You are here:

Hybrid Education: The Potential of Teaching and Learning with Robot-Mediated Communication


Online Learning Journal Volume 21, Number 4, ISSN 2472-5730


Blended learning, which combines online and face-to-face pedagogy, is a fast-growing mode of instruction as universities strive for equitable and alternative pathways to course enrollment, retention, and educational attainment. However, challenges to successfully implementing blended instruction are that social presence, or students\u2019 ability to project their personal characteristics into the learning space, is reduced with potential negative effects on student engagement, persistence, and academic achievement. Instructors are experimenting with robot-mediated communication (RMC) to address these challenges. Results from a study of RMC at a large public university suggest that it offers advantages over traditionally used video- conferencing, including affordances for fostering students\u2019 embodiment in the classroom, their feelings of belonging and trust, and their ability to contribute ideas in authentic ways.


Gleason, B. & Greenhow, C. (2017). Hybrid Education: The Potential of Teaching and Learning with Robot-Mediated Communication. Online Learning Journal, 21(4),. Retrieved March 23, 2019 from .


View References & Citations Map


  1. Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D.R. (2008). The development of a community of inquiry over time in an online course: Understanding the progression and integration of social, cognitive and teaching presence. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12, 3-22.
  2. Bell, J., Sawaya, S., & Cain, W. (2014). Synchromodal classes: Designing for shared learning experiences between face-to-face and online students. International Journal of Designs for learning, 5(1).
  3. Bell, J., Cain, W., Peterson, A., & Cheng, C. (2016). From 2D to Kubi to Doubles: Designs for student telepresence in synchronous hybrid classrooms. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 7(3).
  4. Bente, G., Rüggenberg, S., Krämer, N.C., & Eschenburg, F. (2008). Avatar-mediated networking: Increasing social presence and interpersonal trust in net-based Collaborations. Human Communication Research, 34(2), 287-318.
  5. Biocca, F. (2014). Connected to My Avatar. In Social Computing and Social Media (pp. 421-429). Springer International Publishing.
  6. Biocca, F., Harms, C., & Burgoon, J.K. (2003). Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: Review and suggested criteria. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 12(5), 456-480.
  7. Bower, M., Dalgarno, B., Kennedy, G.E., Lee, M.J., & Kenney, J. (2015). Design and implementation factors in blended synchronous learning environments: Outcomes from across-case analysis. Computers& Education, 86, 1-17.
  8. Brookfield, S.D. & Preskill, S. (2005). Discussion as a way of teaching: Tools and techniques for democratic classrooms (2nd ed). New York: Wiley.
  9. Cain, W., Bell, J., & Cheng, C. (2016, July). Implementing Robotic Telepresence in aSynchronous Hybrid Course. In Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), 2016 IEEE 16th International Conference on (pp. 171-175). IEEE.
  10. Chickering, A.W., & Gamson, Z. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 40(7), 3-7.
  11. Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000) Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105.
  12. Glesne, C. (2016). In Becoming qualitative researchers (5th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
  13. Gunawardena, C.N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2/3), 147-166.
  14. Gunawardena, C.N., & Zittle, F.J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. The American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8-26.
  15. Horn, M.B. & Staker, H. (2011). The rise of K-12 blended learning. New York, NY: Innosight Institute.
  16. Kilteni, K., Groten, R., & Slater, M. (2012). The sense of embodiment in virtual reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 21(4), 373-387.
  17. Kristoffersson, A., Coradeschi, S., & Loutfi, A. (2013). A review of mobile robotic telepresence. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, 2013, 3.
  18. Krueger, R.A., & Casey, M.A. (2014). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  19. Kuh, G.D. (2002). The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual Framework and Overview of Psychometric Properties. Center for Postsecondary Research, Indiana University, Bloomington. Retrieved from Kuh, G.D., Cruce T.M., Shoup R., Kinzie J. & Gonyea R.M. (2008). Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. Journal of Higher Education 79, 540–563.
  20. Leander, K.M., Phillips, N.C., & Taylor, K.H. (2010). The changing social spaces of learning: Mapping new mobilities. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 329-394.
  21. Lee, K.M., Jung, Y., Kim, J., & Kim, S.R. (2006). Are physically embodied social agents better than disembodied social agents?: The effects of physical embodiment, tactile interaction, and people's loneliness in human–robot interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(10), 962-973.
  22. Mennecke, B.E., Triplett, J.L., Hassall, L.M., Conde, Z.J., & Heer, R. (2011). An examination of a theory of embodied social presence in virtual worlds. Decision Sciences, 42(2), 413-450.
  23. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  24. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017.
  25. Rae, I., Takayama, L., & Mutlu, B. (2013, March). The influence of height in robot-mediated communication. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction (pp. 1-8). IEEE Press.
  26. Richardson, J.C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68-88.
  27. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D.R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2). Retrieved from
  28. Rovai, A.P. (2002). Building a sense of community at a distance. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(1). Retrieved from Index.php/irrodl/article/view/79/153
  29. Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  30. Schwartz, T., & Porath, C. (2014). The power of meeting your employees’ needs. Harvard Business Review, 26(6), 442-457.
  31. Sellen, A., Buxton, B., & Arnott, J. (1992, June). Using spatial cues to improve videoconferencing. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 651-652). ACM.
  32. Smith, G.G., & Taveras, M. (2005, January). The missing instructor: Does e-learning promote absenteeism? eLearn Magazine, 1. Retrieved from & Article=18-1
  33. So, H.-Y., & Brush, T. (2008). Students perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence, and satisfaction in blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers& Education, 51(1), 318-336.
  34. Swan, K., Shea, P., Richardson, J., Ice, P., Garrison, D.R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Arbaugh, J.B. (2008). Validating a measurement tool of presence in online communities of inquiry. E-Mentor, 2(24), 1-12. Http://
  35. Tallent-Runnels, M.K., Thomas, J.A., Lan, W.Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T.C., Shaw, S.M., & Liu, X. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research. 76(1), 93-135.
  36. Tanaka, K., Nakanishi, H., & Ishiguro, H. (2014, September). Comparing video, avatar, and robot mediated communication: pros and cons of embodiment. In International Conference on Collaboration Technologies (pp. 96-110). Springer.
  37. Tugend, A. (2014, March 7). It’s unclearly defined, but telecommuting is fast on the rise. The New York Times. Retrieved from
  38. Whiteside, A.L. (2015). Introducing the social presence model to explore online and blended learning experiences. Online Learning, 19(2).
  39. Young, J.R. (2002). “Hybrid” teaching seeks to end the divide between traditional and online instruction. Chronicle of Higher Education, 48(28), A33-34.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact