学习型搜索中用户信息源选择和使用策略研究
|
摘要
网络信息体量的激增,信息质量的参差不齐使用户利用搜索系统获取信息、增长知识面临巨大的挑战。在用户开展搜索的过程中,对于信息的选择和使用,很大程度上依赖于该信息的来源。本研究采用实验法,围绕不同的学习层面设计搜索任务,重点关注用户在信息源选择和使用过程中,类型分布上发生的变化,从而识别不同用户所采取的信息源策略的本质,并探索用户的策略与学习效果间的关系。研究发现,用户对自身选择阅读的信息源的依赖程度要高于对系统提供的用户可获得的信息源的依赖程度。根据对可获得的和自身选择的信息源的依赖程度不同,用户存在四种不同的信息源策略:全依赖型、非依赖型、选择依赖性和使用依赖型。并且,用户的信息源策略对学习效果有一定的影响,在接受性学习任务中采取非依赖型策略的用户,与在评价性学习任务中采取全依赖型策略的用户,搜索后能够获得更好的学习效果。这一发现有助于深入理解用户在信息源选择和使用过程中的相关特征,以便优化搜索系统能够在用户搜索过程的信息源获取、选择或使用阶段所存在的问题提供精准高效的帮助,实现学习效果的提升。
With the volume of information increasing and online quality in question, it becomes more difficult for users to acquire appropriate information that satisfies their needs and enriches their knowledge by using search engines. When searching, users information selection and subsequent use depend largely on information sources. A user experiment was conducted in order to design two kinds of tasks, one related to receptive learning and the other to critical learning. This study focused on the differences in the distribution of information source types during the users process of source selection and use. It also explored the relationship between users information source strategies and their learning outcomes. The re‐sults showed that users were more dependent on the information sources they ultimately selected rather than those recom‐mended by search engines. According to the degree of dependence, four types of information source strategies were identi‐fied: total dependence, non-dependence, selective dependence, and use-dependence. We also found that users information source strategies had significant impact on learning outcomes. Users adopting non-dependent strategies for receptive learn‐ing-related tasks, as well as those adopting total dependence strategies for critical learning-related tasks, could achieve bet‐ter learning outcomes. This study contributes by clarifying the characteristics of users information sources during selection and subsequent use in order to optimize search engine systems to improve users learning outcomes by providing accurate and efficient guidance.
With the volume of information increasing and online quality in question, it becomes more difficult for users to acquire appropriate information that satisfies their needs and enriches their knowledge by using search engines. When searching, users information selection and subsequent use depend largely on information sources. A user experiment was conducted in order to design two kinds of tasks, one related to receptive learning and the other to critical learning. This study focused on the differences in the distribution of information source types during the users process of source selection and use. It also explored the relationship between users information source strategies and their learning outcomes. The re‐sults showed that users were more dependent on the information sources they ultimately selected rather than those recom‐mended by search engines. According to the degree of dependence, four types of information source strategies were identi‐fied: total dependence, non-dependence, selective dependence, and use-dependence. We also found that users information source strategies had significant impact on learning outcomes. Users adopting non-dependent strategies for receptive learn‐ing-related tasks, as well as those adopting total dependence strategies for critical learning-related tasks, could achieve bet‐ter learning outcomes. This study contributes by clarifying the characteristics of users information sources during selection and subsequent use in order to optimize search engine systems to improve users learning outcomes by providing accurate and efficient guidance.
引文
[1]Zhang Y,Sun Y,Kim Y.The influence of individual differences on consumer's selection of online sources for health information[J].Computers in Human Behavior,2017,67:303-312.
[2]Chi Y,He D,Han S,et al.What sources to rely on:Laypeople’s source selection in online health information seeking[C]//Pro-ceedings of the Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval.New York:ACM Press,2018:233-236.
[3]王芳,张鑫,翟羽佳.国内外信息源选择研究述评及一个整合的理论模型[J].中国图书馆学报,2017,43(2):96-116.
[4]王芳,张鑫.国内外信息源选择研究进展[M]//中国国防科学技术信息学会.情报学进展:第12卷(2016-2017年度评论).北京:国防工业出版社,2018:192-216.
[5]Allan J,Croft B,Moffat A,et al.Frontiers,challenges,and oppor-tunities for information retrieval:Report from SWIRL 2012 the second strategic workshop on information retrieval in Lorne[J].ACM SIGIR Forum,2012,46(1):2-32.
[6]Agosti M,Fuhr N,Toms E,et al.Evaluation methodologies in in-formation retrieval(Dagstuhl Seminar 13441)[J].ACM SIGIRForum,2014,48(1):36-41.
[7]Rieh S Y,Gwizdka J,Freund L,et al.Searching as learning:Nov-el measures for information interaction research[J].Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,2014,51(1):1-4.
[8]Gwizdka J,Hansen P,Hauff C,et al.Search as learning(SAL)workshop 2016[C]//Proceedings of the 39th International ACMSIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval.New York:ACM Press,2016:1249-1250.
[9]布鲁纳.教育过程[M].邵瑞珍,译.北京:文化教育出版社,1982.
[10]Rieh S Y,Collins-Thompson K,Hansen P,et al.Towards search-ing as a learning process:A review of current perspectives and fu-ture directions[J].Journal of Information Science,2016,42(1):19-34.
[11]Marchionini G.Exploratory search:From finding to understand-ing[J].Communications of the ACM,2006,49(4):41-46.
[12]Anderson L W,Krathwohl D A.A taxonomy for learning,teach-ing,and assessing:A revision of Bloom.s taxonomy of education-al objectives[M].Boston:Pearson Press,2000.
[13]Jansen B J,Booth D,Smith B.Using the taxonomy of cognitive learning to model online searching[J].Information Processing&Management,2009,45(6):643-663.
[14]Wu W C,Kelly D,Edwards A,et al.Grannies,tanning beds,tat-toos and NASCAR:Evaluation of search tasks with varying lev-els of cognitive complexity[C]//Proceedings of the 4th Informa-tion Interaction in Context Symposium.New York:ACM Press,2012:254-257.
[15]Lee H J,Lee J,Makara K A,et al.Does higher education foster critical and creative learners?An exploration of two universities in South Korea and the USA[J].Higher Education Research&Development,2015,34(1):131-146.
[16]Kim K S,Sin S C J.Selecting quality sources:Bridging the gap between the perception and use of information sources[J].Journal of Information Science,2011,37(2):178-188.
[17]Xie I,Joo S.Selection of information sources:Accessibility of and familiarity with sources,and types of tasks[J].Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,2015,46(1):1-18.
[18]Tennant B,Stellefson M,Dodd V,et al.eHealth literacy and Web2.0 health information seeking behaviors among baby boomers and older adults[J].Journal of Medical Internet Research,2015,17(3):e70.
[19]邓胜利,付少雄,刘瑾.任务情境下青年人网络健康信息资源选择的群体差异研究[J].图书情报工作,2017,61(22):98-106.
[20]Zhang Y.College students’uses and perceptions of social net-working sites for health and wellness information[J].Information Research,2011,17(3):paper 523.
[21]Zhang Y.Beyond quality and accessibility:Source selection in consumer health information searching[J].Journal of the Ameri-can Society for Information Science and Technology,2014,65(5):911-927.
[22]李月琳,胡玲玲.投资者信息行为分析:信息源的选择与利用研究[J].情报资料工作,2012(4):90-97.
[23]李月琳,闫希敏.大学毕业生就业信息搜寻行为研究:信息源的选择与利用[J].图书情报知识,2015(5):57-65.
[24]Hemminger B M,Lu D,Vaughan K T L,et al.Information seek-ing behavior of Academic scientists[J].Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,2014,58(14):2205-2225.
[25]甘春梅,李玥.社交媒体作为信息源:使用偏好、使用原因与判断依据[J].信息资源管理学报,2016,6(3):44-49.
[26]Agarwal N K,Xu Y,Poo D C C.A context-based investigation in-to source use by information seekers[J].Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,2011,62(6):1087-1104.
[27]Sarka S,Wang Y,Shah C.Investigating relations of information seeking outcomes to the selection and use of information sources[J].Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology,2017,54(1):347-356.
[28]Liu C,Song X.How do information source selection strategies in-fluence users’learning outcomes?[C]//Proceedings of the 2018Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval.New York:ACM Press,2018:257-260.
[29]J?rvelin K,Vakkari P,Arvola P,et al.Task-based information in-teraction evaluation:The viewpoint of program theory[J].ACMTransactions on Information Systems,2015,33(1):Article No.3.
[30]Kullback S,Leibler R A.On information and sufficiency[J].An-nals of Mathematical Statistics,1951,22(1):79-86.
[31]宋筱璇,刘畅.搜索前后用户知识水平的评估及其变化情况分析[J].图书情报工作,2018,62(2):108-116.
[32]Bloom B S,Engelhart M D,Furst E J,et al.Taxonomy of educa-tional objectives:The classification of educational goals.Hand-book I:Cognitive domain[M].New York:David McKay Compa-ny,1956.
[2]Chi Y,He D,Han S,et al.What sources to rely on:Laypeople’s source selection in online health information seeking[C]//Pro-ceedings of the Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval.New York:ACM Press,2018:233-236.
[3]王芳,张鑫,翟羽佳.国内外信息源选择研究述评及一个整合的理论模型[J].中国图书馆学报,2017,43(2):96-116.
[4]王芳,张鑫.国内外信息源选择研究进展[M]//中国国防科学技术信息学会.情报学进展:第12卷(2016-2017年度评论).北京:国防工业出版社,2018:192-216.
[5]Allan J,Croft B,Moffat A,et al.Frontiers,challenges,and oppor-tunities for information retrieval:Report from SWIRL 2012 the second strategic workshop on information retrieval in Lorne[J].ACM SIGIR Forum,2012,46(1):2-32.
[6]Agosti M,Fuhr N,Toms E,et al.Evaluation methodologies in in-formation retrieval(Dagstuhl Seminar 13441)[J].ACM SIGIRForum,2014,48(1):36-41.
[7]Rieh S Y,Gwizdka J,Freund L,et al.Searching as learning:Nov-el measures for information interaction research[J].Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,2014,51(1):1-4.
[8]Gwizdka J,Hansen P,Hauff C,et al.Search as learning(SAL)workshop 2016[C]//Proceedings of the 39th International ACMSIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval.New York:ACM Press,2016:1249-1250.
[9]布鲁纳.教育过程[M].邵瑞珍,译.北京:文化教育出版社,1982.
[10]Rieh S Y,Collins-Thompson K,Hansen P,et al.Towards search-ing as a learning process:A review of current perspectives and fu-ture directions[J].Journal of Information Science,2016,42(1):19-34.
[11]Marchionini G.Exploratory search:From finding to understand-ing[J].Communications of the ACM,2006,49(4):41-46.
[12]Anderson L W,Krathwohl D A.A taxonomy for learning,teach-ing,and assessing:A revision of Bloom.s taxonomy of education-al objectives[M].Boston:Pearson Press,2000.
[13]Jansen B J,Booth D,Smith B.Using the taxonomy of cognitive learning to model online searching[J].Information Processing&Management,2009,45(6):643-663.
[14]Wu W C,Kelly D,Edwards A,et al.Grannies,tanning beds,tat-toos and NASCAR:Evaluation of search tasks with varying lev-els of cognitive complexity[C]//Proceedings of the 4th Informa-tion Interaction in Context Symposium.New York:ACM Press,2012:254-257.
[15]Lee H J,Lee J,Makara K A,et al.Does higher education foster critical and creative learners?An exploration of two universities in South Korea and the USA[J].Higher Education Research&Development,2015,34(1):131-146.
[16]Kim K S,Sin S C J.Selecting quality sources:Bridging the gap between the perception and use of information sources[J].Journal of Information Science,2011,37(2):178-188.
[17]Xie I,Joo S.Selection of information sources:Accessibility of and familiarity with sources,and types of tasks[J].Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,2015,46(1):1-18.
[18]Tennant B,Stellefson M,Dodd V,et al.eHealth literacy and Web2.0 health information seeking behaviors among baby boomers and older adults[J].Journal of Medical Internet Research,2015,17(3):e70.
[19]邓胜利,付少雄,刘瑾.任务情境下青年人网络健康信息资源选择的群体差异研究[J].图书情报工作,2017,61(22):98-106.
[20]Zhang Y.College students’uses and perceptions of social net-working sites for health and wellness information[J].Information Research,2011,17(3):paper 523.
[21]Zhang Y.Beyond quality and accessibility:Source selection in consumer health information searching[J].Journal of the Ameri-can Society for Information Science and Technology,2014,65(5):911-927.
[22]李月琳,胡玲玲.投资者信息行为分析:信息源的选择与利用研究[J].情报资料工作,2012(4):90-97.
[23]李月琳,闫希敏.大学毕业生就业信息搜寻行为研究:信息源的选择与利用[J].图书情报知识,2015(5):57-65.
[24]Hemminger B M,Lu D,Vaughan K T L,et al.Information seek-ing behavior of Academic scientists[J].Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,2014,58(14):2205-2225.
[25]甘春梅,李玥.社交媒体作为信息源:使用偏好、使用原因与判断依据[J].信息资源管理学报,2016,6(3):44-49.
[26]Agarwal N K,Xu Y,Poo D C C.A context-based investigation in-to source use by information seekers[J].Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,2011,62(6):1087-1104.
[27]Sarka S,Wang Y,Shah C.Investigating relations of information seeking outcomes to the selection and use of information sources[J].Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology,2017,54(1):347-356.
[28]Liu C,Song X.How do information source selection strategies in-fluence users’learning outcomes?[C]//Proceedings of the 2018Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval.New York:ACM Press,2018:257-260.
[29]J?rvelin K,Vakkari P,Arvola P,et al.Task-based information in-teraction evaluation:The viewpoint of program theory[J].ACMTransactions on Information Systems,2015,33(1):Article No.3.
[30]Kullback S,Leibler R A.On information and sufficiency[J].An-nals of Mathematical Statistics,1951,22(1):79-86.
[31]宋筱璇,刘畅.搜索前后用户知识水平的评估及其变化情况分析[J].图书情报工作,2018,62(2):108-116.
[32]Bloom B S,Engelhart M D,Furst E J,et al.Taxonomy of educa-tional objectives:The classification of educational goals.Hand-book I:Cognitive domain[M].New York:David McKay Compa-ny,1956.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |