research-article

Telepresence Robotics for Hands-on Distance Instruction

Authors:

Osazuwa Okundaye,

Alexander Berman,

Glen Hordemann,

Leming YangAuthors Info & Claims

NordiCHI '20: Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society

Article No.: 48, Pages 1 - 11

https://doi.org/10.1145/3419249.3420116

Published: 26 October 2020 Publication History

Abstract

Access to technology education is a challenge for broadening participation in STEM for remote rural communities that make up 20% of US public schools. Teleconferencing technology has provided some level of access to STEM teaching expertise to these underrepresented populations. Unfortunately, many challenges remain to provide quality technology instruction in remote scenarios. This paper presents, first, a pilot study that uncovered the problems faced in using videoconferencing technology for physically-predicated technical learning. Second, the paper describes a lab-based study investigating the use of telepresence robotics to better support students’ hands-on technology learning. Two conditions embodying different types of instructor representations were compared: co-present instructor and instructor through a telepresence-robot. Results characterize key differences in students’ experience and learning outcomes across the two conditions. We conclude by drawing implications for the designs of telepresence robotics to support hands-on STEM learning in remote scenarios.

References

[1]

Rahul Agarwal, Adam W Levinson, Mohamad Allaf, Danil V Makarov, Alex Nason, and Li-Ming Su. 2007. The RoboConsultant: telementoring and remote presence in the operating room during minimally invasive urologic surgeries using a novel mobile robotic interface. Urology 70, 5 (2007), 970–974.

[2]

Michael K Barbour. 2007. Portrait of Rural Virtual Schooling. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy 59 (2007), 1–21.

[3]

Paulo Blikstein. 2013. Digital fabrication and ‘making’in education: The democratization of invention. FabLabs: Of machines, makers and inventors(2013), 1–21.

[4]

Paulo Blikstein. 2013. Digital fabrication and ‘making’in education: The democratization of invention. FabLabs: Of machines, makers and inventors 4 (2013), 1–21.

[5]

Justin Brough, Mary Baker, and Dominick Casadonte. 2011. Work in progress - Classroom and distance components of a GK12 program placing graduate students in high school classrooms. In Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2011. IEEE, T1C–1–T1C–2.

Digital Library

[6]

Frantisek Burian, Ludek Zalud, Petra Kocmanova, Tomas Jilek, and Lukas Kopecny. 2014. Multi-robot system for disaster area exploration. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment 184 (2014), 263–274.

[7]

C. Bühler. 1982. The deictic field of language and deictic words. London, 9–30.

[8]

Sharon Lynn Chu, Francis Quek, Sourabh Bhangaonkar, and Alexander Berman. 2017. Physical Making Online: A Study of Children’s Maker Websites. In Proceedings of the 7th Annual Conference on Creativity and Fabrication in Education. 1–8.

Digital Library

[9]

Herbert H Clark. 1996. Using language. Cambridge university press.

[10]

Claire de la Varre, Julie Keane, and Matthew J Irvin. 2011. Enhancing Online Distance Education in Small Rural US Schools: A Hybrid, Learner-Centred Model. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 15, 4 (2011), 35–46.

[11]

Randi A Engle. [n.d.]. Not channels but composite signals: Speech, gesture, diagrams and object demonstrations are integrated in multimodal explanations. In Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. 321–326.

[12]

[12] Randi A Engle.2001. Toward a theory of multimodal communication: Combining speech, gestures, diagrams, and demonstrations in instructional explanations. Thesis.

[13]

Noel Enyedy, Joshua A Danish, Girlie Delacruz, and Melissa International journal of computer-supported collaborative learning Kumar. 2012. Learning physics through play in an augmented reality environment. 7, 3 (2012), 347–378.

[14]

The Maker Effect Foundation. 2015. The Maker Mindset Assessment. http://www.themakereffect.org/maker-research/

[15]

CJH Fowler and T Mayes. 1997. Applying telepresence to education. BT Technology Journal 15, 4 (1997), 188–195.

Digital Library

[16]

VERBI GmbH. 1989. MaxQDA: The Art of Data Analysis. Accessed: 2020-05-02.

[17]

Rogers Hall and Reed Stevens. 1994. Making space: A comparison of mathematical work in school and professional design practices. The Sociological Review 42, S1 (1994), 118–145.

[18]

Erica Rosenfeld Halverson and Kimberly Sheridan. 2014. The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review 84, 4 (2014), 495–504.

[19]

Erica Rosenfeld Halverson and Kimberly M Sheridan. 2014. The Maker Movement in Education. Harvard Educational Review 84, 4 (2014), 495–504.

[20]

W. F. Hanks. 1990. Referential practice: Language and lived space among the Maya. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

[21]

M Honey and DE Kanter. 2013. Design, make, play: growing the next generation of science innovations. Rutledge, London (2013).

[22]

IPEVO. 2018. IPEVO V4K High Definition USB Document Camera: The Premier Presentation Tool. https://www.ipevo.com/prods/V4K_Ultra_High_Definition_USB_Document_Camera

[23]

Patrick Jermann, Marc-Antoine Nüssli, and Weifeng Li. 2010. Using dual eye-tracking to unveil coordination and expertise in collaborative Tetris. In Proceedings of the 24th BCS Interaction Specialist Group Conference. British Computer Society, 36–44.

[24]

Steven Johnson, Irene Rae, Bilge Mutlu, and Leila Takayama. 2015. Can you see me now? how field of view affects collaboration in robotic telepresence. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2397–2406.

[25]

Hannes Kaufmann and Dieter Schmalstieg. 2002. Mathematics and geometry education with collaborative augmented reality. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2002 conference abstracts and applications. ACM, 37–41.

Digital Library

[26]

Stacey Kuznetsov and Eric Paulos. [n.d.]. Rise of the expert amateur: DIY projects, communities, and cultures. In Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries. ACM, 295–304.

[27]

Oh-Hun Kwon, Seong-Yong Koo, Young-Geun Kim, and Dong-Soo Kwon. 2010. Telepresence robot system for English tutoring. In 2010 ieee workshop on advanced robotics and its social impacts. IEEE, 152–155.

[28]

McCall L.2009. What is Maker Culture? - DIY Roots. http://voices.yahoo.com/what-maker-culture-diy-roots-2810966.html?cat=46

[29]

Min Kyung Lee and Leila Takayama. 2011. Now, I have a body: Uses and social norms for mobile remote presence in the workplace. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, 33–42.

Digital Library

[30]

S.C. Levinson. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

[31]

Katrina Liu, Richard Miller, Ellyn Dickmann, and Kristen Monday. 2018. Virtual supervision of student teachers as a catalyst of change for educational equity in rural areas. Journal of Formative Design in Learning 2, 1 (2018), 8–19.

[32]

Lee Martin. 2015. The promise of the maker movement for education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER) 5, 1(2015), 4.

[33]

David McNeill. 1992. Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. University of Chicago press.

[34]

David McNeill, Susan Duncan, Amy Franklin, James Goss, Irene Kimbara, Fey Parrill, Haleema Welji, Lei Chen, Mary Harper, Francis Quek, 2009. Mind merging. Expressing oneself/expressing one’s self: Communication, language, cognition, and identity: essays in honor of Robert Krauss (2009), 143–164.

[35]

David McNeill, Karl-Erik McCullough, Francis Quek, Susan Duncan, Robert Bryll, Xin-Feng Ma, and Rashid Ansari. 2002. Dynamic imagery in speech and gesture. In Multimodality in language and speech systems. Springer, 27–44.

[36]

Francois Michaud, Patrick Boissy, Daniel Labonte, Helene Corriveau, Andrew Grant, Michel Lauria, Richard Cloutier, Marc-André Roux, Daniel Iannuzzi, and Marie-Pier Royer. 2007. Telepresence Robot for Home Care Assistance. In AAAI spring symposium: multidisciplinary collaboration for socially assistive robotics. California, USA, 50–55.

[37]

Jarkko Moilanen and Tere Vadén. 2013. 3D printing community and emerging practices of peer production. First Monday 18, 8 (2013).

[38]

OhmniLabs. 2018. Ohmni: Be there in one click. https://ohmnilabs.com

[39]

Osazuwa Okundaye, Sharon Chu, Francis Quek, Alexander Berman, Malini Natarajarathinam, and Matthew Kuttolamadom. 2018. From Making to Micro-Manufacture: Catalyzing STEM Participation in Rural High Schools. In Proceedings of the Conference on Creativity and Making in Education. ACM, 21–29.

Digital Library

[40]

Eric Paulos and John Canny. 1998. Designing personal tele-embodiment. In Proceedings. 1998 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No. 98CH36146), Vol. 4. IEEE, 3173–3178.

[41]

Tomislav Pejsa, Julian Kantor, Hrvoje Benko, Eyal Ofek, and Andrew Wilson. 2016. Room2room: Enabling life-size telepresence in a projected augmented reality environment. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work & social computing. 1716–1725.

Digital Library

[42]

Kylie Peppler, Erica Halverson, and Yasmin B Kafai. 2016. Makeology: Makerspaces as Learning Environments. Vol. 1. Routledge.

[43]

F. Quek. 1994. Toward a Vision-Based Hand Gesture Interface., 17-29 pages.

[44]

F. Quek. 1995. Eyes in the interface. International Journal of Image and Vision Computing 13 (1995), 511–525.

[45]

Francis Quek, Robert Bryll, David McNeill, and Mary Harper. 2001. Gestural origo and loci-transitions in natural discourse segmentation. In Proceedings of IEEE Workshop on Cues in Communication, Vol. 9.

[46]

F. Quek, D. McNeill, R. Bryll, and M Harper. [n.d.]. Gestural Spatialization in Natural Discourse Segmentation. In Seventh International Conference on Spoken Language Processing. 189–192.

[47]

Erica Ross, Randy Romich, and Jennifer Peña. [n.d.]. Working Towards the Future: Technology Use and Evaluation in Workforce Development. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), 1278–1282.

[48]

Angélica Rísquez. 2008. E-mentoring: An extended practice, an emerging discipline. IGI Global, 61–82.

[49]

Daisuke Sakamoto, Takayuki Kanda, Tetsuo Ono, Hiroshi Ishiguro, and Norihiro Hagita. 2007. Android as a telecommunication medium with a human-like presence. In 2007 2nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 193–200.

Digital Library

[50]

Debi Sampsel, Govind Bharwani, Diane Mehling, and Sherrill Smith. 2011. Robots as faculty: student and faculty perceptions. Clinical Simulation in Nursing 7, 6 (2011), e209–e218.

[51]

Donald A Schön. 1983. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Vol. 5126. Basic books.

[52]

Kshitij Sharma, Sarah D’Angelo, Darren Gergle, and Pierre Dillenbourg. 2016. Visual augmentation of deictic gestures in mooc videos. Singapore: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

[53]

Kshitij Sharma, Patrick Jermann, and Pierre Dillenbourg. 2014. “With-me-ness”: A gaze-measure for students’ attention in MOOCs. In Proceedings of International Conference of the Learning Sciences 2014. ISLS, 1017–1022.

[54]

Kshitij Sharma, Patrick Jermann, and Pierre Dillenbourg. 2015. Displaying teacher’s gaze in a MOOC: Effects on students’ video navigation patterns. In Design for Teaching and Learning in a Networked World. Springer, 325–338.

[55]

Kimberly Sheridan, Erica Rosenfeld Halverson, Breanne Litts, Lisa Brahms, Lynette Jacobs-Priebe, and Trevor Owens. 2014. Learning in the making: A comparative case study of three makerspaces. Harvard Educational Review 84, 4 (2014), 505–531.

[56]

M. Simonson, S. Smaldino, M. Albright, and S. Zvacek. 2006. Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of online education. Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

[57]

E. Singer. 2010. The Slow Rise of the Robotic Surgeon. https://www.technologyreview.com/news/41841/theslow-rise-of-the-robot-surgeon

[58]

Peter Warren Singer. 2009. Wired for war: The robotics revolution and conflict in the 21st century. Penguin.

[59]

C Daniel Smith and John E Skandalakis. 2005. Remote presence proctoring by using a wireless remote-control videoconferencing system. Surgical Innovation 12, 2 (2005), 139–143.

[60]

Nathaniel Smith. 2003. Gesture and beyond. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Berkeley (2003).

[61]

Reed Stevens and Rogers Hall. 1998. Disciplined perception: Learning to see in technoscience. Talking mathematics in school: Studies of teaching and learning (1998), 107–149.

[62]

Thomas J Sullivan. 2001. Methods of social research. Harcourt College Publishers Fort Worth, TX.

[63]

Josh Tenenberg, Wolff-Michael Roth, and David Socha. 2016. From I-awareness to we-awareness in CSCW. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 25, 4-5 (2016), 235–278.

Digital Library

[64]

K Tsui, Adam Norton, David Brooks, H Yanco, and Daniel Kontak. 2011. Designing telepresence robot systems for use by people with special needs. In Int. Symposium on Quality of Life Technologies: Intelligent Systems for Better Living.

