[Web4lib] Re: Web4lib Digest, Vol 26, Issue 9

[John Kupersmith]

There's a fair amount of evidence suggesting that subject lists are most 
effective if the subject names are specific and familiar to students.

Usability tests at Penn State, Texas A&M, and the University of 
Washington (plus an undocumented test at UC Berkeley) all showed 
students not understanding general terms for groups of subject 
disciplines, such as "Humanities" and "Life Sciences."  This might apply 
to "Earth and Environmental Sciences" in Lisa's example, unless that 
term is well known to students, e.g., as the name of an academic department.

See: < http://www.jkup.net/terms-studies.html >

But hold on, it gets worse.  There's also some evidence of problems 
understanding individual discipline names:

""At the University of Rochester, librarians repeatedly observed in 
usability testing that undergraduates lack an understanding of an 
academic discipline. ... Some never grasp the concept of a 'discipline.' 
Others may gain an understanding in their majors, but do not transfer 
this comprehension to other academic domains. The concept of disciplines 
is not usually part of a student's mental model; therefore, the 
collocation of resources by discipline is not recognized."

The authors of this study suggest that subject access at the course 
(rather than discipline) level would be more likely to succeed. They 
suggest that even if the subject guides are by discipline, links to them 
should be located in "that have high research and coursework context to 
students," such as course pages.  Perhaps there's a way to structure 
access to federated search results in this way.

See: Brenda Reeb and Susan Gibbons, "Students, Librarians, and Subject 
Guides: Improving a Poor Rate of Return," portal: Libraries and the 
Academy 4 (2004), 123-130.

--jk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   John Kupersmith        jkup at jkup.net        http://www.jkup.net
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   Reference Librarian                 http://www.lib.berkeley.edu
   Doe/Moffitt Libraries
   University of California, Berkeley
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 11
> Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 10:18:57 -0400
> From: "Pons, Lisa (ponslm)" <PONSLM at UCMAIL.UC.EDU>
> Subject: [Web4lib] Federated searching-general question re sub
> 	groupings
> To: <web4lib at webjunction.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	<A5AD8E2A66FF244D938C62294ADD1562057FC063 at ucmail8.ad.uc.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"
> 
>  
> I have a general question- sorry this is so long!
> 
> We're a few steps away from implementing our new federated search tool.
> It has been an interesting experience!
> 
> I have some questions regarding how this tool is seen across your
> institutions- that is, what is the vision for it's use?
> 
> For example, we have created our tool with 21 subject categories. Now,
> some of  our subject specialists want to create sub categories, and
> choose their own databases to be searched , and put a search box on
> their subject guide pages that will only search within their sub
> category.
> 
> For example, on our main federated page, we have Earth and Environmental
> Sciences which includes 10 databases to be searched. Now, the subject
> specialist wants to create a sub-category for Geography and put the
> search box on her subject guide page. The category may or may not have
> the same databases as the main earth and environmental sciences main
> category.
> 
> My question is, won't this confuse users?  Does this partially defeat
> the purpose of a "federated search" by limiting the search to a very
> slender set of resources? We are using Serials solutions central search,
> which has Vivisimo to cluser results- shouldn't that be enough.
> 
> Isn't this kind of library 1.0 thinking- that every tool must be
> separate, and to find this, you must go there, to find that, you must go
> somewhere else.
> 
> I need help here- if I am wrong I need to shut up about it with my
> colleagues, if I am write, I need help from all the experts out there
> explaining why it is wrong.
> 
> Thanks!
>