Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.025532922 = product of:
  0.12766461 = sum of:
    0.12766461 = weight(_text_:2004 in 5247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12766461 = score(doc=5247,freq=5.0), product of:
        0.28959805 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.2057996 = idf(docFreq=1791, maxDocs=44218)
          0.068856835 = queryNorm
        0.4408338 = fieldWeight in 5247, product of:
          2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
            5.0 = termFreq=5.0
          4.2057996 = idf(docFreq=1791, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5247)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.13, S.1140-1154

Year

2004

0.011807264 = product of:
  0.05903632 = sum of:
    0.05903632 = weight(_text_:7 in 2265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05903632 = score(doc=2265,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22810675 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.068856835 = queryNorm
        0.25881004 = fieldWeight in 2265, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2265)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article reports on a field study of the information behavior of Grade 8 students researching an inquiry-based class history project. Kuhlthau's 7-stage Information Search Process (ISP) model forms the conceptual framework for the study. The aim of the study was to define an end game for the ISP model by answering the following question: How do the student participants' feelings, thoughts, and information behavior lead to the construction of new knowledge? Study findings tentatively indicate that knowledge construction results from an iterative process between the student and information, which can be divided into 3 phases. In the first phase, the students formulate questions from their previous knowledge to start knowledge construction; in the second phase, newly found topic information causes students to ask questions; and in the third phase, the students answer the questions asked by this newly found topic information. Based on these results and Kuhlthau's own ISP stage 7 assessment definition of the ISP model end game, we propose a model of knowledge construction inserted as an extra row in the ISP model framework.

0.011568709 = product of:
  0.057843544 = sum of:
    0.057843544 = weight(_text_:7 in 36) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057843544 = score(doc=36,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.22810675 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.068856835 = queryNorm
        0.25358102 = fieldWeight in 36, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=36)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

There have been various approaches to conceptualizing interactive information retrieval (IR), which can be generally divided into system and user approaches (Hearst, 1999; cf. also Spink, 1997). Both system and user approaches define user-system interaction in terms of the system and the user reacting to the actions or behaviors of the other: the system reacts to the user's input; the user to the output of the system (Spink, 1997). In system approach models of the interaction, e.g., Moran (1981), "[T]he user initiates an action or operation and the system responds in some way which in turn leads the user to initiate another action and so on" (Beaulieu, 2000, p. 433). In its purest form, the system approach models the user as a reactive part of the interaction, with the system taking the lead (Bates, 1990). User approaches, on the other hand, in their purest form wish to insert a model of the user in all its socio-cognitive dimensions, to the extent that system designers consider such approaches impractical (Vakkari and Jarvelin, 2005, Chap. 7, this volume). The cognitive approach to IR interaction attempts to overcome this divide (Ruthven, 2005, Chap. 4, this volume; Vakkari and Jarvelin, 2005 Chap. 7, this volume) by representing the cognitive elements of both system designers and the user in the interaction model (Larsen and Ingwersen, 2005 Chap. 3, this volume). There are cognitive approach researchers meeting in a central ground from both the system and user side. On the system side, are computer scientists employing cognitive research to design more effective IR systems from the point of view of the user's task (Nathan, 1990; Fischer, Henninger, and Redmiles, 1991; O'Day and Jeffries, 1993; Russell et al., 1993; Kitajima and Polson, 1996; Terwilliger and Polson, 1997). On the user side are cognitive approach researchers applying methods, concepts and models from psychology to design systems that are more in tune with how users acquire information (e.g., Belkin, 1980; Ford (2005, Chap. 5, this volume); Ingwersen (Larsen and Ingwersen, 2005, Chap. 3, this volume); Saracevic, 1996; Vakkari (Vakkari and Jarvelin, 2005, Chap. 7, this volume)).

0.011194981 = product of:
  0.055974904 = sum of:
    0.055974904 = weight(_text_:22 in 197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055974904 = score(doc=197,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24112491 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.068856835 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 197, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=197)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

2. 6.2005 10:34:22

0.010765624 = product of:
  0.05382812 = sum of:
    0.05382812 = weight(_text_:2004 in 644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05382812 = score(doc=644,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28959805 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.2057996 = idf(docFreq=1791, maxDocs=44218)
          0.068856835 = queryNorm
        0.18587184 = fieldWeight in 644, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.2057996 = idf(docFreq=1791, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=644)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

A recent survey of more than 1700 households indicates that the main reason many parents purchase computers and connect their children to the Internet at home is for education (Safe and Smart). In addition the survey shows that children also use the Internet for educational activities that go beyond required school work. In fact, the fastest growing group of Internet users are children between the ages of eight and twelve (Vise, 2003), who are increasingly using the Web to access educational as well as entertainment materials. Children, however, rely on conventional information retrieval (IR) systems and search engines intended for general adult use, such as MSN or Google, and to a much lesser extent, Web portals such as Yahooligans! and LycosZone specifically intended for young users (Large et al., 2004; Large, Beheshti, and Rahman, 2002a). But research has shown that children's information needs (Walter, 1994), research approaches (Kuhlthau, 1991), and cognitive abilities and higher order thinking skills (Neuman, 1995; Siegler, 1998; Vandergrift, 1989) differ from those of adults. The results of earlier studies on children's use of online catalogues designed for adults indicate that young users are often faced with difficulties locating specific information related to their information needs (Hirsh, 1997). A growing body of research points to the problems children typically encounter when seeking information on the Web. Kafai and Bates (1997) conducted one of the first studies with young children on their use of Web sites, and concluded that they were able to navigate through the links and scroll. Only the older children, however, could use search engines effectively. Hirsh (1999) investigated the searching behavior of ten fifth graders and concluded that they encountered difficulties in formulating effective search queries and did not use advanced features. Schacter, Chung, and Dorr (1998) conducted a study on Internet searching by fifth and sixth graders and concluded that they did not plan their searches, used ill-defined queries, and preferred browsing. Large, Beheshti, and Moukdad (1999), investigating the information seeking behavior of 53 sixth graders, similarly found that children preferred browsing to searching. Bowler, Large, and Rejskind (2001), focusing on a few case studies of grade six students concluded that search engines designed for adults are unsuitable for children. Wallace et al. (2000), studying sixth graders, discovered that experience in using search engines does not improve children's search strategies and in general information seeking is an unfamiliar activity for children.

0.010018795 = product of:
  0.050093975 = sum of:
    0.050093975 = weight(_text_:7 in 7754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050093975 = score(doc=7754,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22810675 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.068856835 = queryNorm
        0.21960759 = fieldWeight in 7754, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7754)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 45(1994) no.7, S.515-528

0.008348996 = product of:
  0.041744977 = sum of:
    0.041744977 = weight(_text_:7 in 3469) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041744977 = score(doc=3469,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22810675 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.068856835 = queryNorm
        0.18300632 = fieldWeight in 3469, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3469)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.7, S.684-694