2. Discovery systems offer several potential advantages such
as ease of use, speed, and marketing potential. However, in
their present state of development discovery tools also have
limitations such as being opaque, exhibiting incomplete
coverage, and confusing interface. Instruction can be
tailored to help overcome some of these limitations and
also move the instruction away from a focus on just one
tool to a higher rung of information literacy and critical
thinking
Summary
2
3. The ideal Web discovery tool
● A single library index to all library content
● One point of entry to all library collections
● Simple, fast search
● With relevance ranked results
3
4. Simple model of a discovery tool
Understanding some of the major components
of a discovery system and how they work
together can help us see some of a Web-scale
discovery tool’s strengths as well as limitations
4
5. Components of a discovery tool
This is my very simplified model of a discovery
system
● Library Resources
● Central Index
● Relevance ranking algorithm
● Interface
● The searcher
5
6. The library resources
Library purchased resources such as databases, books,
journals, articles, etc
Locally loaded items such as digital repository items and
archives
These resources come from many different vendors
Some of these vendors view their products as
proprietary
This can create issues with sharing metadata between
vendors
6
7. What is metadata
Metadata was traditionally in the card catalogs of libraries.
The Dewey Decimal System employed by libraries for the
classification of library materials by subject is an early
example of metadata usage
For example a book's title, author, subject matter, and a
brief plot synopsis
7
8. Central index
Vendor created index of metadata describing your library
resources
This pre-harvested central index makes the search process
fast overcoming some of the problems of federated search
since there is only one index to search
This index is constructed from a list of resources provided
by your discovery tool vendor which you activate based on
your library collection
8
9. Relevance ranking of results
Discovery tools should rank search results that
are fully objective based on relevance without
bias toward any content provider including the
vendor of the discovery tool
9
10. Discovery Interface
A simple search box to promote the ease of
searching and meet the student’s expectations
of one search for everything
All results lumped together in one list along
with limiters to refine results
10
11. The searcher
Has developed expectations about search
interface based on Web experience.
Tends to have a high confidence level in their
ability to search
11
12. Some strengths of discovery tools
● Very good at known item searches
● Very good at searching interdisciplinary topics
● Very good at casting a wide net
● Undergraduates love discovery tools
● Discovery systems do seem to increase usage of
library resources per FTE versus institutions
that do not have discovery tools
12
13. Web-scale discovery tool
limitations
We will look at two areas of the discovery tool
and discuss some limitations
● Limitations of the central index due to
competing vendors
● Limitations of interface and limitations due
to poor integration with other library
resources
13
14. Limitations of the central index
due to competing vendors
Vendors not sharing metadata could lead to some library
resources not being included in the discovery tool's central
index
Because not all vendors publicize the content indexed by their
central indexes it is impossible to compare coverage of
content between discovery tools
Aggregated central indexes are not easy to build and are
opaque in nature
It is not completely clear what is being indexed and searched
14
15. Limitations of the central index
due to competing vendors
Some library resources not included in my library’s
discovery results
● Company/Industry reports
● Financial/Statistical Data
● Joanna Briggs Institute Systematic Reviews
These are three example that I am familiar with
and I am sure that there are others based on your
individual libraries
15
16. Limitations due to interface
A simplified interface does not always improve
the quality of search queries.
Users may have difficulty distinguishing
between different versions of the same item
16
17. Limitations due to limited
integration with other resources
The integration of discovery tools with other
library systems through a link resolver still is
problematic with errors linking to other
resources and sometimes leading to dead ends.
The level of linking is inconsistent with some
links going to the article and others to the
journal
17
18. Caveats to these limitations
It is not just vendors that should be held
responsible
The local library’s implementation of the
discovery tool impacts performance as well
These systems will probably improve
18
19. What do these limitations mean
for the user
Not all library resources are being searched
Searchers have difficulty in distinguishing
between the different types of sources in the
results list in both content and format
19
20. What do these limitations mean
for the user
Users have difficulty accessing the full-text
article on publisher’s or aggregator’s website
from discovery tool’s interface
The link resolver can perplex users
The language and categories of limiters and
tabs can be unclear and confusing to users
20
21. Instruction to improve use of
Web-scale discovery tools
Overcoming these limitations calls for a
scaffolding approach
Lower rung instruction which is a tool specific
approach that explains and navigates the
interface (e.g., links to peer reviewed, limiters,
available in library, tabs, link resolver and
integration to other library resources)
21
22. Instruction to improve use of
Web-scale discovery tools
On the higher rung information literacy is taught
(e.g. explaining different source types, evaluation
of results, development of search strategy, “format
as process”)
This distinction between lower and higher rung is
not always clear because many of tasks with a
discovery tool will require both types of knowledge
simultaneously
22
23. Instruction to improve use of
Web-scale discovery tools
I ask you to consider such distinctions because
many published articles suggest that the higher
rung of information literacy is an important
step forward for library instruction and it is on
this higher rung where librarians need to focus
their instruction
23
24. Specific instructional goals to
overcome incomplete coverage
Explain what is being searched by the discovery
tool and why it may still be important to search
subject specific databases and where Web-scale
discovery fits in with other library tools
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the
discovery tool compared to the subject database
24
25. Specific instructional goals to overcome
interface & integration limitations
How to identify different source types such as: book,
article, editorial, journal, or book chapter in the results
list
What are strengths and purpose of each source type.
