Exploring the Implementation of the Pepper Social Robot in Formal Education: A Scoping Review

Synthesis: Martinez-Roig, Aragonés-González, and Cazorla (2026) present a scoping review of the use of the Pepper social robot in formal educational contexts, mapping documented forms of implementation, methodological designs, and reported findings. Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines and searching Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC-Proquest, and Dialnet (2014–2026), they selected 13 empirical studies. The review finds a concentration of research in primary education, a predominance of qualitative approaches with small samples, and Pepper used mainly for tutoring, collaborative learning, and mediation in inclusive settings — with benefits in motivation, engagement, and social skills, but also technical constraints, insufficient curricular integration, and a lack of longitudinal research. The evidence indicates effects depend largely on instructional design and teacher mediation.

Key Findings

13 empirical studies were included (published 2018–2026; search covered 2014–2026), following PRISMA-ScR guidelines across Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC-Proquest, and Dialnet.

Concentration in primary education (38.5%), with 30.8% in higher education, 15.4% in early-years, and 7.7% each in secondary and mixed primary/secondary; 69.2% of studies were European (Italy, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden), 30.8% US.

Predominance of qualitative approaches (61.5%) with small samples; 23.1% mixed-methods, 15.4% quantitative experimental designs. No large-scale longitudinal studies identified; 61.5% of samples had fewer than 50 participants.

Pepper is primarily used to support tutoring, collaborative learning, and mediation in inclusive educational settings (including pupils with autism spectrum disorder, the focus of 23.1% of studies), and its operation requires constant teacher supervision.

Reported benefits: increased motivation, participation, engagement, and development of social skills, with some studies reporting improvements in learning outcomes or attitudes.

Main limitations: technical constraints (voice recognition, software glitches), insufficient curricular integration, cost, reliance on technical support, privacy, and lack of longitudinal research.

The pedagogical dimension is a determining factor — Pepper's contribution depends on instructional design, activity purpose, student profile, technical stability, and teacher mediation, not the technology alone.

Study Design & Method

This is a scoping review following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. The authors searched Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC-Proquest, and Dialnet for peer-reviewed publications on the Pepper robot in formal education between 2014 and 1 March 2026. After duplicate removal and screening (1,448 references identified, 1,100 after deduplication, 345 full-text assessed), 13 studies met the inclusion criteria. Data extraction used a structured tool (piloted on three articles) covering authorship, country, objective, methodology, robot characteristics, curriculum area, student profile, teacher role, implementation issues, and reported benefits. Analysis combined descriptive analysis (frequencies/trends) and thematic categorical analysis (deductive, following Braun & Clarke), organized around themes of robot role, curricular areas, student profile, teacher role, challenges, and benefits.

Implications for AI in Education

The review situates Pepper's educational value beyond the technology itself: its embodiment, humanoid appearance, and multimodal interaction may foster initial interest but do not, in themselves, guarantee a meaningful educational experience. It positions the teacher as central — Pepper requires planning, supervision, regulation of interaction, and adjustment during activities, and should be understood as a supportive pedagogical resource rather than a substitute for the teacher. This connects to Social Robots, Educational Robotics, Human Robot Interaction, and Teacher Role, and cautions against technocentric approaches, calling for realistic, critical, and contextualized uses of social robotics. It is relevant to K 12, Higher Ed, Special Education, and inclusive education, and to research-methods debates about the predominance of small-sample qualitative studies and the need for longitudinal evidence.

Limitations

As a scoping review, its aim was to map available evidence rather than assess quality or synthesize effect sizes; it does not provide a quantitative meta-analysis. Only 13 empirical studies met inclusion criteria, reflecting the field's early stage, and the review notes the predominance of small-sample, short-duration qualitative studies with limited longitudinal follow-up. The search was restricted to English and Spanish publications, and the novelty effect of the robot may influence reported outcomes.

Connected Concepts

Social Robots

Educational Robotics

Human Robot Interaction

Equity In AI Education

Motivation

Student Engagement

Embodied Learning

Research Methods AIED

Connected Articles

Pepper Robot Sign Language Lis 2025 — Using the Pepper Robot to Support Sign Language Communication

White Wu Robotics AI Education 2026 — Robotics and AI in Education

Social Robot Study Companions — Social Robots as Study Companions

Task Context Trust Educational Hri 2026 — Task Context and Trust in Educational HRI

Human Autonomy Agency Hri Review 2025 — Human Autonomy and Agency in HRI

Game Based Gamified Robotics Education Review 2026 — Game-Based and Gamified Robotics Education

Citation

Martinez-Roig, R., Aragonés-González, M., & Cazorla, M. (2026). Exploring the implementation of the Pepper social robot in formal education: A scoping review. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 15, 22.