User perspectives of robotic telepresence technology in schools: A systematic literature review

ABSTRACT There is a growth in the use of robotic telepresence technology, allowing users to remotely access an environment, to support the inclusion/attendance of school pupils experiencing physical/emotional difficulties in the UK. Educational psychologists (EPs) are likely to encounter robotic telepresence technology due to their role in supporting pupil inclusion. Despite the Department for Education exploring this technology as a form of alternative provision, there is a lack of research exploring perceptions around robotic telepresence technology. The current review explores perspectives of users. Database searches were conducted between July 2021 and September 2021, identifying studies published within the last ten years. Eleven papers met the inclusion criteria. The review identified four inductive themes: potential for robotic telepresence technology to promote inclusion; potential for robotic telepresence technology to facilitate engagement; technical design factors influencing utility; and acceptability of robotic telepresence technology to users. Findings are discussed alongside implications for educational psychologists/future research.

[1]  Matthew Fletcher,et al.  The use of AV1 robot avatars in schools – A tool for inclusion? , 2022, DECP Debate.

[2]  C. Bond,et al.  Emotionally based school non-attendance: two successful returns to school following lockdown , 2022, Educational Psychology in Practice.

[3]  M. Hennink,et al.  Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tests. , 2021, Social science & medicine.

[4]  G. Úrrutia,et al.  The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. , 2021, Revista espanola de cardiologia.

[5]  A. Squires,et al.  Defining Telepresence as Experienced in Telehealth Encounters: A Dimensional Analysis. , 2021, Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing.

[6]  C. Fouché,et al.  ‘Being there’: technology to reduce isolation for young people with significant illness , 2021 .

[7]  Jabar H. Yousif,et al.  Social and Telepresence Robots a future of teaching , 2021, Artificial Intelligence & Robotics Development Journal.

[8]  Jeanette Berman,et al.  Telepresence Robot Use for Children with Chronic Illness in Australian Schools: A Scoping Review and Thematic Analysis , 2020, International Journal of Social Robotics.

[9]  E. Mayo-Wilson,et al.  The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews , 2020, BMJ.

[10]  J. Eccles,et al.  A Theoretical and Qualitative Approach to Evaluating Children’s Robot-Mediated Levels of Presence , 2020, Technology, mind, and behavior.

[11]  L. E. Johannessen,et al.  Kan en robot hjelpe langtidssyke barn? Erfaringer med AV1 i skolen , 2020 .

[12]  Ajune Wanis Ismail,et al.  A Review of Mixed Reality Telepresence , 2020, IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering.

[13]  K. Schmiegelow,et al.  Back to school with telepresence robot technology: A qualitative pilot study about how telepresence robots help school‐aged children and adolescents with cancer to remain socially and academically connected with their school classes during treatment , 2020, Nursing open.

[14]  N. Kasparian,et al.  School students with chronic illness have unmet academic, social, and emotional school needs. , 2019, School psychology.

[15]  J. Juvonen,et al.  Promoting Social Inclusion in Educational Settings: Challenges and Opportunities , 2019, Educational Psychologist.

[16]  T. Farmer,et al.  Promoting Inclusive Communities in Diverse Classrooms: Teacher Attunement and Social Dynamics Management , 2019, Educational Psychologist.

[17]  Judith S. Olson,et al.  Going to School on a Robot , 2019, ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact..

[18]  Xiaofei Lu,et al.  Exploring the affordances of telepresence robots in foreign language learning , 2018 .

[19]  E. Casey,et al.  An Examination of the Sufficiency of Small Qualitative Samples , 2018, Social Work Research.

[20]  Bradley S. Bloomfield,et al.  Increasing student compliance with teacher instructions using telepresence robot problem-solving teleconsultation , 2018, International Journal of School & Educational Psychology.

[21]  C. Lemons,et al.  Teacher perspectives on intervention sustainability: implications for school leadership , 2018 .

[22]  Leila Takayama,et al.  Evaluating the Effects of Personalized Appearance on Telepresence Robots for Education , 2018, HRI.

[23]  A. Páez,et al.  Grey literature: An important resource in systematic reviews. , 2017, Journal of evidence-based medicine.

[24]  Judith S. Olson,et al.  My Student is a Robot: How Schools Manage Telepresence Experiences for Students , 2017, CHI.

[25]  Bente Meyer,et al.  Learning through telepresence with iPads: placing schools in local/global communities , 2015, Interact. Technol. Smart Educ..

[26]  Dwayne Van Eerd,et al.  Searching for grey literature for systematic reviews: challenges and benefits , 2014, Research synthesis methods.

[27]  Veronica Ahumada Newhart,et al.  Virtual inclusion via telepresence robots in the classroom , 2014, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[28]  David Gough,et al.  Weight of Evidence: a framework for the appraisal of the quality and relevance of evidence , 2007 .

[29]  David R. Jones,et al.  How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective , 2006 .

[30]  J. Yeung,et al.  A remote telepresence system for high school classrooms , 2005, Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering, 2005..

[31]  David B. Kaber,et al.  Telepresence , 1998, Hum. Factors.

[32]  John V. Draper,et al.  Teleoperators for advanced manufacturing: Applications and human factors challenges , 1995 .

[33]  Aleksandar Velinov,et al.  A Review of the Usage of Telepresence Robots in Education , 2021, Balkan Journal of Applied Mathematics and Informatics.

[34]  Tommy Lister,et al.  Meaningful Engagement via Robotic Telepresence: An Exploratory Case Study , 2020 .

[35]  M. Place,et al.  Practitioner Review: School refusal: developments in conceptualisation and treatment since 2000. , 2019, Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines.

[36]  Silvia Coradeschi,et al.  A Review of Mobile Robotic Telepresence , 2013, Adv. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[37]  K. Woods,et al.  The Role and Perspectives of Practitioner Educational Psychologists , 2012 .

[38]  A. Harden,et al.  Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews , 2008, BMC medical research methodology.

[39]  P. Farrell,et al.  A Review of the Functions and Contribution of Educational Psychologists in England and Wales in light of “Every Child Matters: Change for Children', , 2006 .

[40]  Shumin Zhai,et al.  Telepresence under Exceptional Circumstances: Enriching the Connection to School for Sick Children , 2001, INTERACT.