Table 2.

Results for the evaluation of the metadata and search process (N=126).

Category examined	Question	N	Strongly disagree, %	Disagree, %	Neutral, %	Agree, %	Strongly agree, %
1. Metadata	Q2. The metadata is not understandable	126	7.9	53.2	25.4	8.7	4.8
	Q3. The amount of presented metadata is excessive	124	1.6	39.5	38.7	16.9	3.2
	Q4. The amount of presented metadata is insufficient	124	5.6	48.4	33.9	12.1	0
2. Retrieved content usefulness and relevance	Q1. The presented metadata helps me in revising the search or annotation terms	125	0	7.2	24	61.6	7.2
	Q5. I found useful content as outcome of my searches	120	2.5	1.7	17.5	55.8	22.5
	Q6. The amount of retrieved relevant content was adequate to my information needs	115	0	7.0	32.2	52.2	8.7
	Q7. The information immediately presented helps me assess the relevance of the resource	118	0.8	9.3	32.2	51.7	5.9
	Q8. I need to inspect the learning resource to assess its relevance	116	0	12.1	33.6	47.4	6.9
	Q15. I found interesting content outside the scope of my specific search	114	2.6	8.8	28.1	46.5	14
	Q16. I would recommend the system to my colleagues	123	1.6	4.1	14.6	49.6	30.1
3. Latency and difficulty level of searches	Q9. The search results were obtained quickly	118	0.8	0.8	14.4	63.6	20.3
	Q12. The advanced search form is easy to understand	115	0.9	7.8	24.3	57.4	9.6
	Q13. It is distracting to have international content listed in the results	118	4.2	36.4	42.4	16.1	0.8
	Q14. It was easy to inspect/download the (retrieved) learning resource	123	2.4	8.9	30.1	46.3	12.2
4. Assessing open sources	Q10. I could easily assess if the resource is open to use	123	1.6	5.7	34.1	53.7	4.9
5. IPR	Q11. It was difficult to understand the IPR of the resources	123	0	34.1	41.5	20.3	4.1