LRMI Survey Report Spring 2012 - Saide Resource... LRMI Survey Report | Spring 20123 Students...

LRMI Survey Report Spring 2012

The State of Online Educational Search: Educators and Publishers Speak Out

www.lrmi.netLRMI Survey Report | Spring 2012

1

ContentsLRMI: An Overview ............................................................................................. 2Executive Summary ........................................................................................... 2Educator Survey .................................................................................................. 5

Methodology ................................................................................................. 6Detailed Findings ......................................................................................... 6Digging Deeper ............................................................................................ 14

Publisher Survey .................................................................................................. 15Methodology ................................................................................................. 16Detailed Findings ......................................................................................... 16Digging Deeper ............................................................................................ 25

Comparing Search Criteria (Educators vs Publishers) ...................... 26Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................... 27

http://www.lrmi.net


2

The Learning Resource Metadata Initiative: An Overview

Executive Summary

The Learning Resource Metadata Initiative (LRMI) is working to make it easier to publish and discover quality educational content and products online.

This new project, co-led by the Association of Educational Publishers and Creative Commons, could have a significant and beneficial impact on both creators and users of educational content and products. The project is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.

The LRMI has developed a common metadata framework for describing educational content and products on the web. This framework is a key first step in developing a richer, more fruitful search experience with the ultimate goal of helping students, educators, and parents search for and access educational resources online with greater accuracy and efficiency.

In April 2012, two surveys were conducted to inform the initiative. The targeted groups were educators and publishers, including traditional commercial publishers, online educational content providers, and organizations that provide Open Educational Resources. They responded to separate surveys that gathered information and opinions regarding preferences, frustrations, and experiences in searching for educational resources and content online. This report was compiled by Winter Group and presents the results of the surveys, beginning with the educator survey and moving to the publisher survey.

Snapshot of Respondents: Educators

Approximately half of respondents work as library media specialists or classroom teachers, while almost 2 in 10 are academic department chairs. Most respondents have worked in education for 16 years or more and almost half work with or teach grades 9-12. Almost 92% rank themselves as technically proficient and, 86.5% of educators had not heard of the LRMI prior to taking the survey.

Search, Satisfaction, and Success

More than 7 in 10 educators search for instructional resources at least several times a week. More than 1 in 4 respondents search daily. However, only 1 in 4 educators describe their searches as “usually successful”.

• 66% said they get too many “irrelevant results”

• 63% said searching for educational resources is “too time consuming”

• 62% said the search results they get “do not indicate specifics for grade level, cost vs. free, standards alignments, and other search criteria”

http://www.lrmi.net


3

Students Aren’t Excused from the Frustration

More than 4 in 10 educators assign students projects involving Internet searches for educational materials at least several times a month. Students are likely to experience the same frustrations their teachers do on a regular basis.

Educators Are on Board

Nearly 9 in 10 educators say they would be more satisfied with Internet searches if search engines offered the ability to filter results by standard instructional criteria such as grade level, subject area, media type, and other criteria. Almost 95% say using these standard search filters would either definitely or somewhat increase their use of the Internet to find instructional materials.

Snapshot of Respondents: Publishers

Almost half of respondents are executives whose companies publish supplemental resources or curriculum products. Most of the respondents publish materials for elementary and secondary education, with between one-fourth and one-third producing material for higher education. The content is delivered in a variety of ways, with the most common formats being multimedia, softcover print, and eBooks. More than three-fourths of respondents said they offer sample content online for educators as a regular component of their marketing programs. More than half (53.4%) of publishers were unaware of the LRMI prior to taking the survey.

Visibility Matters

The large majority of publishers view online visibility as either essential or important in their current sales and marketing programs. Despite this importance, nearly half of respondents are either “dissatisfied” or “somewhat dissatisfied” with the current online visibility of their products. Furthermore, over half state that their customers find it difficult or somewhat difficult to find their content and products when conducting online searches. More than half also report that if their content was more easily discovered online, their current marketing and sales programs would change.

Improved Discoverability Is a Publishing Priority

Nearly 2 in 3 publishers agree they would either definitely implement or be highly likely to implement a new standard for tagging online educational resources if discoverability would improve. If major search engines used this tagging framework to inform their search results, 85% of publishers would be more likely to implement it.

Tagging the Content

Almost half of respondents currently use an existing content management system to manage their digital resources. Nearly half (47.7%) of publishers currently tag their resources with metadata so the content can be organized and found. A little over half of respondents said marketing would be responsible for implementing a new online tagging system and 4 in 10 said editorial departments would be responsible.

http://www.lrmi.net


4

Licensing and Copyright

9 out of 10 responding organizations publish commercial or proprietary content. Less than one-fourth publish free content. Less than 2 in 10 publishers publish free and openly licensed content, such as content published under a Creative Commons License.

Publishers and Educators: On the Same Page

Both educators and publishers agree that the most important search criteria for educational resources would be (1) content/subject area, (2) grade level, and (3) standards alignment. However, publishers stated that author and publisher were helpful criteria, while most educators did not.

Key Results

• Publishers and educators agreed that the same search criteria should be used for the framework.

• Educators are frustrated with the search process and would be more likely to search online for educational material if they could filter results.

• Publishers know that online visibility is important and expressed a strong likelihood toward tagging their materials, implementing a new standard for tagging educational resources.

http://www.lrmi.net

EDUCATOR SURVEY RESULTS


6

Educator Survey Methodology

Detailed Findings: Educator Survey

In April 2012, AEP and Winter Group created a survey for education professionals in order to learn more about how educators view their online search experiences. This survey data will help inform the implementation of the recently published LRMI metadata framework with the ultimate goal of helping students, educators, and parents search for and access educational resources online with greater accuracy and efficiency.

The survey was posted online and the link was e-mailed to 21,469 educators across grade levels and subject areas. The list of e-mails came from Market Data Retrieval (MDR) and included lead teachers (K-6), middle/junior high and high school department chairs of Math, English & Reading, Science and Social Studies, and librarians/media specialists. An Amazon.com gift card was offered as an incentive to increase survey responses. The survey emails were deployed by MDR and there were 248 total respondents. Of those respondents, approximately 96% answered every question. The response rate for each individual question is noted throughout in the survey.

The Association of Educational Publishers (AEP) also posted the survey link on their site and publicized the survey via Twitter and press releases. As a result, an unknown number of survey respondents may have discovered the survey via AEP’s publicity efforts who were not part of the initial list from MDR.

1. Prior to receiving this survey, were you aware of the Learning Resource Metadata Initiative to improve discoverability of educational content and resources?

Nearly 7 in 8 (86.5%) of respondents had not heard of the LRMI. This was anticipated as the initiative has not been promoted directly to educators.

Response Rate:98.8%

http://www.lrmi.net


7

Educator Survey Results

2. How often do you search for instructional resources online?*

Chart 1.1: Frequency of search by educators for instructional resources

Responses to this question show that educators are searching for instructional resources frequently. More than 1 in 4 respondents (25.8%) search daily and more than 7 in 10 (72.6%) indicated that they search for instructional resources at least several times a week.

*Those respondents who answered “Never” to this question were then directed to question #3, which asked what sources respondents typically used to learn about resources. Only two answered the multiple-selection question and chose professional magazines (2), education conferences (1), colleagues (1), and professional development programs (1).

Several Times a Week

Daily

Several Times a Month

Seldom

Never

1.2%

46.8%

25.8%20.6%

5.6%

Response Rate:100%


8


5. Which search engines do you currently use to look for educational content? (Check all that apply)

Nearly all educators indicated using Google to find content. About 1 in 3 (30.2%) of respondents indicating using Yahoo while 24% used Bing. As this was a question with a multiple- response format, the totals exceed 100% as educators use more than one search engine to find materials.

Chart 1.2: Results of search

RESPONSE PERCENT

Sometimes successful 61.9%

Usually successful 24.6%

Often unsuccessful 13.1%

Usually unsuccessful 0.4%

Chart 1.3: Major frustrations when searching for instructional resources

RESPONSE PERCENT

Too many irrelevant results 66%

Too time consuming 63%

Results do not indicate specifics for grade level, cost vs. free, standards alignments and other instructional criteria

62.1%

Results do not specify the type of resource, such as print, multimedia, video, or other formats

29.4%

Other* 11%

3. How would you describe the results of your searches?

4. What are your major frustrations in searching for instructional resources online? (Check all that apply)

3 in 4 (75%) of educators said their search results were only sometimes successful or often unsuccessful leading to the conclusion that educators are not always able to find what they need online.

Educators expressed a great deal of frustration with the current search process. Most respondents were frustrated by the irrelevant results, the time spent searching, and that results did not indicate specifics for grade level, cost vs. free, standards alignments, and other instructional criteria. The total percentages exceed 100% due to the multiple-response format of the question as respondents indicated multiple frustrations with the search process.

*“Other” responses included: subject matter could not usually be found or was unavailable, information couldn’t be tailored to educators’ needs, the school blocked access to the website, and cost issues.

Response Rate:99.2%

Response Rate:94.7%

Response Rate:97.6%


9


8. Would search engine result filtering as described in the previous question increase your likelihood and frequency of using the Internet to find instructional materials?

Educators indicated that they are more likely to search for content if they had search engine filters. Almost 95% of educators said using these standard search filters would either definitely or somewhat increase their use of the Internet to find instructional materials.

7. If search engines offered the ability to filter results by standard instructional criteria such as grade level, subject area, media type, etc., would that improve your level of satisfaction with Internet searches for educational resources?

Nearly 9 in 10 educators (87.6%) say they would be more satisfied with Internet searches if search engines offered the ability to filter results by standard instructional criteria such as grade level, subject area, media type, and other criteria. More than 1 in 10 (11.2%) of respondents were unsure.

