Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
An Exploration of Dublin Core Metadata in the National Science Digital Library Open Educational Resource
A RESEARCH PAPER
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of
MASTER’S In INFORMATION SCIENCE at
San Jose State University San Jose, California
By
Cathryn Neiswender
For Dr. Mary Bolin
Summer Semester, Metadata Research
August 7, 2015
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 3 Statement of the Problem ........................................................................ 4 Research Question ..................................................................................... 5 Methodology ............................................................................................. 5 Definitions of Key Terms ............................................................................ 5
LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................... 6 Structural Aspects of Metadata ................................................................. 6 How Metadata Opens Access and Organizes Information ......................... 8 The Interoperability of Metadata Makes a Difference ................................ 9 Metadata Components and Education ...................................................... 11 The National Science Digital Library Dublin Core Metadata ...................... 12 Summary of Literature Review .................................................................. 12
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................................... 13 FINDINGS ............................................................................................................. 14
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ..................................................................................... 21 Results ...................................................................................................... 21 Discussion ................................................................................................. 22 Conclusion ................................................................................................. 23 List of References ...................................................................................... 24
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................ 28 Appendix A: 15 Metadata Elements of Dublin Core ................................... 28
2
List of Figures
Figure 1: NSDL Technical Platform ............................................................... 15
Figure 2: Overview of NSDL Media Format Collections ................................. 16
Figure 3: Overview of NSDL Material Type Collections ................................. 16
Figure 4: The Conditions of Use within the NDL Collections ......................... 17
Figure 5: Overview of NSDL Resources by Level ........................................... 18
Figure 6: Overview of NSDL Resources by Discipline .................................... 18
Figure 7: Find a Resource .............................................................................. 19
Figure 8: 2007 and 2015 NSDL Website Headers ........................................... 21
Figure 9: Comparison of Resources from 2007-2015 ..................................... 21
List of Tables
Table 1: Educational Resource Collections ................................................... 17
Table 2: General Search ................................................................................ 20
Table 3: Advanced Search ............................................................................ 20
3
INTRODUCTION
Lois Lowry’s The Giver creatively draws our thoughts to the value of knowledge and the beauty
of shared information at the expense of a utopian society (1993). Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit
451ingeniously describes a desolate, hopeless world without books (1953). A study of the history of
libraries intrigues readers with cloistered reading privileges for the noble and locked collections of
papyrus in contrast to access in the renaissance, printing or industrial age (Krasner-Khait, 2001). The
power of information transforms the world.
Access to information is vital. Like an antenna metadata increases access, provides diverse
reception properties, cancels out interference factors and steers users to optimal information.
Kimball, Ross, Thornthwaite, Munday, & Becker (2008) describe, “Metadata as the DNA of the data
warehouse driving the warehouse and providing flexibility” (para. 2). Kimball describes multiple data
systems and reminds readers metadata is a dynamic factor in repositories, programs and utilities that
make systems work. Ralph Kimball is a seminal creator who establishes a foundation for the use and
understanding of metadata. Becker (2014) describes Kimball’s work in the concept of leveraging
queries. He defines the fundamental ideas and processes of metadata in relationship to the efficiency
of individual searches. Kimball established metadata properties and clear designs in his Toolkit books
and online resources, and public university to facilitate access to information in several arenas.
Kimball (1998) writes; “Now we can see why we didn’t know what this metadata was all about. It is
everything! Except for the data itself - Suddenly, the data seems like the simplest part” (p. 4).
Dublin Core (DC) is a set of metadata elements. DC builds on the work Machine Readable
4
Cataloging (MARC) achieved and provides card catalog style descriptive material properties. DC is a
discovery/retrieval system named after Dublin, Ohio where it was created. Fred Kilgour founded the
Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) which joined a collaborative group of libraries to create and
maintain WorldCat, the largest Online Public Access Catalog (OPAC). DC was created in the 1995
OCLC conference invitation only workshop. It uses 15 core metadata elements (Appendix A). DC
constructed 2 systems (with and without qualifiers) upon the foundation MARC established. It added
interoperability factors and flexibility which are vitally important in 21st century education classrooms
where students read, complete assignments, research, and communicate on multiple devices.
Statement of the Problem
In fall 2011-2012 10.5 million students enrolled in a public California community college (CC)
(NCES, 2013). Rifkin (2015) reports the 1,100 CC(s) in our nation educate approximately half of the
nation’s undergraduates. Student populations inspire a broad scope of instructional and curricular
demands related to achievement, persistence and success. The use of multiple, efficient curricular and
instructional digital devices are vital. DC metadata is challenged to incorporate effective search
formats. The National Science Digital Library (NSDL) designed a repository of resources with open
access using a modified DC metadata format. Literature informs us that effectively designed access to
information translates into time efficiency. There is a gap of knowledge related to how the use of DC
metadata leads to effective and efficient search alternatives. The problem this study addresses is how
the NSDL-DC metadata search alternatives compare in access, time efficiency and findability of
instruction, learning strategies and curricular resources for CC lower division courses. This research
study will collect data to understand how metadata effectively supports instructors as they meet the
5
expectations and mandatory requirements related to instruction (AACC, 2015).
Research Question
The research included understanding if DC metadata is provides higher access and efficient
time usage to find instructional resources. The NSDL incorporated a modified DC metadata system to
develop two search pathways. The following research question will guide this research study: How
effective is the NSDL-DC metadata used in the general and advanced search systems to find resources
for CC lower division teaching and learning strategies?
Methodology
To answer this question multiple academic searches designed with similar if not exact search
components relating to CC lower division curriculum or instructional strategies using the NSDL-DC
metadata general or advanced search systems were completed. Each search and the time it took to
find the specific information was recorded. These data were normalized and compiled to find and
analyze the effectiveness and efficiency of the NSDL–DC metadata search capabilities.
In addition data regarding the system design and structure were reported to understand the
components of metadata that correlate to effective and efficient search capabilities. These data
revealed components of development. The data includes a brief overview of the resources and the
expanded use of NSDL-DC metadata search systems.
Definitions of Key Terms
MARC. Machine Readable Cataloging is a communication format that uses several principles,
standards and shared community principles as Dublin Core designed to work with interoperability.
6
MODS. Metadata Object Description Schema is a metadata format.
NISO. The National Information Standards Organization establishes and maintains the
vocabulary and format standards for publication and access.
NSDL. The National Science Digital Library provides resources for instruction.
OPAC. The Online Public Access Catalogue broadens access to information.
RDF. Resource Description Framework is the 2013+ standard interoperable cataloging code.
TEI. The 1998 Text Encoding Initiative is a collective group that developed and upholds an
encoding standard with a set of principles called the Poughkeepsie Principles.
URI. Uniform Resource Identifiers pointing to web addresses of a property’s official definition.
XML. Extensible Markup Language facilitates coding for a metadata schema Bolin (2015)
reports is referred to as the “acid-free paper of the digital age (slide 7).”
LITERATURE REVIEW
Metadata creates accessibility to information by navigating multiple factors within an online
environment. Designing and implementing metadata that leads to specific information is a complex
task. Metadata frameworks include varied schemes, syntax and models to increase effective access
and organize information. This literature review includes an overview of the structure of metadata,
how metadata opens access and organizes information, and how interoperability increases use. It
includes samples of metadata structures and introduces the NSDL.
Structural Aspects of Metadata
Metadata describes single or collective resources. Itis usually stored separately from items.
Guenther & Radebaugh (2004) explain how descriptive metadata helps organize, integrate, and
7
retrieve resources. It facilitates interoperability. It enriches archiving and preservation which extends
lifecycles and compiles collections of similar resources with cross-referencing capabilities. Insight into
metadata structures leads to a better understanding of information retrieval and informs interactions
between humans and machines. The standardized principles and protocols of metadata function as a
guide to optimal information in various disciplines and formats. The NSDL uses DC metadata to
provide a collection of disparate resources in an index to increase cross-repository searching.
Metadata uses different identifiers including: URL (Uniform Resource Locator); PURL
(Persistent URL); URI (Uniform Resource Identifier); or DOI (Digital Object Identifier). Metadata is the
electronic card file and follows established principles, semantics, and values to describe items.
Established syntax encoding rules, capitalization, punctuation, controlled vocabularies, and elements
build a metadata scheme. SGML (Standard Generalized Mark-up Language) and XML (Extensible
Mark-up Language) are common metadata syntax.
The Dublin Core (DC) metadata element set has 15 core elements (Appendix A). The DC
Metadata Initiative manages the set and strives to be simple, flexible and interoperable. Since its 1995
launch experts have debated how to keep the syntax and semantics simple. DC maintains optional
and repeatable elements with controlled values where possible. It facilitates open content and
domain-specific rules. These rules allow broader use of DC and increase discovery (Hillman, 2015).
Guenther & Radebaugh (2004) provide insight into metadata initiatives. The Text Encoding
Initiative (TEI) and the Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS) are valued in
instruction and curriculum. They have developed electronic texts in the humanities discipline and
established ways to manage and organize access and retrieval of worldwide information. Metadata
8
Object Description Schema (MODS) is a derivative of MARC, but is simpler, facilitates better linkage,
and offers richer elements than DC. Coyle (2005) states, “MODS is the kinder, gentler MARC that
transmits elements into an easy to understand XML format” (p. 4). Curriculum and instructional
strategies benefit from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Learning
Technology Standards Committee (LTSC). They developed the Learning Object Metadata (LOM)
standard in 2002. It facilitates technology supported learning resources and defines a set of attributes
to use learning objects. LOM has eight categories and facilitates the IMS Global Learning Consortium
and the Meta-Data Information Model which enable interoperability and a broader base of
information (IEEE LTSC, 2006). Contemporary metadata include many schemes.
Bienkowski, Feng & Means (2012) demonstrate how data in structured formats are easier to
read and manipulate. Bolin (2015a) explains 3 important aspects of metadata: “(a) a set of elements;
(b) the semantics of the elements; their meaning or definition and (c) the syntax of the scheme: how it
is put together” (Slides 2-3). These 3 things must co-exist to ensure effective retrieval and use. DC’s
syntax is independent and prescribed. The DC metadata Initiative has a registry of applications. Bolin
explains how the markup language plays an important role in the look and work of a resource. These
standards are necessary to ensure higher levels of access. The most common markup language is
Extensible Markup Language (XML) (Slide 4). There are complex structural concepts in metadata.
Schield (2010) believes training users is an important element in using metadata, the interoperability,
and the effectual implementation of data into various disciplines and educational scenarios.
How Metadata Opens Access and Organizes Information
Metadata facilitates retrieval and use of information. Alfonzo (2014) discusses the concept of a
9
controlled vocabulary as the gate. He agrees with Schield that training users and creators will enrich
use. Alfonzo (2014) inspired use of the hashtag to open doors for teaching advanced searching
concepts. “... hashtags can streamline the instruction of authority control, controlled vocabularies,
subject headings, keyword searching versus subject searching, and indexing, etc.” (p. 4).The irony
between hashtags and metadata increased curiosity and combines behind-the-scene programming
with the social gateway.
Carlson, Fosmire, Miller, Sapp & Nelson (2011) propose value in evaluating students and
instructors as both users and creators of metadata. They agree there are deficiencies in understanding
and promote training to increase effectual educational tools. Harris (2009) discusses the “if you build
it, they will come” mentality and states, “Metadata management practices are necessary to create a
common language to make data more understandable, usable and trustworthy” and “Metadata plays
and integral role in determining data usage” (p. 5, 11). Bienkowski, Feng & Means (2012) proposed
profiling users to assist in the design and structure of metadata to increase retrieval and use. They
discussed how costs and time to collect user data contrasted with the value of user satisfaction.
Meyer (2014) describes a unified system for access and retrieval. His team developed a
centralized interface integrating metadata with a subscribed index of resources for 16 colleges. The
design included interoperability, the learning management systems, and the institutional networks.
The team is tracking use to inform the success and challenges. Stapleton, one of the librarians on the
team, stated they realized the value of “Cleaner metadata for better retrieval” (Meyer, 2014, p. 2).
The Interoperability of Metadata Makes a Difference
The Library of Congress (LC) (2009) plays an important role in the design of metadata that
10
develops increased interoperability. The launch of Extensible Markup Language (XML) schema
contrasted with Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) and was incorporated to increase flexibility and
interoperability. The current librarian, Dr. Billington, believes in digital libraries and the value of
metadata to establish domestic and international interoperability. He champions the LC National
Digital Library and continues to inspire the spread of information and a growing archive of historic and
cultural items. In 2005 he stated, “Most important for the possibility of building a World Digital
Library, we are working with all the stakeholder communities on finding answers to two crucial
questions: (1) how to strike the proper balance between protecting copyright and maximizing
accessibility on the Internet; and (2) how to create metadata (online equivalent of cataloging) and
interoperability that can create a unified and usable online library that is multimedia and
transcultural”(Billington, 2005, p. 2).
The contemporary discussion in literature is interoperability and how metadata can be used to
increase it. Bienkowski, Feng & Means (2012) expressed how metadata can detect boredom and
describe how the use of analytics facilitates metadata design to guide and nudge users into optimal
information pathways. Bolin (2015b) discussed IEEE-LOM’s nine categories or elements and focused
on the learning resource that facilitates attributes for instructors (simulation, questionnaires, exams,
experiments, lectures, assessment). The metadata provides easy access to specific artifacts or
strategies instructors incorporate (Slide 12). Sonwalkar (2002) shares that a broad acceptance of
learning technology standards will lead to shared resources between institutions. He, along with
others, is promoting Shareable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM) which is compliant data
that develops key interoperability. Bolin (2015b) demonstrated the steps to transition information
11
from one learning management system (LMS) to Canvas, the SCORM compliant, official California
LMS since 2014.
Carlson, Fosmire, Miller, Sapp & Nelson (2011) define discovery and use in the field of
metadata in this way, “the need to store, describe, organize, track, preserve and interoperate data
being generated by a multitude of researchers in order to make the data accessible and useable by
others for the long-term is a challenge to the management and curation of contemporary data” (p. 5).
