Attitudes of Engineering and Technology Teachers  
towards the Use of Humanoid Robots in Education 
Andrej Flogie 
University of Maribor, Slovenia 
andrej.flogie@um.si 
Jakob Škrobar 
University of Maribor, Slovenia 
jakob.skrobar1@um.si 
Dejan Zemljak 
University of Maribor, Slovenia 
dejan.zemljak1@um.si  
Purpose: The aim of the study was to investigate the attitudes of teachers of technical 
and engineering subjects towards the use of humanoid robots in the learning process. 
The aim was to find out whether these teachers are more willing to integrate robots in 
the classroom than teachers of other subjects, and whether they perceive concrete 
possibilities to use robots in different learning situations (e.g. substituting in the 
absence of a student). 
Study design/methodology/approach: The survey was quantitative and conducted 
through an online questionnaire, which was completed by 206 teachers of different 
subjects and levels of education in Slovenia. The questionnaire contained two sets of 
statements - one on the willingness to incorporate robots, the other on the concrete 
possibilities of their use. The analysis of differences between teachers of technical and 
non-technical subjects was carried out using the Mann-Whitney U-test, using IBM 
SPSS software. The questionnaire had high internal reliability (Cronbach α = .912). 
Findings: The results showed statistically significant differences in the expressed 
willingness to incorporate robots, with teachers of technical and engineering subjects 
showing higher willingness than other teachers. However, there were no statistically 
significant differences in the perception of concrete possibilities for the use of robots, 
such as helping to work with students remotely, assisting teachers with administrative 
tasks, etc. Teachers of technical subjects expressed more interest and openness to the 
use of robots in the classroom. 
Originality/value: The research provides important insights into a specific segment 
of teachers (engineering and technology teachers) who, due to the nature of the 
subject, are more inclined to make practical use of new technologies such as humanoid 
robots. This is one of the few studies that comparatively analyses the attitudes of 
different groups of teachers towards this topic. The results have value for the further 
development of pedagogical approaches, teacher training and the design of strategies 
for introducing robots in schools, especially in STEM fields. 
Introduction 
A few years ago, the concept of Educational Robotics (ER) emerged in education, which covers 
and examines all areas in the learning process that are related to robots. ER is thus a new field 
that aims to enhance the learning experience of people through the development and 
implementation of robots in education (Angel-Fernandez & Vincze, 2018). Indeed, robots are 
becoming an increasingly common companion in education, which can be manifested in two 
ways: (1) the robot as a learning object (the robot is studied as an object in the educational 
process) and (2) the robot as a learning tool (the robot is a tool for learning and teaching) 
(Alimisis & Kynigos, 2009). Alongside this, robots take on different roles, involving robots as 
teaching assistants, as peers and co-teachers, as companions, or as platforms for learning 
(Alvez-Olivera et al, 2016; Belpaeme & Tanaka, 2021; Mubin et al., 2013). Humanoid robots 
could take on different roles in education. They could be assistants to teachers in teaching 
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning | ISSN 2232-5697
                    Volume 14 (2025) 277–284 | https://www.doi.org/10.53615/2232-5697.14.277-284

content in their field, and they could also have an impact on improving students' attention. It is 
important to stress out that humanoid robots should not take on the role of a teacher but would 
merely be a companion or assistant to enhance the learning process. In particular, humanoid 
robots would be useful in situations where learning cannot be confined to a specific time and 
place. The implementation of humanoid robots in the educational process has been shown to 
have a positive impact on the development of skills at all levels of education (Conti et al., 2017; 
Rao & Ab Jalil, 2021). The use of robots in education has a positive impact, as students were 
more cooperative and had positive attitudes towards the humanoid robot that accompanied them 
in the classroom (Yousif, 2021). Despite the advantages, the potential disadvantages or 
concerns that arise when thinking about the integration of humanoid robots in teaching should 
not be neglected. Teachers also have concerns about the autonomy of using humanoid robots 
in the educational process (Reich-Stiebert & Eyssel, 2016). This is because teachers want to 
maintain control in teaching and limit the role of the humanoid robot. Potential barriers such as 
the cost and time to prepare activities with humanoid robots should not be neglected, which 
would take even more time for teachers to adequately prepare for the lesson (Isteni č et al., 
2021). This could be particularly difficult in engineering and technology lessons where teachers 
want more hands-on work. Integrating humanoid robots into education will certainly be a 
challenge, but there is optimism in the field. At the moment, we are not yet close to the point 
where humanoid robots are being integrated into the educational process at an accelerated pace, 
as they do not yet have the skills and versatility needed to be successful in the classroom (Reiner 
et al., 2023). Therefore, now is an excellent opportunity to explore how robots can act as 
learning tools and maximise their added value as stimulating and engaging educational tools. 
Research Problem and Focus 
Robots are evolving very fast and have already become a part of our lives in many forms. The 
same is happening with humanoid robots, which could soon become part of everyday life in 
schools. But the fact is that the subjects in the school curriculum are different, with some being 
more theory-oriented (teaching different theories) and others being much more practical (such 
as engineering and technology). Once humanoid robots become part of everyday school life, 
they will be required to perform a variety of tasks in different subjects. And whether they can 
be used in all subjects or just some will depend on what they are capable of. Engineering and 
technology is a quite specific subject, as it involves more practical work, so it is a perfectly 
reasonable question whether robots can be part of the teaching of engineering and technology. 
Research Aim and Research Hypotheses 
The aim of the research was to find out what the opinions or attitudes of engineering and 
technology teachers are towards the inclusion of humanoid robots in engineering and 
technology lessons. We were interested in whether they would be willing to teach a subject with 
the presence of a humanoid robot and if they would be willing to use robots in concrete 
situations that would overcome potential problems, such as those that arise during a student's 
prolonged absence or in other similar situations. For the purpose of the study, we formulated 
the following hypotheses: 
• Hypothesis 1: There are statistically significant differences in the willingness to 
integrate humanoid robots into the learning process between teachers of engineering 
and technology and teachers of other subjects. Teachers of engineering and technology 
will show a higher willingness than teachers of other subjects. 
• Hypothesis 2: There are statistically significant differences between teachers of 
engineering and technology and teachers of other subjects when it comes to concrete 
examples of the possibilities of integrating humanoid robots into the learning process. 
Flogie et al. | Attitudes of Engineering and Technology Teachers 278

Teachers of engineering and technology will show more positive attitudes towards 
concrete examples of integrating robots into teaching than teachers of other subjects. 
Research Methodology 
For the purpose of the survey, several research studies were reviewed and analysed as the basis 
for the development of this questionnaire (Serholt & Barendregt, 2014; Xia & LeTendre, 2020; 
Saari, et. al. Al. 2022; Negrini, 2020; Rao & Ab Jalil, 2021). Based on these studies, some 
discretionary statements were included in the questionnaire. This strategy was used to fill 
research gaps and to design the questionnaire in line with the objectives and hypotheses of this 
study. Modifying the statements of existing surveys allowed for the use of previously 
established information and experience, ensuring the inclusion of validated measures. 
Sample 
The survey was conducted in autumn of the 2022/2023 school year. The online questionnaire 
was created in the 1ka.si online survey application and the link to the questionnaire was sent to 
randomly selected teachers by email. The link was also posted on the Innovative Teachers 
Association of Slovenia forum. The questionnaire was designed in accordance with all 
guidelines, allowing it to be completely anonymous. Participants were informed before the 
survey started and had to agree to answer the questions. 255 teachers started the questionnaire 
and 49 did not complete it. 206 responses were taken into account for the analysis. The 
questionnaire covered different groups of teachers according to years of teaching experience 
(all teachers were included, those with less experience, up to 5 years of experience, as well as 
very experienced teachers with more than 35 years of experience.), teachers of different genders 
(female and male) and teachers from different backgrounds (social studies teachers, science 
teachers, vocational teachers, primary teachers and secondary teachers). It is also important to 
point out that the teachers had no previous experience of teaching with educational robots but 
had to put themselves in this (hypothetical) role for the purpose of the study. 
Instrument and Procedures 
The questionnaire consisted of a first set of 5 statements related to the willingness to integrate 
robots in teaching. The statements were as follows: “I want to use robots in teaching as soon as 
possible”, “I am interested in the use and integration of robots in the classroom”, “I see great 
potential in the use of robots in teaching in general”, “I see great potential in the use of robots 
in teaching in my subject area” and “I am following progress in this area”. The second part of 
the questionnaire consisted of 7 general statements, which basically referred to concrete 
examples of the use of humanoid robots in teaching. The statements were as follows: “I have 
experience in using technology in teaching”, “I am aware of the potential of robots in teaching”, 
“I think that, in the classroom, robots could be used for a variety of purposes”, “Robots could 
be used in teaching for students with special needs”, “Robots could help interact with students 
who are participating remotely (for example, due to illness)”, “Robots in education could be 
used only to assist the teacher” and “Robots could also be used in education for teachers' 
administrative work”. Finally, the teachers were asked to specify whether they were teachers 
of engineering and technology or not, which allowed us to compare the results of the analysis 
between teachers of engineering and technology and teachers of other subjects. 
Teachers were asked to indicate their agreement with the statements on a five-point scale, which 
was formatted as follows: '1 – Do not agree at all', '2 – Disagree', '3 – Undefined', '4 – Agree' 
and '5 – Strongly agree'. The main purpose of the study was to explore teachers' attitudes 
towards the introduction and use of humanoid robots in the educational process, where teachers' 
possible experience of working with humanoid robots was not relevant. It was important (and 
Flogie et al. | Attitudes of Engineering and Technology Teachers 279

teachers were warned about this) to try to put themselves in a situation during teaching where 
they would be accompanied by a humanoid robot in the classroom. The teachers were asked to 
express their views on the claims made, based on the situation they were put in. 
Data Analysis 
For this questionnaire, a reliability test of the questionnaire was carried out. The internal 
consistency of the scale is acceptable for this sample, with a Cronbach's Alpha ( α) of .912 
(Nunnally, 1978). The data were analysed using the IBM SPSS statistical software. To test for 
statistically significant differences between the statements, an non-parametric Mann-Whitney 
U-test was performed on the sample to compare the results between two independent groups at 
the 95% confidence level. 
Research Results 
First, the results on teachers' willingness to integrate robots into their teaching are presented. 
Table 1 summarises the results of the Mann-Whitney U test for a set of statements relating to 
the willingness to include robots in teaching among teachers teaching engineering and 
technology and teachers teaching other subjects. The results of the analysis showed statistically 
significant differences between the two groups of teachers for all statements. 
Table 1: Mann-Whitney Test Results for Willingness to Integrate Robots into Teaching Based on Teacher 
Type 
Willingness to integrate 
robots into teaching 
Teacher Type Mean Rank Mann-Whitney U Test 
I want to use robots in 
teaching as soon as 
possible. 
E&T 141.18 U = 1106.5 
z = -3.089 
p = .002 
other 99.45 
I am interested in the use 
and integration of robots 
in the classroom. 
E&T 136.57 U = 1198.5 
z = -2.702 
p = .007 
other 99.94 
I see great potential in the 
use of robots in teaching 
in general. 
E&T 132.40 U = 1282 
z = -2.360 
p = .018 
other 100.39 
I see great potential in the 
use of robots in teaching 
in my subject area. 
E&T 136.53 U = 1199.5 
z = -2.694 
p = .007 
other 99.95 
I am following progress 
in this area. 
E&T 130.20 U = 1326 
z = -2.177 
p = .029 
other 100.63 
Note: E&T: teacher of engineering and technology; other: teachers of other school subjects 
For all statements, teachers of engineering and technology expressed higher agreement with the 
statements, indicating that teachers show more positive attitudes towards the integration of 
robots in teaching than teachers of other subjects. Thus, teachers who teach engineering and 
technology show more agreement with the statement that they want to use robots in the 
classroom as soon as possible, that they are interested in integrating robots in the classroom, 
that they see a high potential for integrating robots in the classroom in general, that they see a 
high potential for integrating robots in the classroom, and also for monitoring the progress in 
this area. The results of the survey show that teachers are more likely to agree with the statement 
that they want to use robots in the classroom as soon as possible. 
Table 2 summarises the results of the statistical analysis of the possibilities to integrate robots 
into teaching. 
 
Flogie et al. | Attitudes of Engineering and Technology Teachers 280

Table 2: Mann-Whitney Test Results for the Analysis of the Possibility of Using Robots in Teaching Based 
on Teacher Type 
Possibility of using 
robots in teaching 
Teacher Type Mean Rank Mann-Whitney U Test 
I have experience in 
using technology in 
teaching. 
E&T 96.75 U = 1725 
z = -.591 
p = .555 
other 104.23 
I am aware of the 
potential of robots in 
teaching. 
E&T 118.23 U = 1565.5 
z = -1.229 
p = .219 
other 101.92 
I think that, in the 
classroom, robots could 
be used for a variety of 
purposes. 
E&T 121.45 U = 1501 
z = -1.521 
p = .128 
other 101.57 
Robots could be used in 
teaching for students with 
special needs. 
E&T 126.73 U = 1395.5 
z = -1.902 
p = .057 
other 101.00 
Robots could help 
interact with students 
who are participating 
remotely (for example, 
due to illness). 
E&T 117.95 U = 1571 
z = -1.208 
p = .227 
other 101.95 
Robots in education 
could be used only to 
assist the teacher. 
E&T 118.58 U = 1558.5 
z = -1.253 
p = .210 
other 101.88 
Robots could also be used 
in education for teachers' 
administrative work. 
E&T 119.15 U = 1547 
z = -1.304 
p = .192 
other 101.82 
Note: E&T: teacher of engineering and technology; other: teachers of other school subjects 
In none of the statements was there a statistically significant difference between teachers 
teaching technology and other teachers. However, a closer examination shows that teachers of 
other subjects have more experience of integrating technology into their teaching. For the other 
statements, the rank is higher for teachers of technology and engineering. This suggests that 
engineering and technology teachers might be aware of the potential of integrating robots into 
teaching, that robots could be used for a variety of purposes in the classroom, that robots could 
be helpful for teaching students with special needs, and that robots could also be helpful for 
distance learning. Teachers of engineering and technology also show a stronger preference for 
the statements that robots could help assist the teacher and that they could help the teacher with 
administrative work. But it is important to point out that for this set of statements, the analysis 
did not show statistically significant differences between the teachers of engineering and 
technology and the teachers of other subjects, so it cannot be said with certainty that either 
group shows a more positive attitude towards the statements than the other group. 
Discussion 
The analysis of the data shows that there are statistically significant differences between the 
opinions expressed by teachers of engineering and technology and those of teachers of other 
subjects in the statements related to the willingness to integrate robots in the teaching of 
engineering and technology. All five statements showed a statistically significant difference 
and in all of them the mean rank was higher for the teachers of engineering and technology. 
This suggests that teachers of engineering and technology show a higher level of agreement 
with the statements related to the willingness to include humanoid robots in the teaching of 
engineering and technology. The largest statistically significant difference is in the first 
statement “I want to use robots in teaching as soon as possible”, where teachers of engineering 
Flogie et al. | Attitudes of Engineering and Technology Teachers 281

show higher agreement. This means that, compared to teachers of other subjects, these teachers 
are significantly more likely to want to use humanoid robots in teaching than teachers of other 
subjects. The reasons for this could be found in a number of different areas, but we can certainly 
point to similar ones, such as the following study. In fact, the findings of the study showed that 
teachers want humanoid robots in their teaching because they believe that this would increase 
student engagement and motivation, which in turn could have an impact on learning outcomes 
(Ramírez-Montoya et. al., 2023). One study also found that a robot that was more integrated 
into the educational process provided opportunities for student development in all areas of 
learning (Crompton et. al., 2018). It is believed that the subject of engineering and technology 
would not be an exception, and that development would take place in areas such as those 
covered by engineering and technology. However, at the same time, we need to point out 
potential caveats that could affect the results of our research. The research conducted by 
Crompton et. al (2018) suggests that teachers who are confronted with the use of humanoid 
robots typically lack experience and knowledge in the integration and operation of the robot. 
This may pose a greater difficulty in decision-making if the teacher feels prepared to integrate 
a humanoid robot into their work. Yet, this same research confirms that teachers were 
nevertheless able to perceive the robot as a classroom tool that they could use to teach 
successfully (Crompton et. al., 2018). The same could be true for teachers of engineering and 
technology. For the other statements, the differences are not as pronounced, but nonetheless, 
engineering and technology teachers show a greater preference than other teachers. Engineering 
and technology teachers are more interested in integrating humanoid robots into teaching, 
seeing more potential in this, both in general and in the subject area. 
It is also interesting to note that teachers of engineering and technology tend to follow progress 
in the integration of humanoid robots into teaching more closely and probably with more 
interest than teachers of other subjects. Based on the results of the analysis, we confirm the first 
hypothesis, which states that there will be statistically significant differences in the willingness 
to integrate humanoid robots into teaching and that teachers of engineering and technology will 
show a higher willingness than teachers of other subjects. It is true that engineering and 
technology teachers show a greater willingness to integrate humanoid robots into their teaching. 
Analysis of the data showed no statistically significant differences for the specific options of 
integrating humanoid robots into teaching. So no group of teachers stands out. Looking at the 
results in a little more detail, the only difference is that for the statement »I have experience in 
using technology in teaching«, the mean rank is higher for the group of teachers who teach 
subjects other than engineering and technology, and for all the other statements the mean rank 
is higher for teachers who teach engineering and technology. Since no statistically significant 
differences were found for this set of claims, we reject the second hypothesis, which states that 
statistically significant differences will be found between teachers of engineering and 
technology and teachers of other subjects for specific examples of opportunities to integrate 
humanoid robots into teaching and that teachers of engineering and technology will show more 
positive attitudes towards specific examples of the integration of robots into teaching than 
teachers of other subjects. 
As the results show, teachers of engineering and technology are eager to include and use 
humanoid robots in their teaching, they also show more interest in the field and are more open 
to new approaches in teaching engineering and technology. It would therefore make sense to 
reflect on how to approach this field and help teachers, not only of engineering and technology, 
but of all, to implement humanoid robots in their teaching. It is believed that this should be 
approached in a holistic way. Here is the proposal of 4 actions that could help to implement 
robots in teaching faster and more effectively: (1) teacher training: to provide comprehensive 
training, with a focus on gaining experience and skills in the operation and use of humanoid 
Flogie et al. | Attitudes of Engineering and Technology Teachers 282

robots, (2) development of pedagogical approaches: to develop pedagogical approaches that 
integrate humanoid robots into the strategies of engineering and technology courses, (3) 
monitoring and evaluation: establish a permanent system for improving and adapting 
pedagogical approaches by introducing an appropriate Monitoring and Evaluation System on 
the effectiveness of the use of humanoid robots in teaching, in particular in engineering and 
technology, and (4) promote collaboration: foster collaboration between teachers and industry, 
research institutions and experts in the field, allowing for the exchange of knowledge and 
experience and contributing to a more successful integration of humanoid robots in education. 
We believe that the implementation of humanoid robots in education, in particular in the subject 
of engineering and technology, is an area that will require a great deal of research that will 
examine teachers' motivations and attitudes towards the use of humanoid robots, as well as 
actual use and the impact on motivation, student engagement, final learning outcomes, etc., and 
that will also be important for the future of humanoid robots. 
Conclusions and Implications 
The research provided insights into the attitudes of engineering and technology teachers 
towards the inclusion and use of humanoid robots in engineering and technology lessons. The 
survey explored the views of engineering and technology teachers on the inclusion of humanoid 
robots in the teaching of engineering and technology. The findings show that teachers of 
engineering and technology are eager to integrate and use humanoid robots in their teaching, as 
they show a greater interest in this area and are more open to new approaches in teaching 
engineering and technology. 
A survey of teachers was conducted to assess their willingness to use humanoid robots in 
teaching. The results showed that teachers of engineering and technology showed higher 
agreement with statements related to the use of humanoid robots in teaching compared to 
teachers of other subjects. Four actions were proposed to accelerate and make more effective 
the implementation of robots in education. 
The findings of this research have important implications for the future integration of humanoid 
robots in education, in particular in the teaching of engineering and technology. The 
recommended actions can help to better prepare teachers and develop pedagogical approaches 
involving robots. It is also important to further explore teachers' motivations and attitudes 
towards the use of humanoid robots and their impact on students' motivation, engagement and 
learning outcomes. These findings are important for both the scientific and educational 
communities, as they offer insights into effective strategies for integrating new technologies 
into the educational process. 
Acknowledgements 
This research was funded by the research project Innovative pedagogy 5.0. The research project 
is co-financed by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Slovenia, as part of the 
mechanism for recovery and resilience. 
References 
Alimisis, D., & Kynigos, C. (2009). Constructionism and robotics in education. In D. Alimisis (Ed.), Teacher 
Education on Robotics-Enhanced Constructivist Pedagogical Methods (pp. 11–26). ASPETE. 
Alves-Oliveira, P., Sequeira, P., & Paiva, A. (2016). The role that an educational robot plays. In Proceedings of 
the 25th IEEE International symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN) (pp. 
817–822). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2016.7745213 
Angel-Fernandez, J. M., & Vincze, M. (2018). Towards a definition of educational robotics. In Austrian Robotics 
Workshop 2018 (pp. 37–42). https://doi.org/10.15203/3187-22-1 
Flogie et al. | Attitudes of Engineering and Technology Teachers 283

Belpaeme, T., & Tanaka, F. (2021). Social robots as educators. In OECD Digital Education Outlook 2021: Pushing 
the Frontiers with Artificial Intelligence, Blockchain and Robots (pp. 143–157). OECD Publishing. 
Conti, D., Di Nuovo, S., Buono, S., & Di Nuovo, A. (2017). Robots in education and care of children with 
developmental disabilities: A study on acceptance by experienced and future professionals. International 
Journal of Social Robotics, 9(1), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-016-0359-6 
Crompton, H., Gregory, K. H., & Burke, D. (2018). Humanoid robots supporting children’s learning in an early 
childhood setting. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(5), 911–927. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12654 
Isteni č, A., Bratko, I., & Rosanda, V. (2021). Are preservice teachers disinclined to utilise embodied humanoid 
social robots in the classroom?. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(6), 2340–2358. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13144 
Mubin, O., Stevens, C. J., Shahid, S., Al Mahmud, A., & Dong, J. J. (2013). A review of the applicability of robots 
in education. Journal of Technology in Education and Learning, 1 (209-0015), 13. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.2316/Journal.209.2013.1.209-0015 
Negrini, L. (2020). Teachers’ attitudes towards educational robotics in compulsory school. Italian Journal of 
Educational Technology, 28(1), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.17471/2499-4324/1136 
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. McGraw Hill. 
Ramírez-Montoya, M.S., Baena-Rojas, J.J. & Patiño, A. (2023). Educational robotics and complex thinking: 
Instructors views’ on using humanoid robots in higher education. In R. Balogh,  D. Obdržálek, & E. 
Christoforou (Eds), Robotics in Education. RiE 2023. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 747 (pp. 
117–128). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38454-7_11 
Rao, L. N., & Ab Jalil, H. (2021). A survey on acceptance and readiness to use robot teaching technology among 
primary school science teachers. Asian Social Science, 17(11), 115–121. 
https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v17n11p115 
Reich-Stiebert, N., & Eyssel, F. (2016). Robots in the classroom: What teachers think about teaching and learning 
with education robots. In A. Agah, J. J. Cabibihan, A. Howard, M. Salichs, & H. He (Eds.). Social Robotics. 
ICSR 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 9979 (pp. 671–680). Springer, Cham. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47437-3_66 
Reiner, R., Rabezzana, L., & Zimmermann, Y. (2023). Do robots outperform humans in human-centered 
domains?. Frontiers in robotics and AI, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2023.1223946 
Saari, U. A., Tossavainen, A., Kaipainen, K., & Mäkinen, S. J. (2022). Exploring factors influencing the 
acceptance of social robots among early adopters and mass market representatives. Robotics and 
Autonomous Systems, 151, 104033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2022.104033 
Serholt, S., & Barendregt, W. (2014). Students’ Attitudes towards the possible future of social robots in education. 
Workshop proceedings of RO-MAN. 
Xia, Y., & LeTendre, G. (2020). Robots for future classrooms: A crosscultural validation study of “negative 
attitudes tward robots scale” in the U.S. Context. International Journal of Social Robotics, 13, 703–714. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00669-2 
Yousif, M. (2021). Humanoid robot enhancing social and communication skills of autistic children. Artificial 
Intelligence & Robotics Development Journal, 1(2), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.52098/airdj.202129 
Flogie et al. | Attitudes of Engineering and Technology Teachers 284