View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Driving Is Believing: Using Telepresence Robots to Access Makerspace for Teachers in Rural Areas

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Driving Is Believing: Using Telepresence Robots to Access Makerspace for Teachers in Rural Areas
Language: English
Authors: Chen, Ye (ORCID 0000-0003-1702-8723), Cao, Li (ORCID 0000-0002-6866-4191), Guo, Lin, Cheng, Jiaming
Source: British Journal of Educational Technology. Nov 2022 53(6):1956-1975.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 20
Publication Date: 2022
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Secondary Education
Elementary Education
Secondary Education
Descriptors: Elementary Secondary Education, Field Trips, Rural Schools, Elementary School Teachers, Secondary School Teachers, Robotics, Video Technology, Program Effectiveness
DOI: 10.1111/bjet.13225
ISSN: 0007-1013
1467-8535
Abstract: This study explored two different ways for K-12 school teachers to access educational makerspace through virtual fieldtrips. K-12 school teachers from rural areas of the Southeast USA were divided into two groups. The experimental group (n = 48) drove telepresence robots to take their fieldtrip, while the comparison group (n = 23) watched the same fieldtrip through a recorded video. Analyses of the quantitative and qualitative data, collected through surveys and written reflections, showed that the experimental group reported significantly higher scores in embodiment, social presence and engagement (ie, behaviour, emotion and cognition) than the comparison group, and that actual driving the robots for the virtual fieldtrips was highlighted as a favored experience. Educational significance and implications are discussed.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2022
Accession Number: EJ1350560
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwG9bJ5UqHlEax2R-eIC_DJcAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDIZu5d7BG2TpYQqAJAIBEICBm7r9TbAJbMR4D7X5qYLLctsiY_ERTYD_xdOqNbzg1hpFuCUm9O1UXrfl49LRE2cHpD2d4Q-gZvh9BJnoNCmtFi4aUBZ-Q4K-67UUq8F0e90VAv2jpdZHIDvZx--_iChoGQzEXi4uSanDqiI_3p50bhN79lzSJY74pYj21aznsvvP_Skw5qKD9xk227ZRGyrzZQ40kB_K_LdDi3Io
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0159504373;58i01nov.22;2022Oct07.06:52;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0159504373-1">Driving is believing: Using telepresence robots to access makerspace for teachers in rural areas </title> <p>This study explored two different ways for K‐12 school teachers to access educational makerspace through virtual fieldtrips. K‐12 school teachers from rural areas of the Southeast USA were divided into two groups. The experimental group (n = 48) drove telepresence robots to take their fieldtrip, while the comparison group (n = 23) watched the same fieldtrip through a recorded video. Analyses of the quantitative and qualitative data, collected through surveys and written reflections, showed that the experimental group reported significantly higher scores in embodiment, social presence and engagement (ie, behaviour, emotion and cognition) than the comparison group, and that actual driving the robots for the virtual fieldtrips was highlighted as a favored experience. Educational significance and implications are discussed. Practitioner notesWhat is currently known about this topic With makerspaces gaining increasing attention in K‐12 education, professional development (PD) opportunities are needed to help teachers understand makerspaces and related technologies.Teachers in rural areas are faced with the challenges of accessing makerspace resources and opportunities, especially during the COVID‐19 pandemic.Little research has explored teacher makerspace PD in rural areas.Maker resource deficiency in rural areas and the COVID‐19 pandemic call for an alternative approach to the makerspace PD, particularly for teachers in rural areas.What this paper adds Explored the use of telepresence robots for rural teachers to access an authentic makerspace through virtual fieldtrips.Examined the effects of virtual fieldtrip to access makerspaces on K‐12 teachers' embodiment, social presence and engagement.Examined the aspects of the telepresence fieldtrip that were most valuable to K‐12 teachers.Investigated the factors that contribute to teachers' engagement in a virtual fieldtrip.Implications for practitioners Telepresence robot was an effective tool that enabled teachers in rural areas to explore authentic makerspaces through a virtual trip over distance.To help teachers conceptualize the idea of makerspace, it is important to allow teachers to move in the physical makerspace and interact with the environment.To design an engaging fieldtrip that triggers active learning, more attention should be given to how to develop the emotional aspect of a fieldtrip experience.Embodiment plays an important role in virtual fieldtrips. When teachers have a higher level of embodiment, they are more likely to be emotionally and cognitively engaged in a fieldtrip experience.</p> <p>Keywords: engagement; makerspace; teacher professional development; telepresence; virtual fieldtrip</p> <hd id="AN0159504373-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>In recent years, makerspaces have gained increasing attention in K‐12 education (Lin et al., 2020; Schlegel et al., 2019). It is believed that this latest educational movement may disrupt the "grammar of schooling" by changing the ways schools use technology, engage in learning and teaching and assess student learning (Peterson & Scharber, 2018). To help K‐12 teachers understand makerspaces and the related technologies, professional learning opportunities are needed (Olive, 2016). A fieldtrip to an authentic makerspace provides such an opportunity for teachers to explore maker technologies and the space for innovative teaching. However, not every teacher has convenient access to makerspace resources. Makerspace resource deficiency in rural areas and the COVID‐19 pandemic both added challenges for implementing in‐person fieldtrips to physical makerspaces. In this case, virtual fieldtrips provide an alternative approach to bringing makerspace resources to teachers who are disadvantaged geographically or financially. This study compared two different ways of providing makerspace professional learning for K‐12 teachers in low‐income rural areas.</p> <hd id="AN0159504373-3">Presence, telepresence and telepresence robot</hd> <p>As a key to understanding human experience, presence refers to people's perception of the immediate physical surroundings (Gibson, 1979; Lee, 2004). The advancement of technology enables individuals to perceive physical surroundings over distance. When technology is used, people's perception of the physical surroundings is mediated by the technology (Steuer, 1992). Human experience, therefore, includes virtual experience through sensory or non‐sensory experience of para‐authentic or artificial objects, as well as the real experience through a sensory experience of actual objects. Telepresence was the term coined to describe the manipulation of objects in the real world through remote access technology (Minsky, 1980; Steuer, 1992). It also describes the psychological phenomenon of "feeling one's self exist in a world apart from one's physical location" (Draper et al., 1999, p. 351).</p> <p>In online education, the telepresence phenomenon has significant implications for understanding how online learning experiences could boost student engagement. Previous research shows that telepresence is closely associated with focused attention, situation awareness and flow experience that involves energized focus, a strong sense of pleasure and the loss of time‐consciousness (Draper et al., 1999; Faiola et al., 2013; Steuer, 1992). In a virtual context, telepresence creates a mental state in which the virtual aspect of an environment is unnoticed, and people then generate a subjective feeling of being immersed in the environment (Lee, 2004). According to Finneran and Zhang (2003, p. 484), telepresence is "an essential factor for enabling the person to remain concentrated on the computer‐based task". The heightened level of attention and concentration could then help enhance the quality of virtual learning.</p> <p>Telepresence technology provides a tool that creates/boosts telepresence experience through multiple sensory channels (eg, image, sound) and motor systems (eg, execute movements) (Sheridan, 1992). Compared to virtual reality that creates a simulated environment, telepresence technology enables people to experience a real‐world environment as if they were physically there (Wang, 2011). A telepresence robot is such a tool—people can remotely drive a self‐representing robot to access and interact with a physical space (Lister, 2020). To date, telepresence robots have been increasingly adopted in various contexts. For instance, Germak et al. (2015) explored the use of telepresence robots in museums and examined people's robotic museum experience of inaccessible heritage areas. Cheung et al. (2018) focused on using telepresence robots to engage distant learners (eg, students with illness) in classroom activities. Lister (2020) reported that compared to video conferencing, telepresence robots significantly improved students' experience related to autonomy, social engagement and agency in learning. Moreover, telepresence robots were used for remotely accessing makerspace. A makerspace at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln used telepresence robots to invite rural communities to access the makerspace resources (Apel, 2018).</p> <p>People's online learning experience presents unique characteristics when being mediated by telepresence robots (Lei et al., 2019). This is because the bodily interaction in/with environment directly influences how people perceive and think (Makransky & Petersen, 2021). A few research studies have started to explore the role of telepresence robotic body in students' online learning experience. For example, Gleason and Greenhow (2017) examined students' sense of being able to control a robotic body and the experience of presenting themselves to a class community. Lei et al. (2019) investigated the relationship between students' perceptions of a robotic body and their engagement in learning. Fitter et al. (2018) studied the effects of personalized appearance on robots on students' perceptions of robots and themselves and feelings of self‐presence. Jakonen and Jauni (2021) examined the effects of visibility checks (checking whether students can see an object in its physical location) and students' sense of autonomy for seeing objects in robot‐mediated classroom interaction. These studies have found that the robotic body plays a vital role in students' engagement in learning. To expand this line of research, one aspect of our study was focused on the interplay between the robotic body and the place (eg, makerspace) through the concept of embodiment.</p> <hd id="AN0159504373-4">Embodiment</hd> <p>Embodiment describes the ability to be an active participant in an environment through the characteristics and possibilities of the body (Haans & IJsselsteijn, 2012). The human body, allowing us to see, hear, move, think, touch, taste and smell, plays an important role in education. People actively use the body to experience the world which, in turn, serves as the prerequisite for learning (Alerby et al., 2014). Embodiment could externalize and facilitate cognition. For example, students often use pointing gestures to index the referents of their speech when discussing mathematical problems (Alibali & Nathan, 2012). In cooperative learning, when others speak, students stand close to the speaker and keep eye contact (Shoval, 2011). In these scenarios, body and mind are intertwined, and thus learning is viewed as an embodied experience (Dall'Alba & Barnacle, 2005).</p> <p>Compared to face‐to‐face settings, embodiment exists differently in online environment. In this case, embodiment refers to the experience of owning and having control over a virtual or given physical body (Kilteni et al., 2012). Based on Metzinger (2006)'s work, Haans and Ijsselsteijn (2012) summarized the three dimensions of such embodiment: physical characteristics of the virtual body (eg, location of the head), functions of the virtual body in performing tasks (eg, keep balance), and image of the body (eg, how students perceive the virtual body). When using telepresence robots, people are provided with a tangible robotic body that allows and presents bodily motion in a space. The experience of body movement and the ability to control the body virtually could then create a sense of agency (Haggard, 2017)—"the feeling of generating and controlling actions in order to influence events in the outside world" (Moore & Fletcher, 2012, p. 59). Research shows that the sense of agency could significantly influence embodiment and the related interest, motivation, self‐regulation, self‐efficacy and cognitive load in virtual learning (Makransky & Petersen, 2021).</p> <p>Understanding embodiment is essential for assessing the quality of the telepresence experience (Biocca, 1997; Haans & Ijsselsteijn, 2012). According to IJsselsteijn (2005), incorporating technology into body representation is a key mechanism in the telepresence experience. When it comes to online learning, technology becomes an extension of students themselves as their bodily perceptions, such as sight and hearing, are facilitated by technology (Dall'Alba & Barnacle, 2005). Students' cognitive process is mediated by these technological capabilities which are designed to enhance sensation and perception (Alibali & Nathan, 2012). A higher level of embodiment tends to allow more complex sensorimotor interactions and thus leads to more active learning (Chee, 2007; Haans & Ijsselsteijn, 2012). The embodied view of online learning and cognition sheds important light on what it means to learn in the online environment, how online learning needs to be facilitated, and what learning outcomes should be valued (Chee, 2007). Furthermore, how students are embodied is also closely related to the ways students use the body to interact with others (Lei et al., 2019). The behaviours, such as eye contact, smiling and physical distance, can largely influence the level of interpersonal interaction (Argyle & Dean, 1965). Studying the salient characteristics of embodiment through robotic telepresence bears significance for online learning.</p> <hd id="AN0159504373-5">Social presence</hd> <p>Telepresence technology enables engagement not only in physical space but also in social space. The interaction between the robotic body and the place involves many social opportunities, which play a major role in shaping people's relationship with the place (Lentini & Decortis, 2010; Tsui & Yanco, 2013). According to Manzo (2005), "people develop connections to places through the social experiences and connections to others in those places" (p. 79). Thus, understanding the social aspect is essential for understanding people's telepresence experience of a remote place (Lentini & Decortis, 2010; Nowak & Biocca, 2003).</p> <p>Social presence describes the sense of being connected with others. When the term was introduced, Short et al. (1976) defined it as "the degree of salience of the other person in the interaction and the consequent salience of the interpersonal relationships" (p. 65). In face‐to‐face contexts, social presence could be naturally created through direct communication, body gesture and facial expression. While in virtual environments, social presence is dependent on the technology capabilities such as using a virtual representational image of interactants (Nowak & Biocca, 2003), enabling real‐time interaction in audio/video conferencing (Yoo & Alavi, 2001), or the robotic‐body standing close to speakers (Lei et al., 2019). Research shows that social presence is closely associated with peoples' satisfaction toward online learning experience (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997; Swan & Shih, 2005) and cognitive absorption of their experience in the virtual environment (Leong, 2011). Social presence provides insight into technology's ability for people to be engaged, "feeling that the user is 'there' inside the media (telepresence)" (Nowak & Biocca, 2003, p. 482).</p> <hd id="AN0159504373-6">Engagement</hd> <p>Engagement involves active cognitive processing and emotional bonding (Guthrie et al., 2004; Kearsley & Shneiderman, 1998; Wang, 2006). When people are engaged, they are "relatively energized, active, effortful, and involved" in the tasks at hand (Guthrie et al., 2004, p. 404). Engagement represents a mental state that is characterized by cognitive strategy use, motivation and comprehension. It is, therefore, often considered as an outcome of telepresence (Mollen & Wilson, 2010).</p> <p>In the education literature, engagement has been commonly viewed as three‐dimensional involving behaviour, emotion and cognition (Fredricks et al., 2004; Lei et al., 2019). According to Fredricks et al. (2004), behaviour engagement refers to behaviour participation in academic tasks such as asking questions, contributing to the discussion, attention and persistence. Emotional engagement is the emotional reaction toward class activities, such as joy, interest, happiness, anxiety, frustration, anger and loneliness. Cognitive engagement focuses on the mental efforts in learning and comprehension. When cognitively engaged, people actively use strategies such as summarizing, articulating, visualizing to understand materials (Dole et al., 2014; Rieber, 1995), and thus are more likely to "exert more mental effort, create more connection among ideas, and achieve a greater understanding of ideas" (Fredricks et al., 2004, p. 64). Of the three aspects of engagement, cognitive engagement usually plays a fundamental role in people's actual learning from academic tasks (Corno & Mandinach, 1983; Guthrie et al., 2004; Pintrich & Schrauben, 1992) and is considered as a significant indicator of the quality of virtual learning (Garrison & Anderson, 2003).</p> <hd id="AN0159504373-7">Current study</hd> <p>There has been a growing interest in applying telepresence robots in online learning. However, only a handful of studies have examined the impact of introducing robotic bodies. Little is known about how controlling/driving a robotic body influences people's virtual learning experience and what factors contribute to the engagement of people who are participating in the experience (Lei et al., 2019). Moreover, previous studies have been primarily based upon qualitative exploration of people's perceptions and experiences through analyzing written reflections, interviews or video recordings (Fitter et al., 2018; Gleason & Greenhow, 2017; Jakonen & Jauni, 2021; Lei et al., 2019). To the best of our knowledge, very few studies have thus far compared multiple experimental conditions to reveal the effects of being embodied in telepresence robots. Still, although embodiment has a crucial role in learning, this topic has received little attention in online learning research until recent times (Lei et al., 2019).</p> <p>In addition, although telepresence robots have been increasingly used in makerspaces, research on using telepresence robots for K‐12 teachers' PD, especially in rural areas, is still limited. Adopting emerging educational technology and providing high‐quality teacher professional development (PD) are effective strategies to maintain teaching quality at a high level in rural and remote areas (Lavalley, 2018; Wang et al., 2019). However, the technology adoption for rural areas has lagged behind, significantly and historically, which that in urban districts (Hollifield & Donnermeyer, 2003). Moreover, teachers in rural areas have limited access to high‐quality PD that prepares them for using technology (Lavalley, 2018; Saw & Agger, 2021). Rural communities are facing this challenge for makerspace education (Nixon et al., 2021). So far, little research has explored makerspace education in rural settings (Ensign & Leupold, 2018; Nixon et al., 2021). The global COVID 19 pandemic has added additional barriers to access makerspace resources and participation in makerspace activities (Lieber et al., 2021). All these calls for an alternative approach to the makerspace PD, particularly for teachers in rural areas.</p> <p>This study addressed the above gaps by introducing virtual fieldtrips for K‐12 rural teachers to an authentic makerspace through telepresence robots. To address the issue of equity and improve professional learning of teachers in the rural areas, it is important to understand their fieldtrip experience, particularly, the effects of telepresence robots on teachers' fieldtrip experience and the factors that influence their engagement in the fieldtrip. Specifically, this study compared two experimental conditions to examine the effects of introducing telepresence robots on K‐12 teachers' virtual learning experience in an authentic educational makerspace. We focused on their experience of embodiment, social presence and engagement in our observation and used the following questions to guide the study.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What are the effects of virtual fieldtrip to access makerspaces on K‐12 teachers' embodiment, social presence and engagement? Does driving a telepresence robot or watching a recorded video make a difference in teachers' virtual fieldtrip experience?</item> <p></p> <item> What aspects of the telepresence fieldtrip are most valuable to K‐12 teachers?</item> <p></p> <item> What are the factors that contribute to teachers' engagement in a virtual fieldtrip?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0159504373-8">METHODS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0159504373-9">Research design</hd> <p>To address the research questions, we adopted the mixed‐method approach and used the sequential explanatory design (Creswell, 2013) for the study. This design allowed us to first collect quantitative data to examine participants' telepresence experience. Then, we used the qualitative aspect to supplement the quantitative approach. The sequenced qualitative approach allowed us to collect more in‐depth qualitative data to contextualize the findings from the quantitative analysis regarding participants' perception of using telepresence robots for a fieldtrip. In order to examine the effects of telepresence robots on participants' virtual fieldtrip experience, the participants were divided into two groups based on their experience of accessing makerspace. The experiment group included 48 teachers who used telepresence robots for the virtual fieldtrips. In this group, each participant drove a telepresence robot to take a tour in an authentic makerspace. The first author also drove a telepresence robot to participate in the fieldtrip and recorded both the screen and the sound on her computer (See Figure 1). The recording was then posted as an unlisted private video on Youtube. The video lasted 45 minutes as an actual fieldtrip did and covered the tour facilitated by the same tour guide, with the same content and activity, and at the same makerspace. The video also included the automated close captioning to display the content/script of the conversations during the fieldtrip. The comparison group included 23 participants. Teachers in this group were provided with the recorded video through a website link on the internet. They were asked to watch the whole video and raise questions to earn the class credits.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/58I/01nov22/bjet13225-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjet13225-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Screenshot of the makerspace tour video watched by the comparison group" /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0159504373-11">Telepresence fieldtrips</hd> <p>The purpose of the telepresence fieldtrip was to expose makerspace technology and enable the participants to learn and explore makerspace resources at a university innovations lab. The makerspace, located in the College of Education at the university, was designed for students, local educators and faculty/staff to use emerging education technologies for innovative teaching. The fieldtrip exposed a variety of maker technologies, including 3D printing, E‐textile, programing & robotics, media production and virtual reality.</p> <p>For the experiment group, each participant had an opportunity to remotely drive a telepresence robot to walk/move around in the physical makerspace and communicate with makerspace staff, fellow teachers and instructors (Figure 2). Participants could move the robot forward, backwards, left and right by clicking the arrow keys on computer keyboards or using the touch screen on mobile devices. They could also change the height of the robot, control the volume and the camera, activate the park brake with the user menu on their screen. These capabilities enabled them to freely move around, turn the robot head to see all directions and parts of the room, and communicate with people in the space as if they were physically there. Participants were given a tour of the makerspace and were directed to explore: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) what is makerspace? (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) what emerging maker technologies are available? (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>) how the design of physical space could create opportunities for making, learning and collaborating? and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref4">4</reflink>) the success stories of using makerspace/maker technology to enhance teaching and learning.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/58I/01nov22/bjet13225-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjet13225-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Participants having a virtual fieldtrip to makerspace with telepresence robots. Reproduced with permission from Chen and Cao (2022)" /> </p> <p></p> <p>Before taking the virtual fieldtrip, the participants in both groups gained hands‐on making experience by using the Tinkercad program to create a 3D model that could be used as a teaching/learning tool in their classrooms. The participants were offered to have their 3D models printed out at the makerspace and then mailed to them for classroom use. Participants were encouraged to observe how 3D models were being printed on a 3D printer during the fieldtrip.</p> <hd id="AN0159504373-13">Participants</hd> <p>Seventy‐one in‐service K‐12 teachers who enrolled in an online graduate‐level course participated in the study. The teachers were from a remote, low‐income and rural area in the Southeast of the USA. Most of them had limited access to makerspace resources and had limited‐to‐no knowledge of makerspace and maker technology. Among them, 20 (28.2%) were male and 51 (71.8%) were female; 54 (76.1%) were white, 15 (21.1%) were African‐American, 1 (1.4%) was Asian, 1 (1.4%) was other. Their ages ranged from 18 to 41 and more. They included 23 (32.4%) high school teachers, 22 (31.0%) middle school, 22 (31%) prek‐elementary school and 4 (5.6%) other types. Their teaching experience varied, with 32 (45.1%) of 0–5 years, 18 (25.4%) of 6–10 years, 10 (14.1%) of 11–15 years, 8 (11.3%) of 16–20 years and 3 (4.2%) of more than 21 years. They taught a variety of subjects such as Mathematics, Science, Computer Science / Technology, Social Studies, Health Education and Language Arts.</p> <hd id="AN0159504373-14">Instrument</hd> <p>The Telepresence and Engagement Measurement Scale (TEMS, Bell et al., 2017) was adapted to examine participants' perceptions of the fieldtrip experience. The TEMS survey questionnaire consisted of 34 items in five subscales that measure embodiment (eg, "I had a good sense of how I appeared to others."), social presence (eg, "I felt like I was with those who were physically present in my class."), behaviour engagement (eg, "I listened attentively to my classmates' contributions during class discussions."), emotion engagement (eg, "I had fun in class.") and cognitive engagement (eg, "I tried to connect new information with what I already know."). Participants responded to each item on a five‐point Likert scale that ranged from 1 (<emph>strongly disagree</emph>) to 5 (<emph>strongly agree</emph>). The reliability of the survey questionnaire ranged from 0.700 to 0.891 in Cronbach's alpha, indicating acceptable internal consistency of the subscales.</p> <hd id="AN0159504373-15">Data collection and analysis</hd> <p>Following the sequential explanatory design (Creswell, 2013) of the study, we first collected quantitative data to examine participants' telepresence experience. The quantitative aspect of the study was achieved through a survey questionnaire. The TEMS survey questionnaire was sent through a Qualtrics link before the fieldtrip and participants were asked to respond to the survey immediately after they completed the fieldtrip. All the participants responded. Descriptive statistics, multi‐linear regression analysis and ANOVA were performed to analyze the difference in telepresence experience between the two intervention groups. Then, we used the sequenced qualitative approach to collect more in‐depth qualitative data such as written reflections to explain and contextualize the findings from the quantitative analysis regarding participants' perception of using telepresence robots for a fieldtrip. To capture this in‐depth experience, the participants were asked to reflect on the fieldtrip experience. Their written reflection was guided by four sets of questions: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref5">1</reflink>) What did you learn through this field trip? What stood out? (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref6">2</reflink>) What questions you wanted to ask/did you ask during this session? Why they are important to you? (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref7">3</reflink>) How did this fieldtrip impact the way you think about teaching with makerspace/maker technology? (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref8">4</reflink>) What are your thoughts on your experience of driving telepresence robots for the fieldtrip? All the participants provided written responses. The qualitative data were analyzed using ATLAS.ti. Version 8. Open coding was conducted to identify the important themes in the written reflection.</p> <hd id="AN0159504373-16">RESULTS</hd> <p>To address the first research question, one‐way ANOVA was performed to compare the effects of using two different ways to access maker space. As Table 1 shows, the experimental group scored significantly higher in embodiment (<emph>F</emph><subs>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref9">1</reflink>, 69)</subs> = 563.43, <emph>p</emph> = 0.00<emph>, η</emph>² = 0.89) and social presence (<emph>F</emph><subs>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref10">1</reflink>, 69)</subs> = 444.46, <emph>p</emph> = 0.00<emph>, η</emph>² = 0.87) and achieved a significantly higher level of behavioural (<emph>F</emph><subs>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref11">1</reflink>, 69)</subs> = 122.08, <emph>p</emph> = 0.00<emph>, η</emph>² = 0.64), emotional (<emph>F</emph><subs>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref12">1</reflink>, 69)</subs> = 27.82, <emph>p</emph> = 0.00<emph>, η</emph>² = 0.29) and cognitive (<emph>F</emph><subs>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref13">1</reflink>, 69)</subs> = 15.57, <emph>p</emph> = 0.00, <emph>η</emph>² = 0.19) engagement than the comparison group.</p> <p>1 TABLEDescriptive statistics and ANOVA results of embodiment, social presence and engagements by groups</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="top"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">Telepresence robots (<italic>n</italic> = 48)</th><th align="left">Recorded video (<italic>n</italic> = 23)</th><th align="left"><italic>F</italic><sub>(1, 69)</sub></th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>η</italic>²</th></tr><tr><th align="left"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="left">SD</th><th align="left"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="left">SD</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Embodiment</td><td align="char" char=".">4.48</td><td align="char" char=".">0.56</td><td align="char" char=".">1.42</td><td align="char" char=".">0.39</td><td align="char" char=".">563.43</td><td align="char" char=".">0.000</td><td align="char" char=".">0.891</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Social presence</td><td align="char" char=".">3.85</td><td align="char" char=".">0.46</td><td align="char" char=".">1.66</td><td align="char" char=".">0.27</td><td align="char" char=".">444.46</td><td align="char" char=".">0.000</td><td align="char" char=".">0.866</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Behaviour engagement</td><td align="char" char=".">4.30</td><td align="char" char=".">0.54</td><td align="char" char=".">2.88</td><td align="char" char=".">0.42</td><td align="char" char=".">122.08</td><td align="char" char=".">0.000</td><td align="char" char=".">0.639</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Emotion engagement</td><td align="char" char=".">4.84</td><td align="char" char=".">0.33</td><td align="char" char=".">4.20</td><td align="char" char=".">0.71</td><td align="char" char=".">27.82</td><td align="char" char=".">0.000</td><td align="char" char=".">0.287</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cognitive engagement</td><td align="char" char=".">4.79</td><td align="char" char=".">0.36</td><td align="char" char=".">4.36</td><td align="char" char=".">0.56</td><td align="char" char=".">15.75</td><td align="char" char=".">0.000</td><td align="char" char=".">0.186</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Analysis of the written reflection was conducted to address the second research question. Written reflection data confirmed the above survey results. Participants in the experiment group commonly expressed strong and positive feelings through using comments as "very impressed", "really enjoyed", "absolutely love", "very interesting and engaging" and "fascinating". Participants commented that, compared to watching a recorded video, telepresence robots allowed them to experience the space through multiple senses as they "could see, talk, hear, interact, and go anywhere in the makerspace", and "could actively engage with people in the lab". Three participants described,</p> <p>It was realistic because the robots gave me control of where I wanted to look and move. [P25]</p> <p>We weren't simply watching through a screen and it felt as if we were an active participant. Being able to move around and observe the different stations made me feel as if I was really there. Getting the opportunity to be involved and ask questions was very nice as well. [P43]</p> <p>I loved the fact that I was a robot and could hear other people, see the presenters and interact with them through the use of my robot. [P7]</p> <p>Participants appreciated the sense of agency they experienced. They mentioned that they could control the robot's motion, speed and direction, which, in turn, leveraged the control in learning. They could choose a pace, a location, a distance that best fit their needs and interest, and this thus helped them create a more accurate mental map of the surroundings. They emphasized that the sense of agency led to a feeling of being "really there" and enabled "a visual of what a makerspace should look like". They also liked the fact that they were "using a robot where my face was seen" and could "see/hear my classmates as they explored the space as well". They believed that all this helped them develop a better perception of the spatial characteristics of the space and the social meanings related to it. Two participants explained,</p> <p>I enjoyed being able to experience it visually and was excited to be able to move around through telepresence. I also enjoyed being able to communicate with the people physically in the lab and on the other telepresence. I don't think my experience in the Innovations Lab would have been as meaningful had it only consisted of pictures, video, or someone talking about it. I am a visual learner so being about to see things around me helps me to gain a better understanding of spaces and materials. [P17]</p> <p>It allowed me to see a maker space in action and exposed me to new ideas for materials to incorporate into my own maker space. The field trip connected me with people that have experience working in a maker space with school‐aged children and allowed me to ask practical questions that apply to my own work. [P13]</p> <p>Participants reported that the interactive features of the robots rendered some participation behaviors more such as moving around, asking questions, observing, listening and sharing thoughts, which resulted in various degrees of cognitive engagement being triggered. Participants described,</p> <p>It (robot) helped me greatly to see the layout and tools available in such a space. My mind was churning the whole time on how I can recreate a simple version of this within my classroom or school. [P9]</p> <p>I was curious about the different coding robots that the tour guide was showing us. I asked about what particular age group would use the larger robots. [P43]</p> <p>Upon beginning to roam around the lab, I immediately noticed that the lab was divided into several sections with each being dedicated to a particular technology or makerspace concept. [P20]</p> <p>In sum, both the survey results and the written reflection implied that telepresence robots positively affected participants' fieldtrip experience by providing a better embodiment experience and social presence, as well as triggering more cognitive, emotional and behavioural engagement.</p> <p>Multilinear regression analysis was conducted to address Research Question 3 by examining the factors that contributed to participants' engagement. Engagement was examined in three dimensions: cognition, emotion and behaviour. Since cognitive engagement is an important indicator of learning quality, we first predicted cognitive engagement based on the embodiment, social presence, emotion and participation behaviours. Significant results were found for both the experiment group (<emph>F</emph><subs>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref14">4</reflink>, 43)</subs> = 38.11, <emph>p</emph> = 0.000, <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.78) and the comparison group (<emph>F</emph><subs>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref15">4</reflink>, 18)</subs> = 5.70, <emph>p</emph> = 0.004, <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.56). As shown in Table 2, regardless of experimental conditions, cognitive engagement was significantly associated with emotion engagement, but not with embodiment, social presence or behaviour engagement.</p> <p>2 TABLERegression results for embodiment, social presence, behaviour engagement and emotion engagement on cognitive engagement by group</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="top"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">Telepresence robots (<italic>n</italic> = 48)</th><th align="left">Recorded video (<italic>n</italic> = 23)</th></tr><tr><th align="left"><italic>B</italic></th><th align="left">SE</th><th align="left"><italic>β</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>t</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>B</italic></th><th align="left">SE</th><th align="left"><italic>β</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>t</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">α: constant</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.001</td><td align="char" char=".">0.402</td><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">−0.002</td><td align="char" char=".">0.998</td><td align="char" char=".">1.70</td><td align="char" char=".">0.95</td><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">1.80</td><td align="char" char=".">0.089</td></tr><tr><td align="left">b1: embodiment</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.05</td><td align="char" char=".">0.06</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.08</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.800</td><td align="char" char=".">0.428</td><td align="char" char=".">0.09</td><td align="char" char=".">0.13</td><td align="char" char=".">0.15</td><td align="char" char=".">0.69</td><td align="char" char=".">0.500</td></tr><tr><td align="left">b2: social presence</td><td align="char" char=".">0.09</td><td align="char" char=".">0.07</td><td align="char" char=".">0.12</td><td align="char" char=".">1.31</td><td align="char" char=".">0.196</td><td align="char" char=".">0.12</td><td align="char" char=".">0.25</td><td align="char" char=".">0.11</td><td align="char" char=".">0.49</td><td align="char" char=".">0.634</td></tr><tr><td align="left">b3: behaviour engagement</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">0.05</td><td align="char" char=".">0.06</td><td align="char" char=".">0.74</td><td align="char" char=".">0.462</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">0.21</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.02</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.12</td><td align="char" char=".">0.907</td></tr><tr><td align="left">b4: emotion engagement</td><td align="char" char=".">0.93</td><td align="char" char=".">0.09</td><td align="char" char=".">0.86</td><td align="char" char=".">10.42</td><td align="char" char=".">0.000</td><td align="char" char=".">0.49</td><td align="char" char=".">0.16</td><td align="char" char=".">0.62</td><td align="char" char=".">3.10</td><td align="char" char=".">0.006</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Second, we examined emotion as it was the most influential factor of determining cognitive engagement. We applied multilinear regression analysis to examine how embodiment, social presence and behaviour contributed to the variance of emotion engagement under the two conditions. We found that the regression models were still significant for both the experiment group (<emph>F</emph><subs>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref16">3</reflink>, 44)</subs> = 4.94, <emph>p</emph> = 0.005, <emph>R<sups>2</sups></emph> = 0.25) and the comparison group (<emph>F</emph><subs>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref17">3</reflink>, 19)</subs> = 3.94, <emph>p</emph> = 0.024, <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.38). Results (Table 3) showed that embodiment was significantly associated with emotion engagement for the experiment group (<emph>B</emph> = 0.93, <emph>t</emph> = 10.42, <emph>p</emph> = 0.000), and that participation behaviour was significantly associated with emotion engagement for the comparison group (<emph>B</emph> = 0.49, <emph>t</emph> = 3.10, <emph>p</emph> = 0.006). The effects of social presence were not significant for either of the two conditions.