Assumptions

The National Library of Education is already in place. The assumptions which follow are points of departure for technology planning.

Challenges to The National Library of Education

The National Library of Education (NLE) already exists. From its present elements, a systemic information network will emerge not unlike the National Libraries of Agriculture and Medicine. But the USEIN will be a distributed information network rather than a highly centralized entity. Agriculture and Medicine began as centralized libraries; USEIN will begin as a distributed library. This is unique among national libraries and therefore has to be planned accordingly. Figure 2, a graphic representation of a distributed system prepared by NLE, provides a visual image of the USEIN. It depicts the three essential components of the system: the customer, the access points, and the repositories of data, information and knowledge. The first challenge is the customer interface.

The customer (user) is usually an individual who wants or needs data, information or knowledge that is not generally available at the local workplace. The type of user varies widely and so do the questions raised. Most inquiries are likely to come from teachers and students at all levels of education--pre-school to graduate school. Other users come from education environments such as: administrators, subject (curriculum) supervisors, librarians, teacher educators, counsellors, and other specialists. Also closely related to the schools are school board members, parents, news reporters, and interested citizens.

The customer can reach the access points through mail, telephone, FAX, e-mail or, in a few cases, face-to-face meetings. In some cases the user will interact with an individual who is responsible for responding. An increasingly preferable approach is directly through an electronic network, probably the Internet, to search data bases, World Wide Web sites, and online digital libraries. In some cases the availability of appropriate CD-ROMs at the user's location would provide still another direct approach. Delivery is usually made in print (on paper or computer screen) or in the medium on which the information is stored.

The second challenge is organization and networking to all appropriate repositories, so that access by customers is made quickly and easily. To the customer, this contact is seamless and timely. The immediate challenge, beyond the initial organization phase, is to alert and sensitize all elements of the network to the operating procedures that will insure customer satisfaction.

Repositories are the locations (physical and virtual) where data, information and knowledge are stored. At each location the data, information and knowledge is available through various computer storage media (tape, disc, etc.), microforms, printed books, monographs, journals, brochures and non-print media (videotape, film, photographs, audiotape, laser discs, digital disks, etc.). The physical storage locations are located at such places as universities, education associations, state departments of education, libraries (traditional and digital), teacher union offices, commercial information services, and the National Library of Education's Washington location. These repositories should be active partners in the USEIN.

At this point, the collection becomes so large that customers no longer want all the information available on a given topic, but the "best" information. The librarian's role shifts from custodian of the collection to a filter for the user. Since the user is no longer bound by geography (or technology) the user will select services based on how well they create a context useful to that person. This approach begins to describe the "digital" library that emerges from a "hybrid" library.

The third challenge begins with the "given" that NLE will be a "virtual library." It would seem appropriate to begin with with those elements that are already operating in this vein. The NLE Advisory Task Force (1997) has already spelled out the components of the USEIN (p. 5). There appears to be four groups of network participants: (1) those services already functioning within the programs and scope of the National Library of Education (e.g., ERIC, INet, 1-800 User Services, etc.); (2) those operating under contract with other U.S. Department of Education offices (e.g., Eisenhower National Clearinghouse, Regional Educational and R & D Centers, etc.); (3) other Federal programs and services related to Education (e.g., the National Science Foundation's Digital Library project; the Library of Congress' American Memory project, etc.); and (4) public and private programs and projects at the national, state, and local level that fall within the scope of the NLE (e.g., Ohio's SchoolNet Software Review Project; American Association of School Librarian's KidsConnect project; etc.). Many of these programs and projects are focused on digital information systems.

Additional links to the major Education collections in large universities such as Harvard, Stanford, University of California at Los Angeles and Teachers College, Columbia University will be active partners in providing comprehensive coverage of archival and other published literature. The university collections are largely print-based and represent much of the archival material in Education. Initially, books from these collections will be the deliverable product. The process will probably be a variation of the public and academic library interlibrary loan (ILL) program, with some adaptation for shorter-than-book length requests.

The fourth challenge is to "recruit" potential participants to the USEIN. For those currently in the NLE scope, there should be minimal difficulty; for those within the U.S. Department of Education sphere, "creative coercion" may be necessary to encourage active participation; other Federal agencies, would have to see synergistic benefits that would enhance the image of each agency--rewards for participation that exceed those of their independent operations; and for those outside government, there would have to be tangible benefits for participation. Carr (1997, pp. 12-15) suggests what some of the incentives could be.

Most organizations and government agencies want to project a forward-looking image that is on the cutting edge of developments in the fields they represent. Participation in the first national virtual library might offer such an inducement.

In a move related more toward organization than to technology, partnerships will be arranged with education-related organizations, agencies, and services. It is assumed that all parts of the USEIN will be connected by communication networks that are already in place (or can be put in place) and that interactions will be possible through compatible systems. A comprehensive list of potential partners is described by Libutti (1997, pp 7-11; 14-16) in a paper prepared for the USEIN Kick-Off conference. Carr (1997, pp. 2-12) also details profiles of potential partners in a paper presented to the same conference.

Quality Concerns in Distributed Information Networks

The proliferation of information sources and the growing tangle of new sources has given rise to a fifth challenge: quality of the information and knowledge that is available through the USEIN. In a report of a symposium at the 1997 American Library Association (ALA) conference (http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/aug97/enduser.html), Jack Soloch summarizes the perceptions of Internet use through the comments of participants. James Rettig of William & Mary University said that "...quality signposts, as well as resource organization, are absolutely necessary in order to be able to help patrons find the best Internet resources available....Internet resources [are] much less trustworthy as reliable sources of knowledge and information." Sam Demas of the Cornell University discussed the efforts of his library to collect, organize and disseminate Internet resources via a web catalog (http://www.mannlib.cornell.edu/catalog/). He stressed the importance of web selectors having the same formidable subject skills of book selectors. Both speakers felt that libraries have a large role to play as gateways to networked information by bringing their considerable skills to bear on the problem.

Selection is usually done with quality in mind. In these days of explosive website development, the concept of a quality filter has to be advanced. The ERIC system has been an arbitor of quality for over thirty years each time a document or journal article has been reviewed for placement in the database. The distributed nature of ERIC Clearinghouses, each with its specific content scope, has provided a value added dimension to the items selected. The sixteen clearinghouses do not provide 100% of subject matter coverage. There are gaps which have to be filled as USEIN recruits its partners. The concept of quality must be evident to both information specialists and users.

NLE's Gateway to Educational Materials (GEM) project is currently reviewing materials listed in its database according to a set of validated criteria. A review of this effort should help to facilitate the selection process using quality criteria. It could serve as a prototype for other quality-oriented procedures.

Individuals are stepping up to address the quality question. At the University of Evansville, a philosophy professor has taken matters into his own hands and created a search engine for his area of expertise, the ancient world (http://argos.evansville,edu/). His engine, called Argos, filters out unwanted information by limiting searches to preselected web sites deemed to be scholarly and topical by a group of editors. The professor said: "We're imagining a whole series of these search engines to serve academe." (Chronicle of Higher Education, Oct. 18, 1996).

A sixth challenge involves one of the continuing barriers for many information seekers: obtaining a full text document once an item has been identified by title and/or abstract. For ERIC, the full text document is available on microfiche and paper copy. There is currently an experimental project to store and retrieve documents in digital formats (ERIC Annual Report, 1997, p13; 23). If full text information were available in digital format, it could be sent via the Internet to customers who request it. Better still, once a user wants a document after reviewing an abstract on a computer screen, it could be ordered and sent with one key stroke. Such developments are still in their infancy but with the vision of meeting user needs as efficiently and economically as possible, continuing efforts should be made to study and pilot test new technologies.

Digitization would also make documents available on laser discs. Just as the entire ERIC database has become available on CD-ROM for about $100, so should documents within the database be available on laser discs (or their next iteration) that permits large scale storage of print and graphics. Frustrations about obtaining full text of journal articles continues. There are technologies today that can provide such services but, for many users, the price is still exorbitant.

A Technology Planning Agenda

A planning agenda that would enhance the individual organization while benefitting the network would be an attraction to potential partners. By participating in the detailed planning of the USEIN, each organization would derive potential benefits for its customers as well as kudos for contributing to the larger effort. They would not lose their identity and would continue to serve their constituency at an enhanced level. The following agenda could also be an inducement for potential partners. It is built on suggestions of Roy Tennant (1996) and the ERIC Operations Framework Task Force (1997).

A summary of the potential pitfalls stem from some of the challenges already discussed and should be considered for the agenda of NLE/USEIN planners. The negative tone of "pitfalls" could be reinterpreted as warnings to planners as they consider implementation of the recommended strategies.

Users--Again!

Return to the users. Most customers of information services want specific responses in a timely fashion. They want quality information, usually in full text formats with supporting graphics and they want it now. Ideally, the NLE/USEIN will eventually meet these specifications. This vision should not be lost. It will take time and new technologies to make this image become a reality.

Returning the the Report of the NLE Advisory Task Force, it seems that Awareness is a marketing and outreach endeavor that can be marshalled and implemented with short and long range plans; Access is almost universally available whether by computers, networks or by more traditional means. In some sense, the technology that provides access is the easiest of the concepts to implement. However, Assistance is often unknown and perhaps the most difficult concept to deliver. Most of the literature about teacher use of computers and networking indicates that lack of skills and confidence in using technology are major barriers to use. Whether it is initial reluctance to begin training, lack of opportunities for training and follow-up practice, availability of help within the local setting, or a fundamental negative attitude, this important aspect of the NLE mission cannot be delayed or neglected.

The final "A" in the awareness, access, assistance alliteration is accountability. It is the user to whom NLE is ultimately accountable. It is the user who should be the focus of the planning effort; it is the user who should be considered when deciding upon technological delivery systems; and it is the user who is then accountable to professional education colleagues, the public, parents and student--the final accountants of this "new national library for tomorrow's learners."

The author would like to acknowledge the substantive contributions and suggestions of Michael Eisenberg and David Lankes.
-###-