A N I N T E R N AT I O N A L

JOURNAL

UBIQUITOUSLEARNING

www.ULJournal.com

Volume 3, Number 1

Beaming Children where they cannot go:Telepresence Robots and Inclusive Education: An

Exploratory Study

Kieron Sheehy and Ashley A. Green

UBIQUITOUS LEARNING: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL http://ijq.cgpublisher.com/ First published in 2011 in Champaign, Illinois, USA by Common Ground Publishing LLC www.CommonGroundPublishing.com ISSN: 1835-9795 © 2011 (individual papers), the author(s) © 2011 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the applicable copyright legislation, no part of this work may be reproduced by any process without written permission from the publisher. For permissions and other inquiries, please contact <cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com>. UBIQUITOUS LEARNING: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL is peer-reviewed, supported by rigorous processes of criterion-referenced article ranking and qualitative commentary, ensuring that only intellectual work of the greatest substance and highest significance is published. Typeset in Common Ground Markup Language using CGPublisher multichannel typesetting system http://www.commongroundpublishing.com/software/

Beaming Children where they cannot go: TelepresenceRobots and Inclusive Education: An Exploratory StudyKieron Sheehy, The Open University, Buckinghamshire, UKAshley A. Green, The Open University, Buckinghamshire, UK

Abstract: Despite a succession of inclusive education policies, the proportion of pupils within segregatedprovision remains relatively unchanged within the United Kingdom. During the same period of time,communications technologies have created new avenues for social interactions and removed barriersto communication between young people. Mitra (2009) proposed mobile robotics as a way teachersmight overcome geographical and social barriers. This paper considers the affordances provided bymobile robots for developing inclusive educational practices. It reports on a small study that utilizes‘off the shelf’ Rovio and Spykee telepresence robots to allow groups of children to see into each other’sschool worlds. Children were engaged by using robots in this way, the robots could be used by childrenincluding those with severe learning difficulties and the robots created a bridge between mainstreamand special schools classrooms, allowing children to ‘visit’ each other and explore each other’sclassrooms. The results of this study suggest that currently the technology is not robust enough foreveryday use in this way but presents an interesting option for those seeking to explore ways in whichchildren who are physically segregated might visit one another’s educational worlds. It also raisesthe issue of whether such approaches undermine the creation of ‘real world’ inclusive education ormight act to recreate the nature of inclusion.

Keywords: Inclusive Education, Rovio, Spykee, Robots, Telepresence, Severe Learning Difficulties

Introduction

OVER THE LAST decade, at an international level, there has been a drive in policytowards inclusive education. This reflects a belief in children’s rights and has anexplicit goal of all children learning together with their peers. The Universal De-claration of Human Rights indicates

a growing consensus that all children have the right to be educated together, regardlessof their physical, intellectual, emotional, social, linguistic or other condition, and thatinclusion makes good educational and social sense

(UNESCO, 1999, p9)

Within the United Kingdom (UK) this drive has produced a wide range of educational policiesand guidance whose aim has been to support the implementation of inclusive education(Ofsted, 2004). Accompanying these developments has been a widespread belief that therehas been a large scale closure of special education schools (BBC, 2005) as part of ‘theideologically-driven closure of special schools’ (Conservative manifesto, 2010, p53). Yet,when taking account of falling school roles and the creation of referral units for excludedlearners, the proportion of children in special schools has remained largely unchanged (Hick,

Ubiquitous Learning: An International JournalVolume 3, Number 1, 2011, http://ijq.cgpublisher.com/, ISSN 1835-9795© Common Ground, Kieron Sheehy, Ashley A. Green, All Rights Reserved, Permissions:cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com

2009) or slightly increased (Sheehy and Duffy, 2009). This suggests that the idea that segreg-ated special schools are disappearing is misplaced and that despite national and internationalagreements and policies, the creation of inclusive schools has been problematic and ‘hasbeen halting and minimal in all but a handful of countries’ (Abbott , 2007, p11).One reason for this situation is that the concept of inclusion has been reconstructed to in-

corporate separate segregated special education. The strategy of previous governments hasbeen to “Break down the divide between mainstream and special schools to create a unifiedsystemwhere all schools and their pupils are included within the wider community of schools“ (DFES, 2004:38, in Hick 2009, p167). The concept of inclusion being within a ‘communityof schools’ maintains the geographical separation of children into either mainstream or specialschools. Further, the current UK government has an explicit aim to ‘prevent the unnecessaryclosure of special schools, and remove the bias towards inclusion’ (DfE, 2010) At thisphysical level of analysis the transformation of education towards a more ‘inclusive’ futurecan be seen as stalled. It is clear therefore that many children will continue to attend segregatedspecial schools, in the UK at least, for some time to come. This is particularly likely for pupilswith severe learning difficulties, over 60% of whom attend special schools (Keslair andMcNally, 2009).Ironically during this period of stasis and now retrenchment, a revolution for being socially

