1. IPEDS Data Retrieval Center Design
SHEEO Presentation April 17, 2008

2. Project questions & Methods
What are the needs of IPEDS data users, especially novices and those outside the traditional institutional research (IR) community?
How well are the current IPEDS online tools meeting those needs?
What additional tools or features of current tools are needed for a complete suite of tools and IPEDS Data Center?
Methods
Unstructured interviews/focus groups
Extensive review of current tools including flow and functions
Review of tools in comparison to other available tools
Documentation of different audiences for tools
Analysis of web server logs

3. Server log analysis

4. Server log analysis

5. Server log analysis – cont.

6. Server log analysis – cont.
Only 2007 data available, w/ no discernible trend across months
Almost 10K users of the IPEDS tools each month
Peak use in February, slight decline in May
DAS gets little attention w/ 228 average users per month. Slightly more than half of all traffic is to the PAS (4,848), followed by the DCT (2,600) and the ExPT (1,666)
Only half of users (54.3%) get to the point of creating a product, with DAS 25.9%, ExPT 33.6%, PAS 56.3%, and DCT 76.7%

7. Sample feature comparison

8. Types of tools
Data comparison tools (17, including 5 at ED) IPEDS DCT IPEDS PAS IPEDS ExPT NCES Compare Public Libraries NCES Compare Academic Libraries
Institution Finder/Profile tools (27, including 8 at ED) NCES College Navigator IPEDS COOL OPE Campus Security Statistics Equity in Athletics NCES Public School District Search NCES Public & Private School Search NCES Public Library Search NCES Search for Schools, Colleges & Libraries
Table Generator tools (12, including 2 at ED) DASOL NCES State Education Data Profiles

9. Types of tools
The 54 tools included 112 different features & 85 sub-features
The availability of features varies with the tools
Common basic features include: - viewing results online in HTML format (52 tools) - providing contact information (51) - selecting schools based on criteria (41) - presenting search results (39)
Evolution of the tools is still at an early stage, subject to the vagaries of funding & organizations’ unique vision for data sharing
While there are models to follow, these are more in the use of specific features, such as crosstabs, dynamic reports, & widgets

10. Study conclusions
IPEDS data are being used more than ever & in a wide range of publication types
IPEDS is viewed as an important source of data for dissertations & peer-refereed journals
The IPEDS tools are rich in features & meet a variety of needs
Many models exist for how to share data, but none are any more compelling than those of IPEDS, which are as good if not better than other available tools

11. Key study recommendations
Improve the time it takes to retrieve data
Improve displays
Facilitate simple requests
Simplify the process to decrease abandonment
Break apart the tools into features that could function individually, with interoperability
Step-by-step process
Integrate data from other sources
Provide different levels of aggregation, with drill-down capability
Provide a single login that works across all four tools

12. Key study recommendations cont.
Include a set of unique audience pages
Create a “My IPEDS” page
Convert all of the tools to .NET & make more use of widgets
Modernize and increase navigation capabilities, with a clear “road map”
Create a “Report Wizard”
Incorporate web-based, dynamic, data-driven reports
Allow three types of access: (1) final data; (2) preliminary data; and (3) collection level
Keep all user IDs, passwords, peer comparison groups, master variable lists, & table parameter files online, stored in a special NCES database table which allows users to manage & share these files

13. Recommendations–other features
Alpha browse of school names
Select/de-select institutions by type (Title IV, tribal, & other school types)
Automatically incorporate allocated parent/child data
Provide additional selection typologies
Toggle back & forth between yearly & trend data sector, control, level, Carnegie classifications, state, location, etc.
Provide more single-record and merged data
Make qualifying and categorical variables easier to use
Clarify & simplify key data
Increase training for all levels of users, especially for analysis
Acquire needs data from audience groups

14. User-specific recommendations
Diverse Users
Make the tools question-driven
Don’t make the user learn all about IPEDS just to get the data
Provide lists of schools compiled using different selection criteria
Provide reports and datasets related to specific research/ policy analysis topics
New Users
Include help manuals that are searchable & printable, including material written especially for new users, audience-specific manuals, a glossary of terms, and contextual help
Explain confidentiality and perturbation
Tell new users what is not in IPEDS