Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0060528484 = product of:
  0.024211394 = sum of:
    0.024211394 = product of:
      0.048422787 = sum of:
        0.048422787 = weight(_text_:methods in 2383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048422787 = score(doc=2383,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.26651827 = fieldWeight in 2383, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2383)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper desctibes a study of undergraduate student search behavlour, examines the results through the lens of various disciplines, and provides now insights that will increase our understanding and facilitate the development of mom effetive instructional programmes Perspectives and research results drawn from multiple disciplines are used to explore the role of mental modele, reference groups and habits, and IntelIectual development in the search behaviour demonstrated by the undergraduate students. During interviews conducted as part of the study, many students were able to articulate the importance of source evaluation and describe electronically-appropriate methods for assessing the authority and reliability of Weh based information resources. In practice, however, these students frequently abandoned source evaluation altogether and, following the path of Ieast resistance, relied exclusively on basic Google searching, This approach both compromiscd the quality of their search results and contributed to frustration with the research process. This may not be extraordinarily unusual behaviour, but it is cause for considerable concern among Information literacy programme planners and Instructors. Discussion of the study results and related research is followed by pragmatic suggestions for modifylng ineffective search behaviour through emhanced instructional programmes

0.0050440403 = product of:
  0.020176161 = sum of:
    0.020176161 = product of:
      0.040352322 = sum of:
        0.040352322 = weight(_text_:methods in 2044) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040352322 = score(doc=2044,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.22209854 = fieldWeight in 2044, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2044)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Categorized overviews of web search results are a promising way to support user exploration, understanding, and discovery. These search interfaces combine a metadata-based overview with the list of search results to enable a rich form of interaction. A study of 24 sophisticated users carrying out complex tasks suggests how searchers may adapt their search tactics when using categorized overviews. This mixed methods study evaluated categorized overviews of web search results organized into thematic, geographic, and government categories. Participants conducted four exploratory searches during a 2-hour session to generate ideas for newspaper articles about specified topics such as "human smuggling." Results showed that subjects explored deeper while feeling more organized, and that the categorized overview helped subjects better assess their results, although no significant differences were detected in the quality of the article ideas. A qualitative analysis of searcher comments identified seven tactics that participants reported adopting when using categorized overviews. This paper concludes by proposing a set of guidelines for the design of exploratory search interfaces. An understanding of the impact of categorized overviews on search tactics will be useful to web search researchers, search interface designers, information architects and web developers.

0.0050440403 = product of:
  0.020176161 = sum of:
    0.020176161 = product of:
      0.040352322 = sum of:
        0.040352322 = weight(_text_:methods in 2726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040352322 = score(doc=2726,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.22209854 = fieldWeight in 2726, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2726)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This research investigates how people's perceptions of information retrieval (IR) systems, their perceptions of search tasks, and their perceptions of self-efficacy influence the amount of invested mental effort (AIME) they put into using two different IR systems: a Web search engine and a library system. It also explores the impact of mental effort on an end user's search experience. To assess AIME in online searching, two experiments were conducted using these methods: Experiment 1 relied on self-reports and Experiment 2 employed the dual-task technique. In both experiments, data were collected through search transaction logs, a pre-search background questionnaire, a post-search questionnaire and an interview. Important findings are these: (1) subjects invested greater mental effort searching a library system than searching the Web; (2) subjects put little effort into Web searching because of their high sense of self-efficacy in their searching ability and their perception of the easiness of the Web; (3) subjects did not recognize that putting mental effort into searching was something needed to improve the search results; and (4) data collected from multiple sources proved to be effective for assessing mental effort in online searching.

0.0038267244 = product of:
  0.015306897 = sum of:
    0.015306897 = product of:
      0.030613795 = sum of:
        0.030613795 = weight(_text_:22 in 1177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030613795 = score(doc=1177,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1177, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1177)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

26. 1.2014 18:48:22

0.0038267244 = product of:
  0.015306897 = sum of:
    0.015306897 = product of:
      0.030613795 = sum of:
        0.030613795 = weight(_text_:22 in 5493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030613795 = score(doc=5493,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5493, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5493)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.0030613795 = product of:
  0.012245518 = sum of:
    0.012245518 = product of:
      0.024491036 = sum of:
        0.024491036 = weight(_text_:22 in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024491036 = score(doc=1188,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1188, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1188)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05