At EDIA, we’ve conducted an administered survey and distributed it to our network of education professionals ranging from education publishers, universities, e-learning, and LMS providers. What we’ve discovered is that many of the publishers share the same problems.
1. There is inconsistent metadata entry in CMS(s)
More than 50% of our publishing participants said that ensuring consistent metadata entry was a necessity for maintaining proper content management. Content specialists are required to input many different fields into the CMS anywhere from the title, subject, reading level, topic keywords, content source to describe the text, textbook, quiz, test, or such piece of content.
Unfortunately, data entry is usually error-prone due to its repetitive processes. Typically, we’ve found in our customers that metadata is inconsistently filled in, missing or duplicated in fields. As a result, this creates inaccurate content which causes major bottlenecks in the content production that in turn affects the learning outcomes.
2. Making sure content meets all didactical requirements
More than 50% of our publishing participants say that meeting didactical requirement is imperative for publishing content. Didactical requirements must meet the learning goals of the curriculum.
Our research shows that it’s an important initiative for smart content management, however, publishers still struggle to meet the needs of learners.
3. Defining corporate standards is ambiguous
Lastly, one of the most common issues that publishers struggle with concerns corporate standards. 40% of publishing participants state that defining corporate standards and procedures for metadata is a huge issue right now. We’ve discovered in our research that often corporate standards are indirectly written and unregulated. Many participants noted that corporate standards can be ambiguous with little documentation.
For example, detecting plagiarism is a part of corporate standards, however, is it’s an arduous task that requires many hours of research. In addition, peer reviewing, fixing errors and the compilation of structural information at all levels (content, topics, tagging, compilation) through a common curriculum or taxonomy is indeed a time-consuming effort and requires absolute focus and precision. Unfortunately, human capacity cannot keep up with the volumes of achieving adaptive content needed for personalized learning.
What Can resolve these issues?
Instead of relying on human input, which is prone to error, artificial intelligence can enhance and expedite the processes of content management that can sometimes outperform a human. With 360AI, publishers can produce, manage and deliver adaptive content in a manner that provides costs benefits and new sales opportunities. 360AI automates the metadata-tagging process, increases metadata quality regarding consistency and quantity. Overall, with 360AI, publishers are able to shorten time-to-market publishing cycles under 4 years and increase the scalability of adaptive, smart content.