The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Humane education, which focuses on the cultivation of kindness and empathy towards animals, the environment, and fellow humans, helps children to be less egocentric and more sensitive to the human–animal interaction in ecology.
This study aimed to evaluate an animal-assisted, school-based humane education programme that promotes a humane attitude and enhances social–emotional competence for children in Hong Kong.
A sequential mixed-methods formative evaluation was adopted in the pilot year of the programme. A controlled trial and focus groups were conducted to evaluate the preliminary outcomes and process of the programme and to identify the implementation obstacles and effective strategies. One hundred and ten primary three students from two primary schools participated in the study (55 in the intervention group and 55 in the control group with ordinary formal school extra-curricular activities). Paired sample t tests and a mixed ANOVA were conducted to explore the changes in students’ social–emotional competence in our programme and two typical extra-curricular school programmes. Thematic analysis was conducted to categorise the transcriptions from the focus groups.
Quantitative findings indicated that class-based, animal-assisted humane education increased cognitive competence (t[
The preliminary results of this pilot study indicate positive effects of the programme. Vigorous systematic formative evaluation on the process and effective implementation should be included in future follow-up studies to ensure its sustainability and fidelity.
Humans dominated the biosphere through urbanisation, industrialization, and globalisation in the last century [
The One Health concept is a complex ideology incorporating ecology, evolution, environmentalism, medicine, and social sciences that translates into approaches for innovative and effective control of both infectious and multifactorial non-communicable diseases. Actualising this complex concept has many challenges [
A substantial body of research has demonstrated that young children tend to have anthropocentric attitudes and reasonings more often than their older counterparts [
A meta-analysis study of 213 SEL programmes found that SEL could significantly improve social behaviours, promote positive interpersonal and intrapersonal attitudes, lower distress level, reduce conduct problems, and enhance academic performance [
This paper describes the findings of a mixed-methods evaluation research study on the Competence in Active Resilience for Kids (CARing Kids) humane education with animal-assisted SEL implemented in primary schools in Hong Kong during its pilot year. The pilot year findings will inform the implementation and the sustainability phases of this three-phase programme. The pilot phase (
The six-session CARing Kids programme was developed by a multidisciplinary team comprising academia, psychologists, and social workers; two team members received training from Pet Partners, and one is an animal-assisted therapist. Most SEL programme developers suggest that an instructionally sound and developmentally focused SEL curriculum should include elements of emotional education, cognitive restructuring, interpersonal problem-solving, social skills training, empathy training, problem-solving, stress reduction and relaxation, and behavioural change [
In our programme, the SEL framework was chosen as the theoretical foundation of the CARing Kids (
Although SEL, humane education and the CARing Kids programme share similar components, there are fundamental differences in terms of their learning objectives, programme emphasis, and implementation settings. In terms of learning objective, SEL has a broad spectrum of intended learning outcomes ranging from self-awareness to community involvement, whereas humane education particularly focuses on humane attitude, defined as ‘kindness and compassion to environment, animals and fellows’ [
In terms of implementation in Hong Kong, SEL is often taught by professionals such as teachers, social workers, and school counsellors. However, humane education programmes in Hong Kong are generally not funded by the government and are mostly delivered by workers at animal shelters or animal welfare agencies as auxiliary work. These differences between settings impacted the design of the curriculum. For example, SEL can be delivered at schools as a semester-long curriculum while humane education is often a one-time seminar. Since the duration of humane education is generally short and mostly without any opportunity to interact with animals on site, participants might obtain hard facts on animal rights and welfare without the chance to gain insight through experiential learning and personal reflections. The CARing Kids programme incorporates an animal assisted education component in six sessions that aim to provide experiential learning on humane attitude, SEL competencies and establishing a more meaningful bond with the reading canines. Further, the CARing Kids’ curriculum design builds on the crucial learning elements of both SEL and humane education while ensuing the feasibility of implementation in school settings in Hong Kong. It is different from traditional SEL and humane education in terms of the spectrum of intended learning outcomes, implementation setting, and delivery methods.
Picture books are commonly used in child education as they can help children visualise the stories. ‘Stories’ are compelling in humane education because they are compatible with addressing moral issues, provide context, create visual imagery, induce empathy, and inspire moral action [
The CARing Kids curriculum is designed for grades 2 and 3 students to support the development of their SEL competence. Topics include environmental literacy, social emotional competence, cognitive competence, empathy, and interpersonal problem-solving. Each session includes five major parts: introduction, learning games, reading to canines, story discussion and conclusion. In each session, students read a picture book in the company of a reading canine followed discussion of the story. Each picture book carries a theme that corresponds to the theme of the session. Canine-companion reading is a core activity of the CARing Kids programme because we want to promote reading interest among Hong Kong students and provide opportunities for children to interact with a reading canine. Canine-companion reading helps to achieve the primary objective of the CARing Kids and enables participants to build up empathy and kindness through direct interaction with service canines. The topics and session objectives are listed in
School 1 | School 2 | |
---|---|---|
Participant recruitment | Random (class) | Teacher assigned (individual) |
Grade | 3 | 3 |
Intervention group | CARing Kids (class recruited) | CARing Kids (individually recruited) |
Control group (TAU) | Life education | Elite talent training |
Number of reading canines in each session | 3 | 3 |
Time of each session | 75 minutes | 75 minutes |
Number of participants in CARing Kids | 25 | 30 |
Number of participants in control group | 25 | 30 |
The CARing Kids programme obtained ethical approval from the Committee on the Use of Live Animals in Teaching and Research of the University of Hong Kong (CULATR 4838–18) and the Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of Hong Kong (EA1808020). The principals of the two participating schools were approached through the principal investigator’s social network because these two schools were willing to trial innovative teaching ideologies or pedagogies to enhance students’ learning and well-being. The research team approached the two principals and site visited the schools in July 2018, three months prior to programme implementation. The site visits aimed to understand the background of the school, characteristics of students, the socio-economic standard of the nearby neighbourhood, and each school’s physical facilities to customise the feasible implementation plan. The research team presented the purpose of this programme, implementation procedures, and evaluation plan to the principals. After discussion with the two principals, two assignment methods were required to recruit students in the intervention group and the control group differently due to the different teaching arrangements and extra-curricular policies of the two schools.
