills (2016) and Brelsford et al. (2017), which included 48 and 25 studies, respectively; a meta-analysis by Reilly, Adesope, and Erdman (2020) included 20 studies. The scope of these studies was comprehensive, including broad inclusion criteria such as peer reviewed journals, dissertations and grey literature from across the international research community. These reviews and meta-analysis were unanimous in the conclusion that positive learning outcomes for children can result from including dogs in educational settings. However, the significance of these reported benefits was clouded by reservations associated with a lack of scientific rigour in most RTD studies (Brelsford et al. 2017; Hall, Gee, and Mills 2016; Reilly, Adesope, and Erdman 2020). The key limitations concerned the absence of strict study protocols (e.g. clearly specifying samples, procedures and methodological characteristics so that studies can be replicated and compared), a lack of controlled studies and the absence of peer reviewed research. Hall, Gee, and Mills (2016) made an important call for researchers and teaching practitioners to work together to ensure RTD interventions are evaluated appropriately and potential benefits maximised.

Proponents of RTD suggest that dogs provide a non-judgemental companion, which can help motivate children to read by increasing their confidence and decreasing their anxiety during reading (Brelsford et al. 2017; Hall, Gee, and Mills 2016; Reilly, Adesope, and Erdman 2020). By creating positive reading experiences, it is suggested that children may increase their frequency of reading, and potentially reading skill, if positive reading affect is sustained (Brelsford et al. 2017; Hall, Gee, and Mills 2016; Reilly, Adesope, and Erdman 2020). With regard to children’s mental health and wellbeing, it is suggested that the ability of dogs to accept children uncritically and unconditionally (Anderson and Olson 2006) and to evoke shared social responses in the form of a ‘social lubricant’ may promote emotional wellbeing within a classroom (Klotz 2014; Wells 2009). This resultant combination of stress reduction, promotion of pro-social behaviours, and feelings of wellbeing may provide the means to more positive reading experiences.

Indeed, the most comprehensive review of RTD interventions to date (Hall, Gee, and Mills 2016) summarised a number of specific mechanisms potentially underpinning the effectiveness of RTD. These included increases in reading motivation, confidence, attitudes, engagement, skill and decreases in reading anxiety. Furthermore, mood elevation, enjoyment, feelings of calm, improved behaviour and social development were observed. Brelsford et al.’s (2017) review of animal-assisted interventions in the classroom similarly reported that dogs can have a positive impact on children’s reading performance, ability to follow instructions, motor tasks, classroom behaviour, mood, emotional regulation and social functioning. Reilly, Adesope and Erdman’s (2020) meta-analysis into the effects of dogs on learning reported positive learning effects on reading and social, emotional and behavioural (SEB) outcomes, with social outcomes having the largest effects (moderate effect size), followed by emotional/behavioural and reading outcomes, which both had small but significant effects.

Teachers’ views of RTD

A key gap in this research area, to date, is the lack of attention to teachers’ perspectives on RTD. As key stakeholders in the process of introducing and implementing new interventions into the classroom, it is surprising that previous research has neglected to consider teachers’ views on this topic. In fact, teachers’ perspectives are insufficiently sought in intervention development or implementation, although they are sometimes sought in intervention evaluation (Smith 2009; Kirnan, Siminerio, and Wong 2016). While research on reading and SEB outcomes associated with RTD is growing (Brelsford et al. 2017; Hall, Gee, and Mills 2016; Reilly, Adesope, and Erdman 2020), very little research focusing on teachers’ perspectives on the benefits/challenges, or their experiences of RTD interventions has been conducted.

That said, there are some examples of research on teachers’ views about the benefits of animals in classrooms. For example, Rud and Beck (2003) surveyed 431 U.S. teachers over a 3-year period about their reasons for having animals in their classrooms: while 37.4% cited the main reason as ‘enjoyment’, 22.1% cited ‘psychological wellbeing’. In 2010, Daly and Suggs examined 75 Canadian teachers’ views on the advantages of using animals in the classroom, using a survey to capture both quantitative and qualitative insights. They found that most teachers surveyed believed that pets in the classroom had a positive impact on empathy and socio‐emotional development. Hall, Gee and Mills’ (2016) systematic review identified only two studies which sought to gain teachers’ perspectives on the benefits on RTD interventions. Firstly, Smith (2009) interviewed four teachers after an RTD intervention and found that teachers reported increases in children’s motivation for reading. Secondly, in research by Bassette and Taber-Doughty (2013), a teacher was interviewed pre- and post-intervention and reported increases in children’s reading motivation and engagement as a result of RTD. More recently, Kirnan, Siminerio, and Wong (2016) interviewed twelve teachers as part of a mixed method study into RTD and reported similar benefits.

It is crucial to include teachers in discussions about RTD in their classrooms, as this may have both positive and negative implications for their workload and classroom practice (Hizli-Alkan and Priestley 2018). Unlike many other educational interventions, RTD is not typical, as it involves the introduction of a live animal into the classroom, which may pose significant concerns for a teacher. For example, if they have a phobia or are allergic to dogs, it potentially makes the classroom a much more stressful place for the teacher, which may have a direct negative impact on the children in the class (Ramberg et al. 2019). Moreover, additional paperwork could be very time consuming, and not welcomed, particularly if the teacher lacks confidence in the efficacy of RTD.

