Kentaro Toyama - Computer Science Research for Global Development

8/14/2019 Kentaro Toyama - Computer Science Research for Global Development

1/61

Computer Science Research forGlobal Development

Kentaro ToyamaAssistant Managing Director

Microsoft Research India

University of WashingtonMarch 12, 2009 Seattle


2/61

Technical Research

Global Development

Multidisciplinary Approach


3/61

Outline

Introduction

Case Study Problem Context Two Possibilities? Solution and Evaluation Ongoing Research

An Appeal to Computer Science

Conclusion


4/61

Outline

Introduction



Conclusion


5/61

Infosys campus, Bangalore, India

Photo: courtesy of Infosys


6/61

A small Internet caf on a market street in a town near Bombay

Photo: Nimmi Rangaswamy


7/61

Rural village with a VSAT Internet connection near Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh

Photo: Kentaro Toyama


8/61

The world's poorest two billion people

desperately need healthcare, not laptops. Bill Gates (WRI Conference, Seattle, 2000)

Kids in the developing world need thenewest technology, especially really ruggedhardware and innovative software.

Nicholas Negroponte (OLPC website, 2005)


9/61

Technology for Emerging Markets

Understand potential technologyusers in developing communities

Design and evaluate technologyand systems that meet needs andaspirations of potential users

Impact communities worldwidethrough partnerships with Microsoftgroups and non-Microsoftorganizations

Computer-skills camp in Nakalabande, Bangalore(MSR India, Stree Jagruti Samiti, St. Josephs College)

Microsoft Research India


10/61

Multidisciplinary Research

Aishwarya Lakshmi Ratan

Public AdministrationInternational Development

Jonathan Donner

Communications

Nimmi Rangaswamy

Social Anthropology

Indrani Medhi Design

Kentaro Toyama (Group Lead)

Computer Science

Socialscien

ce

Design

Technology

Rikin Gandhi Astrophysics

Saurabh Panjwani Computer Science

David Hutchful Human Computer Interaction

Bill Thies Computer Science

Technologyfor microfinance

Mobile phones indeveloping countries

UIs fornon-literate users

Technologyin slums

Middle-classconsumption

Computers

in education

Mobile-phoneinterfaces

Video and

mediated instruction

Technologyfor agriculture

PCs usage underfree access

Mobilebanking

Telecentres

Technologyin healthcare

DVDmultimedia
http://www-cse.ucsd.edu/~spanjwan/


11/61

Warana Unwired

Research on

annotated video(Natalie Linnell,Richard Anderson)

Collaborations with UW

Advising on IPAIresearch grant(Chris Coward)

Rural Kiosks

Digital Green

Technology forMicrofinance

User studieswith CAM(Tapan Parikh)Mobiles in the

Developing World

Mobile phones

and young adults(Carolyn Wei)

Digital StudyHall

Support throughincubation period

(Tom Anderson,Paul Javid,

Kurtis Heimerl)

MultiPoint

Virtual keyboards forMultiPoint(Saleema Amershi)

Sample Projects


12/61

Outline

Introduction



Conclusion


13/61

Collaborators

Saleema Amershi Sukumar Anikar Ravin Balakrishnan Abigail Cauchi Jennifer Fenech Rahul Gupta

David Hutchful Divya Kumar Andrea Moed Neema Moraveji Merrie Morris Miguel Nussbaum

Owen Otto Joyojeet Pal Udai Singh Pawar Bhagya Rangachar Sushma Uppala

Udai and Rahul with schoolchildren

Photo: Udai Pawar


14/61

Education in India

300M children aged 6-18

Household income


15/61

No toilets

No walls

No permanent building

Terrible student-teacher ratio

Intermittent electricity

UPS broken

Frequent maintenanceneeds of technology

Teachers notcomputer literate

Caste discrimination

Religious discrimination

Students hungry

Low attendance

Poor pay for teachers

Teacher absenteeism

Student illness

No supplies

No textbooks

Parents uninvolvedChild labour Teachers multitasking

Irrelevant curriculum

Heat

Many children per computer

Problems in Education


16/61

Young children notattending school in the middle of a weekday near Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh



17/61

Mid-day meal in Pondicherry

Photo: Joyojeet Pal

Mid-day meal in Ghana

Photo: Colleen Foley, Elisia Carlson


18/61

PCs in Schools

Strong anecdotal evidence that childrenattend school more, if they have anopportunity to interact with PCs.

