Marc4media^® can best be understood in the context of our experience cataloging for schools...

Starting in 1993, as Library Conversions Limited Company, our team travelled to over 300 school libraries, preparing MARC databases using cataloging-in-hand procedures.  When it came to Centralized Media Collections, we soon discovered there were few existing MARC  records for motion media.  Rather than create skimpy records, we decided to detail as much of the video content as possible, and to suggest suitable grade levels and curriculum areas for the content.  This was long before chaptering, DVD's, and streamed media.

Our next step was to explain to distributors of educational media, why they needed to provide MARC  records with their products.  That took several years, but eventually we were cataloging for several well-known publisher/distributors such as Disney Educational, Discovery, Annenberg, New Dimension etc. (see Media Suppliers).

When we produced MARC  records, barcode labels and spine labels for items ordered from these distributors, we learned even more about automation systems than we had in our on-site days.  We viewed thousands of videos and were even asked to chapter some of the programs when the transition was made to DVD's and streamed media.  Our latest task has been to convert VHS and DVD marc4media^® records to digital records for districts that are currently offering streamed media content.

The result of all these activities is a master database of marc4media^® records, with consistent access points that make the integration of motion media into the curriculum, far easier. When schools purchase m4m records for resources they already own, there is increased usage of these valuable teaching tools...

 As far as we know, we are the only company whose sole purpose is to catalog media resources for the educational community.

If you would like even more information about us, read on...

 In 1993, our President attended the Curriculum-Enhanced MARC Conference in Bowling Green, Ohio.  The attached article was written to summarize the development of curriculum-data elements in MARC records.  Although the 658 tag  is not widely used today, the article provides a synopsis of our commitment to provide MARC content addressed to a variety of learning styles and teaching tasks.

THE 658 STORY

by Lorraine Knight, B.A., B.Ed., M.A.

President, Library Conversions Limited Company, Phoenix, Az.

prepared for The National Curriculum Enhanced MARC Conference Bowling Green, Ohio, 1993

In the 1980's educators across the United States and Canada gave sighs of relief and heartfelt approval to the definition of personalities and ways of learning which later became known as "learning styles".  What was key was the concept that intelligence was not linked to a particular learning style.  A student who had learning disabilities, or seldom read a book, might be as intelligent as the scholar, but as educators we had been teaching to only one learning style  (and there were five others).  What was new about learning styles  (because many of us knew this already), was that were now being commissioned to teach to all six or hang up our shingles!

Learning Styles and MARC

In Cleveland, Ohio, a group of media specialists had begun to work with Dr. Jack Fymier of the University of Nebraska.  Dr. Fymier had developed a method of cataloging materials to include references to learning styles.  The Annherest Curriculum Classification System  (ACCESS) was nationally acclaimed but had not been adapted to MARC.  If the Cleveland librarians wished to share their knowledge of curriculum resources, they would be limited to a printed catalog.

In the fall of 1991 Lois Leqoyea, since retired, challenged the Ohio MARC standards committee to provide a location In the MARC record for learning styles information.  Lois' inquiry was focused on a practical problem: if teams of media specialists were to analyze print, video, and audio resources in the context of learning styles, where should they record the information in a MARC record?  A common language and a common location should be defined  to provide predictable and comprehensive keyword searches.

Cooperative Power

Lois' inquiry pulled weight because the Ohio Union Catalog had the full support of media specialists across the state.  A committee of media specialists from Cuyahoga County had made the original proposal that created INFOhio, a statewide initiative to automate school libraries and provide inter-library loan.  The media specialists from Cuyahoga County had suggested they access information from a central computing site that was part of the Ohio Education Computer Network.  The realization that OECN went beyond Cuyahoga County to connect over 90% of Ohio public schools resulted in the birth of the statewide school library automation project.  So when Lois went to the Standards Committee with a valid concern, she in fact voiced a question on behalf of media specialists across the state.

The Chairman of the Standards Committee was Roger Minier of the Northwest Ohio Educational Technology Foundation  (NWOET).  In his efforts on behalf of schools, Roger had searched  for existing MARC records for NWOET's collection from the Library of Congress, OCLC and various book and media vendors.  But these records contained little curricular information and what was there was "hidden" in various fields and subfields of the MARC record.  Once the records were imported into automation software, essential information about subject, grade level, and special learner characteristics would be virtually "lost" or inaccessible to all but the experienced searcher.  So Roger turned a keen ear to Lois' concerns.

The Link to Proficiency Examinations

Two events were to bring learning styles and curricular enhancements together and provide Lois with the answers to her question.  First of all, proficiency tests were introduced for all Grade Nine students in Ohio and secondly, Roger began to catalog to the examinations.  Rather than cringe at the idea of proficiency examinations, he directed his cataloging efforts to show which of the center's titles would help students pass the examinations and demonstrate the required objectives. Learning styles were a key component in his considerations, but learning styles were being put in a new context:  the achievement of desired learning outcomes.

The Library of Congress is consulted

In May of 1992, Roger chaired a panel discussion on the needs of educators for curriculum information, at the convention of the National Instructional Television Utilization Organization meeting in Norfolk, Virginia.  He also contacted Hank Epstein of MITINET/marc who had moved on from his position as manager of advanced technology applications for the Apollo Moon Project, and director of the RLIN library automation network, to develop his acclaimed cataloging software.  Hank readily agreed to incorporate curriculum information in his templates and strongly recommended that the Library of Congress be involved with developing USMARC format enhancements.  During the summer of 1992, initial contacts were made with the Library of Congress to determine what aspects of the Ohio standard were already incorporated in existing USMARC.  The report that resulted confirmed the need for format enhancements to address the needs of educators.

As a consequence, the INFOhio MARC standards committee accepted the challenge to define the new USMARC data elements for curriculum information.  First released in September of 1992, the INFOhio Curriculum-Enhanced MARC Guidelines included locations for information on grade level, learning styles, learning objectives and appropriate resources for children with disabilities. 

When the guidelines were first released, they caught the attention of Randall Barry of the Library of Congress Network and Standards Division, ( This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ) who by now was taking a keen interest in the development of data elements for curriculum-enhanced records.  So, too, were Dan Fuller and his associates at the Follett library automation and Follett Publishing companies whose Microlif records were being examined as format options.  The National Instructional Television Utilization Association was also on board with a separate but related organization known as the National MARC project, dedicated to inclusion of curriculum information in MARC records.  It was clear that CEMARC would have many supporters.

The Final Proposal

In January 1993 a proposal based on the curriculum guidelines drafted by Roger was presented by a representative of the Library of Congress at the International MARC standards (MARBI) meeting in Denver, Colorado.  Both Roger and Randall testified regarding the draft, giving full explanations of the need to standardize the location of curricular information including learning styles, evaluative comments, state and nationally recognized non-LC subject headings and information relating to the ability of children with disabilities to utilize specific media.  Institutions such as the Ohio Department of Education, the Southern Educational Communications Association and the National Instructional Television Utilization Center were cited as representative of  "so many other groups in the country" who continue "to suffer from increasing demands on shrinking resources" but still hope to develop and promote a standardized encoding of curriculum-related information so that educational institutions can share information and resources.

How successful was the proposal?  So successful that it was one of the few in MARBI history to receive unanimous approval on a first reading.

 What are the Changes?

The 658 tag was added to USMARC format to contain information related to learning outcomes.  The first subfield is to contain the broad curriculum objective that the resource fulfills, such as "Ohio Objective 1, whole numbers, fractions and decimals."  Next will be indicated subordinate objectives, the degree of correlation between resource and objective and, finally, the source of the objective, usually a curriculum initiative from state or national documents.  For example, a particular item may be "highly" correlated to tenth grade science but only "moderately" correlated to ninth grade health objectives.  Assigning a 658 tag for each correlation will increase access points and assure that resources are used across the curriculum.

Another sign of curriculum-enhanced MARC records is the numeral "1" as a first indicator in the 520 (summary field) to show that the annotations were taken form a published review of the item from curriculum briefs or journals.  Finally, indicators and subfields for Target Audience notes (521) have been changed to show special audience suitability such as resources for vision or fine motor skills impaired students or audio learners. Documentation is available in the March 1994 edition of the USMARC Format for Bibliographic Data.

How Significant are the Changes?

The enhancements to USMARC have the potential to provide teachers and librarians with instant detailed listings of print and media resources suitable for individual learners and learning objectives.  The records created will hold information invaluable for curriculum development and links to essential skills at all levels.  Once librarians learn how to enhance basic MARC records with curricular information, teams involved in curriculum development will be assured that their creativity and initiative will be permanently archived in 658 in association with resources proven to be successful.  Finally, when resource descriptions that were once found scattered in 590, 690 and 900 tags are edited to appropriate locations in enhanced USMARC, teachers will be able to search automated catalogs of resource materials using curriculum terminology.

For many years now there has been endless talk about connecting classrooms to the world.  Curriculum-enhanced records hold the key to "connecting" in a way that is directly relevant to learning objectives.

   ________________________________