Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Scholarly communication Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.067 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.020 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".