They propose data management as a part of the training process and envision student involvement.
Metadata Components and Education
Bienkowski, Feng & Means (2012) believe that data mining and profiling user behavior will lead
to effective resources, strategies, and educational products. They recommend collaboration and
practical research applications to develop a culture to use data to inform decisions, motivate and
develop digital learning and communication. They recommended institutional partnerships and
consistent research of effective use, data and curricular alignment to illustrate how user profiles help
metadata guide users away from distractions to information. The key, they conclude, is stakeholder
collaboration. The Metadata Offers New Knowledge (MONK) project is a collection of digitized texts
to move educators to new learning patterns.
The National Forum on Education Statistics (2006) defines a decision support system as a
cohesive, integrated data set that includes collaborative analysis and usefulness of data. The forum
includes semantics, applied terminology, rules and maintenance. The forum presents accessibility,
source, and interoperability as the challenges for effective decision support systems. Bienkowski,
Feng & Means (2012) discuss increased development of streamlined information access and state,
12
“Our experts reported that at least 70 percent ... of the effort in data analytics is devoted to data
cleaning, formatting, and alignment and suggested that education has the further complication of
needing to move data across different levels...” (p. 52). Moss (2009) adds the innovative concept of
lineage (provenance). Information in disciplines is often duplicative and metadata that provides
provenance will strengthen information. Data federation instead of integration is another way Moss
(2009) believes develops interoperability. Metadata that fulfills a ‘middleman” type structure
eliminates the need for conversion, filtering, and merging data and leads to cleaner metadata.
The NSDL–DC Metadata
The NSDL uses a modified DC metadata scheme. The discipline focus is STEM and the
centralized repository includes formal and informal resources to meet the needs of institutions and
individuals. The metadata is a structured, descriptive information collection and targets web-based
educational resources. The Open Educational Resource provides a structural parameter for the
collaborative collection (NSDL, 2015).
Summary of Literature Review
Moss (2006) echoes the recurring thought in the literature of getting back to basics, cleaning
up metadata, and removing the complex web of information pathways. Moss warns against the “silver
bullet” and recommends thoughtful design of metadata to develop semantics and syntax that enable
information to flow on a larger, accessible scale. She states the need for “a data strategy that can be
seen as a survival guide for the information age” (para. 4). Like many in the field Moss (2006) believes
in standardization and integration of metadata that is managed and leads to stronger navigation.
13
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Transformational change is dependent on access to information. Metadata increases access
and leads to effective searches with refined pathways and less distractions and interference factors.
Twenty-first century instructors are challenged to find curriculum supplements, enrichment and
instructional resources. Time and cost effective search programs are imperative and metadata is a
way to achieve effective findability and access to information. Moss (2006) recommended a strategic
approach to information by standardizing metadata into more effective navigational tools. The NSDL
developed a search program with a modification of DC to achieve these goals. This research explored
the effectiveness of the NSDL-DC metadata search program strategies to answer how effective it was
to find resources for lower division CC teaching and learning strategies. The hypothesis was that the
NSDL-DC metadata advanced search program led to refined searches and increased access to useful
information while it decreased search time.
The literature demonstrated effective data collection of search strategies for traditional
searches. Metadata is a valuable design element that guides participants to optimal information with
digital search strategies that reduce time. This research implemented quantitative data collection and
analysis to understand how the metadata design resulted in reduced time findability. The study took
place in a summer session and quantitative research met time restraints and enabled the findings to
“offer practicing educators new ideas to consider as they go about their jobs” (Creswell, 2012, p. 4).
The numeric (quantitative) data assisted in identifying a problem and investigating how a search tool
made a difference.
The research design included collecting data regarding the structure and design of NSDL
14
search systems and conducting information searches using the general and advanced search system
criteria to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the DC metadata. The setting for the study was
a medium sized CC district in southern California that facilitates programs for basic skills students in
credit and noncredit programs. The district serves a diverse student population of approximately
61,000 students from 11 cities. The district is dedicated to basic skills students and their goals for
higher academic endeavors and job advancement. The study sample collected details from searches
using the NSDL-DC metadata search program. The data collected were compiled, normalized and
imported into a unified table to be analyzed using quantitative data design. The search components,
the time and clicks to find useful resources were analyzed to evaluate effectiveness and efficiency.
Effectiveness was normalized using the following guidelines: (a) searches yielding less than 100
resources were given a score of 3; (b) searches yielding too many resources were given a score of 2; (c)
searches yielding -0- resources were given a score of 1.
Metadata increases access and more efficient use of time by using refined identifiers. The
NSDL developed search systems using DC metadata to refine criteria. This research included
collection of data to evaluate the efficiency, access, and findability of these DC metadata systems.
The findings revealed insight into how metadata improves search properties.
FINDINGS
It is significant that the NSDL used metadata to develop what Marg (2010) labeled a one-of-its-
kind resource providing curriculum based content. The findings demonstrate measurable levels of
efficiency and the ability for educators to find effective resources. The design and structure of the
NSDL-DC metadata search systems correlated to time efficient and effective information for users.
15
The NSDL collaborated with the National Learning Registry project and developed search systems in
alignment with the Learning Application Readiness standards to develop a closeness of resources to
curricular, professional development and instructional strategies. A philosophical pillar of the project
was to share metadata and develop a centralized digital repository (Blomer, 2013). The NSDL is a
model of collaboration. It incorporated user data and continually modified metadata to create
effective search tools and stronger collections. The NSDL is comprised entirely of metadata (Blomer,
2013). Figure 1 shows an overview of the NSDL technical platform. The NSDL established a rigorous
submission process to include an impressive level of individual participation.
Figure 1
(Weatherley, 2014, p. 1)
Figure 2 shows an overview of the NSDL media format collection.
16
Figure 2
Figure 3 gives an overview of the NSDL material collections. There are twenty-seven types of
resources in the digital library.
Figure 3
Table 1 demonstrates the NSDL educational resources and the status of each collection.
05000
100001500020000250003000035000400004500050000
Jou
rnal
s
Act
ivit
ies
and
Lab
s R
eso
urc
es
Ass
essm
ent
Res
ou
rces
Au
dio
Lec
ture
s
Cas
e S
tud
ies
Dat
a R
eso
urc
es
Full
Co
urs
es
Edu
cati
on
al G
ames
Ho
me
wo
rk a
nd
Ass
ign
men
t…
Imag
es a
nd
Illu
stra
tio
ns
Inst
ruct
ion
al m
ate
rial
s
Inte
ract
ive
Res
ou
rce
s
Lect
ure
No
tes
Less
on
Pla
ns
Pri
mar
y so
urc
es
Res
ou
rces
Rea
din
gs
Ref
ere
nce
s R
eso
urc
es
Res
ou
rce
Re
view
s
Sim
ula
tio
ns
Spec
imen
Stu
de
nt
Gu
ides
Sylla
bi
Teac
hin
g an
d L
earn
ing…
Text
bo
oks
Un
its
of
Stu
dy
Res
ou
rces
Vid
eo
Lec
ture
s
Oth
er
Overview of NSDL Material Type Collections
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000
AudioBraille/BNF
Downloadable docseBooks
Graphics/PotosInteractive Resources
Mobile ResourcesText/HTML
VideoOther
Overview of NSDL Media Format Collections
17
Table 1
Educational Resource Collections Status
Curriculum/Instruction Resources 993
Assessment Resources 14
Professional Development Resources 34
Other Resources 4
Informal Education Resources 31412
There is high interest in the development of digital libraries. The conditions of use relating to online
and traditional resources create challenges. Figure 4 shows the data regarding conditions of use status
for the NSDL resources. Most resources include fine print. The wide range of educational levels
creates challenges for traditional libraries and the digital environment is similar. The NSDL provides
resources for all levels of educational pursuit. It distinguishes the lower division higher educational
environment from high school resources and separates basic skills from adult education resources.
This is rare and demonstrates a well-informed knowledge of curriculum.
Figure 4
Figure 5 showcases the number of searchable resources the NSDL-DC metadata includes.
No Strings Attached
Remix and Share
Share Only
Read the Fine Print
The Conditions of Use within the NSDL Collections
18
Overview of NSDL Resources by Discipline
Aplied Science Computer, Engineering & TechnologyEducationHistoryLawLife Science Ecology, Forestry, AgricultureMath & StatisticsPhysical Science Chemistry, Geoscience, Physics, Space ScienceScience & TechSocial Sciences
Figure 5
Figure 6 exhibits the NSDL resources by discipline. Users are able to search the library using
these metadata elements as selections within the search forms.
Figure 6
This research used the current NSDL search system and structure shown in Figure 7. The NSDL
allows users to search in all of the areas and includes them in the search form shown in Figure 7.
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000
Preschool Resources
Lower Primary Resources
Upper Primary Resources
Middle School Resources
High School Resources
Community College/Lower Division…
College/Upper Division Resources
Graduate/Professional Resources
Career/Technical
Adult Education
Overview of NSDL Resources by Level
19
Figure 7
The General Search pathway was easier to control because it had less clicks to refine the data
selections. Tables 2 and 3 show the test search properties, the search pathways and results regarding
time and clicks to optimal resources. It should be noted every click to a resource was counted and
success was normalized using the following guidelines: (a) less than 100 resources a score of 3 was
given; (b) too many resources earned a score of 2; (c) -0- resources earned a score of 1. Table 2 shows
the general searches and Table 3 shows the advanced search pathways.