Teachers

PC labs keep students occupied

Children Excited by opportunity to interact with PCs

Parents Want children to learn about PCs

Governments and Administrators Eager to put PCs in schools Constrained by limited budgets

A Shanti Bhavan 6th grader, and potentialcomputer engineer, with her mother

Photo: Leba Haber

Sources: Pal, J., M. Lakshmanan, and K. Toyama, My Child Will be Respected':Parental Perspectives on Computers in Rural India, Proceedings of ICTD2007.Various field notes by U. S. Pawar, D. Hutchful, S. Panjwani, L. Micallef, K.Toyama, 2005-2008


19/61

Value of Computer Literacy

Evidence that entry-level white-collarjobs are possible with secondaryeducation and PC literacy [data for India]

Employers

PC literacy as proxy for other skills

Employees Increased confidence Strong interest in white-collar jobs

IT Training Centers Consistent demand from young adults

Caveat: English ability and soft skillsvalued more than PC literacy

Office service staff at MSR India usinga freely provided PC

Photo: Aishwarya Ratan

Sources: Ratan, A., Satpathy, S., Zia, L., Toyama, K., Blagsvedt, S., Pawar, U.S., Subramanian, T. Kelsa+:Digital Literacy for Low-Income Office Workers, to be published in Proceedings of ICTD2009.Discussions with Hope Foundation India, Microsoft Learning, MS Unlimited Potential Group, 2007-2008


20/61

Photos: Joyojeet Pal


21/61

Outline

Introduction



Conclusion


22/61

Non-Tech Solution

Source: Pal, J. Computer Aided Education in India: A survey of the Azim Premji Foundations junior school initiatives, 2005.http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/india/projects/computeraidedlearningsurvey/Presentation.ppt
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/india/projects/computeraidedlearningsurvey/Presentation.ppthttp://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/india/projects/computeraidedlearningsurvey/Presentation.ppthttp://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/india/projects/computeraidedlearningsurvey/Presentation.ppthttp://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/india/projects/computeraidedlearningsurvey/Presentation.ppt


23/61

Techno-Centric Solution

Source: One Laptop Per Child. http://laptop.org/en/

A $100 laptop for every child(now $200)

Non-profit organization

Bulk sales to governments

Marketing, distribution, training,and support by governments orvolunteers

Learning by self-driven,constructivist paradigmOne Laptop Per Child (OLPC): $100 laptop
http://laptop.org/en/http://laptop.org/en/


24/61

HW/SW is notthe main cost!Conservative, back-of-the-envelope calculations for actual costs per child,

based on one laptop per child at $100 lasting 5 years, and looking at cost on a per-yearbasis, amortized over 5 years.

Hardware/software $20 $100 / 5 years

Distribution $25 Low estimate

Losses in distribution $20 Conservatively, 20%

Breakage, theft, unintended sale $20 e.g., 1 in 5 each year

Connectivity and power $15 Low estimate

System administration, maintenance $100 = $10,000/yr / 100 kids

Teacher training $50 Maine laptop project cites 1/3total cost for teacher training

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total $250 per child, per yearcost$1250 per child, every five years

Indian govt spend on public education


25/61

Outline

Introduction



Conclusion


26/61

Photos: Joyojeet Pal


27/61

MultiPoint

Provide a mouse (and cursor) for every student


28/61

Sample MultiPoint Game

The first MultiPoint alphabet-learning game


29/61

Technical Considerations

Basic approach:

Avoid kernel and drivermodifications

Hijack mouse-event callbacks

Handle mouse commandsseparately for each mouse ID

Hide regular cursor and redrawone cursor per mouse

Package functionality as a

dynamic link library Expose same programming model

as for regular GUI programming

Issues:

Extra work to handle mice plug-in

and unplug events Lost mouse events in some

environments

Doesnt apply immediately to mostexisting applications


30/61

Preliminary Trials

Everyone wants a mouse.

Young children understand MultiPoint

immediately.

All students more engaged for longerperiods of time.

Children like it!

After MultiPoint

Before MultiPoint


31/61

Formal Evaluation

Questions:

Can students learn as much with

MultiPoint, compared with single-mouse configurations?

