Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0018909799 = product of:
  0.0037819599 = sum of:
    0.0037819599 = product of:
      0.0075639198 = sum of:
        0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 4255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0075639198 = score(doc=4255,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 4255, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4255)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Digital tools offer new affordances and methodologies to humanities scholars' research. This study used a constructivist grounded theory approach to examine humanities scholars' research practices, including their use of a wide range of resources and digital technologies. Using in-depth study, several themes emerged from the research relating to the role of technology in shaping humanities scholars' research practices. The themes include: (a) humanities scholars' research approaches and technology tools; (b) the humanities scholar as tool developer; (c) the role of data preparation as a meta-level research practice; (d) data visualization versus numeric outputs-one size does not fit all; (e) the importance of flexibility and agency; (f) technology tools in support of the researcher as writer; and (g) working alone/working together-technology tools and collaborative practice. The heterogeneous nature of humanities scholars' research practices are explored and the resulting implications for digital tool design. Two new research practices-tool development and data preparation-are proposed. The diverse digital technologies humanities scholars use support the traditional ways of working within their discipline, as well as creating potential for new scholarly practices.

Type

a

0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 4042) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=4042,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 4042, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4042)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Although technology can often correct spelling errors, the complex tasks of information searching and retrieval in an online public access catalog (OPAC) are made more difficult by these errors in users' input and bibliographic records. This study examines the search behaviors of 38 university students, divided into groups with either easy-to-spell or difficult-to-spell search terms, who were asked to find items in the OPAC with these search terms. Search behaviors and strategy use in the OPAC and on the World Wide Web (WWW) were examined. In general, students used familiar Web resources to check their spelling or discover more about the assigned topic. Students with difficult-to-spell search terms checked spelling more often, changed search strategies to look for the general topic and had fewer successful searches. Students unable to find the correct spelling of a search term were unable to complete their search. Students tended to search the OPAC as they would search a search engine, with few search terms or complex search strategies. The results of this study have implications for spell checking, user-focused OPAC design, and cataloging. Students' search behaviors are discussed by expanding Thatcher's (2006) Information-Seeking Process and Tactics for the WWW model to include OPACs.

Type

a