Search (51 results, page 1 of 3)

0.024485514 = product of:
  0.048971027 = sum of:
    0.048971027 = product of:
      0.097942054 = sum of:
        0.097942054 = weight(_text_:22 in 7585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.097942054 = score(doc=7585,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18081778 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 7585, 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=7585)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2000 17:52:11

0.024485514 = product of:
  0.048971027 = sum of:
    0.048971027 = product of:
      0.097942054 = sum of:
        0.097942054 = weight(_text_:22 in 3924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.097942054 = score(doc=3924,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18081778 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3924, 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=3924)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Library and information science research. 22(2000) no.4, S.371-382

0.020987583 = product of:
  0.041975167 = sum of:
    0.041975167 = product of:
      0.08395033 = sum of:
        0.08395033 = weight(_text_:22 in 2973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08395033 = score(doc=2973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18081778 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

9. 2.2008 17:52:22

0.019730229 = product of:
  0.039460458 = sum of:
    0.039460458 = product of:
      0.078920916 = sum of:
        0.078920916 = weight(_text_:theory in 598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.078920916 = score(doc=598,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.36755344 = fieldWeight in 598, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=598)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Apart from information retrieval there is virtually no other area of information science that has occasioned as much resarch effort and writing as 'user studies'. Within user studies the investigation of 'information needs' has been the subject of much debate and no little confusion. The aim of this paper is to attempt to reduce this confusion by devoting attention to the definition of some concepts and by proposing the basis for a theory of the motivations for information-seeking behaviour

0.017439222 = product of:
  0.034878444 = sum of:
    0.034878444 = product of:
      0.06975689 = sum of:
        0.06975689 = weight(_text_:theory in 2068) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06975689 = score(doc=2068,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.3248744 = fieldWeight in 2068, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2068)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study presents a test of the Anxiety-Expectation Mediation (AEM) model of library anxiety. The AEM model contains variables that are directly or indirectly related to information search performance, as measured by students' scores an their research proposals. This model posits that library anxiety and self-perception serve as factors that mediate the relationship between performance in writing a research proposal and other cognitive, personality, and demographic variables. The model was tested using 225 graduate students enrolled in several sections of an introductory-level course at a midsouthern university. Structural equation modeling techniques supported the AEM model. In particular, library anxiety and research achievement were reciprocally related. Furthermore, library anxiety mediated the relationship between research performance and the following variables: age, grade point average, learning style, academic procrastination, and self-perception. The path analysis also revealed a direct, positive path from self-perception to research performance. In addition, self-perception moderated the relationship between research achievement and academic procrastination, perfectionism, and hope. The AEM model of library anxiety suggests that Wine's (1980) Cognitive-Attentional-Interference theory, Onwuegbuzie, Jiao, and Bostick's (in press) ILP model of library anxiety, and Bandura's (1977) self-efficacy theory can be applied to the library and information context. Findings are discussed within the framework of current social-psychological models of educational achievement.

0.017439222 = product of:
  0.034878444 = sum of:
    0.034878444 = product of:
      0.06975689 = sum of:
        0.06975689 = weight(_text_:theory in 5164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06975689 = score(doc=5164,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.3248744 = fieldWeight in 5164, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5164)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The project proposes and tests a comprehensive and systematic model of user evaluation of Web search engines. The project contains two parts. Part I describes the background and the model including a set of criteria and measures, and a method for implementation. It includes a literature review for two periods. The early period (1995-1996) portrays the settings for developing the model and the later period (1997-2000) places two applications of the model among contemporary evaluation work. Part II presents one of the applications that investigated the evaluation of four major search engines by 36 undergraduates from three academic disciplines. It reports results from statistical analyses of quantitative data for the entire sample and among disciplines, and content analysis of verbal data containing users' reasons for satisfaction. The proposed model aims to provide systematic feedback to engine developers or service providers for system improvement and to generate useful insight for system design and tool choice. The model can be applied to evaluating other compatible information retrieval systems or information retrieval (IR) techniques. It intends to contribute to developing a theory of relevance that goes beyond topicality to include value and usefulness for designing user-oriented information retrieval systems.

0.017439222 = product of:
  0.034878444 = sum of:
    0.034878444 = product of:
      0.06975689 = sum of:
        0.06975689 = weight(_text_:theory in 1305) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06975689 = score(doc=1305,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.3248744 = fieldWeight in 1305, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1305)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This qualitative investigation is situated in the field of information seeking and use, and decision-making theory provided a framework for the study. In a naturalistic setting and across a range of curriculum areas, it investigated the behavior of secondary school students undertaking information search tasks. Research questions focused on students' criteria for assessing the relevance and reliability of information. Thirty-seven students between 14 and 17 years of age from a southeastern Australian school participated. The study collected data from journals; interviews, including video-stimulated recall interviews; think-aloud reports; video screen captures; and questionnaires. Data analysis culminated in grounded theory. Initial judgments of an item's relevance were based on comprehensibility, completeness of source, whether the item needed to be purchased, whether video sources were suitable, and whether factual or opinionative material met students' needs. Participants preferred information that provided topic overviews, information that linked to prior knowledge, and sources that treated topics in acceptable depth and were structured to facilitate accessibility. Students derived clues about reliability from URLs and considered the reputation of sources. The ability of an item to corroborate prior knowledge, its graphic design, its style of writing, and the perceived authority of its creators influenced participants' decisions about reliability.

0.01726395 = product of:
  0.0345279 = sum of:
    0.0345279 = product of:
      0.0690558 = sum of:
        0.0690558 = weight(_text_:theory in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0690558 = score(doc=2417,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.32160926 = fieldWeight in 2417, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2417)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

W.S. Cooper's utility theory was used to evaluate end user and mediated searching of online and CD-ROM databases. The searches were conducted by 510 end users, using MEDLINE. The relevance of the references and the usefulness of the documents retrieved were examnied. The study also assessed the perceived value to end users of the information retrieved. Mediated online searching cost 3 times as much as end user CD-ROM searching, but was only about twice as effective in terms of user satisfaction; user convenience should be a high priority for the information provider and mediated CD-ROM searching may be the best compromise currently available as regards cost effectiveness and successful information retrieval for end users

0.014797671 = product of:
  0.029595342 = sum of:
    0.029595342 = product of:
      0.059190683 = sum of:
        0.059190683 = weight(_text_:theory in 299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059190683 = score(doc=299,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.27566507 = fieldWeight in 299, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=299)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

An underlying basic assumption in contemporary information retrieval research is that the process of inquiry is driven by conscious cognition, while the role of unconscious cognition has been largely assumed not to exist or has been unacknowledged. Consequently, information retrieval theory has been unable to explain why inquirere tend to represent their problems so poorly, particularly at the outset. Reports results of a study of the elicitation of unconscious cognition in the course of an in depth inquiry, using an information counselling approach with the aid of a programmed relaxation device (audiovisual integrator) and a EEG computeroied biofeedback monitoring device. The experiment was conducted on 36 graduate students and faculty members randomly assigned to an experimental and a control group. The experimental group showed marked increases in intuition, insight, ideas and conceptual fluidity. The mobilization of unconscious cognition also has a positive impacts on the formulation and representation of research problems for the inquirer and the intermediary

0.014797671 = product of:
  0.029595342 = sum of:
    0.029595342 = product of:
      0.059190683 = sum of:
        0.059190683 = weight(_text_:theory in 611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059190683 = score(doc=611,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.27566507 = fieldWeight in 611, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=611)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - Apart from information retrieval there is virtually no other area of information science that has occasioned as much research effort and writing as "user studies". Within user studies the investigation of "information needs" has been the subject of much debate and no little confusion. The aim of this paper is to attempt to reduce this confusion by devoting attention to the definition of some concepts and by proposing the basis for a theory of the motivations for information-seeking behaviour. Design/methodology/approach - The paper describes the issues of user studies and information needs within the context of information science. Findings - The paper finds that the problem seems to lie, not so much with the lack of a single definition, as with a failure to use a definition appropriate to the level, and purpose of the investigation. Originality/value - The analysis may be used as a springboard to research based upon a wider, holistic view of the information user.

0.014797671 = product of:
  0.029595342 = sum of:
    0.029595342 = product of:
      0.059190683 = sum of:
        0.059190683 = weight(_text_:theory in 991) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059190683 = score(doc=991,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.27566507 = fieldWeight in 991, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=991)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Multitasking is the human ability to handle the demands of multiple tasks. Multitasking behavior involves the ordering of multiple tasks and switching between tasks. People often multitask when using information retrieval (IR) technologies as they seek information on more than one information problem over single or multiple search episodes. However, limited studies have examined how people order their information problems, especially during their Web search engine interaction. The aim of our exploratory study was to investigate assigned information problem ordering by forty (40) study participants engaged in Web search. Findings suggest that assigned information problem ordering was influenced by the following factors, including personal interest, problem knowledge, perceived level of information available on the Web, ease of finding information, level of importance and seeking information on information problems in order from general to specific. Personal interest and problem knowledge were the major factors during assigned information problem ordering. Implications of the findings and further research are discussed. The relationship between information problem ordering and gratification theory is an important area for further exploration.

0.014797671 = product of:
  0.029595342 = sum of:
    0.029595342 = product of:
      0.059190683 = sum of:
        0.059190683 = weight(_text_:theory in 1336) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059190683 = score(doc=1336,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.27566507 = fieldWeight in 1336, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1336)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

According to many studies, social network sites (SNS) have become some of the most popular online destinations. It has been pointed out that very little is known about the psychosocial variables that predict people's use of these websites. In this article, our general objective is to understand behavioral intentions to use SNS employing the well-known unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT), which has been validated in a number of studies. Data were collected through a questionnaire survey from a final sample of 1,039 social networking website users in Africa. We have shown that there are contexts, such as the African context, in which the UTAUT does not hold up. Explanations are provided to support the findings.

0.013991722 = product of:
  0.027983444 = sum of:
    0.027983444 = product of:
      0.055966888 = sum of:
        0.055966888 = weight(_text_:22 in 1628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055966888 = score(doc=1628,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18081778 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1628, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1628)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

29. 7.1998 10:57:22

0.013991722 = product of:
  0.027983444 = sum of:
    0.027983444 = product of:
      0.055966888 = sum of:
        0.055966888 = weight(_text_:22 in 3687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055966888 = score(doc=3687,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18081778 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3687, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3687)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 5.1999 19:07:29

0.013991722 = product of:
  0.027983444 = sum of:
    0.027983444 = product of:
      0.055966888 = sum of:
        0.055966888 = weight(_text_:22 in 5299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055966888 = score(doc=5299,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18081778 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5299, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5299)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2006 18:17:44

0.013991722 = product of:
  0.027983444 = sum of:
    0.027983444 = product of:
      0.055966888 = sum of:
        0.055966888 = weight(_text_:22 in 2905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055966888 = score(doc=2905,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18081778 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2905, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2905)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2009 18:50:43

0.013951378 = product of:
  0.027902756 = sum of:
    0.027902756 = product of:
      0.05580551 = sum of:
        0.05580551 = weight(_text_:theory in 3163) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05580551 = score(doc=3163,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.25989953 = fieldWeight in 3163, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3163)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The purposes of this study were to explore college students' perceptions, uses of, and motivations for using Wikipedia, and to understand their information behavior concerning Wikipedia based on social cognitive theory (SCT). A Web survey was used to collect data in the spring of 2008. The study sample consisted of students from an introductory undergraduate course at a large public university in the midwestern United States. A total of 134 students participated in the study, resulting in a 32.8% response rate. The major findings of the study include the following: Approximately one-third of the students reported using Wikipedia for academic purposes. The students tended to use Wikipedia for quickly checking facts and finding background information. They had positive past experiences with Wikipedia; however, interestingly, their perceptions of its information quality were not correspondingly high. The level of their confidence in evaluating Wikipedia's information quality was, at most, moderate. Respondents' past experience with Wikipedia, their positive emotional state, their disposition to believe information in Wikipedia, and information utility were positively related to their outcome expectations of Wikipedia. However, among the factors affecting outcome expectations, only information utility and respondents' positive emotions toward Wikipedia were related to their use of it. Further, when all of the independent variables, including the mediator, outcome expectations, were considered, only the variable information utility was related to Wikipedia use, which may imply a limited applicability of SCT to understanding Wikipedia use. However, more empirical evidence is needed to determine the applicability of this theory to Wikipedia use. Finally, this study supports the knowledge value of Wikipedia (Fallis, [2008]), despite students' cautious attitudes toward Wikipedia. The study suggests that educators and librarians need to provide better guidelines for using Wikipedia, rather than prohibiting Wikipedia use altogether.

0.012331394 = product of:
  0.024662787 = sum of:
    0.024662787 = product of:
      0.049325574 = sum of:
        0.049325574 = weight(_text_:theory in 319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049325574 = score(doc=319,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.2297209 = fieldWeight in 319, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=319)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports results of the Information Access Project, funded by King's College London and the British Library, Research and Development Department, set up to examine the effects of information technology, the electronic library and the Internet on the information seeking behaviour and research behaviour of academics in higher education. The project studied a team of theoretical physicists over 2 years using a qualitative, context situation, user centred methodology. Electronic resources, primarily electronic bulletin boards and electronic mail, were used to access information in 80% of the 48 research projects, ususally in conjunction with traditional methods. Discusses the changes in information activity, changed boundaries and speeding up of the work of the research community; increased visibility for researchers; formalization of the preprint process; replacement of formal with informal peer review; improved access to more current information; and the demise in the use of libraries. Drawbacks reported include: limitations of electronic mail communication; information overload; limitations of reliance on single information sources in terms of their focus; and the reduction in creative active information seeking. The main electronic information source for the high energy physicists, used in the study, was the High Energy Physics Theory (HEPTH) pre-print bulletin board: a service designed to provide rapid access to written research information available before it is published in periodical form

0.012331394 = product of:
  0.024662787 = sum of:
    0.024662787 = product of:
      0.049325574 = sum of:
        0.049325574 = weight(_text_:theory in 4400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049325574 = score(doc=4400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.2297209 = fieldWeight in 4400, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4400)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - To explore information behavior from a psychological perspective by relating information seeking to personality traits and study approaches. Design/methodology/approach - The research design was quantitative and consisted of statistical analysis of three questionnaires, i.e. the NEO Five-Factor Inventory measuring personality, the ASSIST test measuring approaches to studying, and a questionnaire regarding information behavior. A total of 305 university students who were in the process of writing a Master's thesis responded to the questionnaires. Findings - Three information-seeking patterns - fast surfing, broad scanning and deep diving - emerged from the statistical analyses. Fast surfing could be related to a surface study approach and emotionality, as well as to low openness to experience and low conscientiousness. Broad scanning was linked to extraversion, openness, and competitiveness, whereas deep diving was a search pattern typical of analytical students with a deep and strategic study approach. Research limitations/implications - The results are based on descriptions of behaviour, not actual observations. Although the statistical results were significant, generalisable conclusions would have required more convincing figures. Further research is recommended in order to explore the three search styles in other populations and contexts. Originality/value - Information-seeking behaviour has not previously been studied in relation to the five-factor model, which is regarded as the most modern personality theory to date. Understanding of the psychological reasons behind different information-seeking styles is important for a holistic view of information behavior. These insights are valuable for researchers interested in user behavior as well as for practitioners like teachers and information professionals.

0.012331394 = product of:
  0.024662787 = sum of:
    0.024662787 = product of:
      0.049325574 = sum of:
        0.049325574 = weight(_text_:theory in 289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049325574 = score(doc=289,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.2297209 = fieldWeight in 289, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=289)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Children are increasingly using the Web. Cognitive theory tells us that directory structures are especially suited for information retrieval by children; however, empirical results show that they prefer keyword searching. One of the reasons for these findings could be that the directory structures and terminology are created by grown-ups. Using a card-sorting method and an enveloping system, we simulated the structure of a directory. Our goal was to try to understand what browsable, hierarchical subject categories children create when suggested terms are supplied and they are free to add or delete terms. Twelve groups of four children each (fourth and fifth graders) participated in our exploratory study. The initial terminology presented to the children was based on names of categories used in popular directories, in the sections on Arts, Television, Music, Cinema, and Celebrities. The children were allowed to introduce additional cards and change the terms appearing on the 61 cards. Findings show that the different groups reached reasonable consensus; the majority of the category names used by existing directories were acceptable by them and only a small minority of the terms caused confusion. Our recommendation is to include children in the design process of directories, not only in designing the interface but also in designing the content structure as well.