</p> <p>3 TABLERegression results for embodiment, social presence, behaviour engagement on emotion engagement by group</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="top"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">Telepresence robots (<italic>n</italic> = 48)</th><th align="left">Recorded video (<italic>n</italic> = 23)</th></tr><tr><th align="left"><italic>B</italic></th><th align="left">SE</th><th align="left"><italic>β</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>t</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>P</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>B</italic></th><th align="left">SE</th><th align="left"><italic>β</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>t</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">α: constant</td><td align="char" char=".">3.28</td><td align="char" char=".">0.47</td><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">7.05</td><td align="char" char=".">0.000</td><td align="char" char=".">0.33</td><td align="char" char=".">1.37</td><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">0.24</td><td align="char" char=".">0.812</td></tr><tr><td align="left">b1: embodiment</td><td align="char" char=".">0.27</td><td align="char" char=".">0.10</td><td align="char" char=".">0.46</td><td align="char" char=".">2.87</td><td align="char" char=".">0.006</td><td align="char" char=".">0.18</td><td align="char" char=".">0.18</td><td align="char" char=".">0.24</td><td align="char" char=".">0.98</td><td align="char" char=".">0.342</td></tr><tr><td align="left">b2: social presence</td><td align="char" char=".">0.02</td><td align="char" char=".">0.12</td><td align="char" char=".">0.02</td><td align="char" char=".">0.14</td><td align="char" char=".">0.887</td><td align="char" char=".">0.40</td><td align="char" char=".">0.35</td><td align="char" char=".">0.28</td><td align="char" char=".">1.14</td><td align="char" char=".">0.267</td></tr><tr><td align="left">b3: behavior engagement</td><td align="char" char=".">0.06</td><td align="char" char=".">0.09</td><td align="char" char=".">0.10</td><td align="char" char=".">0.75</td><td align="char" char=".">0.458</td><td align="char" char=".">0.58</td><td align="char" char=".">0.27</td><td align="char" char=".">0.42</td><td align="char" char=".">2.15</td><td align="char" char=".">0.045</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>As Table 3 shows, when using telepresence robots, participants who had better embodiment experience were more likely to have positive emotional reactions towards the virtual fieldtrips. The more positive feeling participants held towards the fieldtrip, the more likely participants were to engage in active learning. When the fieldtrip was just based on a recorded video that had limited interactive features, participants had less chance of interacting with technology. In this case, the participants' emotional engagement was more likely to depend on their participation behaviours (eg, listened attentively) rather than the technology affordances.</p> <p>Thirdly, we used multilinear regression analysis to examine the third dimension—behaviour engagement based on the variables of embodiment and social presence. However, the results showed that the regression models were not significant for either experiment group (<emph>F</emph><subs>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref18">2</reflink>, 45)</subs> = 3.08, <emph>p</emph> = 0.056, <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.12) or comparison group (<emph>F</emph><subs>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref19">2</reflink>, 20)</subs> = 1.87, <emph>p</emph> = 0.180, <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.16).</p> <hd id="AN0159504373-17">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>To address the challenges for K‐12 teachers in rural areas to access makerspace resources, this study explored the use of telepresence robots for rural teachers to access an authentic makerspace through virtual fieldtrips. We examined the effects of telepresence robots on teachers' fieldtrip experience by focusing on the embodiment, social presence and cognitive/emotion/behaviour engagement. As cognitive engagement was considered an important outcome (Garrison & Anderson, 2003), we investigated the factors that contributed to cognitive engagement. The results of this study provide implications for affording effective telepresence fieldtrips in makerspace teacher PD.</p> <p>Results to the first and the second research questions show that the telepresence robot was an effective tool that enabled K‐12 teachers in rural areas to explore authentic makerspaces through a virtual trip over distance. As the participants in the experimental group highlighted, <emph>telepresence</emph> robots provided an enriched, meaningful and important experience that was not otherwise possible, eg, through graphics, video, or video conferencing. The interactive features of robots allowed participants to control the given robotic body and thus created a sense of agency (Haggard, 2017; Moore & Fletcher, 2012). The agency of owning and manipulating a robotic body extended people's sensory motor perceptions which then produced the telepresence experience (Hohwy, 2007; Steuer, 1992). Participants commonly reported a strong feeling of "being really there" in the makerspace. This is consistent with the existing evidence that, when a virtual experience is based upon design strategies that combine multiple sensory and motor factors, people are more likely to immerse in the experience of the remote/simulated environment and forget about the fact that the experience is digital (Dede, 2009; Faiola et al., 2013). Meanwhile, the teachers in this study believed that the more senses engaged the more active they were as a participant in the environment. The survey results also showed that, compared to watching a recorded video, the teachers who drove a robot reported significantly higher levels of embodiment, social presence and behaviour, emotion and cognitive engagement. The findings support recent research that (Lei et al., 2019; Lister, 2020) telepresence robots could improve students' engagement in online learning. Thus, our study showed a practical example of how a telepresence robot could support meaningful interaction in and with a physical makerspace. Such interaction plays an important role in helping teachers conceptualize the idea of makerspace. According to Kelly (2013), a makerspace is not just a space of a collection of technology tools, but also a place for socializing, collaborating, creating and learning. To help teachers understand the "built pedagogy" of makerspace—how the space is designed to facilitate a corresponding pedagogy (Monahan, 2002), it is important to provide them with authentic experience in this physical space (Jones, 2020). In this study, telepresence robots served this purpose by allowing teachers to move in the space and interact with the environment. Our finding also echoed the previous view that to acquire a sense of space, people need to position themselves into the physical space and physically engage and interact with it (eg, Lentini & Decortis, 2010; Risotto & Giuliani, 2006).</p> <p>Results to the third research question demonstrated that emotion played a significant role in predicting teachers' cognitive <emph>engagement</emph> in the fieldtrip. We found that the more positive emotion teachers experienced during the fieldtrip, the more likely they were engaged cognitively in learning about makerspace. The emotional relationship to the place is an important part of the experience of a space (Manzo, 2003). The emotion glues together people's experience and we found a place meaningful through "the steady accretion of sentiment" (Manzo, 2003; Tuan, 1977, p. 33). When exploring the makerspace, cognitive engagement is a process of meaning‐making—how the makerspace is meaningful for teachers. The positive feelings, such as considering the fieldtrip interesting, fun or relevant to their teaching practices or daily life, helped form the emotional relationship to the space, upon which teachers then constructed the meaning attached to the makerspace (Lentini & Decortis, 2010). Additionally, the neuroscience literature showed that the cognition and emotion areas are strongly integrated into the human brain (Pessoa, 2008). It has been believed that emotion can influence any stage of the cognitive chain of information processing (Erdelyi, 1974; Lazarus, 1982). It is, therefore, not surprising that teachers' emotional engagement in the telepresence fieldtrip explained a significant proportion of the variance in cognitive engagement in exploring makerspace. We believe it is very likely that the two mutually reinforce each other: experiencing positive emotion produces cognitive engagement, which in turn encourages more of the positive feelings. Recognizing the importance of emotion bears important implications for designing telepresence fieldtrips for teachers' makerspace learning. Fieldtrip should not just be an experience of roaming around and accessing resources. To design an engaging fieldtrip that triggers active learning, more attention should be given to how to develop an emotional relationship to the makerspace. Makerspace itself is not important, what matters is the experience within it through which they found the makerspace, the content and materials, and the activities interesting, relevant and meaningful.</p> <p>This study also examined what made teachers feel this way in makerspace. Our findings show that, for teachers who drove robots, <emph>embodiment</emph> was a significant factor associated with their emotional engagement. Teachers in the experimental group reported that they experienced positive emotion when they were embodied in a robot so that they could explore through multiple senses and had robotic‐body autonomy. Our results also suggested that embodiment positively influenced emotion, which in turn improved cognitive engagement. According to Dreyfus (2001), the embodiment experience gives people "the direct presence of things". When people are thinking or reasoning, they refer to the present entities through multiple channels (eg, video, audio) and movement control, which, not surprisingly, helps people to comprehend what is happening in the situation (Dijkstra & Post, 2015). When they understand the situation and evaluate the stimuli in the environment as important, emotion is then generated (Gross, 1998). Additionally, an embodiment could enhance the learning through situated experience (Dede, 2009) so that teachers could learn about makerspace via expert modeling and legitimate peripheral participation. When embodied in a robot, the participating teachers, though remotely located, were able to situate themselves in an authentic makerspace and freely explore the space by controlling the speed, direction and motion of the robots. They could observe live the everyday activities happening in the makerspace, watch experts modeling the maker practices, and interact with the lab members who have varied levels of maker skills. Social interaction is an important aspect of the embodiment experience (Rambusch & Ziemke, 2005). The survey results showed that <emph>social presence</emph> was not associated with either cognitive engagement or emotional engagement. Teachers' written reflections revealed that they appreciated that the robots allowed them to better present themselves and connect to others, as well as helped them understand the social meaning of makerspace. The divergent findings may be due to that interacting with others was not required by the instructor and participants' attention was less on social interaction as, for many participants, this is the first time driving telepresence robots and exposing to a makerspace. Low social presence and embodiment were observed in the comparison group. For the teachers who watched a recorded video, the participation behaviour was significantly related to emotional engagement. The results indicated that, when the levels of embodiment and social presence were relatively low, technology had little direct influence on emotion engagement and teachers' emotion was primarily based upon their participation behaviours (eg, attentively listen).</p> <p>Although the current study yielded interesting findings, the results should be used with caution due to the following limitations. First, the current study relied on self‐report data which may involve participants' subjective bias. Objective observation and measures should be considered in the future study of the topic. Furthermore, the current study used a relatively small sample. Future studies could include a larger sample size and prolonged data collection. In addition, to reveal the effects of using telepresence robots, this study had the comparison group watch a video of a makerspace tour. To help control the extraneous variables, the researcher drove a telepresence robot and screen recorded the fieldtrip and made sure that the fieldtrip was given by the same tour guide and covered the same content and activities. However, due to the nature that this was a quasi‐experimental intervention study carried out in a real‐life education setting, some factors still existed that could affect the outcome. Such factors included presence of the researcher/instructor in the video and how the participants completed video watching, etc. Moreover, it would be interesting to compare telepresence robots with video conferencing or in‐person visit. Adding an in‐person group would help us better understand how different levels of embodiment would influence teachers' engagement in the professional development on maker‐centered instruction. Still, this study only explored the use of telepresence robots for virtual fieldtrip to help teachers learn about maker education. Yet the potential of telepresence robots could go beyond exposure and learning. For example, this technology could be a promising solution for at‐a‐distance collective making in makerspace. Future work may explore how telepresence robots support teachers' virtual making in makerspaces and how teachers could be connected in both online space and physical makerspace through telepresence robots.</p> <hd id="AN0159504373-18">CONCLUSION</hd> <p>With the recent maker movement, makerspace has been viewed as a new education revolution. Recent years witnessed a growing body of research in bringing makerspaces and ideas of maker education for teacher PD (Jones, 2020; Peterson & Scharber, 2018; Saw & Agger, 2021; Stevenson et al., 2019). However, teachers in rural areas are faced with the challenges of accessing such resources, especially during the COVID‐19 pandemic. This study addressed this issue by exploring different ways of using telepresence robots to enable rural teachers to access makerspace resources through a virtual fieldtrip. The results show that telepresence robots were effective in affording telepresence, which in turn produced embodiment experience and social presence among the teachers. In particular, the teachers reported the experience of driving the telepresence robots intriguing for cognitive, emotional and behaviour engagement, as compared to learning about makerspace through watching the same virtual trip via a recorded video. This study generated empirical evidence that supports the concept of telepresence, embodiment and social presence in the research on makerspace for teacher PD. Our results contribute to a better understanding of the role of the body in online learning, as well as the role of telepresence in situated learning. Our results suggest providing opportunities for teachers in rural areas to drive a telepresence robot could be an effective way to access innovative education technologies. In our study, telepresence robots presented an effective alternative in providing equitable access for teachers in rural and remote areas to maker resources and opportunities. Further research on the embodiment experience in the virtual fieldtrip could enrich our knowledge in online learning and enhance the infusion of maker innovations in K‐12 education.</p> <hd id="AN0159504373-19">ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS</hd> <p>This research was funded in part by the University of West Georgia College of Education Seed Grant. The authors are grateful to Dr. Lara Willox, Brian Lane, and all members of the Innovations Lab for their support. We thank all the participants for their contribution to the project. We also thank the editorial team and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.</p> <hd id="AN0159504373-20">ETHICS STATEMENT</hd> <p>The Institutional Review Board at University of West Georgia approved this study. All appropriate ethical standards were met in the process of this research.</p> <hd id="AN0159504373-21">CONFLICT OF INTEREST</hd> <p>The authors have no conflict of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0159504373-22">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>The data of this study can be made available upon request.</p> <ref id="AN0159504373-23"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Alerby, E., Hagström, E., & Westman, S. (2014). The embodied classroom: A phenomenological discussion of the body and the room. Journal of Pedagogy, 5 (1), 11 – 23. https://doi.org/10.2478/jped‐2014‐0001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Alibali, M. W., & Nathan, M. J. (2012). Embodiment in mathematics teaching and learning: Evidence from learners' and teachers' gestures. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21 (2), 247 – 286. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.611446</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Apel, H. (2018). Makerspace boosting innovation and opportunity in rural Nebraska. Retrieved, July 15, 2021, from https://ianr.unl.edu/growing/makerspace‐boosting‐innovation‐and‐opportunity‐rural‐nebraska</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry, 28, 289 – 304. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786027</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bell, J., Cain, W., Cheng, C., Peterson, A., Lei, M., Hu, Y., Clemente, I., & Sprick, J. (2017). Telepresence and engagement in synchronous hybrid learning contexts [White paper]. Published by the CEPSE/COE Design Studio, College of Education, Michigan State University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Biocca, F. (1997). The cyborg's dilemma: Progressive embodiment in virtual environments. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 3 (2), JCMC324. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083‐6101.1997.tb00070.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Chee, Y. S. (2007). Embodiment, embeddedness, and experience: Game‐based learning and the construction of identity. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 2 (1), 3 – 30. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793206807000282</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Chen, Y., & Cao, L. (2022). Promoting maker‐centred instruction through virtual professional development activities for K‐12 teachers in low‐income rural areas. British Journal of Educational Technology, 1 – 24. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13183</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cheung, D., Dykeman, T., & Fell, C. (2018, June 4). Using telepresence robots to support students facing adversity. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2018/6/using‐telepresence‐robots‐to‐support‐students‐facing‐adversity</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Corno, L., & Mandinach, E. B. (1983). The role of cognitive engagement in classroom learning and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 18 (2), 88 – 108. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461528309529266</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dall'Alba, G., & Barnacle, R. (2005). Embodied knowing in online environments. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 37 (5), 719 – 744. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469‐5812.2005.00153.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dede, C. (2009). Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. Science, 323 (5910), 66 – 69.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dijkstra, K., & Post, L. (2015). Mechanisms of embodiment. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1 – 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01525</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dole, J. A., Nokes, J. D., & Drits, D. (2014). Cognitive strategy instruction. In S. Israel & G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 371 – 396). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315759609</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Draper, J. V., Kaber, D. B., & Usher, J. M. (1999). Speculations on the value of telepresence. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 2 (4), 349 – 362. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.1999.2.349</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dreyfus, H. L. (2001). On the Internet. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ensign, P. C., & Leupold, P. (2018, August). Grassroots opportunities for innovation, technology, and entrepreneurship: Makerspaces in non‐urban communities. In 2018 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET) (pp. 1 – 7). IEEE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Erdelyi, M. H. (1974). A new look at the new look: Perceptual defence and vigilance. Psychological Review, 81, 1 – 25.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Faiola, A., Newlon, C., Pfaff, M., & Smyslova, O. (2013). Correlating the effects of flow and telepresence in virtual worlds: Enhancing our understanding of user behavior in game‐based learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 29 (3), 1113 – 1121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Finneran, C. M., & Zhang, P. (2003). A person‐artefact‐task (PAT) model of flow antecedents in computer‐mediated environments. International Journal of Human‐Computer Studies, 59 (1), 475 – 496. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1071‐5819(03)00112‐5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fitter, N. T., Chowdhury, Y., Cha, E., Takayama, L., & Matarić, M. J. (2018, March). Evaluating the effects of personalized appearance on telepresence robots for education. In Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–robot Interaction (pp. 109 – 110).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59 – 109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E‐learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. Routledge/Falmer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Germak, C., Lupetti, M. L., Giuliano, L., & Ng, M. E. K. (2015). Robots and cultural heritage: New museum experiences. Journal of Science and Technology of the Arts, 7 (2), 47 – 57. https://doi.org/10.7559/citarj.v7i2.158</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton‐Mifflin.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gleason, B., & Greenhow, C. (2017). Hybrid learning in higher education: The potential of teaching and learning with robot‐mediated communication. Online Learning, 21 (4), 159 – 176.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2 (3), 271 – 299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089‐2680.2.3.271</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer‐mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11 (3), 8 – 26. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649709526970</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M. H., Scafiddi, N. T., & Tonks, S. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through concept‐oriented reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96 (3), 403 – 423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0663.96.3.403</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haans, A., & IJsselsteijn, W. A. (2012). Embodiment and telepresence: Toward a comprehensive theoretical framework. Interacting with Computers, 24 (4), 211 – 218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2012.04.010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haggard, P. (2017). Sense of agency in the human brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 18 (4), 196 – 207.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hohwy, J. (2007). The sense of self in the phenomenology of agency and perception. Psyche, 13 (1), 1 – 20.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hollifield, C. A., & Donnermeyer, J. F. (2003). Creating demand: Influencing information technology diffusion in rural communities. Government Information Quarterly, 20 (2), 135 – 150. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0740‐624X(03)00035‐2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> IJsselsteijn, W. A. (2005). Towards a neuropsychological basis of presence. Annual Review of CyberTherapy and Telemedicine: A Decade of VR, 3, 25 – 30.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jakonen, T., & Jauni, H. (2021). Mediated learning materials: Visibility checks in telepresence robot mediated classroom interaction. Classroom Discourse, 12 (1–2), 121 – 145. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2020.1808496</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones, W. M. (2020). Teachers' perceptions of a maker‐centered professional development experience: A multiple case study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 31, 697 – 721.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kearsley, G., & Shneiderman, B. (1998). Engagement theory: A framework for technology‐based teaching and learning. Educational Technology, 38 (5), 20 – 23.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kelly, A. (2013). Why do we need one of those?: The role of the public library in creating and promoting makerspaces. Paper presented at ALIA National Library & Information Technicians' Symposium, Canberra, Australia. <ulink href="http://www.alia.org.au/sites/default/files/Kelly%20‐%20final.pdf">http://www.alia.org.au/sites/default/files/Kelly%20‐%20final.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kilteni, K., Groten, R., & Slater, M. (2012). The sense of embodiment in virtual reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 21 (4), 373 – 387. https://doi.org/10.1162/PRES_a_00124</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lavalley, M. (2018). Out of the loop: Rural schools are largely left out of research and policy discussions, exacerbating poverty, inequity, and isolation. Center for Public Education. Retrieved September 15, 2021, from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED608842.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lazarus, R. S. (1982). Thoughts on the relations between emotion and cognition. American Psychologist, 37 (9), 1019 – 1024. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003‐066X.37.9.1019</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, K. M. (2004). Presence, explicated. Communication Theory, 14 (1), 27 – 50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468‐2885.2004.tb00302.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lei, M., Clemente, I. M., & Hu, Y. (2019). Student in the shell: The robotic body and student engagement. Computers & Education, 130, 59 – 80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.11.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lentini, L., & Decortis, F. (2010). Space and places: When interacting with and in physical space becomes a meaningful experience. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 14 (5), 407 – 415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779‐009‐0267‐y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leong, P. (2011). Role of social presence and cognitive absorption in online learning environments. Distance Education, 32 (1), 5 – 28. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2011.565495</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lieber, S. C., Suriano, J. T., & Brateris, D. (2021, July). Making it happen: Findings from processes implemented to continue operating a university makerspace during the COVID‐19 pandemic. In Paper presented at 2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access, Virtual Conference, April 18, 2022. Retrieved from https://peer.asee.org/making‐it‐happen‐findings‐from‐processes‐implemented‐to‐continue‐operating‐a‐university‐makerspace‐during‐the‐covid‐19‐pandemic</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lin, Q., Yin, Y., Tang, X., Hadad, R., & Zhai, X. (2020). Assessing learning in technology‐rich maker activities: A systematic review of empirical research. Computers & Education, 157, 103944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103944</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lister, T. (2020). Meaningful engagement via robotic telepresence: An exploratory case study. Current Issues in Emerging eLearning, 6 (1), 1 – 19.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Makransky, G., & Petersen, G. B. (2021). The cognitive affective model of immersive learning (CAMIL): A theoretical research‐based model of learning in immersive virtual reality. Educational Psychology Review, 33 (3), 937 – 958. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648‐020‐09586‐2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Manzo, L. (2003). Beyond house and haven: Toward a revision of emotional relationships with places. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23 (1), 47 – 61.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Manzo, L. C. (2005). For better or worse: Exploring multiple dimensions of place meaning. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25 (1), 67 – 86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.01.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Metzinger, T. (2006). Reply to Gallagher: Different conceptions of embodiment. PSYCHE: An interdisciplinary. Journal of Research on Consciousness, 12 (4), 1 – 7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Minsky, M. (1980, June). Telepresence. Omni, 2, 45 – 51.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mollen, A., & Wilson, H. (2010). Engagement, telepresence and interactivity in online consumer experience: Reconciling scholastic and managerial perspectives. Journal of Business Research, 63 (9–10), 919 – 925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.05.014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Monahan, T. (2002). Flexible space & built pedagogy: Emerging IT embodiments. Inventio, 4 (1), 1 – 19.