Humanoid Robots in Education: Learning Outcomes, Engagement Models, and Acceptance Factors: A Systematic Review
Abstract
The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI), robotics, and educational technologies has transformed the landscape of teaching and learning across global education systems. Among emerging innovations, humanoid robots, robots designed with human-like physical features and communicative behaviours, have attracted significant attention for their potential to act as social, cognitive, and pedagogical agents. This systematic review examined 39 empirical studies out of 954 studies after rigorous PRISMA guidelines to investigate how humanoid robots influence learning outcomes, learner engagement, and the acceptance and adoption of robotic technologies in education. Findings reveal that humanoid robots positively affect learning outcomes across academic, technical, and early childhood contexts, particularly when supported by adaptive cognitive and socio-emotional behaviours. Learner engagement, emotional, behavioural, cognitive, and social, emerges as a central mechanism linking robot interaction to improved learning, with personalization, expressivity, and interactive behaviours playing significant roles. Acceptance and adoption are shaped by pedagogical alignment, perceived usefulness, ease of use, technological reliability, ethical considerations, and institutional readiness. Synthesised within a conceptual framework, the results highlight that humanoid robots enhance learning most effectively when embedded in well-designed instructional environments and supported by trained educators and robust institutional structures. The review concludes that while humanoid robots hold strong potential to enrich educational experiences, their impact depends on thoughtful integration, contextual fit, and responsible governance. Limitations include variability in study designs, short-term implementations, and limited generalisability, underscoring the need for more longitudinal and ecologically valid research.
References
Ahmad, M. I., Mubin, O., Shahid, S., & Orlando, J. (2019). Robot’s adaptive emotional feedback sustains children’s social engagement and promotes their vocabulary learning: a long-term child–robot interaction study. Adaptive Behavior, 27(4), 243-266.
Ahmed, K. O., Adekunle, S. M., Olalekan, E. I., Yusuff, O., Ajao, T. O., Adeoba, M., & Rafiu, A. O. (2025). A Systematic Review of Inclusive Economic Growth Through A Sustainable Model for Climate Action Among Member States of the United Nations: 62-87. Elicit Journal of Economics and Management Studies, 1(1).
Akinson, A. O., Obasanya, A., Raimi, B. O., & Oshoba, A. O. (2025). Does Economic Literacy Matter for Firm Performance and Competitive Advantage: A Systematic Review. Elicit Journal of Economics and Management Studies, 1(1).
Alcorn, A. M., Ainger, E., Charisi, V., Mantinioti, S., Petrović, S., Schadenberg, B. R., ... & Pellicano, E. (2019). Educators' views on using humanoid robots with autistic learners in special education settings in England. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 6, 107.
Algerafi, M. A., Zhou, Y., Alfadda, H., & Wijaya, T. T. (2023). Understanding the factors influencing higher education students’ intention to adopt artificial intelligence-based robots. Ieee Access, 11, 99752-99764.
Alhashmi, M., Mubin, O., & Baroud, R. (2021). Examining the use of robots as teacher assistants in UAE classrooms: teacher and student perspectives. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 20, 245.
Almousa, O., & Alghowinem, S. (2022). Conceptualization and development of an autonomous and personalized early literacy content and robot tutor behavior for preschool children. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 33, 261-291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-022 09344-9
Bamiro, N. B., Zakariya, Z. B., & Nasiru, B. A. (2023). Development of halal entrepreneurship framework through business incubator service for sustainability using PRISMA. Contemporary discourse of halal and Islamic entrepreneurship, 79-97
Basori, A. H. (2020). Nao-Teach: Helping kids to learn societal and theoretical knowledge with friendly human-robot interaction. Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, 17(3), 1657-1664.
Belpaeme, T., Kennedy, J., Ramachandran, A., Scassellati, B., & Tanaka, F. (2018). Social robots for education: A review. Science robotics, 3(21), eaat5954.
Chalmers, C., Keane, T., Boden, M., & Williams, M. (2022). Humanoid robots go to school. Education and Information Technologies, 27(6), 7563-7581.
Chen, X., Jiang, L., Zhou, Z., & Li, D. (2025). Impact of perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness of humanoid robots on students' intention to use. Acta Psychologica, 258, 105217.
Crompton, H., Gregory, K., & Burke, D. (2018). Humanoid robots supporting children’s learning in an early childhood setting. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(5), 911-927.
Cruz-Ramírez, S. R., García-Martínez, M., & Olais-Govea, J. M. (2022). NAO robots as context to teach numerical methods. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM), 16(4), 1337-1356.
de Souza Jeronimo, B., de Albuquerque Wheler, A. P., De Oliveira, J. P. G., Melo, R., Bastos-Filho, C. J., & Kelner, J. (2022). Comparing social robot embodiment for child musical education. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 105(2), 28.
Donnermann, M., Schaper, P., & Lugrin, B. (2022). Social robots in applied settings: A long-term study on adaptive robotic tutors in higher education. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 9, 831633.
Ekström, S., & Pareto, L. (2022). The dual role of humanoid robots in education: As didactic tools and social actors. Education and information technologies, 27(9), 12609-12644.
Flanagan, T., Wong, G., & Kushnir, T. (2023). The minds of machines: Children's beliefs about the experiences, thoughts, and morals of familiar interactive technologies. Developmental psychology, 59(6), 1017.
Imbernón Cuadrado, L. E., Manjarrés Riesco, Á., & De La Paz López, F. (2016). ARTIE: An integrated environment for the development of affective robot tutors. Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 10, 77.
