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

People 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) 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 maintenance of 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 uninvolved Child labourTeachers 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 maintenance of 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 uninvolved Child labourTeachers 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

Methodology 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

Findings 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 Photo: Joyojeet Pal A family in Pondicherry

No toilets No walls No permanent building Terrible student-teacher ratio Intermittent electricity UPS broken Frequent maintenance of 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 uninvolved Child labourTeachers 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 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: $30Power supply: $10 Memory: $10 Processor: $30 Other silicon: $20 CRT display: $50 Keyboard/mouse: $10

What about Breakthroughs? Where to shave extra cost…? –Monitor$50 –Disk$30 –Processor$30 –Power supply$10 –Memory$10 –Keyboard/mouse$10 –Other$20 –Rock-bottom total$160 $25 $10 $15 $100 (Although, if you could achieve any of these breakthroughs, you’d be smarter to sell to OEMs for their higher-end PCs, and go for a fat margin.) Largely hypothetical, of course!

Hidden Costs Based on one laptop per child at $100 lasting 5 years (under ideal circumstances), and looking at cost over 5 years (for an ongoing attempt to provide laptops to all students)… Ongoing additions for new students+100%Same # incoming as first batch Distribution+25%Low-ball guess System administration, maintenance+250%$5K/yr x 5 / 100 kids = $250 Connectivity and power+100%Low-ball guess Breakage, theft, unintended sale+50%1 in 10 each year for five years Teacher training+50%Main laptop project cites 1/3 of total cost for teacher training Total+575%$675 per child to run

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 “Paint” application for MultiPointA simple game with 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 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 Desiderata MultiPoint 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 Mouse Software Configurations Photo: Udai Pawar

Software exactly the same as SS! Five children share one PC and one mouse. MS: Multiple User, Single Mouse Software 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 Voting Software 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-Up Four modes: –SS –MS –MM-R –MM-V Subjects: –11-12 yrs; 6-7 th 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 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 Engagement Qualitative 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 Dominance Qualitative Results Some girls demonstrating for others with 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 Collaboration Qualitative 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 Nothing personal Personal mouse (MultiPoint) Shared processor, monitor & keyboard Shared processor & monitor Shared processor Nothing shared Personal mouse & keyboard (Split Screen) Personal mouse, keyboard & monitor (Multi-console, Thin client) True personal computer 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 Notes 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 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)

Publications Pawar, 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 PCs Small-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!