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moore, J. W., & Fletcher, P. C. (2012). Sense of agency in health and disease: A review of cue integration approaches. Consciousness and Cognition, 21 (1), 59 – 68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2011.08.010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nixon, J., Halverson, E., & Stoiber, A. (2021). Exploring making through mobile emergent technologies: Makerspace education in rural communities (WCER Working Paper No. 2021‐1). University of Wisconsin–Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nowak, K. L., & Biocca, F. (2003). The effect of the agency and anthropomorphism on users' sense of telepresence, copresence, and social presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 12 (5), 481 – 494. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474603322761289</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oliver, K. M. (2016). Professional development considerations for makerspace leaders, part one: Addressing "what?" and "why?". TechTrends, 60, 160 – 166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528‐016‐0028‐5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pessoa, L. (2008). On the relationship between emotion and cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9 (2), 148 – 158. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2317</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peterson, L., & Scharber, C. (2018). Learning about makerspaces: Professional development with K‐12 in‐service educators. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 34 (1), 43 – 52. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2017.1387833</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pintrich, P. R., & Schrauben, B. (1992). Students' motivational beliefs and their cognitive engagement in classroom academic tasks. Student Perceptions in the Classroom, 7, 149 – 183.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rambusch, J., & Ziemke, T. (2005, July). The role of embodiment in situated learning. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1803 – 1808). Lawrence Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rieber, L. P. (1995). A historical review of visualization in human cognition. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43 (1), 45 – 56. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02300481</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Risotto, A., & Giuliani, M. V. (2006). Learning neighbourhood environments: The loss of experience in a modern world. In C. Spencer & M. Blades (Eds.), Children and their environments, learning, using and designing spaces (pp. 75 – 90). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saw, G. K., & Agger, C. A. (2021). STEM pathways of rural and small‐town students: Opportunities to learn, aspirations, preparation, and college enrollment. Educational Researcher, 50 (9), 595 – 606. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211027528</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schlegel, R. J., Chu, S. L., Chen, K., Deuermeyer, E., Christy, A. G., & Quek, F. (2019). Making in the classroom: Longitudinal evidence of increases in self‐efficacy and STEM possible selves over time. Computers & Education, 142, 1 – 15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103637</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sheridan, T. B. (1992). Musings on telepresence and virtual presence. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 1 (1), 120 – 126. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1992.1.1.120</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. John Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shoval, E. (2011). Using mindful movement in cooperative learning while learning about angles. Instructional Science, 39 (4), 453 – 466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251‐010‐9137‐2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of Communication, 42 (4), 73 – 93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460‐2466.1992.tb00812.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stevenson, M., Bower, M., Falloon, G., Forbes, A., & Hatzigianni, M. (2019). By design: Professional learning ecologies to develop primary school teachers' makerspaces pedagogical capabilities. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50 (3), 1260 – 1274. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12743</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swan, K., & Shih, L. F. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9 (3), 115 – 136.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tsui, K. M., & Yanco, H. A. (2013). Design challenges and guidelines for social interaction using mobile telepresence robots. Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 9 (1), 227 – 301. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557234X13502462</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tuan, Y. F. (1977). Space and place: The perspectives of experience. University of Minnesota Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, A. (2006). Advertising engagement: A driver of message involvement on message effects. Journal of Advertising Research, 46 (4), 355 – 368. https://doi.org/10.2501/S0021849906060429</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, J., Tigelaar, D. E., & Admiraal, W. (2019). Connecting rural schools to quality education: Rural teachers' use of digital educational resources. Computers in Human Behavior, 101, 68 – 76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.07.009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, Z. (2011, November). Telepresence: Virtual reality in the real world. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 28 (6), 9 – 13.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yoo, Y., & Alavi, M. (2001). Media and group cohesion: Relative influences on social presence, task participation, and group consensus. MIS Quarterly, 25, 371 – 390. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250922</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Ye Chen; Li Cao; Lin Guo and Jiaming Cheng</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1350560
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Driving Is Believing: Using Telepresence Robots to Access Makerspace for Teachers in Rural Areas
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Chen%2C+Ye%22">Chen, Ye</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1702-8723">0000-0003-1702-8723</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cao%2C+Li%22">Cao, Li</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6866-4191">0000-0002-6866-4191</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Guo%2C+Lin%22">Guo, Lin</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cheng%2C+Jiaming%22">Cheng, Jiaming</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22British+Journal+of+Educational+Technology%22"><i>British Journal of Educational Technology</i></searchLink>. Nov 2022 53(6):1956-1975.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 20
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Secondary+Education%22">Elementary Secondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+Secondary+Education%22">Elementary Secondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Field+Trips%22">Field Trips</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Rural+Schools%22">Rural Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Teachers%22">Elementary School Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Secondary+School+Teachers%22">Secondary School Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Robotics%22">Robotics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Video+Technology%22">Video Technology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Effectiveness%22">Program Effectiveness</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/bjet.13225
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0007-1013<br />1467-8535
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This study explored two different ways for K-12 school teachers to access educational makerspace through virtual fieldtrips. K-12 school teachers from rural areas of the Southeast USA were divided into two groups. The experimental group (n = 48) drove telepresence robots to take their fieldtrip, while the comparison group (n = 23) watched the same fieldtrip through a recorded video. Analyses of the quantitative and qualitative data, collected through surveys and written reflections, showed that the experimental group reported significantly higher scores in embodiment, social presence and engagement (ie, behaviour, emotion and cognition) than the comparison group, and that actual driving the robots for the virtual fieldtrips was highlighted as a favored experience. Educational significance and implications are discussed.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1350560
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1350560
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/bjet.13225
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 20
        StartPage: 1956
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Elementary Secondary Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Field Trips
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Rural Schools
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Secondary School Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Robotics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Video Technology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Driving Is Believing: Using Telepresence Robots to Access Makerspace for Teachers in Rural Areas
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Chen, Ye
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cao, Li
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Guo, Lin
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cheng, Jiaming
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 11
              Type: published
              Y: 2022
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0007-1013
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1467-8535
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 53
            – Type: issue
              Value: 6
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: British Journal of Educational Technology
              Type: main
ResultId 1