[Esip-preserve] Adding learning resource metadata to Data Management training modules

Wed Jan 22 17:07:37 EST 2014

>From my standpoint, both Justin and Nancy have useful revisions.

For Nancy, yes, I'm interested in demographics primarily.  The "Did you
find this module useful?" is simple enough.
One formatting idea that might simplify analyzing the responses would be to
see if there are a FEW categories
of reasons why or why not.  Use the narrative response only if you like
grading essay exams and if somebody
has enough time to do the grading.

While I don't have an empirical basis for an inclination about narrative
responses, my sense is that they slow
down the user's responses.  (Maybe this comes out of those prying requests
Amazon makes for reviews after
you've bought some things.  In my case, the most recent purchase was pipe
clamps. I didn't feel like writing one of my
review paragraphs on the best qualities of the pipe clamps I'd received -
and why they were or weren't better
than other kinds I'd gotten at a hardware store.  Of course, the management
course isn't exactly like pipe clamps.)

Perhaps it might be appropriate to regard the initial survey as an
experiment.  Run it for a month, have an e-mail/telecon
session about what we learned and how we could improve it - and then write
an improved survey.  Additionally,
estimate how long it will take a respondent to fill in the survey.  Make
sure it will be something that's
worth their time.  Less than a minute probably won't decrease the response
rate.  Anything that might take a
half an hour or longer will almost certainly decrease it.

Bruce B.

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Nancy Hoebelheinrich
<nhoebel at kmotifs.com>wrote:

> Bruce, Erin:
>
> In the past, we’ve talked about asking people to complete a survey on a
> volunteer basis after they’d used any of the modules as part of the
> proposal we submitted to the Sloan Foundation & ICPSR, but we were thinking
> of a more extensive survey, citing the following sites as sources /
> possible collaborative partners:
>
>
>
> CLEAN Review Process: http://cleanet.org/clean/about/review.html
>
> 5 Usability and Assessment Working Group: http://www.dataone.org/working_groups/usability-and-assessment
>
>
>
>
> Our idea at that point was to” assess the usability and review the
> educational effectiveness of the inventoried DMT resources”.  Sounds like
> Bruce is thinking more about demographics although I’m curious about the
> question related to mathematical skills.  If we were to do a quick survey
> and make it available (which I would support, BTW, and also work on), I
> think it would be important to include questions about usability and
> effectiveness, such as:
>
>
>
> Did you find this module useful?  (Yes / No) answer
>
> Why or why not?  (Room for narrative response)
>
>
>
> Regarding Bruce’s question 1 , I would add a category for Professional
> education (lawyers and doctors may need to manage data as well), and
> perhaps Vocational (?)
>
> And to Bruce’s question 3, Geometry would seem to be important,
> particularly for Geographic and GIS work…
>
>
>
> Haven’t looked at your reports yet, Erin, will do so and response to your
> note.
>
> Nancy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [image: _LOGOhiResTRANSPARENT_4800pxRGB] <https://kmotifs.com/>
>
>
>
> Nancy J. Hoebelheinrich
>
> Information Analyst/Principal
>
> nhoebel at kmotifs.com
>
> San Mateo, CA  94401
>
> (v) 650-302-4493
>
> (f) 650-745-3333
>
>
>
> *From:* esip-preserve-bounces at lists.esipfed.org [mailto:
> esip-preserve-bounces at lists.esipfed.org] *On Behalf Of *Bruce Barkstrom
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 22, 2014 1:00 PM
> *To:* Erin Robinson
> *Cc:* Nancy Hoebelheinrich; esip-preserve at lists.esipfed.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Esip-preserve] Adding learning resource metadata to Data
> Management training modules
>
>
>
> I think that would be helpful.  I was thinking the same thing, but you
> beat me to the punch.
> The survey could have just three questions:
>
> 1.  What is your level of education:
>
>    a.  K-12
>
>    b.  College Degree
>
>    c.  Graduate Degree (MS or PhD)
>
>    d.  Postgraduate
>
> 2.  In which fields of Earth science or library science do you have
> experience (check all relevant fields)
>
>    a.  Geology
>
>    b.  Biology
>
>    c.  Atmospheric Science
>
>    d.  Oceanography
>
>    e.  Cryospheric Phenomena
>
>    f.   Land Processes
>
>    g.  Solid Earth
>
>    h.   Library science
>
>    i.   Computer Science or Information Technology
>
> 3.  What level of mathematical skills do you have (choose highest level or
> check all that apply)
>
>    a.  None beyond simple addition and subtraction
>
>    b.  Algebra
>
>    c.  Calculus
>
>    d.  Classical higher math (differential equations and related fields)
>
>    e.  Discrete math (trees, graphs, database theory)
>
> To avoid PII pleasantries, it's probably best to make this kind of survey
> one that's voluntary.
>
> That may introduce sampling biases, but the results would probably help us
> find out if the
> audience is mainly folks running data centers or people who use them.
>
> Finally, this is a list put together quickly.  It should probably be
> kicked around for a bit
>
> (like maybe a week).  However, if we're going to do it, let's get on with
> it instead of sitting
> around wordsmithing the idea to the point of inaction.  If we get a
> reasonable number of
>
> responses, we can figure out later how to revise the survey to make the
> responses more
> informative.
>
>
>
> Bruce B.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Erin Robinson <erinrobinson at esipfed.org>
> wrote:
>
> From analytics we can't get that sort of info. We could include a link to
> a survey and let people self-report?
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Bruce Barkstrom <brbarkstrom at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Is there any way to get some notion of the background for
>
> these users?  Things like ed level, familiarity with science,
> etc.
>
> Bruce B.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Erin Robinson <erinrobinson at esipfed.org>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Nancy,  -
>
>
>
> Thanks a ton for taking a crack at this so far! Attached are a few views
> of the analytics we have for the page you worked on.
>
> (1) shows the source of traffic. Some of the traffic is coming from
> search, but for some reason the search terms aren't available.
>
> (2) Shows the landing page
>
> (3) shows navigation where people entered from and exited.
>
>
>
> The other thing that will help drive traffic is sharing these links
> through social media channels. We have a google+ page<http://google.com/+EsipfedOrg>that I've done nothing with, but have heard that of the channels it's
> crawled most frequently. We also have about 475 followers on twitter
> (@esipfed) and 100 followers (as of this morning!) on Facebook page<https://www.facebook.com/pages/Federation-of-Earth-Science-Information-Partners-ESIP/150015055044779>,
> so we could test those channels too. Perhaps with this node we experiment,
> with each of these over the next few weeks? Open to ideas here.
>
>
>
> Looking forward to getting more visibility and feedback on this work.
>
>
>
> Erin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Nancy Hoebelheinrich <nhoebel at kmotifs.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hello, all:
>
> As I’ve mentioned in Data Stewardship meetings before, I’ve been working
> with Erin to add some other metadata terms to the Drupal template for
> Educational Modules content type on the ESIP Commons in which the Data
> Management training modules have been added that members of the Data
> Stewardship Committee created.  These terms are either additional terms
> that are part of Schema.org’s CreativeWork properties or part of the
> Learning Resource Metadata Initiative’s (LRMI:  http://www.lrmi.net/ )
> extension that were approved and added in mid-2013.  The addition of
> metadata to these terms should increase the rate at which the DMT modules
> are accessed and hopefully used by Google, Yahoo & Yandex searchers.
>
>
>
> Question 1:   I am seeking feedback on these additions.  Note:  I am
> planning to add the metadata to the 32 modules that we currently have.
>
>
>
> To view the BEFORE and AFTER, please compare the current landing page for
> module 735 on the ESIP Commons at:  http://commons.esipfed.org/node/735and the extracted structured data results from Google’s Richsnippets
> Structured Data Testing Tool (
> http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets ) for this node found
> in the attached PDF on page 1  (BEFORE);  and
>
> the landing page for module 728 at:  http://commons.esipfed.org/node/728and the extracted structured data results on pages 2 & 3 .  [Note:  I’ve
> excerpted the results from the Google tools for the sake of brevity].
>
>
>
> Question 2:  I’m also going to check into the feasibility of doing a
> BEFORE and AFTER assessment of a landing page / module or two in terms of
> Google Analytics.  If anyone has experience with doing this, or suggestions
> for metrics, I’d be happy to hear them.  I’d also welcome anyone who wants
> to work with me on this task.  Thanks!
>
> Nancy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [image: _LOGOhiResTRANSPARENT_4800pxRGB] <https://kmotifs.com/>
>
>
>
> Nancy J. Hoebelheinrich
>
> Information Analyst/Principal
>
> nhoebel at kmotifs.com
>
> San Mateo, CA  94401
>
> (v) 650-302-4493
>
> (f) 650-745-3333
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Esip-preserve mailing list
> Esip-preserve at lists.esipfed.org
> http://www.lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-preserve
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Esip-preserve mailing list
> Esip-preserve at lists.esipfed.org
> http://www.lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-preserve
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.lists.esipfed.org/pipermail/esip-preserve/attachments/20140122/5d8a9a31/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 9711 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.lists.esipfed.org/pipermail/esip-preserve/attachments/20140122/5d8a9a31/attachment-0002.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 9711 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.lists.esipfed.org/pipermail/esip-preserve/attachments/20140122/5d8a9a31/attachment-0003.obj>