What designs encourage morelearning?

What designs encouragecollaboration?

Children crowding around a laptopscreen, using MultiPoint

Photo: Udai Pawar


32/61

Desired characteristics forevaluation task:

Quantifiable and objectivemetrics for learning

Measurability in short term

Consistency regardless ofdegree of PC usage

Generalizability to manyeducational domains

Practical educational value

Comparability allows applesto apples comparisons betweenmultiple mice and single mouse

Choice of TaskFormal Evaluation

bull

tiger

English vocabulary learning task

Match images with words


33/61

Learning phase = testing phase

Learn by trial and error

Multiple choice questions Feedback on correct or incorrect

Word delivery gradually introduces newwords to maximize learning

Iterative design in the early preparatoryphases

SS: Single User, Single MouseSoftware Configurations

Photo: Udai Pawar

S f C f


34/61

Software exactlythe same as SS!

Five children share one PC and onemouse.

MS: Multiple User, Single MouseSoftware Configurations

Photo: Udai Pawar

S f C fi i


35/61

MM-R: Multi-User, Multi-Mouse RacingSoftware Configurations

Competitive in nature

Interactivity based on SS configuration

Every child has own mouse, cursor, andequal on-screen capability.

Screen change occurs as soon as oneplayer clicks on correct answer.

Photo: Udai Pawar

S ft C fi ti


36/61

MM-V: Multi-User, Multi-Mouse VotingSoftware Configurations

Collaborative in nature

Interactivity allows multiple students to

click on the same button.

Every child has own mouse, cursor, andequal on-screen capability.

Screen change occurs only if all playersclick on correct answer.

Photo: Udai Pawar

F l E l ti


37/61

Summary of Configurations

SS: Single user, single mouse

MS: Multiple user, single mouse

MM: Multiple user, multiple mouse MM-R: MM racing (competitive) configuration

MM-V: MM voting (collaborative) configuration

Formal Evaluation

Note: All configurations reduce to SS whenthere is only one student.

F l E l ti


38/61

Experimental Set-Up

Four configurations: SS MS MM-R MM-V

Subjects: 11-12 yrs; 6-7th grades Very basic English ability Some exposure to PCs Rural government schools

Subject grouping: Mixed groups (some all male,

some all female) of 5 each 238 subjects total

Randomized assignment toconfigurations

Task: 7 minutes pre-test

30 minutes PC usage 7 minutes post-test

Measured: Change in vocabulary

All on-screen activity

All comments recorded; sometrials video-recorded

Formal Evaluation

F l E l ti


39/61

Quantitative Results

MM-V unique among non-SSconfigurations in showingequal learning

MS okay, but not with boys

Strong gender effects:

All-girl groups do better in allmultiple person configurations. Boys learn much less in

competitive scenarios;rampant clicking.

Formal Evaluation

Average number of words learned during PC usage

4.11

4.56

3.73.76

2.93

4.53

3.6

2.8

4.44.34.5

4.1

0

1

2

3

4

5

ALL STUDENTS BOYS GIRLS

AverageNo.o

fWordsLearnt

SS MS MM-R MM-V

SS

MS

MM-

R

MM-

V

Number of words learned under MM-V roughly the same as with SS(no statistically significant difference)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

1 5 9 1 3 17 2 1 25 2 9 33 3 7 41 4 5 49 5 3 57 6 1 65 6 9 73 7 7 81 8 5

MM-R

Rate of clicks over time (blue line),for one group of boys in MM-R configuration

Formal E al ation


40/61

On the whole, more positive collaborationwith multiple mice.

Engagement and interest greatest in MM-R, then MM-V, then MS.

Interactions not always positive: E.g., Ill kill you if you dont click

Dominance roles not eliminated linked to

initiative and knowledge legitimacy

Role of teacher/supervisor still critical Handling disruptive behavior

Content creation or matching to curriculum

Qualitative ObservationsFormal Evaluation

Spontaneous cross-mouse usage

Photo: Udai Pawar


41/61

Publications

Moed, A., Otto, O., Pal, J., Pawar, U.S., Kam, M., and Toyama, K. (2009) ReducingDominance Behavior in Multiple-Mouse Learning Activities, to be published inProceedings of Computer Supported Collaborative LearningCSCL 2009.