Ioannou, A., Andreou, E., & Christofi, M. (2015). Pre-schoolers’ interest and caring behaviour around a humanoid robot. TechTrends, 59(2), 23-26.
Khanlari, A. (2016). Teachers’ perceptions of the benefits and the challenges of integrating educational robots into primary/elementary curricula. European Journal of Engineering Education, 41(3), 320-330.
Konijn, E. A., Jansen, B., Mondaca Bustos, V., Hobbelink, V. L., & Preciado Vanegas, D. (2022). Social robots for (second) language learning in (migrant) primary school children. International Journal of Social Robotics, 14(3), 827-843.
Lei, M., Clemente, I. M., Liu, H., & Bell, J. (2022). The acceptance of telepresence robots in higher education. International Journal of Social Robotics, 14(4), 1025-1042.
LeTendre, G. K., & Gray, R. (2024). Social robots in a project‐based learning environment: Adolescent understanding of robot–human interactions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 40(1), 192-204.
Levinson, L., Gvirsman, O., Gorodesky, I. M., Perez, A., Gonen, E., & Gordon, G. (2021). Learning in summer camp with social robots: a morphological study. International Journal of Social Robotics, 13(5), 999-1012.
Lopez-Caudana, E., Ponce, P., Mazon, N., & Baltazar, G. (2022). Improving the attention span of elementary school children for physical education through an NAO robotics platform in developed countries. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM), 16(2), 657-675.
Manzi, F., Peretti, G., Di Dio, C., Cangelosi, A., Itakura, S., Kanda, T., ... & Marchetti, A. (2020). A robot is not worth another: Exploring children’s mental state attribution to different humanoid robots. Frontiers in psychology, 11, 2011.
Mishra, D., Parish, K., Lugo, R. G., & Wang, H. (2021). A framework for using humanoid robots in the school learning environment. Electronics, 10(6), 756.
Molenaar, B., Soliño Fernández, B., Polimeno, A., Barakova, E., & Chen, A. (2021). Pitch it right: Using prosodic entrainment to improve robot-assisted foreign language learning in school-aged children. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 5(12), 76.
Nagy, E., Karl, É., & Molnár, G. (2024). Exploring the Role of Human-Robot Interactions, within the Context of the Effectiveness of a NAO Robot. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica.
Neumann, M. M., Neumann, D. L., & Koch, L. C. (2023). Young children’s interactions with a social robot during a drawing task. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 31(3), 421-436.
Okanda, M., & Taniguchi, K. (2022). How do children answer questions from a physically present humanoid robot?. Infant and Child Development, 31(3), e2300.
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., ... & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. bmj, 372.
Peretti, G., Manzi, F., Di Dio, C., Cangelosi, A., Harris, P. L., Massaro, D., & Marchetti, A. (2023). Can a robot lie? Young children's understanding of intentionality beneath false statements. Infant and Child Development, 32(2), e2398.
Ponce, P., López-Orozco, C. F., Reyes, G. E. B., Lopez-Caudana, E., Parra, N. M., & Molina, A. (2022). Use of robotic platforms as a tool to support STEM and physical education in developed countries: a descriptive analysis. Sensors, 22(3), 1037.
Serholt, S., Barendregt, W., Vasalou, A., Alves-Oliveira, P., Jones, A., Petisca, S., & Paiva, A. (2017). The case of classroom robots: teachers’ deliberations on the ethical tensions. Ai & Society, 32(4), 613-631.
Smakman, M. H., Konijn, E. A., Vogt, P., & Pankowska, P. (2021). Attitudes towards social robots in education: Enthusiast, practical, troubled, sceptic, and mindfully positive. Robotics, 10(1), 24.
So, S., & Lee, N. (2023). Pedagogical exploration and technological development of a humanoid robotic system for teaching to and learning in young children. Cogent Education, 10(1), 2179181.
Stower, R., Abdelghani, R., Tschopp, M., Evangelista, K., Chetouani, M., & Kappas, A. (2022). Exploring space for robot mistakes in child robot interactions. Interaction Studies, 23(2), 243-288.
Straten, C. L. V., Peter, J., Kühne, R., & Barco, A. (2020). Transparency about a robot's lack of human psychological capacities: effects on child-robot perception and relationship formation. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI), 9(2), 1-22.
Tarrés-Puertas, M. I., Costa, V., Pedreira Alvarez, M., Lemkow-Tovias, G., Rossell, J. M., & Dorado, A. D. (2023). Child–Robot interactions using educational robots: An ethical and inclusive perspective. Sensors, 23(3), 1675.
Tilden, S., Parish, K., Mishra, D., Lugo, R. G., & Andersen, P. N. (2025). Humanoid Robots as Learning Assistants? Useability Perspectives of Grade 6 Students. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 30(1), 241-262.
van Straten, C. L., Peter, J., Kühne, R., & Barco, A. (2022). On sharing and caring: Investigating the effects of a robot's self-disclosure and question-asking on children's robot perceptions and child-robot relationship formation. Computers in Human Behavior, 129, 107135.
Woo, H., LeTendre, G. K., Pham-Shouse, T., & Xiong, Y. (2021). The use of social robots in classrooms: A review of field-based studies. Educational Research Review, 33, 100388.
Zemljak, D. (2025). Attitudes of Slovenian School Teachers Towards Smart Educational Humanoid Robots in the Classroom. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Majd Hiassah, Nurudeen Bamiro
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
