Search (37 results, page 1 of 2)

0.0074984794 = product of:
  0.052489355 = sum of:
    0.04102399 = weight(_text_:media in 3612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04102399 = score(doc=3612,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13212246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02820796 = queryNorm
        0.31049973 = fieldWeight in 3612, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3612)
    0.011465367 = product of:
      0.022930734 = sum of:
        0.022930734 = weight(_text_:22 in 3612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022930734 = score(doc=3612,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09877947 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02820796 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3612, 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=3612)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

In this paper results of a field study into the need for research information of different user groups are presented: scientists, policy makers and policy researchers, industry and media. Main questions of semi-structured interviews were: what kind of research information users need, what kind of research information resources are used and which information resources are missing at the moment. User groups are missing for a diversity of reasons the overview of research, experts and institutes in the different scientific fields. Especially for the accessibility and transparency of the scientific world these overviews are reported to be needed. Neither Google nor any of the research institutes or policy research organisations are able to present surveys for different science fields at the moment. Giving users the possibility to search, browse and navigate through accessible and more specialised layers of research information might give answers to different user groups simultaneously.

Date

2. 7.2005 12:22:50

0.0050754026 = product of:
  0.071055636 = sum of:
    0.071055636 = weight(_text_:media in 595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.071055636 = score(doc=595,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13212246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02820796 = queryNorm
        0.5378013 = fieldWeight in 595, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=595)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

This study focuses on the ways in which people define their source preferences in the context of seeking orienting information for nonwork purposes. The conceptual framework of the study combines ideas drawn from social phenomenology and information-seeking studies. The study utilizes Alfred Schutz's model describing the ways in which actors structure everyday knowledge into regions of decreasing relevance. It is assumed that this structuring based on the actor's interest at hand is also reflected in the ways in which an actor prefers information sources and channels. The concept of information source horizon is used to elicit articulations of source preferences. The empirical part of the study draws on interviews with 20 individuals active in environmental issues. Printed media (newspapers), the Internet, and broadcast media (radio, television) were preferred in seeking for orienting information. The major source preferences were content of information, and availability and accessibility. Usability of information sources, user characteristics such as media habits, and situational factors were mentioned less frequently as preference criteria.

0.0048838085 = product of:
  0.068373315 = sum of:
    0.068373315 = weight(_text_:media in 4574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068373315 = score(doc=4574,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13212246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02820796 = queryNorm
        0.51749957 = fieldWeight in 4574, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4574)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

This study is based an earlier research by the author that employed social judgment analysis (SJA; J. SteflMabry, 2001, 2003) to identify the information judgment preferences held by professional groups. This study explores the extent to which individuals, professional groups, and subgroups are self-aware of their judgment profiles. Three specialized groups of professionals-law enforcement, medicine, and education-were chosen to determine if preference profiles cluster around professions or around demographic and other background variables. As the proliferation of data continues to increase, the need to understand users' media preference and selection decisions is of tremendous value to every industry, governmental agency, and institution of learning. In 1966, H. Menzel first raised concern about the reliability of users' to self-assess, and scientists continue to explore the issue of competency in human judgment. To understand the reliability of users' self-assessment regarding media preferences, this study examines the extent to which individuals and groups are self-aware of the empirical judgment profiles they employ in evaluating information source scenarios. This investigation explores the congruence of three groups of professionals' self-reported media preferences as compared to their empirical judgment values, as defined by social judgment analysis.

0.0048838085 = product of:
  0.068373315 = sum of:
    0.068373315 = weight(_text_:media in 722) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068373315 = score(doc=722,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13212246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02820796 = queryNorm
        0.51749957 = fieldWeight in 722, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=722)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

There is very little qualitative data on what impact the Internet is having on information seeking in the workplace. Using open-ended interviews, questionnaires and observation, the impact of the Internet on the British Media was assessed. The focus was largely on newspapers, with The Guardian being covered in some depth. Over 300 journalists and media librarians were surveyed. It was found that amongst traditional journalists use was light. Poor access to the Internet - and good access to other information resources - were largely the reasons for this. Of the journalists it was mainly the older and more senior journalists and the New Media journalists who used the Internet. Librarians were also significant users. Searching the World Wide Web was the principal Internet activity and use was generally conservative in character. Newspapers and official sites were favoured, and searches were mainly of a fact-checking nature. Email was used on a very limited scale and was not regarded as a serious journalistic tool. Non-users were partly put off by the Internet's potential for overloading them with information and its reputation for producing information of suspect quality. Users generally dismissed these concerns, dealing with potential overload and quality problems largely by using authoritative sites and exploiting the lower quality data where it was needed. Where the Internet has been used it has not been at the expense of other information sources or communication channels, but online hosts seem to be at most risk in the future.

0.0042295023 = product of:
  0.059213027 = sum of:
    0.059213027 = weight(_text_:media in 704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059213027 = score(doc=704,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13212246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02820796 = queryNorm
        0.44816777 = fieldWeight in 704, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=704)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Changing the teaching media from chalkboard to computer-based does not only develop IT-awareness among teaching staff but also enhance their readiness to teach and quality of teaching. As a result, the students pay more attention to the lectures and in the long run students get better knowledge and understanding about the course. In the developing countries reading habit is still a practice done by quite a few people. The changing of teaching media as well as the shift from teacher-centered learning to student-centered learning has changed the way students acquire knowledge and make use of the library and multimedia facilities. Gadjah Mada University has been working hard to change the method of teaching by helping the teaching staff develop IT-based teaching materials and put them on the intranet; making teaching material databases available through the digital library; and providing easier access to the library users. In addition, IM text messaging, blogs and mailinglist have been the media to discuss and share ideas and knowledge among lecturers and students too.

0.0034186658 = product of:
  0.04786132 = sum of:
    0.04786132 = weight(_text_:media in 760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04786132 = score(doc=760,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13212246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02820796 = queryNorm
        0.3622497 = fieldWeight in 760, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=760)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

The journal subscription data of the Central Library (CL) at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Kharagpur during 1995-97 is analysed to assess the prevalent information drought experienced by researchers in less developed countries. The rationale of the study, some of the myths about electronic alternatives over print media, etc. are explained. A study conducted in 1995 at the CL by gathering subscription details from other IITs to explore the options of resource sharing is extracted to present the duplication rates of costly journals. Quantification of research publications from the IIT, Kaharagpur and India are also attempted using electronic databases like CCOD and INSPEC. The budgeting pattern of CL is presented from the IIT's Annual Report. Some possible suggestions to get over the information drought are also explored.

0.0024419043 = product of:
  0.034186658 = sum of:
    0.034186658 = weight(_text_:media in 4547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034186658 = score(doc=4547,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13212246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02820796 = queryNorm
        0.25874978 = fieldWeight in 4547, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4547)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

This paper reports the results of the second stage of the Citizenship Information research project funded by the BLR&IC: a nation-wide survey, by personal doorstep interview, of the citizenship information needs of almost 900 members of the UK public. Major findings include: that the public obtain most of their information on current issues via the mass media, and that they generally feel well informed on these issues. The public feel, however, that government is not doing enough to inform them on European Monetary Union and on local government cutbacks. Small proportions of the sample had encountered problems concerning employment, education, housing or welfare benefits, and had consulted a range of information sources in order to overcome these problems. Over a quarter of respondents had experienced disadvantage through a lack of access to information. The majority of respondents felt well informed about areas relating to citizenship, but significant proportions were poorly informed in legal rights, welfare benefits and local politics. A highly significant majority (91.7 per cent) believed that freedom of information was important for exercising their rights as citizens. Respondents tended to overestimate their voting patterns, but there was little evidence of participation in other forms of political activity. Although access to computers in the home is presently limited, the majority of respondents would use computers to vote, convey opinions to government and obtain government information. Public libraries were the preferred source of government information, and were seen as appropriate locations for a range of other types of citizenship information.

0.0024419043 = product of:
  0.034186658 = sum of:
    0.034186658 = weight(_text_:media in 4577) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034186658 = score(doc=4577,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13212246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02820796 = queryNorm
        0.25874978 = fieldWeight in 4577, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4577)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

0.0024419043 = product of:
  0.034186658 = sum of:
    0.034186658 = weight(_text_:media in 699) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034186658 = score(doc=699,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13212246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02820796 = queryNorm
        0.25874978 = fieldWeight in 699, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=699)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

This paper is the second part of a two-part paper, which examines the transition to the electronic information era in academia. Seeks to establish from the published literature to what extent university researchers have accepted, and adapted to, the changes wrought in information activity by seemingly endless technological developments. Within the wider context of the impact of the changing information environment on each of the three clearly discernible components of academic research (the creation of knowledge and standards, the preservation of information, and the communication of knowledge and information to others), disciplinary-rooted differences in the conduct of research and their influence on information needs are identified, and the resulting inter- and intra-individual variations in researchers' information seeking behaviour are explored. Reviewing a large number of studies investigating the integration of electronic media into academic work, an attempt is made to paint the picture of academics' progressively harnessing the new technologies to scholarly information gathering endeavours, with the expressed hope of affording some insight into the directions and basic trends characterising the information activity of university faculty in an increasingly electronic environment.

0.0024419043 = product of:
  0.034186658 = sum of:
    0.034186658 = weight(_text_:media in 700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034186658 = score(doc=700,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13212246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02820796 = queryNorm
        0.25874978 = fieldWeight in 700, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=700)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

This paper is the first part of a two-part paper, which examines the transition to the electronic information era in academia. Seeks to establish from the published literature to what extent university researchers have accepted, and adapted to, the changes wrought in information activity by seemingly endless technological developments. Within the wider context of the impact of the changing information environment on each of the three clearly discernible components of academic research (the creation of knowledge and standards, the preservation of information, and the communication of knowledge and information to others), disciplinary-rooted differences in the conduct of research and their influence on information needs are identified, and the resulting inter- and intra- individual variations in researchers' information seeking behaviour are explored. Reviewing a large number of studies investigating the integration of electronic media into academic work, an attempt is made to paint the picture of academics' progressively harnessing the new technologies to scholarly information gathering endeavours, with the expressed hope of affording some insight into the directions and basic trends characterizing the information activity of university faculty in an increasingly electronic environment.

0.0024419043 = product of:
  0.034186658 = sum of:
    0.034186658 = weight(_text_:media in 721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034186658 = score(doc=721,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13212246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02820796 = queryNorm
        0.25874978 = fieldWeight in 721, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=721)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

This paper reports the results of the second stage of the Citizenship Information research project funded by the BLR&IC: a national survey, by personal doorstep interview, of the citizenship information needs of 898 members of the UK public. Major findings include: that the public obtain most of their information on current issues via the media, and that they generally feel well informed on these issues. The public believe, however, that government is not doing enough to inform them about the Single European Currency and local council cutbacks. Small proportions of the sample had encountered problems in relation to employment, education, housing or welfare benefits and had consulted a range of information sources in order to solve these problems. Over a quarter of respondents had experienced disadvantage through a lack of access to information. Significant proportions of respondents were poorly informed about legal rights, welfare benefits and local politics. A highly significant majority (91.7%) believed that freedom of information was important for exercising their rights as citizens. Although access to computers in the home is presently limited, the majority of respondents indicated a willingness to use computers to vote and interact with government. Public libraries were the preferred source of government information and were seen as appropriate locations for a range of other types of citizenship information.

0.0024419043 = product of:
  0.034186658 = sum of:
    0.034186658 = weight(_text_:media in 43) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034186658 = score(doc=43,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13212246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02820796 = queryNorm
        0.25874978 = fieldWeight in 43, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=43)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

More than 5000 publications related to library user instruction and information literacy have been published and reviewed in the past thirty years. New developments in education and technology during the last two decades have affected user instruction and have led to the emergence of information literacy. Based on needs related to the rapid development of information technology and the evolving information society, librarians have begun teaching information skills to all types of users to ensure that they gain information fluency so they can become productive and effective information users both in the education environment and in the work environment. The number of publications related to user instruction and information literacy, like the field itself, show phenomenal growth during the past three decades as demonstrated by the fact that in 1973 twenty-eight publications were reviewed, and in 2002 more than 300 publications dealing with the topic of information literacy will be issued. It is noteworthy that in the last decade there has been a tremendous growth in publications related to information literacy globally. During the 1970s, publications indicate that user instruction activities were of concern primarily to librarians in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. At the present time, publications indicate a major concern with information literacy not only in the countries mentioned above but also in China, Germany, Mexico, Scandinavia, Singapore, South Africa, South America, Spain, and others. On an annual hasis, the majority of the publications have addressed information literacy in academic libraries (60 percent) followed by publications related to information literacy instruction in school media centers (20 percent).

0.0024419043 = product of:
  0.034186658 = sum of:
    0.034186658 = weight(_text_:media in 575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034186658 = score(doc=575,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13212246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02820796 = queryNorm
        0.25874978 = fieldWeight in 575, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=575)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

This study details the activities and strategies that 11th grade students with high academic abilities used during their information seeking and use to complete class projects in a Persuasive Speech class. The study took place in a suburban high school in Maryland, and participants included 21 junior honors students, their teacher, and their library media specialist. Each student produced a 5-7-minute speech on a self-chosen topic. Conducted in the framework of qualitative research in a constructivist paradigm (E.G. Guba, & Y.S. Lincoln, 1998), the study used data collected from observations, individual interviews, and documents students produced for their projects - concept maps, paragraphs, outlines, and research journals. Interview and observation data were analyzed using the constant comparative method (B. Glaser & A. Strauss, 1967) with the help of QSR NVivo 2 (QSR International Pty Ltd, 2002); students' documents were analyzed manually. The findings show that students' understanding, strategies, and activities during information seeking and use were interactive and serendipitous and that students learned about their topics as they searched. The research suggests that high school honors students in an information-rich environment are especially confident with learning tasks requiring an exploratory mode of learning.

0.0024419043 = product of:
  0.034186658 = sum of:
    0.034186658 = weight(_text_:media in 2034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034186658 = score(doc=2034,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13212246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02820796 = queryNorm
        0.25874978 = fieldWeight in 2034, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2034)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

The study focuses on the ways in which people define their source preferences in the context of seeking problem-specific information for non-work purposes. The conceptual framework draws on two major concepts, that is, information source horizon and information pathways. The former denotes the ways information sources are mapped in preference order in an imaginary field, while information pathways refers to the sequences in which sources placed on the information source horizon are actually used. The empirical part of the study draws on semi-structured interviews with 18 individuals active in environmental issues. Human sources and the Internet were preferred most strongly in seeking for problem-based information. The major source preferences were content of information, and availability and accessibility. Usability of information sources and user characteristics were mentioned less frequently as preference criteria. Typically, information pathways consisted of the use of 3-4 sources. On average, human and networked sources were favored in the early phases of information seeking. Printed media such as magazines and organizational sources were often used to complement information received from human sources and the Internet. However, the source preferences varied considerably, depending on the requirements of the problem at hand.

0.0019535234 = product of:
  0.027349325 = sum of:
    0.027349325 = weight(_text_:media in 4504) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027349325 = score(doc=4504,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13212246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02820796 = queryNorm
        0.20699982 = fieldWeight in 4504, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4504)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Content

Key features - Case studies show how - in practical terms - information science issues relate to users' behaviour - The book is written by experts in the field, with each chapter drawing an both case studies and extensive experience in the field - The book can be used as a detailed reference or an overview The Authors The contributors to the book are based at the Institute for Learning and Research Technology, University of Bristol, UK and are responsible for developing and running national online services. The book is edited by Dr Jacobs, an experienced information professional who has worked both in traditional libraries and an national projects and online services. Readership The book is aimed at anyone providing an online service to Chose using social science information, including information officers, librarians and knowledge managers, together with related IT managers and students of LIS at undergraduate and postgraduate level. Contents Section 1 - case studies, describing how information is used in the health, government, academic, trades union, media and other sectors, with particular attention to online information practices. Section 2 - drawing the lessons from the case studies. Section 3 - the major issues facing service providers, including selection, metadata, usability, accessibility, management, and building user skills. Section 4 - the future, covering both technological developments such as the semantic web and portals, and organisational issues such as the changing role of the information professional.

0.0019108946 = product of:
  0.026752524 = sum of:
    0.026752524 = product of:
      0.05350505 = sum of:
        0.05350505 = weight(_text_:22 in 1381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05350505 = score(doc=1381,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09877947 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02820796 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 1381, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1381)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

25. 3.2003 13:22:23

0.0016379097 = product of:
  0.022930734 = sum of:
    0.022930734 = product of:
      0.045861468 = sum of:
        0.045861468 = weight(_text_:22 in 2973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045861468 = score(doc=2973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09877947 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02820796 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2973, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2973)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

9. 2.2008 17:52:22

0.0016379097 = product of:
  0.022930734 = sum of:
    0.022930734 = product of:
      0.045861468 = sum of:
        0.045861468 = weight(_text_:22 in 4585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045861468 = score(doc=4585,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09877947 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02820796 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4585, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4585)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

25.11.2005 18:58:22

9.651475E-4 = product of:
  0.013512065 = sum of:
    0.013512065 = product of:
      0.02702413 = sum of:
        0.02702413 = weight(_text_:22 in 1682) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02702413 = score(doc=1682,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09877947 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02820796 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1682, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1682)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

This article focuses an analysing students' information needs in terms of conceptual understanding of the topic they propose to study and its consequences for the search process and outcome. The research subjects were 22 undergraduates of psychology attending a seminar for preparing a research proposal for a small empirical study. They were asked to make searches in the PsycINFO database for their task in the beginning and end of the seminar. A pre- and postsearch interview was conducted in both sessions. The students were asked to think aloud in the sessions. This was recorded, as were the transaction logs. The results show that during the preparation of research proposals different features of the students' conceptual structure were connected to the search success. Students' ability to cover their conceptual construct by query terms was the major feature affecting search success during the whole process. In the beginning also the number of concepts and the proportion of subconcepts in the construct contributed indirectly via search tactics to retrieving partly useful references. Students' ability to extract new query terms from retrieved items improved search results.

Date

19. 6.2003 17:22:33

9.651475E-4 = product of:
  0.013512065 = sum of:
    0.013512065 = product of:
      0.02702413 = sum of:
        0.02702413 = weight(_text_:22 in 3838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02702413 = score(doc=3838,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09877947 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02820796 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 3838, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3838)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

27. 8.2011 14:22:22