Therefore, we adopted two different participant recruitment processes for the pilot study. School 1 participants were recruited using a class as a unit (i.e., invitations were sent to all students in one class). The intervention class participated in the CARing Kids curriculum, while the control class attended the ordinary school life education programme.
School 2 students were recruited at an individual level. The teachers at School 2 assigned one extra-curricular activity (e.g., sports, acrobatics, choir, scouting, dancing) to some students based on their interests and talents. This is called the ‘Elite Talent Training programme’ and acted as an active control. The Elite Talent Training programme is a routine school programme developed and implemented by School 2 during the weekly extra-curriculum lesson. The teachers select the students to learn a particular skill throughout the academic year, and some of them would represent the school to participate in various school competitions. The elite talent programme aims to enhance the students’ self-confidence by providing them opportunities to express their talents through participating in intra- and interschool competitions. The intervention group of 30 students was randomly selected from those who did not join the Elite Talent Training programme. Another 30 students in the Elite Talent Training programme were randomly selected and recruited as an active control and attended the usual extra-curricular activities led by the school teachers. For the CARing Kids intervention group, the instructor is a registered counselling psychologist who specialises in child education and animal-assisted intervention.
Formative mixed-methods evaluation was adopted to evaluate the impacts of the CARing Kids using a case-controlled trial methodology. Participants and their parents were invited to complete the questionnaires at three time points: before the programme commenced (T1), one week after the programme (T2), and four weeks after the programme (T3). The research team prepared the data collection instruction scripts for the participating schools to ensure data quality. The school teachers read the script to instruct the participants to complete the questionnaire, and they read each item of the questionnaire in class to ensure the participants understood the meaning of the items. In addition, a research staff member monitored and assisted the entire data collection process.
Several focus groups with students, parents, and teachers were conducted at the end of the programme to review the impacts and the implementation obstacles in the school and community contexts. Purposive sampling was used to identify information-rich participants from diverse backgrounds. Participants were invited based on their verbal comprehension ability and involvement in the CARing Kids programme to ensure the quality and richness of the information. The school teacher initially explained the purpose of the study to the participants and their parents via phone invitation. A consent form and the details of this study were then clearly explained by the two experienced research staff before the focus groups began.
To examine the potential theory of pathway changes from the implementation of the curriculum to the changes in outcomes, we developed a conceptual framework that illustrates how the inner and outer contextual factors led to short-term and long-term outcome changes through the thoughtful implementation and education strategies of several essential components of the curriculum (
The parent questionnaire aimed to capture the parents’ observations of the potential changes in their children’s social and emotional competence. Hence, parents were also invited to fill in the questionnaires. The questionnaires were delivered through the school: the student participants received a parent questionnaire after completion of the student questionnaire in T1, T2, and T3. Students delivered the parent questionnaire to their parents and returned it to the class teacher upon completion. The research team collected the parent questionnaires from the class teacher within one week; delayed submissions were not processed in the data analysis. The parent questionnaire included the subscale of parental closeness from the parent–child relationship scale short form (PCR-SF) to evaluate the parent–child relationship [
Student, teacher, and parent focus groups were conducted to explore the process of SEL development and outer context implementation obstacles of the CARing Kids. The focus groups aimed to triangulate the quantitative results and explore the outer contextual factors that hinder the implementation process. The interview guide was drafted based on the proposed model to explore the impacts and the potential factors that affect the outcomes of the CARing Kids. The guide was then refined by the multidisciplinary research team to ensure validity. The student groups focused on the learning experience, self-perceived impact of the change of SEL outcomes, and school atmosphere; the parent groups focused on parental observations of participants’ behaviour and family dynamics; and the teacher groups focused on the reported changes in students’ learning, social–emotional behaviour, and implementation obstacles of the CARing Kids. Two research staff experienced in interviewing conducted the focus groups at the participating schools in December 2018, four weeks after the intervention was completed.
For quantitative data obtained in questionnaires, paired sample
The qualitative data obtained in the focus groups were analysed by thematic analysis. First, we identified the semantic codes from the transcripts through the iterative process until all the content was accurately coded. During this process, the coder discussed the coding with the research team and the interviewers to develop a deeper understanding of participants’ perceived learning experience, refine the coding process, and identify the interpretive codes that describe the underlying meaning of the data. Second, we compared codes from different focus groups to find recurrent codes and patterns. Third, by identifying the recurrent semantic codes and interpretative codes, we generated a list of themes and subthemes. To be categorised as a theme, supporting codes had to appear in the focus group from at least two parties of both schools. Fourth, the themes and full transcripts of all focus groups were reviewed and discussed by the multidisciplinary research team and interviewer upon achieving agreement on the final listed themes.
The CARing Kids curriculum was implemented between October 2018 and January 2019. The pilot study involved 110 student participants from two primary schools. Participants in both schools shared a similar socio-economic background. Around half of the participants were male (51.82%), and most students were non-companion animal owners (87.27%). Most participating parents were mothers (70.00%) and completed junior secondary school (45.46%). The monthly household income ranged from HKD 10,000 to 39,999 (63.63%). The return rate of student questionnaires in T1, T2, and T3 was 100%, 99%, and 100%, respectively. For the parent questionnaires, the return rate in T1, T2, and T3 was 100%, 99%, and 89%, respectively. No missing values were obtained on the returned questionnaires. The dropout rate in parent questionnaires in T3 was not statistically significant different among the different interventions (χ2 = .04, df = 3, p = .50). Pearson chi-square test results indicated no significant statistical difference in terms of participants’ gender (χ2 = 4.95, df = 3, p = .18), parent gender (χ2 = .64, df = 3, p = .88), parent education level (χ2 = 11.50, df = 12, p = .49), household income (χ2 = 9.68, df = 12, p = .64), or companion-animal ownership (χ2 = 1.66, df = 3, p = .65) among the different interventions.
T1 | T2 | T3 | T1 | T2 | T3 | T1 | T2 | T3 | T1 | T2 | T3 | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | |
Prosocial | 19.60 | 3.94 | 19.28 | 3.57 | 19.88 | 3.61 | 18.40 | 5.12 | 20.12 | 4.34 | 19.6 | 3.52 | 18.03 | 4.07 | 19.40 | 3.82 | 18.70 | 4.50 | 17.93 | 3.40 | 19.66 | 4.2 | 19.3 | 5.07 |
Cognitive Competence | 20.56 | 6.87 | 21.84 | 4.68 | 23.04 | 3.7 | 21.48 | 5.28 | 20.76 | 5.85 | 21.2 | 5.51 | 22.63 | 3.41 | 20.90 | 4.97 | 22.07 | 4.82 | 21.2 | 4.21 | 21.9 | 5.05 | 22.23 | 4.86 |
Empathy | 12.16 | 3.39 | 13.60 | 3.57 | 13.64 | 3.39 | 12.24 | 3.11 | 13.24 | 3.73 | 13.08 | 3.63 | 14.90 | 3.33 | 13.07 | 3.46 | 13.50 | 3.33 | 12.60 | 3.87 | 14.34 | 3.69 | 13.50 | 4.58 |
Emotional Problem | 11.12 | 2.80 | 10.92 | 2.81 | 11.32 | 2.75 | 12.60 | 3.83 | 13.20 | 3.38 | 11.64 | 3.26 | 11.87 | 3.85 | 11.73 | 4.49 | 11.07 | 3.38 | 11.00 | 3.97 | 10.33 | 3.54 | 10.89 | 3.28 |
Hyperactivity | 14.64 | 3.93 | 12.67 | 3.36 | 12.79 | 3.74 | 15.16 | 3.99 | 15.24 | 3.11 | 15.64 | 3.58 | 15.20 | 4.51 | 14.13 | 4.49 | 14.21 | 3.81 | 15.13 | 4.06 | 14.27 | 3.81 | 14.79 | 3.63 |
Closeness | 27.28 | 4.61 | 27.92 | 3.87 | 28.79 | 3.91 | 27.44 | 3.88 | 27.16 | 3.12 | 27.18 | 3.20 | 26.9 | 4.03 | 27.63 | 3.91 | 27.38 | 4.07 | 28.43 | 3.23 | 27.30 | 4.15 | 27.11 | 3.53 |
Short term | Long term | Short term | Long term | Short term | Long term | Short term | Long term | |||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
T2- T1 | T3- T1 | T2- T1 | T3- T1 | T2- T1 | T3- T1 | T2- T1 | T3- T1 | |||||||||||||||||
t | p | d | t | p | d | t | p | d | t | p | d | t | p | d | t | p | d | t | p | d | t | p | d | |
Prosocial | -.41 | .69 | -0.08 | .32 | .75 | 0.06 | 1.55 | .14 | 0.31 | 1.27 | .22 | 0.25 | 1.61 | .12 | 0.29 | .71 | .48 | 0.13 | 1.53 | .14 | 0.28 | |||
Cognitive Competence | 1.09 | .29 | 0.22 | -.50 | .62 | -0.10 | -.25 | .81 | -0.05 | -1.87 | .07 | -0.34 | -.75 | .46 | -0.14 | .26 | .80 | 0.05 | 1.38 | .18 | 0.25 | |||
Empathy | 1.85 | .08 | 0.37 | .90 | .38 | 0.18 | -1.90 | .07 | -0.35 | -1.82 | .08 | -0.33 | 1.86 | .07 | 0.35 | 1.59 | .12 | 0.29 | ||||||
Emotional problem | -.41 | .69 | -0.08 | .36 | .72 | 0.08 | -.80 | .43 | -0.16 | -1.44 | .16 | -0.31 | -1.08 | .29 | -0.20 | -.79 | .44 | -0.15 | -.22 | .83 | -0.04 | .25 | .80 | 0.05 |
Hyperactivity | -1.01 | .33 | -0.23 | .14 | .89 | 0.03 | .73 | .47 | 0.16 | -1.80 | .08 | -0.33 | -1.17 | .25 | -0.22 | -1.55 | .13 | -0.28 | -.31 | .76 | -0.06 | |||
Closeness | .67 | .51 | 0.14 | .99 | .33 | 0.23 | -.44 | .66 | -0.09 | -.19 | .85 | -0.04 | 1.27 | .21 | 0.23 | 1.20 | .24 | 0.22 | -1.52 | .14 | -0.28 | . |
* < .05.