Chart 1.4: Frequency of assigning projects involving Internet searches

RESPONSE PERCENT

Seldom 38.2%

Several times a month 26.6%

Never 17.4%

Several times a week 14.1%

Daily 3.7%

6. How often do you assign students projects involving Internet searches for educational materials?

More than 4 in 10 educators (44.4%) assign students projects involving Internet searches at least several times a month. To complete these projects, students need effective ways of finding resources online.

Response Rate:97.2%

Response Rate:97.6%

Response Rate:97.6%


10


9. What search criteria would you find most helpful in searching for educational resources? (Check all that apply)

Chart 1.5: Helpful search criteria for educational resources

Educators overwhelmingly agree that the most helpful search criteria would be content/subject area and grade level. As seen later in the report, educators and publishers are on the same page about these criteria and both groups listed content/subject area, grade level, and alignment to specific standards as being most helpful. A graph on page 26 of this report compares educator and publisher responses to this question. The total percentages exceed 100% due to the multiple-response format of the question, meaning that educators find multiple search criteria helpful.

*“Other” responses included: wanting search criteria that indicated cost, creation date, and malleability.

Response Rate:96%

30.0%

25.0%

20.0%

15.0%

10.0%

5.0%

0.00%Library media

specialist/technology and media

Classroom teacher

Other* Language arts teacher

Science teacher

Math teacher &chair

Administrator Science chair

Language arts chair

Classroom teacher &

chair

Social studies

teacher & chair

Language arts teacher

& chair

Socialstudies chair

30.0%

21.7%

10.9%

5.7% 5.2%

3.5% 3.0%2.6% 2.6%

1.7%1.3% 1.3%

0.9%

100.0%

90.0%

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%Content/

Subject AreaGrade Level Intended User Resource

Type

Alignment to Specific

Standards

Media Type Intended Use

Reuse Permissions/Restrictions

TimeRequired

Author Publisher Other*

92.0%

85.3%

57.6%50.8%

49.6%

44.1%45.0%

40.3%

38.2%

18.1%

12.6%

4.6%

92.02%

89%

85%

71%

58%

67%

55%

50%

51%

97%

67%

67%

55%

45%

52%

44%

31%

40%

33%

18%

56%

13%

10%

5%

9-10

PreK-2

3-5

6-8

Other*

Postsecondary

48.1%

26.4%

23.6%

12.3%

5.2%

27.4%

20+ Years

16-20 Years

11-15 Years

0-5 Years

6-10 Years

42.4%

19.5%

15.7%

11.4% 11.0%

100.0%

80.0%

60.0%

40.0%

20.0%

0.0%Content/

Subject AreaGradeLevel

Alignmentto SpecificStandards

IntendedUser

IntendedUse

Publisher MediaType

ResourceType

Author Licensingand/or

Restrictions

TimeRequired

Other*

96.9%

88.8%

71.4%67.3%

56.1% 55.1% 55.1%52.0%

32.7% 30.6%

24.5%

10.2%

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%Multimedia Softcover

PrinteBook Video Interactive

GameHardbound

PrintAudio Database Other

67.4%

62.9%59.6%

47.2%

40.4% 39.3%

32.6%

25.8%

22.5%


11


10. What is your job title?

Chart 1.6: Job titles of respondents

Nearly 7 in 10 (69.1%) of survey respondents work as classroom teachers or library media specialists/media personnel. Academic department chairs represented approximately 17% of the respondents.

Respondent titles included

Classroom Teacher• 1st Grade Teacher• 7th Grade English Teacher• High School Math Teacher• Middle School Science Teacher

Administrator• Principal• Counselor

Academic Department Chair• English Department Chair• Mathematics Department Chair• Science Department Chair

Library Media Specialist / Technology and Media• Assistant Librarian• Co-Director of Library Services• Elementary School Librarian

*Other• Early Childhood Manager• Literacy Tutor• Gifted and Talented Resource Teacher• Art Teacher

