Synchronously Growing MS:EdIT and UCS's VDI Capacities

Last Updated on Sunday, 18 March 2012 20:12 Written by Administrator Sunday, 18 March 2012 18:56

Synchronously Growing MS:EdIT and UCS's VDI Capacities

CAVEATS: This is intended to document my creative scholarly work and tilling of potential ground for future grant applications, future publication, future research, program growth, and horizontal support and networking in different WOU divisions. My opinions and perspectives are my own and in now way represent or reflect the opinions or perspectives of my colleagues, WOU, or anyone else. I believe in and support transparency as ethical professional practice; I cannot promote transparency without practicing it. Finally, this is exploratory work considering the possibilities and potentials. There is, thus far, no commitment to anything. There has been no proof of viability.

 

About the writing: I recognize that the writing may be a bit convoluted, and there may not be clear categories. However, this is not a final document. This is a draft inclusion of multiple elements which comprise a complex system, and I'm proposing a research practice that would bring potential changes that could have significant positive impacts on the fiscal success of MS:EdIT, UCS, and/or CoE and DEP.

Executive Summary

Taking the Shortest Path with Greatest Potential

I've avoided the long discourse, the technical jargon, and the specifics about implementation in the name of presenting an overview. In short, I think establishing a research program about improving online graduate students' UX in MS:EdIT could be the frame through which we acquire technology, like a server blade, which, in all likelihood, will at least double response times. Such speed and implementation could allow for development of more software-based courses which in turn supports the development of certificate programs as well as other forms of professional training. While this will require additional faculty/adjuncts, course creations/design, and the hidden costs of infrastructure, the students who would populate these programs could represent a valuable economic growth for everyone.

 

The Full Version

Since mid-February, I have spent several sessions of one to several hours speaking with Bill K. learning how telecomm at WOU works. These conversations had, at root, multiple motivators.

 

1. As an Assistant Professor of Educational Technology, I believe I need at least a working familiarity with the system, networks, and tools that support online education as well as computer-supported learning.
2. Following reason 1, it is important to develop a stable, quality, and mutually beneficial working relationship with UCS.
3. Recognizing that the NFS, NEH, Department of Education, and corporate entities often support projects that synthesize computers and education, research that explores these areas have a better shot than most of getting larger grants/funding than traditional humanities grants. As I am interested in longitudinal research that employs one or several graduate students over a period of several years, this requires significant funding from non-WOU funders. Understanding this, I know that such research projects need to address the funders' interests, goals, and primary areas. I also do not have the necessary knowledge for many of these grants to be the PI. Thus, I need to increase my knowledge while exploring the potential of having one or several other co-PIs. This exploratory process is part of this larger consideration.
4. As of April, 2012, my load increases to full FTE and I will not have nearly as much time to spend on such a project. Thus, conducting tentative evaluations early was critical.
5. I had numerous potentials floating around loose in my head. Given the two months on campus with limited responsibilities, this was an ideal time to evaluate potentials and remove illusions, impractical ideas, and/or dead weight.

At this point, after multiple discussions with Bill K. and other staff about graduate student funding, hiring part-time support staff, and learning some basics about current issues at WOU--an infrastructure completely new to me--several potential projects appear possible. Some are viable for grants, others for research or publication, and others for all three. The best options, however, are those that provide WOU with additional resources at high ROI and/or grow the MS:EdIT program.

Themes/Goals Framing This Project

Measuring User Experience and Quality

At the root of most of my work, I want to know how people are experiencing technologies and use of technologies at WOU. Specifically, I am interested MS:EdIT students' experiences when working through the terminal log-in system. As I understand it, that is currently the only way for students to access programs on campus. However, there is the possibility of developing virtual desktops for them to interface--and this could accelerate the speed of interaction and improve their experience. However, we currently do no know what their UX is like. While I have heard grumblings from faculty and staff about terminal log-in and response time, I have not heard from any students.

Present in any of this research will be measurements of UX, establishing current levels of UX, and how the UX may have changed with addition/inclusion of new technologies or shifts in the network structure or delivery of service.

In addition to the graduate students as users, faculty users are also essential. Faculty are the ones who create and teach courses--or determine to not teach courses--online based on the IT capacity. As such, if faculty perceive improved UX which can enable them to teach courses previously impossible, or if they sense little or no change and thus no new courses (and thus new students), faculty impressions will shape the entire process.

 

Growing the MS:EdIT Program

This is part of my job description, so it defines and frames almost every activity I'm engaged in: can this be used to grow the MS:EdIT program? From what I can tell, almost all of the potential research projects/iterations surrounding different technologies (from blade to flash cache/ssd combo) will impact the MS:EdIT program in a positive manner. However, the impact can be passive, where the MS:EdIT program goes along and does not act or make decisions based upon the new capacities the impact could be limited, where the MS:EdIT program plans with the technological development to an extent, but is limited by other internal or external events/circumstance/policies which were not anticipated or existent when the implementation began; the impact could be significant where UCS and MS:EdIT plan technological growth/improvement and coordinate MS:EdIT's long-term program, course, and content development goals in parallel with UCS while obtaining the necessary political support and will of other vested entities that can help sustain such a project for three to five years.

VDI

There are many ways to present, host, and provide VDI. Most of these ways cost between $13,000 or so for a new server blade to over $40,000 for SSDs and flash caches. Multiple approaches and iterations are possible. These iterations are what make longitudinal research, study, and grant applications possible: apply for a blade to initially host the VDI; how does that change the UX response compared to baseline. Add in Fibre Channel; how does that change things? Add in an independent flash cache and/or SSD; is there any significant growth or change to users' experience of VDI?

In terms of UX research, the number of different VDI and its components do not seem as important--how the black box shifts or changes is important to the techs, the people working the back end. So, while I want to work to improve the grad student UX, they don't need to know how or why. That said, being able to measure and evaluate a number of different potential ways to provide VDI to users offers the chance to apply for multiple grants, obtain multiple types/kinds of hardware that can benefit UCS and WOU in addition to COE. It also enables long-term research. For the short-term goal of improving UX, this is not as important as simply getting VDI started.

 

 

Other Elements in This Picture

What Users are Doing and Cannot Do

At each level of research and usage, we need to clearly document which kind of activities users are actively engaged in; don't measure just what they say they do but also measure, if possible, what kinds of applications are used when people are logged in. Similarly, we need to measure expectations: do people even try to use certain software virtually or via terminals/VDI, or do they assume it is too slow or not possible? Have they had one or two bad/limiting experiences? Did that bias them? Or?

We don't know what or how users are using their time on terminals; we need to find out what they are doing and what frustrations they have in order to get the biggest ROI in addressing user satisfaction.

Note: This is also a critical element, I think, in terms of public relations and winning institutional support for current and future initiatives which include spending for technology/gear that most of the public may not understand.

Terminal Services

A number of faculty and staff use WOU's terminal services. I do not know enough about this to comment on it. However, this is an important access point and option, and it's speed, responsiveness, and UX should be documented--especially if users rely on it to do some of their graduate work.

Worst Case Scenarios

I foresee several possible terrible scenarios that could emerge:

 

1. Step 1 or Step 2 of the research process hits and there is no change or improvement in UX and/or no improvement in the delivery of services to users. Thus, minimal or no growth happens with the MS:EdIT program. Upside: we still will have new hardware/software that can be used by CoE and/or UCS.
2. Too many people enroll, like the VDI, or want the VDI--demand outstrips what we can provide. Upside: while there may be crashes, this can be controlled by limiting the number of people who have access to the VDI and, if it proves popular, support an intelligent increase and scaling of services that is fiscally supported by those entities/departments who want VDI. Overall, I think this is a positive problem--one that you would like to have, but it can also be avoided with proper planning.
3. No one supports the grant applications. If this happens, this is dead in the water and the point is moot.
4. Stakeholders have different expectations and are not satisfied with results/findings. Much of this can be avoided by clear documentation of deliverables, expectations, and what is regarded as measurable success or failure. Ensuring regular communications as well as deliverable dates is essential.

 

 

 

NOTE: I put that collection of caveats up top to avoid any potential misreadings or misunderstandings. If you have any questions, please re-read those caveats.