Research Article

Language teachers’ perceptions and acceptance of educational robotics for classroom integration

Xiaotong Yu 1 * , María Ángeles Gutiérrez-García 1 , Roberto Soto-Varela 2 , Melchor Gómez-García 1
More Detail
1 Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, SPAIN2 University of Valladolid, Valladolid, SPAIN* Corresponding Author
Contemporary Educational Technology, 17(1), January 2025, ep545, https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/15637
Published Online: 21 November 2024, Published: 01 January 2025
OPEN ACCESS   527 Views   262 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Robotics education and robot-embedded learning have become focal points in recent interdisciplinary and innovative education. Despite the identified opportunities, there are still limitations and considerations before integrating educational robotics into foreign language education on a large scale. This survey investigates foreign language teachers’ perceptions and acceptance of teaching with educational robotics and robot-assisted language learning. To achieve this, the ERPA scale, containing five subscales measuring teachers’ technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge, and the perceived usefulness of robots, was adapted as the data collection instrument. The scale consisted of 19 items based on a 5-point Likert scale. A total of 109 foreign language teachers from Spain participated in the survey. The results suggest a positive relationship between teachers’ basic digital competence, technological knowledge of robot usage, pedagogical knowledge in foreign language teaching, and perceived usefulness of robots. Additionally, the length of service and target language positively affect acceptance. This research contributes to current educational robotics studies by identifying features of robots considered suitable for language teaching, such as animal-like embodiments instead of humanoid forms.
Keywords: attitudes, acceptance, educational robotics, EFL, second language

CITATION (APA)

Yu, X., Gutiérrez-García, M. Á., Soto-Varela, R., & Gómez-García, M. (2025). Language teachers’ perceptions and acceptance of educational robotics for classroom integration. Contemporary Educational Technology, 17(1), ep545. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/15637