connected has occurred on a massive scale outside of the education system. A variety ofnew technologies have developed that facilitate the interaction of geographically and sociallyisolated or disparate groups. Online social networks have blossomed and been taken up en-thusiastically by millions of children and young people. Virtual worlds have become increas-ingly mainstream and a part of children’s lives with World of Warcraft having over tenmillion paying subscribers (Sheehy and Seamans, 2010) and Club Penguin being ‘inhabited’by over 750,000 young children in the UK alone (Richards, 2008). The affordances of thesevirtual spaces for inclusion have been discussed elsewhere (Sheehy, 2010) but they illustratethe tension between the inclusive potential of children’s technologically mediated socialspaces and their segregated educational lives.One ‘new’ technology which is not as widely used by children is robots and educational

robotics. Although this technology remains on the periphery of the school system (Sheehyand Ferguson, 2008), there is a range of evidence suggesting that it could have an importantplace in developing inclusive and special education in the future. Robotics has merit as atopic within the school curriculum as it is accessible for diverse groups of learners in theclassroom. Educational robotics can utilize icon based programming, schematic instructionsand support, and allow graded build plans. This allows children with memory or literacydifficulties to engage with an authentic educational activity. There is evidence that educa-tional robotics can engage disaffected learners (Goldman, Eughi and Sklar, 2004) and isperceived by pupils as a potential avenue for later employment, and a way of accessing andunderstanding ‘high technology’(Zhi-Feng Liu, 2009). In addition robots, as aides, cansupport a therapeutic approach for some disabled children (Ferrari, Robins and Dauhtenhan,2010), are valued as toys and interactive companions, particularly by young and disabledchildren (Besio, 2008), and considerable recent work looks at their potential as educators(Kanda et al, 2004; Hashimoto et al, 2010).Internationally a more fundamental educational issue is how to provide sufficient teachers

for geographically isolated children. Robots, of differing kinds, have been considered aspossible solutions to this problem (Yorita et al, 2009; Hashimoto et al, 2010). Mitra, (2009)

136

UBIQUITOUS LEARNING: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL

has considered the use of remotely operated vehicles (ROV) as a way of ‘Beaming Teacherswhere they cannot go’. In the context of distance education in India he presents a design fora ROV, with telepresence and Skype to deliver ‘instructional robotics’. This design mightbe used, he argues, to overcome barriers of distance between teachers and learner to provideeffective remote teaching and learning.In his ‘thought experiment’ Mitra identifies the ideal features of his teacher’s ROV.

1. It should be able to move over a level surface, under the control of a teacher from aremote location, using the Internet.2. It should be able to provide an image of the classroom to the teacher so that she isable to avoid obstacles.3. It should show the face of the teacher as an image on its “head”.4. The teacher should be able to remotely turn the “head” to look in different directions.5. It should enable a teacher to zoom in on a feature, such as the notebook of a student.6. The teacher should be able to speak through the ROV in a natural, real time voice.7. The teacher should be able to listen through the ROV in real time through stereomicrophones so that she can detect the direction a sound is coming from.

Mitra 2009 p58

Mitra (2009) uses the concept of teacher ‘presence’ to describe the affordances of his‘physical’ ROV in the classroom, rather that simply providing learning materials. Throughthe ROV the teacher is ‘there’ in the real classroom. This would seem to offer somethinglacking in purely virtual approaches to inclusive education, where the avatars of geograph-ically dispersed children interact in virtual places (Twining, 2010).Interestingly, with the exception of point 3, all the features of Mitra’s hypothesized ROV

design can be seen as already existing in commercially available webcam enabled mobilerobots such as Rovio (described later).These non-autonomous robots are ROVs designed for the general consumer population

and are becoming increasingly common and sophisticated. They are able to explore distantenvironments, relaying sound and vision, and allow the operator to talk to the people being‘visited’. They can be controlled by joysticks and intuitive symbol based interfaces, or even,with sufficient technical support through “mental commands” i.e. facial head movementsand biofeedback (Robodance.com, 2010). This makes them and the spaces they can exploreaccessible to children and adults with a range of learning disabilities and physical impairments.In Mitra’s (2009) thought experiment the teachers are ‘beamed’ through their ROV to

children in a distant classroom. In our research we wondered if giving children themselvescontrol of ROVs could allow segregated groups to visit and explore each others classrooms,in particular the extent to which children with severe learning difficulties might engage inthis activity. This appears to be the first time that this type of interaction has been researchedand suggests a new aspect for consideration within the field of inclusive education.The goal of the project was to begin exploring the educational affordances of telepresence

robots as a means of enhancing inclusive educational opportunities for learners with severelearning difficulties and their peers.