Furthermore, implementation of and adherence to RTD are more likely if teachers are consulted (Cuban 1988; Day and Smethem 2009; Scanlon, Schumaker, and Deshler 1994). Asking teachers, who are amongst the most invested in children’s learning, the question of whether including animals in schools is effective in helping children to learn (Brelsford et al. 2017) is not only logical, but important to ensure acceptability, feasibility and impact (Scanlon, Schumaker, and Deshler 1994).

Purpose

This study aimed to understand UK teachers’ perspectives of the benefits and challenges associated with RTD, and their experiences of RTD interventions. The study was designed to answer the following research questions:

1. What, and how diverse, are teachers’ perspectives of the benefits and challenges associated with RTD?

2. Do teachers’ years of teaching experience relate to their perspectives of benefits and challenges?

3. Do teachers with different levels of knowledge and/or experience of reading to dogs report different benefits and/or challenges?

4. What qualitative outcomes do teachers report as resulting from RTD?

Methods

Ethical considerations

Ethical approval was granted from the University of Edinburgh, Moray House School of Education Ethics Committee on the 23 January 2020. Personally identifiable information was neither requested nor given; therefore, anonymity of the participants, schools, and locations (with the exception of country) was assured. It was made clear to participants at the start of the questionnaire that no personally identifiable information would be requested, and they were also reminded of this at the end, before they entered ‘finish’. The data collected is stored on the secure university servers, as required by the university’s research data service.

Participants

In total, 253 primary school teachers participated in the study. The sample was gathered through voluntary/self-selecting participation in an open questionnaire-based survey shared through UK online teaching forums. Teachers and support staff (e.g. teaching assistants) working in UK primary schools were invited to participate. The study was actively promoted by the first author (a former primary school teacher) through a range of social media networks across the UK, including Facebook teacher groups such as ‘Primary Teacher’, ‘Scottish Primary Teachers’, ‘Reading for Pleasure in UK primary schools’, and Twitter. In the invitation to participate, it was made clear that teachers did not need to have experience of RTD to complete the questionnaire, and that teachers with positive, negative and neutral perspectives/experiences of RTD were invited to take part. Demographic information was collected from teachers and is presented in Table 1. All teachers were invited to provide additional written comments in response to benefits and challenges associated with RTD; 59 teachers did so.

Table 1. Teacher demographic information

	%	N
Geographical Location
Scotland	56.1%	142
England	38.7%	98
Wales	2.0%	5
Northern Ireland	1.2%	3
Other/did not complete box	2.0%	5
Total	100%	253
Role in School
Primary School Teacher	73.9%	187
Teaching/Learning Assistant	6.3%	16
Head Teacher	5.9%	15
Deputy Head Teacher	2.8%	7
Principal Teacher	4.7%	12
Other	6.3%	16
Total	100%	253
Sex
Female	97.2%	246
Male	2.0%	5
Prefer not to say	0.8%.	2
Total	100%	253
Years of Teaching Experience
NA	3.2%	8
Newly Qualified	5.9%	15
1–5 years	17.4%	44
6–10 years	15.8%	40
11–20 years	32.0%	81
21–30 years	19.8%	50
31–40 years	5.1%	13
40 or more years	0.8%	2
Total	100%	253
Experience of Reading to Dogs
Never heard of RTD	19.0%	48
Heard of RTD but never had in school	51.0%	129
Had RTD in school but not in own class	15.8%	40
Have had RTD in own class	14.2%	36
Total	100%	253

Measures

An online questionnaire was designed to understand teachers’ perspectives of RTD, including benefits to children and challenges with implementation. Before completing the questionnaire, teachers read the following description about RTD, to ensure they had a shared understanding of the concept:

RTD is defined as a child (or group of children) reading to a registered dog selected for this purpose. The rationale behind it is that the dog may be a non-judgemental and comforting listener. RTD in this context refers only to a fully assessed and registered dog, vetted as suitable for work with children in schools and accompanied by a handler.

Participants in the survey were initially asked to provide demographic information (see Table 1) before completing sections on possible benefits and challenges associated with RTD. The section on benefits focused on SEB outcomes (6 statements), informed in part by Brelsford et al.’s (2017) systematic review into classroom interventions involving animals, and included statements relating to emotional wellbeing, social development, mood, behaviour, feelings of calm, and enjoyment. The second part comprised ten statements on reading outcomes, informed by Hall, Gee and Mills’ (2016) systematic review into RTD, and included attitudes, motivation, frequency, confidence, stress, anxiety, self-esteem, engagement, concentration, and skill. Following this, teachers were invited to specify any other advantages if they wished to, using an open text box.

The section on challenges associated with RTD comprised eight statements about matters relating to implementation and/or acceptability, and included parental consultation, paperwork, time in school week, allergies, hygiene, fear of dogs, potential harm to children, potential harm to staff and potential harm to dogs. As before, teachers were then invited to specify any other barriers if they wished, using an open text box. For each statement, participants responded using a 5-point Likert scale: 1 strongly disagree; 2 disagree; 3 neutral; 4 agree; 5 strongly agree. Please see the Appendix part 1 for the full list of questionnaire items. Prior to analysis, some questionnaire items were reverse coded if required (i.e. to ensure that a score of 5 indicated a positive RTD outcome). Composite scores were created for SEB outcomes (6 items, α = .92), affective reading outcomes (8 items, α = .96), and challenges (8 items, α = .88). Reading skill and frequency of reading were retained as separate items, as these are not measures of reading affect and were therefore considered to be distinctly different.

Procedure

The questionnaire was piloted with four teachers to identify any issues undetected by the research team and to check the time taken to complete the questionnaire. In total, the questionnaire took approximately ten minutes to complete and was administered using Jisc Online Surveys. The questionnaire was launched on 7 February 2020 and remained open for 11 weeks, closing on 1 May 2020.

Results

Descriptive statistics are provided in Table 2 for the key constructs. Tables 3 to 5 provide percentages for all the variables. Tables A1 – A3 (Appendix part 2) provide additional detail of responses according to teacher experience of RTD. Table 6 shows correlation results. As the data were not normally distributed, non-parametric tests were carried out. Analysis and results are described in relation to each of the research questions.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for key variables

	No. of items	Mean	SD	Skewness	Kurtosis
Social, emotional, behavioural	6	4.31	.66	−.897	.504
Reading affect	8	4.13	.73	−.744	−.800
Reading frequency	1	3.83	.92	−.197	−.800
Reading skill	1	3.75	.98	−.571	.193
Challenges/barriers	8	2.47	.83	.602	.219

Table 3. Percentage and N of teachers who strongly agreed and agreed with statements about reading outcomes

	Percentage	N (total = 253)
RTD reduces children’s stress during reading.	84.2%	213
RTD reduces children’s anxiety during reading.	83.4%	211
RTD increases children’s motivation towards reading.	82.3%	208
RTD increases children’s reading engagement.	81.8%	207
RTD increases children’s reading self-esteem.	80.3%	203
RTD improves children’s confidence in reading.	77.9%	197
RTD improves children’s attitudes to reading.	74.7%	189
RTD improves children’s concentration during reading.	65.7%	166
RTD increases children’s frequency of reading.	60.9%	154
RTD increases children’s reading skills.	60.9%	154

Table 4. Percentage and N of teachers who strongly agreed and agreed with statements about social, emotional and behavioural outcomes

	Percentage	N (total = 253)
RTD elevates children’s mood.	91.7%	232
Children enjoy RTD.	89.4%	226
RTD supports children’s emotional wellbeing.	88.1%	223
Children feel calm during RTD.	81.0%	205
RTD has a positive impact on children’s behaviour.	78.7%	199
RTD supports children’s social development.	75.1%	190

Table 5. Percentage and N of teachers who strongly agreed and agreed with statements about challenges

	Percentage	N (total = 253)
There is not enough time in the school week to incorporate RTD.	36.0%	91
Additional paperwork such as risk assessments would be too time consuming.	30.8%	78
Harm may come to the dog in school.	25.7%	65
Dogs should not be allowed in school because some children and staff may be frightened of dogs.	20.0%	51
Dogs should not be allowed in school because some children and staff may have allergies.	19.8%	50
Consulting parents would take too long.	17.0%	43
Dogs may harm pupils and staff.	10.7%	27
Dogs are not clean and may spread infection.	9.9%	25

Table 6. Correlations examining relationship between key variables

	1 SEB	2 Affect	3 Frequency	4 Skill	5 Challenges	6 Years teaching experience
1. SEB	–
2.Reading affect	.832**	–
3.Reading frequency	.623**	.767**	–
4. Reading skill	.678**	.782**	.659**	–
5. Challenges	−.592**	−.512**	−.401**	−.410**	–
6. Years of teaching experience	.079	.101	.064	.144*	−.167*	–

** p < .01, * p < .05

RQ1 What, and how diverse, are teachers’ perspectives of the benefits and challenges associated with reading to dogs?

Teachers generally had very positive perspectives of RTD, in terms of benefits to children’s social, emotional, behavioural and reading outcomes. Table 3 shows the percentage of teachers agreeing with reading outcomes (items ranging from 60.9% for reading frequency and skill to 84.2% for a reduction in stress), while Table 4 presents the percentage of teachers agreeing with SEB outcomes (items ranging from 75.1% for social development to 91.7% for elevation of mood). Furthermore, Table 5 shows that only a minority of teachers agreed with barriers to RTD (items ranging from 9.9% for hygiene concerns to 36% agreement for concerns about time in the school week). Tables A1 – A3 (Appendix part 2) show that teachers with experience of RTD are the most positive about the benefits and the least concerned about the challenges.

In a series of one-sample t-tests, when compared against a neutral response (i.e. value of 3), teachers’ reports of RTD on SEB outcomes were statistically higher than neutral, t(252) = 31.52, p < .001, as were their reports for reading affect, t(252) = 24.66, p < .001, reading frequency, t(252), = 14.49, p < .001 and reading skill, t(252) = 12.16, p < .001. Noticeably, however, teachers were more positive about the benefits of reading to dogs on SEB outcomes, followed by reading affect, reading frequency and finally reading skill. In addition, teachers generally disagreed that challenges associated with RTD would pose considerable issues for implementation; t(252) = −10.12, p < .001.

RQ2 Do teachers’ years of teaching experience relate to their perspectives of benefits and challenges?

To examine the strength of the relationship between teachers’ years of teaching experience and perspectives of benefits (SEB, reading affect, frequency, skill) and challenges, a two-tailed Spearman’s rho correlation was carried out (see Table 6). In addition, the strength of relationship between benefits and challenges was also examined.

Overall, teachers’ years of teaching experience were generally unrelated to their perspectives of benefits or challenges of RTD, although teachers with more years of teaching experience were more likely (albeit weakly) to report positive outcomes associated with reading skill and less likely (albeit weakly) to report concerns over challenges. Teachers with positive perspectives of RTD on SEB outcomes were more likely to have positive perspectives of RTD on reading outcomes (affect, frequency and skill). In addition, teachers who reported positive benefits were less likely to report challenges.

