Issue 3
Jun.  2026
Turn off MathJax
Article Contents
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.

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

  • Received Date: 2025-03-25
    Available Online: 2026-06-10
  • Publish Date: 2026-06-01
  • To clarify the current status of international applications of educational robots and guide future directions, this paper conducts a systematic literature review to analyze relevant empirical studies from three dimensions: theoretical perspectives, research methods, and findings. The findings indicate that at the theoretical level, existing studies predominantly examine teacher and student acceptance through the lenses of human cognition, technological media agency, and human-robot interaction. At the methodological level, three research settings have emerged, including physical robot presence, digital video mediation, and virtual reality embedding, with mixed methods being widely adopted for data collection and analysis. Regarding influence mechanisms, the specific effects of factors at the individual level such as gender, personality, and cognition, the technological level including robot appearance, gender, and function, and the pedagogical level involving knowledge content, subject tasks, and classroom roles have been identified. Consequently, future research should further integrate diverse theoretical perspectives on acceptance surveys, prioritize the collection and analysis of multimodal data, and explore the interactive effects and underlying logic of individual, technological, and pedagogical factors on educational user acceptance.

     

  • loading
  • [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

Catalog

    通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
    • 1. 

      沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

    1. 本站搜索
    2. 百度学术搜索
    3. 万方数据库搜索
    4. CNKI搜索

    Figures(2)

    Article Metrics

    Article views (89) PDF downloads(26) Cited by()
    Proportional views
    Related

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return