To explore the moderation effect on the recruitment strategies, a mixed ANOVA was conducted.
F | p | F | p | F | p | F | p | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Prosocial | 0.90 | 0.41 | 0.35 | 0.70 | 0.79 | 0.46 | ||
Cognitive competence | 1.74 | 0.18 | 0.20 | 0.79 | 0.56 | 0.55 | ||
Empathy | 1.58 | 0.21 | 2.29 | 0.10 | 1.66 | 0.19 | ||
Emotional problem | 0.40 | 0.67 | 0.10 | 0.91 | 0.30 | 0.74 | 2.68 | 0.07 |
Hyperactivity | 2.65 | 0.73 | 1.00 | 0.37 | 0.34 | 0.71 | 0.48 | 0.62 |
Closeness | 0.07 | 0.93 | 2.51 | 0.08 | 0.70 | 0.50 | 0.43 | 0.65 |
* < .05.
In a comparison of the different trends in empathy and cognitive development between individually recruited and class-recruited CARing Kids groups, a decreased level of empathy and cognitive competence in T2 only appears in the individually recruited CARing Kids group. Nonetheless, the scores rebound at T3 (
Comparison of the mean scores of socio-emotional competences among different interventions in different time points (a and b).
In this quasi-experimental setting, the moderation variable–participant recruitment strategies–could potentially overlap with school factors. With regard to the similar student background and regional characteristic of the two schools in this study, we assumed that the sources of the major moderation effect that impacted the outcomes were the different participant recruitment and programme implementation methods (i.e., class-based recruitment vs individual-based recruitment). The participants recruited individually took part in the CARing Kids with unfamiliar schoolmates, resulting in the delayed impact of SEL outcomes.
In summary, the findings of the paired-sample t test and mixed ANOVA indicate that school factors (recruitment strategies, in this case) play an important role in moderating the intervention effect on cognitive competence and empathy development. The evidence indicates that the CARing Kids works best for promoting SEL competence if implemented at a class-based level.
Eight students, seven teachers, and eight parents were interviewed in six semi-structured focus groups. All the interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed using MAXQDA 2020. Three major themes of the effects of the CARing Kids were identified: enhancement of self-control, advancement of a humane attitude, and improvement of reading skills.
All parties reported enhancement of students’ self-control in three areas: (a) increased self-disciplinary behaviour during the CARing Kids lessons; (b) reduced aggressive behaviour in school and home settings; and (c) improved anger management when faced with problems.
Teachers from both schools reported that student participants appeared to be more ‘manageable’ in the CARing Kids lesson. Teachers stated that this phenomenon is related to their motivation to interact with the canines. The following dialogue outlines the teachers’ observations in CARing Kids.
This phenomenon was also reported in student and parent focus groups. The teachers stated that even though participants felt excited in the lesson, they were more capable of containing their excitement and behaved more appropriately in the CARing Kid lesson.
Participants in CARing Kids in both schools reported a reduction of physical aggressiveness such as fighting and bullying in daily schooling. The following focus group members’ dialogue describes the situation.
The parent focus group revealed that students acquired better anger management skills. It appeared that the noticeable improvement related to the acquisition of new problem-solving skills and interpersonal conflict resolution induced by positive human–animal interaction. The excerpt below describes what one of the members of the parent focus group observed.
The participants’ class teachers also reported improvement in emotional stability during the CARing Kids lessons. Even the most hot-tempered participants did not argue with peers during the lessons.
All the focus groups reported the students acquired a more humane attitude through the programme. Students developed a positive perception of canines, which was observed in their human–canine interactions. Teachers also stated that most students changed their negative stereotype towards canines. Moreover, several parents reported that their children would initiate the conversation related to the CARing Kids curriculum (i.e., responsible animal ownership, the contribution of a service animal) with family members and that the humane attitude was transferred to the family. Some parents pointed out that their children teach them how to use the techniques learned in the CARing Kids curriculum to overcome the fear of canines. For example:
Occasionally, participants reported that their perception of the animal community changed after joining the CARing Kids programme. They often developed a sense of sympathy towards the animal community, as shown below.
The focus groups revealed that canine companion reading could enhance participants’ reading motivation and attitude. The teachers stated that participants had stronger reading motivation in the CARing Kids compared with other lessons. Interacting with canines appeared to be a powerful reinforcer of the development of reading habits. The results reveal that a small group reading setting appeared to be effective in promoting a positive reading attitude and social skills. The transcripts below illustrate teachers’ observations.
The parent focus group members indicated that participants’ reading motivation is sustainable. Positive companion reading experience seems beneficial to the parent–child relationship.
Empirical evidence obtained in the focus groups supports and extends the findings of the quantitative analysis, shedding light on the development of social–emotional competence and the factors that facilitate the process. The quality of positive human–animal interaction appears to be a crucial factor in this setting. As described in the focus groups, the participants’ positive experience interacting with the service canines could provide insight into their interpersonal style, resulting in new coping strategies to handle interpersonal conflicts.
Members of the teacher focus group described several outer contextual implementation obstacles that threaten the efficacy and the feasibility of the CARing Kids. Referring to the conceptual model of the CARing Kids, teachers’ descriptions were related to the education policy and community culture factors.
Both parents and teachers commented that the six sessions of the CARing Kids intervention appeared short and the participants were unable to attain substantial improvement. Some parents stated that they hoped this intervention could be conducted throughout a whole academic year. However, the teachers noted that the school might not have the capacity to conduct a year-long extra-curricular programme because of the packed school schedule.
