Upload
joan-cummings
View
218
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Simultaneous Shared Access
Kentaro Toyama
Assistant Managing Director
Microsoft Research India
Based on work with Udai Singh Pawar and Joyojeet Pal
TCS Excellence in Computer Science
January 9, 2008 – Pune, India
PeopleLead Researcher
– Udai Singh Pawar
Collaborators– Kentaro Toyama– Sukumar Anikar (APF)
Interns– Joyojeet Pal (UC Berkeley)– Rahul Gupta (BITS Pilani)– Sushma Uppala (SUNY Stony
Brook)– Divya Kumar (UCSD) Udai and Rahul with schoolchildren
Photo: Udai Pawar
Outline: Simultaneous Shared Access
Introduction
A solvable problem
A solution?
MultiPoint studies
Beyond MultiPoint
Methodology
Discussion
Outline: Simultaneous Shared Access
Introduction
A solvable problem
A solution?
MultiPoint studies
Beyond MultiPoint
Methodology
Discussion
Education in India
300M children aged 6-18; 210M enrolled in school; 105M actively attending.
Typically children of poor families earning $1-2 a day
Teachers poorly trained and frequently absent
Value of education not clear to parents
Teacher-less class in Chinhat, Uttar Pradesh
Photo: Randy Wang
Education in Poor Communities
Mid-day meal in Pondicherry
Photo: Joyojeet Pal
Education in Poor Communities
Ganjam district, Orissa (desks and chairs, but still no teacher)
Photo: Joyojeet Pal
Education in Poor Communities
Mid-day meal in Ghana, West Africa
Photo: Colleen Foley, Elisia Carlson
Outline: Simultaneous Shared Access
Introduction
A solvable problem
A solution?
MultiPoint studies
Beyond MultiPoint
Methodology
Discussion
No toilets
No walls
No permanent building
Terrible student-teacher ratio
Intermittent electricity
UPS broken
Frequent maintenanceof PCs required
Teachers not computer literate
Caste discrimination
Religious discrimination
Students hungry
Poor retention rates
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
No toilets
No walls
No permanent building
Terrible student-teacher ratio
Intermittent electricity
UPS broken
Frequent maintenanceof PCs required
Teachers not computer literate
Caste discrimination
Religious discrimination
Students hungry
Poor retention rates
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
NGO Partners
Azim Premji Foundation– Large NGO– Works with 16,000 government
primary schools– Focus on education, with program
in computer-aided learning (CAL)– CAL head: Sukumar Anikar
CLT– Head: Bhagya Rangachar– Small NGO– Works with peri-urban government
primary schools around Bangalore– Focus on computing and
education A computer classroom teacher in Udupi, part of Azim Premji Foundation program.
Photo: Joyojeet Pal
MethodologyShort field visits, interview and observation based
Locations selected on basis of:– Language– Condition of local economy– Stage of the program– Feasibility of research– Karnataka, Orissa,
Pondicherry, Maharashtra
9 schools
130 interviews – ranging from 3–180 minutes
Subjects:
– 18 schools– 15 HTs / HMs– 28 subject teachers– 7 computer teachers– 27 students– 15 parents– 4 VEC/Panchayat– 21 community– 5 government– 8 administrators/agency
Initial Ethnography
FindingsParents supportive of computer classes
Classes rotate through a computer classroom in ad hoc manner
Teachers under-prepared for computer skills (English and math), but everyone wants English UI
Financing for PC systems erratic
Games preferred by students, over drills, etc.
PCs always shared
Initial Ethnography
Photo: Joyojeet Pal
A family in Pondicherry
No toilets
No walls
No permanent building
Terrible student-teacher ratio
Intermittent electricity
UPS broken
Frequent maintenanceof PCs required
Teachers not computer literate
Caste discrimination
Religious discrimination
Students hungry
Poor retention rates
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
Photos: Joyojeet Pal
At school after school…
One PC, many children.
How do we increase access to PCs in schools?
Outline: Simultaneous Shared Access
Introduction
A solvable problem
A solution?
MultiPoint studies
Beyond MultiPoint
Methodology
Discussion
One Solution?
Low-cost PCs
PC Cost
Cost of PCs
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006
Year
US
$ In 2007 Dollars
In Absolute Dollars
PC cost is decreasing but asymptoting.
What about Moore’s Law? (1/2)
Number of transistors per processor
What about Moore’s Law? (2/2)
• Unit price of Intel Pentium 133MHz in 1997
$57
• Unit price of Intel Celeron 1.7GHz in 2007
$57
Even though per-unit cost of processing goes down, cost of manufacturing a “low-end” chip doesn’t.
Rock-bottom total: $160
Cheapest PC…?
Disk: $30
Power supply: $10
Memory: $10
Processor: $30
Other silicon: $20
CRT display: $50
Keyboard/mouse: $10
Another Solution
Provide a mouse for every student
– One cursor for each mouse, with different colours or shapes
– USB mice• Experimented with up to 20• (Theoretically works up to 128)
– Reduces per-student cost of interaction
– Content modified • Game-like environment
“MultiPoint”
MultiPoint
Screenshot of first MultiPoint alphabet-learning game
Other PossibilitiesOther Possibilities
“Paint” application for MultiPointA simple game with MultiPoint
Effectively, just a multi-user environment with mice as the input device.
Initial EvaluationQuestions
– Can students understand MultiPoint paradigm?
– How do children interact with MultiPoint?
– Does MultiPoint increase engagement?
Methodology
– Trials:• 20 min single mouse• 20 min MultiPoint• 10 min free play
– 3 trials of 6-10 children
Before MultiPoint
Initial Evaluation: Results
Everyone wants a mouse.
Young children understand MultiPoint immediately.
All students more engaged for longer periods of time.
– Even children without mice engage longer.
Self-reporting is positive.– Exception: one student didn’t like
MultiPoint because of competitive atmosphere
After MultiPoint
Before MultiPoint
Outline: Simultaneous Shared Access
Introduction
A solvable problem
A solution?
MultiPoint studies
Beyond MultiPoint
Methodology
Discussion
Further Studies
Questions:
Can students learn as much with MultiPoint, compared with single-mouse configurations?
What designs encourage more learning?
What designs encourage collaboration?
Children crowding around a laptop screen, using MultiPoint
Photo: Udai Pawar
Desired characteristics for evaluation task:
– Quantifiable and objective metrics for learning
– Measurability in short term
– Practical educational value
– Generalizability to many educational domains
– Consistency regardless of degree of PC usage
– Comparability – allows “apples to apples” comparions between multiple mice and single mouse
DesiderataMultiPoint Studies
Choice of Task
English vocabulary– Quickly learnable– ESL in high demand
Multiple-choice questions– Concretely measurable– Popular in existing software– Generalizable
Retention Task– Word-image associations– Animal names, control
confounding– Easy to manipulate
First tier in Bloom’s taxonomy of learning outcomes
MultiPoint Studies
“bull”
“tiger”
“rabbit”
Software Configurations
Different modes for testing:
– SS: Single user, single mouse– MS: Multiple user, single mouse– MM: Multiple user, multiple mouse
• MM-R: MM racing (competitive) mode• MM-V: MM voting (collaborative) mode
MultiPoint Studies
Note: All modes reduce to SS when there is only one student
Focus on interactivity – Learn by trial and error
Multiple choice questions– Feedback on ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’
Word delivery gradually introduces new words to maximize learning
Iterative design in the early preparatory phases
SS: Single User, Single MouseSoftware Configurations
Photo: Udai Pawar
Software exactly the same as SS!
Five children share one PC and one mouse.
MS: Multiple User, Single MouseSoftware Configurations
Photo: Udai Pawar
MM-R: Multi-User, Multi-Mouse Racing Software Configurations
Competitive in nature
Interactivity based on SS mode
Every child has own mouse, cursor, and equal on-screen capability.
Screen change occurs as soon as one player clicks on correct answer.
Photo: Udai Pawar
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, and equal on-screen capability.
Screen change occurs only if all players click on correct answer.
Photo: Udai Pawar
Experimental Set-UpFour modes:– 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 to modes
Task: – 7 minutes pre-test– 30 minutes PC usage– 7 minutes post-test
Measured:– Change in vocabulary– All on-screen activity logged
All comments recorded; some trials video-recorded.
MultiPoint Studies
Quantitative Results
Strong gender effects:
– Girls do better in multiple mouse modes.
– Boys fare worse in competitive scenarios.
– Girls learn more in mixed-gender groups.
MultiPoint Studies
Average number of words learned during PC usage
4.114.56
3.73.76
2.93
4.53
3.6
2.8
4.44.3 4.54.1
0
1
2
3
4
5
ALL STUDENTS BOYS GIRLS
Aver
age
No.
of W
ords
Lear
nt
SS MS MM-R MM-V
SS
MS
MM
-R
MM
-V
Number of words learned under MM roughly the same as with SS.
Conversation minimal in SS and MM-R– Most dialogue/fights in MS
– Variety of talk in MM-V
Distraction least in MM modes– Greatest in SS, interest tails off
– Non-mouse controllers in MS
‘Engagement’ greatest in MM-R– But rapid, competitive clicking for
boys so poor results
– High for MM-V too: screen attentive environment
EngagementQualitative Results
Photo: Udai Pawar
Boys thoroughly engaged in an MM mode
Cursor color as defining identity– “Click here, Red!”– Association with success– Follow ‘trusted’ colors
Sense of group developed in MS and MM-V
Dominance– ‘Dictatorship’ vs. appointed
representative– Tied to knowledge legitimacy,
and initiative
Identity and DominanceQualitative Results
Some girls demonstrating for otherswith other’s mouse
Photo: Udai Pawar
Goals critical in defining level of collaboration
– MM-R individual goals: least
– MS saw discussion but often confrontational without resolution (boys vs. girls)
– MM-V required discussion
Pressure on laggards– “I will kill you if you don’t click”
Voting Patterns– Leader/Follower
– Joint Decisions
– Majority following
CollaborationQualitative Results
Photo: Udai Pawar
Discussion among students in MS mode
Even Further Studies
Ongoing studies:
Can the benefits of MultiPoint extend to deeper forms of education?
