Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Are tags from Mars and descriptors from Venus?


Published on

A presentation about the metadata ecology for multilingual learning resources

Published in: Education, Technology

Are tags from Mars and descriptors from Venus?

  1. 1. Are tags from Mars and descriptors from Venus? A study on the ecology of educational resource metadata ICWL 2009, Aachen Aug 19 2009 Presenter: Riina Vuorikari
  2. 2. Presentation • Introduction: purpose of metadata, context and method • Results and discussion: How do users tag and what do they click? What do expert indexers and repository managers think of tags? • Conclusions
  3. 3. Introduction: metadata for learning resources To describe resources. “Descriptor” used for indexing terms. Usefulness for searchability
  4. 4. Typical LOR =Learning Object LOR with tagging Repository
  5. 5. Metadata ecology • Describes the interrelation of conventional metadata (e.g. Learning Object Metadata) and social tags, and • their interactions with the environment – repository, – resources, – stakeholders (e.g. managers, metadata indexers and the whole community of users)
  6. 6. Learning Resource Exchange for schools Learning Resource Exchange - Riina Vuorikari Conventional search «From teachers to teachers» Tags in multiple languages Ratings and comments by the European Commission’s eContentplus Programme
  7. 7. Tagging to « keep found things found » and Learning Resource Exchange - Riina Vuorikari help to share with other users Add to Favourites Add a tag
  8. 8. Method • 234 users, 77 created bookmarks and tags. • Attention metadata captured on the portal (user, resource, tags). Details in Vuorikari and Koper, 2009.
  9. 9. Results: users and tags • Users interact differently with tags • 33% of users tag, • but 58% use tags for searching
  10. 10. Results: how do users tag? Average does not tell the whole truth! • 20% of resources generated more than half of all the bookmarks (80% had only one bookmark) • 20% of resources had more than half of tags associated with them them • 20% of tags have been applied 63% of the time
  11. 11. Results: how do users tag? • Users tag in multiple languages in a multilingual context, mostly – in their mother tongue and – in the language of the resource – e.g. about 30 to 50% of tags are in En • A medium correlation (r= 0.57) between the language of the content and the language of the tag
  12. 12. Results: “Thesaurus tags” 12
  13. 13. Results: “Thesaurus tags” • Characteristics: – 11.3% of distinct user-generated tags exist in the LRE multilingual Thesaurus – 30.6% of tag applications • Popular: – On average, these tags were reused 11.8 times (other tags 2.5 times) • Add properties to tags – e.g. relation to a concept in multilingual Thesaurus, – language • Add connections, e.g. all the other resources related to this thesaurus term
  14. 14. Results: what do users click? • Tagcloud was used in 22% of all search actions, users bookmarks 7% • 11% of distinct tags were used for retrieval purposes • 20% of distinct tags generated 80% of clicks
  15. 15. Results: Does the offer of tags by users match the demand? • The amount of clickstream (i.e. demand) on a tag compared to how many times it had been added by teachers (i.e. supply). • number above 1 means that the tag has generated more clickstream than tag applications = “attractive” tag • 21% of tags attractive and 24% equal supply and demand - demonstrates the flexibility of the system to adapt
  16. 16. Results: what do expert-indexers think of tags? • Indexers found user-generated tags often – factual and descriptive, similar to LOM – suitable (i.e. clear and unambiguous) as indexing keywords • Tags a source of non-descriptors to help retrieval, e.g. “efl” linked to Thesaurus terms “English language” + “foreign language”
  17. 17. Results: what do LOR owners think of tags? • 25% of tags in the Repository case study were deemed to add value to existing indexing • 75% somewhat redundant information e.g. – LOM 1.2: Title – LOM 1.3: the language of the resource (English) – LOM 5.2: resource type. Examples: photo, picture; exercises, games; simulations; quiz, web quest – LOM 5.7: the age group or the pupils being addresses (e.g. young learners)
  18. 18. Conclusions and future work • Numerous way of interplay exist between conventional metadata and social tags • Tags allow multiple ways to interact with the multilingual environment – repository (e.g. new emerging ways to navigate)
  19. 19. Interplay between descriptors and tags Tag Descriptor 20
  20. 20. Emerging possibilities • Tags create link-structures between users, resources, tags and thesaurus descriptors • These link-structures cross-references resources across languages, curricula, repositories, etc. • Can offer more flexible ways to access resources in a multilingual and cultural context 21
  21. 21. social bookmarks Metadata LOM tags folksonomy ecology multi-linguality social classification thanks! for your attention learning resources Tags user communities resource discovery questions? teachers social navigation social traces paths, trails