Search (46 results, page 3 of 3)

0.004868544 = product of:
  0.01217136 = sum of:
    0.00770594 = weight(_text_:a in 840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00770594 = score(doc=840,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 840, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=840)
    0.0044654203 = product of:
      0.0089308405 = sum of:
        0.0089308405 = weight(_text_:information in 840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0089308405 = score(doc=840,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 840, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=840)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper reports the findings of a study designed to explore web searchers' perceptions of the causes of their search failure and success. In particular, it seeks to discover the extent to which the constructs locus of control and attribution theory might provide useful frameworks for understanding searchers' perceptions. Design/methodology/approach - A combination of inductive and deductive approaches were employed. Perceptions of failed and successful searches were derived from the inductive analysis of using open-ended qualitative interviews with a sample of 37 biologists at the University of Sheffield. These perceptions were classified into "internal" and "external" attributions, and the relationships between these categories and "successful" and "failed" searches were analysed deductively to test the extent to which they might be explainable using locus of control and attribution theory interpretive frameworks. Findings - All searchers were readily able to recall "successful" and "unsuccessful" searches. In a large majority of cases (82.4 per cent), they clearly attributed each search to either internal (e.g. ability or effort) or external (e.g. luck or information not being available) factors. The pattern of such relationships was analysed, and mapped onto those that would be predicted by locus of control and attribution theory. The authors conclude that the potential of these theoretical frameworks to illuminate one's understanding of web searching, and associated training, merits further systematic study. Research limitations/implications - The findings are based on a relatively small sample of academic and research staff in a particular subject area. Importantly, also, the study can at best provide a prima facie case for further systematic study since, although the patterns of attribution behaviour accord with those predictable by locus of control and attribution theory, data relating to the predictive elements of these theories (e.g. levels of confidence and achievement) were not available. This issue is discussed, and recommendations made for further work. Originality/value - The findings provide some empirical support for the notion that locus of control and attribution theory might - subject to the limitations noted above - be potentially useful theoretical frameworks for helping us better understand web-based information seeking. If so, they could have implications particularly for better understanding of searchers' motivations, and for the design and development of more effective search training programmes.

Type

a

0.004532365 = product of:
  0.011330913 = sum of:
    0.008173384 = weight(_text_:a in 608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008173384 = score(doc=608,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 608, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=608)
    0.003157529 = product of:
      0.006315058 = sum of:
        0.006315058 = weight(_text_:information in 608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006315058 = score(doc=608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 608, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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.

Type

a

0.0043453877 = product of:
  0.010863469 = sum of:
    0.00770594 = weight(_text_:a in 5167) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00770594 = score(doc=5167,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 5167, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5167)
    0.003157529 = product of:
      0.006315058 = sum of:
        0.006315058 = weight(_text_:information in 5167) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006315058 = score(doc=5167,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 5167, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5167)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

In this issue Ford, Miller and Moss utilize 68 volunteers from a population of 250 Master's students to complete on the web three search tasks with clear fact based goals and three or less facets. One task required broadening the search concepts from those given, a second provided a specific terminology for one facet but required a second facet that would require translation, and the third required general to specific transformation. The students were measured as to their performance on Entewistle's Revised Inventory of Approaches to Studying providing values for ten study variables and asked to assess their experience on the Internet, with Alta Vista, and with Boolean search. Searches were conducted on Alta Vista using Netscape Navigator 4 with participants free to choose and switch Boolean, best match or combined search modes at will while a front end script recorded all submitted searches and help access. Search related variables extracted were from Boolean only queries, best match only queries, and combined queries. Factor analyses were conducted on all variables for each search mode for each search. In task one Boolean is differentiated from best match search by sharing high loads on active interest, intention to reproduce, fear of failure, and relating ideas. The combined searcher is linked with the best match searcher with low active interest, low intention to reproduce and low fear of failure. In task 2 Boolean is differentiated from best match search by sharing high loads on intention to reproduce and low on intention to understand. Best match loads positively with intention to understand and negatively with intention to reproduce. Combined searching linked with both good and with poor time management. In task 3 the loads mimic task 1. It seems Boolean is consistently linked to a reproductive rather than a meaning seeking approach, but also with high levels of interest and fear of failure. Best match associates with the converse of these measures.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.6, S.473-488

Type

a

0.0026792523 = product of:
  0.013396261 = sum of:
    0.013396261 = product of:
      0.026792523 = sum of:
        0.026792523 = weight(_text_:information in 940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026792523 = score(doc=940,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.3291521 = fieldWeight in 940, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=940)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Reports results of an investigation, undertaken at Sheffield University, Departmant of Information Studies, UK into the effects of postings information (the display on the screen of the number of references in the retrieved sets) on searching behaviour. Linked online searches were conducted, on the LISA database on CD-ROM, with and without postings information. Performance in terms of the number of relevant references, precision and recall was not significantly different whether postings information was available or not; but searches with postings information took more time and more sets were viewed than in searches without postings. Searchers thought that the lack of postings information had affected 90% of their searches. Proposes that training should place greater emphasis on the value of postings information at different stages of the search and should optimize the searching behaviour of those with different searching styles

0.0026379484 = product of:
  0.013189741 = sum of:
    0.013189741 = weight(_text_:a in 3574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013189741 = score(doc=3574,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.24669915 = fieldWeight in 3574, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3574)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to develop a content analysis framework and from that derive a process model of knowledge construction in the context of virtual product user communities, organization sponsored online forums where product users collaboratively construct knowledge to solve their technical problems. Design/methodology/approach The study is based on a deductive and qualitative content analysis of discussion threads about solving technical problems selected from a series of virtual product user communities. Data are complemented with thematic analysis of interviews with forum members. Findings The research develops a content analysis framework for knowledge construction. It is based on a combination of existing codes derived from frameworks developed for computer-supported collaborative learning and new categories identified from the data. Analysis using this framework allows the authors to propose a knowledge construction process model showing how these elements are organized around a typical "trial and error" knowledge construction strategy. Practical implications The research makes suggestions about organizations' management of knowledge activities in virtual product user communities, including moderators' roles in facilitation. Originality/value The paper outlines a new framework for analysing knowledge activities where there is a low level of critical thinking and a model of knowledge construction by trial and error. The new framework and model can be applied in other similar contexts.

Type

a

0.0023681468 = product of:
  0.011840734 = sum of:
    0.011840734 = product of:
      0.023681467 = sum of:
        0.023681467 = weight(_text_:information in 4006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023681467 = score(doc=4006,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.2909321 = fieldWeight in 4006, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4006)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Explores the role of information seeking and retrieval in the development of information systems to support personalized and autonomous learning.

Content

Inhalt: Learning: Basic Processes - Introduction - Basic Information Processes - Integrating Themes - Where do Integrating Themes come From? - Theory Generation and Testing - Learning: Individual Differences - Styles of Learning - Levels of Learning - References - Education - Educational Philosophies and Learning Design - Autonomy and Mediation - Library and Information Science - Standards for Supporting Resource Discovery - Information Seeking and Autonomous Learning - Information Seeking as Conversations - ICT Developments: Resource Discovery - Tools and Techniques to Support Information Seeking and Resource Discovery - Metadata - Ontologies and the Semantic Web - Educational Metadata and Ontologies - ICT Developments: Learning Design And Teaching - Intelligent and Adaptive Tutoring Systems - Learning Environments and Interoperability - General ICT-Based Developments - Educational Opportunities Afforded by ICT Developments - Educational Informatics Systems: Individual Approaches - Metadata-Enabled Learning Resource Discovery - Adaptive Systems for Personalised Resource Discovery - Open Corpus Resource Discovery - From Supplantation to Metacognition - Educational Informatics Systems: Social Approaches - Alternative Pedagogies - Educational Informatics Systems that Learn - Community-Based Learning - Real World Learning - Theory and Practice - Educational Informatics Support for Critical Thinking and Creativity - Making Sense of Research: Generating Useful Real World Knowledge - Going Forward: Research Issues and the Future - Different Perspectives on Educational Informatics Developments - Types Of Evidence - Contingent Dependencies, and Object and Meta Languages - Reality Checking For Quality Control - Towards the Learning Web

Imprint

Hershey, Pa. : Information Science