Almost As Good As Being There!
Concurrent Session 6
Brief Abstract
One of the biggest problems with blended classes is that the remote students are often forgotten or feel as if they are an afterthought. This presentation will highlight a pilot project using telepresence robots to help more seamlessly blur the line between being “on campus” and “remote” in the classroom
Presenters
Extended Abstract
When COVID took the world by storm, Universities were struggling to find ways to help engage students in meaningful ways while still maintaining the sense of community and connection. As the world emerged from lockdown and students began returning to the classroom there were many who had health conditions that precluded them for rejoining their on campus classmates, had restrictions from their workplaces, or simply didn’t feel safe enough to return. It was during this time that our school was approached by an alumnus who was the CEO of a local manufacturing company interested in sending students to an MBA program but had restrictions about them attending class in person. They didn’t want their employees to lose a year or two of opportunity to further their education and offered to fund a creative solution to the problem.
Several years prior, as a result of a session at the Distance Learning Association of America conference, we attempted a pilot of the Kubi System. Kubi was a desktop “telepresence” system that used an iPad to allow students to have a “seat” in the classroom. The device sat in the first row of the classroom and students were able to control it remotely, pivoting it around to see others in the class. The theory was that by allowing students to attend class in this manner, rather than as a talking head through Zoom, they would essentially be just another student in the classroom and be able to be better integrated into the discussion.
Description automatically generated with low confidence" src="https://conference.onlinelearningconsortium.org/3395138c-df0e-4957-a977-..." />
While the theory made sense – the pilot was not what we would have considered a success. The student that participated still felt disconnected from the class. It was difficult for her to see the screen or the board – difficult to hear the faculty member and her classmates. Even more important, it was difficult for her to be recognized in the class if she wanted to contribute. In the end, the pilot was discontinued early and the student moved to Zoom participation which, while not idea, allowed her to better engage with the course materials in the class.
We quickly realized that it was time to adjust our theory and our approach and the request from our alum gave us the perfect opportunity to do so. When thinking about a new way to meaningfully engage students in the classroom we began to examine other options. We had seen the use of “telepresence robots” both at other conferences and in the popular media (think Sheldon in the Big Bang Theory or in the show “Community”). We began to look at how other schools were incorporating the technology and evaluated multiple vendors. Our adjusted theory was that this new type of device would provide an additional sense of agency to students by allowing them better control over their “space” in the classroom and more fully integrate them into an active learning environment.
After a comparison of multiple different types of telepresence robots we landed on the units from Double Robotics as the device that we would use for this new pilot. We initially had 3 students that were going to participate in a 1 semester pilot of the devices. Additionally, we were going to have at least 1 staff member attending class on the robot in an attempt to experience what the students were firsthand. In order to ensure we had some “spares” in the case of technology breakdowns we actually ordered 12 robots in the initial batch.
The first thing we learned is that the battery life of the robots – especially when being used as intended was not the best. We could get ~ 3 hours out of a robot – not enough time for the students to complete both classes they were scheduled for in an evening. Our approach was to allocate 2 robots per student and have them switch devices between classes – not ideal but an acceptable workaround. The second thing we learned was that the microphones on the devices were not strong enough to pick up the sound from the back of a theater style classroom – nor was the speaker loud enough that the student on the device could be heard. This necessitated our 2nd work around which was to still have the students log into Zoom – but only for the audio portion of the class.
What we learned was that students loved the experience of being a robot student. They had the ability to have control over their position in the classroom. They could adjust the angle -and zoom of the camera to clearly see the presentation or the board – or they could choose to view the presentation on Zoom. While this was an amazing improvement in and of itself – the biggest win was that students were able to interact in small group discussions in a meaningful way. When the instructor had them gather in their working groups, the robot students could “drive” their robot over to where the other students in the group were working and engage in collaborative work with them. Faculty commented that having a robot student was similar to just having another student in the front of the room. However, there was still an issue of faculty not being able to easily see when students wanted to contribute to the plenary class discussion. Students quickly discovered that they could “raise their hand” effectively by actually raising the height of their robot. This was a clear visual cue to the instructor that the student piloting the robot had something to add or a question to ask.
The initial pilot went so well, in fact, that we began to roll out access to a wider population of students. For example, a student in a program that was unable to travel for an in-person residency due to a health condition attending the three-day session as a robot. Her comment after the end of the class sessions was that it was “the next best thing to being there”. In fact, one of the faculty in the program – also with a health condition – also attended part of that same residency on a robot. In fact, both the faculty member and the student were able to attend a reception honoring the graduates of the program – driving themselves around and enjoying conversation and “cocktails” with the group.
In this session, we’ll talk more about the lessons we learned and additional ways we have been able to leverage the technology to provide broader access to our students. Additionally, we will provide an opportunity for students to “test drive” a robot to experience what it would be like to be on the remote end and interact with others providing a better idea of what it would be like to be a “robot student”.