留言板

尊敬的读者、作者、审稿人, 关于本刊的投稿、审稿、编辑和出版的任何问题, 您可以本页添加留言。我们将尽快给您答复。谢谢您的支持!

姓名
邮箱
手机号码
标题
留言内容
验证码

教育机器人用户接纳度研究:视角、方法与影响因素

陈思宇 黄甫全 丘诗盈 李浩然

陈思宇, 黄甫全, 丘诗盈, 李浩然. 教育机器人用户接纳度研究:视角、方法与影响因素[J]. 现代教育论丛, 2026, (3): 57-67.
引用本文: 陈思宇, 黄甫全, 丘诗盈, 李浩然. 教育机器人用户接纳度研究:视角、方法与影响因素[J]. 现代教育论丛, 2026, (3): 57-67.
CHEN Siyu, HUANG Fuquan, QIU Shiying, LI Haoran. Research on the User Acceptance of Educational Robots: Theoretical Perspectives, Methods, and Influencing Factors[J]. Journal of Modern Education, 2026, (3): 57-67.
Citation: CHEN Siyu, HUANG Fuquan, QIU Shiying, LI Haoran. Research on the User Acceptance of Educational Robots: Theoretical Perspectives, Methods, and Influencing Factors[J]. Journal of Modern Education, 2026, (3): 57-67.

教育机器人用户接纳度研究:视角、方法与影响因素

基金项目: 

2020年度教育部人文社会科学研究青年基金项目“卓越教师行动研究的知识创造原理与方法研究” 20YJC880005

2023年度广东省社会科学规划常规项目“面向人机协同教育的师范生数字素养发展内容与路径研究” GD23YJY24

2022年度广东省社会科学规划常规项目“新唯物主义智能化学习技术代理主体论” GD22CJY13

详细信息
    作者简介:

    陈思宇,女,广东汕尾人,华南师范大学教育科学学院副研究员,博士,研究方向为课程与教学论、人工智能的教育应用

    丘诗盈,女,广东梅州人,深圳市龙岗区悦澜山实验小学教师,研究方向为数学课程与教学论、项目式学习

    李浩然,女,黑龙江哈尔滨人,深圳市龙岗区观澜第二小学教师,研究方向为人工智能与数学课程教学整合

    通讯作者:

    黄甫全(通讯作者),男,四川洪雅人,华南师范大学教育科学学院教授,博士生导师,研究方向为教育文化学、课程与教学论,电子邮箱:huangfq@scnu.edu.cn

  • 中图分类号: G40-057

Research on the User Acceptance of Educational Robots: Theoretical Perspectives, Methods, and Influencing Factors

  • 摘要: 为厘清国际教育机器人应用现状并指引未来方向,本文主要采用系统性文献综述法,从理论视角、研究方法及结果结论三个维度,对国际相关实证研究成果加以述评。研究发现:在理论层面,已有研究多基于人类认知、技术媒介代理以及人机交互视角审视师生接纳度;在方法层面,创生了实体机器人在场、数字视频介导以及虚拟现实嵌入三种研究场域,普遍采用混合方法进行数据的收集与分析;在影响机制层面,已探明个体层的性别、人格、认知,技术层的机器人造型、性别、功能,以及教学层的知识内容、学科任务、课堂角色等因素的具体作用。基于此,未来研究可进一步整合接纳度调查的多元理论视角,重视多模态数据的采集与分析,并探究个体、技术、教学要素对教育用户接纳度的交互影响及其内在逻辑。

     

  • 图  1  教育机器人用户接纳度实证研究方法体系示意图

    图  2  教育机器人用户接纳度研究框架

  • [1] 祝智庭, 胡姣. 教育数字化转型的实践逻辑与发展机遇[J]. 电化教育研究, 2022(1): 5-15.
    [2] 国家标准化管理委员会, 中央网信办, 国家发展改革委, 等. 关于印发《国家新一代人工智能标准体系建设指南》的通知[EB/OL]. (2020-07-27)[2023-01-01]. https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/zhengceku/2020-08/09/content_5533454.htm.
    [3] 柳晨晨, 宛平, 王佑镁. 智能机器人及其教学应用: 创新意蕴与现实挑战[J]. 远程教育杂志, 2020(2): 27-36.
    [4] 汪时冲, 方海光, 张鸽, 等. 人工智能教育机器人支持下的新型"双师课堂"研究——兼论"人机协同"教学设计与未来展望[J]. 远程教育杂志, 2019(2): 25-32.
    [5] 李青, 闫宇. 新技术视域下的教学创新: 从趣悦学习到机器人陪伴学习——英国开放大学《创新教学报告》(2019版)解读[J]. 远程教育杂志, 2019(2): 15-24.
    [6] Davis F D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology[J]. Mis quarterly, 1989, 13(3): 319-340. doi: 10.2307/249008
    [7] 黄甫全, 游景如, 涂丽娜, 等. 系统性文献综述法: 案例、步骤与价值[J]. 电化教育研究, 2017(11): 11-18+25.
    [8] Page M J, McKenzie J E, Bossuyt P M, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews[J]. Systematic reviews, 2021, 10(89): 1-11.
    [9] Cook D A, Reed D A. Appraising the quality of medical education research methods: the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale-Education[J]. Academic medicine, 2015(8): 1067-1076.
    [10] Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups[J]. International journal for quality in health care, 2007(6): 349-357.
    [11] Stroessner S J, Benitez J. The social perception of humanoid and non-humanoid robots: effects of gendered and machinelike features[J]. International journal of social robotics, 2019(2): 305-315.
    [12] Mohammad Y, Nishida T. Why should we imitate robots? Effect of back imitation on judgment of imitative skill[J]. International journal of social robotics, 2015(4): 497-512.
    [13] Shimada M, Yoshikawa Y, Asada M, et al. Effects of observing eye contact between a robot and another person[J]. International journal of social robotics, 2011(2): 143-154.
    [14] de Graaf M M A, Ben Allouch S. The influence of prior expectations of a robot's lifelikeness on users' intentions to treat a zoomorphic robot as a companion[J]. International journal of social robotics, 2017(1): 17-32.
    [15] Ham J, Cuijpers R H, Cabibihan J-J. Combining robotic persuasive strategies: the persuasive power of a storytelling robot that uses gazing and gestures[J]. International journal of social robotics, 2015(4): 479-487.
    [16] Li D, Rau P L P, Li Y. A cross-cultural study: effect of robot appearance and task[J]. International journal of social robotics, 2010(2): 175-186.
    [17] Nomura T, Suzuki T, Kanda T, et al. Measurement of negative attitudes toward robots[J]. Interaction studies, 2006(3): 437-454.
    [18] Conrad A M, Munro D. Relationship between computer self-efficacy, technology, attitudes and anxiety: development of the computer technology use scales (CTUS)[J]. Journal of educational computing research, 2008 (1): 51-73.
    [19] Park E, del Pobil A P. Users' attitudes toward service robots in Korea[J]. Industrial robot, 2013(1): 77-87.
    [20] 黄荣怀, 刘德建, 阿罕默德·提利利, 等. 人机协同教学: 基于虚拟化身、数字孪生和教育机器人场景的路径设计[J]. 开放教育研究, 2023(6): 4-14.
    [21] van den Brule R, Dotsch R, Bijlstra G, et al. Do robot performance and behavioral style affect human trust? A multi-method approach[J]. International journal of social robotics, 2014(4): 519-531.
    [22] Rosenthal-von der Pütten A, Krämer N. How design characteristics of robots determine evaluation and uncanny valley related responses[J]. Computers in human behavior, 2014(36): 422-439.
    [23] Ivaldi S, Lefort S, Peters J, et al. Towards engagement models that consider individual factors in HRI: on the relation of extroversion and negative attitude towards robots to gaze and speech during a human–robot assembly task[J]. International journal of social robotics, 2017(1): 63–86.
    [24] Desideri L, Bonifacci P, Croati G, et al. The mind in the machine: mind perception modulates gaze aversion during child-robot interaction[J]. International journal of social robotics, 2021(4): 599-614.
    [25] Stafford R Q, Macdonald B A, Li Xingyan, et al. Older people's prior robot attitudes influence evaluations of a conversational robot[J]. International journal of social robotics, 2014(2): 281-297.
    [26] Munekata N, Tsujimoto M, Ono T. Robot behavior control system based on user's attitude using SCL[A]. IEEE international symposium on robot & human interactive communication [C]. New York: IEEE, 2015: 197-201.
    [27] Anzalone S, Boucenna S, Ivaldi S, et al. Evaluating the engagement with social robots[J]. International journal of social robotics, 2015(4): 465-478.
    [28] Rosenthal-von der Pütten A, Hoefinghoff J. The more the merrier? Effects of humanlike learning abilities on humans' perception and evaluation of a robot[J]. International journal of social robotics, 2018(4): 455-472.
    [29] Shin N M, Kim S A. Korean students' attitudes towards robots: two survey studies[J]. The journal of Korea robotics society, 2009(1): 10-16.
    [30] Backonja U, Hall A, Painter I, et al. Comfort and attitudes towards robots among young, middle-aged, and older adults: a cross-sectional study[J]. Journal of nursing scholarship, 2018(6): 623-633.
    [31] Gaudiello I, Zibetti E. Learning robotics, with robotics, by robotics: educational robotics, volume 3[M]. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2016: 43-85.
    [32] Nov O, Chen Ye. Users' personality and perceived ease of use of digital libraries: the case for resistance to change[J]. Journal of the American society for information science and technology, 2008(5): 845-851.
    [33] Reich-Stiebert N, Eyssel F. Learning with educational companion robots? Toward attitudes on education robots, predictors of attitudes, and application potentials for education robots[J]. International journal of social robotics, 2015(5): 875-888.
    [34] Alaiad A, Zhou L. Patients' behavioral intention toward using healthcare robots[A]. Americas conference on information systems [C]. Atlanta: Association for Information Systems, 2013: 1-11.
    [35] Zhou Tao. Examining location-based services usage from the perspectives of unified theory of acceptance and use of technology and privacy risk[J]. Journal of electronic commerce research, 2012(2): 135-144.
    [36] Powers A, Kiesler S. The advisor robot: tracing people's mental model from a robot's physical attributes[A]. ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on human-robot interaction[C]. New York: ACM, 2006: 218-225.
    [37] Burgoon J, Le Poire B. Effects of communication expectancies, actual communication, and expectancy disconfirmation on evaluations of communicators and their communication behavior[J]. Human communication research, 1993(1): 67-96.
    [38] Nitsch V, Glassen T. Investigating the effects of robot behavior and attitude towards technology on social human-robot interactions[A]. IEEE international symposium on robot & human interactive communication[C]. New York: IEEE, 2015: 535-540.
    [39] Powers A, Kiesler S, Fussell S, et al. Comparing a computer agent with a humanoid robot[A]. ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on human-robot interaction[C]. New York: ACM, 2007: 145-152.
    [40] Nakagawa K, Shiomi M, Shinozawa K, et al. Effect of robot's whispering behavior on people's motivation[J]. International journal of social robotics, 2013(1): 5-16.
    [41] Sharkey A. Should we welcome robot teachers?[J]. Ethics and information technology, 2016, 18(4): 283-297. doi: 10.1007/s10676-016-9387-z
    [42] Chang C, Lee J, Chao P, et al. Exploring the possibility of using humanoid robots as instructional tools for teaching a second language in primary school[J]. Educational technology & society, 20103(2): 13–24.
    [43] Song J, Lee T. The effect of STEM integration education using educational robot on academic achievement and subject attitude[J]. Journal of the Korean association of information education, 20115(1): 11-22.
    [44] Herzallah F, Alzaghal Q, Al-Sharafi M A, et al. Online social networks adoption in micro small and medium enterprises: an empirical evaluation using the task-technology fit model[A].//Al-Emran M, Shaalan K. Recent advances in technology acceptance models and theories[M]. Cham: Springer, 2021: 273-291.
    [45] Leyzberg D, Spaulding S, Scassellati B. Personalizing robot tutors to individuals' learning differences[A]. ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction[C]. New York: ACM, 2014: 423-430.
    [46] Saerbeck M, Schut T, Bartneck C, et al. Expressive robots in education: varying the degree of social supportive behavior of a robotic tutor[A]. International conference on human factors in computing systems[C]. New York: ACM, 2010: 1613-1622.
    [47] Savela N, Turja T, Oksanen A. Social acceptance of robots in different occupational fields: a systematic literature review[J]. International journal of social robotics, 2018(4): 493-502.
    [48] Naneva S, Sarda Gou M, Webb T L, et al. A systematic review of attitudes, anxiety, acceptance, and trust towards social robots[J]. International journal of social robotics, 2020(5): 1179-1201.
    [49] Huang Dan, Chen Qiurong, Huang Songshan, et al. Consumer intention to use service robots: a cognitive-affective-conative framework[J]. International journal of contemporary hospitality management, 2024(6): 1893-1913.
  • 加载中
图(2)
计量
  • 文章访问数:  5
  • HTML全文浏览量:  6
  • PDF下载量:  0
  • 被引次数: 0
出版历程
  • 收稿日期:  2025-03-25
  • 网络出版日期:  2026-06-10
  • 刊出日期:  2026-06-01

目录

    /

    返回文章
    返回