1. JENNIE MATHEWS ST. JOHN’S UNIVERSITY LIS 239 Can the Addition of Social Software Tools & Tags Improve the Productivity of an Academic Library OPAC? 1

2. Proposed Research Area The effectiveness of complementary classification systems in the academic library setting. Specifically, the inclusion of socially created metadata as a searching and browsing option in the academic OPAC. Hypothesis: There will be an increase in search productivity in OPACs that allow for librarian and user created terminology. 2

3. Relevant Terminology Folksonomy – a classification system for online content, created by individual users who tag information with freely chosen keywords not part of a controlled vocabulary. Folksonomies reflect the vocabulary of users; reflects current trends. Flaws include: ambiguity, misspellings or variations in spelling, compound words, inconsistency, use of symbols. 3

4. Terminology (cont’d) Tag – a keyword. Tagging – the application of these keywords, or tags, to digital objects in order to classify and organize information for later retrieval. Tag Cloud – visual representation of tags, usually arranged alphabetically with larger, bold text used to indicate higher frequency of occurrence. 4

5. Tag Cloud 5

6. Social Classification Tools Delicious – most popular social bookmarking tool. Connotea & CiteULike – both are reference management tools designed for researchers and scientists to organize and share scholarly articles. LibraryThing – allows users to “catalog” and organize their book collections. Uses Z39.50 protocol to import data about books. 6

7. Academic Library Applications University of Pennsylvania – has an academic tagging program called PennTags.  Allows students, faculty, and staff to bookmark and share resources.  Folksonomies and LCSH coexist in the catalog but the occurrence of folksonomies is not high. Stanford University – has incorporated tagging as well as wikis and blogs into their Stanford Information Center site. Montana State University – uses folksonomies and controlled vocabulary for electronic theses and dissertations (ETD) 2003 onward.  Users have the option to browse between ETDs (via relational links) that share tags. 7

8. LibraryThing for Libraries Allows for the integration of social data into an OPAC.  Tag Cloud  Tag Browser  Similar Books  Reviews & Ratings  Alternate editions/translations 8

9. Research Proposal Evaluation of social tools, specifically those available from LibraryThing for Libraries, in an academic library OPAC. Expectation is that the integration of these tools will improve the productivity of the OPAC and will help yield a higher number of relevant search results for students. 9

10. Sample Population Non-probability Freshmen enrolled in a introductory or freshmen seminar course  Will have similar experience level with university’s OPAC.  Freshmen seminar courses often include library instruction as part of curriculum.  Will ensure participation. 100 students included in each test group  Different students used for pre- and post-test group to avoid sensitization. 10

11. Methodology A pre- and post-test will be done in order to measure changes in search productivity, if any, after the implementation of the program. Questionnaire will be used for pre- and post-tests.  Quantitative  Qualitative 11

12. Definitions Search productivity will be defined as the number of relevant resources found by students during his or her search. The level of relevancy will be determined by the student with regards to his or her chosen research topic. 12

13. Research Design Students will be given a list of research topics to choose from.  Using pre-defined topics ensures that the library has a selection of materials available for students to find. Students in both pre-test and post-test groups will be given instruction in the use of the OPAC and the tools available.  Increases validity by ensuring that all students are aware of tools; results will not be skewed because of ignorance of tools. 13

14. Questionnaire 1. What is your research topic? 2. Did you have previous knowledge of this topic that assisted in your search? Explain. **This question has been included to ascertain whether or not a high number of search results could be due to pre-knowledge of existing materials** 3. Were you able to find any resources in the catalog related to your topic? If so, how many? 4. How many resources found ended up being relevant or useful? 5. Were any desired materials unavailable or checked out? If so, how many? **This question has been included to ascertain whether or not a lack of relevant or useful results could be due to unavailability of materials for evaluation** 14

15. Questionnaire (cont’d) 6. What keywords or terms did you use during your search? 7. What keywords or terms yielded relevant search results? 8. Specifically, which tools did you use during your search (i.e. basic search, advanced search, subject headings)? **This question will be modified for the post-test to include: tag cloud, books recommendations, tag browser, etc.** 9. Which tools were most helpful during your search? Explain. 15

16. Questionnaire (cont’d) 10. How long did you spend searching before you found resources relevant to your topic? 11. Did you have to come back to your search later in the day, week, or month before finding all of the necessary resources? **This question and question 10 have been included in order to ascertain how much time students spent conducting searches in order to rule out a high or low number of results that could be attributed to a lack of or excess of time spent** 12. Have you previously used the library catalog to find resources? If so, how frequently? 13. Did you find the catalog easy or difficult to use? Explain. 14. What could the library do to improve the catalog? 16

17. Data Analysis Results will be examined for statistically significant increase in search results. If results prove significant, qualitative data will be used to determine validity.  Did students indicate LTFL tools as being helpful? 17

18. Limitations of Study Evaluative and specific to LTFL tools, cannot be generalized. LTFL tools are limited  Tag search box is not integrated into OPAC.  Cannot combine search terms in tag browser.  Users cannot add tags locally. 18

19. Projected Results Search productivity will increase but, perhaps, not significantly due to limited nature of tools. As available library specific tools evolve, search productivity will increase. 19

20. Future Pursuit It is important for libraries to evolve. Incorporation of Library and Web 2.0 concepts will improve patron-librarian collaboration. Allows users alternative ways to seek information in a highly controlled environment. Would be foolish for librarians to ignore user behaviors and preferences. 20