The integration of social robotics into initial teacher training is presented as a field to be explored in the context of educational innovation, with special emphasis on the process known as ‘co-creation’ (Fiorini et al., 2020). This is a collaborative process in which, in this case, future teachers, teachers and computer designers work together to develop technological solutions for the educational context.

As Sanders and Stappers (2008) point out, co-creation implies a paradigm shift in which users, in this case future teachers, are not mere recipients of technologies, but active collaborators in their development. From this perspective, the design of classroom activities is a joint endeavour deliberately designed to foster participation, dialogue and the collective construction of knowledge. All of this implies a technical and pedagogical challenge. It requires a deep understanding of learning theories, teaching methodologies and specific educational contexts. Vygotsky (1978) emphasised the importance of tools and symbols in cognitive development, pointing out that learning is enhanced in social contexts through interaction with the environment.

In our case, social robots, when designed and implemented in a co-creative way with future teachers, can act as mediating tools that foster this type of socioconstructivist learning, providing opportunities for the development of transversal competences that these future professionals must acquire (Werk et al., 2024).

The concept of the social robot is key to this approach, as these devices have been designed to interact with humans in a natural and meaningful way. They are not limited to being automated tools, but incorporate advanced elements of social interaction such as voice recognition, expression of emotions and adaptive responsiveness. In the classroom, social robots can play a variety of roles, from educational assistants to facilitators of collaborative learning. Their integration into initial teacher training allows future teachers to experiment with new methodologies and also gives them the opportunity to reflect on the impact of artificial intelligence on education and the ethical challenges associated with its implementation. We believe that an emerging technology, in this case social robotics, can be more readily accepted if it is approached from the perspective of co-creation. However, this approach is linked to the so-called maker culture, which is based on learning through experimentation, collaboration and the creation of tangible projects.

Makerspaces are environments in which students can design, build and test innovative solutions, with a proactive attitude towards problem solving (Max et al., 2024; Miliou et al., 2024; Pijls et al., 2022). In this context, the aim is for students to get to know and interact with the social robot Pepper (Fukawa et al., 2024; Pandey & Gelin, 2018) and, at the same time, to design a robot prototype for a primary school classroom. This will enable future teachers to act from the perspective of both actor and designer of what happens in the future classroom they will have when they are teachers and, at the same time, they will be able to reflect on an emerging technology.

Thus, in the present work, an educational experience with the social robot Pepper is presented, developed with future teachers. The general objective is to understand the perception of future teachers about social robots in the classroom from a co-creation perspective around their possibilities in a makerspace. The research questions we posed were: How do perceived usefulness, ease of use, facilitating conditions and social influence influence the acceptance of social robots by future teachers in a co-creative makerspace environment? How do future teachers' perceptions of social robotics impact their intention to use them in the classroom?

The experiment was carried out with a group of students from the Faculty of Education at the University of Alicante. The methodology followed a mixed approach and an ad hoc questionnaire was used as an evaluation tool to collect both quantitative and qualitative information on the participants' perceptions of the robot in relation to four dimensions: usefulness, simplicity of use, social impact and facilitating conditions at the end of the experiment. These indicators are based on the UTAUT model of technological acceptance (Guggemos et al., 2020). The students also reflect on their learning from a qualitative perspective. For the design of the experience, we have used so-called ‘lesson plans’, a task that the students carry out as if they were primary school teachers. In the case study presented in this paper, the university students create lesson plans in one of their second-year subjects. The approach is based on constructivism, meaningful learning and collaboration. Of all the designs to be carried out, one of them has focused on the interaction between students and social robots through co-creation and working in the classroom converted into a makerspace (Sanders & Stappers, 2008; Tilak et al., 2024 Vygotsky).

In terms of the results, these reflect a high rating of this technology for supporting educational processes, highlighting the capacity of these robots to motivate and capture the attention of students. Ease of use was also a highlight, indicating that, despite the technological complexity initially perceived, practical experience allows for quick familiarisation with their use, paving the way for their integration into the classroom. From the perspective of social impact, it is considered to favour a collaborative learning environment and the promotion of social skills, such as effective communication, teamwork and conflict resolution. On the other hand, it is considered that there are challenges associated with the implementation of this type of technology, such as access to it. In conclusion, it should be noted that these results support the need to continue exploring the field of social robotics in the educational context from an interdisciplinary perspective and as an emerging technology. This synergy of co-creation between pedagogy and technology opens up new possibilities and allows teachers to be an active part in the development of new technological resources. Likewise, the consideration of social robots as tools to be considered in the support of learning and teaching in classrooms configured as active workspaces, the makerspace model, is emphasised. More research and teaching practices will be needed around the design of pedagogical methods that incorporate cutting-edge technologies in the preparation of future teachers using (co)creative spaces.

Fiorini, L., Tabeau, K., D'Onofrio, G., Coviello, L., De Mul, M., Sancarlo, D., Fabbricotti, I., & Cavallo, F.. (2020). Cocreación de un robot de asistencia para la vida independiente: lecciones aprendidas sobre el diseño de robots. Revista Internacional de Diseño y Fabricación Interactivos (IJIDeM), 14, 491-502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-019-00641-z Fukawa, N., Huang, Y. S., & Babin, B. J. (2024). Pepper, just show me the way! How robotic shopping assistants should look and act. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 23(3), 1329-1356. Guggemos, J., Seufert, S., & Sonderegger, S. (2020). Humanoid robots in higher education: Evaluating the acceptance of Pepper in the context of an academic writing course using the UTAUT. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(5), 1864-1883. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13006 Max, A. L., Lukas, S., & Weitzel, H. (2024). The pedagogical makerspace: Learning opportunity and challenge for prospective teachers' growth of TPACK. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(1), 208-230. Miliou, O., Adamou, M., Mavri, A., & Ioannou, A. (2024). An exploratory case study of the use of a digital self-assessment tool of 21st-century skills in makerspace contexts. Educational technology research and development, 72(1), 239-260. Pandey, A. K., & Gelin, R. (2018). A Mass-Produced Sociable Humanoid Robot: Pepper: The first machine of its kind. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 25(3), 40-48. https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2018.2833157 Pijls, M., van Eijck, T., Kragten, M. et al. (2022). Activities and Experiences of Children and Makerspace Coaches During After-School and School Programs in a Public Library Makerspace. Journal for STEM Educ Res 5, 163–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-022-00070-w Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P.J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign. International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 4(1), 5-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068 Tilak, S., Viar, R., Turner, B. et al. (2024). Situating makerspace curricula for students with learning differences within Vygotsky’s cultural historical psychology. Univ Access Inf Soc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-024-01177-0 Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press Werk, A., Scholz, S., Sievers, T., & Russwinkel, N. (2024). How to provide a dynamic cognitive person model of a human collaboration partner to a pepper robot. Society for Mathematical Psychology, ICCM.