Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Teaching-learning via telepresence classrooms: does telepresence really provide ‘presence’?

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Universities invest in Telepresence (TP) classroom methods to ensure quality teaching and learning while reaching as many students as possible at one time. However, TP classrooms are challenging. Existing research points out the limitations in guaranteeing presence in TP as that of face-to-face classes, which positively impacts learning. Presence in a classroom is the product of the unification of many factors, such as the organization of course content and structure (CCS), teaching content and pedagogy (TPC), the approachability of instructors (APP), and the evaluation processes (EVA). The existing tools to measure presence focus on either one or two components or interactions and miss out on the other components of presence. The present study examined ‘presence’ in ‘telepresence’ in terms of the four factors mentioned above. A comparative study of students who completed a course via TP classroom and those taught via the face-to-face method by the same instructor showed the existence of presence in both and that the modes of teaching have a statistically significant effect on these four factors. Removing the challenges to technology integration in TP classrooms and the psychological issues associated with it can improve the presence in TP classrooms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability statement

Data will be made available on reasonable request.

References

  • Abbott, L., Dallat, J., Livingston, R., & Robinson, A. (1994). The application of videoconferencing to the Advancement of Independent Group Learning for Professional Development. Educational and Training Technology International, 31(2), 85–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/0954730940310201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, P. (2006). Demystifying constructivism: The role for the teacher in new-technology exploiting learning situations. In T. W. Hin, L. and, & R. Subramaniam (Eds.), Handbook of Research in Rechnology at the K–12 level (pp. 493–514). Hershey: Idea Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Harriri, M. T., & Al-Hattami, A. A. (2017). Impact of students’ use of technology on their learning achievements in physiology courses at the University of Dammam. Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences, 12(1), 81–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albert, J., Blanchard, M., Kier, M., Carrier, S., & Gardner, G. (2014). Supporting teachers’ technology integration: A descriptive analysis of social and teaching presence in technical support sessions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 22(2), 137–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, R. (2018). Developing dialogic teaching: Genesis, process, trial. Research Papers in Education, 33(5), 561–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2018.1481140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, P. A. (1985). Nonverbal immediacy in interpersonal communication. In A. W. Siegman, & S. Feldstein (Eds.), Multichannel integrations of nonverbal behavior (pp. 1–36). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. 5(2), http://communitiesofinquiry.com/teachingpresence

  • Andrade, H. L. (2019). A critical review of research on student self-assessment. Front. Educ., Sec. Assessment, Testing and Applied Measurement, (4) https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00087

  • Baliram, N., & Ellis, A. K. (2017). The impact of metacognitive practice and teacher feedback on academic achievement in mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 119(2), 94–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bambaeeroo, F., & Shokrpour, N. (2017). The impact of the teachers’ non-verbal communication on success in teaching. Journal of advances in medical education and professionalism, 5(2), 51–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basch, J. M., Melchers, K. G., Kurz, A., Krieger, M., & Miller, L. (2020). It takes more than a good camera: which factors contribute to differences between face-to-face interviews and videoconference interviews regarding performance ratings and interviewee perceptions? Journal of Business and Psychology, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-020-09714-3

  • Beck, K. A., Joshi, P., Nsiah, C., & Ryerson, A. (2014). The impact of sociability on college academic performance and retention of native Americans. Journal of American Indian Education, 53(1), 23–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernauer, J. A., & Tomei, L. A. (2015). Integrating pedagogy and technology- improving teaching and learning in Higher Education (p. 13). London: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouwhuis, D. G., Bondareva, Y. L., & Meesters, D. (2006). Eye contact as a determinant of social presence in video communication, Corpus ID: 142196985.

  • Brooks, C. F., & Young, S. L. (2016). Exploring communication and course format: Conversation frequency and duration, student motives, and perceived teacher approachability for out-of-class contact. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(5), https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i5.2561.

  • Budhai, S. S., & Williams, M. (2014). Teaching presence in online courses: Practical applications, co-facilitation, and technology integration. Journal of Effective Teaching, 16(3), 76–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cai, V., Manderfeld, M., Higdon, J., & Miller, C. (2015). Student and faculty perceptions of telepresence courses, Educause Review, July 19, 2015.

  • Campbell, A. G., Holz, T., Cosgrove, J., Harlick, M., & O’Sullivan, T. (2020). Uses of Virtual Reality for Communication in Financial Services: A Case Study on Comparing Different Telepresence Interfaces: Virtual Reality Compared to Video Conferencing. In: Arai K., Bhatia R. (eds) Advances in Information and Communication. FICC 2019. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, 69. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12388-8_33

  • Cañigueral, R., & Hamilton, A. F. C. (2019). Being watched: Effects of an audience on eye gaze and prosocial behaviour. Acta Psychologica, 195, 50–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caskurlu, S. (2018). Confirming the sub-dimensions of teaching, social, and cognitive presences: A construct validity study. The Internet and Higher Education, 39, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.05.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cha, E., Chen, S., & Mataric, M. J. (2017). Designing telepresence robots for K-12 education, 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO- MAN), Lisbon, 2017, pp. 683–688.

  • Chiu, P. H. P., & Cheng, S. H. (2017). Effects of active learning classrooms on student learning: A two-year empirical investigation on student perceptions and academic performance. Higher Education Research and Development, 36(2), 269–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1196475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coll, C., Rochera, M. J., & Gispert, I. (2014). Supporting online collaborative learning in small groups: Teacher feedback on learning content, academic task and social participation. Computers & Education, 75(1), pp. 53–64. Elsevier Ltd. Retrieved January 30, 2021 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/201716/.

  • Comeaux, P. (1995). The impact of an interactive distance learning network on classroom communication. Communication Education, 44(4), 353–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corsby, C. L. T., & Bryant, A. (2020). I felt like I was missing out on something”: An evaluation of using remote technology in the classroom. Educ Inf Technol, 25, 4897–4914. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10207-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, C., Cardoso, A. P., Lima, M. P., Ferreira, M., Abrantes, J. L., & Seabra, C. (2011). Personal and Pedagogical Interaction factors as determinants of academic achievement. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 1596–1605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, B. E., Mcintosh, K. L., Terenzini, P. T., Reason, R. D., Quaye, L., & Brenda, R. (2010). Pedagogical signals of Faculty Approachability: Factors shaping Faculty-Student Interaction outside the Classroom. Research in Higher Education, 51(8), 767–788.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L., Ross, P., & Milliken, M. (2007). High School size, Organization, and content: What matters for Student Success? Brookings Papers on Education Policy, 9(2006/2007), 163–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, R. S., Dean, D. L., & Ball, N. (2013). Flipping the classroom and instructional technology integration in a college-level information systems spreadsheet course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(4), 563–580.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denis, B. (2018). Feelings of telepresence and proximity: The perspectives of e-tutors on a hybrid learning environment. In J. Rinaudo (Ed.), Telepresence in Training (pp. 1–31). Wiley:NJ.

  • Denzine, G. M., & Pulos, S. (2000). College students’ perceptions of faculty approachability. Educational Research Quarterly, 24(1), 56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downer, J. T., Stuhlman, M., Schweig, J., Martínez, J. F., & Ruzek, E. (2014). Measuring effective teacher-student interactions from a student perspective. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 35(5–6), 722–758. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431614564059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Draper, J. V. (1995). Teleoperators for advanced manufacturing: Applications and human factors challenges. International Journal of Human Factors in Manufacturing, 5, 53–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dumpit, D. Z., & Fernandes, C. J. (2017). Analysis of the use of social media in higher Education Institutions (HEIs) using the Technology Acceptance Model. International Journal of Educational Technology and Higher Education, 14, 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0045-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fay, M. P., & Proschan, M. A. (2010). Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney or t-test? On assumptions for hypothesis tests and multiple interpretations of decision rules. Statistics surveys, 4, 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1214/09-SS051.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Florell, D. (2016). Computer-Assisted and Web-Based Innovations in Psychology, Special Education, and Health (Luiselli, J.K. and Fischer, A. J. (Eds), https://doi.org/10.1016/C2014-0-01763-7

  • Freeth, M., Foulsham, T., & Kingstone, A. (2013). What affects social attention? Social presence, eye contact and autistic traits. Plos One, 8(1), e53286. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0053286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, K. A., Karunaratne, N. S., Naidu, S., Exintaris, B., Short, J. L., Wolcott, M. D., et al. (2018). Development of a self-report instrument for measuring in-class student engagement reveals that pretending to engage is a significant unrecognized problem. Plos One, 13(10), e0205828. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fullwood, C., & Doherty-Sneddon, W. (2006). Effect of gazing at the camera during a video link on recall. Applied Ergonomics, 37(2), 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2005.05.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical Inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in Higher Education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, J. D., & Chakraborti, S. (1991). Comparisons of the Mann-Whitney, student’s t, and alternate t tests for means of normal distributions. The Journal of Experimental Education, 59(3), 258–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granitz, N. A., Koernig, S. K., & Harich, K. R. (2009). Now it’s personal: Antecedents and outcomes of rapport between business faculty and their students. Journal of Marketing Education, 31(1), 2–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475308326408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guàrdia, L., Maina, M., & Sangrà, A. (2013). MOOC design principles: A pedagogical approach from the learner’s perspective. eLearning papers, 33, 1–6. https://r-libre.teluq.ca/596/1/In-depth_33_4.pdf Accesseed 15 June 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guerrero, M., & Rod, A. B. (2013). Engaging in office hours: A study of student-faculty interaction and academic performance. Journal of Political Science Education, 9(4), 403–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunawardena, C., Lowe, C., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 379–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagenauer, G., & Volet, S. E. (2014). Teacher–student relationship at university: an important yet under-researched field, Oxford Review of Education, 40(3), pp. 370–388, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2014.921613

  • Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2007). Learning opportunities in preschool and early elementary classrooms. In R. C. Pianta, M. J. Cox, & K. L. Snow (Eds.), School readiness and the Transition to kindergarten in the era of Accountability (pp. 49–84). Baltimore:Brookes.

  • Held, R. M., & Durlach, N. I. (1992). Telepresence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1(1), 109–112. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1992.1.1.109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hesslinger, V. M., Carbon, C., & Hecht, H. (2019). The sense of being watched is modulated by arousal and duration of the perceptual episode. i-Perception, 8(6), https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669517742179.

  • Horn, R. G., & Behrend, T., S (2017). Video killed the interview star: Does picture-in-picture affect interview performance? Personnel Assessment and Decisions, 3(1), https://doi.org/10.25035/pad.2017.005.

  • Hosler, K. A., & Arend, B. D. (2012). The importance of course design, feedback, and facilitation: Student perceptions of the relationship between teaching presence and cognitive presence. Educational Media International, 49(3), 217–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2012.738014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houda, E. L., Fussell, S. R., Herring, S., Carman, N., & Jennifer, R. (2018). SIG on Telepresence Robots. Presented at: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montreal QC, Canada

  • Huberty, C. J., & Morris, J. D. (1989). Multivariate analysis versus multiple univariate analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 105(2), 302–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, A., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2006). Virtual and traditional feedback-seeking behaviors: Underlying competitive attitudes and consequent grade performance. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4, 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jung, E., Kim, D., Yoon, M., Park, S., & Oakley, B. (2019). The influence of instructional design on learner control, sense of achievement, and perceived effectiveness in a supersize MOOC course. Computers & Education, 128, 377–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.10.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, J., & McNay, D. (2016). Community in the telepresence classroom. EDUCAUSE Review, accessed from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2016/4/community-in-the-telepresence- classroom on 23.04.19

  • Kim, K., Liu, S., & Bonk, C. J. (2005). Online MBA students’ perceptions of online learning: Benefits, challenges, and suggestions. The Internet and Higher Education, 8(4), 335–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2005.09.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimura, D., Malabarba, T., & Hall, J. K. (2018). Data collection considerations for classroom interaction research: A conversation analytic perspective. Classroom Discourse. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2018.1485589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy and technology. Computers & Education, 49(3), 740–762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kriegel, J. (2016). Technology, in unfairly labeled: How your workplace can benefit from ditching generational stereotypes (pp. 121–132). New jersey: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lammers, W. J., & Byrd, A. A. (2019). Student gender and instructor gender as predictors of student–instructor rapport. Teach Psychol, 46, 127–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628319834183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster, J. R., & Lundberg, C. A. (2019). The influence of Classroom Engagement on Community College Student Learning: A quantitative analysis of Effective Faculty Practices. Community College Review, 47(2), https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552119835922.

  • Law, K. M. Y., Geng, S., & Li, T. (2019). Student enrollment, motivation and learning performance in a blended learning environment: The mediating effects of social, teaching, and cognitive presence. Computers & Education, 136, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, T., Comber, C., Gage, J., & Cullum-Hanshaw, A. (2010). Images of the future for education? Videoconferencing: A literature review. Technology Pedagogy and Education, 19(3), 295–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., & Choi, H. (2017). What affects learner’s higher-order thinking in technology-enhanced learning environments? The effects of learner factors. Computers & Education, 115, 143–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, C., Lai, K., Bergen, H., Charania, A., Ntebutse, J. B., Quinn, B., Sherman, R., & Smith, D. (2018). Integrating academic and everyday learning through technology: Issues and challenges for researchers, policy makers and practitioners. Technology Knowledge and Learning, 23, 391–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewinski, P. (2015). Effects of classrooms’ architecture on academic performance in view of telic versus paratelic motivation: A review. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(746), https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00746.

  • Liang, R., & Chen, D. V. (2012). Online learning: Trends, potential and challenges. Creative Education, 3(8), 1332–1335. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2012.38195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lombard, M., & Ditton, T. (1997). At the heart of it all: The concept of presence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(2), 321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00072.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lombard, M., Bolmarcich, T., & Lisa, W. (2009). Measuring Presence:The Temple Presence Inventory.

  • Lundberg, C. A., & Schreiner, L. A. (2004). Quality and frequency of faculty–student interaction as predictors of student learning: An analysis by student race/ethnicity. Journal of College Student Development, 45(5), 549–565.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, C., Brown, T., & Bourke-Taylor, H. (2018). The Classroom Environment Questionnaire (CEQ): Development and preliminary structural validity. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 65(5), 363–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marín, V. I., Asensio-Pérez, J. I., Villagrá-Sobrino, S., Hernández-Leo, D., & García-Sastre, S. (2018). Supporting online collaborative design for teacher professional development. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 27(5): 571–587.

  • Martikainen, J. (2020). How students categorize Teachers based on visual cues: Implications of Nonverbal Communication for Classroom Management. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 64(4), 569–588. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2019.1595713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, F., Wang, C., & Sadaf, A. (2018). Student perception of helpfulness of facilitation strategies that enhance instructor presence, connectedness, engagement and learning in online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 37, 52–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, F., Ritzhaupt, A., Kumar, S., & Budhrani, K. (2019). Award-winning faculty online teaching practices: Course design, assessment and evaluation, and facilitation. The Internet and Higher Education, 42, 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.04.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre, N. A., Mulder, K. T., & Mainhard, M. T. (2020). Looking to relate: Teacher gaze and culture in student-rated teacher interpersonal behaviour. Social Psychology of Education, 23, 411–431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-019-09541-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meajel, T. M. A., & Sharadgah, T. A. (2017). Barriers to using the blackboard system in teaching and learning: Faculty perceptions. Technology Knowledge and Learning, 23, 351–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, B. (2015). Learning through telepresence with ipads: placing schools in local/global communities. International Conference e-Learning 2015, ISBN: 978-989-8533-40-1 © 2015.

  • Minsky, M. (1980). Telepresence. Omni, pp.45–51

  • Molinillo, S., Aguilar-Illescas, R., Anaya-Sánchez, R., & Vallespín-Arán, M. (2018). Exploring the impacts of interactions, social presence and emotional engagement on active collaborative learning in a social web-based environment. Computers & Education, 123, 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.04.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, R. C., Parker, L. C., Nelson, D., Pistilli, M. D., Hagen, A., Levesque-Bristol, C., & Weaver, G. (2014). Development of a student self-reported instrument to assess course reform. Educational Assessment, 19(4), 302–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muttappallymyalil, J., Mendis, S., John, L. J., Shanthakumai, N., Sreedharan, J., & Shaikh, R. B. (2016). Evolution of technology in teaching: Blackboard and beyond in Medical Education, 6(3), pp.588–592.

  • Myllyneva, A., & Hietanen, J. K. (2015). There is more to eye contact than meets the eye. Cognition, 134, 100–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.09.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novak, T. P., Hoffman, D. L., & Yung, Y. F. (2000). Measuring the customer experience in online environments: A structural modeling approach. Market Science, 19(1), 22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patrick, J., & Smart, R. M. (1998). An empirical evaluation of teacher effectiveness: The emergence of three critical factors. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 23(2), 165–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293980230205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pear, J., & Crone-Todd, D. E. (2002). A social constructivist approach to computer-mediated instruction. Computers and Education, 38, 221–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., & Allen, J. P. (2012). Teacher-Student Relationships and Engagement: Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Improving the Capacity of Classroom Interactions. Handbook of Research on Student Engagement, 365–386. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_17

  • Pierce, R., Francis, E., Nowak, M., Hollen, C., Bernard, S., Carlson, R. Students’ Perceptions of Telepresence: A cross-sectional view in health professions, E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, Oct 15, 2018 in Las Vegas, & United States, N. V. (2018). ISBN 978-1-939797-35-3 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), San Diego, CA.

