Unveiling the Veil: University Students’ Insights on Robotic Teaching in Saudi Arabia

In today’s digital era, artificial intelligence (AI) driven robotic teaching assistants are gaining increasing attention in the field of education. These systems not only support personalized learning but also ease administrative workloads, thereby improving overall efficiency [1-2]. Their use offers a range of advantages, including enhanced productivity, improved communication and greater teaching effectiveness. Robots can deliver customized lessons, provide instant feedback and create an engaging, low-stress learning environment for students [3-4]. Despite these benefits, it is vital to examine the enablers and barriers that influence their adoption within educational institutions.

The past decade has witnessed a remarkable technological revolution that has significantly reshaped teaching and learning processes in educational settings [5-7]. Educators and stakeholders must be prepared to embrace these changes and adopt innovative tools to foster collaborative, interactive and meaningful learning experiences. Consequently, teaching methodologies must continuously evolve and adapt to the rapid digital transformations occurring globally [8-9].

As AI continues to advance, robotic teaching is emerging as an indispensable component of modern education, supporting and enhancing both teaching and learning practices. Several countries have already introduced or are actively experimenting with the use of robots at primary and secondary school levels [10-13]. This has prompted researchers to carefully analyse the potential benefits and challenges of robotic teaching, as concerns about its future role in education remains [14-15]. Colleges and universities must also prepare for the integration of robotic teaching systems, which requires a deep understanding of both the promoting factors and the barriers to implementation [16-18].

Research in this area is crucial for guiding education planners in designing effective policies and strategies to ensure the meaningful integration of robotic teaching into higher education. Such efforts can raise awareness about the best practices for its use and maximize its potential benefits for students and teachers alike. However, to date, limited evidence is available from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia regarding the role of robotic teaching in colleges and universities [19-20]. To address this gap, the present study aims to explore university students’ perceptions of robotic teaching and evaluate its potential incorporation into higher education systems.

Study Setting and Design

This study adopted a cross-sectional descriptive survey design and was conducted in Saudi Arabia between January and September 2024.

Sample Size and Sampling Method

A convenience sampling technique was used. The minimum required sample size was determined to be 386, calculated using the following formula:

Where:

Z1-α/2 : The standard normal variate at 5% type 1 error (p<0.05); it is 1.96

P : The expected proportion based on previous studies

D : The absolute error (0.05)

Research Tool

Data were collected using a structured, pre-designed questionnaire that assessed participants’ perceptions of robotic teaching and their prior educational exposure. Awareness levels were categorized as high if more than 50% of the perception-related questions were answered correctly.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The study included both male and female students aged 18 years and above. Individuals not enrolled in higher education, as well as those residing outside the study area, were excluded.

Statistical Analysis

Data analysis was performed using STATA/SE version 11.2 (StataCorp, College Station, Texas, USA) and Microsoft Excel. Results were presented as frequencies and percentages. Comparative analyses were conducted using the Chi-square test (χ²) and Fisher’s Exact Test (FEET). A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Out of the total 423 participants, the majority (72.1%) were in the 18-22 age range, with 79.67% being female. Detailed demographic information is presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Sociodemographic characteristics of the study participants

While most participants (69.27%) supported the inclusion of robots in teaching, their opinions were divided on whether robots could replace human instructors. Participants demonstrated a strong awareness of the advantages and disadvantages of robotic teaching, with over 65% providing correct responses for both categories. Nevertheless, 70.21% expressed a desire for additional training sessions. Figure 1 provides responses to all perception questions. However, as shown in Table 2, there were no significant differences in perceptions across age groups.

Figure 1: Students’ perception of robotic teaching

Table 2: Variations in students’ perception about robotic teaching by age (n.=423)

However, significant gender differences were observed in opinions regarding the inclusion of robots in educational settings (p = 0.04) and whether robots could replace human teachers (p = 0.04) (Table 3).

Table 3: Variations in students’ perception of robotic teaching by gender

Regarding prior exposure to robotic teaching, 70.2% of participants had already attended one or two educational sessions. The full data on these sessions is illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Robotic teaching education sessions attended by studied students

The demographic analysis of this study revealed that the majority of participants (72.1%) were between 18-22 years of age, with females representing a significant proportion (79.67%). This suggests a strong engagement with emerging technologies, including robotic teaching, particularly among young women. Similar global trends have been reported; for instance, research from the United States shows that young girls increasingly take part in robotics programming competitions, highlighting their growing confidence and interest in technological innovation [21]. Such enthusiasm is likely driven by broader access to STEM education and targeted initiatives that encourage female participation in technology-oriented fields.