Positive human–animal interaction experience appears to be essential for the development of social–emotional competence in the CARing Kids. However, the number of dog owners in Hong Kong is far below international counterparts, and this phenomenon would increase the implementation difficulties. The number of participants in each class was around 30. The human-to-canine ratio resulted in limited interaction time between participants and service animals.
Global themes | Organised themes | Codes |
---|---|---|
Effect of the CARing Kids | Enhancement of self-control | Self-disciplinary behaviours |
Reduced aggression | ||
Anger management | ||
Advancement of humane attitude | Responsible companion animal ownership | |
Perception of community animal | ||
Empathy of animal | ||
Improvement of reading skills | Reading confidence | |
Reading motivation | ||
Outer context implementation obstacle | Education policy | School schedule |
Diverse student needs | ||
Community culture | Dog-ownership | |
Neighbourhood animal friendliness |
It is understood that the main concern of the One Health concept is health [
The current results echo previous literature on animal assisted education in the education setting, indicating that students tend to have a higher level of learning motivation with the presence of animals in the classrooms [
The data indicates that the CARing Kids could promote students’ self-control and facilitate a positive learning atmosphere. People with high self-control experience more positive emotions, life satisfaction, and happiness [
One of the main purposes of this pilot study was to identify the implementation obstacles and corresponding strategies for this new format of animal-assisted humane education in Hong Kong. The formative mixed-methods evaluation revealed several core contextual obstacles that would affect the effectiveness of the programme implementation. One of the findings revealed in the quantitative evaluation is that intersectionality between school and intervention could affect the process of empathy and cognitive development. For example, School 1, which adopted class-based implementation for the CARing Kids, tends to yield more positive results when compared to the individual-based recruitment in School 2.
The critical component to enhance the efficacy of the programme is the creation of a prosocial and empathetic atmosphere in classrooms. SEL encompasses the promotion of a positive classroom and the building of a safe and caring school environment that encourages students’ learning. Hence, SEL concerns not only individuals’ social and emotional development but also the social and emotional climate of classrooms and schools. Based on the proposed model, programme effectiveness would be affected by inner contextual factors such as the classroom and school characteristics.
The effect of the inner contextual factor could override the intrapersonal factor at a significant level in the education programme. For School 1, which recruited the participants at the class level, all the participants shared the same learning experience. Synchronicity in learning facilitates a positive learning atmosphere and helps to establish a prosocial classroom culture. As the classroom is an important social context for primary students, participants in School 1 could find it easier to apply the learned social–emotional skills to handle interpersonal issues. The reciprocal prosocial interaction among classmates reinforces participants’ willingness to practice the acquired social skills and eventually attain better SEL outcomes.
Moreover, this study revealed the importance of contextual factors, such as school policy and community culture, on prosocial behaviour development. However, these factors are often ignored in an experimental research setting. The CARing Kids programme systematically increased the involvement of the frontline practitioners (i.e., teachers, animal-assisted service providers) in the research process and development of the teaching materials to ensure practicability. Effective implementation of animal-assisted education requires the appropriate protocols; careful planning between the handlers, principals, and school staff; and reflective practice [
It is noteworthy that the CARing Kids holds both animal welfare and students’ learning outcomes at the same level of importance. It is of concern that there is an increasing number of studies focusing on the impact of animal-assisted education, yet only a few mentioned the importance of animal welfare and the implementation strategies to preserve the animals’ rights [
Promoting evidence-based practice in the community is challenging and requires a long period of investment. For this pilot study, we attempted to accomplish this task in three years. Additional effort in risk assessment, practical support, and quality monitoring was made to facilitate the research and implementation process. Nonetheless, developing an evidence-based intervention protocol and promoting the evidence-based practice of animal-assisted humane education require additional effort. The three recommendations below will be addressed in the upcoming phase of the research.
This study provides a preliminary result from the CARing Kids programme. However, the data obtained to date focus on the SEL outcomes. In terms of human-animal bonding, the intermediate variables were not robustly monitored during this study because of the contextual constraints. Even though the participants revealed the potential impact of the human–animal bonding in the focus groups, the objective evaluation shall be included in future study phases to justify the impact of the human–animal bonding in developing SEL and humane attitude in the CARing Kids programme.
Although this study revealed positive development of SEL competence among participants, the mechanism remains uncertain. How individual- and systematic-level factors such as school support, teaching styles, and community factors could interplay and impact the effectiveness and implementation efficacy of animal-assisted education will be explored in a future study. This will consist of an in-depth case study of the participants and will be conducted in the implementation phase to document the process of changes and the underlying mechanism.
Both schools in this pilot study were located in a district with similar socio-economic status and population composition. The background of the school could impact the effectiveness of implementation. Therefore, multi-sited intervention research will be conducted in the implementation phase. The impact of organisational characteristics, including the climate and leadership, which play an essential role in the effective implementation and sustainability of the CARing Kids, will be evaluated in the sustainability phase.
This study obtained preliminary evidence on the impact of the newly developed animal assisted humane education programme. The findings indicate that our programme could be able to facilitate the development of SEL and humane attitude. We believe that humane attitude is crucial for the students to assimilate the concept of ‘One Health’ in later life. One of the purposes of introducing the ‘One Health’ concept to students is to tackle the problems associated with the negative impacts of over-urbanisation. The rate of urbanisation in the last two decades has been rapid, and we are now witnessing human-manufactured change at an unprecedented rate in human history [
Since the natural environment is as central to human history as social behaviour itself, we cannot underestimate the impact of ‘nature alienation’ on human well-being [
The development of the CARing Kids programme aims to compensate for the shortcomings of the current education system, including an over–emphasis on academic achievement and an underestimation of the importance of social–emotional competence and concern for environmental sustainability in Hong Kong. One Health is the solution to ensure sustainable environmental and human health under the inevitable global urbanisation trend. We believe that humane education in childhood is a foundation for developing the One Health mindset. However, traditional humane education is not a priority for primary schools in Hong Kong.
While it appears that implementing traditional humane education in primary schools is challenging, the CARing Kids uses an innovative approach to promote humane attitude and SEL outcomes. The CARing Kids has created a first-person human–animal interaction experience to cultivate a humane attitude in students. We also collect stories from the local community and create reading materials to ensure the students apply their social-emotional competencies in real life. This study’s preliminary results indicate that it is feasible and that there are benefits in implementing this new form of humane education in a formal school setting.
Further, the CARing Kids programme is a research-driven programme to facilitate the evidence-based practice of animal-assisted humane education in a formal school setting. Series of formative evaluation research will be conducted to inform the programme implementor of the most effective, efficient, and sustainable way to deliver the CARing Kids curriculum. Additional interdisciplinary efforts are required when introducing and sustaining any new form of education programme in an existing education system. The inner and outer contextual factors (e.g., teachers’ pedagogical skills, government policy, community culture) will impact the effectiveness of the implementation of this newly developed animal-assisted humane programme. Even though contextual disadvantages are inevitable, the cooperation of multidisciplinary professionals (i.e., researchers, teachers, and handlers) can compensate for the contextual disadvantages. This pilot study’s preliminary result indicates that the CARing Kids programme has a positive impact on enhancing participants’ empathy, self-control, emotional regulation, and humane attitude. More importantly, this study provides strong evidence that the CARing Kids curriculum is as effective as the mainstream social–emotional intervention in primary schools if implemented with the appropriate strategy and animal friendly and humane educators and advocators.
(TIF)
(PDF)
(SAV)
PONE-D-20-25086
Effectiveness of a school-based programme for promotion of social and emotional learning of an animal-assisted humane education in Hong Kong: A quasi-experimental pilot study
PLOS ONE
Dear Dr. Ngai,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.
I feel your manuscript is almost accepted, but you should introduce the improvements highlighted by Reviewer #1.
Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 14 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at
Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.
If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see:
We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.
Kind regards,
Juan-Carlos Pérez-González, Ph.D.
Academic Editor
PLOS ONE
Journal Requirements:
When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.
1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at
2. Please provide additional information about your teaching intervention, such as detailed curriculum, description of texts or methods used, or supporting educational material (such as the story books) that would allow others to replicate your study. If materials, methods, and protocols are well established, authors may cite articles where those protocols are described in detail, but the submission should include sufficient information to be understood independent of these references (
3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see
In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:
a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.
b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see
We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.
4. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.
[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer's Responses to Questions
1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?
The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.
Reviewer #1: Partly
Reviewer #2: Yes
**********
2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?
Reviewer #1: Yes
Reviewer #2: Yes
**********
3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?
The
Reviewer #1: No
Reviewer #2: Yes
**********
4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?
PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.
Reviewer #1: Yes
Reviewer #2: Yes
**********
5. Review Comments to the Author
Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)
Reviewer #1: This manuscript presents very interesting hypotheses about socio emotional learning strategies and their applicability in school-based programs, linked to a thorough research methodology. Authors have made an excellent use of quantitative and qualitative analysis to verify not only the effectiveness of the program, but its feasibility and sustainability over time, including context-related factors in the process. Furthermore, language, structure and presentation of data show the quality expected in a rigorous scientific journal.
Nevertheless, some aspects should be reviewed before publication:
- SEL theoretical framework: As SEL has proven to be effective in abundant research, it has also been criticized by its excessive broadness and variation between studies, which hinders validity and replication (Pérez-González & Qualter, 2018; Zeidner, Roberts, & Matthews, 2002). Authors state to choose SEL as the “theoretical foundation” of the CARing Kids programme, but present a theoretical framework (figure 2) that, even though has some concepts related to SEL core elements (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011; Jones & Bouffard, 2012) differs from it in a way that is not explained in the manuscript (i.e. why is empathy considered apart from socio emotional competence?). Authors should clarify how this program complies with SEL framework, in order to avoid confusion of terms and concepts in scientific research.
Thus, references are needed to support these affirmations in page 5: “The majority of SEL programme developers suggest that an instructionally sound and developmentally focused SEL curriculum should include elements of emotional education, cognitive restructuring, interpersonal problem-solving, social skills training, empathy training, problem-solving, stress reduction and relaxation, and behavioural change. It is believed that combining brief doses of each of these core elements in an instructionally sound manner would lead to improved SEL outcomes”
- Methodology of the programme: There is not enough information about the development of the programme itself: content of sessions, addressing of socio emotional competences, role of teachers, participants and dogs, picture books utilization…etc. Authors should give more details about the actual development of the programme, especially regarding the “canine-assisted reading component with self-developed picture books”, since this is presented as the main novelty that wants to be highlighted: When, where and how were the sessions carried out? What did the dogs and their trainers do? What were the children asked for? How were the picture books used? An example session should be presented in order to fully comprehend the characteristics of the programme.
It is also unclear what traditional “humane education” is, and how CARing kids differ from it, besides the animal component. The objective in the program as stated in the abstract is “to promote a human attitude and social-emotional competence”, so clarification about what is and what is not “a human attitude” is needed in order to make it possible for readers to understand why CARing kids is likely to provoke an effect on it. This applies also to control groups, especially in the “elite training group” which received various undefined educational strategies, remaining unclear their addressing of promotion of human attitude and socio emotional competence.
