1 / 20

Multiple Mice for Computers in Education in Developing Countries

Multiple Mice for Computers in Education in Developing Countries. Udai Singh Pawar Microsoft Research India Talk at Univ. of Washington June 2nd, 2006. Computers in Rural Education. What are the most pressing needs in a rural school?

graced
Download Presentation

Multiple Mice for Computers in Education in Developing Countries

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Multiple Mice for Computers in Education in Developing Countries Udai Singh Pawar Microsoft Research India Talk at Univ. of Washington June 2nd, 2006

  2. Computers in Rural Education • What are the most pressing needs in a rural school? • Do computers have a place in a rural school? • How can we maximize the value of existing PCs in schools?

  3. Ethnography in Rural Schools • Numerous urban and rural schools • Short site visits, ran workshops • Summer 2005: 18 rural schools with PCs in four states (Karnataka, Pondicherry, Maharashtra, and Orissa) – (Pal et al., WWW 2006) • Over 100 interviews with students, parents, teachers, administrators. • Most others in research group have also visited a variety of schools, and other ICT/kiosk projects.

  4. The problem with Shared Computers • Current software designed for one user • Only one, of N children, can use the mouse • This is generally the dominant child • Learning benefits accrue primarily to that child • Other (N-1) children vying for control, are low on engagement

  5. Our Solution: Multi-Mouse!

  6. Video

  7. Related Work • Some interest in late 90’s (Single Display Groupware termed by Stewart et al, 1998) • Inkpen and others – First study, 1995 – puzzle-solving, toggling between two mice. Gender effects • Bricker – Collaborative activities – color matcher • Bederson and Stewart – Painting and storytelling • Greenberg and others – UI concepts, tabletops, large shared displays, etc.

  8. Technical Issues • By default, Windows supports multiple mice but not multiple cursors • Implicit assumption that no-one will use multiple mice so no ID for mouse events • RawInput API in WindowsXP retains ID in user mode. All software solution, no hardware – just USB ports • Initially used SDG Toolkit (Tse & Greenberg, 2002) – now working with our own toolkit – Multimouse SDK • No problems with lag – tested upto 15 users

  9. NGO-run after school center – Urban slum in Bangalore

  10. Testing with Students • Three preliminary field trials (5-12 year olds, N=23) • 20min of single mouse with alphabet game  20min of multiple mouse with alphabet game  20min of multiple mouse and tile game  Free play  Brief interview • Questions: • Can children understand and use the multiple-mouse paradigm when the number of mice is as many as five? • How do children interact with each other with respect to multiple mice? How do they share or not share? • Does the multiple mouse paradigm increase interest and engagement?

  11. Using a Single Mouse • Even with a dominant child, all children engage • Engagement decreases with time for children without a mouse • Gender differences in sharing patterns • Children want to control the mouse

  12. Using Multiple Mice • Children understand the idea immediately • Not confused by multiple cursors on screen • Children with mice remain engaged throughout • Overall engagement increases, even for children without a mouse

  13. Other Observations • Interview responses: Dominantly positive • Can be considerable difference in game-playing competence • Age variance • Joint decision-making about what game to play next was chaotic

  14. Ongoing and Future work • Developing an SDK for content developers • Tracking performance, and adjusting pace accordingly • UI features – joint decision-making mechanisms • Developing pedagogically sound usage scenarios • Competitive  Video Games • Individualistic  Shared screen space • Collaborative  Shared tasks • Comprehensive testing • Deployment

  15. “Development” Issues • To students • More chances to get involved – More fun!! • Better Learning • To content developers • Engaging content – video game model • Technologically straight-forward • Scope for innovation in learning activities • To teachers • Helps in “babysitting” the children • To the government/school heads • Economics - $5 a mouse • Simple and easy to setup technically • Instantly multiply the value of existing PCs in schools

  16. Thanks!udaip@microsoft.comhttp://research.microsoft.com/research/temThanks!udaip@microsoft.comhttp://research.microsoft.com/research/tem

  17. Field Trials • Three preliminary trials • Single Laptop, USB Hub • 20min of single mouse with alphabet game; 20min of multiple mouse with alphabet game; 20min of multiple mouse and tile game; Free play; Brief interview

More Related