[65]

Ellen L Usher and Frank Pajares. 2009. Sources of self-efficacy in mathematics: A validation study. Contemporary educational psychology 34, 1 (2009), 89–101.

[66]

Peter M Ward. 2010. Colonias and public policy in Texas and Mexico: Urbanization by stealth. University of Texas Press.

[67]

Tian Zhou, Maria E Cabrera, Juan P Wachs, Thomas Low, and Chandru Sundaram. 2016. A comparative study for telerobotic surgery using free hand gestures. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction 5, 2 (2016), 1–28.

Digital Library

Cited By

Hordemann GQuek FGomez G(2024)In the Footsteps of Learning: A Comparison of Robotic and Human Instructor Movement in the ClassroomLearning and Collaboration Technologies10.1007/978-3-031-61672-3_12(181-195)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-61672-3_12
Hordemann GQuek FPowell L(2023)Reaching Across the Communication Gap: Evaluating How Augmented Reality Shared Gestural Spaces Impact Gesture and Language Usage2023 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE)10.1109/FIE58773.2023.10343016(1-6)Online publication date: 18-Oct-2023
https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE58773.2023.10343016
Kasuk TVirkus S(2023)Exploring the power of telepresence: enhancing education through telepresence robotsInformation and Learning Sciences10.1108/ILS-07-2023-0093125:1/2(109-137)Online publication date: 13-Nov-2023
https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-07-2023-0093
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Telepresence Robotics for Hands-on Distance Instruction

Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

Recommendations

Broadening Participation for Remote Communities: Situated Distance Telepresence
IDC '19: Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Interaction Design and Children

Our work is concerned with how embodied communication involving speech and gestures may be mediated through mobile tele-robotics and augmented reality to support hands-on distance mentoring. Following work in the psycholinguistics of embodied ...
Proximal and Distal Mentors: Sustaining Making-Expertise in Rural Schools
FL2019: Proceedings of FabLearn 2019

With the increasing interest of integrating Making into formal settings, like public school classrooms, questions have emerged on how to sustain Making as a practice in these environments. Mentors, who can guide students' development of Making knowledge ...
Computational Thinking in the Making: Lessons for Second Graders in a STEM Computer Science Immersion School
SIGCSE '19: Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

Recently, there has been significant interest in integrating Maker-related experiences into formal education. A challenge is reconciling open-ended making and non-deterministic learning goals with standards that drive traditional education. In the ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences

NordiCHI '20: Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society

October 2020

1177 pages

ISBN:9781450375795

DOI:10.1145/3419249

General Chairs:
David Lamas
Tallinn University, Estonia
,
Hegle Sarapuu
Trinidad Wiseman, Estonia
,
Publications Chairs:
Ilja Šmorgun
Tallinn University, Estonia
,
Gerd Berget
Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway

Copyright © 2020 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 26 October 2020

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed limited

Funding Sources

National Science Foundation

Conference

NordiCHI '20

NordiCHI '20: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society

October 25 - 29, 2020

Tallinn, Estonia

Acceptance Rates

NordiCHI '20 Paper Acceptance Rate 89 of 399 submissions, 22%;

Overall Acceptance Rate 379 of 1,572 submissions, 24%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

4
Total Citations
View Citations
269
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)39
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3

Reflects downloads up to 21 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Hordemann GQuek FGomez G(2024)In the Footsteps of Learning: A Comparison of Robotic and Human Instructor Movement in the ClassroomLearning and Collaboration Technologies10.1007/978-3-031-61672-3_12(181-195)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-61672-3_12
Hordemann GQuek FPowell L(2023)Reaching Across the Communication Gap: Evaluating How Augmented Reality Shared Gestural Spaces Impact Gesture and Language Usage2023 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE)10.1109/FIE58773.2023.10343016(1-6)Online publication date: 18-Oct-2023
https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE58773.2023.10343016
Kasuk TVirkus S(2023)Exploring the power of telepresence: enhancing education through telepresence robotsInformation and Learning Sciences10.1108/ILS-07-2023-0093125:1/2(109-137)Online publication date: 13-Nov-2023
https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-07-2023-0093
Häfner PWernbacher TPfeiffer ADenk NEconomides APerifanou MAttard ADeRaffaele CSigurðardóttir H(2023)Limits and Benefits of Using Telepresence Robots for Educational PurposesLearning in the Age of Digital and Green Transition10.1007/978-3-031-26190-9_3(23-33)Online publication date: 23-Feb-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26190-9_3

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents