Engaging tutors in using e-repositories for learning and teaching

Universities which set up online repositories for the management of learning and teaching resources commonly find that uptake is poor. Tutors are often reluctant to upload their materials to e-repositories, even though the same tutors are happy to upload resources to the virtual learning environment (e.g. Blackboard, Moodle, Sakai) and happy to upload their research papers to the university’s research publications repository. The paper reviews this phenomenon and suggests constructive ways in which tutors can be encouraged to engage with an e-repository. The authors have recently completed a major project “Developing Repositories at Worcester” which is part of a group of similar projects in the UK. The paper includes the feedback and the lessons learned from these projects, based on the publications and reports they have produced. They cover ways of embedding repository use into institutional working practice, and give examples of different types of repository designed to meet the needs of those using different kinds of learning and teaching resources. As well as this specific experience, the authors summarise some of the main findings from UK publications, in particular the December 2008 report of Joint Information Systems Committee: Good intentions: improving the evidence base in support of sharing learning materials and Online Innovation in Higher Education, Ron Cooke’s report to a UK government initiative on the future of Higher Education. The issues covered include the development of Web 2.0 style repositories rather than conventionally structured ones, the use of tags rather than metadata, the open resources initiative, the best use for conventional repositories, links to virtual learning environments, and the processes for the management and support of repositories within universities. In summary the paper presents an optimistic, constructive view of how to embed the use of e-repositories into the working practices of university tutors. Equally, the authors are aware of the considerable difficulties in making progress and are realistic about what can be achieved. The paper uses evidence and experience drawn from those working in this field to suggest a strategic vision in which the management of e-learning resources is productive, efficient and meets the needs of both tutors and their students.

A framework for evaluating semantic metadata

Because poor quality semantic metadata can destroy the effectiveness of semantic web technology by hampering applications from producing accurate results, it is important to have frameworks that support their evaluation. However, there is no such framework developedto date. In this context, we proposed i) an evaluation reference model, SemRef, which sketches some fundamental principles for evaluating semantic metadata, and ii) an evaluation framework, SemEval, which provides a set of instruments to support the detection of quality problems and the collection of quality metrics for these problems. A preliminary case study of SemEval shows encouraging results.

An infrastructure for acquiring high quality semantic metadata

Because metadata that underlies semantic web applications is gathered from distributed and heterogeneous data sources, it is important to ensure its quality (i.e., reduce duplicates, spelling errors, ambiguities). However, current infrastructures that acquire and integrate semantic data have only marginally addressed the issue of metadata quality. In this paper we present our metadata acquisition infrastructure, ASDI, which pays special attention to ensuring that high quality metadata is derived. Central to the architecture of ASDI is a verification engine that relies on several semantic web tools to check the quality of the derived data. We tested our prototype in the context of building a semantic web portal for our lab, KMi. An experimental evaluation comparing the automatically extracted data against manual annotations indicates that the verification engine enhances the quality of the extracted semantic metadata.

GEO Label – quality information interrogation tool for geospatial datasets:towards effective visualization of quality metadata

Although the importance of dataset fitness-for-use evaluation and intercomparison is widely recognised within the GIS community, no practical tools have yet been developed to support such interrogation. GeoViQua aims to develop a GEO label which will visually summarise and allow interrogation of key informational aspects of geospatial datasets upon which users rely when selecting datasets for use. The proposed GEO label will be integrated in the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) and will be used as a value and trust indicator for datasets accessible through the GEO Portal. As envisioned, the GEO label will act as a decision support mechanism for dataset selection and thereby hopefully improve user recognition of the quality of datasets. To date we have conducted 3 user studies to (1) identify the informational aspects of geospatial datasets upon which users rely when assessing dataset quality and trustworthiness, (2) elicit initial user views on a GEO label and its potential role and (3), evaluate prototype label visualisations. Our first study revealed that, when evaluating quality of data, users consider 8 facets: dataset producer information; producer comments on dataset quality; dataset compliance with international standards; community advice; dataset ratings; links to dataset citations; expert value judgements; and quantitative quality information. Our second study confirmed the relevance of these facets in terms of the community-perceived function that a GEO label should fulfil: users and producers of geospatial data supported the concept of a GEO label that provides a drill-down interrogation facility covering all 8 informational aspects. Consequently, we developed three prototype label visualisations and evaluated their comparative effectiveness and user preference via a third user study to arrive at a final graphical GEO label representation. When integrated in the GEOSS, an individual GEO label will be provided for each dataset in the GEOSS clearinghouse (or other data portals and clearinghouses) based on its available quality information. Producer and feedback metadata documents are being used to dynamically assess information availability and generate the GEO labels. The producer metadata document can either be a standard ISO compliant metadata record supplied with the dataset, or an extended version of a GeoViQua-derived metadata record, and is used to assess the availability of a producer profile, producer comments, compliance with standards, citations and quantitative quality information. GeoViQua is also currently developing a feedback server to collect and encode (as metadata records) user and producer feedback on datasets; these metadata records will be used to assess the availability of user comments, ratings, expert reviews and user-supplied citations for a dataset. The GEO label will provide drill-down functionality which will allow a user to navigate to a GEO label page offering detailed quality information for its associated dataset. At this stage, we are developing the GEO label service that will be used to provide GEO labels on demand based on supplied metadata records. In this presentation, we will provide a comprehensive overview of the GEO label development process, with specific emphasis on the GEO label implementation and integration into the GEOSS.