REFERENCES

  1. Arís, N., & Orcos, L. (2019). Educational robotics in the stage of secondary education: Empirical study on motivation and STEM skills. Education Sciences, 9(2), Article 73. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9020073
  2. Betancourt-Odio, M. A., Sartor-Harada, A., Ulloa-Guerra, O., & Azevedo-Gomes, J. (2021). Self-perceptions on digital competencies for m-learning and education sustainability: A study with teachers from different countries. Sustainability, 13(1), Article 343. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010343
  3. Biernacki, P., & Waldorf, D. (1981). Snowball sampling: Problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociological Methods & Research, 10(2), 141–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/004912418101000205
  4. Chin, K., Hong, Z., & Chen, Y. (2014). Impact of using an educational robot-based learning system on students’ motivation in elementary education. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 7(4), 333–345. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2014.2346756
  5. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2002). Research methods in education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203224342
  6. Di Battista, S., Pivetti, M., Simaku, B., Beraldo, G., Menegatti, E., & Moro, M. (2021). Educational robotics acceptance by Italian teachers, educators, psychologists and psychotherapists. In Proceedings of the Educational Robotics International Conference (pp. 167–178). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77022-8_15
  7. Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.
  8. Eguchi, A., & Uribe, L. (2017). Robotics to promote STEM learning: Educational robotics unit for 4th grade science [Paper presentation]. The 2017 IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISECon.2017.7910240
  9. Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
  10. Fernández-Sánchez, M. R., Garrido-Arroyo, M. D. C., & Porras-Masero, I. (2022). Curricular integration of digital technologies in teaching processes. Frontiers in Education, 7, Article 1005499. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.1005499
  11. Hunutlu, Ş., & Küçük, S. (2022). Examining EFL teachers’ TPACK perceptions, Web 2.0 tools usage, workload, and technostress levels. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 12(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJCALLT.315306
  12. Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Kereluik, K., Shin, T. S., & Graham, C. R. (2014). The technological pedagogical content knowledge framework. In J. Spector, M. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. Bishop, M. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 101–111). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_9
  13. Lai Wah, L., & Hashim, H. (2021). Determining pre-service teachers’ intention of using technology for teaching English as a second language (ESL). Sustainability, 13(14), Article 7568. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147568
  14. Lai, C., Wang, Q., & Huang, X. (2022). The differential interplay of TPACK, teacher beliefs, school culture and professional development with the nature of in-service EFL teachers’ technology adoption. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(5), 1389–1411. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13200
  15. Latip, A., Andriani, Y., Purnamasari, S., & Abdurrahman, D. (2020). Integration of educational robotic in STEM learning to promote students’ collaborative skill. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1663, Article 012052. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1663/1/012052
  16. Lin, V., Yeh, H., & Chen, N. (2022). A systematic review on oral interactions in robot-assisted language learning. Electronics, 11(2), Article 290. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11020290
  17. Molnár, G., & Szűts, Z. (2022). Use of artificial intelligence in electronic learning environments [Paper presentation]. The 2022 IEEE 5th International Conference and Workshop Óbuda on Electrical and Power Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1109/CANDO-EPE57516.2022.10046356
  18. Mouza, C., & Karchmer-Klein, R. (2013). Promoting and assessing pre-service teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in the context of case development. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(2), 127–152. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.48.2.b
  19. Negrini, L. (2020). Teachers’ attitudes towards educational robotics in compulsory school. Italian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(1), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.17471/2499-4324/1136
  20. Ong, Q. K. L., & Annamalai, N. (2024). Technological pedagogical content knowledge for twenty-first century learning skills: The game changer for teachers of Industrial Revolution 5.0. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 1939–1980. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11852-z
  21. Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Glazewski, K. D., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2010). Teacher value beliefs associated with using technology: Addressing professional and student needs. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1321–1335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.002
  22. Palacios-Hidalgo, F. J., & Huertas-Abril, C. A. (2022). Developing digital literacy in initial EFL teacher education: A study in a Spanish distance university. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2022.2157709
  23. Park, M., & Son, J. (2022). Pre-service EFL teachers’ readiness in computer-assisted language learning and teaching. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 42(2), 320–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2020.1815649
  24. Pei, Z., & Nie, Y. (2018). Educational robots: Classification, characteristics, application areas and problems [Paper presentation]. The 2018 7th International Conference of Educational Innovation Through Technology. https://doi.org/10.1109/EITT.2018.00020
  25. Rahman, S. M. (2021). Assessing and benchmarking learning outcomes of robotics-enabled stem education. Education Sciences, 11(2), Article 84. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11020084
  26. Reich-Stiebert, N., & Eyssel, F. (2015). Learning with educational companion robots? Toward attitudes on education robots, predictors of attitudes, and application potentials for education robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7, 875–888. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0308-9
  27. Reich-Stiebert, N., & Eyssel, F. (2016). Robots in the classroom: What teachers think about teaching and learning with education robots. In A. Agah, J. J. Cabibihan, A. Howard, M. Salichs, & H. He (Eds.), Social robotics. ICSR 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 9979 (pp. 671–680). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47437-3_66
  28. Saari, U. A., Tossavainen, A., Kaipainen, K., & Mäkinen, S. J. (2022). Exploring factors influencing the acceptance of social robots among early adopters and mass market representatives. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 151, Article 104033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2022.104033
  29. Song, C. S., & Kim, Y. (2022). The role of the human-robot interaction in consumers’ acceptance of humanoid retail service robots. Journal of Business Research, 146, 489–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.03.087
  30. Spiteri, M., & Chang Rundgren, S. N. (2020). Literature review on the factors affecting primary teachers’ use of digital technology. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 25, 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9376-x
  31. Teo, T. (2014). Unpacking teachers’ acceptance of technology: Tests of measurement invariance and latent mean differences. Computers & Education, 75, 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.01.014
  32. Tuna, A., & Tuna, G. (2019). The use of humanoid robots with multilingual interaction skills in teaching a foreign language: Opportunities, research challenges and future research directions. CEPS Journal, 9(3), 95–115. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.679
  33. Van den Berghe, R., Verhagen, J., Oudgenoeg-Paz, O., Van der Ven, S., & Leseman, P. (2019). Social robots for language learning: A review. Review of Educational Research, 89(2), 259–295. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318821286
  34. Wang, X., Li, L., Tan, S. C., Yang, L., & Lei, J. (2023). Preparing for AI-enhanced education: Conceptualizing and empirically examining teachers’ AI readiness. Computers in Human Behavior, 146, Article 107798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107798
  35. Yu, X., Garcia, M. A. G., & Soto-Varela, R. (2023). Are educational robots any good for communicative English learning for primary school students? Texto Livre, 16, Article e41469. https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-3652.2023.41469
  36. Yu, X., Soto-Varela, R., & Gutiérrez-García, M. Á. (2024). How to learn and teach a foreign language through computational thinking: Suggestions based on a systematic review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 52, 101517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101517