RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FGDC Framework and Metadata Survey

S T E V E N D . P R A G E RD E PA R T M E N T O F G E O G R A P H Y

U N I V E R S I T Y O F W Y O M I N G

J E F F R E Y H A M E R L I N C KS H AW N L A N N I N G

W Y O M I N G G E O G R A P H I C I N F O R M AT I O N S C I E N C EU N I V E R S I T Y O F W Y O M I N G

Project Scope

Training Materials for Framework Standards Base and Hydrography Standards – Completed Governmental Boundaries, Transportation Base,

Transportation Roads – In ProgressWhite Paper on Best Management Practices

for Integrating Framework Principles into Higher Education Curricula Informed by Framework Survey Broadened to Address other Standards Issues

Survey Overview

Total Questions: 41Total Respondents: 141Total Valid Reponses: 86-132 depending on

question – 101 average valid responses.Respondents represented both US and

international concerns. Of 101 respondents who provided information on

location, 83 were in the US, 18 were OCONUS. OCONUS respondents included Canada, Spain, India

and others.

Overview: Demographic Information

Respondent Institutional Role

Teaching Research Both Neither0

10

20

30

40

50

60

7

38

53

34

Responses: 132

Institutional Type (inc. Degree Programs)

Associates Degree

Bachelors Degree

Bachelors and Masters

Bachelors, Masters and PhD

Masters and PhD Only

Academic Research

Professional/Non-academic

Other

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

3

8

10

46

10

8

17

8

Responses: 110Reponses of “other” that did not fit in one of the above included a GIS certificate program, a library, and K-12.

Where is GIS&T taught?

Geogr

aphy

Compu

ter S

cien

ce

Engin

eerin

g

Mat

hem

atics

Info

rmat

ion

Tech

nolo

gy

Nat

ural

Scien

ce

Phys

ical

Scien

ce

Social

Scien

ce

Vocat

iona

l

Out

reac

h Sc

hool

Agricul

ture

Busin

ess

Educa

tion

Oth

er0

102030405060 55

1120

1

1219

813

7 38 6 3

29

Importance of Metadata in Curriculum

34% of respondents indicate issues regarding general metadata concepts have an important or very important role in GIS&T curriculum within their organizations (n=101). Respondent Average: 2.50

76% of respondents indicate that metadata should have an important or very important role in general GIS&T curriculum. Respondent Average: 5.02

These are statistically significantly different. Interpretation: suggests a discrepancy between practice

and theory.

(Scoring: Very Important 2, Important or Somewhat Important, 1, Not Important, 0)

Importance of SDI in Organizational Curriculum

General SDI National SDI Global SDI0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

36%

26%

17%

n=91,Reported % is the number of respondents who selected important or very important.

General Importance of SDI in Curriculum

General SDI National SDI Global SDI0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

66%59%

49%

n=89, 91, 90Reported % is the number of respondents who selected important or very important.

Metadata versus SDI

The general importance of metadata relative to other SDI concepts is significantly different. Interpretation: on a general level metadata are viewed

as more important than SDI, NSDI and GSDI.The organizational/curricular importance of

metadata is not significantly different than general SDI concepts but is significantly different than NSDI or GSDI. Interpretation: spatial data infrastructure receives

curricular attention on par with metadata in spite of the differences in perceived relative importance.

Familiarity with Framework Concepts

58% of respondents report 5 or more years of awareness of SDI concepts (n=88).

45% of respondents report 5 or more years of using SDI concepts in day-to-day activities (n=86).

76% of respondents indicate somewhat or greater familiarity with Framework (n=91).

Framework Theme Familiarity

Base Standard

Geodetic Control Theme

Orthoimagery Theme

Elevation Theme

Transportation Theme

Hydrography Theme

Governmental Units Theme

Cadastral Information Theme

11.59%

11.59%

13.04%

18.84%

8.70%

13.04%

4.35%

8.70%

37.68%

26.09%

31.88%

33.33%

34.78%

31.88%

37.68%

24.64%

40.58%

40.58%

40.58%

39.13%

37.68%

39.13%

40.58%

43.48%

10.14%

21.74%

14.49%

8.70%

18.84%

15.94%

17.39%

23.19%

Very Familiar Familiar Somewhat Familiar Unfamiliar

More on Framework

Respondents are statistically consistent with regard to expressing general familiarity with Framework and corresponding familiarity with Framework Base Standard and Framework Themes.

Respondents who expressed greater importance with regard to SDI concepts were more likely to indicate familiarity with Framework concepts than were respondents who indicated lower SDI importance. Interpretation: more sophisticated users are more

likely to have knowledge of Framework concepts.

Demographics of Framework Familiarity

Position Framework Familiarity Score Number

Lecturer 2.00 2

College Teacher/Instructor (non-research) 1.50 6

Research Scientist 1.25 12

Professional/Technical Instructor 1.22 9

Tenure Track 1.17 6

Graduate Student 1.13 15

Tenured Professor 0.95 22

Non Academic Professional 0.93 14

Unknown 0.60 10

Librarian 0.60 5

One of our original hypotheses is that respondents from government and business (Non Academic Professionals) would have greater familiarity with Framework that members of the academic community. Though additional analysis is required, the above results suggest that the opposite is true.

(The Framework Familiarity Score is the average familiarity level across Framework Base and Themes. A score of 2 indicates very familiar or familiar, a score of 1 indicates somewhat familiar and 0 indicates unfamiliar.)

Benefits of Standards

38% of respondents indicate they regularly or often derive benefits from standards for teaching (n=86).

62% of respondents indicate they regularly or often derive benefits from standards for research (n=86).

77% of respondents indicate they would be somewhat willing or very willing to participate in geospatial standards development (n=87).

Over 90% of respondents indicate standards are very important for data development, data transfer and interoperability (n=88).

Perceptions Regarding Who Benefits

Busin

ess a

nd In

dustry

Unive

rsity

& C

ollege

Res

earc

h

Unive

rsity

& C

ollege

Tea

chin

g

Local

& M

unicip

al G

over

nmen

ts

State

Gov

ernm

ent

Feder

al G

over

nmen

t

Tribal

Gro

ups

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

MuchSomeLittle

Summary Conclusions

The survey was a success! A higher response rate would have been nice, but we can still draw some

interesting conclusions.Cross tabulation and correlation analysis yield some very

interesting insights. However, we still have more to learn when comparing government or

business users versus academic users.Respondents generally appeared to have some modicum of

understanding of Framework. This may be, in part, due to self-selection. However, it bodes well that as

many people expressed familiarity as did.General observation:

Some of these concepts (e.g., NSDI) have become so common place that they are almost invisible. Though it would be a challenge to demonstrate statistically, there is some possibility that people benefit more than they actually realize.

Next Steps

ESRI Education User Conference Paper August 2008

Recommendations Develop a concise “value proposition” Continue online training initiative Strategic outreach to academic community

Special sessions or workshops at national and regional meetings AAG NCGE

Direct involvement in community efforts UCGIS Body of Knowledge

Proactively engage colleges and universities In class presentations (student engagement is clearly important!) Promotion of online resources Participation/creation of virtual seminars