Skip to main content

Pair-Programming with a Telepresence Robot

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Robotics in Education (RiE 2023)

Abstract

Telepresence robots (TPRs) are seen as promising tools for maintaining social presence in distance learning conditions, contributing to student persistence and wellbeing by reducing their feeling of isolation and distress. We examined the challenges that the use of telepresence robots in a pair-programming course presents to the teacher and students. Semi-structured interviews were used to collect data from the teacher and four students about their experience of being mediated via a telepresence robot and having a teacher or student mediated via a telepresence robot. The data were coded and analyzed to map the main challenges. Four general areas of concern were revealed: preconditions for use, justifications for use, robot characteristics, and potential challenges. Using TPRs is justified for students in conditions where their social presence is required (e.g., in discussions, workshops or other educational activities). In this particular case, the use was not recommended for the teacher. TPRs’ educational implementation should be planned meticulously to maximize their positive effect and to reduce potential setbacks. In addition, the TPR's features should match as best as possible to the requirements of the educational activities to be carried out in a specific physical and social environment.

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Demir, Ö., Seferoglu, S.S.: A comparison of solo and pair programming in terms of flow experience, coding quality, and coding achievement. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 58(8), 1448–1466 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120949788

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Li, L., Xu, L., He, Y., He, W., Pribesh, S., Watson, S.M., Major, D.A.: Facilitating online learning via zoom breakout room technology: a case of pair programming involving students with learning disabilities. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 48 (2021). https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.04812

  3. Hawlitschek, A., Berndt, S., Schulz, S.: Empirical research on pair programming in higher education: a literature review. Comput. Sci. Educ. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2022.2039504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kuttal, S.K., Ong, B., Kwasny, K., Robe, P.: Trade-offs for substituting a human with an agent in a pair programming context: the good, the bad, and the ugly. In: Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, vol. 243, pp. 1–20 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445659

  5. Satratzemi, M., Stelios, X., Tsompanoudi, D.: Distributed pair programming in higher education: a systematic literature review. J. Educ. Comput. Res. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331221122884

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Marinoni, G., Van't Land, H., Jensen, T.: The impact of COVID-19 on higher education around the world. IAU Global Survey Report. UNESCO House. Paris, France (2020). https://www.iau-aiu.net/IMG/pdf/iau_covid19_and_he_survey_report_final_may_2020.pdf

  7. Upton, B.: European universities cancel classes as energy bills soar. The Higher Education (2022). https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/european-universities-cancel-classes-energy-bills-soar

  8. Simaremare, M.E.S.: Strategies for an effective distributed pair programming. Jurnal Mantik 5(4), 2531–2535 (2022). http://iocscience.org/ejournal/index.php/mantik/article/view/1963. Accessed 3 Jan 2023

  9. Winkler, D., Biffl, S., Kaltenbach, A.: Evaluating tools that support pair programming in a distributed engineering environment. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE'10). BCS Learning & Development Ltd., Swindon, GBR, pp. 54–63 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Leoste, J., Rakic, S., Marcelloni, F., Zuddio, M. F., Marjanovic, U., Oun, T.: E-learning in the times of COVID-19: the main challenges in higher education. In: 19th International Conference on Emerging eLearning Technologies and Applications (ICETA), pp. 225–230 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICETA54173.2021.9726554

  11. Garrison, D.R.: Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues. J. Asynchron. Learn. Netw. 11(1), 61–72 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gunawardena, C.N.: Social presence theory and implications for interaction collaborative learning in computer conferences. Int. J. Educ. Telecommun. 1(2/3), 147–166 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kreijns, K., Xu, K., Weidlich, J.: Social presence: conceptualization and measurement. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 34, 139–170 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09623-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Messmer, G., Berkling, K.: Overcoming the gap of social presence in online learning communities at university. In: 2021 World Engineering Education Forum/Global Engineering Deans Council (WEEF/GEDC), pp. 563–570 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1109/WEEF/GEDC53299.2021.9657401

  15. Vygotsky, L.S.: Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1978)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ouellette, T., Ramadan, Y., Muthuraj, M., Pi Noa, D., Yuvaraj, R., Rana, A., Jacobs, R.: The association of stress, collaborative learning, social presence, and social interaction with teaching modality type among medical students. In: ICERI2021 Proceedings, pp. 8121–8126 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Weibel, M., Nielsen, M.K., Topperzer, M.K., Hammer, N.M., Møller, S.W., Schmiegelow, K., Bækgaard Larsen, H.: 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. Nurs. Open 7, 988–997 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Powell, T., Cohen, J., Patterson, P.: Keeping connected with school: implementing telepresence robots to improve the wellbeing of adolescent cancer patients. Front. Psychol. 12, 749957 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Minsky, M.: Telepresence. OMNI magazine (1980). https://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/papers/Telepresence.html

  20. Google Ngram Viewer. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=telepresence+robot&year_start=2000&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Ctelepresence%20robot%3B%2Cc0. Last Accessed 28 Dec 2022

  21. Mennecke, B.E., Triplett, J.L., Hassall, LM., Conde, Z.J.: Embodied social presence theory. In: 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE, Honolulu, USA (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Fitter, N.T., Rush, L., Cha, E., Groechel, T.R., Matarić, M.J., Takayama, L.: Closeness is key over long distances: effects of interpersonal closeness on telepresence experience. In: 2020 15th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp. 499–507 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gallon, L., Abénia, A., Dubergey, F., Negui, M.: Using a telepresence robot in an educational context. In: 15th International Conference on Frontiers in Education: Computer Science and Computer Engineering (FECS 2019), 2019, Las Végas, United States (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Schouten, A.P., Portegies, T.C., Withuis, I., Willemsen, L.M., Mazerant-Dubois, K.: Robomorphism: Examining the effects of telepresence robots on between-student cooperation. Comput. Hum. Behav. 126, 106980 (2022)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Pöial, J.: Challenges of Teaching Programming in StackOverflow Era. In: Auer, M.E., Rüütmann, T. (eds.) Educating Engineers for Future Industrial Revolutions. ICL 2020. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 1328. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68198-2_65

  26. Lei, M., Clemente, I.M., Liu, H., et al.: The acceptance of telepresence robots in higher education. Int J Soc Robot (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Dakof, G.A., Taylor, S.E.: Victims’ perceptions of social support: what is helpful from whom? J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 58(1), 80–89 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Leoste, J.: Adopting and sustaining technological innovations in teachers’ classroom practices—The case of integrating educational robots into math classes. Ph.D. Thesis, Tallinn University, Estonia (2021)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Janika Leoste .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Leoste, J., Pöial, J., Marmor, K., Fenyvesi, K., Häkkinen, P. (2023). Pair-Programming with a Telepresence Robot. In: Balogh, R., Obdržálek, D., Christoforou, E. (eds) Robotics in Education. RiE 2023. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 747. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38454-7_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics