Simultaneous Shared Access Kentaro Toyama Assistant Managing Director Microsoft Research India Based on work with Udai Singh Pawar and Joyojeet Pal TCS.

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


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


Ganjam district, Orissa (desks and chairs, but still no teacher)

Photo: Joyojeet Pal


Mid-day meal in Ghana, West Africa

Photo: Colleen Foley, Elisia Carlson


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




UPS broken





Students hungry



Teacher absenteeism

Student illness

No supplies

No textbooks



Heat



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




UPS broken





Students hungry



Teacher absenteeism

Student illness

No supplies

No textbooks



Heat



Photos: Joyojeet Pal

At school after school…

One PC, many children.

How do we increase access to PCs in schools?


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


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


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


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


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


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

mailto:[email protected]

http://research.microsoft.com/research/tem

Simultaneous Shared Access Kentaro Toyama Assistant Managing Director Microsoft Research India Based on work with Udai Singh Pawar and Joyojeet Pal TCS.

Documents

education slide

india slide

joyojeet pal slide

udai pawar slide

teacher photo

parents teacher

elisia carlson slide

randy wang slide