Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.01222006 = product of:
  0.07332036 = sum of:
    0.07332036 = weight(_text_:relationship in 3475) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07332036 = score(doc=3475,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.31983936 = fieldWeight in 3475, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3475)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The research reported here was an exploratory study that sought to discover the effects of human individual differences an Web search strategy. These differences consisted of (a) study approaches, (b) cognitive and demographic features, and (c) perceptions of and preferred approaches to Web-based information seeking. Sixtyeight master's students used AItaVista to search for information an three assigned search topics graded in terms of complexity. Five hundred seven search queries were factor analyzed to identify relationships between the individual difference variables and Boolean and best-match search strategies. A number of consistent patterns of relationship were found. As task complexity increased, a number of strategic shifts were also observed an the part of searchers possessing particular combinations of characteristics. A second article (published in this issue of JASIST; Ford, Miller, & Moss, 2005) presents a combined analyses of the data including a series of regression analyses.

0.011521183 = product of:
  0.0691271 = sum of:
    0.0691271 = weight(_text_:relationship in 4408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0691271 = score(doc=4408,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.30154744 = fieldWeight in 4408, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4408)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between preferred choice of school subject and student information behaviour (IB). Design/methodology/approach Mixed methods were employed. In all, 152 students, teachers and librarians participated in interviews or focus groups. In total, 1,375 students, key stage 3 (11-14 years) to postgraduate, responded to a questionnaire. The research population was drawn from eight schools, two further education colleges and three universities. Insights from the literature review and the qualitative research phase led to a hypothesis which was investigated using the questionnaire: that students studying hard subjects are less likely to engage in deep IB than students studying soft subjects. Findings Results support the hypothesis that preferences for subjects at school affect choice of university degree. The hypothesis that a preference for hard or soft subjects affects IB is supported by results of an analysis in which like or dislike of maths/ICT is correlated with responses to the survey. Interviewees' comments led to the proposal that academic subjects can be classified according to whether a subject helps students to acquire a "tool of the Mind" or to apply such a tool. A model suggesting how IB may differ depending on whether intellectual tools are being acquired or applied is proposed. Practical implications The "inner logic" of certain subjects and their pedagogies appears closely linked to IB. This should be considered when developing teaching programmes. Originality/value The findings offer a new perspective on subject classification and its association with IB, and a new model of the association between IB and tool acquisition or application is proposed, incorporating the perspectives of both teacher and student.

0.01072904 = product of:
  0.06437424 = sum of:
    0.06437424 = weight(_text_:22 in 4342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06437424 = score(doc=4342,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4342, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4342)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

17. 1.2000 13:16:22

0.01072904 = product of:
  0.06437424 = sum of:
    0.06437424 = weight(_text_:22 in 3341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06437424 = score(doc=3341,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3341, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3341)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 1.2017 16:45:48

0.008146707 = product of:
  0.048880238 = sum of:
    0.048880238 = weight(_text_:relationship in 608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048880238 = score(doc=608,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.21322623 = fieldWeight in 608, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=608)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to report an empirical investigation into conceptions of the "invisible web". Design/methodology/approach - This was an exploratory qualitative study based on in-depth semi-structured interviews with 15 members of academic staff from three biology-related departments at the University of Sheffield. Concepts emerged from an inductive analysis of the interview data to form a tentative model. Findings - A distinction is drawn between technical objective conceptions of the "invisible web" that commonly appear in the literature, and a cognitive subjective conception based on searchers' perceptions of search failure, and a tentative model of "cognitive invisibility" is presented. The relationship between objective and subjective conceptions, and implications for training, are discussed. Research limitations/implications - The research was qualitative and exploratory, designed to elicit sensitising concepts and to "map the territory". It thus aims to provide a tentative model that could form the basis for more systematic study. Such research could investigate the validity of the categories in different and/or larger samples, seek further to illuminate, challenge, extend or refute the model, and address issues of generalisability. Practical implications - The paper presents a conceptual model that is intended to be a useful reference point for researchers wishing to investigate user-based aspects of search failure and the invisible web. It may also be useful to trainers and those interested in developing information literacy, in that it differentiates technical objective and cognitive subjective conceptions of "invisibility, and discusses the implications for helping searchers develop more effective searching capabilities. Originality/value - The paper offers an alternative cognitive subjective view of "web invisibility" to that more commonly presented in the literature. It contributes to a still small body of empirical research into user-based aspects of the invisible web.

0.0064374236 = product of:
  0.03862454 = sum of:
    0.03862454 = weight(_text_:22 in 4341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03862454 = score(doc=4341,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4341, 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=4341)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.2, S.79-92