Talk:Module 6-a: Information needs/relevance
From DL Curriculum Project
Instructions
1. Click an 'edit' link to type in your comments. Your evaluation may cover general issues concerning the module or a section of it, or you may make more fine-grained comments (e.g., on a particular section by referring to the section number or on a particular point by referring to the page and line number).
2. Add four '~' (without quotations) at the end of each comment. Your id, date and time will show up later.
3. Click the 'Save page' button on the bottom of the 'edit' page.
Module Objectives: Are the objectives appropriate for the topic?
Are the objectives observable? Will students be able to achieve the objectives, given the content in the body of knowledge?
The objectives seem to be appropriate for the module and the practical exercises seem to be designed to ensure that the student's do acquire the necessary understanding. The reading suggestions, together with the structure of the module should enable the students to achieve the objectives. Wilsont 14:42, 13 December 2007 (EST)
The first two objectives are straightforward and realistic. The third objective: “Apply this knowledge to the design of systems for formulating a query” implies that they are learning to design systems. Are you sure that is what they are going to do (.i.e. design)? What kind of systems will they design? The module does not enable them to design any system, so if this is linked with a design module, then it is OK, but if it is not linked, then this objective needs to be reworded or a design part instituted. Saracevict 18:31, 13 December 2007 (EST)
The objectives are appropriate and mostly realistic. Perhaps you should consider specifying the 3rd objective to match better with the learning outcomes of the students. How prepared they are for interface design for querying after this course. Vakkarip 05:03, 20 December 2007 (EST)
Body of Knowledge: Does the module address all areas of the topic that need to be addressed?
Will the body of knowledge enable students to achieve the objectives? Are there any topics that you think are critical to add to the body of knowledge? Are there any topics on that you would remove from the body of knowledge?
The strategy of selecting a small number of approaches to information needs and relevance is pedagogically sound and the topics selected appear to support the objectives of the module. I would have liked to see something more of Dervin's work presented and perhaps some discussion (possibly in one of the exercises?) about how far relevance judgements are truly personal and how far they may be determined by the rules and norms prevailing in a field of study, or within an ideologically-focused sub-group of scholars. For example, different kinds of work are regarded as 'relevant' by, say, sociologists of different ideological persuasion - their judgements are, to a degree, determined by the reference group with which they ally themselves. A further point is that the focus is on personal information needs and many 'digital libraries' are being developed to satisfy organizational information needs. There should, perhaps, be a nod in this direction, with reference to work on critical success factors (Huotari). Wilsont 14:42, 13 December 2007 (EST)
The introduction of need as a base of information seeking and then doing relevance judgments is appropriate to some very general degree. But the concept of “need” is also very dated – it was never defined operationally nor specified theoretically. Often it was treated as the base for a question. And the question is what a searcher deals with. Taylor’s classification of needs is nice, but never was experimentally verified. It is a hypothesis, long overdue for testing or if not, abandonment. Belkin does provide a different framework by introduction of “problem.” I wish to suggest that you go easy on the need stuff and enlarge on the “problem” as base for information seeking. Even more so, I would suggest introduction of “task” as the base on which searching is done – “problem” leads directly to “task.” Various attributes and classifications of tasks were done, among others by Katriina Byström and also a whole group of researchers at Tampere U in Finland. The cycle may be extended by comparing various work tasks with search tasks. In this way searching and then relevance judgments will be directly connected. In other words, lets get out of the "need" stuff and go more contemporary. Saracevict 18:45, 13 December 2007 (EST)
The major texts cover relatively well the areas of information needs & seeking, and relevance types and assessments. Although the texts chosen are established, I feel that there are articles which in some sense are more specific and integrate info needs with relevance assessments. I think especially Kuhlthau's ISP-model, which elegantly integrates info needs, search process and also relevance criteria to a certain extent. A good presentation is in "Seeking meaning" (2004), pp. 40-52. You can also consider my A Theory of task-based information search process" in JDoc 57: 44-60, as a speficication of ISP-model in IR.
If we accept that tasks or interests generate information need and seeking, categorization of tasks and how various task types are related to info needs and seeking are relevant also for this module. Byström & Järvelin's "Task complexity affects..." in IP&M 31: 191-214 or some other text by Byström is worth of considering.
Also David Ellis' "Behavioral approach to information retrieval system design" in JDoc 45: 171-212 would be suitabl aditional reading. Vakkarip 05:27, 20 December 2007 (EST)
Readings: Are the readings the best and most appropriate for the topic?
Are there any readings that you think are critical to add to the list? Are there any readings on the list that you would remove?
I think that, if Wilson's model is to be used as a basis for discussion, it is probably important for students to be aware of the development of the model, as reported in Wilson, T.D. (2005). Evolution in information behavior modeling: Wilson's model, In: Karen E. Fisher, Sanda Erdelez and Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie, eds. Theories of information behavior, (pp. 31-36). Medford, NJ: Information Today Inc.
Work by Bystrom, Jarvelin and Vakkari on various aspects of the relationship of task complexity to information needs would be worth mention in the additional reading list. Wilsont 14:43, 13 December 2007 (EST)
Learning Activities: Are the activities appropriate for the topic?
Will students be able to accomplish the activities, given the content in the body of knowledge? Will the activities enable students to achieve the objectives? Can you think of any other class activities appropriate for this module?
As well as interviewing one another about information needs - or perhaps instead - students might be asked to carry out mini-interviews with other people on campus or in their workplace. I've used this strategy myself and I find that it brings home to students the fact that the information needs that arise in the academic community are somewhat different to those in the 'outside world'. Wilsont 14:43, 13 December 2007 (EST)
Level of Effort and Prerequisites: Is it feasible to teach the module as it is currently constructed?
Is the level of effort required in class appropriate to the scope of the body of knowledge? Is the level of effort required prior to class appropriate? Is the prerequisite knowledge required sufficient for students to comprehend the body of knowledge?
I did wonder about this, when I first saw the outline, but, as I grow more familiar with it, I believe that it is manageable. The coverage is quite tightly restricted and that ought to enable the material to be assimilated. No prerequisite knowledge is required - a fact that makes the practical exercises all the more important. It really depends upon whether the students are straight out of undergraduate school, or whether they have had some practical work experience. Wilsont 14:43, 13 December 2007 (EST)
Overall Structure of the Module: Is the current module well structured?
Can the topics and their corresponding resources be easily divided? Is there a clear mapping between the objectives and the content of the body of knowledge section? If not, how could the objectives be mapped to the body of knowledge more clearly?
The relationship of 6a and 6b might be spelled out in a little more detail. Wilsont 14:44, 13 December 2007 (EST)
The structure of the model is balanced. It seems to be a kind of an introduction to the module Searching and info seeking behaviors etc. It is important that the co-ordination between this and "Searching etc." module works well. Vakkarip 05:38, 20 December 2007 (EST)
Additional Comments
Overall, I find the module well-structured and well thought out. The topic fits happily into the overall structure of the programme and the proactical exercises ought to stretch the students' minds and enable them to think about the practical consequences of theoretical ideas. Wilsont 14:44, 13 December 2007 (EST)
