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.

What this means for practice

• Instructors. Treat Pepper as a supervised teaching resource, not an autonomous tutor: across the 13 included studies it required planning, supervision, and in-the-moment repair, with constant teacher mediation.
• Instructors. Plan a fallback for the activity: voice recognition of children's voices, software glitches, and dependence on technical staff were the most frequently reported implementation problems.
• Instructors. Anchor the robot in a curricular area with defined objectives (language, mathematics, STEM, sustainability) rather than using it as a standalone novelty, since reported benefits tracked instructional design and activity purpose.
• Administrators. Budget for the full cost of ownership — hardware, programming, and technical support — and expect short, project-based deployments rather than curriculum-wide integration.
• Researchers. Design longitudinal studies in mainstream classrooms comparing Pepper with tablets, virtual agents, and hands-on materials, given that no large-scale longitudinal study was identified and 61.5% of samples had fewer than 50 participants.

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.

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.