Categorizing Users of Cloud Services

Many services, e.g., in education and research, have witnessed increased productivity and scalability, mainly because of the growing prevalence of online platforms. To accelerate this progression, a detailed understanding of user interactions with these complex systems is instrumental. Current approaches for analyzing service user behavior have two main limitations: a unsupervised learning methods do not discriminate behavior meaningfully and scale poorly; and b surveys as input data probe only intentions. We introduce a framework to analyze user behavior in complex cloud services. Our objectives are a a computationally lean method to cope with large data sets and b for the input data to be free of assumptions. We define three data-driven metrics based only on the size and volume of data, using nested arrangements of zero and infinity norms. Using threshold analysis, user behavior data is categorized over one metric and subsequently verified over the other two metrics. We apply this method to analyze the behavior of users of nanoHUB services, the world's largest cyber-infrastructure for nanotechnology research and education. As input, actual user decisions are employed. The introduced frequency metric leads to a dispersion of usage duration. The resulting separated power and casual user categories are validated over the diversity and intensity metrics. Moreover, subcategories of previously unknown classroom users are identified. These findings allow policy makers to optimally tailor educational programs to such uncoordinated groups. Given nanoHUB's size, its leading role in educational services, and the approach's data-driven nature, the presented method is applicable to a wide range of cloud services.

[1]  Yun Huang,et al.  Team formation and performance on nanoHub: A network selection challenge in scientific communities , 2012 .

[2]  Ying Zhao,et al.  Influence Factors of Technology Acceptance Model in Mobile Learning , 2010, 2010 Fourth International Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computing.

[3]  Michael McLennan,et al.  HUBzero: A Platform for Dissemination and Collaboration in Computational Science and Engineering , 2010, Computing in Science & Engineering.

[4]  Raafat George Saadé,et al.  Viability of the "Technology Acceptance Model" in Multimedia Learning Environments: A Comparative Study , 2007 .

[5]  T. C. Edwin Cheng,et al.  The role of perceived user-interface design in continued usage intention of self-paced e-learning tools , 2009, Comput. Educ..

[6]  Gerhard Klimeck,et al.  nanoHUB.org: Advancing Education and Research in Nanotechnology , 2008, Computing in Science & Engineering.

[7]  Keenan A. Pituch,et al.  The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use , 2006, Comput. Educ..

[8]  Rupert G. Miller,et al.  Survival Analysis , 2022, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[9]  Anol Bhattacherjee,et al.  Understanding Changes in Belief and Attitude Toward Information Technology Usage: A Theoretical Model and Longitudinal Test , 2004, MIS Q..

[10]  J. Arbaugh,et al.  Technological and Structural Characteristics, Student Learning and Satisfaction with Web-Based Courses , 2002 .

[11]  Dowming Yeh,et al.  What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction , 2008, Comput. Educ..

[12]  Claudio O. Stöckle,et al.  Canopy photosynthesis and transpiration estimates using radiation interception models with different levels of detail , 1992 .

[13]  A. Ituma An evaluation of students’ perceptions and engagement with e-learning components in a campus based university , 2011 .

[14]  Gerhard Klimeck,et al.  Cyber-Enabled Simulations in Nanoscale Science and Engineering , 2010, Comput. Sci. Eng..

[15]  William Doherty,et al.  An analysis of multiple factors affecting retention in Web-based community college courses , 2006, Internet High. Educ..

[16]  Sevgi Özkan,et al.  Multi-dimensional students' evaluation of e-learning systems in the higher education context: An empirical investigation , 2009, Comput. Educ..

[17]  Chin-Chung Tsai,et al.  An investigation of Taiwan University students' perceptions of online academic help seeking, and their web-based learning self-efficacy , 2011, Internet High. Educ..

[18]  Pei-Chun Shih,et al.  The effect of previous experience with information and communication technologies on performance in a Web-based learning program , 2006, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[19]  Cheng-Hsun Ho,et al.  Continuance Intention of e-Learning Platform: Toward an Integrated Model , 2010, Int. J. Electron. Bus. Manag..

[20]  Fred D. Davis Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[21]  Gerhard Klimeck,et al.  Learning and research in the cloud. , 2013, Nature nanotechnology.

[22]  G. Schatz,et al.  Northwestern University Initiative for Teaching NanoSciences (NUITNS): An Approach for Teaching Computational Chemistry to Engineering Undergraduate Students , 2011 .

[23]  I-Chiu Chang,et al.  Exploring academic teachers' continuance toward the web-based learning system: The role of causal attributions , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[24]  Philippe Aurier,et al.  Consideration Set Size and Familiarity With Usage Context , 2000 .

[25]  Hong Kian Sam,et al.  Computer Self-Efficacy, Computer Anxiety, and Attitudes toward the Internet: A Study among Undergraduates in Unimas , 2005, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[26]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies , 2000, Management Science.

[27]  Bernadette Szajna,et al.  Empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model , 1996 .

[28]  Camille Dickson-Deane,et al.  e-Learning, online learning, and distance learning environments: Are they the same? , 2011, Internet High. Educ..

[29]  Anil K. Jain Data clustering: 50 years beyond K-means , 2010, Pattern Recognit. Lett..

[30]  Gerhard Klimeck,et al.  ABACUS and AQME: Semiconductor Device and Quantum Mechanics Education on nanoHUB.org , 2009, 2009 13th International Workshop on Computational Electronics.

[31]  David S. Ebert,et al.  Hub-based Simulation and Graphics Hardware Accelerated Visualization for Nanotechnology Applications , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[32]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Powering E-Learning In the New Millennium: An Overview of E-Learning and Enabling Technology , 2003, Inf. Syst. Frontiers.

[33]  Tsung-Hsien Kuo,et al.  How can one amplify the effect of e-learning? An examination of high-tech employees' computer attitude and flow experience , 2010, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[34]  D. Billings,et al.  Best practices in Web-based courses: generational differences across undergraduate and graduate nursing students. , 2005, Journal of professional nursing : official journal of the American Association of Colleges of Nursing.

[35]  Gerhard Klimeck,et al.  The NCN: Science, Simulation, and Cyber Services , 2006 .

[36]  Gerhard Klimeck,et al.  nanoHUB.org: cloud-based services for nanoscale modeling, simulation, and education , 2013 .

[37]  K. Hong Relationships between students' and instructional variables with satisfaction and learning from a Web-based course , 2002, Internet High. Educ..

[38]  Ming-Chi Lee,et al.  Explaining and predicting users' continuance intention toward e-learning: An extension of the expectation-confirmation model , 2010, Comput. Educ..

[39]  Raafat George Saadé,et al.  Computer Anxiety in E-Learning: The Effect of Computer Self-Efficacy , 2009, J. Inf. Technol. Educ..

[40]  Marjan Hericko,et al.  A meta-analysis of e-learning technology acceptance: The role of user types and e-learning technology types , 2011, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[41]  C. Twigg Improving Learning and Reducing Costs: New Models for Online Learning , 2003 .

[42]  A. K. M. Najmul Islam,et al.  Investigating e-learning system usage outcomes in the university context , 2013, Comput. Educ..