- Results and presentation of data: Authors are advised to be careful into claiming the positive effects of the CARing kids programme, since quantitative analysis were not so conclusive. Size effects should be calculated and presented for a better interpretation of the programme’s effect on the outcomes (Sullivan & Feinn, 2012). This could alter interpretations of the results, so this is a major concern. Also, authors should consider that the Elite Training control group showed significant results too, and include their interpretations about it.
Moreover, qualitative analysis methodology and results could be illustrated with a table or figure that includes the codes and list of themes collected by researches, to help readers understand the evaluation process and outcomes.
- Discussion: Authors seem to attribute the beneficial effects of the program to the animal presence, but this was not consistently evaluated through the process and is based only on their interpretations of qualitative analysis. Again, this issue could be related to the lack of information about the animal role in the programme, and what are authors referring to when they speak about “positive human-animal interaction”.
This lack of evaluation of the animal interaction factor is a limitation to the study that should be addressed by authors, including the statement in page 26 regarding number of dogs “The out-numbered human-to-dog ratio resulted in limited interaction time between participants and service animals.” (p.26). If it is so, it seems unlikely that human-animal interaction was the key to the positive effects observed. This applies to the underlying mechanisms among human-animal bonding that affect SEL competence too (p.31), because there is no measurable variable in this study that proves that socio emotional competence was affected mainly by the dog’s role and not by any other factors.
- Conclusion: The two first paragraphs are confusing, since authors here stress the impact of urbanization to justify the relevance of this study, but in the introduction section the development and application of the One Health concept through humane education is presented as the theoretical basis of the programme. Authors should clarify the purpose and justification of the study, correlating introduction and conclusion ideas, including a better exposition about what is humane education, why is it important and how is it being addressed within the CARing kids programme.
References
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta‐analysis of school‐based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405-432. doi:
Jones, S. M., & Bouffard, S. M. (2012). Social and emotional learning in schools: From programs to strategies and commentaries. Social Policy Report, 26(4), 1-33.
Pérez-González, J. C., & Qualter, P. (2018). Emotional intelligence and emotional education in school years. In L. Dacree Pool, & P. Qualter (Eds.), An introduction to emotional intelligence (pp. 81-104). Chichester: Wiley.
Sullivan, G. M., & Feinn, R. (2012). Using effect size—or why the P value is not enough. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 4(3), 279-282.
Zeidner, M., Roberts, R. D., & Matthews, G. (2002). Can emotional intelligence be schooled? A critical review. Educational Psychologist, 37(4), 215-231. doi:
Reviewer #2: The work is novel and rigorous, both at a theoretical and methodological level.
It is well structured, and represents an advance in the importance of developing socio-emotional skills ib children. The results are well described and are in accordance with the objectives and the methodological design.
**********
6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (
If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.
Reviewer #1: No
Reviewer #2:
[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]
While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool,
Dear Dr. Pérez-González,
Thank you for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript. The comments and suggestions offered by you and the reviewers are very helpful and constructive. We have included the reviewer comments and responded to each comment individually. The changes were track-changed, and a cleaned manuscript was also submitted. Once again, we would like to thank you for your continued interest and valuable support in our research.
Regards,
Paul W.C. WONG
Associate Professor and Registered Clinical Psychologist (HKPS)
Department of Social Work and Social Administration, HKU
Journal Requirements:
1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLoS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.
Response: We have double checked the PLoS ONE's style requirement and make sure that the manuscript is following PLoS ONE format
2. Please provide additional information about your teaching intervention, such as detailed curriculum, description of texts or methods used, or supporting educational material (such as the story books) that would allow others to replicate your study. If materials, methods, and protocols are well established, authors may cite articles where those protocols are described in detail, but the submission should include sufficient information to be understood independent of these references (
Response: We have included more information about the lesson plan. A sample session of the programme as support file.
3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLoS ONE only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see
Response: We have uploaded the dataset and deleted the identity information of the participants.
4. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.
Response: We have moved the ethics statement and related sections to the methods session.
Reviewers' comments
5. Review Comments to the Author
Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)
Reviewer #1: This manuscript presents very interesting hypotheses about socio emotional learning strategies and their applicability in school-based programs, linked to a thorough research methodology. Authors have made an excellent use of quantitative and qualitative analysis to verify not only the effectiveness of the program, but its feasibility and sustainability over time, including context-related factors in the process. Furthermore, language, structure and presentation of data show the quality expected in a rigorous scientific journal.
Nevertheless, some aspects should be reviewed before publication:
- SEL theoretical framework: As SEL has proven to be effective in abundant research, it has also been criticized by its excessive broadness and variation between studies, which hinders validity and replication (Pérez-González & Qualter, 2018; Zeidner, Roberts, & Matthews, 2002). Authors state to choose SEL as the "theoretical foundation" of the CARing Kids programme, but present a theoretical framework (figure 2) that, even though has some concepts related to SEL core elements (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011; Jones & Bouffard, 2012) differs from it in a way that is not explained in the manuscript (i.e. why is empathy considered apart from socio emotional competence?). Authors should clarify how this program complies with SEL framework, in order to avoid confusion of terms and concepts in scientific research.
Response: Many thanks for pointing out this issue. We have added a section of "Comparison between SEL, Humane Education and CARing Kids" to illustrate the difference between SEL, Humane education and CARing kids and explain this setting.
Thus, references are needed to support these affirmations in page 5: "The majority of SEL programme developers suggest that an instructionally sound and developmentally focused SEL curriculum should include elements of emotional education, cognitive restructuring, interpersonal problem-solving, social skills training, empathy training, problem-solving, stress reduction and relaxation, and behavioural change. It is believed that combining brief doses of each of these core elements in an instructionally sound manner would lead to improved SEL outcomes"
Response: We have further explained this statement and included extra-reference to support the statement.
- Methodology of the programme: There is not enough information about the development of the programme itself: content of sessions, addressing of socio emotional competences, role of teachers, participants and dogs, picture books utilization…etc. Authors should give more details about the actual development of the programme, especially regarding the "canine-assisted reading component with self-developed picture books", since this is presented as the main novelty that wants to be highlighted: When, where and how were the sessions carried out? What did the dogs and their trainers do? What were the children asked for? How were the picture books used? An example session should be presented in order to fully comprehend the characteristics of the programme.
Response: A section called "the overall structure of the CARing Kids" was added on page 8 to describe the curriculum further. Lesson 1 of the CARing Kids curriculum was attached in the Supplementary information to illustrate how the CARing kids were implemented. We also revised the result session to answers some implementation information
It is also unclear what traditional "humane education" is, and how CARing kids differ from it, besides the animal component. The objective in the program as stated in the abstract is "to promote a human attitude and social-emotional competence", so clarification about what is and what is not "a human attitude" is needed in order to make it possible for readers to understand why CARing kids is likely to provoke an effect on it. This applies also to control groups, especially in the "elite training group" which received various undefined educational strategies, remaining unclear their addressing of promotion of human attitude and socio emotional competence.
Response: We have included the definition of humane attitude and included a session to compare the humane education and CARing Kids, and briefly describe why CARing Kids is likely to provoke the SEL and humane attitude. We combine this part with the newly written section of "Comparison between SEL, Humane Education and CARing Kids" on page 6 to 7. For the Elite training group, it is a routine school extra-curriculum activity. We have included more information of Elite training group in methods in Page 10.
- Results and presentation of data: Authors are advised to be careful into claiming the positive effects of the CARing kids programme, since quantitative analysis were not so conclusive. Size effects should be calculated and presented for a better interpretation of the programme's effect on the outcomes (Sullivan & Feinn, 2012). This could alter interpretations of the results, so this is a major concern. Also, authors should consider that the Elite Training control group showed significant results too, and include their interpretations about it.
Response: Thank you for pointing out this issue. Cohen's d was calculated for each intervention conditions and embedded in Table 3. We also tune down about our writing on claiming the positive effect of CARing Kids programme.
Moreover, qualitative analysis methodology and results could be illustrated with a table or figure that includes the codes and list of themes collected by researches, to help readers understand the evaluation process and outcomes.
Response: A new table 5 was included to show the codes, subthemes and themes to illustrate how the themes have emerged from the focus group data.
- Discussion: Authors seem to attribute the beneficial effects of the program to the animal presence, but this was not consistently evaluated through the process and is based only on their interpretations of qualitative analysis. Again, this issue could be related to the lack of information about the animal role in the programme, and what are authors referring to when they speak about "positive human-animal interaction".
This lack of evaluation of the animal interaction factor is a limitation to the study that should be addressed by authors, including the statement in page 26 regarding number of dogs "The out-numbered human-to-dog ratio resulted in limited interaction time between participants and service animals." (p.26). If it is so, it seems unlikely that human-animal interaction was the key to the positive effects observed. This applies to the underlying mechanisms among human-animal bonding that affect SEL competence too (p.31), because there is no measurable variable in this study that proves that socio emotional competence was affected mainly by the dog's role and not by any other factors.
Response: We have adjusted some part of the discussion, including the reviewer's reason and putting it into the limitation and further study. Although the student focus group result suggested that their intention to interact with readings dogs might contribute to their learning motivation, we also agree that more data were needed to support our statements.
- Conclusion: The two first paragraphs are confusing, since authors here stress the impact of urbanization to justify the relevance of this study, but in the introduction section the development and application of the One Health concept through humane education is presented as the theoretical basis of the programme. Authors should clarify the purpose and justification of the study, correlating introduction and conclusion ideas, including a better exposition about what is humane education, why is it important and how is it being addressed within the CARing kids programme.
Response: Introduction was revised to link up the idea of urbanization, one health and the CARing Kids. The conclusion part was modified to increase the linkage and cohesiveness with the introduction.
________________________________________
Submitted filename:
Effectiveness of a school-based programme of animal-assisted humane education in Hong Kong for the promotion of social and emotional learning: A quasi-experimental pilot study
PONE-D-20-25086R1
Dear Dr. Wong,
We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.
Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.
An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at
If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact
Kind regards,
Gwo-Jen Hwang
Academic Editor
PLOS ONE
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer's Responses to Questions
1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.
Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed
**********
2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?
The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.
Reviewer #1: Yes
**********
3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?
Reviewer #1: Yes
**********
4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?
The
Reviewer #1: Yes
**********
5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?
PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.
Reviewer #1: Yes
**********
6. Review Comments to the Author
Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)
Reviewer #1: Authors have properly addressed all the comments raised in the first review. The article is now suitable for publication.
PONE-D-20-25086R1
Effectiveness of a school-based programme of animal-assisted humane education in Hong Kong for the promotion of social and emotional learning: A quasi-experimental pilot study
Dear Dr. Wong:
I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.
If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact
If we can help with anything else, please email us at
Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.
Kind regards,
PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff
on behalf of
Dr. Gwo-Jen Hwang
Academic Editor
PLOS ONE