20
Table 2
General Search Time Clicks Success (3 best)
Math Curriculum'/ 'CC/Lower Level' 7 1 1
Math Instruction'/'Math & Stats/Low Lev 2 1 3
Math & Stats'/'Curriculum& Instruct' 2 1 1
Math & Stats'/'Cur & Instruct' /Remove 'Math & Stats 2.5 2 2 Assignments'/'Math & Stats'/'CC/Low Lev 3 3 2 Second Language' 2 1 3 Algebra 1'/All Subject Areas/All grade levels/All conditions of use 1 1 2 Algebra 1'/All Subject Areas/All grade levels/All conditions of use/Secondary 4 7 3
Grade Lev'/'Post Second'/'Ed Lev'/'CC Low Lev'/ 2 5 2 Grade Lev'/'Post 2nd'/'Ed Lev'/'CC Low Lev'/Sub Secondary Search 8.5 7 3
Webmath.com 0.5 1 3 Resource Type Search - Click -Use Side bar 'Activities & Labs'/'Games'/ 'Homework & Assignments' 3 5 2
History AND Europe' general search box no other clicks 0.5 2 2 History AND Europe'/'History'/College Upper Lev'/'All Conditions'/went back and took out 'AND' 1 6 3 Average 2.79 3.07 2.29
Table 3
Advanced Search Time Clicks Success (3 best)
Math Curriculum'/ 'Next Generation Sci Standards' 8 8 1 Common Core State Stand'/'9-12/Algebra 6 12 1
No Stand/'Math' 'Curriculum'/'Instruct'/'Math & Stats' 3 10 2 Math & Stats'/'Assignment Type' 4 3 3 Second Lang'/'Ed Resources'/'Social Sci'/ 11 14 2 Second Lang'/'Ed Resource'/'Social Sci'/ Secondary level 11 14 2 Algebra 1' Advanced Search Subject Selection 3 4 3 Algebra 1' Advanced Subject Selection - Use secondary searches to refine 15 15 3
Gen Search set up - add 'Algebra 1' in advanced box/'CC Low Lev' 2.5 5 3 Math & Stats'/'Ed Use'/'Reference'/'Other'/'Text/NTML'/'Accessible'/'CC Low' 8 14 1
Math & Stats'/Click using Side Bar 'Math & Stats'/Went down Alphabetically to fin 'Webmath.com' 11 11 1
Math & Stats'/Side Bar 'Math & Stats'/'Webmath.com' in advanced bar 5 5 3 Resource Type Search - Click -Use Side bar selections 'Activities & Labs'/'Games'/'Homework & Assignment'-add Algebra 1 3.5 7 2 Resource Type Search - Click -Use Side bar selections 'Activities & Labs'/ 'Games'/'Homework & Assign'-add 'Algebra 1' back, add 'CC Low Lev in 12 9 1
History AND Europe' in advanced box no other clicks 0.5 2 2
Average 6.90 8.87 2.00
21
Varied use of DC Metadata established by the NSDL is evidenced in Figure 8 that shows the
headers of the 2007-2010 National Institute of Science Communication & Information Resources in
and the current NSDL. The metadata is flexible enough to allow creators to organize information in
different ways. The number of resource could be a result of specific selections or the growth of the
digital library from 2010 to 2015.
Figure 8
2007 and 2015 NSDL Website Headers
Figure 9 shows a comparison of the resources in both sites.
Figure 9
Comparison of Resources from 2007-2015
Date Component/element number 2007-2010 Subject listing (alphabetical) 2482
Issue Date 584 Title 584 Author 571 Communities/Collections 545
2007-2015
Subject Areas 196,594 resources organized by 9 subjects Grade Levels 94241resources organized in 4 grade levels Material Types 169,667 resources into 26 types
Each resources includes issue date, title, author, communities/collection
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Results
The NSDL-DC metadata designed and structured two effective and efficient search systems
that lead to instructional strategies and curriculum resources for CC lower division instructors. The
time it took to find resources and successful access to multiple resources gives evidence the NSDL is
22
an effective and efficient digital resource. Using the two NSDL-DC metadata driven search systems
(general and advanced) the researcher recorded clicks and the time to it took to find effective
resources. The findings revealed the hypothesis that the advanced system would refine criteria to the
most efficient pathway was not a finding of the research. The metadata used to refine the search
properties limited resources in some cases. In some cases the general research system was quicker
and provided access to effective resources without taking the time to refine criteria. The use of refined
criteria was valuable when the user knew less about a topic or was browsing through resources to
develop ideas. Figure 8 shows a comparison of the general and advanced search pathways. It reveals a
time difference (4.11 minutes) with general searches taking 2.79 minutes and the advanced search
pathways averaging around 6.90 minutes. The variance is a result of more clicks to refine the search
selection components which in some cases yielded increased effectiveness in finding resources. The
difference in clicks was 5.80 clicks. Efficiency also seemed to depend on the user’s ability to ask the
right questions and know what kinds of resources were needed. The difference in success was
insignificant and would be influenced with a stricter definition of success. For the purposes of this
study a broad definition for success was used. The flexibility of searches and browsing mechanisms
enabled participants to find the resources they need in correlation to the specific needs they possess.
