What question did this study set out to answer?

This article analyzes how socially assistive robotics can support the inclusion of students with autism spectrum disorder in school settings.

May 10, 2026

Social assistive robotics as an enabling technology for the inclusion of children with ASD in school settings: a systematic literature review

Key Points

This article analyzes how socially assistive robotics can support the inclusion of students with autism spectrum disorder in school settings.
Conducted a systematic literature review using Scopus and Web of Science databases.
Identified 33 primary research articles focusing on robotics in education for children with ASD.
Applied thematic synthesis to categorize methodological characteristics and technological utilization.
SAR functions as a social bridge, structured predictor, and personalized motivator for inclusion.
Identified 29 different robotic platforms, with NAO robot being the most common at 30.3%.
Over half of interventions (57.6%) were isolated sessions, lacking integration into classroom curricula.

Abstract

Purpose The aim of this article is to analyze the role of Socially Assistive Robotics (SAR) as an enabling technology for the inclusion of students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in school settings. The study seeks to bridge the gap between research potential and practical application by evaluating the current methodological landscape, the ecological validity of research designs, and the transferability of these technologies to real classroom contexts. Design/methodology/approach A systematic literature review was conducted in January 2026 using the Scopus and Web of Science databases. A total of 33 primary research articles published between 2020 and 2025 were identified, all of which employed robotic platforms with children or adolescents with ASD in educational contexts. The analysis applies a thematic synthesis within a descriptive analytical framework to categorize methodological characteristics, technological platforms, and the degree of pedagogical integration. Findings The findings confirm that SAR functions as a catalyst for inclusion through three mechanisms: as a social bridge, a structured predictor, and a personalized motivator. However, the review reveals significant technological fragmentation (29 different platforms, with the NAO robot leading at 30.3%) and a lack of reporting on practical implementation. Only 9.1% of studies provide cost-related information, and the majority of interventions (57.6%) consist of isolated sessions not integrated into the curriculum. Critical barriers are identified, including limited robot autonomy and the need for specialized teacher training. Practical implications The study highlights the need to adopt translational study designs and co-design protocols with educators to ensure sustainability. The implications suggest that, for effective inclusion, robotics should be embedded within individualized education plans (IEPs) and daily classroom routines, moving beyond the conception of robots as isolated therapeutic tools. The DivInTech project is proposed as a collaborative ecosystem model that promotes training and open resource sharing to overcome cost and scalability barriers. Originality/value Unlike previous reviews that focus primarily on clinical outcomes, this study adopts a critical methodological lens. Its originality lies in examining how research is designed and reported, identifying tensions between experimental control and school feasibility. Furthermore, the article proposes a standardized methodological framework and concrete actions to enhance the rigor and real-world impact of future interventions.

AIに質問

Bookmark