137

KIERON SHEEHY, ASHLEY A. GREEN

MethodThe study set out to observe a new practice, gain an insight into its potential impact, and theextent to which the children were able to engage with it. We also wished to gain the children’sperspectives on using this type of technology.In initial explorations of a new educational practice involving technology, a qualitative

approach is useful (Savenyen and Robertson, 1996), typically involving a mixture of obser-vation and interviews (Ravet, 2007). For younger children a recent development in thiscontext has been the use of focus group interviews (Sheehy and Bucknall, 2007) in order toelicit the ‘perceptions, motivations, concerns and opinions of participants’ (Gibson 2007,p474). The resulting field notes and transcription are then analyzed thematically, with mater-ial from the interviews and observation being condensed and emerging themes identified(Ravet, 2007; Tindall 2001).This study had three phases:In phase one initial semi-structured interviews took place. This method allows the inter-

viewer to follow up issues as they arise ‘with the aim of making the interview develop aconversational style, picking up on the young person’s situation and perceptions’ (Hoggartand Smith, 2004, p237).Previous research, into non-robotic online technologies, suggests a digital gap between

disabled young people and their peers in terms of access and use of online technologies(Sheehy, 2003). Therefore we asked both groups of children about their ownership of digitaltechnology, and their experience of using online activities and software.Attitudes to robots can influence the extent, and indeed if, children will use robots for

communicative purposes (Nomura et al, 2006). In keeping with this we asked the childrento tell us about robots they had heard of, used or played with and their feelings about them.In phase two an observation method (Jang, 2008) was used as the children used the robots

to explore each other’s classrooms, producing field notes.In addition, a focus group was conducted with each group, with the special school group

being mediated by their teacher. Liu (2009) has suggested that groups of young people whohave had experience of using robots are likely to hold different views about their usefulnessin their lives. Therefore we asked the children about the robots they had used, what theyliked or disliked about them and whether they thought they might use them in their schoolor elsewhere.

The ChildrenTwo schools were selected: a mainstream primary school and a special school for childrenwith severe learning difficulties. Two groups of children aged between 11-12 years old tookpart in the study. Six children attended amainstreamEnglish primary school and six childrenattended a special school for children with severe learning difficulties. The two groups ofchildren had never visited each other’s school or met one another. The mainstream grouptold us that they had never met anyone from the other school. This occurred even thoughthe two schools were in the same physical community.

138

UBIQUITOUS LEARNING: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL

The RobotsTwo types of robot were used in the study, both of which can be bought off the shelf inEngland.Rovio is a mobile webcam robot created by WowWee (2010). It is controlled over a Wi-

Fi network and relays information through a range of sensors. These include a directablecamera and microphone and speaker. Rovio moves on three omni-directional wheels andcan detect both location and collisions. It allows the user to speak and listen to distant envir-onments and also to record and photograph them.Like Rovio, Spykee is often described as a ‘spybot’ (Meccano, 2010), being equipped

with a webcam, VOIP capability, microphone and speakers. It runs on caterpillar tracks andis controllable over a Wi-Fi connection. It also has preloaded sound effects that can betriggered and additional sounds can be downloaded.

EthicsEthical clearance for the study was obtained through the Open University, and compliedwith the British Educational Research Association guidelines (BERA, 2004).

Findings

Unequal Online ExperiencesBoth groups of children had seen films with robots in them, such as “Robots” and “WALL-E”. The mainstream group were also aware of the Roomba® floor cleaning robot and militaryrobots, although neither group had seen ‘real’ robots themselves or played with robots. Bothgroups had experience of using computer software in class and at home. They reported usinga wide variety of online games using PCs, game consoles and mobile devices. There washowever a major difference in their use of social networking software. All the children wereaware of social networking and instant messaging services. However, the children from thespecial school gave clear accounts of being prevented from using such sites or only beingallowed to watch their siblings or parents use them on their behalf.

