Staying Connected: Implementing Avatar Robots at Schools in
Norway, Denmark, Germany, and Japan
Date: 2023.09.26（Tue.）
Time: 16:00-18:00（JST）
Venue: Online（Zoom）
Host: Institute for Future Initiatives, The University of Tokyo
Co-host: JST Moonshot R&D Program “Cybernetic being” Project
URL: https://ifi.u-tokyo.ac.jp/en/event/11893/(From left to right）Dr. Sofie Sejer Skoubo (online), Dr. Arisa Ema, Dr. Marit Haldar, Dr.
Maja Nordtug, and Dr. Celia Spoden

Opening Remarks: Dr. Arisa Ema (Institute for Future Initiatives, The University ofTokyo)First, Dr. Arisa Ema, who also served as the event's moderator, gave opening remarks. She
noted that avatar robots (hereinafter referred to as "robots") are already in use not only inJapan but also in Europe and other countries and positioned this event as a place to explore
the possibilities and challenges of robots. She then declared the event open by encouraging
participants to think about what they would like to do with robots and what they are worried
about from the perspective of the people involved.

1

Case from Denmark: PhD student Sofie Sejer Skoubo (Aarhus University)
PhD student Sofie Sejer Skoubo, who participated online, gave a presentation on using
telepresence robots in Denmark.
The robots serve to connect children with cancer, anxiety, and neuromuscular diseases totheir schools. The cooperation of teachers as well as children is essential for the introductionof robots, and it is important that the expectations of all parties involved are aligned.
She interviewed children who had used the robots and their teachers. Based on theinterviews, she then used thematic analysis and technological frames to explore children's andteachers' expectations of the robots.
The results indicated that children and teachers have "positive" expectations of robots. The
children have expectation to learn and connect with their peers in the school. In addition, theteachers expected the telepresence robot to be a tool to connect the child to the classroom.
The implementation of the new technology would require extra resources and time from theteacher's perspective. The facilitation of blended learning and communication with thechildren was expected to be more time consumed. One teacher mentioned that it is essential
to "experience" new technologies first to realize their potential.

Case from Norway: Dr. Marit Haldar and Dr. Maja Nordtug (Oslo Metropolitan
University)
The second case study was presented by Dr. Marit Haldar and Dr. Maja Nordtug. This one
is related to AV1.

AV1©No Isolation2

With the advent of new technologies, our way of life is changing, and many different
situations are being explored regarding this change. Now, hybrid hosting of events is an option.
What was not the norm in the past is changing. At the same time, the meanings of the words"solitude" and "isolation" are changing.
In Dr. Haldar and Dr. Nordtug’s research project, children who missed long school periods
due to illness were interviewed, along with their relatives, classmates, teachers, medical
personnel, and local government officials. Project members also visited families with children
and schools with classmates and teachers to observe how robots serve as a communication
tool.
In their presentation, Dr. Haldar and Dr. Nordtug focused on the domestication of AV1 aswell as how the robot affords socialization.
1. Domestication
The study found how the taming of two different AV1 devices, namely the robot
avatar and the app used to control it, across two institutionally distinct settings createa series of distinct, multi-site challenges relating to appropriation, objectification,
incorporation, and conversion.
(1) Appropriation
It refers to the encounter when people decide to adopt the technology or not.
For example, at home, the focus is often on caring for children who are homebound,but at school, the focus is typically on all children who are attending school.
(2) Objectification
It is related to the question of where the robots should be placed. In deciding where toplace it, different perspectives need to be considered.
For example, if the robot is used by a child at home, school personnel may beconcerned that a third party other than the child may be able to view the classroom. In
addition, where the robots should be placed in the classroom can be a vexing issue forschool personnel when considering the child's best interests.
(3) Incorporation
It is a very important element, especially in domesticating technology. How welltechnology is incorporated into daily life is important.
For example, if a child attends class from the hospital, this can be challenging because
the examination schedule may conflict with class time.
(4) Conversion
Robots can be very useful not only as a communication tool but also as a "reminder"(to remind them of who you are).
For example, if you cannot go to school due to illness, you can still stay connected3through conversations with your friends and classmates via the robot, reminding themthat you are a part of their class and feeling that you are there.
2. Affordance
It helps to consider how, to what extent, for whom, and under what circumstances
AV1 affords socialization. For example, the impact of robots on people depends ontheir individual characteristics.
First, one child with chronic fatigue syndrome (referred to in this report as "A") isunable to attend school and does not interact with classmates. In such a case, therobot was ineffective in reducing social isolation. In the words of one of A's parents,
the robot could have helped A maintain a network if A had prior connections withclassmates.
On the other hand, the exact opposite effect was observed for another child who could
not attend school due to surgery (referred to in this report as "B"). B is a sociable
individual and has many friends at school. In the case of B, the robot played a verysignificant role in maintaining B’s relationships with friends.
In these ways, in addition to the design of the robots, the personality and individualityof the children who use the robots are also factors that influence their effective use. It
must be understood that different personalities will have different effects on theeffectiveness of the robots.

Cases from Germany: Dr. Celia Spoden (German Institute for Japanese Studies,Tokyo)The third presentation was by Dr. Celia Spoden, also working on AV1 in collaboration with
Dr. Arisa Ema. Here, she introduced her German case study.
Prolonged absence from school due to illness can create not only a lack of educational
opportunities but also a sense of isolation. Furthermore, students who were ill for an extended
period may face psychological challenges returning to school. The introduction of avatars in
the classroom has the potential to solve these issues. However, qualitative research on theireffectiveness and challenges is required.
Dr. Spoden interviewed various stakeholders about the robots, including students who used
AV1, teachers, parents, hospital project coordinators, and representatives from No Isolation,
the developer of AV1.
The introduction of the robots in Germany followed a bottom-up approach. The goal is tohelp hospitalized children stay socially connected with their peers and keep up with the school
curriculum. In the presented cases, the robots were purchased from No Isolation by a charity
collaborating with the psychosocial service team of hospitals, which set up avatar school
projects and provided support.
4

In hospitals, the physician determines whether a child is suitable for using the robot in theclassroom. However, some children tend to be shy and aversive to attention and do not want
to use the robots.
For a successful introduction to the classroom, a program coordinator from the hospitalteam introduces the robot to the schools and classmates. Emphasis is placed not only on thetechnical aspects but also on explaining social issues of illness and isolation. Ideally, the robot
is placed in a central location where the operating student can see the entire classroom. An
approach called the “buddy system” is also effective when introducing the robots. A friend of
the student using the robot serves as a buddy and takes care of the robot in school, likecharging the battery, getting it from the teachers' room in the morning, and returning it in
the afternoon. Also, teachers should care about integrating the robot into the classroom since
this is crucial.
The European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) plays an important role inintroducing robots to the classroom. All teachers and students (or their guardians) must give
their written consent. Otherwise, the robot cannot be used. Furthermore, comparing AV1 to
OriHime used in Japan, there are some differences due to data protection regulations. Accessto the robot is password-protected, and taking pictures, recording, and filming are not allowed
or possible. In addition, since teachers are concerned about losing control over access to theirclassroom, students using the robot must wear a headset to prevent parents from overhearing
the classes.
Making returning to school smooth is the most essential goal for using robots in theclassroom. Furthermore, the hospitals aim with their avatar robot school programs to provide
opportunities for social and educational participation, stabilizing patients’ psychosocial
condition, motivating them, and, secondarily, supporting medical treatment.
In contrast to video-conferencing technologies, the robot provides the teleoperating
student with a physical presence and autonomy in the classroom. However, as mentioned
earlier, the many advantages do not mean that robots suit all students. Children with anxieties
or who avoid school need different support.

Case from Japan: Dr. Arisa Ema (Institute for Future Initiatives, The University ofTokyo)As a final case study, Dr. Arisa Ema introduced the use of robots in Japan. Unlike the casesin Denmark, Norway, and Germany, OriHime, developed by Ory Laboratory in Japan, is used.
OriHime was brought to the venue for a demonstration by her.

5

OriHime©OryLab
While OriHime and AV1 share some similarities, there are also many differences. While
OriHime can use its wing-like arms to express emotions, AV1 uses its LED eyes to do so. AV1
is also designed for classroom use and has a "whisper function" that Orihime does not have.
It is possible to whisper with a classmate seated next to you. Furthermore, while only one
person can log in to an AV1, OriHime allows multiple people to log in at the same time.
OriHime is used not only in schools but also in cafes, restaurants, city halls, and more. They
also have contrasting filming and video recording policies, with AV1 forbidding any suchactivity, while OriHime allows operators to record and film to participate in research studies.
She conducted semi-structured interviews with children, teachers, and the board ofeducation. Questions included how the program was introduced, the process of obtaining
funding, the challenges, and how it is being used.
The results of the interviews revealed the following three patterns of robot implementation
methods.
1. Board of Education rent to the school or the prefecture or municipality
2. As part of the project (collaboration among schools, board of education, and sponsor
companies), schools can use the robot
3. Schools rent individually from the Ory Laboratory
In any case, however, obtaining budgets can be challenging. If you want to continue to use
the robots, you must secure a budget from the prefecture or school.
In addition, through interviews, she has learned who uses the robots, where, and for what
purpose. This can also be classified into four categories.
1. Used by children in special needs schools, from home or hospital, for the purpose of
returning to school.

