Open Journal Systems

Acceptance of educational robotics: Evolution and validation of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology via structural equation modeling

Silvia Di Battista, Monica Pivetti, Michele Moro, Emanuele Menegatti, Andrea Greco

Article ID: 2121
Vol 9, Issue 3, 2024, Article identifier:

VIEWS - 319 (Abstract) 157 (PDF)


Fully understanding factors that are related to teachers’ behavioural intentions to use and acceptance of Educational Robotics (ER) in their classes, particularly among students with disabilities, is a big challenge. In particular, social psychology models may be used more consistently to inform scholars about the paths and the strength of interrelated factors influencing learning support teachers’ acceptance of ER. In this study, the Almere model, an evolution and adaptation of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) as used in Conti and colleagues was validated. The model is directed to measure acceptance of ER in a sample of 319 learning support teachers via structural equation modeling. Results showed a model explaining a good percentage of variance. In the learning support teachers’ intentions to use ER with students with disabilities, positive and direct effects were exerted by teachers’ positive attitudes toward robotics, and by their perception of the enjoyment and usefulness of robotics. Furthermore, results showed that perception of enjoyment in using ER was strongly and positively associated with perceived sociability and this, in turn, was positively associated with levels of trust. Finally, perceived sociability was positively associated with social presence perceptions.


UTAUT; STEM; Almere model; educational robotics; acceptance; structural equation modeling

Full Text:



1. Alnajjar F, Bartneck C, Baxter P, et al. Robots in Education. Published online June 28, 2021. doi: 10.4324/9781003142706

2. Benitti FBV. Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education. 2012, 58(3): 978-988. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.006

3. Di Battista S, Pivetti M, Simaku B, et al. Educational Robotics Acceptance by Italian Teachers, Educators, Psychologists and Psychotherapists. Studies in Computational Intelligence. Published online 2021: 167-178. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-77022-8_15

4. Di Battista S, Pivetti M, Moro M. Learning Support Teachers’ Intention to Use Educational Robotics: The Role of Perception of Usefulness and Adaptability. Robotics. 2022, 11(6): 134. doi: 10.3390/robotics11060134

5. Di Battista S, Pivetti M, Bozzi G. Brief Research Report: Teachers’ Gender-Differentiated Attributions. The Journal of Experimental Education. 2022, 92(1): 120-129. doi: 10.1080/00220973.2022.2141175

6. Di Lieto MC, Castro E, Pecini C, et al. Improving Executive Functions at School in Children With Special Needs by Educational Robotics. Frontiers in Psychology. 2020, 10. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02813

7. Kazakoff ER, Bers MU. Put Your Robot in, Put Your Robot out: Sequencing through Programming Robots in Early Childhood. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 2014, 50(4): 553-573. doi: 10.2190/ec.50.4.f

8. Papadakis S, Vaiopoulou J, Sifaki E, et al. Attitudes towards the Use of Educational Robotics: Exploring Pre-Service and In-Service Early Childhood Teacher Profiles. Education Sciences. 2021, 11(5): 204. doi: 10.3390/educsci11050204

9. Pivetti M, Di Battista S, Agatolio F, et al. Educational Robotics for children with neurodevelopmental disorders: A systematic review. Heliyon. 2020, 6(10). doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05160

10. Zhang Y, Luo R, Zhu Y, et al. Educational Robots Improve K-12 Students’ Computational Thinking and STEM Attitudes: Systematic Review. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 2021, 59(7): 1450-1481. doi: 10.1177/0735633121994070

11. Conti D, Cattani A, Di Nuovo S, et al. Are Future Psychologists Willing to Accept and Use a Humanoid Robot in Their Practice? Italian and English Students’ Perspective. Frontiers in Psychology. 2019, 10. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02138

12. Han J, Conti D. The Use of UTAUT and Post Acceptance Models to Investigate the Attitude towards a Telepresence Robot in an Educational Setting. Robotics. 2020, 9(2): 34. doi: 10.3390/robotics9020034

13. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly. 2003, 27(3): 425. doi: 10.2307/30036540

14. Heerink M, Krose B, Evers V, et al. Measuring acceptance of an assistive social robot: a suggested toolkit. RO-MAN 2009 - The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. Published online September 2009. doi: 10.1109/roman.2009.5326320

15. Heerink M, Kröse B, Evers V, et al. Assessing Acceptance of Assistive Social Agent Technology by Older Adults: the Almere Model. International Journal of Social Robotics. 2010, 2(4): 361-375. doi: 10.1007/s12369-010-0068-5

16. Conti D, Di Nuovo S, Buono S, et al. Robots in Education and Care of Children with Developmental Disabilities: A Study on Acceptance by Experienced and Future Professionals. International Journal of Social Robotics. 2016, 9(1): 51-62. doi: 10.1007/s12369-016-0359-6

17. Naneva S, Sarda Gou M, Webb TL, et al. A Systematic Review of Attitudes, Anxiety, Acceptance, and Trust Towards Social Robots. International Journal of Social Robotics. 2020, 12(6): 1179-1201. doi: 10.1007/s12369-020-00659-4

18. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, 1. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading. MA: Addison-Wesley; 1975

19. Davis FD. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly. 1989, 13(3): 319. doi: 10.2307/249008

20. Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, & Warshaw PR. Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace 1. Journal of applied social psychology, 1992, 22(14), 1111-1132. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00945.x

21. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 1991, 50(2): 179-211. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t

22. Thompson RL, Higgins CA, Howell JM. Personal Computing: Toward a Conceptual Model of Utilization. MIS Quarterly. 1991, 15(1): 125. doi: 10.2307/249443

23. Moore GC, Benbasat I. Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation. Information Systems Research. 1991, 2(3): 192-222. doi: 10.1287/isre.2.3.192

24. Compeau D, Higgins CA, Huff S. Social Cognitive Theory and Individual Reactions to Computing Technology: A Longitudinal Study. MIS Quarterly. 1999, 23(2): 145. doi: 10.2307/249749

25. Venkatesh V, Bala H. Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions. Decision Sciences. 2008, 39(2): 273-315. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x

26. Heerink M, Kröse B, Wielinga B, et al. Enjoyment intention to use and actual use of a conversational robot by elderly people. Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interaction. Published online March 12, 2008. doi: 10.1145/1349822.1349838

27. Mardikyan S, Beşiroğlu B, Uzmaya G. Behavioral Intention towards the Use of 3G Technology. Communications of the IBIMA. Published online March 1, 2012: 1-10. doi: 10.5171/2012.622123

28. Chang A. UTAUT and UTAUT 2: A Review and Agenda for Future Research. The Winners. 2012, 13(2): 10. doi: 10.21512/tw.v13i2.656

29. Felding SA, Koh WQ, Teupen S, et al. A Scoping Review Using the Almere Model to Understand Factors Facilitating and Hindering the Acceptance of Social Robots in Nursing Homes. International Journal of Social Robotics. 2023, 15(7): 1115-1153. doi: 10.1007/s12369-023-01012-1

30. Witmer BG, Singer MJ. Measuring Presence in Virtual Environments: A Presence Questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments. 1998, 7(3): 225-240. doi: 10.1162/105474698565686

31. Venkatesh V, Thong JY, Xu X. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS quarterly, 2012, 157-178.

32. Associazione Italiana di Psicologia (AIP). Code of ethics of the Italian Psychological Association. Available online: (accessed on 1 December 2023).

33. World Medical Association-Declaration of Helsinki. WMA Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Available online: (accessed on 1 December 2023).

34. Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus: The comprehensive modeling program for applied researchers: User’s guide. Muthén & Muthén; 1998.

35. West SG, Finch J, Curran P. Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1995. pp. 56-75.

36. Kline RB. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2011. pp. 1–427.

37. Bagozzi RP, Yi Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 1988, 16(1): 74-94. doi: 10.1007/bf02723327

38. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research. 1981, 18(1): 39-50. doi: 10.1177/002224378101800104

39. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd Ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers; 1988.

40. Rai A, Patnayakuni R, Seth N. Firm Performance Impacts of Digitally Enabled Supply Chain Integration Capabilities. MIS Quarterly. 2006, 30(2): 225. doi: 10.2307/25148729

41. Di Battista S, Pivetti M, Moro M, et al. Teachers’ Opinions towards Educational Robotics for Special Needs Students: An Exploratory Italian Study. Robotics. 2020, 9(3): 72. doi: 10.3390/robotics9030072

42. Yang H dong, Yoo Y. It’s all about attitude: revisiting the technology acceptance model. Decision Support Systems. 2004, 38(1): 19-31. doi: 10.1016/s0167-9236(03)00062-9

43. Van der Heijden H. User Acceptance of Hedonic Information Systems. MIS Quarterly. 2004, 28(4): 695. doi: 10.2307/25148660

44. Malhotra Y, Galletta DF. Extending the technology acceptance model to account for social influence: Theoretical bases and empirical validation. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. 1999. HICSS-32. Abstracts and CD-ROM of Full Papers; 1999.

45. Savela N, Turja T, Oksanen A. Social Acceptance of Robots in Different Occupational Fields: A Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of Social Robotics. 2017, 10(4): 493-502. doi: 10.1007/s12369-017-0452-5

46. Fridin M, Belokopytov M. Acceptance of socially assistive humanoid robot by preschool and elementary school teachers. Computers in Human Behavior. 2014, 33: 23-31. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.12.016

47. Whelan S, Murphy K, Barrett E, et al. Factors Affecting the Acceptability of Social Robots by Older Adults Including People with Dementia or Cognitive Impairment: A Literature Review. International Journal of Social Robotics. 2018, 10(5): 643-668. doi: 10.1007/s12369-018-0471-x

48. Schina D, Esteve-González V, Usart M. An overview of teacher training programs in educational robotics: characteristics, best practices and recommendations. Education and Information Technologies. 2020, 26(3): 2831-2852. doi: 10.1007/s10639-020-10377-z

49. Lu VN, Wirtz J, Kunz WH, et al. Service robots, customers and service employees: what can we learn from the academic literature and where are the gaps? Journal of Service Theory and Practice. 2020, 30(3): 361-391. doi: 10.1108/jstp-04-2019-0088

50. Wirtz J, Patterson PG, Kunz WH, et al. Brave new world: service robots in the frontline. Journal of Service Management. 2018, 29(5): 907-931. doi: 10.1108/josm-04-2018-0119

(319 Abstract Views, 157 PDF Downloads)


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2023 Silvia Di Battista, Monica Pivetti, Michele Moro, Emanuele Menegatti, Andrea Greco

License URL: