skip to main content
10.1145/3568294.3580090acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageshriConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper
Public Access

"Who's that?": Identity Self-Perception and Projection in the Use of Telepresence Robots in Hybrid Classrooms

Published:13 March 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

Robotic Telepresence (RT) is a promising medium for students who are unable to attend in-person classes. It enables remote students to be present in the classroom and interact with their classmates and instructors. However, it can be limiting to their identity self-perception and projection, which may have repercussions on the social dynamics and inclusion within the classroom. We present preliminary findings of a qualitative analysis of 12 observations and interviews with RT attendees. We examine RT design and use aspects that either supported identity self-perception and projection or limited it. Finally, we present telepresence robots design and use recommendations for the classroom context.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

HRI23-fp1089.mp4

mp4

8.1 MB

References

  1. Veronica Ahumada-Newhart and Judith S Olson. 2019. Going to school on a robot: Robot and user interface design features that matter. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 26, 4 (2019), 1--28.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Patrik Björnfot. 2021. Evaluating Input Devices for Robotic Telepresence. In European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics 2021. 1--8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Richard E Boyatzis. 1998. Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. sage.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77--101.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Heike Brock, Selma ?abanović, and Randy Gomez. 2021. Remote You, Haru and Me: Exploring Social Interaction in Telepresence Gaming With a Robotic Agent. In Companion of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 283--287.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Elizabeth Cha, Samantha Chen, and Maja J Mataric. 2017. Designing telepresence robots for K-12 education. In 2017 26th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, 683--688.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Jung Ju Choi and Sonya S Kwak. 2017. Who is this?: Identity and presence in robot-mediated communication. Cognitive Systems Research 43 (2017), 174--189.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Thomas Erickson, N Sadat Shami, Wendy A Kellogg, and David W Levine. 2011. Synchronous interaction among hundreds: An evaluation of a conference in an avatar-based virtual environment. In Proceedings of the sigchi conference on human factors in computing systems. 503--512.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Deborah I Fels, Judith K Waalen, Shumin Zhai, and Patrice L Weiss. 2001. Telepresence under exceptional circumstances: enriching the connection to school for sick children.. In Interact. 617--624.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Naomi T Fitter, Yasmin Chowdhury, Elizabeth Cha, Leila Takayama, and Maja J Matari?. 2018. Evaluating the effects of personalized appearance on telepresence robots for education. In Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction. 109--110.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Naomi T Fitter, Luke Rush, Elizabeth Cha, Thomas Groechel, Maja J Matarić, and Leila Takayama. 2020. Closeness is Key over Long Distances: Effects of Interpersonal Closeness on Telepresence Experience. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 499--507.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Batya Friedman and Peter H Kahn Jr. 2007. Human values, ethics, and design. In The human-computer interaction handbook. CRC press, 1267--1292.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Erving Goffman et al. 2002. The presentation of self in everyday life. 1959. Garden City, NY 259 (2002).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Greg Guest, Kathleen M MacQueen, and Emily E Namey. 2011. Applied thematic analysis. sage publications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Philip L Jackson, Anna Lomanowska, and Frédéric Grondin. 2019. Empathy in Computer-Mediated Interactions: A Conceptual Framework for Research and Clinical Practice. (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Saso Koceski and Natasa Koceska. 2016. Evaluation of an assistive telepresence robot for elderly healthcare. Journal of medical systems 40, 5 (2016), 1--7.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Jian Liao and Xiaofei Lu. 2018. Exploring the affordances of telepresence robots in foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology 22, 3 (2018), 20--32.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Carman Neustaedter, Gina Venolia, Jason Procyk, and Daniel Hawkins. 2016. To Beam or not to Beam: A study of remote telepresence attendance at an academic conference. In Proceedings of the 19th acm conference on computer-supported cooperative work & social computing. 418--431.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Carman Neustaedter and Lillian Yang. 2017. Familycommunicationoverdistance through telepresence robots. In ACM CSCW workshop on robots in groups and teams.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Veronica Ahumada Newhart. 2014. Virtual inclusion via telepresence robots in the classroom. In CHI'14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 951--956.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Veronica Ahumada Newhart, Mark Warschauer, and Leonard Sender. 2016. Virtual inclusion via telepresence robots in the classroom: An exploratory case study. The International Journal of Technologies in Learning 23, 4 (2016), 9--25.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Irene Rae, Leila Takayama, and Bilge Mutlu. 2012. One of the gang: supporting in-group behavior for embodied mediated communication. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 3091--3100.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Irene Rae, Leila Takayama, and Bilge Mutlu. 2013. In-body experiences: embodiment, control, and trust in robot-mediated communication. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1921--1930.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Alexander P Schouten, Tijs C Portegies, Iris Withuis, Lotte M Willemsen, and Komala Mazerant-Dubois. 2022. Robomorphism: Examining the effects of telepresence robots on between-student cooperation. Computers in Human Behavior 126 (2022), 106980.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Leila Takayama and Janet Go. 2012. Mixing metaphors in mobile remote presence. In Proceedings of the acm 2012 conference on computer supported cooperative work. 495--504.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Luca Tonin, Tom Carlson, Robert Leeb, and José del R Millán. 2011. Braincontrolled telepresence robot by motor-disabled people. In 2011 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE, 4227--4230.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Gina Venolia, John Tang, Ruy Cervantes, Sara Bly, George Robertson, Bongshin Lee, and Kori Inkpen. 2010. Embodied social proxy: mediating interpersonal connection in hub-and-satellite teams. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1049--1058.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Mingshao Zhang, Pengji Duan, Zhou Zhang, and Sven Esche. 2018. Development of telepresence teaching robots with social capabilities. In ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, Vol. 52064. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, V005T07A017Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. "Who's that?": Identity Self-Perception and Projection in the Use of Telepresence Robots in Hybrid Classrooms

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

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

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        HRI '23: Companion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction
        March 2023
        612 pages
        ISBN:9781450399708
        DOI:10.1145/3568294

        Copyright © 2023 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 the author(s) 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: 13 March 2023

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • short-paper

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate242of1,000submissions,24%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader