Tech Trends of the Future

     The 2013 ALA LITA Top Tech Trends Panel, held in Chicago this year, highlights Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) in its first segment.  After watching the presentation, it is not difficult to imagine that MOOCs will be adopted in considerable numbers in the near future in the tech world, in education, and in libraries.  The first speaker in the LITA discussion video describes the ways in which MOOCs challenge the "sequestered educational experience" often seen in the world of higher education. 

     In essence, these courses break down the barriers that, for so long, have prevented access to higher education.  To support her claim that MOOCs are on the rise, the first speaker in the LITA Panel video mentions a recent study that shows that 22% of the general public knows what the term MOOC means.  She goes on to explain that, while the general interpretation for this percentage was that it is a very low number, it is actually very high.

     It is also evident that MOOCs will become more and more prominent in the tech world as distance education becomes more and more widespread.  Finally, I also found it especially interesting when I learned from the panelist who added to the first speaker's contributions that last year (2012), Google was running its own MOOC on information literacy.  Google's MOOC ran about 100,000 people through it.  From these numbers, it is clear that MOOCs are the emerging technological trends of the future.

This week in LIS 631, our class had the opportunity to glean some first-hand, hands-on experience with two metadata generation methods:  Manual and Automatic (Harvesting). We used the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH) to harvest the data automatically and then created a Standard Metadata Collection for harvesting the same metadata manually.  We visited the Edward S. Curtis Collection at Library of Congress's website and examined the metadata associated with the Atsina Fly Dance record.  After downloading the image associated with the record, we returned to our Manual Metadata collection and re-created metadata for this item in terms of Dublin Core Simple.  During the process of generating our own metadata for this item, we needed to depend on the existing metadata available for it.  Our goal was to convert this metadata from its original format to DC described in the DC guidelines.  We were asked to create a digital collection for Native American History researchers, operating on the premise that our institution does not hold any digital materials related to Native American History, so we were to aggregate collections from other institutions using OAI-PMH.

In general, I feel that my Standard Metadata Collection (manual input) for the Atsina Fly Dance item does not provide as comprehensive record details as the OAI, or automatically harvested metadata method does.  Although I have learned about Dublin Core and its standards in the classroom, this assignment constitutes my first practical, hands-on experience with its methods for populating metadata.  Another interesting point in this assignment and the comparison between the Standard Metadata Collection and the OAI Collection lies in the fact that although all of the metadata that I input manually is correct, the OAI automatic metadata includes much more detailed records.  Instead of simply listing the creator’s name, for instance, the latter also includes the years during which he lived and the name of his profession.  I found that aspect to be especially fascinating.  I encountered a few technical glitches with the assignment along the way but feel that because of those setbacks, I now have a greater understanding and appreciation of museum websites and the work that goes into creating their full records – whether manually or automatically.

Here is the link to the URL to my community on DSpace:  http://harvester4.uncg.edu:8081/xmlui/handle/123456789/9634