Social and Telepresence Robots a future of teaching

Abstract

The robotics industry is advancing at rates faster than ever before. It produces plentiful different types of robots incorporated in other fields like medical, defense, manufacturing, and mining industries. Of course, it is no surprise that the robotics industry managed to make its way to the educational field, and with it came the social and telepresence robots. This paper aims to compare social and telepresence robots in the teaching industry in the near future. Both a literature survey and a comparison segment were produced. It was concluded that the future of educational environments would incorporate both of these technologies since they serve different functions. This is to provide the best experience for as wide of a range of people as possible, wherever they are living and whatever disabilities/ challenges they are experiencing.

University academics’ perceptions regarding the future use of telepresence robots to enhance virtual transnational education: an exploratory investigation in a developing country

“…Despite the above-mentioned educational benefits of telepresence robots, this study revealed that using telepresence robots to enhance virtual transnational education has many potential obstacles that academics may encounter, especially as regards to the use of telepresence robots which would not be in line with the way they realize the principles of teaching and learning practices and they do not feel confident enough to use telepresence robots in their educational activities because they think it will be difficult for them to implement the telepresence robot system architecture. In accordance with the existing literature (Kennedy, 2016 ; Liao & Lu, 2018 ; Theodoropoulos et al, 2017 ; Yousif, 2021 ), the results showed that the obstacles included inadequate access to the related hardware and software, inadequate administrative and technological support, the difficulty of integration of telepresence robots in a traditional classroom environment, and lack of reference cases and enough knowledge about telepresence robots.…”

“…Although all the participants stated that their access to smart educational technology is above 67% and they use various smart technologies in their educational activities, 16 (34.78%) academics stated that they have never used telepresence robots in their educational activities. This finding is quite expected, as telepresence robots are new as an educational technology (Cha et al, 2017 ; Newhart et al, 2016 ; Yousif, 2021 ). Despite the above-mentioned educational benefits of telepresence robots, this study revealed that using telepresence robots to enhance virtual transnational education has many potential obstacles that academics may encounter, especially as regards to the use of telepresence robots which would not be in line with the way they realize the principles of teaching and learning practices and they do not feel confident enough to use telepresence robots in their educational activities because they think it will be difficult for them to implement the telepresence robot system architecture.…”

“…These issues include selecting the best fit telepresence robot in terms of price, required networks and bandwidth. In addition, confidence of use, freedom to move around, great social presence and support for various types for engagement are very critical variables guiding the process of selection (Bell, 2017 ; Yousif, 2021 ; Zhang et al, 2018 ). Moreover, universities should have flawlessly working wireless technology (Kennedy, 2016 ; Yousif, 2021 ).…”

Higher education personnel’s perceptions about telepresence robots

“…TPRs have been used for students with special needs , such as those having autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and diabetes ( Yousif, 2021 ). Currently there are plenty of examples of robots already developed and commercialised with the goal of helping the students with special needs ( Reis et al, 2018 ).…”

“…The literature highlights the following limitations when employing TPRs in the educational context: 1) connectivity issues –bad Wi-Fi or mobile connection would require human assistance; 2) interaction with the environment –the inability to physically manipulate objects degrade user experience; 3) less social presence –when compared to in-person interaction, TPRs are difficult to use for spontaneous social interaction; 4) navigation of the robot (manoeuvrability)—navigating a TPR can be difficult; 5) narrow field of view offered by the robot’s camera; 6) the quality of audio/video transmission could be improved and can hinder interaction with others; 7) privacy and legal concerns ; 8) power consumption and battery –short battery life can degrade user experience; 9) inclusion (10) cost –TPRs are relatively costly to purchase and maintain ( Bell, 2017 ; Zhang et al, 2018 ; Yousif, 2021 ; Wernbacher et al, 2022 ). Challenges also exist in combining functionalities such as adjustable height , system stability , low-speed control , and motion control for slopes and sudden inclines, and more work is required in these areas to improve the safety of TPRs.…”