Categorizing Users of Cloud Services

References

• Al-Busaidi KA (2009) The impact of learning management system characteristics and user characteristics on the acceptance of e-learning. Internat. J. Global Management Stud. 1:75–91.Google Scholar
• Arbaugh JB, Duray R (2002) Technological and structural characteristics, student learning and satisfaction with Web-based courses: An exploratory study of two on-line MBA programs. Management Learn. 33(3):331–347.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aurier P, Jean S, Zaichkowsky JL (2000) Consideration set size and familarity with usage context. Adv. Consumer Res. 27:307–313.Google Scholar
• Bhattacherjee A, Premkumar G (2004) Understanding changes in belief and attitude toward information technology usage: A theoretical model and longitudinal test. MIS Quart. 28:229–254.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Billings DM, Skiba DJ, Connors HR (2005) Best practices in Web-based courses: Generational differences across undergraduate and graduate nursing students. J. Professional Nursing 21:126–133.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cheng KH, Tsai CC (2011) An investigation of Taiwan University students’ perceptions of online academic help seeking, and their Web-based learning self-efficacy. Internet Higher Ed. 14(3):150–157.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cho V, Cheng TCE, Lai WMJ (2009) The role of perceived user-interface design in continued usage intention of self-paced e-learning tools. Comput. Ed. 53:216–227.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quart. 13:319–340.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Doherty W (2006) An analysis of multiple factors affecting retention in Web-based community college courses. Internet Higher Ed. 9(4): 245–255.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fischer E (1907) Sur la convergence en moyenne. CR Acad. Sci. Paris 144:1022–1024.Google Scholar
• Ho CH (2010) Continuance intention of e-learning platform: Toward an integrated model. Internat. J. Electronic Bus. Management 8:206–215.Google Scholar
• Ho LA, Kuo TH (2010) How can one amplify the effect of e-learning? An examination of high-tech employees’ computer attitude and flow experience. Comput. Human Behav. 26:23–31.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hong KS (2002) Relationships between students’ and instructional variables with satisfaction and learning from a Web-based course. Internet Higher Ed. 5(3):267–281.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hung MC, Chang IC, Hwang HG (2011) Exploring academic teachers continuance toward the Web-based learning system: The role of causal attributions. Comput. Ed. 57(2):1530–1543.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Islam AKMN (2013) Investigating e-learning system usage outcomes in the university context. Comput. Ed. 69:387–399.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ituma A (2011) An evaluation of students’ perceptions and engagement with e-learning components in a campus based university. Active Learn. Higher Ed. 12:57–68.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jain AK (2010) Data clustering: 50 years beyond k-means. Pattern Recognition Lett. 31(8):651–666.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kleinbaum DG, Klein M (1996) Survival Analysis (Springer, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klimeck G, Vasileska D (2009) ABACUS and AQME: Semiconductor device and quantum mechanics education on nanohub.org. Comput. Electronics, 2009. IWCE’09. 13th Internat. Workshop (IEEE, Beijing), 1–4.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klimeck G, McLennan M, Brophy SP, Adams GB, Lundstrom MS (2008) nanoHUB.org: Advancing education and research in nanotechnology. Comput. Sci. Engrg. 10(5):17–23.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee MC (2010) Explaining and predicting users’ continuance intention toward e-learning: An extension of the expectation-confirmation model. Comput. Ed. 54:506–516.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lundstrom M, Klimeck G (2006) The NCN: Science, simulation, and cyber services. Emerging Technologies-Nanoelectronics, 2006 IEEE Conf. (IEEE, Singapore), 496–500.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Madhavan K, Zentner M, Klimeck G (2013a) Learning and research in the cloud. Nature Nanotechnology 8:786–789.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Madhavan K, Zentner L, Farnsworth V, Shivarajapura S, Zentner M, Denny N, Klimeck G (2013b) nanoHUB.org: Cloud-based services for nanoscale modeling, simulation, and education. Nanotechnology Rev. 2(1):107–117.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Margolin D, Ognyanoya K, Huang M, Huang Y, Contractor N (2012) Team formation and performance on nanoHUB: A network selection challenge in scientific communities. Vedres B, Scotti M, eds. Networks in Social Policy Problems (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA), 80–100.Google Scholar
• McLennan M, Kennell R (2010) HUBzero: A platform for dissemination and collaboration in computational science and engineering. Comput. Sci. Engrg. 12(2):48–53.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moore J, Dickson-Deane C, Galyen K (2011) e-Learning, online learning, and distance learning environments: Are they the same? Internet Higher Ed. 14:129–135.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Network for Computational Nanotechnology (NCN) (2015) nanoHub. Accessed July 1, 2015, http://nanoHUB.org.Google Scholar
• Nohadani O, Zheng A (2015) Robust multi-objective clustering. Working paper, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.Google Scholar
• Ozkan S, Koseler R (2009) Multi-dimensional students’ evaluation of e-learning systems in the higher education context: An empirical investigation. Comput. Ed. 53:1285–1296.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pituch KA, Lee YK (2006) The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use. Comput. Ed. 47(2):222–244.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Qiao W, McLennan M, Kennell R, Ebert DS, Klimeck G (2006) Hub-based simulation and graphics hardware accelerated visualization for nanotechnology applications. IEEE Trans. Visualization Comput. Graphics 12(5):1061–1068.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Riesz F (1907) Sur les systèmes orthogonaux de fonctions. CR Acad. Sci. Paris 144:615–619.Google Scholar
• Saadé R, Kira D (2009) Computer anxiety in e-learning: The effect of computer self-efficacy. J. Inform. Tech. Ed.: Res. 8(1):177–191.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Saadé R, Nebebe F, Tan W (2007) Viability of the “technology acceptance model” in multimedia learning environments: A comparative study. Interdisciplinary J. E-Learn. Learn. Objects 3(1):175–184.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sam HK, Othman AEA, Nordin ZS (2005) Computer self-efficacy, computer anxiety, and attitudes toward the internet: A study among undergraduates in Unimas. Ed. Tech. Soc. 8:205–219.Google Scholar
• Shih PC, Muñoz D, Sánchez F (2006) The effect of previous experience with information and communication technologies on performance in a Web-based learning program. Comput. Human Behav. 22(6):962–970.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simeon T, Aikens CM, Tejerina B, Schatz GC (2011) Northwestern University initiative for teaching nanosciences (NUITNS): An approach for teaching computational chemistry to engineering undergraduate students. J. Chemical Ed. 88(8):1079–1084.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stockle CO (1992) Canopy photosynthesis and transpiration estimates using radiation interception models with different levels of detail. Ecological Modelling 60(1):31–44.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Strachan A, Klimeck G, Lundstrom M (2010) Cyber-enabled simulations in nanoscale science and engineering. Comput. Sci. Engrg. 12(2):12–17.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Šumak B, Heričko M, Pušnik M (2011) A meta-analysis of e-learning technology acceptance: The role of user types and e-learning technology types. Comput. Human Behav. 27:2067–2077.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sun PC, Tsai RJ, Finger G, Chen YY, Yeh D (2008) What drives a successful e-learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Comput. Ed. 50(4):1183–1202.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Szajna B (1996) Empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model. Management Sci. 42(1):85–92.Link, Google Scholar
• Twigg CA (2003) Improving learning and reducing costs: New models for online learning. Educause Rev. 38:28–38.Google Scholar
• Venkatesh V, Davis FD (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Sci. 46(2):186–204.Link, Google Scholar
• Zhang D, Nunamaker JF (2003) Powering e-learning in the new millennium: An overview of e-learning and enabling technology. Inform. Systems Frontiers 5:207–218.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhao Y, Zhu Q (2010) Influence factors of technology acceptance model in mobile learning. Fourth Internat. Conf. Genetic and Evolutionary Comput (ICGEC) (IEEE, Beijing), 542–545.Google Scholar