Support for the inclusion of robotic teaching in higher education was expressed by 69.27% of respondents, reflecting students’ openness toward adopting innovative educational tools. This positive outlook can be attributed to an increased awareness of technology’s role in education, particularly in the post-pandemic era where digital platforms and hybrid models have become integral to learning. However, participants expressed divided opinions on whether robotic systems could entirely replace human instructors. These perspectives mirror findings in existing literature, which emphasize the efficiency, consistency and scalability of AI-driven teaching but simultaneously underscore the irreplaceable value of human educators in providing emotional intelligence, mentorship and adaptive guidance [22-24]. The observation that approximately 71% of students were interested in expanding their knowledge of robotic teaching indicates a genuine curiosity and readiness to embrace this evolving field. In Saudi Arabia, robotics has already been introduced at school levels, largely inspired by Vision 2030 initiatives that prioritize technology, innovation and youth empowerment. Although robotics is not yet a formal component of the national curriculum, initiatives and competitions are increasingly promoted to strengthen critical thinking, problem-solving and technological literacy among students [25-26]. This context may explain the strong interest observed among university students, who recognize the potential benefits of integrating robotic systems into higher education.

Additionally, the study found that 70.2% of respondents had attended one or two sessions on robotic teaching. Such exposure likely contributed to the relatively high awareness levels observed in this cohort. Early engagement with educational technologies helps demystify robotics, reduces apprehension and cultivates positive attitudes toward its use. Incorporating similar introductory experiences into higher education curricula could further enhance students’ preparedness and receptiveness to robotic teaching.

Overall, the findings suggest that students are highly receptive to robotic teaching, though cautious about the idea of fully replacing human educators. A hybrid model, where robotic systems complement rather than replace human instructors, may provide the most effective and balanced approach, combining the efficiency of AI with the mentorship, empathy and adaptability that only human teachers can offer.

This research provides important insights into university students’ perceptions of robotic teaching, highlighting both their awareness of its advantages and acknowledgment of its challenges. The findings underscore a strong interest in the subject, particularly among young female students and emphasize the need for further training opportunities in this emerging field.

Based on these results, higher education institutions are encouraged to design and implement structured training programs on robotic teaching to align with students’ interests and prepare them for future academic and professional demands. In parallel, policymakers should work toward developing frameworks that ensure the ethical, responsible and sustainable integration of robotics into education.

The study’s main limitations include the gender imbalance of participants and its single-institution scope. To strengthen the evidence base, future research should involve more balanced and diverse student populations across multiple universities, thereby enhancing generalizability and capturing a broader range of perspectives.

Strengths A key strength of this study lies in its focus on a highly relevant and timely topic, exploring the integration of robotic teaching in higher education. The research also benefits from a relatively large sample size, which enhances the robustness of its findings. Another strength is the inclusion of participants from different faculties and academic years, ensuring a more comprehensive and representative overview of student perspectives.

Limitations Despite its contributions, the study has some limitations. The reliance on self-reported data introduces the possibility of response bias, as participants’ answers may not always reflect their true knowledge or attitudes. Additionally, the notable gender imbalance within the sample restricts the generalizability of the results. Finally, as this was a single-institution study, the findings may not be fully applicable to other universities or regions with different contexts and educational systems.

Acknowledgement

The authors gratefully acknowledge the Deanship of Scientific Research at Northern Border University, Arar, Saudi Arabia, for funding this work through project number: NBU-FFR-2024-1301-02.

Ethical Statement

Ethical approval was obtained from the Local Committee of Bioethics at Northern Border University (Approval No: 112/23/H). Informed consent was secured from all participants, with assurances of confidentiality, anonymity and voluntary participation. Participants were informed of their right to withdraw at any stage and all data were handled in compliance with strict security and privacy protocols.

1. Vieriu, A.M. and G. Petrea. "The impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on students’ academic development." Education Sciences, vol. 15, no. 3, 2025, p. 343. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15030343.
2. Sajja, R. et al. "Artificial intelligence-enabled intelligent assistant for personalized and adaptive learning in higher education." Information, vol. 15, no. 10, 2024, p. 596. https://doi.org/10.3390/info15100596.
3. Fung, K.Y. et al. "Exploring the impact of robot interaction on learning engagement: a comparative study of two multi-modal robots." Smart Learning Environments, vol. 12, 2025, p. 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00362-1.
4. Lin, H. and Q. Chen. "Artificial intelligence (AI)-integrated educational applications and college students' creativity and academic emotions: students and teachers' perceptions and attitudes." BMC Psychology, vol. 12, no. 1, 2024, p. 487. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01979-0.
5. Silvera-Tawil, D. et al. "Socially-assistive robots to support learning in students on the autism spectrum: investigating educator perspectives and a pilot trial of a mobile platform to remove barriers to implementation." Sensors, vol. 22, no. 16, 2022, p. 6125. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22166125.
6. Choi, H. et al. "On the use of simulation in robotics: opportunities, challenges and suggestions for moving forward." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 118, no. 1, 2021, e1907856118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1907856118.
7. Asghar, A. et al. "The potential scope of a humanoid robot in anatomy education: a review of a unique proposal." Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy, vol. 44, no. 10, 2022, pp. 1309-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-022-03020-8.
8. Gubenko, A. et al. "Educational robotics and robot creativity: an interdisciplinary dialogue." Frontiers in Robotics and AI, vol. 8, 2021, 662030. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2021.662030.
9. Serholt, S. et al. "Comparing a robot tutee to a human tutee in a learning-by-teaching scenario with children." Frontiers in Robotics and AI, vol. 9, 2022, 836462. https://doi.org/10. 3389/frobt.2022.836462.
10. Baxter, P. et al. "Robot education peers in a situated primary school study: personalisation promotes child learning." PLoS ONE, vol. 12, no. 5, 2017, e0178126. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178126.
11. Alimisis, D. "Technologies for an inclusive robotics education." Open Research Europe, vol. 1, 2021, p. 40. https:// doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.13321.2.
12. Tarrés-Puertas, M.I. et al. "Child-robot interactions using educational robots: an ethical and inclusive perspective." Sensors, vol. 23, no. 3, 2023, p. 1675. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23031675.
13. Verner, I.M. et al. "Characteristics of student engagement in high-school robotics courses." International Journal of Technology and Design Education, vol. 32, 2022, pp. 2129-50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09688-0.
14. Smakman, M.H.J. et al. "Do robotic tutors compromise the social-emotional development of children?" Frontiers in Robotics and AI, vol. 9, 2022, 734955. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2022.734955.
15. Osawa, H. et al. "Social agents as catalysts: social dynamics in the classroom with book introduction robot." Frontiers in Robotics and AI, vol. 9, 2022, 934325. https://doi.org/10. 3389/frobt.2022.934325.
16. Chou, H.S. et al. "Barriers and facilitators of robot-assisted education in higher education: a systematic mixed-studies review." Technology, Knowledge and Learning, vol. 28, 2023, pp. 477-516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-022-09637-3.
17. Alsoliman, B.S.H. "The utilization of educational robotics in Saudi schools: potentials and barriers from the perspective of Saudi teachers." International Education Studies, vol. 11, no. 10, 2018, pp. 105-11. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v11n10p105.
18. Yuldashevna, I.A. and K. Khurana. "The impediments to the process of implementing robotics in the school education system in Uzbekistan." SAGE Open, vol. 14, no. 2, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241254595.
19. Alsoliman, B.S.H. "Virtual robotics in education: the experience of eighth grade students in STEM." Frontiers in Education, vol. 7, 2022, 950766. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.950766.
20. Ali, R. and W. Yousef. "Enhancing student motivation and achievement in science classrooms through STEM education." STEM Education, vol. 4, no. 3, 2024, pp. 183-98. https://doi. org/10.3934/steme.2024012.
21. Witherspoon, E.B. et al. "Gender, interest and prior experience shape opportunities to learn programming in robotics competitions." International Journal of STEM Education, vol. 3, 2016, p. 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0052-1. Edwards, B.I. and A.D. Cheok. "Why not robot teachers: artificial intelligence for addressing teacher shortage." Applied Artificial Intelligence, vol. 32, no. 4, 2018, pp. 345-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/08839514.2018.1464286.
22. Newton, D. and L. Newton. "Humanoid robots as teachers and a proposed code of practice." Frontiers in Education, vol. 4, 2019, p. 125. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00125.
23. Tilden, S. et al. "Humanoid robots as learning assistants? Usability perspectives of grade 6 students." Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-024-09731-8.
24. Altuwaijri, A.E. et al. "Advancing Saudi Vision 2030 for sustainable development: modeling influencing factors on adolescents’ choice of STEM careers using structural equation modeling, with a comparative analysis of Bahrain and Singapore." Sustainability, vol. 17, no. 7, 2025, p. 2870. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17072870.
25. "Robots in Saudi Arabia." Saudipedia, 22 July 2025, https://saudipedia.com/en/article/2595/economy-and-business/data-and-ai/robots-in-saudi-arabia.