How to use facets and limiters to refine results.
How to find full text
25
26. How discovery tools could aid
information literacy instruction
Web scale discovery tools may help because we
can spend less time on the mechanics of
individual databases and more time on
developing an “information seeking strategy”
including developing a topic, choosing good
search terms, and evaluating results (Rose-
Wiles 2013 p. 157)
26
27. Specific instructional goals for
information literacy skills
Would focus on:
Development and revision of keywords
Evaluation of results
The iterative nature of the research process and
how the research process is revised
27
28. What if?
What if we taught library instruction with just
Google. Here is what google might teach?
Informacy & Meta-literacy
Daniel Russell's Home Page
https://sites.google.com/site/dmrussell/
28
29. Concluding thoughts
The genie is out of the bottle Web-scale
discovery tools are here so we should adapt
Instruction can allow us to overcome some of
their limitations
29
30. Concluding thoughts
Both higher rung and lower rung instruction is critical
and both should be taught together
Knowing how read the user interface along with
knowing what’s possible to ask /search
Goals are nice but implementation of
information literacy is the real task at hand
30
31. Bibliography
Azadbakht, E. S., & Polacek, K. M. (2015). Information Literacy Instruction with Primo. Reference & User Services Quarterly
54 (3):23-26.
Breeding, M. 2014. Web-Scale Discovery Services. American Libraries 45 (1/2):25-25.
Brians, C. L., & Pencek, B. (2011). Discovery Systems are No Different: We Must Still Teach Searchers How to Become
Researchers. Proceedings of Charleston Library Conference.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5703/1288284314958
Chickering, F. W., & Yang, S. Q. (2014). Evaluation and Comparison of Discovery Tools: An Update. Information Technology
& Libraries 33 (2):5-30.
Fagan, J. C., Mandernach, M., Nelson, C. S., Paulo, J. R. & Saunders, G. (2012). Usability Test Results for a Discovery Tool in an
Academic Library. Information Technology & Libraries 31 (1):83-112.
Georgas, H. (2014). Google vs. the Library (Part II): Student Search Patterns and Behaviors when Using Google and a Federated
Search Tool. Portal-Libraries and the Academy 14 (4):503-532.
Lundrigan, C., Manuel, K., & Yan, M. (2015). "Pretty Rad": Explorations in User Satisfaction with a Discovery Layer at Ryerson
University. College & Research Libraries 76 (1):43-62.
Neuwirth, E., & Cain, G. H. (2013). Beyond the Single-Search Box: A New Opportunity to Scale Library Services (and promote
the value of the library through discovery). Against the Grain 25 (4):20-26.
31
32. Bibliography
Niu, X., Zhang, T., & Chen, H. L. (2014). Study of User Search Activities With Two Discovery Tools at an Academic Library.
International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 30 (5):422-433.
Perrin, J. M., Clark, M., De-Leon, E., & Edgar. L. (2014). Usability Testing for Greater Impact: A Primo Case Study. Information
Technology & Libraries 33 (4):57-66.
Rose-Wiles, L. M., & Hofmann, M. A. (2013). Still Desperately Seeking Citations: Undergraduate Research in the Age of
Web-Scale Discovery. Journal of Library Administration 53 (2/3):147-166.
Seeber, K. P. (2015). Teaching "format as a process" in an era of Web-scale discovery. Reference Services Review 43 (1):19-30.
Tewell, E. C. (2013). Full-Time Faculty View Information Literacy as Important but Are Unlikely to Incorporate it Into Their
Teaching. Evidence Based Library & Information Practice 8 (1):84-86.
Yang, S. Q. (2014). Charting Discovery System Improvements (2010-2013). Computers in Libraries 34 (8):10-14.
32
