Simultaneous Shared Access

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

Lead 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) People Photo: Udai Pawar Udai and Rahul with schoolchildren

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 Photo: Randy Wang Teacher-less class in Chinhat, Uttar Pradesh

Education in Poor Communities Photo: Joyojeet Pal Mid-day meal in Pondicherry

Education in Poor Communities Photo: Joyojeet Pal Ganjam district, Orissa (desks and chairs, but still no teacher)

Education in Poor Communities Photo: Colleen Foley, Elisia Carlson Mid-day meal in Ghana, West Africa

Problems in Education Child labour Teachers multitasking Parents uninvolved Frequent maintenance of PCs required No toilets No permanent building No textbooks Irrelevant curriculum No walls Intermittent electricity Poor pay for teachers No supplies Terrible student-teacher ratio UPS broken Heat Caste discrimination Teacher absenteeism Poor retention rates Teachers not computer literate Many children per computer Religious discrimination Student illness Students hungry

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 Photo: Joyojeet Pal A computer classroom teacher in Udupi, part of Azim Premji Foundation program.

Short 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 Methodology

Parents 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 Findings Photo: Joyojeet Pal A family in Pondicherry

Problems in Education Child labour Teachers multitasking Parents uninvolved Frequent maintenance of PCs required No toilets No permanent building No textbooks Irrelevant curriculum No walls Intermittent electricity Poor pay for teachers No supplies Terrible student-teacher ratio UPS broken Heat Caste discrimination Teacher absenteeism Poor retention rates Teachers not computer literate Many children per computer Religious discrimination Student illness Students hungry

Photos: Joyojeet Pal At school after school… One PC, many children. How do we increase access to PCs in schools?

One Solution? Low-cost PCs

PC Cost 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.

CRT display: $50 Cheapest PC…? Keyboard/mouse: $10 Power supply: $10 Disk: $30 Memory: $10 Other silicon: $20 Rock-bottom total: $160 Processor: $30

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 Possibilities A simple game with MultiPoint “Paint” application for MultiPoint Effectively, just a multi-user environment with mice as the input device.

Initial Evaluation Questions • 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 Before MultiPoint After MultiPoint

Questions: Can students learn as much with MultiPoint, compared with single-mouse configurations? What designs encourage more learning? What designs encourage collaboration? Further Studies Photo: Udai Pawar Children crowding around a laptop screen, using MultiPoint

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 MultiPoint Studies Desiderata

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 Choice of Task “bull” “tiger” “rabbit”

MultiPoint Studies 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 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 Software Configurations SS: Single User, Single Mouse Photo: Udai Pawar

Software exactly the same as SS! Five children share one PC and one mouse. Software Configurations MS: Multiple User, Single Mouse Photo: Udai Pawar

Software Configurations MM-R: Multi-User, Multi-Mouse Racing 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

Software Configurations MM-V: Multi-User, Multi-Mouse Voting 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

Four 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 Experimental Set-Up

MultiPoint Studies Quantitative Results Number of words learned under MM roughly the same as with SS. • Strong gender effects: • Girls do better in multiple mouse modes. • Boys fare worse in competitive scenarios. • Girls learn more in mixed-gender groups. Average number of words learned during PC usage

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 Qualitative Results Engagement 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 Qualitative Results Identity and Dominance Photo: Udai Pawar Some girls demonstrating for others with other’s mouse

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 Qualitative Results Collaboration Photo: Udai Pawar Discussion among students in MS mode

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? Even Further Studies Photo: Udai Pawar Various collaborative behaviors with MultiPoint

Continuum of Sharing Nothing shared Shared processor Shared processor & monitor Shared processor, monitor & keyboard True personal computer Shared PC Personal mouse, keyboard & monitor (Multi-console, Thin client) Personal mouse & keyboard (Split Screen) Personal mouse (MultiPoint) Nothing personal

Split Screen Two users, two mice, two keyboards, two instances of the desktop, but only one monitor

Questions: Is distraction or ergonomics a significant problem? What sort of collaborative behaviors occur naturally? What sort of collaborative behaviors can be encouraged? Split Screen Research Photo: Divya Kumar Two young adults learning with Split Screen

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

Standard 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 Methodological Notes Photo: Kentaro Toyama Research assistants recording observations

Simultaneous Shared Access