Competency E
"Design, query and evaluate information retrieval systems."
Introduction
Today’s society is inundated with information, but simply having bits here and there is not as helpful as having the information available in an organized system from which to extract. An information retrieval system is any tool that can get desired information to a person seeking the information. Common examples include cell phones, maps, Skype, books, Google, menus,Facebook, bus schedules, the Weather Channel’s website, a physical library, an
online library catalog, calendars, and the many subject databases used by students to find articles for a term paper.
In LIBR 202 Information Retrieval, I learned that “[a] well designed information retrieval system always considers the needs and habits of the information seeker – his or her level of understanding, searching skills, information needs regarding timeliness, authority, and other criteria. A common flaw in systems design is not paying enough attention to the needs of the user” (MacKay, 2010a, p. 4). In another course here at the School of Library and Information, students were asked to critique the websites of Publix, a grocery chain, and Ronald McDonald House Charities. One of the comments about the Publix website was that it had too much information and needed to be cleaner so as not to overwhelm the user. One student responded to the critique that, essentially,“Website developers have complex minds and should not be required to work at lesser level because of less technological savvy people.” However, if one uses the above definition of good systems design, the needs of users have to be considered, otherwise, the tool will go unused. From a user’s perspective, success depends on whether he or she gets “exactly the information needed and no other (precision), all instances of the information needed (recall), reliable information (authority), the level of detail/difficulty required, the correct specificity of time and place, [and whether they can get it]conveniently” (MacKay, 2010b, p. 3).
Librarians need to understand not only how information retrieval systems work but need to know how to communicate with them in order to retrieve the best information for library users—or teach library users to use—during reference interactions. Knowledge of metadata standards, controlled vocabulary, whether Library of Congress Subject Headings, Medical Subject Headings, or some other system, and different types of search options, allows a librarian to more precisely perform a search than a search with a few random words plugged into an any word/keyword search. For example, an academic reference librarian would recommend that when using the ERIC database, students should steer from using“education” as one of search terms because education is already inherent in the information the database houses. Using “education” will produce high recall—many items—but these may not be helpful to the user looking for something specific, such as government statistics regarding early literacy.
From the perspective of a reference librarian, evaluating information retrieval systems is important because they need to know the tools and idiosyncrasies of each system when sharing these resources with their users. When I first began working as a substitute library assistant at the Stanislaus County Library system, located in California’s Central Valley, my trainee partner and I received two weeks of training in the reference department at the main branch library. During the training, one of the reference librarians showed us the different databases to which the library subscribes. One of the health databases in which the library has access is actually a free database that comes along with a particular subscription. The librarian lamented that the database was not very user-friendly and did not seem to work consistently, leading to user dissatisfaction. The reference librarians, instead, recommend the other health database.
From a library management perspective, library managers must evaluate information retrieval systems from a user’s perspective to determine if the system is worth its cost. Libraries consistently face budget cuts and shortfalls, and in the current economic downturn, investing in a less useful system is not conducive to good service that focuses on its customers’ needs. A poorly designed online library catalog could cause library use to decline.
Evidence
As evidence for meeting competency E, I am submitting assignments from LIBR 202 Information Retrieval and LIBR 244 Online Searching.
LIBR 202: DB TextWorks Database
In LIBR 202, the class content focused exclusively on competency E. As part of my coursework, I created a simple database of children’s books through DB TextWorks. In designing the database of children’s books, I had first had to consider my user group and their needs. The group I selected was university students taking a children’s literature course as part of their teacher education program. Part of the students’ coursework was to design lesson plans around books aimed for kindergarten through eighth grade students. Students would be using this database to select books. After determining the users and the purpose of the database, I decided on the data structure, which included making decisions about which fields to use and establishing rules for how information in the fields was to be inputted. This process, even for a simple database, was a challenge for a number of reasons. One challenge is that because books tend to have various editions, inputting a book’s date of publication is not straight-forward. I opted to use the date in which a book was first published as the date of publication. This also resolved the problem of which publishing place and house to use since I focused on first edition information. I also struggled with entering illustrator and author names as it was before I took beginning and advanced cataloging. However, I was able to determine name headings from the Library of Congress Authorities website. Despite the challenges and changes I would have made, particularly in relation to indexing illustrator and author fields, I felt that my DB TextWorks database was successful. The document I am submitting includes information about the user group and purpose of the database, data structure, decision process, and evaluation, along with some screen shots of queries I performed using the database.
LIBR 202: Evaluation and Comparison of UC Merced's and CSU Stanislaus' OPACs
The final assignment for LIBR 202 required students to write a paper that described, analyzed, and evaluated, based on a user test, an information retrieval system of our choice. Students also had to compare the system to a similar system. For this assignment, I chose to compare the online public access catalog (OPAC) of the University of California (UC) Merced library to that of the California State University (CSU) Stanislaus library. My evaluation included an analysis as to the catalogs' "efficiency, effectiveness, authority of information, completeness of information, up to [datedness] if relevant, search engine, user friendliness, and appropriateness to designated user group" (MacKay, 2010c, p.3). An interesting feature about this paper is that the three individuals who tested both catalogs had very different backgrounds. One student had attended two community colleges off and on for several years after high school before settling on a subject of interest, another was a traditional college student who had just recently transferred to CSU Stanislaus after two years at the local community college , and the final tester was a high school graduate. The answers they supplied were very helpful in determining user friendliness and whether or not the college students were actually able to communicate with systems designed with their group in mind. User studies like these are very important when designing effective information retrieval systems as they bring to light issues that may not be obvious to programmers. The user also shows that students do need training in library information retrieval systems, like catalogs and databases, to be able to fully take advantage of them.
LIBR 244: Dialog Queries (with feedback)
In LIBR 244, I learned how to perform command-style searches in Dialog, Factiva, and Lexis-Nexis. The Big Three databases, Dialog, Factiva, and Lexis-Nexis, offer powerful search mechanisms that look more like coding than the searches performed on streamlined search engines and other subject databases with which many college students are familiar. Although Dialog, which was developed in the 1960s as the first online database, may not be used much outside of the corporate world, Carol Tenopir (2001) argues that teaching library students how to search using a
bare-bones system like Dialog gives students a deeper understanding of how databases work and how they can more efficiently communicate with other information retrieval systems. “The first thing I tell my students is that most online services they will encounter have layers of interfaces, meant to make the systems easier to use, but also to hide how the search process really works. The systems may look like a Cadillac on the outside, but you can't tell how the engine works. DialogClassic's command-driven interface is like a hot rod with the hood and body stripped away, so a searcher can see exactly how and why it goes” (Tenopir, 2001, p. 35).
In LIBR 244, my assignments focused on performing searches on Dialog, Factiva, and Lexis-Nexis using the commands of each system to find answers to reference questions composed by the instructor. As evidence of my
knowledge of querying information retrieval systems, I am submitting a document of queries I performed using Dialog. The exercises demonstrate the commands I used; a short description of what I did, which demonstrates my knowledge of what the commands actually do; and the results I retrieved. The document also includes instructor comments in bold green.
As a result of the skills I learned in LIBR 244, a whole new world of search possibilities has opened for me because I now use commands and the advanced search features in other systems. For example, I know I can search for terms at only .edu websites, and when I took LIBR 248 Beginning Cataloging and Classification, I was not fazed learning how to operate some of Classification Web’s command-style features. I also search authors and titles on WorldCat using au: and ti: prefixes. Even Google has an advanced search. Although it may take some time to learn how to use more complex language than inserting some words into a search box, once learned, the features save time and offer more precise results.
References
MacKay, N. (2010a). Introduction to information and information retrieval WEEK 1 (long): January 26-February 6
[Lecture notes].
MacKay, N. (2010b). Evaluating information retrieval systems: Week 14, April 25-May 1 [Lecture notes].
MacKay, N. (2010c). Assignment five instructions [Lecture notes].
Tenopir, C. (2001). Why I still teach Dialog. Library Journal, 126(8), 35-36.
Today’s society is inundated with information, but simply having bits here and there is not as helpful as having the information available in an organized system from which to extract. An information retrieval system is any tool that can get desired information to a person seeking the information. Common examples include cell phones, maps, Skype, books, Google, menus,Facebook, bus schedules, the Weather Channel’s website, a physical library, an
online library catalog, calendars, and the many subject databases used by students to find articles for a term paper.
In LIBR 202 Information Retrieval, I learned that “[a] well designed information retrieval system always considers the needs and habits of the information seeker – his or her level of understanding, searching skills, information needs regarding timeliness, authority, and other criteria. A common flaw in systems design is not paying enough attention to the needs of the user” (MacKay, 2010a, p. 4). In another course here at the School of Library and Information, students were asked to critique the websites of Publix, a grocery chain, and Ronald McDonald House Charities. One of the comments about the Publix website was that it had too much information and needed to be cleaner so as not to overwhelm the user. One student responded to the critique that, essentially,“Website developers have complex minds and should not be required to work at lesser level because of less technological savvy people.” However, if one uses the above definition of good systems design, the needs of users have to be considered, otherwise, the tool will go unused. From a user’s perspective, success depends on whether he or she gets “exactly the information needed and no other (precision), all instances of the information needed (recall), reliable information (authority), the level of detail/difficulty required, the correct specificity of time and place, [and whether they can get it]conveniently” (MacKay, 2010b, p. 3).
Librarians need to understand not only how information retrieval systems work but need to know how to communicate with them in order to retrieve the best information for library users—or teach library users to use—during reference interactions. Knowledge of metadata standards, controlled vocabulary, whether Library of Congress Subject Headings, Medical Subject Headings, or some other system, and different types of search options, allows a librarian to more precisely perform a search than a search with a few random words plugged into an any word/keyword search. For example, an academic reference librarian would recommend that when using the ERIC database, students should steer from using“education” as one of search terms because education is already inherent in the information the database houses. Using “education” will produce high recall—many items—but these may not be helpful to the user looking for something specific, such as government statistics regarding early literacy.
From the perspective of a reference librarian, evaluating information retrieval systems is important because they need to know the tools and idiosyncrasies of each system when sharing these resources with their users. When I first began working as a substitute library assistant at the Stanislaus County Library system, located in California’s Central Valley, my trainee partner and I received two weeks of training in the reference department at the main branch library. During the training, one of the reference librarians showed us the different databases to which the library subscribes. One of the health databases in which the library has access is actually a free database that comes along with a particular subscription. The librarian lamented that the database was not very user-friendly and did not seem to work consistently, leading to user dissatisfaction. The reference librarians, instead, recommend the other health database.
From a library management perspective, library managers must evaluate information retrieval systems from a user’s perspective to determine if the system is worth its cost. Libraries consistently face budget cuts and shortfalls, and in the current economic downturn, investing in a less useful system is not conducive to good service that focuses on its customers’ needs. A poorly designed online library catalog could cause library use to decline.
Evidence
As evidence for meeting competency E, I am submitting assignments from LIBR 202 Information Retrieval and LIBR 244 Online Searching.
LIBR 202: DB TextWorks Database
In LIBR 202, the class content focused exclusively on competency E. As part of my coursework, I created a simple database of children’s books through DB TextWorks. In designing the database of children’s books, I had first had to consider my user group and their needs. The group I selected was university students taking a children’s literature course as part of their teacher education program. Part of the students’ coursework was to design lesson plans around books aimed for kindergarten through eighth grade students. Students would be using this database to select books. After determining the users and the purpose of the database, I decided on the data structure, which included making decisions about which fields to use and establishing rules for how information in the fields was to be inputted. This process, even for a simple database, was a challenge for a number of reasons. One challenge is that because books tend to have various editions, inputting a book’s date of publication is not straight-forward. I opted to use the date in which a book was first published as the date of publication. This also resolved the problem of which publishing place and house to use since I focused on first edition information. I also struggled with entering illustrator and author names as it was before I took beginning and advanced cataloging. However, I was able to determine name headings from the Library of Congress Authorities website. Despite the challenges and changes I would have made, particularly in relation to indexing illustrator and author fields, I felt that my DB TextWorks database was successful. The document I am submitting includes information about the user group and purpose of the database, data structure, decision process, and evaluation, along with some screen shots of queries I performed using the database.
LIBR 202: Evaluation and Comparison of UC Merced's and CSU Stanislaus' OPACs
The final assignment for LIBR 202 required students to write a paper that described, analyzed, and evaluated, based on a user test, an information retrieval system of our choice. Students also had to compare the system to a similar system. For this assignment, I chose to compare the online public access catalog (OPAC) of the University of California (UC) Merced library to that of the California State University (CSU) Stanislaus library. My evaluation included an analysis as to the catalogs' "efficiency, effectiveness, authority of information, completeness of information, up to [datedness] if relevant, search engine, user friendliness, and appropriateness to designated user group" (MacKay, 2010c, p.3). An interesting feature about this paper is that the three individuals who tested both catalogs had very different backgrounds. One student had attended two community colleges off and on for several years after high school before settling on a subject of interest, another was a traditional college student who had just recently transferred to CSU Stanislaus after two years at the local community college , and the final tester was a high school graduate. The answers they supplied were very helpful in determining user friendliness and whether or not the college students were actually able to communicate with systems designed with their group in mind. User studies like these are very important when designing effective information retrieval systems as they bring to light issues that may not be obvious to programmers. The user also shows that students do need training in library information retrieval systems, like catalogs and databases, to be able to fully take advantage of them.
LIBR 244: Dialog Queries (with feedback)
In LIBR 244, I learned how to perform command-style searches in Dialog, Factiva, and Lexis-Nexis. The Big Three databases, Dialog, Factiva, and Lexis-Nexis, offer powerful search mechanisms that look more like coding than the searches performed on streamlined search engines and other subject databases with which many college students are familiar. Although Dialog, which was developed in the 1960s as the first online database, may not be used much outside of the corporate world, Carol Tenopir (2001) argues that teaching library students how to search using a
bare-bones system like Dialog gives students a deeper understanding of how databases work and how they can more efficiently communicate with other information retrieval systems. “The first thing I tell my students is that most online services they will encounter have layers of interfaces, meant to make the systems easier to use, but also to hide how the search process really works. The systems may look like a Cadillac on the outside, but you can't tell how the engine works. DialogClassic's command-driven interface is like a hot rod with the hood and body stripped away, so a searcher can see exactly how and why it goes” (Tenopir, 2001, p. 35).
In LIBR 244, my assignments focused on performing searches on Dialog, Factiva, and Lexis-Nexis using the commands of each system to find answers to reference questions composed by the instructor. As evidence of my
knowledge of querying information retrieval systems, I am submitting a document of queries I performed using Dialog. The exercises demonstrate the commands I used; a short description of what I did, which demonstrates my knowledge of what the commands actually do; and the results I retrieved. The document also includes instructor comments in bold green.
As a result of the skills I learned in LIBR 244, a whole new world of search possibilities has opened for me because I now use commands and the advanced search features in other systems. For example, I know I can search for terms at only .edu websites, and when I took LIBR 248 Beginning Cataloging and Classification, I was not fazed learning how to operate some of Classification Web’s command-style features. I also search authors and titles on WorldCat using au: and ti: prefixes. Even Google has an advanced search. Although it may take some time to learn how to use more complex language than inserting some words into a search box, once learned, the features save time and offer more precise results.
References
MacKay, N. (2010a). Introduction to information and information retrieval WEEK 1 (long): January 26-February 6
[Lecture notes].
MacKay, N. (2010b). Evaluating information retrieval systems: Week 14, April 25-May 1 [Lecture notes].
MacKay, N. (2010c). Assignment five instructions [Lecture notes].
Tenopir, C. (2001). Why I still teach Dialog. Library Journal, 126(8), 35-36.
Files
Below are the files to my pieces of evidence.
LIBR_202_db_textworks_database.pdf | |
File Size: | 1814 kb |
File Type: |
LIBR_202_opac_evaluation.pdf | |
File Size: | 4218 kb |
File Type: |
LIBR_244_dialog_exercise.pdf | |
File Size: | 728 kb |
File Type: |