imet 5david baynehomenettoo poster session homenettoo bridging the digital divide michigan state...

iMET 5HomeNetToo Poster SessionDavid Bayne

HomeNetToo

Bridging the Digital DivideMichigan State University

Lansing, Michigan

http://www.homenettoo.org

David Bayne HomeNetToo Poster Session iMET 5

HomeNetTooMichigan State University

Parts to this Session• Description of the

HomeNetToo Project• Results in Adults• Results in Children• Interface Issues

iMET 5HomeNetToo Poster SessionDavid Bayne

HomeNetToo Project Sections

• Project Description

• Results among Adults

• Effects among Children

• Interface Problems and Issues

• Project References


Project Description

HomeNetToo


Questions Researched

The NSF funded this program to look at two major questions:

1. What causes people to use or not use the Internet?

2. What effects does Internet use have on people?

As you’ll see, the results are a fascinating glimpse into humanity


Project Description

90 Low-Income families were chosen to receive computers and Internet access.

Most are single-parent, African-American families

None had Internet access prior to the project


Project Description—Focus

• Frequency of Internet use

• Nature of Internet use• Demographic

correlation of Internet use

• Personal accounts of experiences with the Internet, both Quantitative and Ethnographic

Research focused on:


Project Description--Training

• Training provided to one-third of the families

• Internet was introduced as communication tool (e-mail, chat, etc)

• Training provided to second one-third of the families

• Internet was introduced as an information tool (web search, newsgroups)

Final one-third is the Control Group, and received no additional training.


Project Description--Shopping

• One-half of the families taught how to use internet to consume (internet shopping)

• One-half of the families not taught to shop (but allowed to)

Identical monetary compensation for both groups


Project Evaluation--Surveys

On-line Surveys at:• Pre-trial (before)• 1 month• 3 months• 9 months• 15 months (Post-Trial)

Surveys Measures Focus on:

• Prior Internet Use• Motivational,• Affective, and• Cognitive factors

hypothesized to affect Internet use/influenced by use


Project Focus—Cognitive Style

• Examine relationship between cognitive style and Internet use

• Implications of this relationship for Interface design

• Ethnographic, observational and survey methodologies are used to identify cognitive style types

• User interfaces designed to match cognitive style types identified

• Focus on structure and processes that underlie information processing

• Experiements will examine effects of matching user cognitive style with interface design


Project Implications and Understandings

• Antecedents of Internet use within individuals & contexts

• Consequences of Internet use for individuals & society

• Implications for reducing the Digital Divide

• Motivational and affective factors in Internet use used to establish guidelines for introducing & sustaining use

• Evidence of cognitive style used to establish guidelines for interface design(Support individual and cultural differences in tech use)


Results among Adults

HomeNetToo


Results in Adults

• Participants focused on Web and E-Mail activities

• Infrequent E-Mail at beginning

• Average 3 E-Mails per week

• Half used E-Mail

• 25% spent no time online

• 25% spend over 36 minutes per day online

• Visited about 9 domains (average) per session

• African-Americans used Web less than European-Americans

• E-Mail usage was not significantly different between ethnic groups


Results in Adults (Continued)

• Age negatively related to number of sessions and domains visited

• Small correlation only• Older participants

(over median of 38 years) used Internet less than younger (under 38)

• Greater education = more time online

• Greater education = more Internet sessions

• High school or less = less time online

• High school or less=fewer Internet sessions



• E-Mail facilitated communication

• Adults saw no purpose for Chat rooms

• Internet = Parenting Tool

(Emphasis on Homework for kids)

• Internet = meet practical needs

• Better than going to the Library (less travel) (African-Americans especially)

• Low skill users more likely to see potential of Internet access



• Refuge/Personal Retreat

• Fill time, relieve boredom, transition between activities

• Stress relief

• Image Enhancer• Computer at home =

higher status in neighborhood


Concerns of Adults

• Saw danger in Internet

• Sense of destructiveness

• Worried about their Kids/Responsibilities as Parents

• Hypnotic/Isolating

• Validity of information questioned

Some dangers stated:• Porn• Predators (especially

in chat rooms)• Issues of Parent-Child

Trust (need to trust their kids, but worried)

• Delivered less than claimed


Concerns (Continued)

• Faulty Performance (slow/unreliable)

• Inadequate guidance: expected computer to be more helpful solving problems

• Learning took lots of time/effort

• Alien Logic/’Foreign’ Language

• Jargon and codes confusing

• Classes not always helpful

• Lack of support

• Interface Design got in the way of operating/ using/ learning


Effects among Children

HomeNetToo


Effects and Achievement Among Children

No negative effect:• social involvement• Physiological well-

being• Increases GPA from

2.0 to 2.2 or higher on average, Standardized test scores UP also!

• More time on Web = Better grades in School

• Text-based nature of Web pages = Kids read more = Better achievement in school & better Test Scores


Children Online

Most time spent on:• School-related

Research• Pursuing Hobbies

• Stayed home with family, not away at Library

• Extra time to work on computer skills

• No evidence of reduced social contact


Interface Problems and Issues

HomeNetToo


Interface Issues

• Internet ‘Language’ seems foreign

• Logic not intuitive

• Internet requires a ‘Secret’ to use

• Need more user-oriented design

Photo from http://www.mindlab.org/shockwave/ming/gallery/thesis7.htm


Interface Issues (Continued)

• Cognitive style affect Internet use

• M.I.N.D. Lab at MSU designed interfaces to match cognitive style types

Types of Interface tested:• Regular web-style

interface• Spatialized 3-D

environment• Interactive

Interpersonal Interface


Sample Interface

• High Blood Pressure information presented in all 3 methods

Same for all 3:

• All text

• All images

• Basic “page” arrangement

• Background of the pages

• Fundamental groupings and categories of pages


Sample Interface

Variable Design Features• The means of

navigation• The overall look and

feel of the interface

• Participants assigned randomly to three interfaces.

• assigned interface was projected to a big screen.

• used a mouse

• to navigate the HBP content with the Internet browser


Magazine-Style Interface

• Used as “control”• All information

presented as text or images

• Navigated through the three layers of information by clicking on hyperlinks

• Main headings (one or two sentences) followed by bullet points of supplementary information.

• Two-dimensional picture related to each main heading was displayed adjacent to it.


Spatial Interface

• Organized into thematic buildings similar to top level of hierarchial menu in control interface

• Navigated through three-dimensional courtyard to select building

• Placed them within a large room

• Each room contained posters with links

• (equivalent to those provided at the second level of the magazine-style interface menu)

• Selected page by clicking on a poster; page appeared in new window, contained the same text and images as in the other interface conditions


Interpersonal Interface

• Contained anthropomorphic African-American character - an intelligent agent

• Agent guided participant through information

• Information presented on web pages identical to those used in the control interface

• Agent introduced self (orally) and asked participant to select a topic

• Same topics included in other interface conditions

• Participant made selection with oral request to agent

• Page containing information was displayed

• Agent introduced (orally) main points on the page


Interface Results: Learning

• Major Hypothesis: Participants learn more with culturally adapted interfaces than with the control (magazine-style) interface.

• Hypothesis not supported for measures of basic knowledge or behavioral knowledge about high blood pressure


Interface Results: Attitude

• Attitudes toward the information source affected

• No difference between the Spatial and Interpersonal interfaces

• Participants in culturally adapted interface conditions had more favorable attitudes than did those in the Control interface condition


Interface Results: Cognitive Styles Influence Interface

• Prediction that individual differences in cognitive style would influence the efficacy of culturally adapted interfaces.

• Learning maximized when interface was adapted to learner's spatial learning preference dimension of cognitive style


Learning Preference and Stimulus Interface

• All groups = Similar & Least Favorable Attitudes toward Control Interface Condition

• Groups with lower preference for Spatial Learning = Less Favorable Attitudes than higher Spatial Learning preference groups when interface was spatial

• Lesser preference for Spatial Learning = better for Interpersonal Interface, but not from a spatial interface (attitudes toward information source)


Interface Conclusions

• Culturally adapted interfaces can benefit learning in virtual environments

• If Interfaces adapted to Culturally-influenced cognitive style = more favorable attitudes toward the information source

• Culturally adapted interfaces = better learning when match user's cognitive style than when did not

• Strong Spatial Learning preference = Learn best when a 3-D Spatial Interface was used

• Strong Interpersonal Learning preference = perform best when information presented using Interpersonal Interface


Interface Conclusions(Continued)

• Both cultural and individual characteristics should be considered in designing user interface

• Within cultures, individuals will vary in a variety of characteristics that may be relevant to interface design

• Research has thus far focused on personality and on cognitive style.