Discussion
The findings support the literature and strengthen the concepts of digital library collections for
more effective and efficient research capabilities educators, business leaders and global projects
relating to social interaction and economic stability. The findings support the use of metadata and
how standards and codes within metadata can lead to effective interactive tools and resources.
23
Metadata leads to better interoperability to meet the digital demands in contemporary education,
political and economic environments. In education the organizational and institutional sharing of
metadata will lead to profound resources for students, instructors and educational leaders. The NSDL-
DC metadata construction components have been adopted, modified and used as a foundation by
other organizations to develop digital libraries. The Learning Registry is one example. The US
Department of Education and Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative will transform domestic and
global educational pursuit.
Conclusion
The findings of the research reveal a powerful digital resource with capabilities for instructors
in CC lower division courses to effectively and efficiently use to develop curriculum and strategically
instruct students. The collaborative collections of digital data are significant. The use of DC metadata
to organize, classify and structurally design an interactive, interoperable research tool is profound.
The components and dynamics of DC metadata improve the functions, services and influence of
digital information for the 21st century. The NSDL is a model that is influencing change. The USFWS
National Digital Library is a collection of images created by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. It uses DC
metadata elements (2015). The Digital Public Library of America used Europeana Data Model (EDM)
metadata to develop an interactive subject driven digital library. Interoperability remains a high
priority and there are varied approaches to the challenge (DPLA, 2003). The Library of Congress (LOC)
is assembling a digital library using Standard Generalized Markup Lange (SGML). The LOC digital
library allows users to search by browsing similar to a traditional library with search systems to find
deeper information. The LOC developed the Learning Page in 1996 that is similar to the instructional
24
resources in the NSDL. The LOC joined with NSDL in the Digital Libraries Initiative – Phase II 1998
project and continues its goals to provide an interoperable digital library by using Z39.50 standards.
This research project evidenced and demonstrated in varied ways the influence DC metadata
has as it navigates information into highways that are open and accessible without road blocks and
dead ends. The ability of effectively designed metadata to increase interoperable and effective
resources for educational, political, social, and economic leaders inspires information science leaders
to collaborate. The development of innovative digital tools, resources and information freeways will
enrich the journey of individuals within our diverse societies.
List of References
AACC American Association of CC(s). (2015). 2015 Fact sheet. Author. Retrieved from
www.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/Documents/FactSheet2015.pdf
Alfonzo, P. (2014). Using twitter hashtags for information literacy instruction. Computers in Libraries,
34(7), 19-22. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=llf&AN=98164
448&site=ehost-live (Links to an external site
Becker, B. (2014). Design Tip #170 Leverage process metadata for self-monitoring DW operations.
Kimball Group. Retrieved from http://www.kimballgroup.com/2014/11/design-tip-170-
leverage-process-metadata-self-monitoring-dw-operations/
Bienkowski, M., Feng, M. Means, B. ( 2012). Enhancing teaching and learning through educational
data mining and learning analytics. Center for Technology in Learning SRI International, U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (/ed-04-CO-0040, Task 0010.
Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/edm-la-brief.pdf
Billington, J.H. (2005, June 6). Remarks to the plenary session of The U.S. National Commission for
UNESCO at Georgetown University. Library of Congress, World Digital Library- Speeches,
Statements. Retrieved from https://www.loc.gov/about/about-the-librarian/speeches-and-
25
statements/world-digital-library/
Blomer, J. (2013). Sharing metadata. NSDL Documentation. Retrieved from
https://wiki.ucar.edu/display/nsdldocs/Sharing+Metadata
Bolin, M.K. (2015a). Metadata implementation: Dublin Core, XML, RDF, and metadata vocabularies.
Lecture for LIBR281- Week 3, Summer 2015 Session, SJSU iSchool INFO Degree Program, San
Jose State University.
Bolin, M.K. (2015b). MODS-METS-PREMIS, and a few words about learning object metadata. Lecture
for LIBR281-Week 4, Summer 2015 Session, SJSU iSchool INFO Degree Program, San Jose
State University.
Carlson, J., Fosmire, M., Miller, C.C., Sapp Nelson, M. (2011). Determining data information literacy
needs: A study of students and research faculty. Purdue University Libraries. Grant Project
#IMLS LG-06-07-0032-07. Retrieved from
https://www.press.jhu.edu/journals/portal_libraries_an
d_the_academy/portal_pre_print/current/articles/11.2Fosmire.pdf
Coyle, K. (2005). Understanding metadata and its purpose. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 31/2, p.
160-163. Retrieved from http://kcoyle.net/jal-31-2.html
DPLA (Digital Public Library of America). (2003). Metadata application provile, Version 3.1. Author.
Retrieved from http://dp.la/info/map
Guenther, R. Radebaugh, J. (2004). Understanding metadata. National Information Standards
Organization (NISO). Retrieved from
ww.niso.org/publications/press/UnderstandingMetadata.pdf
Hamilton, L., R.Halverson, S.Jackson, E.Mandinach, J.Supovitz, and J. Wayman.2009. Using Student
Achievement Data to Support Instructional Decision Making (NCEE 2009-4067). Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
Harris, J. (2009 ). Build a data warehouse that people actually use – and trust. A White Paper. Author.
Retrieved from https://www.informatica.com/con
tent/dam/informatica-com/global/amer/us/collateral/white-paper/build-data-warehouse-
26
people-use-trust_white-paper_2349.pdf
Hillman, D. (2015). Using Dublin Core. Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. Retrieved from
http://dublincore.org/documents/usageguide/
IEEE – (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers). (2006). IEEE learning technology standards
committee (LTSC) policies and procedures. Author. Retrieved from
http://standards.ieee.org/about/sasb/audcom/pnp/C-LTSC.pdf
Kimball, R. (1998). Making a list of data about metadata and exploring information cataloging tools.
Kimball Group. Retrieved from http://www.kimballgroup.com/1998/03/meta-meta-data-data/
Kimball,R., Ross, M, Thornthwaite, W.. Mundy, J., & Becker, B. (2008). The data warehouse lifecycle
toolkit, (2nd ed.), John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Krashner-Khait, B. (2001, October/November). Survivor: The history of the library. History Magazine.
Moorshead Magazines Ltd.
Library of Congress. (2009). Metadata object description schema user guidelines, (Version 3).
Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/mods-userguide-intro.html
Library of Congress. (2015). National digital library program. Author. Retrieved from
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/dli2/html/lcndlp.html
Marg, K.S.K. (2015). National institute of science communication and information resources. Council
of Scientific and Industrial Research. New Delhi, India.
Meyer, L. (2014). Deploying library discovery services statewide. Campus Technology. Retrieved from
http://campustechnology.com/Articles/2014/08/06/Deploying-Library-Discovery-Services-
Statewide.aspx?p=1
Moss, L. (2009). No silver bullets for data integration, 3/7. Enterprise Information Management
Institute. Retrieved from http://www.eiminstitute.org/library/eimi-archives/volume-3-issue-7-
july-2009/no-silver-bullets-for-data-integration
Moss, L. T. (2006). Data Strategy: Survival Guide for the Information Age. 19/8, Cutter IT Journal.
Retrieved from
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2013). Digest of educational statistics: Table 308.10
– Total 12-month enrollment in degree granting postsecondary institutions 2010-11 and 2011-
27
12. Institute of Educational Sciences. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tab
les/dt13_308.10.asp?current=yes
National Forum on Education Statistics. (2006). Forum Guide to Decision Support Systems: A
Resource for Educators (NFES 2006–807). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006807.pdf
NSDL (The National Science Digital Library). (2007-2015). Library of math, technology, science
resources. Open Education Resource (OER) Commons. Retrieved from
https://nsdl.oercommons.org/
Rifkin, T. (2013). Public CC faculty. American Association of CC(s). Retrieved from
www.aacc.nche.edu/Resources/aaccprograms/pastprojects/Pages/publicccfaculty.aspx
Schield, M.(2010). “Assessment methods in statistical education: An international perspective,” in
Assessing Statistical Literacy: Take CARE, ed. Penelope Bidgood, Neville Hunt, and Flavia
Jolliffe (New York: Wiley, 2010).
Sonwalkar, H. (2002). Demystifying learning technology standards part 1: Development and
evolution. Campus Technology. Retrieved from
http://campustechnology.com/Articles/2002/03/Demystifying-Learning-Technology-
Standards-Part-I-Development-and-Evolution.aspx?p=1
U.S. Department of Education, (2010). National education technology plan. Author. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010
USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service) National Digital Library. (2015).
Retrieved from digitalmedia.fws.gov
Weatherley, J. (2014). Technical Overview. NSDL Documentation Wiki. Retrieved from
28
https://wiki.ucar.edu/display/nsdldocs/Technical+Overview
APPENDIX A 15 Metadata Elements of Dublin Core
1. Title
2. Creator
3. Subject
4. Description
5. Publisher
6. Contributor
7. Date
8. Type
9. Format
10. Identifier
11. Source
12. Language
13. Relation
14. Coverage
15. Rights
