So this afternoon, an unusual request sent me down a rabbit hole.
A colleague over in ITS asked me what seemed on the surface a relatively simple question: how many students that enroll come from rural environments within Pennsylvania?
During the course of the conversation, I expanded that to include those who visit our website but might not end up enrolling who were from Pennsylvania, since a lot of Penn State's services also assist those outside of the officially-affiliated Penn State community. Not to mention that was an easier number to come by, relatively speaking.
To that end, I went to our web analytics and expanded to look over the course of a year. Just on the high end of traffic, it was pretty easy to see the major population centers in the commonwealth. Likewise, by going to the low end of traffic, you could see the less densely populated areas, though this was less accurate. But here we run into the problem that folks from rural environments may not be online, and thus not even making it onto this count.
So what about our enrollment numbers? There's no checkmark (rural/urban) for us to bounce against, thus the Penn State Fact Book doesn't list it, nor have we ever run these numbers before. After talking to one of my data-minded colleagues, our best solution was to tap into our sociology folks at the university for a list of "rural" zip codes: once we had that, from there we could run these numbers with some degree of accuracy. Problem is, even a ballpark was tough to come by until we had some definitions like this.
Simple question, yes? Not so very.
Showing posts with label testing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label testing. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Usability in admissions
So as of yesterday, I've been approved to move forward with some usability testing on our online application for admission. As an excellent bonus, I'll be allowed to waive the application fee of the students who help us by letting them observe them.
Our Directors Planning Team, which collectively makes most of the important decisions in the office (which I'm a member of), was somewhat characteristically interested in the details. Who are we testing? Just students who visit? Out-of-state students? Students in the different regions of Pennsylvania? Those who visit our Community Recruitment Centers? I took it a step farther to make it clear that breadth isn't necessarily our aim considering our resources for the project--as of yet, I have no further funding approved--by suggesting transfers and international students. Further than that, we should look at adult students. But if I intend to test 5 - 10 students, there's no way we'll hit all these populations. How do we balance my funding, resources, support, and time? Not to mention equipment and travel, possibly?
The easy answer is: we don't. Keeping it simple and keeping it close to home (so to speak) keeps it feasible. And we'll get plenty of useful feedback just with that, potentially more than we can change in the time we have. If I get the funding and time I need, though, the equation changes completely.
This morning (during the Spend a Summer Day admissions presentation, I'll admit, with the caveat that I've seen it five times now) I started mulling over my own questions about the project, which in some ways I find more important. What should we ask on a pre- or post-survey? Do we really strip this down to make it fast and easy and not have either? Do I want to publish/speak on this topic and thus slow us down with the IRB process? (No, probably not. What we do now falls under process-improvement and hasn't required one thus far.)
Should I contact my Usability Engineering instructor from last semester and see if he knows a student who might be interested in helping with this very important research? Do we want to try to include someone with accessibility issues to make the point that we need to work on that end of things? (One rule of usability testing is not to go in with an agenda, so I probably shouldn't pursue this.)
The questions go on and on.
In the end, we'll probably end up on the end of a stripped-down version, because doing that way gets it done. Getting ambitious may mean it doesn't happen, and I'd hate for that to occur. We need to know what real students do rather than continuing to make suppositions.
Our Directors Planning Team, which collectively makes most of the important decisions in the office (which I'm a member of), was somewhat characteristically interested in the details. Who are we testing? Just students who visit? Out-of-state students? Students in the different regions of Pennsylvania? Those who visit our Community Recruitment Centers? I took it a step farther to make it clear that breadth isn't necessarily our aim considering our resources for the project--as of yet, I have no further funding approved--by suggesting transfers and international students. Further than that, we should look at adult students. But if I intend to test 5 - 10 students, there's no way we'll hit all these populations. How do we balance my funding, resources, support, and time? Not to mention equipment and travel, possibly?
The easy answer is: we don't. Keeping it simple and keeping it close to home (so to speak) keeps it feasible. And we'll get plenty of useful feedback just with that, potentially more than we can change in the time we have. If I get the funding and time I need, though, the equation changes completely.
This morning (during the Spend a Summer Day admissions presentation, I'll admit, with the caveat that I've seen it five times now) I started mulling over my own questions about the project, which in some ways I find more important. What should we ask on a pre- or post-survey? Do we really strip this down to make it fast and easy and not have either? Do I want to publish/speak on this topic and thus slow us down with the IRB process? (No, probably not. What we do now falls under process-improvement and hasn't required one thus far.)
Should I contact my Usability Engineering instructor from last semester and see if he knows a student who might be interested in helping with this very important research? Do we want to try to include someone with accessibility issues to make the point that we need to work on that end of things? (One rule of usability testing is not to go in with an agenda, so I probably shouldn't pursue this.)
The questions go on and on.
In the end, we'll probably end up on the end of a stripped-down version, because doing that way gets it done. Getting ambitious may mean it doesn't happen, and I'd hate for that to occur. We need to know what real students do rather than continuing to make suppositions.
Labels:
accessibility,
One Post a Day,
projects,
psu,
PSU Blogging,
tech,
testing,
usability,
work
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)