Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.017629731 = product of:
  0.035259463 = sum of:
    0.035259463 = product of:
      0.070518926 = sum of:
        0.070518926 = weight(_text_:research in 4075) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.070518926 = score(doc=4075,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.47281966 = fieldWeight in 4075, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4075)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This is Part II of an experimental study investigating students' perceptions of research and research paper anxiety. The study integrates quantitative and qualitative designs to collect complimentary data. The participants were students in four sections of an upper division undergraduate course on technical and professional writing during the fall of 1999. A survey instrument used the Critical Incident Technique to solicit writings in students' own words about a memorable past research and writing experience at the beginning of the semester and the current research and writing at the end of the semester. The quantitative part of the survey measured students' perceptions about research using a questionnaire with five-point Likert scale, and students' anxiety levels using a standard state anxiety test (STAI Y-1). The first article, Part 1, provides a detailed description of the experimental design and reports on quantitative results. This article reports on content analysis of students' writings about their experiences of the two research projects. Analysis of the data confirmed Kuhlthau's Information Search Process (ISP) model and revealed additional affective and cognitive aspects related to research and writing.

0.01628565 = product of:
  0.0325713 = sum of:
    0.0325713 = product of:
      0.0651426 = sum of:
        0.0651426 = weight(_text_:research in 320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0651426 = score(doc=320,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.43677214 = fieldWeight in 320, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=320)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports on part of the results of a longitudinal study of information seeking behaviour and document selection and use by 15 faculty and graduate students, in the Agricultural and Resource Economics Department, Maryland University, undertaking a research project. This project is a follow up to a similar project undertaken in 1992 and the 15 participants in this study were among the 25 engaged in the 1992 study

Source

Information seeking in context: Proceedings of an International Conference on Research in Information Needs, Seeking and Use in Different Contexts, 14-16 August 1996, Tampere, Finland. Ed.: P. Vakkari u.a

0.013297176 = product of:
  0.026594352 = sum of:
    0.026594352 = product of:
      0.053188704 = sum of:
        0.053188704 = weight(_text_:research in 43) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053188704 = score(doc=43,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.35662293 = fieldWeight in 43, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=43)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports a qualitative study of the citing motivations of 12 agricultural economists (faculty and doctoral students), identifying several factors they considered in making citing decisions. Reports citing behaviour derived from a larger empirical, longitudinal study tracing document use during research projects and thus includes behaviour related to decisions both to cite and not to cite. An important finding is the existence of metalevel concerns that influence a decision to cite a document, in addition to situational factors related to its actual use during research

0.013140426 = product of:
  0.026280852 = sum of:
    0.026280852 = product of:
      0.052561704 = sum of:
        0.052561704 = weight(_text_:research in 6667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052561704 = score(doc=6667,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.352419 = fieldWeight in 6667, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6667)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

How knowledge is organized in human memory is of interest to both information science and cognitive science. The current information retrieval (IR) systems can be improved if we understand which conceptual structures could facilitate users in information processing and seeking. This project examined twenty-two cognitive maps on ten research topics generated by ten experts and eleven non-experts. Experts were those who had completed a research project on the topic prior to participating in this study, while non-experts were from the same academic department who were familiar with the topic but had not conducted any in-depth research on it. A research topic can be represented by a vocabulary and the relationships among the terms in the vocabulary. A cognitive map visualizes the vocabulary and its configuration in a plane. We observed that experts did not generate the maps much faster than non-experts. Both experts and non-experts modified the given vocabulary by either adding or dropping terms. The dominant configuration for the maps was top-down, while five maps were orientated in left-right or radical structure (from a center). Experts tended to use problem-oriented approach to organize the vocabulary while non-experts often applied discipline-oriented hierarchical structure. Despite of many differences in vocabulary and structure by individuals, there are terms clustered in a similar ways across maps indicating an agreed-upon semantic closeness among these terms

0.01163503 = product of:
  0.02327006 = sum of:
    0.02327006 = product of:
      0.04654012 = sum of:
        0.04654012 = weight(_text_:research in 7352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04654012 = score(doc=7352,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.31204507 = fieldWeight in 7352, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7352)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Identifies aspects of citing behaviour by directly questioning researchers about decisions to cite or not to cite specific docuements. Finds the existence of meta-level concerns which may indictae documentation styles which influence a decision to cite a document in addition to situation factors related to its actual use during research. Reports the preliminary results of the citing decisions in an empirical, longitudinal study of document use by academic economists and gradutae students during several phases of their research projects

0.0101785315 = product of:
  0.020357063 = sum of:
    0.020357063 = product of:
      0.040714126 = sum of:
        0.040714126 = weight(_text_:research in 2940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040714126 = score(doc=2940,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.2729826 = fieldWeight in 2940, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2940)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article reports on the follow-up study of a two-part project designed to study the decision-making process underlying how academic researchers select documents retrieved from online databases, consult or read, and cite documents during a research project. The participants are 15 of the the 25 agricultural economics users who participated in the original study of document-selection conducted in 1992. They were interviewed about subsequent decisions on document considered relevant and selected in 1992, as well as documents cited in their written products but not in the original searches. Of particular interest in this article are the decision criteria and rules they apply to documents as they progress through the project. The first study in 1992 emphasized the selection processes and resulted in a document selection model; the 1995 study concentrates on the reading and citing decisions. The model derived from this project shows document use as a decision-making process with decisions occuring at 3 points or stages during a research project: selecting, reading, and citing. It is an expansion pf the document selection model developed in the 1992 study, ientifies more criteria, and clarifies the criteria and rules that are in use at each stage. The follow-up study not only found that all but one of the criteria identified in selection re-occur in connection with reading and citing decisions, but also identified 14 new criteria. It also found that decision rules applied in selection descisions are applied throughout the project

0.008310735 = product of:
  0.01662147 = sum of:
    0.01662147 = product of:
      0.03324294 = sum of:
        0.03324294 = weight(_text_:research in 443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03324294 = score(doc=443,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.22288933 = fieldWeight in 443, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=443)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article proposes a model of document selection by real users of a bibliographic retrieval system. It reports on Part 1 of a longitudinal study of decision making on document use by academics during a actual research project. (Part 2 followed up the same users on how the selected documents were actually used in subsequent stages). The participants are 25 self-selected faculty and graduate students in Agricultural Economics. After a reference interview, the researcher conducted a search of DIALOG databases and prepared a printout. The users selected documents from this printout, They were asked to read and think aloud while selecting documents. There verbal reports were recorded and analyzed from a utiliy-theoretic perspective. The following model of the decision-making in the selection process emerged: document information lemenets (DIEs) in document records provide the information for judging the documents on 11 criteria (including topicality, orientation, quality, novelty, and authority); the criteria judgments are comninded in an assessment of document value along 5 dimensions (Epistemic, functional, conditional, social, and emotional values), leading to the use decision. This model accounts for the use of personal knowledge and decision strategies applied in the selection process. The model has implications for the design of an intelligent document selection assistant

0.007051893 = product of:
  0.014103786 = sum of:
    0.014103786 = product of:
      0.028207572 = sum of:
        0.028207572 = weight(_text_:research in 276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028207572 = score(doc=276,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 276, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=276)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Net neutrality is the focus of an important policy debate that is tied to technological innovation, economic development, and information access. We examine the role of human values in shaping the Net neutrality debate through a content analysis of testimonies from U.S. Senate and FCC hearings on Net neutrality. The analysis is based on a coding scheme that we developed based on a pilot study in which we used the Schwartz Value Inventory. We find that the policy debate surrounding Net neutrality revolves primarily around differences in the frequency of expression of the values of innovation and wealth, such that the proponents of Net neutrality more frequently invoke innovation, while the opponents of Net neutrality more frequently invoke wealth in their prepared testimonies. The paper provides a novel approach for examining the Net neutrality debate and sheds light on the connection between information policy and research on human values.

0.005876578 = product of:
  0.011753156 = sum of:
    0.011753156 = product of:
      0.023506312 = sum of:
        0.023506312 = weight(_text_:research in 2027) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023506312 = score(doc=2027,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.15760657 = fieldWeight in 2027, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2027)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article presents part of phase 2 of a research project funded by the NSF-National Science Digital Library Project, which observed how academic users interact with the ScienceDirect information retrieval system for simulated class-related assignments. The ultimate goal of the project is twofold: (1) to find ways to improve science and engineering students' use of science e-journal systems; (2) to develop methods to measure user interaction behaviors. Process-tracing technique recorded participants' processes and interaction behaviors that are measurable; think-aloud protocol captured participants' affective and cognitive verbalizations; pre- and post-search questionnaires solicited demographic information, prior experience with the system, and comments. We explored possible relationships between affective feelings and cognitive behaviors. During search interactions both feelings and thoughts occurred frequently. Positive feelings were more common and were associated more often with thoughts about results. Negative feelings were associated more often with thoughts related to the system, search strategy, and task. Learning styles are also examined as a factor influencing behavior. Engineering graduate students with an assimilating learning style searched longer and paused less than those with a converging learning style. Further exploration of learning styles is suggested.