Observations from the SessionThe children received very little guidance on using the robots. In pairs they were presentedwith different control options: a laptop, a tablet PC, an iPod touch, and two desktops, oneof which linked to a large wall mounted display. The streamed feed from their robots appearedon their respective screens and the basic directional controls were indicated. They weregiven the task of exploring the remote classroom and finding cardboard stars that had beenhidden there. In order to do this they needed to navigate their robots and interact with childrenfrom the other school.The children were initially excited by being given control of the robots and being able to

see into the remote classroom. This was reflected in their comments

139

KIERON SHEEHY, ASHLEY A. GREEN

“Look, this is so cool!...can they see us? This is really fun’‘I feel like a superspy. So cool’.

Several children made comments about being a spy. This idea seemed to contain a beliefthat what they were doing was ‘breaking the rules.’ and their excitement incorporated boththe novelty of the robots and a nervousness about what they were doing.

“Can we see the kids in there…what are they like?”“I really want to see the other kids”

“Wow! I’ve never ever been to the other school….you can see thechildren, they looks like teenagers”

Whilst the objective of finding stars was pursued, both groups of children commented onthe experience of being able to look into an ‘unknown world’. The children also began tosee the robots as more that playthings.

“Not a toy it’s a robot”“You could use this like a phone..or do your shopping with it”

All methods used to control the robots worked well. However, the iPod and tablet PC, wherecontrol is through on-screen arrows, proved tricky for children whose motor control wasrelatively poor. The standard computer keyboard and mouse appeared to give a finer levelof control to these children. The large wall display and the ability to adjust the volume ofthe audio feedback was helpful to children with visual and auditory impairments. The Roviointerface appeared to be easy to use. It gave reasonable clarity of picture across differentdevices and its display size could be adjusted by the children. Children who used the iPodtouch application found the controls intuitive and had no problems understanding how tocontrol it, for example taking photos and adjusting the camera angle. The Spykee interfacewas also accessible but the lack of functionality in altering the size of the display made itless appealing for some children. As with Rovio, the interface proved intuitive and childrenswitched between keyboard control keys and onscreen icons such as direction arrows, witha preference for the icons as ‘you can keep looking’.

Robots in One’s LifeAfter the session we asked the children what they thought about using robots in this way.The children with severe learning difficulties were, in general, very impressed by the ideathat they could ‘travel to’ and see places and people who would usually be out of reach.

..could visit your friends and walk around their place …might not be allowed.togo yourself but could with this [Rovio]”

You can go anywhere and hear and see them..have a look around everywhere..

.

140

UBIQUITOUS LEARNING: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL

The children in the mainstream classroom focusedmore on how one could use the technologyto learn about the technology itself. This group also mentioned the issue of gender.

“Robots.. like this , they’re like a boys thing.”“Girls should be allowed to do this sort of thing”

“In the future robots like this could do all the housework and stuff.. [and free womanfrom these chores] so we (girls).. so we need to know about them now. ”

We also asked the children to tell us which robot they preferred and would like to own.Overall Rovio proved the more popular. Rovio ‘looked cooler’, had ‘better pictures’ andcould ‘really move about all over the place” (i.e. was faster and more agile). Three childrenpreferred Spykee because its built-in sound effects (e.g. explosion noises) made it ‘betterfun’. Despite this preference for Rovio, the majority of children felt that Spykee was easierto use, whereas ‘you need teacher’s help to keep going with Rovio’. This reflected what wefound in the session where Rovio lost signal or crashed far more often than Spykee, andhence required more adult support to sort out technical problems. The classroom teachersalso preferred Spykee because they felt it was easier to set up and run with a class. For ex-ample, the shorter recharge time of Spykee meant that it could be in use for more of the time.

DiscussionWhilst the children with severe learning difficulties had significantly less experience in beingonline, they mastered the controls for both Rovio and Spykee quickly. Both groups of youngpeople enjoyed using the robots and had little difficulty in using them to explore the otherclassrooms. All the children enjoyed the experience and thought that these devices could beused, and useful, in their lives. In general terms, the children within the special school sawthese devices as a way of accessing environments that they would not be allowed to go into‘in real life’. The mainstream children saw the robots as enjoyable ways of learning abouta type of technology which would impact on their future lives.When imagining technology in their future lives, children tend to project forward the social

norms of their current experiences (Sheehy and Bucknall, 2007). This current study supportsthis to some extent. The vision of the children with severe learning difficulties was that therobots would allow them to interact with geographical and social environments that theywere currently excluded from, because robots are ‘easy to drive about yourself’. But thechildren with severe learning difficulties saw robots as essentially being webcams into the‘excluded’ world, a relatively passive experience, whereas children from the mainstreamclass saw a future in which they controlled the technology itself, reflecting, to a degree, theircurrent experiences of social networking technology.For children with severe learning difficulties, access to real world environments may be

limited, perhaps due to concerns of personal risk (Standen et al., 2001) or because access ishard to arrange and transport is difficult. Telepresence robots could overcome these barriersand clearly the children felt that this was something that might allow them experiences whichwould otherwise be denied. It might be argued that, used in this way, robots might facilitatethe partial achievement of goals and rights that are denied in the lives of some children. Theterm ‘E-inclusion’ (Abbott, 2007) encompasses ‘the use of digital technologies to breakdown barriers of gender, race, age, sexuality or class’ (Abbott, 2007, p5). This idea is premised

141

KIERON SHEEHY, ASHLEY A. GREEN

on a belief that educational practice needs to transform. Whilst robotics as a ubiquitoustechnology could allow segregated and diverse groups to work together, there is also thepossibility that this practice might act to reinforce real world segregation, with telepresencebeing an alternative to real world changes. Inclusion by telepresence being a ‘second best’for groups denied rights or without power. However, the context of this argument is changing.Distinctions between ‘real’ and ‘telepresence’ inclusion diminish as education, outside theclassroom, becomes increasingly virtual and distributed. Currently a conference which isattended on an iPad using Skype, or through a Second Life avatar, is seen as an inclusiveand environmentally responsible way of working with colleagues.We are increasingly livingin a technologically extended world in which we are connected to virtual or remote physicalenvironments (Schnadelbach, 2009). There is a diminishing difference between the socialvalidity of virtual environments and real environments, which is eroded further with telep-resence robots. Telepresence robots have a physical presence that is missing in other com-munication devices, which, combined with movement, enhances the perception of a sociallink for the operator (Nakanishsi et al, 2009). Moreover Mitra’s (2009) suggestion of deviceshaving their operator’s face is now a feature of current telepresence robots designed forbusiness (see figure 1)..

Figure 1: Anybots’ QB Displays the Face of the Operator to Distant Colleagues. (Anybots,2010)

There is also evidence that these types of interaction become more successful with practiceand increased social acceptance, where positive attitudes are expressed towards workingwith remotely controlled robots (Weis et al, 2009). Our small study suggests that segregatedgroups of children can interact through telepresence robots and visit one another’s ‘worlds’.But if these devices are to promote inclusive education then, having established social contactin this way, the next step is to consider the nature of an inclusive pedagogy in this newcontext.

142

UBIQUITOUS LEARNING: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL

In order to participate in the study, the two schools had to overcome several barriers:structural barriers, such as separate buildings, curriculum demands and time pressures; andtechnical barriers, such as accessing remote robots through firewalls and the time consumingnature of dealing with inevitable technical ‘hitches’. That both schools felt able to tacklethese barriers is impressive given the embedded nature of segregation between them. Theuse of telepresence robots allowed them to express their will to ‘make contact’ and take asmall first step that had not been achieved previously with inclusive education legislationand good will alone.

ConclusionsTelepresence robots offer potential ways of overcoming socially constructed or geographicalbarriers. In this respect they can be seen as having ‘inclusive affordances’. Our small studyillustrates this in practice for the first time. Children, including those with severe learningdifficulties, who would never meet or visit each other’s schools, were able to see and talkto one another and explore one another’s classrooms. How this innovation is used to developpedagogy is an important consideration for future research.

ReferencesAbbott, C. (2007) Report 15: E-inclusion: Learning Difficulties and Digital Technologies. future-

lab.org.uk.Anybots (2010) Anybots:Your Personal Avatar. http://www.anybots.com/#front (accessed 11th October

2010)BBC (2005) Call for Special Schools Review. Online, available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/l/hi/uk_

politics/4615941.stm (accessed 22 February 2010).Besio, S. (2008) Analysis of critical factors involved in using interactive robots for education and

therapy of children with disabilities http://www.iromec.org/fileadmin/pdf/Factors_e-book.pdf(accessed 2nd January 2010)

British Educational Research Association (2004) Revised Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research,available at http://www.bera.ac.uk/publications/guidelines/ (accessed 1 Feb 2010)

Conservative Party, (2010) The Conservative Manifesto 2010 http://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Manifesto.aspx (accessed 21 October 2010)

DfE (2010) Special educational needs (SEN) and disability http://www.education.gov.uk/news/press-notices-new/sen-plans (accessed 3rd October 2010)

Ferrari, E. and Robins, B. and Dautenhahn, K.(2010) Does it work?” A framework to evaluate the ef-fectiveness of a robotic toy for children with special needs. RO-MAN, 2010 IEEE Sept pp100 – 106

Gibson, F. 2007. Conducting focus groups with children and young people: Strategies for success.Journal of Research in Nursing 12, no. 5: 473–83.

Goldman, R. and Eguchi, A. and Sklar, E (2004) Using educational robotics to engage inner-city studentswith technology. Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Learning sciences. In-ternational Society of the Learning Sciences. pp 214—221

Hashimoto, T. and Kato, N. and Kobayashi, H. (2010) Study on Educational Application of AndroidRobot SAYA: Field Trial and Evaluation at Elementary School. Intelligent Robotics andApplications, ICIRA Part II, LNAI 6425, pp. 505–516

Hick, P. (2009) Refraining psychology for inclusive learning within social justice agendas. In P.Hick,R., Kershner and P. Farrell (eds) Psychology for Inclusive Education; New Directions inTheory and Practice. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 165-176.

143

KIERON SHEEHY, ASHLEY A. GREEN

Hoggart, L., and Smith, D.I. (2004) Understanding the Impact of Connexions on Young People at Riskavailable at http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR607.pdf (accessed 9December, 2010)

Jang, S.J.(2008) The effects of integrating technology, observation and writing into a teacher educationmethod course}.Computers & Education, 50{3}, p 853-865

Kanda, T. and Ishiguro, H. and Imai, M. and Ono, T.(2004) Development and evaluation of interactivehumanoid robots. Proceedings of the IEEE. Vol 92, no 11, pp 1839-1850.

Keslair, F. andMcNally, S. (2009) Special Educational Needs in England. Final Report for the NationalEquality Panel. Online, available at: www.equaliries.gov.uk/.../Special%20Educational%20Needs%20in%20En^and.pdf (accessed21 March 2010)

Liu, E.Z.F. (2009) Early adolescents’ perceptions of educational robots and learning of robotics’British Journal of Educational Technology, vol 41, no 3, 44-47.

Meccano (2010) Spykee the Spy Robot. http://www.spykeeworld.com/spykee/UK/index.html (accessed10 January 2011)

Mitra, S. (2009) Remote Presence: Technologies for ‘Beaming’ Teachers Where They Cannot Go.Journal of Emerging Technologies in Web Intelligence, Vol 1, No 1 55-59, Aug pp.55-59

Nakanishi, H., Yuki Murakami, Y. and Kato, K. (2009) 2009 Minimum movement matters: impactof robot-mounted cameras on social telepresence. CHI ‘09 Proceedings of the 27th interna-tional conference on Human factors in computing systems. Boston.

Nomura, T. Kanda, T. and Suzuki, T. (2006) Experimental Investigation into Influence of NegativeAttitudes toward Robots on Human-robot Interaction. AI & Society, 20(2):138{150, 2006.

OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) (2004) Special Educational Needs and Disability: towardsinclusive schools. London: OFSTED

Ravet, J. (2007) Enabling Pupil Participation in a Study of Perceptions of Disengagement: Methodo-logical Matters, British Journal of Special Education , 34/4, 234-242.

Richards, J. (2008). How Club Penguin turned 750,000 British kids into penguins Times Online.http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article3831738.ece (accessed11 October 2010)

Robodance.com. (2010) WowWee Rovio robot controlled by thoughts, facial gestures and headmovements using the Emotiv EEG headset over Skype http://www.robodance.com/mind-controlled-robot.php)

Savenye, W.C. and Robinson, R.S. (1996) Qualitative research issues and methods: An introductionfor educational technologists, Handbook of research for educational communications andtechnology. pp1171--1195

Schnadelbach, H. (2009) Visibility in architecture extended through audiovisual communicationtechnologies. CHI ‘ 09 Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Human factorsin computing systems. Boston.

Sheehy, Kieron (2003). New technology and inclusion: The world (wide web) is not enough. In: Nind,Melanie; Rix, Jonathan; Sheehy, Kieron and Simmons, Katy eds. Inclusive Education: DiversePerspectives. London: David Fulton, pp. 115–128.

Sheehy, K. and Bucknall, S. (2008). How is technology seen in young people’s visions of future edu-cation systems? Learning, Media and Technology, Vol. 33, pp. 101–114.

Sheehy, K. and Duffy, H. (2009) Attitudes to Makaton in the ages of inclusion and integration. Inter-national Journal of Special Education, 24, 91-102.

Sheehy, Kieron (2010). Virtual environments: issues and opportunities for researching inclusiveeducational practices. In: Peachey, Anna; Gillen, Julia; Livingstone, Daniel and Smith-Robbins, Sarah eds. Researching Learning in Virtual Worlds. Human-Computer InteractionSeries. London: Springer, pp. 1–15

Sheehy, Kieron and Ferguson, Rebecca (2008). Educational inclusion and new technologies. In: Scott,Thomas B. and Livingston, James I. eds. Leading Edge Educational Technology. New York:Nova Science, pp. 159–176.

144

UBIQUITOUS LEARNING: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL

Sheehy, Kieron and Seamans, Dan (2010). Virtual worlds: the states of play. In: Sheehy, Kieron;Ferguson, Rebecca and Clough, Gill eds. Virtual Worlds: Controversies at the Frontier ofEducation. Education in a Competitive and Globalizing World. Hauppauge, N.Y: NovaScience Publishers.

Standen, P. J., Brown, D. J., & Cromby, J. J. (2001). The effective use of virtual environments in theeducation and rehabilitation of students with intellectual disabilities. British Journal ofEducational Technology, 52(3), pp 289-299.

Tindall, C. 2001. Issues of evaluation. In Qualitative methods in psychology: A research guide, ed.P.Banister, E. Burman, I. Parker, M. Taylor, and C. Tindall, 142–59. Buckingham: OpenUniversity Press.

Twining, Peter (2010). Virtual Worlds and Education (Special Issue of Educational Research). Taylor& Francis, Abingdon, UK

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (1999) Salamanca FiveYears On: a Review of UNESCO Activities in the Light of the Salamanca Statement andFramework for Action. Paris: UNESCO. Online, available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001181/118118eo.pdf (accessed 2 September 2009).

Weiss, A., Wurhofer, D., Lankes, M. and Tscheligi, M. (2009) Autonomous vs. tele-operated: howpeople perceive human-robot collaboration with hrp-2 HRI’09, March 11–13, La Jolla,California, USA

WowWee (2010) Meet Rovio http://www.wowwee.com/en/products/tech/telepresence/rovio (accessed10 January 2011).

Yorita, A., Hashimoto, T., Kobayashi, H. and Kubota, N. (2009) Remote Education Based on RobotEdutainment. Progress in Robotics:Communications in Computer and Information Science,Vol. 443, pp 204-213

About the AuthorsDr. Kieron SheehyKieron Sheehy has background in teaching and educational psychology. He is interested ininclusion and how this interacts with pedagogy and new technologies, for example virtualand augmented worlds and robotics. Within this area he has a particular research focus re-garding the development of approaches and contexts that support the learning of childrenwith severe learning difficulties.

Dr. Ashley A. GreenAshley Green’s background is in solar energy research and robotics education. He works asa freelance STEM educator and consultant, and is a visiting research fellow at The OpenUniversity. Ashley is an executive member of the RoboCup Federation and is RoboCupJu-nior 2011 General Chair. His areas of special interest are robotics education, renewable energyand space robotics.

145

KIERON SHEEHY, ASHLEY A. GREEN

Editors Mary Kalantzis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA. Bill Cope, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA.

Editorial Advisory Board Michel Bauwens, Peer-to-Peer Alternatives, Thailand Nick Burbules, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA Bill Cope, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA Mary Kalantzis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA Faye L. Lesht, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA Robert E. McGrath, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA Michael Peters, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA

Please visit the Journal website at http://www.ULJournal.com for further information about the Journal or to subscribe.

The Ubiquitous Learning Community This knowledge community is brought together around a common concern for new technologies in learning and an interest to explore new anywhere, anytime, anyhow possibilities for learning. The community interacts through an innovative, annual face-to-face conference, as well as year-round virtual relationships in a weblog, peer reviewed journal and book imprint – exploring the new digital media. Members of this knowledge community include academics, teachers, technology practitioners & research students.