• Future research needed to identify both individual and cultural characteristics that can be mapped to features of interface design

• Findings from research could be used to develop a set of guidelines for user-oriented design

• Benefit to education, job-training and e-commerce


Project References

HomeNetToo


Culture, media & mind. (2002). Retrieved August 10, 2003, from http://www.mindlab.org/web2/research/culture.htm

Iacono, C. Suzanne. (2002). NSF award abstract: ITR: HomeNetToo: Motivational, affective and cognitive factors and Internet use: Explaining the digital divide and the Internet paradox. Retrieved August 9, 2003, from http://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/servlet/showaward?award=0085348

Jackson, Linda A. (2003). HomeNetToo. Retrieved August 1, 2003, from http://www.msu.edu/user/jackso67/homenettoo/main.html

Jackson, Linda. A., Barbatsis, Gretchen., Biocca, Frank., Zhao, Yong., von Eye, Alexander., & Fitzgerald, Hiram. E. (2002). Home Intenet use in low-income families: Frequency, nature, and correlates of early Internet use in the HomeNetToo project. Retrieved August 10, 2003, from http://www2002.org/CDROM/alternate/649/

Jackson, Linda. A., Biocca, Frank. A., von Eye, Alexander., Barbatsis, Gretchen., Fitzgerald, Hiram. E., Zhao, Yong., et al. (2003). HomeNetToo: Motivational, affective and cognitive factors and Internet use: Explaining the digital divide and the Internet paradox. Retrieved August 9, 2003, from http://www10.org/program/society/jackson/JacksonWS6.htm

Jackson, Linda. A., von Eye, Alexander., & Biocca, Frank. A. (2003). The social impact of Internet use: Findings from the other side of the digital divide. Retrieved August 10, 2003, from http://www2003.org/cdrom/papers/poster/p168/SocialImpactofInternetUse.htm

Nichols, Sue. (2000). 'U' assumes leadership role in untangling Web. Retrieved August 10, 2003, from http://www.newsbulletin.msu.edu/oct12/untangle.html

HomeNetToo Project References


Student Achievement ReferencesAre children who use the Internet smarter?. (2003). Retrieved August 9, 2003, from http://www.laep.org/08_01_03/internet.html

Better grades for web surfers. (2003, August 1). Applesforhealth.com Retrieved August 10, 2003, from http://www.applesforhealth.com/ChildrensHealth/betgradwebs5.html

Martin, Mike. (2003). Internet use is not harmful to kids' health, say researchers. Retrieved August 9, 2003, from http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/22006.html

Michigan State University study: Children who spend more time online do better in school. (2003). Retrieved August 10, 2003, from http://www.ascribe.org/cgi-bin/spew4th.pl?ascribeid=20030728.063351&time=07%2018%20PDT&year=2003&public=1

Michigan State University. (2003). MSU Study: Children who spend more time online do better in school. Retrieved August 10, 2003, from http://newsroom.msu.edu/news/archives/2003/07/homenettoo.html

Murray, Corey. (2003). Study: Web use may boost student achievement. Retrieved August 10, 2003, from http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/ssunreg.cfm?ArticleID=4536&ul=%2Fnews%2FshowStory%2Ecfm%3FArticleID%3D4536


Interface ReferencesTang, Ming. (2003). Spacial interface and interpersonal interface design - Design report for HomeNetToo project. Retrieved August 10, 2003, from http://www.mindlab.org/shockwave/ming/gallery/thesis7.htm

Jackson, Linda. A., Biocca, Frank., Lim, Lynette., Bradburn, Keith., Tang, Ming., Mou, Weimin., et al. (2003). Effects of culturally adapted interfaces on learning and attitudes: Findings from the HomeNetToo project. Retrieved August 10, 2003, from http://www.mindlab.org/shockwave/ming/gallery/thesism/hn2.pdf

Martin, Mike. (2003). Internet use is not harmful to kids' health, say researchers. Retrieved August 10, 2003, from http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/22006.html

imet 5david baynehomenettoo poster session homenettoo bridging the digital divide michigan state...

Documents

project slide

families internet

internet use implications

session description

internet access

homenettoo project results

internet shopping onehalf

humanity slide