62. Used by children in special needs schools, from home or hospital, for the purpose ofcommunicating smoothly with classmates (e.g., to attend classes and school events)
3. Used by children who are ill or injured, from hospital, for the purpose of earning credits
and maintaining relationships with classmates.
4. Used by children who refuse to go to school (but have good relationships withclassmates) from home, for the purpose of earning credits and participating in classes.
Thus, the robots are used not only to earn credits but also to maintain relationships withclassmates and teachers. In addition, the cooperation of teachers, especially homeroom
teachers, is essential to facilitate communication through the robots. It is important to makeclassmates understand the presence of the child in the robot. Of course, the cooperation ofteachers, parents, medical social workers, psychologists, and others is essential in
introducing the robots.
These robots are not only used in the classroom but also in a variety of other settings. They
are used as work experience in public libraries and cafes. With the robot, students can go toplaces that were initially difficult to go through the robot, and experience interaction with avariety of people, providing an opportunity to expand their future possibilities.
Privacy issues when using the robot are also considered, as the face of the child operating
the robot is not visible through the robot. This has the advantage that children can interact
safely with people they have never met before. The robot's arms and neck can also be moved,
allowing children to feel like they are there. However, not all children can benefit from therobots. Children who do not wish to communicate may not benefit. Furthermore, theconcept of robots being operated remotely is likely still difficult for elementary school
children to understand. It may be effective for junior high school students and older who canunderstand such concepts.

Panel discussion and Q&A
A panel discussion was held with the speakers after the presentation of the four case studies.
First, moderator Dr. Arisa Ema asked questions to all the panelists.

Q1. What is the difference between Zoom and other online conferencing systems androbots? And how should we use each tool differently?

A survey conducted in Japan by Dr. Ema found that while Zoom is effective in terms ofgetting information from teachers, it is inferior to OriHime in terms of communication withclassmates and teachers.

7

PhD student Sofie Sejer Skoubo, who conducted the Denmark case study, said that theeffectiveness of robots for children is still in the demonstration phase and that continued
research is needed to confirm their effectiveness.
Next, Dr. Marit Haldar and Dr. Maja Nordtug, who conducted the study in Norway,emphasized that the physical presence of robots in the classroom is significant, noting that
their presence in the classroom helps classmates remember and communicate better. On theother hand, they noted that online conferencing systems such as Zoom and Teams may beineffective because they are not physically present in the room. They also mentioned thatbudget constraints make it challenging to use both robots and online conferencing systems.
Dr. Celia Spoden added to this and said teleconferencing options like Zoom are effective
when all classmates and teachers gather virtually. When only one person participates remotely,
avatar technologies offer better opportunities for being present and autonomous in theclassroom.
She also reported that teachers in her study could not imagine teaching via the robot
because they perceive their physical co-presence as crucial in learning situations, especiallyfor young students.
Dr. Arisa Ema gave additional comments on this robot-mediated education. She shared her
own experience that the feeling of talking to a camera is completely different from that ofinteracting with a robot. From this perspective, technologies with a physical presence, such as
OriHime and AV1, are very effective in educational settings. She seemed to suggest thatphysical presence could make communication between learners and educators more real andeffective by providing an interaction-rich learning environment.
PhD student Sofie Sejer Skoubo also provided some additional comments. She stated that
where the robot is placed in the classroom is essential and that placing it next to a classmate
who is a friend can also be effective. She also suggested that one way to help children
remember the presence of the child operating the robot would be to give the robot somepersonality or individuality, such as calling it by name or putting a hat on it.