Conference Members of the Ubiquitous Learning Community meet at the Ubiquitous Learning: An International Conference held annually in different locations around the world. This Conference has evolved from the e-Learning Symposia held in Melbourne, Australia in 2006, 2007 and 2008 connected with the International Conference on Learning. It is also connected to the Ubiquitous Learning Institute in the College of Education at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA in 2009 Conference was held at Northeastern University, Boston, USA. The 2010 Conference will be held at University of British Columbia,Vancouver, Canada and the 2011 Conference will be held at University of California, Berkeley, California. The Ubiquitous Learning Conference investigates the uses of technologies in learning, including devices with sophisticated computing and networking capacities which are now pervasively part of our everyday lives‖from laptops to mobile phones, games, digital music players, personal digital assistants and cameras. The Conference explores the possibilities of new forms of learning using these devices not only in the classroom, but in a wider range of places and times than was conventionally the case for education. Our community members and first time attendees come from all corners of the globe. Intellectually, our interests span the breath of the field of education. The Conference is a site of critical reflection, both by leaders in the field and emerging academics and teachers. Those unable to attend the Conference may opt for virtual participation in which community members may either submit a video and/or slide presentation with voice-over, or simply submit a paper for peer review and possible publication in the Journal. Online presentations can be viewed on YouTube.

Publishing The Ubiquitous Learning Community enables members to publish through three media. First, by participating in the Ubiquitous Learning Conference, community members can enter a world of journal publication unlike the traditional academic publishing forums – a result of the responsive, non-hierarchical and constructive nature of the peer review process. Ubiquitous Learning: An International Journal provides a framework for double-blind peer review, enabling authors to publish into an academic journal of the highest standard. The second publication medium is through a book imprint Ubi-Learn, publishing cutting edge books in print and electronic formats. Publication proposals and manuscript submissions are welcome. The third major publishing medium is our news blog, constantly publishing short news updates from the Ubiquitous Learning Community, as well as major developments in the emerging field of ubiquitous learning. You can also join this conversation at Facebook and Twitter or subscribe to our email Newsletter.

Common Ground Publishing Journals

AGING Aging and Society: An Interdisciplinary Journal Website: http://AgingAndSociety.com/journal/

ARTS The International Journal of the Arts in Society.

Website: www.Arts-Journal.com

BOOK The International Journal of the Book

Website: www.Book-Journal.com

CLIMATE CHANGE The International Journal of Climate Change:

Impacts and Responses Website: www.Climate-Journal.com

CONSTRUCTED ENVIRONMENT The International Journal of the

Constructed Environment Website: www.ConstructedEnvironment.com/journal

DESIGN Design Principles and Practices:

An International Journal Website: www.Design-Journal.com

DIVERSITY The International Journal of Diversity in

Organizations, Communities and Nations Website: www.Diversity-Journal.com

FOOD Food Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal Website: http://Food-Studies.com/journal/

GLOBAL STUDIES The Global Studies Journal

Website: www.GlobalStudiesJournal.com

HEALTH The International Journal of Health,

Wellness and Society Website: www.HealthandSociety.com/journal

HUMANITIES The International Journal of the Humanities

Website: www.Humanities-Journal.com

IMAGE The International Journal of the Image

Website: www.OntheImage.com/journal

LEARNING The International Journal of Learning. Website: www.Learning-Journal.com

MANAGEMENT The International Journal of Knowledge,

Culture and Change Management. Website: www.Management-Journal.com

MUSEUM The International Journal of the Inclusive Museum

Website: www.Museum-Journal.com

RELIGION AND SPIRITUALITY The International Journal of Religion and

Spirituality in Society Website: www.Religion-Journal.com

SCIENCE IN SOCIETY The International Journal of Science in Society Website: www.ScienceinSocietyJournal.com

SOCIAL SCIENCES The International Journal of Interdisciplinary

Social Sciences Website: www.SocialSciences-Journal.com

SPACES AND FLOWS Spaces and Flows: An International Journal of

Urban and ExtraUrban Studies Website: www.SpacesJournal.com

SPORT AND SOCIETY The International Journal of Sport and Society

Website: www.sportandsociety.com/journal

SUSTAINABILITY The International Journal of Environmental, Cultural,

Economic and Social Sustainability Website: www.Sustainability-Journal.com

TECHNOLOGY The International Journal of Technology,

Knowledge and Society Website: www.Technology-Journal.com

UBIQUITOUS LEARNING Ubiquitous Learning: An International Journal

Website: www.ubi-learn.com/journal/

UNIVERSITIES Journal of the World Universities Forum Website: www.Universities-Journal.com

For subscription information please contact subscriptions@commongroundpublishing.com