RQ3 Do teachers with different levels of knowledge and/or experience of reading to dogs report different benefits and/or challenges?

Differences in perspectives of the benefits and challenges associated with RTD were examined between teachers with different levels of RTD knowledge and experience. For these analyses, different subgroups were compared using independent-sample Mann Whitney U tests. Firstly, comparisons were made between those teachers with the most and least knowledge and experience of RTD: those who had had reading to dogs in their own classroom (n = 36) and those who had never heard of reading to dogs (n = 48). It was found that those with experience of RTD in their classroom reported more positive perspectives of RTD on SEB outcomes (mean rank 55.83) than those with no prior knowledge (mean rank 32.50), U = 1344, p < .001. Furthermore, they reported higher positive reading affect, frequency and skill (mean ranks 54.47, 49.86, 50.86, respectively) than those with no prior knowledge of RTD (mean ranks 33.52, 36.98, 36.32, respectively); reading affect: U = 1295, p < .001, reading frequency: U = 1129, p < .05 and reading skill: U = 1165, p < .005. Finally, those with RTD experience perceived fewer challenges (mean rank 28.56) than those with no prior knowledge (mean rank 52.96); U = 362, p < .001.

Secondly, those who had heard of RTD but never had it in their school (n = 129) versus those who had heard of RTD and had had it in their school (either in school or own classroom) (n = 76) were compared. It was found that teachers who had heard of RTD and had had it in their school or classroom (n = 76) reported more positive perspectives of RTD on SEB outcomes (mean rank = 118.70) than those who had heard of RTD but not had it in their school or classroom (n = 129) (mean rank = 93.75); U = 3709, p < .005. Furthermore, these teachers reported more positive perspectives of RTD on reading affect (mean rank = 114.07 vs 96.48); U = 4060, p < .05 and fewer concerns about challenges (mean rank = 83.57 vs 114.45); U = 6378, p < .001. Notably, the groups did not differ in terms of perceived benefits on reading frequency (mean rank 107.38 vs 100.42); U = 4569, p > 05, or perceived benefits to reading skill (mean rank 107.96 vs 100.08); U = 4525, p > .05. Finally, in additional analyses, no significant differences were found between teachers who had experience of RTD in their school (but not classroom) (n = 40) compared to those who had experience of RTD in their classroom (n = 36) for any variables, p > .05.

Teachers in all ‘experience of RTD’ groups (from ‘no experience’ to ‘experience in their own classrooms’) were positive about the benefits, and relatively unconcerned about the challenges. Tables A1 – A3 (Appendix part 2) show, however, that teachers with experience of RTD, particularly those who had had RTD in their own classrooms, were the most positive about the benefits and least concerned about the challenges.

RQ 4. What qualitative outcomes do teachers report as resulting from RTD?

Teachers were also invited to give written comments to provide qualitative insights into their perspectives, or experiences, of RTD in primary school classrooms, focusing on benefits and challenges. In total, 59 qualitative responses were provided and thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006) was carried out to identify subthemes within the two overarching themes of benefits and challenges. While 25 comments (42%) stipulated benefits, 27 comments (46%) were classed as neutral/factual, or presenting some information about challenges in an informative way, and seven (12%) articulated negative comments. In the paragraphs below, where relevant, some anonymous excerpts from the qualitative responses have been included where appropriate to illuminate key points and contextualise the commentary.

Qualitative insights: Benefits

Thirty-two teachers shared their perspectives of the benefits of RTD. These included some identified in the quantitative items of the questionnaire, but additional benefits were also highlighted. Overall, four distinct subthemes were identified, as detailed in the paragraphs below.

Social, emotional and behavioural outcomes: Twenty-eight comments, which included comments about a diverse range of SEB benefits resulting from RTD, were provided, including comments about increases to self-esteem and empathy, and a reduction in anxiety. For example: ‘the biggest benefits would be self-esteem and the reduction in anxiety when reading’ and ‘it may improve empathy with animals which is a great starting point for building empathy with humans’. Another teacher suggested children were calmer and more relaxed, as RTD led to improvements in the classroom ambiance: ‘definite change in the classroom environment with the dog, much calmer, kinder and more relaxed’. Furthermore, SEB benefits were also reported as extending to school staff and families, as the following quotation indicates:

We initially wanted our dog to be used for reading (one child refused to read to any adults but read to our dog with adults present). However, it soon became clear that our pupils with anxiety, bereavement, ASD or fear of dogs would benefit. We work in small groups now covering all of these issues. Our therapy dog has been life changing for some of our families.

Reading outcomes: Notably fewer teachers mentioned benefits to children’s reading. However, eight teachers commented on the influence of RTD on different aspects of reading, such as attitudes, frequency and general reading development. Examples include ‘building a positive attitude to reading in general, in turn supporting increased frequency in reading and all the benefits that brings’ and ‘a simply human to animal pleasure experience, which happens to also benefit reading development’.

Child-dog interaction: Fifteen teachers also wrote about the additional benefits of having a dog in school, which were not originally included in our RTD questionnaire, but nevertheless were identified by teachers as important. For example, learning to overcome a fear of dogs: ‘I actually think that having dogs in schools could improve dog phobias in children and adults’; ‘Great opportunity to help children and/or overcome a fear of dogs as these dogs are trained and calm’, and ‘it could help children who are scared or anxious around dogs’. The promotion of positive citizenship through learning about dogs and dog welfare was also referred to. For example, comments such as ‘knowing how to handle yourself around a dog and how dogs behave is valuable learning for life’ and ‘need to take the dog for a walk’ suggested opportunities for extended inter-disciplinary learning.

Meeting individual needs: Finally, eight teachers recognised that children’s responsiveness and experience of RTD would vary considerably depending on each child and the circumstances in which RTD was implemented. For example, comments included ‘It depends on the child. Some children hate it and are scared, some like it’, ‘An excellent way to get elective mute or chronically shy children to read aloud’ and suggested the benefits of addressing individual needs through positive sensory experiences: ‘the child gets sensory feedback, by non-verbal communication looking at the dog, plus touch, smell and noise’. On the other hand, the potential value of RTD to support all readers, not just those experiencing difficulties was referred to:

I have seen this in action with reluctant readers and the impact on the children’s fluency, confidence and interest in reading has been extremely positive. I would love to see this resource used with all children, even confident readers to encourage children to read more in general.

Qualitative insights: Challenges

Twenty-seven teachers wrote comments relating to challenges. Again, these included challenges identified in the questionnaire, but additional challenges were also specified. In total, seven distinct subthemes were identified, as set out below.

Fear of dogs: Concern about a fear of dogs negatively impacting children and staff was raised by five teachers, including this comment from a teacher who wrote about their own fear of dogs: ‘when I was younger having a dog in school would have put my anxiety levels through the roof’. This highlights the issue of dog phobias for staff as well as children, and draws attention to how some children might feel about a dog in a classroom.

Paperwork: While the impact of additional paperwork on teachers was included in the questionnaire, one teacher also raised the issue of paperwork for families, and how this may create inequalities in access to RTD: ‘Some parents won’t fill in permission forms so some children may feel excluded’.

Cultural considerations: An important point around inclusion and diversity which was not originally identified in our questionnaire concerned cultural considerations, which three teachers recognised as an issue in schools serving diverse communities, for example: ‘One barrier we have encountered is some families who follow Muslim faith believe dogs are dirty’; and ‘Doesn’t take into account cultural and religious beliefs’.

Shortage of RTD availability: The lack of availability of organisations offering registered dogs, and the resulting brief time children would receive RTD, was specifically referred to by nine teachers, for example, ‘There is a shortage of assessed therapets’ and ‘Not enough dogs and time for many pupils to access’.

Allergies: Teacher views about allergy concerns were included in the original questionnaire but mitigation against them was further referred to by three teachers. One teacher commented as follows:

Allergies … are legitimate concerns, but I assume the risk assessment would take this into consideration and children would not be exposed if it would harm them. Also, areas would need to be cleaned thoroughly afterwards in case of allergies.

Dog welfare: Five teachers expressed the need to consider the dog’s welfare, including the need for proper supervision of children in the dog’s presence. For example, one teacher observed ‘Children should be well supervised for the safety of the dog’; and others commented on the need to consider the dog’s wellbeing and comfort during the school visits.

Short-lived benefits: Finally, three teachers also questioned the extent to which benefits accrued from RTD would be sustained over time. Comments included ‘Initial enthusiasm will wane’ and ‘in an SEBN unit I felt benefits are short lived’.

Overcoming challenges

A number of teachers pointed out challenges but emphasised that these could be overcome and were worth the investment in order to reap the benefits. For example, one headteacher wrote that ‘All these barriers are easily overcome and should not stop a school from considering having RTD’; a teacher with RTD experience observed: ‘There is a great commitment of time and money … but having a dog in school has been such a successful and positive experience, it has been unequivocally worthwhile. However, it must be well planned, and risk assessed’.; another commented that ‘The benefits of RTD substantially outweigh the negative views’.

However, some teachers clearly felt that the challenges were too high. For example, one teacher commented ‘I do not see the need for this’ although no reasons were given. Another was very clear in specifying how they felt about a range of challenges: ‘I have been FORCED to have this reading dog thing in my class. It’s unhygienic having dogs in the class. They cast hairs, dribble and are really disruptive when there are other children in the class. It’s another gimmicky bit of froth’. These diverse perspectives provide useful insights into teachers’ views, and strength of opinions, about RTD interventions. While some negative comments were made, there were generally very few.

Discussion

Despite the increasing popularity of RTD in primary school contexts, to the best of our knowledge this is the first survey of teacher perspectives of RTD, and it provides an original contribution to this field by seeking to understand key stakeholders’ (primary school teachers’) views on the benefits and challenges associated with RTD. The results of this study resonate with the research findings to date concerning the impact of RTD on reading and SEB outcomes (Brelsford et al. 2017; Hall, Gee, and Mills 2016; Reilly, Adesope, and Erdman 2020). Teachers surveyed in this study were generally very positive about the benefits and had relatively few concerns about the challenges associated with implementing RTD; however, there were some exceptions. Although teachers’ years of teaching experience was generally unrelated to perspectives of challenges and benefits, teachers with greater knowledge and experience of RTD were more positive about the benefits of RTD (in particular SEB and reading affect) and less concerned about the challenges than those with less knowledge and experience of RTD.

Benefits

With regard to social, emotional and behavioural benefits, these were generally perceived to be stronger than benefits to different aspects of reading (affect, frequency or skill). Teachers’ perspectives aligned with previous research, which has demonstrated that the presence of a dog in the classroom is associated with improvements in SEB outcomes, in addition to increased positive emotions related to learning (Beetz 2013; Friesen 2010; Hall, Gee, and Mills 2016; Hergovich et al. 2002; Kotrschal and Ortbauer 2003; Wells 2009). Furthermore, more positive interactions with a dog can facilitate more positive interactions between children and their teacher (Beetz 2013) and stronger feelings of social and cognitive confidence (Reilly, Adesope, and Erdman 2020). Reilly, Adesope and Erdman’s (2020) meta-analysis examining the effects of dogs on learning found that the effects were greatest on social outcomes, followed by emotional/behavioural outcomes and finally reading outcomes; Brelsford et al. (2017) similarly found benefits to social and emotional functioning in their systematic review of animal-assisted interventions in the classroom. Related to this, a systematic review examining the impact of companion animals on children’s development (Purewal et al. 2017) found positive effects of having a pet at home, including promoting ‘a sense of feeling good’ (13), positive social behaviour, development of empathy and emotions, and proficiency in educational tasks. Thus, the existing evidence for the impacts of dogs on SEB aligns with the teacher’s perspectives of SEB benefits.

Interestingly, teachers generally felt that benefits to ‘affective’ aspects of reading (e.g. increases in attitude, motivation, confidence and decreases in stress and anxiety) were stronger than benefits to reading frequency or reading skill, which corresponds with much of the literature (see Hall, Gee, and Mills 2016). Hall, Gee, and Mills (2016) concluded that despite concerns about scientific rigour in studies to date, RTD can support children’s reading abilities, by affecting the emotional (e.g. attitudes, confidence, anxiety) and behavioural (e.g. frequency) processes than underpin reading progress. Studies examining a number of these variables simultaneously, for example, Uccheddu et al. (2019) found no improvements in reading skills but significant increases in reading motivation and attitude. Similarly, Wohlfarth et al. (2014) found that reading in the presence of a dog enhanced reading motivation and enjoyment, and reduced anxiety, but did not increase time spent reading; yet some improvements were reported in aspects of reading performance. Indeed, Schretzmayer, Kotrschal, and Beetz (2017) suggested that improvements in reading skill may take longer to manifest, yet similarly found (albeit minor) improvements in reading motivation and concentration among those participating in RTD.

While the questionnaire in this study sought teachers’ perspectives of the benefits to children, many of the benefits attributed to RTD may be a result of changes in the classroom environment (i.e. improved classroom atmosphere). For example, one teacher commented that RTD enhanced classroom ambiance, which aligns with research suggesting that reading in the presence of a dog may have a positive effect on the learning environment (Hall, Gee, and Mills 2016; Hergovich et al. 2002).

Challenges

While some existing literature on RTD refers to challenges such as child allergies and safety (Brelsford et al. 2017), minimal attention is paid to teacher workload and animal welfare. Furthermore, no study, to our knowledge, has specifically sought teachers’ opinions on the challenges. In this study, teachers generally reported quite low levels of concern about the more commonly recognised challenges mentioned above. However, not surprisingly, due to widely acknowledged UK teacher workload and time pressures (Educational Institute of Scotland 2019; Johnson et al. 2005; Walker, Worth, and Van den Brande 2019), when questionnaire items were examined individually, time commitment and paperwork were the greatest concerns. This suggests the importance of addressing these issues as a priority, if RTD is to be implemented successfully in schools.

With regard to the challenges, Brelsford et al. (2017) and Lewis and Grigg (2021) stress the importance of risk assessments and clear protocols for managing issues such as safety around dogs and allergies, as well as animal welfare, and the results seem to suggest teachers not only recognise the importance of these issues but are amenable to such protocols. With such procedures in place, combined with the knowledge that teachers have low concerns about these issues, it seems that these trepidations may not be prohibitive to the implementation of RTD interventions.

Benefits and challenges in relation to teacher experience

In general, teachers’ years of teaching experience were unrelated to their perspectives of the benefits or challenges of RTD, although teachers with more teaching experience were more likely to report expectations of benefits to reading skill and less likely to be concerned about the challenges. Furthermore, those teachers with more experience or knowledge of RTD generally had more positive perspectives of RTD. However, these differences were more notable for SEB outcomes and reading affect. Indeed, no differences in perceived benefits to reading frequency or skill were found among teachers who had heard of RTD, but who differed in terms of their experience of RTD in their school/classroom. Therefore, the perceived benefits of RTD, from teachers who have actually experienced RTD, appear to be for SEB and reading affect outcomes, rather than for reading frequency and skill. Those with greater experience also had fewer concerns about the challenges; that is not to say, though, that they were unaware of them. For example, a number of teachers with RTD experience commented that, while RTD necessitated a great commitment, thus showing awareness of the barriers, they believed the benefits outweighed the challenges and reported the challenges as worth addressing in order to reap the benefits.

In the qualitative insights, many teachers with experience of RTD were very positive about the benefits, with some highlighting the holistic value of RTD, not just for the children but for their families too. This is consistent with Canelo’s (2020) finding that the benefits of RTD can extend beyond the classroom. Other teachers with experience of RTD expressed the view that RTD could be effective with all abilities in a mainstream environment, not just reluctant readers, suggesting the need to examine this in future research, particularly as most studies to date do not accurately specify levels and abilities of participants (Reilly, Adesope, and Erdman 2020), but seem to generally target struggling readers only.

Some teachers with experience of RTD also provided very useful comments about barriers not often considered, including cultural considerations (Berglund 2014). Finally, while most teachers with experience of RTD were positive about the benefits, some expressed negative views. For example, one teacher with RTD in their classroom commented that they had not been given any say in whether or not a dog should be allowed in the classroom. This highlights an ethical issue concerning the imposing of initiatives on teachers, and the need to ensure teachers are consulted (Gu and Day 2007; Scanlon, Schumaker, and Deshler 1994).

Valuing teachers’ perspectives of RTD

To date, very little research has sought to prioritise teachers’ views of RTD; to our knowledge this is the first study, which has gained diverse perspectives on RTD from teachers with varying levels of experience (RTD and teaching experience). We believe it is important that more research is conducted to heed teachers’ voice in interventions that impact their classroom practice. Arguably, given teacher workload (Educational Institute of Scotland 2019; Walker, Worth, and Van den Brande 2019), the willingness with which teachers engaged with this survey, and took the time to add further qualitative comments, shows how strongly the teachers in our sample felt about being heard and sharing their perspectives and experiences of RTD. Certainly, their contribution to this project has allowed us to identify and share important considerations, which are sometimes neglected in RTD research.

Limitations and future research

While this study allows us to gain understanding of UK teachers’ perspectives of RTD, it is important to note that it was started before school disruptions caused by COVID-19, and therefore new barriers will evidently exist as a result of this. That said, RTD is likely to be slowly reintroduced into primary schools when it is appropriate to do so, and this research provides important insights for those teachers considering implementing RTD interventions. Indeed, prior to school lockdowns, RTD was gaining considerably in popularity across the UK. For example, in 2019, Canine Concern Scotland Trust’s (CCST) RTD scheme reported an almost 50% increase in the provision of RTD over the previous year, and reported being unable to fulfil increasing school requests.

A further limitation concerns the extent to which results are representative of the views of UK teachers. While teachers across the UK, either with or without experience of RTD, and positive, negative or neutral perspectives of RTD were invited to participate, there were a higher proportion of female teachers, teachers based in Scotland and teachers with experience of RTD than would be expected. It should also be noted that the sample was also relatively small, and self-selecting; therefore, it cannot provide an accurate reflection of the views and opinions of all UK teachers on this topic. It is likely to be the case, for example, that teachers who were already enthusiastic about or interested in the idea of RTD may have been more likely to participate in the survey in the first place. However, what this exploratory study does provide is an analysis of attitudinal data contextualised by valuable and rich insights, upon which further research could be based. It is also important to acknowledge that the findings are applicable to the UK context and culture, and if the study was replicated internationally findings may vary due to differences in human-animal relationships, teachers’ expectations, and education systems in other cultural contexts.

For the survey, all teachers were provided with the same definition of RTD to ensure they had a shared understanding of the concept. However, it is important to recognise that RTD can take many different forms and different approaches may (or may not) be effective in different contexts. Importantly, some teachers highlighted matters which, in retrospect, would have been useful to investigate, such as perspectives of optimal ways to deliver RTD. For example, there is considerable variation in the way in which RTD can be implemented (i.e. activities, duration, within the classroom or in a separate space) and targeted (e.g. 1–1, small group, whole class, all abilities, less confident/struggling readers, children with social, emotional or behavioural difficulties). Understanding the most effective approaches and conditions under which RTD might be most effective (Gee, Griffin, and McCardle 2017; Nimer and Lundahl 2007) would allow resources to be channelled in the most appropriate way. Building upon the findings of this study, future studies should further explore teachers’ perspectives of RTD identified here, while engaging more nationally and internationally representative samples.

Future research should also seek children’s perspectives, to understand the benefits and concerns they may have about RTD in their classrooms. Not only do children have an ethical right to be listened to in matters that affect them (UN (United Nations) 1989): having a say in their educational environment is integral to their engagement and development (Harris 2009), and to raising their self-esteem, confidence and achievement (Halsey et al. 2006).

Conclusion

The present study sought to prioritise and understand teachers’ perspectives of RTD, in order to gain insights into acceptability of this type of intervention within the community responsible for implementing it. This mixed methods study revealed that the teachers were generally very positive about the benefits of RTD; while they recognised that there were challenges, these were not seen as insurmountable. Furthermore, teachers with experience of RTD in their school/classroom generally recognised more significant benefits to SEB and reading affect outcomes, rather than reading frequency and skill. We argue that more research should focus on learning from teachers’ experiences and seek teachers’ views on educational practices affecting them and their students.

Acknowledgements

This study would not have been possible without the participation of the teachers from around the UK, and the researchers are exceedingly grateful. Special thanks are also due to the four teachers who participated in the pilot study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This study was funded by the University of Edinburgh’s Principal’s Career Development Scholarship.

Appendix

Appendix 1

Reading to Dogs online questionnaire

Teachers were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed to the following statements.

All statements were answered using the following Likert scale: strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree. Statements are presented as ordered in the questionnaire.

RTD supports children’s emotional wellbeing

RTD supports children’s social development

RTD elevates children’s mood.

RTD has a positive impact on children’s behaviour.

Children feel calm during RTD.

Children enjoy RTD.

RTD improves children’s attitudes to reading

RTD increases children’s motivation towards reading

RTD increases children’s frequency of reading

RTD improves children’s confidence in reading

RTD reduces children’s stress during reading

RTD reduces children’s anxiety during reading.

RTD increases reading self-esteem

RTD increases children’s reading engagement

RTD improves children’s concentration during reading.

RTD improves children’s reading skills.

Consulting parents would take too long.

Additional paperwork such as risk assessments would be too time consuming.

There is not enough time in the school week to incorporate RTD.

Because some children and teachers may be allergic to dogs, dogs shouldn’t be allowed in school at all.

Dogs are not clean and may spread infection.

Because some children and teachers may be frightened of dogs, dogs should not be permitted in school at all.

Dogs may harm pupils and staff.

Harm may come to the dog in school.

Table A1. Percentage and N of teachers who strongly agreed and agreed with statements about reading outcomes (total and split by the four categories of experience of reading to dogs)

	Total respondents % and (N)	Respondents split by the four categories of experience of reading to dogs % and (N)
Statement	Respondents who strongly agreed and agreed with the statement Total N = 253	Respondents who had Never heard of RTD who strongly agreed and agreed with the statement Total N = 48	Respondents who had Heard of RTD but never had in school who strongly agreed and agreed with the statement Total N = 129	Respondents who have Had RTD in school but not in own class who strongly agreed and agreed with the statement Total N = 40	Respondents who have Had RTD in own class who strongly agreed and agreed with the statement Total N = 36
1 RTD reduces children’s stress during reading.	84.2% (213)	77% (37)	85% (109)	85% (34)	92% (33)
2 RTD reduces children’s anxiety during reading.	83.4% (211)	75% (36)	84% (108)	85% (34)	92% (33)
3 RTD increases children’s motivation towards reading.	82.3% (208)	71% (34)	84% (108)	85% (34)	89% (32)
4 RTD increases children’s reading engagement.	81.8% (207)	65% (31)	86% (111)	85% (34)	86% (31)
5 RTD increases children’s reading self-esteem.	80.3% (203)	73% (35)	81% (105)	80% (32)	86% (31)
6 RTD improves children’s confidence in reading.	77.9% (197)	69% (33)	79% (102)	78% (31)	86% (31)
7 RTD improves children’s attitudes to reading.	74.7% (189)	60% (29)	76% (100)	75% (30)	83% (30)
8 RTD improves children’s concentration during reading.	65.7% (166)	44% (21)	66% (85)	75% (30)	83% (30)
9 RTD increases children’s frequency of reading.	60.9% (154)	48% (23)	64% (83)	55% (22)	72% (26)
10 RTD increases children’s reading skills.	60.9% (154)	50% (24)	63% (81)	58% (23)	72% (26)

Table A2. Percentage and N of teachers who strongly agreed and agreed with statements about social, emotional and behavioural outcomes (total and split by the four categories of experience of reading to dogs)

	Total respondents % and (N)	Respondents split by the four categories of experience of reading to dogs % and (N)
Statement	Respondents who strongly agreed and agreed with the statement Total N = 253	Respondents who had Never heard of RTD who strongly agreed and agreed with the statement Total N = 48	Respondents who had Heard of RTD but never had in school who strongly agreed and agreed with the statement Total N = 129	Respondents who have Had RTD in school but not in own class who strongly agreed and agreed with the statement Total N = 40	Respondents who have Had RTD in own class who strongly agreed and agreed with the statement Total N = 36
1 RTD elevates children’s mood.	91.7% (232)	92% (44)	90% (116)	93% (37)	97% (35)
2 Children enjoy RTD.	89.3% (226)	79% (38)	89% (115)	95% (38)	94% (34)
3 RTD supports children’s emotional wellbeing.	88.1% (223)	79% (38)	90% (116)	90% (36)	92% (33)
4 Children feel calm during RTD.	81.0% (205)	71% (34)	81% (104)	88% (35)	89% (32)
5 RTD has a positive impact on children’s behaviour.	78.7% (199)	69% (33)	79% (102)	80% (32)	86% (31)
6 RTD supports children’s social development.	75.1% (190)	63% (30)	77% (99)	80% (32)	81% (29)

Appendix 2

Table A3. Percentage and N of teachers who strongly agreed and agreed with statements about challenges (total and split by the four categories of experience of reading to dogs)

	Total respondents% and (N)	Respondents split by the four categories of experience of reading to dogs % and (N)
Statement	Respondents who strongly agreed and agreed with the statement Total N = 253	Respondents who had Never heard of RTD who strongly agreed and agreed with the statement Total N = 48	Respondents who had Heard of RTD but never had in school who strongly agreed and agreed with the statement Total N = 129	Respondents who have Had RTD in school but not in own class who strongly agreed and agreed with the statement Total N = 40	Respondents who Have had RTD in own class who strongly agreed and agreed with the statement Total N = 36
1 There is not enough time in the school week to incorporate RTD.	36.0% (91)	48% (23)	38% (49)	25% (10)	25% (9)
2 Additional paperwork such as risk assessments would be too time consuming.	30.8% (78)	46% (22)	32% (41)	20% (8)	19% (7)
3 Harm may come to the dog in school.	25.7% (65)	38% (18)	28% (36)	18% (7)	11% (4)
4 Dogs should not be allowed in school because some children and staff may be frightened of dogs.	20.0% (51)	31% (15)	22% (28)	15% (6)	6% (2)
5 Dogs should not be allowed in school because some children and staff may have allergies.	19.8% (50)	29% (14)	20% (26)	13% (5)	14% (5)
6 Consulting parents would take too long.	17.0% (43)	21% (10)	17% (22)	18% (7)	11% (4)
7 Dogs may harm pupils and staff.	10.7% (27)	21% (10)	9% (11)	5% (2)	11% (4)
8 Dogs are not clean and may spread infection.	9.9% (25)	19% (9)	8% (10)	8% (3)	8% (3)