Talk:Module 6-b: Online information seeking behaviors and search strategies
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?
No, students won't be able to achieve the objectives because several of the learning objectives are not observable -- the term 'understand' is used often. Others of the objectives are good.Jansenj 15:16, 5 December 2007 (EST)
Overall, the objectives are fine. Some clarifications are needed. One problem with the objective is the terminology. It seems that models introduced here are not related to general information seeking behaviors. They more focus on online information seeking or information searching or retrieval. Wilson (2000) defined the differences between information-seeking and information-searching. Information-seeking refers to purposive behavior involving users’ interactions with manual information systems in order to satisfy their information goals. Information-searching refers to the micro-level of behavior when interacting with information systems. There are different definitions for information seeking, searching and retrieval. In the literature, researchers have used these terms to represent similar concepts. This module defined seeking and searching. However, it is better to introduce different definitions of information seeking, searching and retrieval. Otherwise, students might be confused when they read related literature. Xiei 16:40, 6 December 2007 (EST)
Object (a) used “models of online information seeking behaviors,” but objective (b) used “models of information seeking behaviors.” Xiei 16:40, 6 December 2007 (EST)
For the last objective (c), “characterizing” instead of understanding can be used since apply these research methods at least can help student to summarize users’ information seeking behaviors. Xiei 16:40, 6 December 2007 (EST)
Achieving objective (a) will depend to a large extent on the quality of the Case book, which I did not have at hand, but seems like it should be possible. Objectives (b) and (c) also seem achievable. Lynchm 16:11, 7 December 2007 (EST)
The length of time devoted to the topic, especially with respect to the first session, is far too little to achieve the objectives (that is, to insure that the topics have been covered adequately, and that the students have had the opportunity to engage in discussion and integrate the knowledge. Belkinn 14:44, 11 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?
A.b. It would probably be useful to have some discussion either here, or in the next section, on the nature of task and its influence on information behavior.
A.c. The definitions given here are not particularly enlightening, nor do they seem to fit well with what’s in the literature. I would certainly suggest looking at Chang & Rice’s ARIST review on browsing, and more nuanced concepts of classifying information seeking behavior, such as those proposed by Cool & Belkin at COLIS 2002.
B.b. Wouldn’t it be a good idea to refer to Bates’s work here? I don’t see why only work which claims to be focused on electronic environments should be discussed.
B.c. There are certainly relevant research methods that are neither interviews nor transaction log analyses, for instance, controlled experimentation. See, e.g., Session 2, section B, case study 1.
SESSION 2:
A. The last two characterizations refer to all users of all libraries and information sources, and this should be made plain. It’s not clear whether the first two would really make any difference with respect to the topic of this session. Belkinn 14:44, 11 December 2007 (EST)
The selection of models is confusing. Certainly, information foraging needs mentioning. The work by Belkin, Wilson, Ellis, Bates, and Kuhlthau also. It seems there is too much effort in trying to make information searching in DL 'different' from other online searching. I really believe this is not a valid approach. Plus, the Choo model is from the Web context, not DL.Jansenj 15:25, 5 December 2007 (EST)
Also, this whole section is at too a high level. A lot of words/page spent on models and then in the case studies and exercises, it is all empirical. However, little detailed empirical background material is given.Jansenj 15:25, 5 December 2007 (EST)
The main issue with the body of knowledge introduced is the introduction of models. It seems that the models introduced here mostly focus on types of strategies instead of the overall information seeking or searching process and associated components/factors/contexts. It might be better to provide students at least a model that illustrates the nature of information seeking and searching as well as associated factors. Several works suggested by Jansen above can be integrated into the curriculum. In addition, interactive IR models developed by Ingwersen, Belkin and Saracevic can also be selected. Xiei 16:01, 6 December 2007 (EST)
It is also helpful to add different levels of information seeking strategies from tactics, moves, patterns, to strategies.Xiei 16:01, 6 December 2007 (EST)
Finally, information seeking strategies are not limited to searching and browsing which are only supported by IR systems. People also apply other strategies, such as identify, learn, access, evaluate, organize and other strategies in their information seeking and retrieving process. Moreover, information seeking strategies can be characterized into multiple dimensions. Xiei 16:01, 6 December 2007 (EST)
I agree that the selection of models is somewhat confusing, as is the model summary as presented. That said, however, the models selected are likely representative enough for an overview. Lynchm 16:15, 7 December 2007 (EST)
I'm not sure if it belongs in here or not, but it seems to me that some historical perspective about the research done on precision and recall and information retrieval versus information seeking behavior might be worthwhile.Lynchm 16:35, 7 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?
RESOURCES:
The Donald Case reference should be to the new edition.
At least for instructors, the readings should include Bates on Search Tactics and Search Strategies, and probably something by David Ellis, as well. Belkinn 14:44, 11 December 2007 (EST)
The was some early DL conferences started at Texas A&M, then the ACM DL conferences, and then the IEEE/ACM DL conferences. Some of this work should be included.Jansenj 15:26, 5 December 2007 (EST)
The readings related to model of information search process and associated factors can be added. Some of the readings related to levels of information seeking strategies as well as multiple types of information seeking strategies can be added at least for instructors.Xiei 16:07, 6 December 2007 (EST)
On page 3, lines 4 and 8 give citations that I could not find listed. Lynchm 16:04, 7 December 2007 (EST) Perhaps Case's chapter 7 in ARIST, v. 40 on Information Behavior would be useful as well. Also Wang's chapter 2 in ARIST v. 34 gives useful paradigms. Lynchm 16:30, 7 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?
EXERCISES/LEARNING ACTIVITY
The activity contemplated may well require IRB approval; this should be considered. Belkinn 14:44, 11 December 2007 (EST)
The learning activities are pretty interesting. One suggestion is that students also need to identify the limitation of each of the data collection methods, such as log analysis, interview, etc. That will help students understand the importance to apply multiple data collection methods in user studies. In addition, both quantitative and qualitative methods can be incorporated into the learning activities.Xiei 16:08, 6 December 2007 (EST)
Think aloud is an important method to collect data related users’ information seeking strategies and their associated reasons for the selection of specific strategies. It will be useful if think aloud can be implemented into the design of the exercises. Xiei 16:08, 6 December 2007 (EST)
The learning activities are appropriate and should really help to ground the theories being studied.Lynchm 16:39, 7 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?
There's too little time in this module.
I liked the exercises.Jansenj 15:27, 5 December 2007 (EST)
Section 1 might need more time including the in-class activity. This can be adjusted after testing in classes. Xiei 16:34, 6 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?
Overall structure was good.Jansenj 15:28, 5 December 2007 (EST)
The module is well structured. Xiei 16:09, 6 December 2007 (EST)
Additional Comments
Specific comments below Jansenj 15:03, 5 December 2007 (EST)
Page: 1 line 5 -- would be more specific on the user modeling. User modeling is a overloaded term, meaning a lot of things to a lot of folks. However, user modeling of online searching?Jansenj 15:03, 5 December 2007 (EST)
Line 8 -- add models also Jansenj 15:03, 5 December 2007 (EST)
Line 16 -- would not use the term 'understand' as there is not way to evaluate it. Maybe describe or investigate.Jansenj 15:03, 5 December 2007 (EST)
Line 16 -- how about mention of both quantitative and qualitative methods?Jansenj 15:03, 5 December 2007 (EST)
Line 19 -Don't understand what this line means.Jansenj 15:03, 5 December 2007 (EST)
Page: 2
Line 18 -- clues? Is that really the best term?Jansenj 15:03, 5 December 2007 (EST)
Line 26 -- For transaction log, they certainly need some database background or experience.Jansenj 15:03, 5 December 2007 (EST)
Page: 3
Line 8 -- this reference is not included belowJansenj 15:03, 5 December 2007 (EST)
Line 25 --Theoretical may be too strong. These three are descriptive models -- there is nothing predictive or inferential about them. Therefore, I do not believe that they should be called theories.Jansenj 15:03, 5 December 2007 (EST)
Models -- this an odd .... collection of models. Why these 3? It almost seems accidental (i.e., these are the first three bumped into.)Jansenj 15:03, 5 December 2007 (EST)
Page: 4
Line 6: This is an interesting study, but different from the rest as ti dealt with the Web and not specifically a DL. Why include this one and the dozens of others out there?Jansenj 15:03, 5 December 2007 (EST)
Page: 5
Line 18 -- Online environments is too broad as there are a lot of searching strategies not listed here.Jansenj 15:03, 5 December 2007 (EST)
Page: 6
Line 21 -- if you are looking for a reference for this, may I suggest Jansen, B. J. (2006) Search log analysis: What is it; what’s
been done; how to do it, Library and Information Science Research. 28(3), 407-432Jansenj 15:03, 5 December 2007 (EST)
Page: 8
Line 5: I really dislike the phrase Deep Log Analysis. It is nothing more than transaction log analysis, that has been done since 1967. I really would advise not to use this manuscript as a case study. There are several DL studies out there, include the original by Penniman (1975) and Meister and Sullivan (1967).Jansenj 15:03, 5 December 2007 (EST)
Page: 13
Lines 27 - 36: Again, I really take issue with the verbs such as 'understand' in a learning objective. See this article on writing of learning objectives. http://www.utmem.edu/grad/MISCELLANEOUS/Learning_Objectives.pdfJansenj 15:03, 5 December 2007 (EST)