Pawar, U.S., Pal, J., Gupta. R., and Toyama, K. (2007) Multiple Mice for Retention Tasksin Disadvantaged Schools, In Proceedings ofACM CHI 2007.

Pal, J., Pawar, U.S., Brewer, E., and Toyama, K. (2006) The case for multi-user designfor computer aided learning in developing regions, In Proceedings ofWWW 2006.

Pawar, U. S., Pal, J., and Toyama, K. (2006) Multiple mice for computers in education indeveloping countries, In Proceedings of IEEE/ACM Intl Conf. on Information &Communication Technologies for Development, ICTD 2006.

Pawar, U.S., Pal, J., Uppala, S., and Toyama, K. (2006) Effective Educational Delivery inRural Computer Aided Education: Multimouse. In Proceedings of Digital LearningDL2006.


42/61

Beyond Research

Microsoft MultiPoint SDK 1.0 releasedJune, 2007

Regular use in ~170 schools

Thailand: 140 schools

Vietnam: 20 schools

Philippines: 5 schools

Malaysia: 3 pilots + contentdevelopment

Chile: 1 pilot + contentdevelopment

Indonesia: content dev

Ongoing marketing and productdevelopment (SDK 1.1 coming soon)


43/61

Related Work

Multiple Mice

Bier (1991), Hourcade (1999) Technical issues of multiple mice Single Display Groupware

Inkpen et al. (1995) 2-student education scenario Cursor control toggles between two

mice

Bricker (1998) 3-person collaborations Color-matching task

Druin, Bederson, et al. (2003) 2-person browsing task

Greenberg et al. (2004) Multiple mice for collaborative work

Computers for Education inDeveloping World

Mitra (1999) Hole in the Wall free access to

PCs for children in low-income areas Self-taught computer literacy

Azim Premji Foundation (2002) Computer labs in primary schools Culture-localizable educational

games

Negroponte et al. (2004)

One Laptop Per Child Low-cost laptops and constructivist

education

AstraLab (2007) PC and projector Multimedia content pre-loaded


44/61

MultiPoint Characteristics

Simple solution for a real need

Cost and sustainability One computer + 5 mice equals

~$100 per child

If PCs exist, more mice is easy

Stakeholder alignment Government / administrators

Teachers

Students

Parents Content creators

Research Rich avenue for further exploration


45/61

Outline

Introduction

Case Study

Problem Context Two Possibilities? Solution and Evaluation Ongoing Research


Conclusion

Further Research with MultiPoint


46/61

Mitigating Dominance Behavior

Work by Andrea Moed, Owen Otto,Joyojeet Pal, Matthew Kam, UdaiPawar, Kentaro Toyama

Can we combine the best aspects of

competitive and cooperative playthrough team games?

Challenges: Mouse as a text-entry device

Restricted screen real estate

Occlusion among cursors

Status: studies completed; paperaccepted to CSCL 2009




47/61

Whole-Class MultiPoint

Ongoing work by Miguel Nussbaum,Heinz Susaeta, Kentaro Toyama;related efforts by Neema Moraveji,Taemie Kim

What kinds of educational games canbe effective for 20-40 children andmultiple mice?

Challenges: Restricted screen real estate

Varying distance to screen Pedagogical model

Status: Prototypes built; studies inChile begun; planning comparativestudies in India


Photo: Miguel Nussbaum



48/61

Text Entry

Ongoing work by Saleema Amershi,Merrie Morris, Neema Moraveji, RavinBalakrishnan, Kentaro Toyama

Whats the best way to enter text in

multiple-mouse scenarios?

Challenges: Mouse as a text-entry device

Restricted screen real estate

Occlusion among cursors

Status: studies completed; writingpaper


Screenshot: Saleema Amershi



49/61

Collaborative Activities

Work by Abigail Cauchi, JenniferFenech, Kentaro Toyama

How should non-competitive activitiesbe designed to maximize

collaboration?

Challenges: Weaker goals, softer metrics

Different classroom cultures andstudent personalities

Status: Prototypes built; studies inthree different schools in completed;writing papers


Photo: Miguel Nussbaum

Screenshot: Abigail Cauchi



50/61

Considering the Teacher

Work by David Hutchful, AshishSharma, Kentaro Toyama

How can we improve the experiencefor teachers interested in usingMultiPoint?

Challenges: Teachers want to customize content

Limited time for class preparation

Moderate PC literacy among teachers

Potential solution: Encapsulateinteraction into templates, whilemaking content trivially editable

Status: prototypes being built


Photo: Saurabh Panjwani


51/61

Outline

Introduction

Case Study



Conclusion


52/61

Shared PC

Nothing

personal

Personalmouse

(MultiPoint)

Sharedprocessor,monitor &

keyboard

Sharedprocessor &monitor

Sharedprocessor

Nothingshared

Personalmouse & keyboard(Split Screen)

Personalmouse,keyboard

& monitor(Multi-console,Thin client)

Truepersonalcomputer

Continuum of

PC Sharing


53/61

Split Screen

Two users, two mice, twokeyboards, two instances of thedesktop, but only one monitor

Two young adults learning with Split Screen


Are there problems with reducedscreen size, distraction, orergonomics?

What sort of collaborativebehaviors occur naturally?

What sort of collaborativebehaviors can be encouraged?


54/61

Other CS Opportunities

Modeling of educational statesand transitions

Stochastic modeling applied tohuman states

Links between micro- andmacro-scale understanding

Collaborations with cognitivepsychologists and economists

Featherweight Computing

Ultra-low-cost electronics formultimedia content

in Education for the Developing World

Not inschool

Occasionalattendance

Regularattendance

Secondaryschool

Formalwork

Digital Slates in Microcredit Secure Mobile Banking Accent-Robust Speech


55/61

Paper-and-Digital Forms Tooning for Text-Free UIs

Gaudy Photo EditingIncreasing Online Donations

Vision and Graphics

Computer Vision

Embedded Systems Cryptography and Security Speech Recognition

Machine Learning, Vision, HCI

HCI, Social Computing

Technology foreasing theburden ofdigitizing recordsin microfinancetransactions

Photo-editingtoolsdesigned for aculture-specificaesthetics

Creatingcartoons from

photographs tosupport creationof UIs for thenon-literate

Speech recognitionthat is robust todifferences andaccents anddialects

Tools to supportgeneration of

easy-to-useforms that canalso be easilydigitized

Can sites suchas Kiva.orgincrease onlinedonationsthrough designtweaks?

1

p2

p1

remainingdata

t0

Cost-Aware Data Transfer

Networking

Cost-awaretransfer of dataacrossheterogeneouschannels, e.g.,for mobiles

Mobility and Systems

Informationsystems thatdeliver contentover SMS text-messaging

SMS Server Toolkit

Security for mobilebanking, especiallywhere transmissionchannels are flakey


56/61

Outline

Introduction

Case Study



Conclusion


57/61

Multidisciplinarity

MethodologyTypical

StrengthsTypical

WeaknessesRole in

MultiPoint

QualitativeSocialScience

Ethnography

Micro-scaleunderstanding;attention to

human issues

Bias towardscritique; weakunderstanding of

technology

Identification ofproblem

Design Design

Adaptiveinnovation;parsimoniousdesign

Technology-limited; subjectiveevaluation

Solutionconcept

Computer

Science &Engineering

Technical

innovation

Technology;

problem-solvingoptimism

Techno-centrism;

blindness to non-technology issues

Software

innovation

QuantitativeSocialScience

Randomizedcontrol trial

Evaluation andcost-benefitanalysis

Black-boxanalysis; weakunderstanding oftechnology

Confirmation ofbenefit


58/61

Wanted

Openness to true, multidisciplinary effort

Willingness to start with simple solutions

Persistence in identifying technical challenges

Flexibility about matching problems with technologies

Realism about potential impact

from computer science and engineering research


59/61

Wanted

Openness to true, multidisciplinary effort

Forgiveness for technologists doing self-evaluations

Constructive critiques of potential or actual impact

Guidance on human issues of technology deployment

Pragmatism and emphasis on primary explanations

from non-technology disciplines


60/61

Technical Research

Global Development

Multidisciplinary Approach


61/61

Thank you!http://research.microsoft.com/research/tem
http://research.microsoft.com/research/temmailto:[email protected]://research.microsoft.com/research/tem

Documents

Kentaro Toyama - Computer Science Research for Global Development