  • Pincus, K. V., Stout, D. E., Sorensen, J. E., Stocks, K. D., & Lawson, R. F. (2017). Forces for change in higher education and implications for the accounting academy. Journal of Accounting Education, 40, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccedu.2017.06.001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pisutova, K., Rogers, R. C., & Mercer, J. (2018). “Engaging Students at a Distance: Advantages and Pitfalls of Video-Conference use in Teaching,“ 16th International Conference on Emerging eLearning Technologies and Applications (ICETA), Stary Smokovec, 431–438.

  • Pitcher, N., Davidson, K., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Videoconferencing in higher education. Innovations in Education and Training International, 37(3), 199–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polatajko, H. J., Backman, C., Baptiste, S., Davis, J., Eftekhar, P., & Harvey, A. (2013). Human occupation in context. In E. Townsend, & H. Polatajko (Eds.), Enabling Occupation II: Advancing an occupational therapy vision for health, well-being & justice through occupation (pp. 37–62). Ottawa, ON: CAOT Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preisman, K. A. (2014). Teaching presence in online education: From the instructor’s point of view. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 18(3), https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v18i3.446.

  • Rae, I., Venolia, D., Tang, J. C., & Molnar, D. (2015). A framework for understanding and designing telepresence. CSCW 2015, March 14–18, 2015, Vancouver, BC, Canada doi:https://doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675141

  • Ramlatchan, M. (2017). Immersive telepresence and student perceptions of instructor credibility and immediacy, Annual Conference of the Association of Collegiate Computing Services of Virginia, Portsmouth, VA, March 14–17.

  • Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P., Guàrdia, L., & Koole, M. (2020). Online University Teaching during and after the Covid-19 Crisis: Refocusing Teacher Presence and Learning Activity. Postdigit Sci Educ, 2, 923–945. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00155-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rashid, T., & Asghar, H. M. (2016). Technology use, self-directed learning, student engagement and academic performance: Examining the interrelations. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 604–612.

    Google Scholar 

  • Redmond, P. (2015). Discipline specific online mentoring for secondary pre-service teachers. Computers & Education, 90, 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.08.018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reid, D. J., & Johnson, M. (1999). Improving teaching in higher education: Student and teacher perspectives. Educational Studies, 25(3), 269–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., & Johnson, A. D. (2003). Development of the nonverbal immediacy scale (NIS): Measures of self-and other‐perceived nonverbal immediacy. Communication Quarterly, 51(4), 504–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370309370170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riva, G. (2009). Is presence a technology issue? Some insights from cognitive sciences. Virtual Reality, 13, 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-009-0121-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rod, M., Shaleph, O., & Fiona, C. (2004). [ACM Press Extended abstracts of the 2004 conference - Vienna, Austria (2004.04.24-2004.04.29)] Extended abstracts of the 2004 conference on Human factors and computing systems - CHI ‘04 - Measuring presence in virtual environments. 783–. doi:https://doi.org/10.1145/985921.985934

  • Rodgers, C. R., & Raider- Roth, M. B. (2006). Presence in teaching. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 12(3), 265–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarma, K. V. S., & Vardhan, R. V. (2019). Multivariate Statistics made simple: A practical Approach. New york: CRC Press.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Schloerb, D. (1995). A quantitative measure of telepresence. Presence Teleop Virt, 4, 64–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schönwetter, D. J., Clifton, R. A., & Perry, R. P. (2002).Research in Higher Education, 43(6),625–655. doi:https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1020999014875

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sears, G., Zhang, H., Wiesner, W., Hackett, R., & Yuan, Y. (2013). A comparative assessment of videoconference and face-to-face employment interviews. Management Decision, 51, pp. 1733–1752. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-09-2012-0642.

  • Serrate-González, S., Torrijos-Fincias, P., Sánchez, M. G., & Franco, D. C. (2021). Profiling teaching staff using blended learning in their practices in higher education. Research Papers in Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2020.1864759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shen, X., & Shirmohammadi, S. (2006). Telepresence. In B. Furht (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Multimedia. Boston, MA: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-30038-4_233.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sheridan, T. B. (1992). Musing on telepresence and virtual presence. Presence Teleop Virt, 1, 120–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheridan, K., & Kelly, M. A. (2010). The indicators of instructor presence that are important to students in online courses.Journal of Online Teaching and Learning, 6(4).

