This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
This study examined factors influencing parent and teacher intentions to use social robots to deliver social and emotional learning (SEL) programs in primary school classrooms. Social robots offer unique benefits over other digital tools through their physical presence and interactive capabilities. These features make them promising tools for SEL delivery, as they can model behaviour, explain educational concepts, provide instructions, and offer feedback or prompts to encourage children's responses. Understanding stakeholder acceptance is essential as parents and teachers determine whether such technologies are adopted and effectively integrated into classrooms. A total of 146 participants (83 teachers, 63 parents) completed an online questionnaire measuring Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) variables: perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, attitudes, and behavioural intention. Multigroup path analysis revealed that perceived usefulness influenced attitudes for both parents and teachers, whereas perceived ease of use was not a significant predictor of attitudes in either group. Perceived usefulness was associated with behavioural intention to use social robots among teachers, while for parents, perceived usefulness was associated with attitudes, which in turn were associated with behavioural intention to support the use of social robots. Parent and teacher perceptions of social robots were also examined. Both groups identified cost as the main barrier to using social robots, and both agreed that robots could enhance student engagement and learning. Findings suggest that patterns of associations differ descriptively across parents and teachers in how behavioural intentions are formed. These understandings are essential for bridging the gap between social robot development and real-world implementation, ultimately determining whether social robot-facilitated SEL programs can be successfully integrated into primary school settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Barry et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: