Describing and Analysing Educational Resources Modules 4 & 5 & Reflection on ETL505

The manner of locating resources by (A) natural language subject headings, (B) controlled vocabulary subject headings within libraries, or (C) standardised classification numbering systems such as ‘Dewey Decimal Classification’ (DDC), or the Library of Congress Classification (LCC,) (or in the form of genrefication of a collection) shows that the vocabulary for describing the ‘subject’ of a resource are all paramount to FRBR element of ‘location’ of a resource.

According to Hider (2018) subject headers, thesauri, classifications are all deceptively subjective, laborious, costly and difficult to maintain, while natural language can be too relative, varied and ambiguous (Hider & Harvey, 2008).  So, how do we describe the subject of an item in a (universal) way that our patrons can locate what they need?

An ABC of important terms and their definitions from the modules and readings:

(A) Natural Language / Uncontrolled Vocabularies

  1. Uncontrolled vocabulary: subject headings &/or descriptors created from natural language, derived from the information resources/authors which are often more up to date, common terms that are more familiar for users; Natural language / uncontrolled vocabularies better enable the tasks of keyword searching, records enhancement and automatic indexing (Hider & Harvey, 2008, p.154-155).
  2. Key word searching: the method by which a user searches the library collection on the information retrieval system, usually via the title, author, subject, series or a mixture of these (Hider & Harvey, 2008, p. 155).
  3. Boolean operations: search terms that improve the chance of a match as they include word proximity and word adjacency (Hider & Harvey, 2008, p.155); (See also below “Boolean logic: different terms are combined in a single search using ‘AND’, ‘OR’ and ‘NOT’ (Hider, 2018, p.178).”
  4. Truncation: the abbreviation of search terms using the # symbol; improving the chance of successful searching because the number of results increases (Hider & Harvey, 2008, p. 155).
  5. Bibliographic records enhancement: utilising natural vocabulary search functions to include the subject indicative key words within resource abstracts, contents and summaries (Hider & Harvey, 2008, p.156-157).
  6. Abstracts: A brief, accurate, unambiguous, objective representation of the contents of a document or presentation, usually found in research journal databases; They are usually written after an article has been created and research finalised, and can be indicative / descriptive (indicating specific information found in the article), informative (summarising the data in the article), or critical (making a judgement about the quality of the article contents) (Hider & Harvey, 2008, p.159-160).
  7. Social tagging: Social tagging is indexing performed by controllers and end users; Similar to truncation, particular key words can be given a # or ‘tag’, rather than being added by a controller, the tag is assigned by a multitude of users, which is then searchable, particularly in social media; Social tagging is not regulated and can be inconsistent (Hider, 2018, p.85-86).
  8. Folksonomies:  a natural vocabulary wordplay opposing controlled taxonomy, folksonomies are indexing vocabularies created by end-users, recommended to be used to complement professional indexing (Hider, 2018, p.86-87).
Photo by Pisit Heng on Unsplash

(B) Subject Headings / Controlled Vocabularies

    1. Objectivism: The view that one may need to discover knowledge, but that all knowledge is ‘set’ and universal (Hider, 2018, p. 189).
    2. Subjectivism: The view that knowledge is (and is therefore organised) based on various perspectives within culture and societies (see also warrant, below) (Hider, 2018, p.189).
    3. Controlled vocabularies: Standardised / prescribed sets of metadata values to help index, identify or display a collection (or both); Sometimes referred to as knowledge organisation systems (Hider, 2018, p.175).
    4. Subject / subject header: a particular knowledge domain which is not always easily identified and not objective, and is, in fact a matter of individual subjective judgement (Hider, 2018, p.175-176); in which (according to LCSH) the knowledge domain / subject is covered by at least 20% of the resource content (Hider, 2018, p.183).
    5. Subject description: careful analysis of the content of a resource (Hider, 2018, p. 177).
    6. LCSH: Library of Congress Subject Headings; A standardised (but continually growing and cross-referenced) list of subject headings used to index the content of all english pubic/academic library collections; The initial term heading (followed by a string of sub-divisions) are created as ‘MARC’ fields that can be searched within ‘OPAC’ (Hider, 2018, p.179-180).
    7. LCGFT: Library of Congress Genre / Form Terms for Library and Archival Materials which “covers ‘artistic and visual works, cartographic materials, “general” materials (e.g. dictionaries, encyclopaedias), law materials, literature, moving images (films and television programs), music, non-musical sound recordings (primarily radio programs), and religious materials’ (Library of Congress, 2018, in Hider, 2018, p.183).
    8. SCISshl: Schools Catalogue Information Service (SCIS) subject headings list in Australia / New Zealand provided by Education Services Australia.
    9. ScOT: Schools Online Thesaurus, descriptors used in support of the SCISshl (headings) (Hider, 2018, p188).  Schools Online Thesaurus (ScOT) provides controlled vocabulary subject access to online curriculum content relevant to Australian and New Zealand schools and has also been provided by Education Services Australia.
    10. Subject thesaurus: a structured, post-coordinated, automated, retrieval, indexing (rather than classifying) compilation tool which uses cross-referenced descriptors in support of the subject headings (Hider, 2018, p.185;190); The standard for the creation of subject thesauri is set by the ISO Standard Thesauri for Information Retrieval (Hider, 2018, p.188); See also ScOT (above), ERIC Thesaurus, STW Thesaurus for Economics, NASA Thesaurus, National Agricultural Library Thesaurus, Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Thesaurus, Australian Health Thesaurus, Australian Thesaurus of Education Descriptors, British Education Thesaurus, Art and Architecture Thesaurus, & the Thesaurus for Graphic Materials (Hider, 2018, p.187-188).
    11. Warrant: a subjective (see subjectivism above) way to specify the most likely thesaurus terms that will be used as descriptors for the subject headings, eg. literary warrant or user warrant (Hider, 2018, p.185).
    12. Facet analysis: the method for studying how the facets (and sub-facets) of particular field of knowledge are structured in concept or labelled in terminology (Hider, 2018, p.185-186).
    13. Index term: a subject heading’s ‘descriptor’ used for cross referencing purposes (Hider, 2018, p.176).
    14. Cross-referencing: identified by codes like: UF (use for); BT (broader term); NT (narrower term); and RT (related term) (Hider, 2018, p.181).
    15. Derived indexing: takes/derives words ‘naturally’ from the document (Hider, 2018, p.176).
    16. Assigned indexing: takes words from somewhere else, typically from a controlled/standardised indexing vocabulary, and assigns them to represent the document’s content.
    17. Summary level indexing: main topics are described to represent the resource as a whole (Hider, 2018, p.176).
    18. Standardised classification scheme: vocabulary used for placing items in a specific location or area on a shelf so that it may be easily located (Hider, 2018, p. 175).
    19. Controlled vocabulary / controlled subject vocabulary: subject headings lists, subject thesauri, or subject classification schemes that can be qualitative or quantitative (Hider, 2018, p.175).
    20. Pre-coordination: the strings of terms representing the sub-concepts are coordinated prior to indexing and searching, e.g. Birds-Australia; This method is less restrictive (Hider, 2018, p.177-178).
    21. Post-coordination: the strings of terms representing the sub-concepts stand alone and are then individually searched, e.g. Australia. Birds; This method is more precise (Hider, 2018, p.177-178).
    22. Boolean logic: different terms are combined in a single search using ‘AND’, ‘OR’ and ‘NOT’ (Hider, 2018, p.178).

(C) Subject Classification Schemes

"Dewey Decimal System Poster" by Eigappleton is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0
“Dewey Decimal System Poster” by Eigappleton is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0
    1. Subject classification schemes: careful arrangement of the subject headings into groups/classes using (numerical) notations rather than descriptors (Hider, 2018, p.189-190). Subject classification schemes (using subject division – see ‘100 divisions of DDC’ and ‘LCC scheme overview’ charts below) and subdivision disciplines are a good for classification bibliographically, but if used unilaterally for placing resources on shelves, can result in resources being scattered across the space (Hider, 2018, p.193-195); Furthermore, no other numbers than those provided in the DDC ‘Schedules’ or the 6 ‘Tables’ (see ‘6 Tables of DDC’ image below) may be used; While subject classification is usually for labelling and shelving purposes, they can also be vitally important for searching digital collections, digital museums, musical or audio collections (however, not archival collections as these must be organised by date) (Hider, 2018, p.200-201).
    2. LCC, ADDC15 & DDC23, UDC: These are subject classification schemes (note above) used in the call number element; They are the Library of Congress Classification, the Abridged Dewey Decimal Classification, currently edition 15 (ADDC15) and Dewey Decimal Classification, edition 23 (DDC23) and the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) (Hider, 2018, 192-193; 196; 198).
    3. Call number: The entire notation sequence of numbers &/or letters  uniquely identifying a resource, making it easier to locate or find on the shelves (Hider, 2018, p.197).
    4. Disciplines of subject classification schemes: The synthetic means by which the subject classification scheme (such as DDC, UDC, or LCC – used by Trove) is organised, similar to subject headings, but is more aligned with the resource’s purpose, rather than what the resource is about or how it will be used; (Hider, 2018, p.193)
    5. DDC: Dewey Decimal Classification; 
    6. LCC: Library of Congress Classification using disciplines and a hierarchical notation system, similar to the DDC, except the LCC uses letters and numbers; the LCC and subject headings were created in 1897 based on the ‘Cutter Expansive Classification’/’Cutter numbers’ which create a specific position for each item within a class (see the ‘Summary of LCC’ image below) further expanding using ‘auxiliary tables’ (Hider, 2018, p.196-197).
    7. UDC: Universal Decimal Classification; a French first attempt at universal bibliographic control across all recorded knowledge (not just American based knowledge) particularly science and technology converted to English in 1980 but still not widely used in English speaking countries; (Hider 2018, p. 198).

(Hider 2018, p.194). The ‘hundred divisions’ of Dewey Decimal Classification (2011). [Image]
Hider, P. (2018). The 6 Tables of DDC [Image] in Information Resource Description / Creating and Managing Metadata. Vol. Second edition. Facet Publishing. p195
(Hider, 2018 p.195). The 6 Tables of DDC.
(Hider, 2018, p.196)

Thoughts and musings before and after completing the final assessment:

  1. In modules 4 & 5, while reading Hider (2018) p. 201-205, I tried to understand how a taxonomy is different from a classification system versus an ontology system, but sorry, my brain would not absorb it and I feared I had reached max capacity for Hider.
  2. Throughout this session, I could not manage the multitude of forum posts for this subject. It was far more than any other subject (and I’ve completed all but 1 elective at this point) and was very minimal in actual ‘discussion’ – more used as a place for students to post their answers to the tasks. I recommend the powers that be consider using a series of (perhaps unmarked but compulsory) ‘quizzes’  or something for the tasks other than forum discussions, particularly if the cohort is medium to large in future.
  3. When I started  this degree I expected to do this class first. I think I am glad that I didn’t. I can see the relevance, but the content is very academic and I’m glad I did it (almost) last. In the beginning of this class I felt like I was filling my brain with things that would be taking up what is very valuable and limited realestate, and I only just changed my mind after completing the second assessment. (This may be compounded by the fact that I am not presently, nor have I ever, worked full time as a teacher librarian and everything I am trying to learn from copious amounts of reading is not yet applicable to my real world context.)
  4. As I read (and read) the first assessment feedback, the main thing that I learned was that the lecturer and the text book author for the course were both very very much smarter than I. (This is certainly, without question, definitely true. Yet, I think it is a reflection on the course that I feel this way. Is it far too academic, far too wordy, far too heavy in reading, and, although I got a credit in the first assessment, far too thorough in the marking? Or am I too arrogant? Food for thought.)
  5. My issue with Research in Practice was exactly the same issue that I had with Describing and Analysing Education Resources and that was: I have spent most of the course trying to dig myself out of the (growth mindset) learning pit and felt out of my comfort zone the entire duration. I was reading and reading and reading. I was reading the texts, the modules and the forum posts (although, as previously stated, found very little with which to engage). I was posting blog posts with my reading notes. I was doing the exercises and checking my answers (generally way off!). I took two weeks off work (on either side of my 2 week prac) to ensure I completed the final assessment, meaning I had a month off work (and financially suffered with my family). And in the end, I learned a fair bit and would consider what I learnt, worth the struggle.

    On my way Bitmoji
    On my way Bitmoji
  6. Finally, now that I’ve done the course and basically finished the degree, I pleased to say that I feel like I understand the concepts and could manage cataloguing. (Enjoying cataloguing, however, might be a fair way into the distance)…Also, I still think Hider (and a few times in the learning modules) need to correct all of the many end of sentence prepositions in the next edition of the textbook. Please. Thank you.

References

Hider, P. (2018). Information Resource Description : Creating and Managing Metadata: Vol. Second edition. Facet Publishing.

Hider, P., & Harvey, R. (2008). Organising knowledge in a global society : Principles and practice in libraries and information centres. ProQuest Ebook Central https://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Describing and Analysing Education Resources Module 3

“Metadata specialists need to know their users, their collections and resources, and the information organisation systems they are working with (sic). They also need to develop an eye for detail, a very clear, succinct form of expression and a systematic and thorough approach. Faced with choices about what and how to describe, they need to apply principles as well as standards” (Hider, 2018, p.103).

Quality metadata: effective, functional, comprehensive, accurate and consistent

If metadata is of the highest quality, that is: effective, functional, comprehensive, accurate and consistent, then users, even with their complex information seeking needs (which they themselves may not even know) are commonly more satisfied (Hider, 2018, p.93-94). The best way to ensure the highest quality, including effectiveness, functionality, comprehension, accuracy, and consistency is through metadata standards and / or use of standards in terms of setting’s community of practice (Hider, 2018, p.123).

Functionality:

  • Knowing the user information needs (rather than assuming their needs, basing cataloguing on the cataloguer ideas or opinions of librarians) leads to better database quality (Hider, p. 94);
  • Standardised indexing aids in the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) finding (Hider, 2018, p.94);
  • Standardised displays aid FRBR selecting (Hider, 2018, p. 94).

Comprehensiveness:

  • Comprehensive metadata requires a choice: more resources with less detailed metadata descriptions, or less resources with more metadata detail. Full descriptions cost more to create and thus, how comprehensive the data is must be weighed against the cost (Hider, 2018, p. 95);
  • Brief descriptions aid FRBR discovering (but not selecting) (Hider, 2018, p.95).

Accuracy:

  • Metadata must be accurate and consistently evaluated and corrected, because small errors can result in a failure for the user to find, identify, select, obtain or explore the information (Hider, 2018, p.95).

Clarity

  • Metadata descriptive words are chosen carefully to enable clarity. Without clarity, accuracy is moot – including language choice, jargon, abbreviations, codes, homonyms, or even changes in word popularity / common use (e.g. what is commonly called a title = ‘title proper’ to cataloguers; subtitle = ‘other title information’; or a title in a different language = ‘parallel title’) (Hider, 2018, p.96); Here is a screen shot of some common abbreviations used:

    Rowe, 2019
    Rowe, 2019, Module 3.2 Screen shot of abbreviations
  • Quality metadata also has clarity, in that it is succinct – brief indexes may improve search results as the fewer the terms, the fewer irrelevant search results occur (Hider, 2018, p.97).

Consistency:

  • Being consistent, using the same elements and values aids FRBR retrieval across multiple systems (aka interoperability) (Hider, 2018, p.97);
  • Consistency (in descriptions, lengths, structures and terminologies used in indexes) aids in all FRBR functions (find, identify, select, obtain or explore) (Hider, 2018, p.97);
  • Consistency of understanding between the cataloguer/indexer and the user / searcher is also important and this is achieved by standardisation (Hider, 2018, p.98);
  • Vocabulary control, an aspect of consistency, is where the cataloguer/indexer use the same, standardised language, utilising cross referencing tools such as ‘see also’ (Hider, 2018, p.99-100);
  • Authority control, also an aspect of consistency, is where the names of people, nicknames/pseudonyms/varied bibliographic identities/people with the same name, organisations or corporate bodies, or titles and series are standardised in a list (such as this list by the Library of Congress or this list of standards by the National Libraries of Australia) or written to include birth years (Hider, 2018, p.101-102);
  • Evaluation systems such as quality control (QC) processes, audits, quality assurance (QA) processes including quality measures and benchmarks, checklists or scorecards ensure metadata consistency based on user needs (Hider, 2018, p.104).

A range of standards for a range of environments

“A range of standards have been developed for all aspects of metadata, including its values, elements, format and transmission” (Hider, 2018, p.123).

These metadata standards relate to ‘key information domains’, such as:

Book publishing – Copy editors refer to ‘style manuals’ such as: the Chicago Manual of Style, Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, MLA Handbook, and AMA Manual of Style; Electronic text publishers adhere to online standards such as the Text Encoding Initiative (TEI) or the Online Information Exchange (ONIX) (Hider, 2018, p.163);

Research – data repositories such as: UK Data Archives, Australian National Data Service (ANDS), Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata (CSDGM), Australia and New Zealand Spatial Information Council (ANZLIC) Metadata Profile, Darwin Core (DwC), earth sciences Directory Interchange Format, space science Space Physics Archive Search and Extract (SPACE) Data Model, and the social science Data Documentation Initiative (DDI) (Hider, 2018, p.165-166).

Education – The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Learning Object Metadata standard (IEEE-LOM), the Gateway to Educational Materials schema (in USA), Education Network Australia (EdNA) schema, and, more recently, the Australia and New Zealand Learning Object Metadata standard (ANZ-LOM) by Education Services Australia (Hider, 2018, p. 167).

Web publishing –  Hypertext Markup Language (HTML), Extensible Markup Language (XML) [with namespaces including Universal Resource Identifier (URI/URL)], and Resource Description Framework (RDF) as specified by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C); (Rowe, 2019, Module 3.3; Hider, 2018, p.124-127);

Digital Libraries – Dublin Core (DC), Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) and Metadata Authority Description Schema (MADS), Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS), Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH) and OpenURL (providing access to journal content within subscribed databases); (Rowe, 2018, Module 3.3; Hider, 2018, p. 150, 153-154);

Archives – General International Standard Archival Description (ISAD(G) similar to ISBD below) and Encoded Archival Description (EAD); (Rowe, 2018, Module 3.3; Hider, 2018, p. 155-156, 158);

Museums – Standard Procedures for Collections Recording Used in Museums (SPECTRUM), International Committee for Documentation (CIDOC) International Guidelines for Museum Object Information: the CIDOC information categories (1995) and CRM; (Rowe, 2018, Module 3.3; Hider, 2018, p. 160-161);

Libraries –  The Statement of International Cataloguing Principles (Published by the International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA) in 2009 updated in 2016), Anglo American Cataloguing Rules (AACR/AACR2), International Standard Bibliographic Description (ISBD), Machine Readable Cataloguing (MARC/MARC21) (a format for the automatic electronic sharing of library catalogue data – including the description, main entry/entries, subject heading(s) and Dewey Decimal ‘call number’ – that may be updated to the Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative (BIBFRAME) in the future); Z39.50 (client server information retrieval protocol for large searches); and finally, Resource Description Access (RDA) which is based on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD), (Rowe, 2019, Module 3.3; Hider, 2018, p.132-133, 136, 142-143, 147, 149; Furrie, 2009).

Registries of standards – To keep track of all of the standards as they grow and change over time and to select the appropriate standard or crosswalks between various standards for their tasks, metadata specialists use registries of standards such as: “the Open Metadata Registry, the Dublin Core Metadata Registry, the Basel Register of Thesauri, Ontologies and Classifications (BARTOC) and Schema.org, the last of which encourages individuals from across domains to join its community of schema developers” (Hider, 2018, p.168).

What is RDA and the RDA toolkit?

RDA (the main current standard for descriptive cataloguing) was built on the foundational basis of how effective catalogues operate, namely, FRBR & FRAD and is conceptualised by certain things which have inter-relationships to other things, thereby ensuring that users can search for and access information successfully (Hider, 2018, p.136; Oliver, 2010, p.14-15).

  • Find: “…(T)o bring together information about one or more resources of interest by searching on any relevant criteria” IFLA, 2017, p. 15 in Hider, 2018, p.29; Oliver, 2010, p.15) “The most precise attribute for this purpose is an identifier, which frequently takes the form of a number, uniquely assigned to a particular resource. Another attribute that often serves to identify a resource is its name. This can be more descriptive than an identifier, but may not be totally unique. Nevertheless, it often does the job and is more likely to be remembered than an ‘artificial’ identifier” (Hider, 2018, p.31). “A prime example of a systematic identifier at this level is the ISBN (ISSN, ISTC or ISAN)” (Hider, 2018, p.34);
  • Identify: “(To identify is) to clearly understand the nature of resources found and to distinguish between similar resources” (IFLA, 2017, p. 15 in Hider, 2018, p.29; Oliver, 2010, p.15); “A manifestation of a work, such as a particular printing of a book, is also unlikely to be named, except in very generic terms, such as ‘third printing’ or ‘2003 release’. This sort of metadata may be used in the identification or selection process, but it is seldom used to find the resource. A user may choose between a PC and a Mac version, or prefer an earlier printing if they are a literary scholar” (Hider, 2018, p.31); “To this end, users need sufficient and accurate description” (Hider, 2018, p.34);  “Similarly, if a particular manifestation is required and there is no systematic identifier such as an ISBN to check, the user will typically start by identifying the work and then look at attributes pertaining to the carrier, especially publication and format. At the item level, users may consider attributes such as provenance, i.e. the item’s custodial history, to identify, for example, a piece of art or an archival file” (Hider, 2018, p.35).
  • Select: “(To select is) to determine the suitability of the resources found, and to be enabled to either accept or reject specific resources” (IFLA, 2017, p. 15 in Hider, 2018, p.29; Oliver, 2010, p.15); “…the selection process essentially occurs inside the user’s head” (Hider, 2018, p.39); “On reading the resource descriptions, the user may be influenced by other elements that they then realise are relevant to the selection process” (Hider, 2018, p.36); “In the field of information retrieval, the attributes used to select resources are referred to as relevance criteria” (Hider, 2018, p.36); “The kind of resource people want, when they do not have a specific resource in mind, often relates to the subject of its content” (Hider, 2018, p.36); “Other aspects of a resource’s content may also be of interest to selectors. For example, users may well be interested in its quality, in which case comments, reviews and ratings can be helpful. The currency of content may also be a factor to consider, so the user may look for a creation date or copyright year, for example. Likewise, the amount of content (e.g. the number of words) may have a bearing. The form of a work could also be relevant. It may be ‘about’ Japan, but it may be a map, website or film documentary. It turns out, then, that information content can be described in many different, and sometimes unanticipated, ways” (Hider, 2018, p.36).
  • Obtain: “To access the content of the resource” (IFLA, 2017, p. 15 in Hider, 2018, p.29); “To acquire or obtain access to the entity described (ie. to acquire an entity through purchase, loan, etc., or to access an entity electronically through an online connection to a remote computer” (Oliver, 2010, p.15). “In today’s online world, users often need very little by way of metadata in order to obtain, or gain access to, an information resource – just a label on a hyperlink…information about how to obtain it…is the resource’s location” (Hider, 2018, p.39).
  • Explore: “To discover resources using the relationships between them and thus place the resources in a context” (IFLA, 2017, p. 15 in Hider, 2018, p.29); “In today’s networked world, these linkages are underpinned by the hyperlink mechanism, whereby the linked record is only a mouse-click away. In the analogue world, one might have to look up a cross-reference” (Hider, 2018, p.39); “(T)his process allows the user…to get a feel for a network of resources through their surrogate records. … Relationships between resources, their commonalities and their differences are the heart of what organisation is about (sic)” (Hider, 2018, p.40).
Module 3.3 FRBR & FRAD
FRBR vs FRAD (Rowe, 2019, Module 3.3) See also, Oliver, 2010, p. 16.

 

 

Creating bibliographic records for selected information resource using RDA

SCIS have excellent information resource standards for cataloguing and data entry, based on FRBR/FRAD/RDA. Rowe (2019, module 3.5) has shared an amazing video to help navigate the RDA toolkit, as well as a table to help create a bibliographic record using RDA, which I’ve uploaded to GoogleSheets, including notes from Rowe (2019, Module 3.5). Furthermore, Rowe (2019) writes:

“When using the RDA Toolkit you should note the following…Instructions within RDA move from the general to the specific. … The appendices of RDA contain supplementary information including, among other things, guidelines for capitalisation and abbreviations and symbols, and in Appendices I through to M you will find the controlled lists of relationship designators. There is a glossary which is particularly useful if you are unfamiliar with terminology. RDA also contains a Tools Tab where you will find mappings from RDA to MARC and MARC to RDA; workflows contributed by RDA users; an index to the RDA Toolkit; and examples of records encoded in MARC format. The Resources Tab includes the full text of AACR2; and policy statements from agencies including the National Library of Australia and the Library of Congress-Program for Cooperative Cataloging, as well as a link to the MARC Standards” (Rowe, 2019, Module 3.5).

Screen Shot of the RDA Toolkit taken by Christy Roe August 2020

References

Furrie, B. (2009). What is a MARC record, and why is it important? Available on the Library of Congress website at http://www.loc.gov/marc/umb/um01to06.html.

Hider, P. (2018). Information resource description: Creating and managing metadata (2nd ed.). London: Facet.

Howarth, L. & Weihs, J. (2008). Enigma variations: Parsing the riddle of main entry and the ‘rule of three’ from AACR2 to RDA. Cataloguing and Classification Quarterly, 46(2), 201-220. doi:10.1080/01639370802177620

Oliver, C. (2010). FRBR and FRAD in RDA. In Introducing RDA: a guide to the basics (pp.13-36). Chicago: ALA Editions. Available from eBook Library.

Rowe, H. (2019).  3. Metadata and quality standards (3.2 Metadata quality; 3.3 Metadata standards; 3.5 Fundamentals of RDA). [Learning Module]. ETL505, Interact2. https://interact2.csu.edu.au/webapps/blackboard/execute/content/blankPage?cmd=view&content_id=_3302464_1&course_id=_47581_1

Welsh, A., & Batley, S. (2012). Bibliographic elements. In Practical cataloguing: AACR, RDA and MARC 21 (pp.17-48). London: Facet. Available from eBook Library.

Describing and Analysing Educational Resources Module 2

PIX1861 / Pixabay

Resources must be NAVIGATED, Discovered, Identified, Selected, Obtained

In order for an information seeker or library user to effectively navigate a library collection, they must be taught how to use the organisational tools for that setting, such as: catalogues, databases (periodical / citation / image / etc), bibliographies, subject guides / gateways, directories or search engines, to name a few (Rowe, 2019, Module 2.1) this includes staff, parents, students, the general public, etc.

“The arrangement of resources by Dewey Decimal Classification, alphabetical order and, on occasion, by other attributes such as type of material, level of difficulty, and genre, along with the use of indexes and databases, such as the library catalogue, are key tools of information retrieval used in school libraries” (Rowe, 2019, Module 2.1).

Tools and systems

To truely be considered an effective information retrieval organisational system,  systems must not simply be based on content (i.e. Google or #tags) but must also be based on the elements of metadata – such as is found in library catalogues and archival finding aids, and must be 1. arranged, 2. labelled and/or 3. indexed (Hider, 2018, p.43).

  1. Arrangements: by author or by genre? Either way, a standardised protocol (e.g. The Dewey Decimal Classification or DDC) is the first step (Hider, 2018, p.44).
  2. Labels are also key, either individual resource labels or labelled in groups, using either words or numerical  notations for words/subject matter (Hider, 2018, p.44-45).
  3. Indexing, is a basic information organisational tool for collections or single resources which uses compact, descriptive, efficient and effective metadata which, in turn, allows multiple access points (e.g. title, author, institution, series, numerical identifiers, etc) for end-users/information seekers (and the more points of access = the greater the chance of success) (Hider, 2018, p.46).  Indexes can be closed (once-off & static), open (growing & flexible), card (outdated in today’s libraries), or computer ‘bibliographic’ databases (e.g. SCIS) (Hider, 2018, p.47-49). Indexes form the basis for information retrieval organisation systems such as catalogues, bibliographic databases (e.g. library catalogue) / citation databases, museum registers, archival finding aids, content management systems and search engines (Hider, 2018, p.46; 50).

Library catalogues

Around 1970’s-1980’s, OPAC (online public access catalogue) was the first database to take over paper card catalogues, and was a huge international human data entry task using MARC (machine readable cataloging in a standard format) (Hider, 2018, p.52).  OPAC/MARC allowed more access points and has continually grown over time to include things like Boolean searching, truncation, and multiple &/or remote access (Hider, 2018, p.52-53). However, it is important to note that more work is needed to make library catalogues designed in the MARC format competitive with Google:

“Perhaps an even greater issue, however, is the scope of library catalogues. Nowadays they represent only a certain proportion of information resources provided by the library, and only a tiny proportion of resources available in the online environment as a whole. As Ruschoff (2010, 62) argues, ‘more lipstick on our catalogs is not going to make our OPACs the search engine of tomorrow’. Since it is clearly impossible for libraries to catalogue all the useful resources now available on the internet, the way forward appears to be for libraries to ensure that their metadata is out there in the wider online environment: if they can’t beat the likes of Google, they need to join them” (Hider, 2018, p.57).

Sharing library catalogues / metadata

Metadata that has been created using agreed standardised protocols such as MARC / RDA,  as well as containing the agreed set of elements, it can be used in different information retrieval systems at different institutions, creating ‘bibliographic networks’ and even ‘bibliographic utilities,’ and ‘union catalogues’ offering the benefit of it only having to be created once, saving a great deal of time and expense (Hider, 2018, p111-112; 115).

One such ‘bibliographic utility’ is the SCIS catalogue. Chadwick (2015, p.12) points out that by purchasing their catalogue, schools can save hundreds of data entry hours (and money paying employees) and can obtain a more narrow, school-focussed catalogue (as opposed to the more broad catalogues available from places like the National Library).

However, it is one thing to offer a catalogue to share, and another for that catalogue to be able to transmit over to a setting’s computer system. In order to ‘transmit,’ a setting must have particular protocols, such as Z39.50. “Z39.50 is an ‘application layer network protocol’ covered by the ANSI/NISO Z39.50 and ISO 23950 standards and maintained by the Library of Congress. Application layer protocols provide computer programs with a common language when sharing data across networks. Some well-known application layer protocols include Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) and File Transfer Protocol (FTP). Z39.50 allows a system – usually a LMS – to search and retrieve information from bibliographic databases across the world” (Chadwick, 2015b, paragraph 2).

As well as sharing amongst library databases, various databases and even repositories, archives and museums now share their catalogues with search engines and social media applications, improving their catalogue accessibility (Hider, 2018, p.116). “Libraries, museums, archives, universities and publishers are all coming to realise that their websites are not necessarily the first port of call for information seekers. The reality is that, far more often, search engines such as Google are” (Hider, 2018, p.117). 

Which brings to the fore the issue of ‘interoperability’ or the ability of metadata created using MARC’s ability to work in a variety of systems, where, if the metadata is not using the same standardised protocols as MARC, it must be converted into a transmittable format using ‘maps’ and ‘crosswalks’ such as ‘Dublin Core’ or DC (Hider, 2018, p.117-118) and Michael Day has provided a great list of maps and crosswalks for a variety of system conversions.

Library databases as a school hub / Learning commons

Combes (2012, p.6-7) makes a great point: schools should be fully utilising their library catalogue / database / information management system to include all resources, even those not housed in the library, including: “class sets; ‘old’ technology resources such as video recorders and TVs; and ‘newer’ technology such as laptops, e-book readers, interactive whiteboards, USB sticks and digital cameras as catalogued items.”

Furthermore, she also makes the point that the catalogues / databases / information management systems should be exemplary teaching models of web design, utilising the most efficient layout, colours, disability access, displays, navigation, interconnectivity and access points (Coombes, 2012, p.7).

Federated search systems

Hider (2018, p.58-59) pushes this concept of libraries as information hubs a bit further through the use of federated search systems, creating ‘service convergence.’ Federated search systems allow users to search multiple databases simultaneously – much like the CSU library ‘Primo’ or the National Library of Australia’s ‘Trove’ function. However, these rely on 1. access globally (rather than simply to those who pay the registration fee) 2. the various databases to all speak the same ‘language’ in terms of language, syntax and semantics, and 3. the various databases must also use similar ‘standardised’ cataloguing protocols as those used by the library setting(s) (Hider, 2018, p.58-59).

Content management and repository systems: Intranet

The large amounts of digital content organisations are producing is managed via different content management systems, intranet and software or ‘institutional repositories’ of various natures and sizes, which have been amalgamated by staff or peer groups  They vary enormously in nature and size and may be new or ‘old’ resources being converted digitally (Hider, 2018, p.64-65). These institutional repositories may have textual content (e.g. academic papers, theses, old newspapers, recipes), audiovisual content (images, videos, sound recordings) or multimedia content (e.g. websites).  (Hider, 2018, p.64-65).

Citation databases

(Screen Shot 'Citation databases,' Hider, 2018, p.70).
(Screen Shot ‘Citation databases,’ Hider, 2018, p.70).

Evaluation of our metadata

Finally, Witten, Bainbridge, & Nicols (2010 p. 286) provide a list of questions to help librarians evaluate the metadata in their library catalogue:

Evaluation questions
Evaluation questions by Witten, Bainbridge & Nichols, 2010, p.286

References and further reading

Chadwick, B (2015). SCIS is more. Connections, 2015(92), 12. https://www.scisdata.com/connections/issue-92/scis-is-more/

Chadwick, B. (2015b). SCIS is more. Connections, 2015(93), 12.  https://www.scisdata.com/connections/issue-93/scis-is-more/

Combes, B. (2012). Practical curriculum opportunities and the library catalogue. Connections, 2012(82), 5-7. (On the SCIS home page, click on ‘Connections’ Issue 82, Term 3 2012 & download issue).

Hider, P. (2018). Information resource description: Creating and managing metadata (2nd ed.). London: Facet.

Rowe, H. (2019).  2.1 Tools of library organisation [Learning Module]. ETL505, Interact2. https://interact2.csu.edu.au/webapps/blackboard/execute/content/blankPage?cmd=view&content_id=_3302464_1&course_id=_47581_1

Witten, I. H., Bainbridge, D., & Nichols, D. M. (2010). How to build a digital library (2nd ed.). Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann. Available from CSU eBooks. (‘The scope of digital libraries’, p. 6-9 and ‘Metadata: Elements of organisation’ p. 285-286)

Learning by and from doing – before, during and after study visits and workplace placements

geralt / Pixabay

Before the 4 day study visit (SV) or (10 day) workplace placement (WPL)

  1. Enrol in ETL507 Session 2 & Session 3 2020; Read all modules; Read suggested list in references; Attend all webinars; Take SV pre-quiz by 3 August 2020; and take WPL pre-placement quiz by 17 August 2020; (COMPLETE).
  2. Read ‘Foundation knowledge skills & attributes’ PDF by ALIA, ASA & RIMPA; Join LinkedIn; (COMPLETE).
  3. Watch CSU WPL webinar and read presentation slides for how to write goals and CV; (COMPLETE).
  4. Attend 4 study visits (see schedule) and reflect on the experiences; (COMPLETE)
  5. Create a draft portfolio outline during the week of 7 September 2020.
  6. Submit a SV report by 18 -20 September 2020. (COMPLETE).
  7. Create SMAER goals for prac experience: 1. To observe and gain an understanding how the library prioritises meeting the expectations of a variety of stakeholders including the council and broader local community; 2. To learn how the library identifies and investigates and satisfies the needs and information behaviours of its users (including individuals, communities, organisations and businesses) through creation, collaboration and partnerships; and 3. To learn how the library evaluates information sources, services and products to determine their relevance to the needs of their users (ALIA goals). (COMPLETE).
  8. Draft a CV using the strategies recommended in the webinar; Prepare an up-to-date 2020 CV (to upload later on InPlace – remember to name the file: RoeETL507CV); (COMPLETE).
  9. Consider timing for WPL (must be 4 weeks after proposal submitted but 2 weeks before end of ETL507); (Thoughts: so long as COVID-19 doesn’t require me to look after my children again, I should be able to do the placement any time. I’d prefer to do it during school holidays as I am a casual teacher and would lose income by doing it during the term, but will be open to the host’s needs). (COMPLETE).
  10. Select host and 2 back-up hosts; Check do not call list & review contact guidelines; (e.g. Bega Valley Public Library; 2 other ‘virtual’ placements from Canberra libraries which I missed out on due to COVID-19?). (COMPLETE).
  11. Contact host(s) – remember to ask if they have 10 min to talk, and if so, explain “I’m a student with the SIS, CSU, doing the MaEd. TL course and I’d like to ask about possibly doing a professional placement of 10 days with a qualified information professional supervisor for my workplace learning.” If they agree, then explain my interests / goals. If they are still in agreement, propose a timeframe for completing the placement (e.g. any 10 days between 19 Sept 2020 – 15 Jan 2021). (COMPLETE).
  12. Provide links to host for employer expectations ; insurance; and CSU student requirements; If a host asks for a ‘Placement Agreement,’ contact the WPL admin team; (COMPLETE).
  13. Understand the host requirements and discuss with the host if they can: a. provide a supervisor that is a professionally recognised information professional with an information/librarian qualification (as well as the job title), b. that they agree to design, develop and support an appropriate program to meet my goals and c. that their collection and services reflect the size, nature and needs of the community; (COMPLETE)
  14. Obtain the ‘agency’ contact details, suggested roster and supervisor contact details for the placement proposal; (COMPLETE)
  15. Write and submit placement proposal & CV (including my SMART goals) to InPlace using the guide provided, registering for WPL; this must be submitted 4 weeks prior to WPL or no later than Mon. week 14 of ETL507’s 1st session, which for me is 12 October 2020; (COMPLETE – although I only have 1 week before the agency want me to do the placement).
  16. Once the WPL team have contacted the host and approved the placement, make arrangements with host regarding a program for what I could do for them during the placement, supervisor details & organise my work or other commitments. (COMPLETE)

During

  1. WPL to be completed by 15 Jan 2021 or 2 weeks following the end of the placement. (COMPLETE)
  2. Eat, sleep, & be prepared; Be on time; Dress appropriately; Be curious-figure out the best way to learn from an unfamiliar setting; Ask questions with good timing and respect with the position that I’m a novice/student; Be open minded to different ideas that might challenge my self confidence and ‘sense of self’; Follow workplace protocols and WH&S requirements; Be a team player; Be receptive to feedback; Always use personal devices appropriately; Consider CSU values and be: insightful, inclusive, impactful, inspiring; Be aware of and behave according to ‘ALIA Employer Roles & Responsibilities in Ed. & P.D.’ policy and CSU’s policies on: ‘Make a good first impression,‘ ‘Student Charter,’ ‘Student misconduct rule 2020‘; ‘Harassment & Bullying Prevention policy‘; ‘Anti-racism policy‘; and ‘Academic Integrity policy‘ (being honest, fair & responsible). (COMPLETE)
  3. During the placement tasks, keep in the forefront the outcomes for ETL507: Learning with the head (cog.), hands (skills), heart (affective) & body (phys.); Understand the wider library community and its practices; Evaluate the role/functions of libraries; Apply theory into practice reflectively; (COMPLETE)
  4. Report emergencies to the CSU WPL team and my course contact: Liz Derouet (including accidents, hazards, criminality, fires, harassment, abuse or events of nature/’acts of god’); (COMPLETE)
  5. Continually reflect on the experience, using the ‘what, so what, now what’ model recommended in Brown (2017); See also Hampe, N. (2013) and Hull, B., Churkovich, M., Outred, C. & Turner, D. (2011); Describe, discuss & reflect on issues, such as: how the library interacts with users, who are the users, how easy is it to locate information about the library; how different is it in fact vs from my assumptions; what information is imparted by the library; and what services do they offer? (COMPLETE)
  6. Have a placement review meeting with the supervisor, discuss my placement, use this structure for completing the placement review meeting and fill in the placement review report; Thank the organisation for their support! (COMPLETE)

After

  1. Think about my blog; Consider digital portfolio applications; Develop a portfolio for submission by 18 Jan 2021;
  2. Ensure paperwork and assessments are complete, including a study visit report (COMPLETE), placement proposal (COMPLETE); C.V. (COMPLETE); a professional placement report (assessment) & signed placement review meeting record (no more than 2 weeks after placement and/or no later than 1 Feb 2021 = 23 Oct 2020 for me) (COMPLETE); and my completed portfolio by 18 Jan 2021;
  3. It is recommended that I join (yearly): ALIA ($95), ASA ($75), RIMPA ($106) as well as maintain my NESA accreditation ($100), and pay back my HECS. Thoughts: $375 a year plus HECS repayments might be a bit much to ask as I’m working part time as a casual…maybe there is a job out there for me…

1 Pre Study Visit Quiz SY/US 03-Aug-2020 Complete
2 Study Visit Report SY/US 18/20-Sep-2020 Complete
3 Pre Placement Quiz SY/US 17-Aug-2020 Complete
4 Placement Proposal and CV SY/US No later than 12-Oct-2020 Complete
5 Professional Placement Report SY/US No later than 1-Feb-2021 or 2 weeks after prac (23-Oct-2020) Complete
6 Professional Reflective Portfolio SY/US 18-Jan-2021

References and further reading

Bolton, G. (2010). Reflective practice: Writing and professional development. Los Angeles: Sage.

Brown, N. (2017). Reflective model according to Rolfe et al. http://www.nicole-brown.co.uk/reflective-model-according-to-rolfe/ (Rolfe, G., Freshwater, D. and Jasper, M. (2001). Critical reflection in nursing and the helping professions: a user’s guide. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).

Chancellor, R. L. (2018). Crossing the globe: Why studying abroad is essential to the future of LIS education. 6, 59 (3), 41-52.

Edmonson, R. (2018) Is film archiving a profession yet? A reflection – 20 years on. Synoptique. 6(1), 14-22. (Annotated by Christy Roe).

Hampe, N. (2013). Reflective Practice and Writing: a Guide to Getting Started. Retrieved from: http://www.alia.org.au/sites/default/files/documents/Reflective.Practice.Writing.Guide20130409JB.pdf

Hull, B., Churkovich, M., Outred, C. & Turner, D. (2011). Librarians as reflective practitioners. In Hull, B., Churkovich, M., Outred, C. & Turner, D., Understandiing Librarians: Communication is the issue (pp.105-113), Oxford: Chandos Publishing. doi: 10.1016/B978-1-84334-615-9.50012-8

Reynolds, S., Carroll, M. & Welch, B. (2016) Engaging with our future: the role of educators, practitioners, professional associations and employing organisations in the co-creation of information professionals. Australian Library Journal 65 (4), 317-327. doi: 10.1080/00049670.2016.1235529

Schon, D. (2008). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

Describing and Analysing Educational Resources Module 1

Photo by National Cancer Institute on Unsplash

I think a key to mention that ETL505 is different to ETL503 (Resourcing the curriculum) in that ETL503 is about providing quality resources but ETL505 is about “organising resources to facilitate effective access” (Hider, 2018, p.xv). Organising is the key word! So, now Thinking Bitmoji ChristyI’m thinking, as per Hider (2018, p. 17), should the name of this class be changed to Information Organisation? (Just kidding). However, more seriously, by chapter 2 I was starting to get very annoyed by the amount of end of sentence prepositions used by Hider (e.g. ‘looking for’ should read simply as ‘looking’ or ‘for which they are looking.’ It is a minor detail I know, but compounded by at least 8 instances in chapter 2, I began to wonder about the quality of the editor).

What follows are my notes about the readings of Hider (2018) from the introductions and Chapters 1, 2 & 4:

FRBR

Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records  or (FRBR) is “a conceptual model of the ‘bibliographic universe’ involving 4 different ‘levels’ of information resource, originally set out in a report published by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA)” in 1998 and revised in 2017 in IFLA’s Library Reference Model: a conceptual model for bibliographic information (Hider, 2018, p.25).

FRBR has 4 ‘entities,’ called: ‘works, expressions, manifestations and items,’ which are abbreviated ‘WEMI,’ which is shown by Hider in this Figure 2.1:

Hider, 2018, p.26
(Hider, 2018, p.26)

As well as in this circle chart by Lorenz (2012):

Lorenz, A. (2012). [Screen shot]
Lorenz, A. (2012). [Screen Shot]

“The point is that different characteristics or attributes of items, manifestations, expressions and works are likely to be important when people think about them for the purposes of finding, identifying, selecting, obtaining and exploring them” (Hider, 2018, p.27).

The 5 user tasks of FRBR (IFLA, 2017, p.15).
The 5 user tasks of FRBR (IFLA, 2017, p.15 in Hider, 2018, p.29).

It is  a good point in Hider (2018, p.xiii) that, when trying to find, identify, select, obtain, (or access) resources (the FRBR), users can be lost, overwhelmed by choices and simply unable to choose. The resulting poor access to information, (see also my previous blog posts regarding filter failure and filter bubble) and being completely in the dark about quality information are problems that can all be solved by effective resource curation and description / access.

Interestingly, ‘bibliographic’ is defined as ‘book description.’ but as the definition of ‘book’ has widened, so too has the term ‘bibliographic’ (Hider, 2018, p.16). This is also important to note when using the term ‘bibliography.’

Information Resource Descriptions

Descriptions should different aspects of things that they are describing in either elements of: content, carrier, or both content and carrier (Hider, 2018, p.4). ‘Cataloguing’ or ‘indexing’ are often referred to as information, intellectual or knowledge organisation of resources (Hider, 2018, p.13). These are represented by their physical location, but also through their description and the comparison between various resources. In fact, the core of organisation lies in the relationships, commonalities and differences between resources (Hider, 2018, p.40).

The more resources a setting has, the more difficult it is to locate a resource based on its location, so an adequate and ‘representative’ (p.33) resource description (such as an catalogues, indexes, search engines, etc), and effective resource labels (a form of metadata) are key to locating the resource. Particularly, indexes are a vital tool for organising resources, as they are representations of the resources arranged in a user-friendly way (Hider, 2018, p.14-15).

NOTE: Search engines, linked data, data mining and granularity are considered ‘indexing content’ rather than ‘indexing of metadata’ and are part of a seperate field from information science called ‘information retrieval’ (Hider, 2018, p.18) because, in Hider’s view, search engines do not help with the formulation of search queries. However, the modern Web2.0 search engine(s) do have some artificial intelligence or ‘semantic web’ (Hider, 2018, p.19) capabilities, such as the ability to use individual online footprints to narrow (and possibly limit) search results.

“Information resource description is inevitably biased: it is influenced by the motives, situation, limitations and world-view of its creator” (Hider, 2018, p.23).

In terms of FRBR, and resource descriptions, and the resource seeking process that occurs inside the users’ heads, users may also check the ‘relevance criteria’ of the resource based on its content summary, provenance, quality, currency/date, quantity of text, or format and the ‘relevance rankings’ of information retrieval systems, such as those used by the semantic web 2.0, which play a large part in the selection of resources by users (Hider, 2018, p.35-38).

Metadata

Metadata, according to Hider (2018) is an “information ecology” (p.12) “providing an overview of both the process and the product” of organising resources (p.xv) and “information resource description” (p.4) including both the “carrier” (format) and the “content” (information) of the resource (p.5). I interpret that to mean that metadata is an overview of how a resource was created, is delivered and information describing its content.

There are 4 areas of importance with metadata: elements, values, format and transmission (Hider, 2018, p.6-10).

1. Elements or data ‘fields,’  provide the structure of the metadata and are infinite, however it is important to narrow them down to what will be of value to the user, e.g. a resource’s title. The elements are the ‘building blocks’ of metadata and each element describes an ‘attribute’ of the resource, such as its identifier/number, name/title, creator/author/corporation, subject, etc. (Hider, 2018, p.23, 30, 32, 33).

NOTE: Systematic (numerical) identifiers are most commonly known as ISBN’s (international standard book numbers), ISSN (international standard serial numbers), ISMN (international standard music numbers) and DOI’s (digital object identifiers), and the lesser known ISTC (international standard text code), and ISAN (international standard audiovisual number) to name a few (Hider, 2018, p.34).

2. Values, or fundamental content of the metadata are also infinite but often have the greatest impact on the quality of the metadata and are key to a user utilising the description in order to locate a resource (Hider, 2018, p.28). (See more information in Hider, 2018 chapter 5).

3. The method by which the values are encoded or recorded is known as the format, which needs to be compatible with the information retrieval system being used by a setting (note below); and

4. The transmission of the metadata is the protocol used to input the metadata into the information retrieval system, so that the metadata is accessible to the users.

This image found in Hider (2018, p. 7) helps explain the 4 areas of metadata:

Figure 1.1 An analogy by Hider 2018 p.7
Figure 1.1 An analogy by Hider 2018 p.7 (adapted from Elings and Waibel, 2007)

There are also the 6 purposes of metadata provided by Hayes’  ‘6 point model’ (in Hider, 2018, p.5): 1. resource identifying and describing, 2. information retrieving, 3. information resource managing, 4. intellectual property right managing, 5. e-commerce/e-government support, and 6. information governing. If we take into account that there are 3 types of metadata: administrative, structural and accessible information resource descriptions, accessible descriptions link to 1. and 2. in Hayes’ model (in Hider, 2018, p.5) and these best correlate with finding, identifying, selecting, obtaining and exploring resources.

Finally, metadata must be continually evaluated for quality control and ongoing growth purposes. We must ask ourselves: 1. Is the metadata from an external source in the right format for our information retrieval system? 2. Does it need improving or editing based on our context (users, systems, costs, or search contexts)? 3. Will it withstand constant technology advances?  4. Is it standardised enough that it might be shared in a (global) network? (Hider, 2018, p10-11). 5. Who are our users, both end-users and intermediary and what are their information needs, knowledge and behaviours? 6. What metadata should be selected to help users to access the information they are seeking? (Hider, 2018, p.24). 7. What methods are we using to analyse our users’ search queries? (Hider, 2018, p.33).

This concept of metadata is interesting to me as a teacher as I have read recently that making students aware of the complex process of writing is key to their success as writers – rather than the actual content of the writing (including punctuation, grammar, spelling or handwriting) itself. Cataloguing / describing resources effectively is not only a means for users to access the resource but also to understand the resource itself at a deeper level. [In fact, one could say that the metadata itself is an information resource!]

Information Retrieval Systems / SCIS / Oliver / RDA

Information retrieval systems are designed to improve access to collections of information resources and may influence the nature and structure of the metadata (Hider, 2018, p.6).

Information retrieval systems are a means of ‘cataloguing,’ providing ‘bibliographic data,’ ‘indexing,’ ‘tagging,’ ‘archival description,’ and in some cases, ‘museum documentation’ (Hider, 2018, p.6).

Commonly used in Australia are the cataloguing information retrieval systems: SCIS and Oliver, and here is an image showing how SCIS use various standards in the process of creating their cataloging metadata:

Chadwick, B. (2017). SCIS procedures
Chadwick, B. (2017). Flowchart showing the SCIS protocols for creating metadata.

However, our first assessment in ‘Describing and Analysing Educational Resources’ requires us to use the library cataloguing code: Resource Description and Access (RDA) mentioned by Hider (2018, p.xv).

Who is responsible?

Publishers, authors, creators, information retrieval system operators, teacher librarians/information specialists/metadata librarians, archivists, records managers, museum curators, information architects and the general public ‘end users’ can all be responsible (however uncontrolled, inaccurate, informal and inconsistent) for creating and disseminating metadata through the use of publishing standards, the requirement for authors to write abstracts and keywords for their resources, as well as through desktop publishing computers, social media applications and the internet which have made it far easier for end users to create (tag, meta-tag, label, #tag, hyperlink or embed) and disseminate metadata and information resources (Hider, 2018, p.74-86).  The relative benefits of formal vs informal knowledge organisation is best represented by this Table 4.3 by Hider (2018, p. 87):

Comparison of 2 approaches to knowledge organisation
(in Hider, 2018, p.87).

Information specialists / teacher librarians need to establish ‘communities of practice’ (Hider, 2018, p.77; See also my previous blog posts on this topic). They must be able to understand the foundations of metadata in order to fulfil the roles and responsibilities of directing and guiding students / users towards quality information resources and to best be able to access the resource though effective cataloging and to access the content within the resource through effective information literacy skills (Hider, 2018, p.75-77; See also my other posts on TL roles and responsibilities).

Note: Computers/semantic web/applications can also do indexing and metadata of sorts, and this is improving rapidly, however computer programs still require human input and regulation in order to present metadata effectively (Hider, 2018, p.88-89).

Genrefication – Do fiction books inform?

I like it that Hider (2018, p.1-2) points out that, although they will always have a primary purpose, resources can have different purposes. I have been sorting my personal library after our house move and found it challenging whether to put self-help style fiction children’s books in the fiction picture book section or in the teaching key learning area (KLA) ‘genre’ section of my library. For example, the picture book ‘I like myself’ is used in stage 1 PDHPE (health) lessons. Do I put it in that genre or do I keep it with straight fiction picture books, organised by author name? I chose genre–after all, it isn’t by a well known author and I need to be able to access it quickly. It’s primary purpose is to inform, rather than entertain, yet I fully support the argument that a good number of children’s fictional picture books have the primary purpose of informing their readers. (Genrefication…see the link for an idea for further reading).

References

Chadwick, B. (September 2017). SCIS: Bibliographic data for education. [Interact2 Recorded Adobe Connect Webinar; Screen shot of protocols].  Education Services Australia.

Hider, P. (2018). Information resource description: Creating and managing metadata (2nd ed.). London: Facet. [Introduction(s) & Chapters 1, 2, 4]

Lorenz, A. [Andrea Lorenz]. (2012, August 9). FRBR simplified.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPBpP0wbWTg

Further reading

Chadwick, B (2015). SCIS is more. Connections, 2015(92), 12.  https://www.scisdata.com/connections/issue-92/scis-is-more/

Schools Catalogue Information Service (2020). Schools Catalogue Information Service. https://www.scisdata.com

Schools Catalogue Information Service (2020). SCIS catalogue.  https://myscisdata.com/discover (accessible once you have logged in to SCISData)

Schools Catalogue Information Service (2019). SCIS standards for cataloguing and data entry. https://www.scisdata.com/media/1738/scis-standards-for-cataloguing-and-data-entry.pdf

Schools Catalogue Information Service (2020). SCIS subject headings. https://my.scisdata.com/standards (accessible once you have logged in to SCISData)

Reflecting on Why I Barely Passed ‘Research Methods’

Soooo….INF447 Research Methods in Practice…that was nearly a disaster! Here are 4 reflective reasons why I nearly failed the class:

  1. I was well out of my comfort zone from the very beginning. Other students enrolled in the course were asking questions that either 1. did not occur to me or 2. were questions that were worded in such a way that I did not understand what they were even asking, or 3. were so over my head that I had no idea what was happening. It was like trying to speak English in France…you can get by but it isn’t easy and you spend a lot of time simply trying to understand, a far cry from being able to be a productive member of the community. I was so overwhelmed and in the growth mindset learning pit, that I only managed to write one blog entry (and I wrote 3 for a different class that I dropped before the census date, so that is saying something!)
  2. I was also filled with anxiety about the math test. If I’m honest, I will admit that I only passed because it was multiple choice and I looked at my notes on the formulas needed and used scratch paper algorithms in order to answer the questions. But as to whether it was a true representation of my maths knowledge, well…I’d say I got lucky.
  3. I worked very hard on both assessments. The first was comparing two research papers. I picked two very different papers to compare and, to my surprise, received a credit. I was naively harsh towards one particular researcher, but to be fair, if a novice such as myself could see the errors then surely harshness was warranted? (Regardless, I was about to have a rude awakening for the final assessment).
  4. The final assessment required me to write a research proposal and for the first time in my life I found myself seriously under the word count. I genuinely could not see the point in writing a research proposal for researching whether a makerspace would be beneficial to my (fictional) school. Without actually researching what makerspaces entail, it was impossible to determine the research questions and the terms of the research…Basically, it was a situation of researching makerspaces in order to write the research proposal in order to then research their effectiveness? Confusing. Not practical in the real world? Having taken a week off work to complete the assessment, sending my family away to my mother in law’s and limiting our home restoration to tradesmen who did not require my input, I was shocked to see my results and feedback as a ‘fail.’ Perhaps the premise of the assessment was flawed and perhaps my lack of experience in writing research proposals were to blame? No idea. It was not ideal. I am left relieved it is behind me and curious what makerspaces are and whether they are effective.

Where to from here?

Well, suffice to say, I can promise that I won’t be writing any actual research proposals any time soon! I have never been so glad to have passed a class in all my days. If the point of the class was to encourage and enable teacher librarians to be researchers, in my case, the class has failed to reach its objective. I believe I am wiser about research methods for having taken the course, but would like to be part of a team or an assistant on a team of researchers first, so as to improve my skills in the future.

 

 

Best practice for leading and supporting digital citizenship

(Reflecting on my learning in ETL523 Modules 4, 5 & 6)

“Digital leaders understand that we must put real-world tools in the hands of students and allow them to create artefacts of learning that demonstrate conceptual mastery. This is an important pedagogical shift as it focuses on enhancing essential skill sets—communication, collaboration, creativity, media literacy, global connectedness, critical thinking, and problem solving – that society demands….Leaders need to be the catalysts for change…..Digital leadership begins with identifying obstacles to change and specific solutions to overcome them in order to transform schools in the digital age” (Sheninger, 2017).

Notably, in terms of creating a productive digital learning environment, Sheninger (2017) identifies ‘7 pillars for digital leadership in education’ as: communication, public relations, branding, student engagement/learning, professional growth/development, re-envisioning learning spaces and environments, and opportunity.

Rather than avoid global connections and social media, and rather than limit our students (forcing them to go ‘underground’ with a secret world of digital environments of their own making) we need need to learn how to embrace it safely and productively as global digital citizens (Ohler, 2011). We also need our school principals and supervisors to help promote a community of practice and positive learning environments by being “willing to listen, delegate, distribute, empower, and step out of the way of the learning” (Lindsay, 2016, p.110).

Digital citizenship phases infographic Image
Digital citizenship implementation phases (Infographic) by Christy Roe

Utilising the readings for modules 4, 5 and 6, as well as a few of my own, following the 6 month multi-phase structure suggested by Chen & Orth (2013), Cofino (2012) and Common Sense Media (n.d.) which begins prior to the start of the school year, we can complete the following 4 phases:

  1. Prior to the school year beginning, school contexts need to begin phase 1 by clarifying our unique vision, goals, roles and responsibilities:

  • First. form a strong team of information and digital technology leaders (Chen & Orth, 2013; Common Sense Media, n.d.). (See my previous 9 blog posts on creating a school Community of Practice or the evaluation of practice via the 3 blog posts on Quality Teaching Framework/Rounds and also this video on Teacherpreneurs from the Centre for Teaching Quality for motivation!)
  • Create and deliver an environmental scan utilising this template for a ‘Situational Analysis’ by Christy Roe (based on suggestions from) the resources provided by Hague & Payton (2010), and/or Pashiardis (1996), particularly as shown in the hexagon images below:

    (Hague & Payton, 2010, p.47))
    Digital Literacy Planning Tool ‘Reflect & Progress’ image by Hague & Payton, 2010, p.47
  • Implement a technology audit (such as this one created by Christy Roe) and/or bullying survey (such as this one created by the University of South Australia) (Chen & Orth, 2013).
  • Facilitate the formulation of policies, procedures or guidelines such as an acceptable use policy (using a questionnaire such as this one created by Christy Roe) based on the policy created by the administration (such as those listed in the resources section below), including cohesive terminology that we will utilise as a school (Common Sense Media, n.d.), e.g. linking the Positive Behaviour for Learning Behaviour Matrix or Code of Student Conduct to the school’s “Acceptable use Policy (AUP), Responsible Use Guidelines (RUG), Acceptable Use Agreement (AUA), Internet Use Policy (IUP), Bring Your Own Device (BYOD), or Bring Your Own Technology (BYOT)” etc.
  • Liaise with others in our personal learning networks (PLN) (Sheninger, 2017) to map the digital citizenship areas of the syllabus or curriculum documents (NESA / ACARA), find examples of a digital citizenship scope and sequence (such as this (2011) one by Mike Ribble), develop sample lessons or units of work, and accumulate appropriate resources (such as those provided in the resources section below)–made available to all stakeholders (Common Sense Media, n.d.).
  • Allow teacher librarians (and the school leadership teams) to readily undertake the role of information leaders who ‘meet the students where they are,’ recognising that there may not only be gaps in terms of technology access, or  information access, but there may also be an (intergenerational) gap between what some view as the purpose of technology – i.e. is the purpose of technology to assist in informing, socialising or varying degrees of both, and what is true for the individuals in each school or home context? (Levinson, 2010, p.11).

2. In phase 2, within the first fortnight of the school year, we must train teachers and engage families:

“Alignment between school and home with regards to digital citizenship and healthy digital usage is a hallmark of a 21st-century school. A community-wide understanding of the norms, rules of behaviour, rules of engagement, and common practices is necessary for all schools in order to raise an ethical, digital (and real-life) citizen. Without this key parental partnership, these conversations regarding digital citizenship will just become incoherent whispers in the minds of our students, overwhelmed by the louder voices of media, false information, and misunderstanding” (Chen & Orth, 2013).

Hague, C., & Payton, S. (2010). Digital literacy across the curriculum [Handbook [Image]. pp. 19.

    Hague, C., & Payton, S. (2010). Digital literacy across the curriculum [Handbook [Image]. p. 19
  • As per the circles image from Hague & Payton (2010) (as well as information from Sheninger (2017)), schools and families need to continually foster 21st century learning and digital literacy skills such as: creativity, (innovation), critical thinking,  evaluation (and problem solving), cultural and social understanding, collaboration, effective communication, (global collectedness), the ability to find and select information, (media literacy), e-safety and technological functional skills.
  • While at the same time, we must also utilise situations of technology misuse as learning opportunities (see the POISE image below) for the students as well as ourselves as adult digital citizens, setting appropriate boundaries, listening student voices, and continuously encouraging digital literacy and digital citizenship (Chen & Orth, 2013).
  • Educators as professionals need to get onboard with 21st century learning and nurture safe, culturally aware, global citizenship and global connections for ourselves as well as for and with our students (Hilt, 2011);
  • We must ensure that our digital citizenship curriculum not only protects our students in terms of safety, privacy, copyright, fair use or legality issues, but that it also promotes global cultural, gender, socio-economic status, religion, language and ability awareness and a global appreciation of difference (Hilt, 2011).
  • Educators who have embraced the need for global digital citizenship and global connections, need to lead by example and have our own safe, culturally aware, positive and professional ‘brand’ or digital footprint, and we also need to help our students create and tailor their own safe, culturally aware and positive digital footprint ‘brand(s)’ (Neilson, 2012).
  • The digital citizenship leadership team, or perhaps even the whole staff, need to hold regular meetings and face to face information and collaboration sessions with families to ensure that preferred means of communication are clarified, that families have input into the digital citizenship program and also so that families are given support in implementing policies, procedures and guidelines at home that suit their individual situation(s) (Chen & Orth, 2013; Levinson, 2010).
  • Finally, the digital citizenship team need to develop a plan to help students move from digital citizenship to digital leadership by creating a technology peer mentorship or student technology leadership program (such as YesK12.org) (Oxley, 2012; TeachThought Staff, 2018).

3. In phase 3, we must implement our plans:

  • Prior to students being given devices, we must workshop the digital citizenship expectations, policy, procedures and guidelines that we created in phase 1 & 2 (Cofino, 2012).

“The message is threefold: (1) helping children become good digital citizens must be an ongoing practice led by families and schools together; (2) having access to a range of technology and global connections through school creates a positive context in which to have these conversations; and (3) students will make mistakes, and it’s our collective responsibility to turn mistakes into learnable moments” (Chen & Orth, 2013).

  • Bitmoji Christy 'Do it!'
    Bitmoji Christy ‘Do it!’

    Once students begin to utilise digital devices, we must implement the digital citizenship lessons or units of work that we created in phase 2, with a key focus on 21st century learning skills, boundaries, student voice, digital footprints and global connections.

  • We must implement the peer mentorship program that we created in phase 2, including student voice in the consequences for unacceptable behaviours (such as the student court, implied by in the slideshow by Cofino, 2012).
  • We must continually check in with families, using the resources and communication devices agreed upon in phase 2.

4. And finally, in phase 4, we will reflect and evaluate:

 

Growth Coaching International (n.d.) Growth Framework [Image]
Growth Coaching International (n.d.) Growth Framework [Image] https://www.growthcoaching.com.au/about/growth-approach?country=au
We must continuously reflect and evaluate our practice collegially and with a comprehensive evaluation system (such as the GROWTH model templates created by Christy Roe) including “professional development plans, administrative and institutional support, and a clear vision of the utility of technology to promote, advance, and customise learning for students” (Levinson, 2010, p.112).

List of resources for Teachers and Students:

Policies, procedures or guidelines:
Resources for digital citizenship lessons:
Examples of global citizenship programs:

References and further reading

Creative Commons Licence This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Step 1 of 2
Please sign in first
You are on your way to create a site.

Log in