What designs increase collaboration while maintaining excitement?
Are there other ways to share a PC?
Various collaborative behaviors with MultiPoint
Photo: Udai Pawar
Outline: Simultaneous Shared Access
Introduction
A solvable problem
A solution?
MultiPoint studies
Beyond MultiPoint
Methodology
Discussion
Shared PC
Nothingpersonal
Personalmouse
(MultiPoint)
Sharedprocessor,monitor &keyboard
Sharedprocessor &
monitor
Sharedprocessor
Nothingshared
Personalmouse & keyboard
(Split Screen)
Personalmouse,
keyboard& monitor
(Multi-console,Thin client)
Truepersonalcomputer
Continuum of Sharing
Split Screen
Two users, two mice, two keyboards, two instances of the desktop, but only one monitor
Split Screen Research
Questions:
Is distraction or ergonomics a significant problem?
What sort of collaborative behaviors occur naturally?
What sort of collaborative behaviors can be encouraged?
Two young adults learning with Split Screen
Photo: Divya Kumar
Early Results
IT training centre in a busy low-income urban community
– Run by HOPE Foundation– Co-certified by state gov’t
Content is basic computer skills education:– Computer basics– Office suite (Word, Excel)
No problems with usability; individual Split-Screen users can accomplish as much as single-screen users.
Minor technical problems.
Collaboration effects strongly correlated with existing degree of friendship between users
Photo: Divya Kumar
Outline: Simultaneous Shared Access
Introduction
A solvable problem
A solution?
MultiPoint studies
Beyond MultiPoint
Methodology
Discussion
Methodological NotesStandard HCI and usability methodology
– At school or site, not in lab
Care around design in comparing multiple users with single user
Extensive use of student research assistants to record observations
Ethics around human subjects– Modified informed consent
Close partnership with schools and NGOs
Research assistants recording observations
Photo: Kentaro Toyama
Outline: Simultaneous Shared Access
Introduction
A solvable problem
A solution?
MultiPoint studies
Beyond MultiPoint
Methodology
Discussion
Related Work
MultiPoint
• 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 collaborative “education”
• Greenberg et al. (2004)– Multiple mice for collaborative work
Split Screen
• Surprisingly little documented
• Commercial systems available for multiple consoles
– nComputing– Wyse
Simultaneous Shared Access
Incentives aligned
– Cost effective: One computer + 5 mice comes to ~$100 per child.
– Content authors can adapt to paradigm
– Government / administrators can claim better use of computers
– Teachers can keep more students entertained
– Students have more fun (cf., multi-player computer games)
PublicationsPawar, U.S., Pal, J., Gupta. R., and Toyama, K. (2007) Multiple Mice for Retention Tasks in
Disadvantaged Schools, In Proceedings of ACM CHI’07, ACM Press
Pal, J., Pawar, U.S., Brewer, E., and Toyama, K. (2006) The case for multi-user design for computer aided learning in developing regions, Proc. of WWW 2006
Pawar, U. S., Pal, J., and Toyama, K. (2006) Multiple mice for computers in education in developing countries, IEEE/ACM Int’l Conf. on Information & Communication Technologies for Development, ICTD 2006
Pawar, U.S., Pal, J., Uppala, S., and Toyama, K. (2006) Effective Educational Delivery in Rural Computer Aided Education: Multimouse. Proc. of Digital Learning DL 2006
Kim, T., Moraveji, N., and Pawar, U.S. (2007) A Mouse on Each Desk: A Method for Supporting Unison Response during Remote Teaching, Microsoft Research Technical Report. Redmond, WA. January 2007
Moraveji, N., Pawar, U.S., and Kim, T. (2007) Modeling Chinese Classrooms for Low-Cost Real-Time Distance Education, Microsoft Research Technical Report. Redmond, WA. April 2007
Status and Future Work
MultiPoint SDK released June 2007
Split Screen studies continuing
Methods for increasing collaboration, and for collaboration to contribute to education
New hypothesis: Better anywhere for primary education than one PC per child?
Parental Views of PCsSmall-holder farmers don’t want children
to stay in agriculture
Happy to see PCs in schools; want children to learn about computers
Have little understanding of PC functionality
PC associations based on mass-media portrayals
Small fraction have witnessed PCs in, e.g., government offices, banks, at corporate reception desks
English-speaking ability more highly valued than PC familiarity
PC “mastery” believed by some to come quicker than English ability
Sarita (Shanti Bhavan student) and her mother
Work with Joyojeet Pal (UC Berkeley) and Meera Lakshmanan
Photo: Leba Haber
Outline: Simultaneous Shared Access
Introduction
A solvable problem
A solution?
MultiPoint studies
Beyond MultiPoint
Methodology
Discussion
Thanks! [email protected]://research.microsoft.com/research/tem
http://thescooterlounge.com/images/124IndianFamily.jpg