Q2. Are improvements in robot functions and other aspects necessary? Or do you thinkthat technological improvements are not very significant in terms of achieving educationaland social objectives? (From a webinar participant)8

To respond to the question from a webinar participant, first, it was mentioned that interview
participants said sound quality is more important than video. Also, simplicity of design isimportant to make the robot more accessible. AV1 has been intentionally designed to be asimple technology. One crucial requirement, however, is a good Wi-Fi connection.
One developer commented, "Having a lot of features is not important. What is important isthat so many things are possible through the robot. I especially saw the value in being able tointeract with different people through the robot.”
Next, Dr. Marit Haldar pointed out that in addition to the Wi-Fi environment, especially in
Norway, it is also necessary to pay attention to legal regulations. She stated that it is also
important to consider measures such as the intentional disabling of the recording function,
specifically to consider not only the children using the robots but also their classmates in theclassroom and their parents.
PhD student Sofie Sejer Skoubo from Denmark commented that the Wi-Fi environment,sound, and picture quality are very important. When these issues arise, children can feel left
out or excluded by the sudden darkening of the screen.
She also noted that Europe has strict data protection regulations such as GDPR, and inorder to comply with these standards, rules are in place, such as requiring children to wear
earphones so that parents cannot hear the classroom audio.
She also expressed her doubts about the safety of allowing multiple people to log in at thesame time on OriHime in Japan. She would like to know what teachers and other stakeholders
think about this.
Dr. Celia Spoden responded to Skoubo's question by saying that by default, several people
cannot access to one OriHime simultaneously. In addition, she noted that since legal
regulations do not exist in Japan, schools develop their guidelines for using the avatars. This
may place a burden on teachers. She also noted that the one-way transmission of video - fromthe classroom only - is important since parents are concerned that the robot could open up adoor to their private home environment.
Dr. Ema continued with additional comments on functional improvements. In the interview,
she noted that some children expressed a desire to be able to control the robot and movearound freely, as Orihime-D does, and that some children who use wheelchairs expressed adesire for a robot that can see from a higher perspective than a wheelchair. This suggests that9

new experiences and different perspectives through the robot are important desires forchildren and teachers.
She also emphasized the need for a robot that can be operated by eye gaze or voice toaccommodate users who cannot use touch panels. Orihime is already capable of these
operations.

Q3: For children, does the appearance of the robot have anything to do with how easy
it is to handle? Or do other features affect it? (From a webinar participant)In response to this question, the first response from Dr. Marit Haldar, from Norway,
recognized that ease of handling is an important factor for children and that the ideal robot isdifferent for each child. She also emphasized the need for continued research to better
understand which elements are important in robot-mediated communication.
In addition, it is introduced that how AV1 is being used in ways that were not originallyenvisioned. A concrete example was given of a mother with an illness who participated in aschool event with her child via the robot. Such unexpected uses are expected to open new
possibilities in the development of technology.
PhD student Sofie Sejer Skoubo from Denmark then commented that it is very effective to
ask children direct questions to understand what they need. She noted that children havedifferent perspectives and needs, so it is important to consider their individual opinions.
Finally, Dr. Arisa Ema from Japan emphasized that how children view and feel about robots
differs for each individual and depends on context and personal background. In fact, somepeople thought Orihime was scary, while others thought it was cute.
She also agreed with PhD student Skoubo's opinion that we should ask children. She statedthat communication through robots is effective when relationships with friends have alreadybeen established and the ability to imagine what the other person is like is an important partof communication. Some panelists mentioned that the robot's characteristic feature of not
being able to see the other person will help develop this ability to imagine.

Q4: Finally, what are your expectations for future discussions? (From Dr. Arisa Ema)

First, PhD student Sofie Sejer Skoubo from Denmark described the situation in which very
few researchers are currently in this field. She pointed out that sharing experiences and casestudies is vital, and learning from other researchers will help the research in this field.
10Dr. Marit Haldar from Norway then said that through this discussion, it became clear thatthe experiences among the countries were very similar. It was also noted that due to legal
regulations and other factors, participation in classrooms with robots is fraught withdifficulties. It was agreed that sharing experiences and knowledge is essential to address thesecommon challenges and move forward with introducing robots.
Dr. Maja Nordtug, also from Norway, suggested that further research and study should be
conducted on the difficulties and challenges of using robots. She noted that similar challenges
are common to all regions and that information exchange and cooperation would be very
beneficial.
Dr. Celia Spoden from Germany mentioned that, unlike AV1 and OriHime, there are
telepresence robots showing the image of the operating student. She expressed her opinion
that comparing these different systems would also be promising for future discussions.

Closing Remarks: Dr. Arisa Ema (Institute for Future Initiatives, The University ofTokyo)
Finally, Dr. Arisa Ema closed the event by expressing her hope that the discussion willcontinue in the future and that the community will expand.

More than 100 people participated online in this event, which showed a lot of interest in using
robots in schools. I hope robots can be used to help children who cannot attend school.
Hopefully, the day will come soon when robots will be considered a natural option for classparticipation.
(Report written by Manaka Karino)

11