PDF

Published

2023-12-26

Issue

Vol. 9 No. 3 (2024)

Section

Research Articles

License

The journal adopts the Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0), which means that anyone can reuse and redistribute the materials for non-commercial purposes as long as you follow the license terms and the original source is properly cited.

Author(s) shall retain the copyright of their work and grant the Journal/Publisher rights for the first publication with the work concurrently licensed since 2023 Vol.8 No.2.

Under this license, author(s) will allow third parties to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute and/or copy the content under the condition that the authors are given credit. No permission is required from the authors or the publisher.

This broad license intends to facilitate free access, as well as the unrestricted use of original works of all types. This ensures that the published work is freely and openly available in perpetuity.

By providing open access, the following benefits are brought about:

  • Higher Visibility, Availability and Citations-free and unlimited accessibility of the publication over the internet without any restrictions increases citation of the article.
  • Ease of search-publications are easily searchable in search engines and indexing databases.
  • Rapid Publication – accepted papers are immediately published online.
  • Available for free download immediately after publication at https://esp.as-pub.com/index.php/ESP

 

Copyright Statement

1.The authors certify that the submitted manuscripts are original works, do not infringe the rights of others, are free from academic misconduct and confidentiality issues, and that there are no disputes over the authorship scheme of the collaborative articles. In case of infringement, academic misconduct and confidentiality issues, as well as disputes over the authorship scheme, all responsibilities will be borne by the authors.

2. The author agrees to grant the Editorial Office of Environment and Social Psychology a licence to use the reproduction right, distribution right, information network dissemination right, performance right, translation right, and compilation right of the submitted manuscript, including the work as a whole, as well as the diagrams, tables, abstracts, and any other parts that can be extracted from the work and used in accordance with the characteristics of the journal. The Editorial Board of Environment and Social Psychology has the right to use and sub-licence the above mentioned works for wide dissemination in print, electronic and online versions, and, in accordance with the characteristics of the periodical, for the period of legal protection of the property right of the copyright in the work, and for the territorial scope of the work throughout the world.

3. The authors are entitled to the copyright of their works under the relevant laws of Singapore, provided that they do not exercise their rights in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Journal.

About Licence

Environment and Social Psychology is an open access journal and all published work is available under the Creative Commons Licence, Authors shall retain copyright of their work and grant the journal/publisher the right of first publication, and their work shall be licensed under the Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0).

Under this licence, the author grants permission to third parties to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute and/or copy the content with attribution to the author. No permission from the author or publisher is required.

This broad licence is intended to facilitate free access to and unrestricted use of original works of all kinds. This ensures that published works remain free and accessible in perpetuity. Submitted manuscripts, once accepted, are immediately available to the public and permanently accessible free of charge on the journal’s official website (https://esp.as-pub.com/index.php/ESP). Allowing users to read, download, copy, print, search for or link to the full text of the article, or use it for other legal purposes. However, the use of the work must retain the author's signature, be limited to non-commercial purposes, and not be interpretative.

Click to download <Agreement on the Licence for the Use of Copyright on Environmental and Social Psychology>.

How to Cite

Di Battista, S., Pivetti, M., Moro, M., Menegatti, E., & Greco, A. (2023). Acceptance of educational robotics: Evolution and validation of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology via structural equation modeling. Environment and Social Psychology, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.54517/esp.v9i3.2121

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

Silvia Di Battista

Department of Human Sciences, Marconi University

Monica Pivetti

Department of Human and Social Sciences, University of Bergamo

Michele Moro

Department of Information Engineering, University of Padova

Emanuele Menegatti

Department of Information Engineering, University of Padova

Andrea Greco

Department of Human and Social Sciences, University of Bergamo


DOI: https://doi.org/10.54517/esp.v9i3.2121


Keywords: UTAUT, STEM, Almere model, educational robotics, acceptance, structural equation modeling

Abstract

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.

References

[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: http://www.aipass.org (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: http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3 (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



21 Woodlands Close #02-10 Primz Bizhub Singapore 737854

Email:editorial_office@as-pub.com