  • Slater, M., & Usoh, M. (1993). Representation systems, perceptual position, and presence in virtual environments. Presence, 2(3), 221–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, B. S., & Maureen, W. (2016). Teaching Presence in Online Courses: Practical Applications, Co-Facilitation, and Technology Integration. Journal of Effective Teaching, 16(3), 76–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solina, U., & Ravnick, R. (2011). Fixing missing eye-contact in video conferencing systems. Conference: Information Technology Interfaces (ITI), Proceedings of the ITI 2011 33rd International Conference, 233 – 36 (IEE Xplore).

  • Song, L., Singleton, E. S., Hill, J. R., & Koh, M. H. (2004). Improving online learning: Student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(1), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2003.11.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, H., Kim, J., & Luo, W. (2016). Teacher–student relationship in online classes: A role of teacher self-disclosure. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 436–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, R., Sinno, J., Hatfield, K., Biderman, M., Doria, N., & Numer, M. (2020). Exploring top hat’s impact on undergraduate students’ belongingness, engagement, and self-confidence: A mixed methods study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1722977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephen, D. E., O’Connell, P., & Hall, M. (2008). Going the extra mile’, ‘fire-fighting’, or laissez-faire? Re-evaluating personal tutoring relationships within mass higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 13, 449–460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of Communication, 42(4), 73–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1992.tb00812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Surrey, J. L. (1991). The ‘self-in-relation’: A theory of women’s development. In J. Jordan, A. Kaplan, J. B. Miller, I. Stiver, & J. Surrey (Eds.), Women’s growth in connection: Writings from the Stone Center. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swan, K. (2005). Developing social presence in online course discussions. In S. Naidu (Ed.), Learning and Teaching with Technology- Principles and Practices. Kogan Page Ltd: UK.

  • Swan, K., & Shih, L. F. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9, 115–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szczurowski, K., & Smith, M. (2017). Measuring presence: Hypothetical quantitative framework, Conference: 2017 23rd International Conference on Virtual System & Multimedia (VSMM).

  • Szigeti, T., McMenamy, K., Saville, R., & Glowacki, A. (2009). Cisco TelePresence Fundamentals. Cisco Press: USA.

  • Ulrich, C., Mironov, C., & Stingu, M. (2017). Use of Telepresence equipment for teachers’ professional development. The European Journal of Social and Behavioural Sciences, 2301–2306. https://doi.org/10.15405/ejsbs.204.

  • Umbach, P. D., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2005). Faculty do Matter: The role of College Faculty in Student Learning and Engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 153–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-004-1598-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, T. J. (2011). Educating avatars: On virtual worlds and pedagogical intent. Teaching in Higher Education, 16(6), 617–628. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2011.570433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y., Zhao, L., Shen, S., & Chen, W. (2021). Constructing a teaching presence measurement framework based on the community of inquiry theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.694386.

  • Whitelock, D., Romano, D., Jelfs, A., & Brna, P. (2000). Perfect presence: What does this mean for the design of virtual learning environments? Education and Information Technologies, 5, 277–289. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012001523715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1998). Measuring Presence in virtual environments: A Presence Questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 7(3), 225–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, Q. (2018). A study on the on-camera value and quality requirements of the on-camera correspondent and reporter in the tv news. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, (205), Atlantic Press.

  • Xie, F., & Derakhshan, A. (2021). A conceptual review of positive teacher interpersonal communication behaviors in the instructional context. Frontiers In Psychology, 12, 2623. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.708490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zembylas, M. T., & Andreas Pavlakis. (2008). The role of emotions in the experience of online learning: Challenges and opportunities. Educational Media International, 45(2), 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523980802107237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, X. (2016). “Development of a student-perspective based scale on instructor approachability”. All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 5051. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/5051

  • Zhou, X. (2021). Toward the positive Consequences of Teacher-Student Rapport for students’ Academic Engagement in the practical instruction classrooms. Front Psychol 2021 Oct, 5, 12:759785. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.759785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I express my sincere gratitude towards the Teaching Learning Center, BITS Pilani K.K. Birla Goa Campus, India, for funding the project and the audio-visual team for helping me to collect the technical details of telepresence.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, BITS Pilani- K.K. Birla Goa Campus, Sancoale, Goa, India

    Reena Cheruvalath

Authors
  1. Reena Cheruvalath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Reena Cheruvalath.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares ‘None’.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cheruvalath, R. Teaching-learning via telepresence classrooms: does telepresence really provide ‘presence’?. Educ Inf Technol 28, 14205–14227 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11782-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11782-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation