MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2776892005 · doi:10.18438/b8z66s

In the Growing Information Mall, Some Things Never Change

2017· article· en· W2776892005 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hailley Fargo

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Information Literacy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEleventhPopulationClass (philosophy)The InternetMathematics educationPsychologyThink aloud protocolLibrary scienceWorld Wide WebSociologyComputer scienceDemographyPhysicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Review of:
 Fidel, R., Davies, R. K., Douglass, M. H., Holder, J. K., Hopkins, C. J., Kushner, E. J.,…. Toney, C. D. (1999). A visit to the information mall: Web searching behavior of high school students. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(1), 24-37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(1999)50:13.0.CO;2-W 
 
 Abstract
 
 Objective – The research study aimed to discover high school students’ information searching behaviour on the Web and suggest Web changes that would benefit student learning. This study was conducted in 1999, seven years after the Internet was publicly available and on the cusp of Web 2.0.
 
 Design – Field study with class observations, students thinking aloud at their terminals, and interviews with the students after their searching. The study’s duration was three class searching sessions. 
 
 Setting – West Seattle High School in Seattle, Washington. This school had a diverse population of students, with 50% students of color and many of these students first generation to finish high school. Due to a grant from Microsoft, West Seattle had operational four computer labs. 
 
 Subjects – Eleventh and twelfth graders in a horticulture class. There were eight student participants, six males and two females. Five of these students were in 12th grade and three were in 11th grade. The teacher for this class, the school librarian, and the principal of West Seattle High School were also interviewed for this project. 
 
 Methods – Qualitative, case-study method was used with controlled comparison. Team members observed the students while they searched and wrote down descriptions of the students’ searching methods. After the three observation sessions and interviews with the students, team members wrote up a case study for each student. The students’ think-aloud audio, along with all the interviews conducted, were recorded. This type of method can be considered an early version of usability testing and user experience studies, a field that has grown tremendously since 1999. 
 
 Main Results – While each student observed had a different relationship with the Web and training on how to use it, similar searching strategies emerged from all participants. These strategies included focused searching, swift and flexible searching when results were not immediately found, using a webpage as a landmark to return to while searching, starting a new search, and asking for help when needed. It should be noted that focused searching along with the swift, flexible searching were strategies influenced by student motivation to complete their homework assignment as quickly as possible. The team noted exploration of the Web was kept to a minimum and this was due to the parameters of the assignment. Team members also identified similar frustrations and joys from the students when searching the Web. The study identified three steps that should be taken to help students more effectively navigate the Web. The steps included an increase in formal teaching on Web searching, embedded support in the Web to help students search, and relying on graphics to strengthen a Web experience. 
 
 Conclusion – Authors noted the possibilities the World Wide Web has to offer, especially in a school context. However, in order to fully maximize those possibilities, the Web needs to take into account user experiences and information seeking behaviour, along with an increase in training on how to use the Web.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaScholarly communication
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.998
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Scholarly communication

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Theoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeSame topicLibrary Science and Information LiteracyCategoryScholarly communicationFrench-language works237,207