Human-Computer Interaction in the Developing World Matthew Kam Apr 3, 2003

Globally Distributed Knowledge Work Opportunities R&D can be located anywhere in the world Collaboration across time zones, institutions and national boundaries Collaboration across geographically-dispersed sites can share resources and personnel

Globally Distributed Knowledge Work Examples Financial services Consulting Research Software production Distance learning Telemedicine Managing geographically-dispersed manufacturing

What is at Stake? Developing countries Potential to lessen impact of distance Potential for greater participation through knowledge work and global trade in services Global virtual production teams Scientific collaboratories Distance learning Trade more important than other forms of assistance, credit and international cooperation [Jaramillo]

What is at Stake? Developed countries Opportunity to develop products and services that are sensitive to multiple cultural perspectives and needs of people around the world

Collaboratory “Laboratory without walls” Comprise both Technologies Socio-processes Networked organizational structure Potential testbed for remote CSCL

Computer-Supported Collaboration Learning Motivation Collaborative learning enhances student ratings of virtual courses [Hiltz 1990] Media richness in technological tools can mediate differences between F2F and CMC channels

Study Design Each weekly session consists of Intro discussion / presentation (1 hr) Unstructured decision-making task (1.5 hr) Report (0.5 hr) Made use of rich-media CMC tools

Participants 4 research universities 13-week seminar 2 in USA 2 in South Africa 13-week seminar “Globalization and the Information Society” 35 graduate students Half were F2F teams Half were completely-remote teams

Tasks Decide on stakeholder grouping and organization to represent Research background to organization Develop strategy for organization to influence global policy Prepare paper and slides

Research Questions Impact of group mode Impact of faculty presence Co-located vs. remote Impact of faculty presence Faculty is co-located vs. remote Impact of geographic location USA vs. South Africa

Results Group mode (co-located vs. remote) No relationship between group mode and student satisfaction => more possibilities for remote CSCL F2F group (73%) has higher perception of group as “learning community” than remote group (63%) Nevertheless, students claimed to learn more from diverse group background

Results Faculty presence Physical presence of faculty has small but measurable effect on student satisfaction More comfortable asking questions when faculty is physically present Less student motivation with absent faculty But no major difference due to faculty presence => pedagogy model (i.e. inquiry-based learning) more important than faculty’s physical presence

Results Faculty presence No difference between students in USA and South Africa in terms of preference for faculty presence

Results Geographic location Participants in South Africa have higher satisfaction levels => higher “collaboration readiness” on the part of South African students Collaboration readiness is factor for success of CSCW Participants in South Africa found greater value in their syndicates as learning communities Interesting, more USA participants found their South African team-mates to be less committed