Classroom Teacher

Library Media Specialist/Technology and Media

Academic Department Chair

Administrator

Other*

39.1%

30.0%

16.9%

3.0%10.9%

Response Rate:94.7%


12


30.0%

25.0%

20.0%

15.0%

10.0%

5.0%

0.00%Library media


Classroom teacher


Science teacher

Math teacher &chair


Language arts chair

Classroom teacher &

chair

Social studies

teacher & chair


& chair

Socialstudies chair

30.0%

21.7%

10.9%

5.7% 5.2%

3.5% 3.0%2.6% 2.6%

1.7%1.3% 1.3%

0.9%

100.0%

90.0%

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%Content/


Type


Standards



TimeRequired


92.0%

85.3%

57.6%50.8%

49.6%

44.1%45.0%

40.3%

38.2%

18.1%

12.6%

4.6%

92.02%

89%

85%

71%

58%

67%

55%

50%

51%

97%

67%

67%

55%

45%

52%

44%

31%

40%

33%

18%

56%

13%

10%

5%

9-10

PreK-2

3-5

6-8

Other*

Postsecondary

48.1%

26.4%

23.6%

12.3%

5.2%

27.4%

20+ Years

16-20 Years

11-15 Years

0-5 Years

6-10 Years

42.4%

19.5%

15.7%

11.4% 11.0%

100.0%

80.0%

60.0%

40.0%

20.0%

0.0%Content/



IntendedUser

IntendedUse

Publisher MediaType

ResourceType


Restrictions

TimeRequired

Other*

96.9%

88.8%

71.4%67.3%

56.1% 55.1% 55.1%52.0%

32.7% 30.6%

24.5%

10.2%

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%



GameHardbound


67.4%

62.9%59.6%

47.2%

40.4% 39.3%

32.6%

25.8%

22.5%

11. What grade(s) do you teach?

Chart 1.7: Grades taught by respondents

Almost half of respondents (48.10%) teach grades 9-12. 27.4% teach PreK-2 and 26.4% teach grades 3-5. Postsecondary teachers were the least represented (5.2%).

*19 of the 26 “Other” responses indicated that they worked with multiple grades.

Response Rate:85.5%


13


13. How would you rank yourself on a scale of technical proficiency?

Educators generally consider themselves either somewhat or highly proficient. More than 2 in 3 (68.4%) of respondents ranked themselves as proficient, while 23.2% ranked themselves as expert. Only 8.4% of educators consider themselves to be a novice in technical proficiency.

12. How many years have you been an educator?

Chart 1.8: Years in education

Almost half of respondents (42.4%) have been in education for more than 20 years. 19.5% of educators had been in the profession for 16-20 years.

Response Rate:95.2%

Response Rate:95.6%

30.0%

25.0%

20.0%

15.0%

10.0%

5.0%

0.00%Library media


Classroom teacher


Science teacher

Math teacher &chair


Language arts chair

Classroom teacher &

chair

Social studies

teacher & chair


& chair

Socialstudies chair

30.0%

21.7%

10.9%

5.7% 5.2%

3.5% 3.0%2.6% 2.6%

1.7%1.3% 1.3%

0.9%

100.0%

90.0%

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%Content/


Type


Standards



TimeRequired


92.0%

85.3%

57.6%50.8%

49.6%

44.1%45.0%

40.3%

38.2%

18.1%

12.6%

4.6%

92.02%

89%

85%

71%

58%

67%

55%

50%

51%

97%

67%

67%

55%

45%

52%

44%

31%

40%

33%

18%

56%

13%

10%

5%

9-10

PreK-2

3-5

6-8

Other*

Postsecondary

48.1%

26.4%

23.6%

12.3%

5.2%

27.4%

20+ Years

16-20 Years

11-15 Years

0-5 Years

6-10 Years

42.4%

19.5%

15.7%

11.4% 11.0%

100.0%

80.0%

60.0%

40.0%

20.0%

0.0%Content/



IntendedUser

IntendedUse

Publisher MediaType

ResourceType


Restrictions

TimeRequired

Other*

96.9%

88.8%

71.4%67.3%

56.1% 55.1% 55.1%52.0%

32.7% 30.6%

24.5%

10.2%

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%



GameHardbound


67.4%

62.9%59.6%

47.2%

40.4% 39.3%

32.6%

25.8%

22.5%


14


Digging Deeper: Educator Survey

A cross-tab analysis was conducted on several questions from the educator survey. Below are key points pulled from this analysis.

• Educators who ranked themselves as “proficient” not only more frequently assigned projects involving Internet searches, but were also more frustrated that results did not indicate the specific instructional criteria they wanted (such as grade level or subject).

• 73.8% of respondents who were frustrated that results did not indicate grade level, standards alignment, or other criteria also searched daily.

• Frequent searchers said they would be more likely to search for resources if the LRMI were implemented; infrequent searchers were only somewhat likely or were unlikely to search more frequently for instructional content. This suggests that while frequent searchers will support the LRMI, the group that needs persuading may be infrequent searchers.

• The 20+ year educator group also expressed the most frustration with searching for educational resources online.

• Educators who were less likely to search were also less likely to assign projects to their students that involved online searches.

• The longer a respondent had been in education, the more unsure they were that they would have an improved level of satisfaction with searches if a new framework were implemented.

PUBLISHER SURVEY RESULTS


16

Publisher Survey Results

Publisher Survey Methodology

In April 2012, AEP and Winter Group created a survey for educational publishers in order to learn more about how educational publishers and resource providers view online visibility and discoverability for the content and products they develop. Data collected from this survey will help inform the implementation of the recently published LRMI metadata framework with the ultimate goal of helping students, educators, and parents search for and access educational resources online with greater accuracy and efficiency.

The survey was posted online and the link was e-mailed to nearly 5,000 educational publishing professionals, including members of the Association of Educational Publishers (AEP) and the Association of American Publishers’ membership list. The surveys were deployed by Winter Group and there were 133 responses. Of those respondents, approximately 69.2% answered every question. The response rate for each individual question is noted throughout the survey.

LRMI posted the survey link on their website, as did AEP, who also publicized the survey via Twitter and press releases and press coverage. As a result, an unknown number of survey respondents may have discovered the survey via AEP’s publicity efforts who were not part of the initial list.

Detailed Findings: Publisher Survey

1. Prior to receiving this survey, were you aware of the Learning Resource Metadata Initiative (LRMI), the project to create a standard framework for tagging educational resources online?

More than half (53.4%) of respondents indicated that they had not heard of the LRMI prior to this survey (a smaller percentage than educators). This was anticipated as some respondents were likely to be members of AEP, who had been publicizing the initiative prior to the survey. Respondents may also be members of AAP, SIIA, or other professional organizations that have also publicized the initiative.

Response Rate:98.5%


17


3. How important is online visibility in your current product sales and marketing programs?

Publishers agree that online visibility is critical in today’s market. More than half (56.1%) of publishers indicated that online visibility is essential to their sales and marketing programs and 30.7% stated that visibility is important. Less than 2% said visibility was unimportant.

4. How satisfied are you with the current online visibility of the products and programs you provide to the education market?

Nearly half (44.6%) of publishers noted that they were somewhat satisfied with their online visibility; however, 35.7% indicated that they were somewhat dissatisfied. This suggests that not all publishers are happy with their visibility: very few respondents (8.9%) indicated that they were satisfied with their current visibility.

5. Do you currently offer sample content online for educators as part of your marketing efforts?

Nearly 8 in 10 (78.9%) of publishers indicated that they offer sample content. Earlier in the study, publishers indicate that visibility is important and it can be surmised from the responses to these two questions that these publishers are aware that having sample content online is an important marketing strategy for building visibility.

Chart 1.9: Channels of information

RESPONSE PERCENT

Online 52%

Colleague 26%

Publishing Conference 22%

Other* 24%

2. Where did you learn about this new initiative?

Slightly more than half of respondents (52%) indicated that they had heard of the LRMI online. Only 26% heard about the initiative from a colleague and 22% indicated they’d heard about it at a publishing conference.

*“Most of the “Other” responses were more specific versions of the original choices, such as the Open Education Resource

Advocacy Coalition Listserv, which could be categorized under the online response. Several respondents indicated that

they had heard about the initiative at “various conferences” and 11 respondents specifically cited hearing about the LRMI

through AEP.

Response Rate:37.6%

Response Rate:85.7%

Response Rate:84.2%

Response Rate:82%


18


8. Assuming a new metadata standard would improve discoverability, how likely are you to implement this standard for tagging online educational resources for your current and future publishing programs?

7. If the content you develop was more readily discovered through online searches, would that change your current marketing and sales programs?

Just over half (51%) of respondents would change their marketing and sales programs if their content could be more readily discovered through online searches; 43.1% of publishers were unsure.

Chart 2.2: Likelihood of implementation

RESPONSE PERCENT

Highly likely 47%

May implement 32%

Would definitely implement 18%

Unlikely 3%

Publishers are very likely to implement a tagging system. Combining “highly likely” with “would definitely implement” yields a total of 65%, a strong indicator of adoption. When this is added to the 32% of respondents who answered “may implement,” this suggests a strong support among publishers to tag their resources.

Chart 2.1: Ease of finding information

RESPONSE PERCENT

Somewhat difficult 53.3%

Easy 35.2%

Very easy 7.6%

Difficult 3.8%

6. How easy or difficult do you think it is for your customers to find your content or products when searching online?

The responses to this question show a split between perceptions. A little more than half of publishers indicate that it is somewhat difficult for customers to find their content, while 35.2% note that it is easy.

Response Rate:78.9%

Response Rate:76.7%

Response Rate:75.2%


19


10. Which search criteria and terms would you find most important in an “industry standard” framework for educational resources searches? (Check all that apply)

Chart 2.3: Helpful search criteria for educational resources

As seen earlier in the report, publishers listed the same three helpful criteria that educators did: content/subject area, grade level, and alignment to specific standards. A graph is available on page 26 of the report that compares educator and publisher responses to this question. The total percentages exceed 100% due to the multiple-response format of the question, suggesting publishers may find multiple search criteria helpful.

*“Other” responses included: hardware compatibility, adaptability for special education and special populations, languages available, state licensing, home usage availability, cost, age range, type of interactivity, genre, and topics/themes.

9. Would you be more likely to implement this framework if you knew that major search engines were using it to inform their search results?

More than 8 in 10 (85%) respondents were more likely to implement the framework if major search engines were part of the initiative. 13% indicated that they were unsure. Only 2% of publishers indicated that they would not be more likely to implement the framework.

Response Rate:75.2%

Response Rate:73.7%

30.0%

25.0%

20.0%

15.0%

10.0%

5.0%

0.00%Library media


Classroom teacher


Science teacher

Math teacher &chair


Language arts chair

Classroom teacher &

chair

Social studies

teacher & chair


& chair

Socialstudies chair

30.0%

21.7%

10.9%

5.7% 5.2%

3.5% 3.0%2.6% 2.6%

1.7%1.3% 1.3%

0.9%

100.0%

90.0%

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%Content/


Type


Standards



TimeRequired


92.0%

85.3%

57.6%50.8%

49.6%

44.1%45.0%

40.3%

38.2%

18.1%

12.6%

4.6%

92.02%

89%

85%

71%

58%

67%

55%

50%

51%

97%

67%

67%

55%

45%

52%

44%

31%

40%

33%

18%

56%

13%

10%

5%

9-10

PreK-2

3-5

6-8

Other*

Postsecondary

48.1%

26.4%

23.6%

12.3%

5.2%

27.4%

20+ Years

16-20 Years

11-15 Years

0-5 Years

6-10 Years

42.4%

19.5%

15.7%

11.4% 11.0%

100.0%

80.0%

60.0%

40.0%

20.0%

0.0%Content/



IntendedUser

IntendedUse

Publisher MediaType

ResourceType


Restrictions

TimeRequired

Other*

96.9%

88.8%

71.4%67.3%

56.1% 55.1% 55.1%52.0%

32.7% 30.6%

24.5%

10.2%

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%



GameHardbound


67.4%

62.9%59.6%

47.2%

40.4% 39.3%

32.6%

25.8%

22.5%


20


11. Which department or job titles within your organization would be most likely to take responsibility for implementing an industry-standard metatagging program to improve discoverability and access for your products and content? (Check all that apply)

Chart 2.4: Departments responsible for implementation

RESPONSE PERCENT

Marketing 52.8%

Editorial 40.4%

Information Technology (IT) 37.1%

Product Development 36%

Production 24.7%

Other* 15.7%

According to respondents, marketing and editorial specialists are likely to be responsible for implementing the new tagging initiative. The total percentages most likely exceed 100% due to the multiple-response format of the question, as publishers indicated that multiple departments may share responsibility for implementing the framework.

*“Other” responses included: administration, catalogers, communication, content management, finance, multiple departments, taxonomy, unsure, and web strategist.

Response Rate:66.9%


21


12. What is your job title?

Chart 2.5: Job titles of respondents

Respondent titles included

Sales• Sales Manager• Business Development• Manager, Purchasing/

Distributor Sales• Subscription Fulfillment

Marketing• Associate PR Manager• Marketing Manager/

Director

Editorial• Editor/Editor in Chief/

Editorial Director• Content Manager

• Senior Managing Editor

Executive• Publisher• CEO/COO/Vice President• Director• Periodicals Director• Managing Director• Director of Publishing

Product/Project• Product Manager• Project Manager• Publications Manager

Web and Technology• Web Editor• Web Designer• eLearning Specialist &

Social Media Director• Coordinator of E-Resources• Educational Technologist

*Other• Teacher/Writer of Elementary Non-Fiction• Senior Librarian• Taxonomy Manager• Research Coordinator/Director• Principal Investigator

• General Manager• Data Analyst• Data Operations Manager• Educational Initiatives

Response Rate:70%

Executive

Other*

Marketing

Editorial

Web and Technology

Product/Project

Sales

12.9%

8.6%

6.5%

5.4%

5.4%

44.1%

15.1%


22


13. What products/program types/categories does your company publish? (Check all that apply)

Chart 2.6: Types of products published

RESPONSE PERCENT

Supplemental Resources 78.4%

Curriculum Products 70.5%

Professional Development 48.9%

Educational Games 40.9%

Assessment 38.6%

Periodicals 28.4%

Textbooks 25%

Other* 18%

A majority of respondents publish supplemental resources and curriculum products. The total percentages exceed 100% due to the multiple-response format of the question, as respondents indicated they publish multiple products.

*“Other” responses included: education videos, multimedia versions of content, mobile applications, teacher tools (such as math equation editors), supplemental texts and databases, market research, metadata aggregator and publisher, and educational technology learning systems.

Response Rate:66.2%

14. In which content/subject areas and grade ranges does your company publish? (Check all that apply)

The chart above shows which grade ranges and content areas the survey respondents publish in. Most of the respondents publish materials for elementary and secondary education, with between one-fourth and one-third producing material for higher education. However, the total percentages exceed 100% due to the multiple-response format of the question, as publishers often produce content for multiple grades.

*“Other” responses included: agriculture, visual arts and music, career skills, library/information literacy, character-building skills, ELL / foreign language, health, physical education and safety, financial literacy, professional development for educators, and religion.

Chart 2.7: Content and grade ranges

PreK-2 3-5 6-8 9-12 HIGHER EDUCATION

Math 68.3% 68.3% 80.5% 70.7% 26.8%

English/Language Arts 75.9% 72.4% 75.9% 63.8% 25.9%

Science 71.7% 73.9% 82.6% 76.1% 23.9%

Social Studies 76.1% 73.9% 76.1% 67.4% 32.6%

Other* –– –– –– –– ––

Response Rate:57.1%


23


15. Please indicate the format/media through which your content is delivered (Check all that apply)

Chart 2.8: Method of content delivery

Multimedia and softcover print were the most common methods of delivery for the publishers surveyed. The total percentages exceed 100% due to the multiple-response format of the question, as publishers noted multiple methods of content delivery.

*“Other” responses included: online or web-based content, magazines, and mobile apps.

16. Please indicate the licensing nature of your content.

A majority of respondents publish paid/licensed content. Nearly 9 in 10 (89%) of publishers indicated that they published commercial or proprietary content. Less than one-fourth (23.1%) indicated that they published free content. Very few respondents (14.3%) publish free and openly licensed content, such as content published under a Creative Commons License.

*“Other” responses described a mix of licensing nature and conveyed that some content was free or licensed via Creative Commons while other content was commercial.

Response Rate:66.9%

Response Rate:68.4%

30.0%

25.0%

20.0%

15.0%

10.0%

5.0%

0.00%Library media


Classroom teacher


Science teacher

Math teacher &chair


Language arts chair

Classroom teacher &

chair

Social studies

teacher & chair


& chair

Socialstudies chair

30.0%

21.7%

10.9%

5.7% 5.2%

3.5% 3.0%2.6% 2.6%

1.7%1.3% 1.3%

0.9%

100.0%

90.0%

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%Content/


Type


Standards



TimeRequired


92.0%

85.3%

57.6%50.8%

49.6%

44.1%45.0%

40.3%

38.2%

18.1%

12.6%

4.6%

92.02%

89%

85%

71%

58%

67%

55%

50%

51%

97%

67%

67%

55%

45%

52%

44%

31%

40%

33%

18%

56%

13%

10%

5%

9-10

PreK-2

3-5

6-8

Other*

Postsecondary

48.1%

26.4%

23.6%

12.3%

5.2%

27.4%

20+ Years

16-20 Years

11-15 Years

0-5 Years

6-10 Years

42.4%

19.5%

15.7%

11.4% 11.0%

100.0%

80.0%

60.0%

40.0%

20.0%

0.0%Content/



IntendedUser

IntendedUse

Publisher MediaType

ResourceType


Restrictions

TimeRequired

Other*

96.9%

88.8%

71.4%67.3%

56.1% 55.1% 55.1%52.0%

32.7% 30.6%

24.5%

10.2%

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%



GameHardbound


67.4%

62.9%59.6%

47.2%

40.4% 39.3%

32.6%

25.8%

22.5%


24


17. Does your organization currently use a content management system to manage your digital resources?

Almost half of respondents (49.5%) indicated that they currently use an existing content management system to manage their digital resources, while 40.7% stated that they do not.

18. Does your organization tag your resources with metadata so they can be searched, sorted, and otherwise organized?

Nearly half (47.7%) of publishers tag their resources with metadata so they can be organized and found, while 35.2% do not. Respondents were asked what metadata standards they used if they utilized tagging. Several of the respondents cited ONIX as their standard. Other standards included Scorm, BISAC Subject Headings, Dewey classification, Dublin Core, and Javascript. Several respondents mentioned using an internal system.

Response Rate:68.4%

Response Rate:66.2%


25


Digging Deeper: Publisher Survey

A cross-tab analysis was conducted on several questions from the publisher survey. Below are the key points from this analysis.

• 98.4% of publishers that create curriculum products listed content/subject area as important search criteria; 100% of those that produce assessment materials and educational games listed content/subject area as important.

• 50% of those in the publisher survey who were aware of the LRMI learned about it from online sources.

• 45.2% of survey respondents who produce video content and 44.4% of interactive game producers were somewhat dissatisfied with their current online visability.

• Of the publishers that responded that they do not currently tag their content, 77.5% said they were highly likely or would definitely implement a tagging system. This contrasts with the group of publishers that do currently tag their resources. That group was less willing to commit to implementing a new system, suggesting that publishers that currently tag may resist changing their internal systems.

• 84.3% of publishers who were aware of the LRMI also publish sample content for educators, suggesting a possible positive link between publishers that stay up-to-date on industry trends and those that provide for the needs of educators.

• Publishers of educational games were the most likely to implement the framework, with 80.6% stating they were highly likely to or would definitely implement the framework if it improves discoverability. Publishers of assessments were least likely to implement the framework (65.1%).

• Likelihood of implementation was cross-tabbed with content and grade level:

Chart 2.9: Likelihood of implementation by grade level and content area

% of respondents who are highly likely to implement or would definitely implement

SUBJECT PreK-2 3-5 6-8 9-12 HIGHER EDUCATION

Math 71.4% 74.2% 72.8% 65.5% 54.6%

English/Language Arts 70.5% 69% 65.9% 64.8% 60%

Science 51.5% 67.7% 71.1% 62.9% 45.5%

Social Studies 68.6% 67.7% 65.7% 58.1% 60%


26


Comparing Search Criteria (Educators vs Publishers)

A comparative analysis of helpful search criteria indicated by publishers and educators shows commonality between the two groups: content/subject area, grade level, and alignment to specific standards are the top criteria both groups found helpful. Criteria where the two groups differ include permissions & licensing, author, publisher, and time required.

Educators indicated that permissions and licensing as well as time required were much more helpful criteria than publishers indicated. Publishers, on the other hand, noted that the author and publisher criteria were more helpful than educators ranked them.

30.0%

25.0%

20.0%

15.0%

10.0%

5.0%

0.00%Library media


Classroom teacher


Science teacher

Math teacher &chair


Language arts chair

Classroom teacher &

chair

Social studies

teacher & chair


& chair

Socialstudies chair

30.0%

21.7%

10.9%

5.7% 5.2%

3.5% 3.0%2.6% 2.6%

1.7%1.3% 1.3%

0.9%

100.0%

90.0%

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%Content/


Type


Standards



TimeRequired


92.0%

85.3%

57.6%50.8%

49.6%

44.1%45.0%

40.3%

38.2%

18.1%

12.6%

4.6%

92.02%

89%

85%

71%

58%

67%

55%

50%

51%

97%

67%

67%

55%

45%

52%

44%

31%

40%

33%

18%

56%

13%

10%

5%

9-10

PreK-2

3-5

6-8

Other*

Postsecondary

48.1%

26.4%

23.6%

12.3%

5.2%

27.4%

20+ Years

16-20 Years

11-15 Years

0-5 Years

6-10 Years

42.4%

19.5%

15.7%

11.4% 11.0%

100.0%

80.0%

60.0%

40.0%

20.0%

0.0%Content/



IntendedUser

IntendedUse

Publisher MediaType

ResourceType


Restrictions

TimeRequired

Other*

96.9%

88.8%

71.4%67.3%

56.1% 55.1% 55.1%52.0%

32.7% 30.6%

24.5%

10.2%

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%



GameHardbound


67.4%

62.9%59.6%

47.2%

40.4% 39.3%

32.6%

25.8%

22.5%

CONCLUSIONS


28

Conclusions In general, the educators and publishers surveyed showed a positive response to the initiative. There were several questions in the survey where both groups indicated a willingness to use the LRMI framework. There still may be some resistance (as explored below) to the project from publishers, educators, and search engines. The survey results brought to light several areas that could be emphasized in marketing communications to these groups.

Infrequent Searchers: Educator Resistance

While educators who searched for resources frequently were more likely to search for resources if the LRMI were implemented, infrequent searchers were less likely to be motivated by the LRMI to search more frequently. Educators in the infrequent searchers group have likely been in the field for more than 20 years and expressed the most frustration with searching for resources online. They were also more likely to be unsure whether the LRMI would improve their satisfaction with searching for materials. Emphasizing the ease and convenience of the framework for educators may be beneficial to help lessen this resistance.

More Satisfaction, More Searching: Publisher Resistance

Publishers may be reluctant to integrate the tagging framework into their online content. A clear communication of benefits as well as references to this survey data and the results of similar surveys may help publishers find extra value in implementing the framework.

Solution to Frustrations

Few educators described their online searches as usually successful and a majority of educators said they would be more satisfied with Internet searches if search engines offered the ability to filter results by standard instructional criteria; they want convenience and targeted results. This framework has the potential to eliminate most of these frustrations and increase search satisfaction — an end result that will benefit search engines, publishers, and educators. Addressing how the framework can alleviate educator frustrations and make the search process easier may help position the LRMI as an important development in searching for resources.

Search Criteria: What’s Needed

A comparative analysis of helpful search criteria indicated by publishers and educators shows commonality between the two groups: content/subject area, grade level, and alignment to specific standards are the top criteria for both groups. The two groups continue to share commonality with the exception of permissions & licensing, author, publisher, and time required, which educators did not rank as helpful criteria.

Visible Content = Publisher Satisfaction

Publishers agree that online visibility is critical in today’s market. Publishers are clearly aware that their products need to be searchable and visible in order to maintain brand recognition and sales numbers. However, more than one-third of publishers were not satisfied with their current level of visibility and a little over half said it was difficult for their material to be found. LRMI can help address publisher concerns in this area.

http://www.lrmi.net


29

A Change in Marketing

Half of respondents would change their marketing and sales programs if their content could be more readily discovered through online searches. This information, coupled with the importance of visibility, suggests publishers may be onboard with the LRMI program, especially if their brand became more visible via the search criteria.

Willingness to Tag Content

Almost half of publishers already tag their content with metadata and a majority of publishers were likely to tag their content with the LRMI metadata if the framework improved discoverability. Of the publishers who responded that they do not currently tag their content, a majority said they were highly likely or would definitely implement a tagging system. This contrasts with the group of publishers that do currently tag their resources. The tagging group was less willing to commit to implementing a new system, suggesting that publishers that currently tag may resist changing their internal systems.

Tagging: Who’s Involved?

For most publishers, marketing and editorial specialists are likely to be responsible for implementing the new tagging initiative, so outreach and proof points to those departments may be helpful in getting the framework accepted. Several publishing companies indicated that multiple departments may share responsibility for implementing the framework.

http://www.lrmi.net

Date post:	21-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

LRMI Survey Report Spring 2012 - Saide Resource... LRMI Survey Report | Spring 20123 Students...

Documents