Is searching self efficacy related to search performance?

1. Is searching self efficacy related to search performance? A study of University students’ Web information searching strategies MarioleniParissis,parisima@upatras.gr Nikolaos Tselios, nitse@ece.upatras.gr Vassilis Komis,komis@upatras.gr University of Patras, Department of Educational Sciences and Early Childhood Education, Patras, Greece

2. Plan presentation • Background • Research objectives • Methodology • Method of study • Procedure • Search task • Instruments • Findings • Conclusions and implications WORKSHOP IFIP'2010

3. Background 1/3 • People very often in their daily life face information problems (ip) • activities that demand people • to recognize the information they need and • to be able to locate, • evaluate, • and use effectively (Walraven et al., 2008) • Studies on the information problem solving (ips) fall into two categories with the focus on: • the process of information problem solving (ips) • the use of Internet and search engines WORKSHOP IFIP'2010

4. Background 2/3 • Fournier & Loiselle (2009) reached the following conclusions on the students information problem solving (ips): • they do not develop a plan • they prefer to use search engines rather than directories, • rarely construct searches using Boolean logic and • usually look at the search engine’s results that appear at the top • People of all ages and with different skills during the ips, face problems (Walraven et al., 2008): • the utilization of keywords in search engines • the evaluation of the search results and • the proper organization of the actual search procedure WORKSHOP IFIP'2010

5. Background 3/3 • Jenkins et al. (2003) indicated that there are two distinct types of patterns of information seeking on the Web based on the user’s experience: • a breadth-first and • a depth-first search • Holscher and Strube (2000) noted that: • experienced web users tend to use two times the number of search keywords compared to novice users, • don’t to have any difficulty when employing Boolean logic but face problems when having to search for information with specific-domain knowledge they lack WORKSHOP IFIP'2010

6. Research objectives The objectives of our study were: • Examination of the correlations between the perceived result confidence, perceived satisfaction and the effectiveness of the search processes developed for the completion of the activity • Investigation of the relationship between the participants’ search engine self efficacy and the effectiveness of the expressed search actions • Identification of students’ search strategies while performing a given information task in accordance with their search engine self efficacy WORKSHOP IFIP'2010

7. Method of study Case study • 107 University students of the Early Childhood Educational Sciences Department of the University of Patras participated • 19-21 years old (1 male, 106 females) • they attended two compulsory courses concerning the introduction and integration of ICT in Education during the academic year 2008-2009 WORKSHOP IFIP'2010

8. Procedure • The research procedure consisted of: • the student’s experimental session that involved a task completion • the completion of a questionnaire • referring to the participants self efficacy related to the use of ICT and basic Internet services and demographic characteristics • They had 30 minutes to complete the given task • It took place at the Department’s computer lab WORKSHOP IFIP'2010

9. Search task • The task given was closely related with the subject of the two courses in which the research was conducted • The students had to answer to a question regarding the history of the Internet: • When and where did the idea of a large number of interconnected computers initially came up? WORKSHOP IFIP'2010

10. Instruments • Implementation of the research process • an activity sheet • a questionnaire • using the Web service Survey Monkey • Data collection • the software Wrapper • used to collect participants’ log files and • a tool developed from our research group (Ict in Education) for data preprocessing of the user’s log files. • Analysis of data • SPSS (17.0) WORKSHOP IFIP'2010

11. Results 1/5 • 51.02% of the students managed to find the right answer, 27.55% gave a wrong answer while 21.43% did not give any answer to the question • the participants’ mean time to complete the task was 11 minutes and 32 seconds (SD= 312 sec) • the mean number of searches performed by the students was 13.03 (SD=10.8) • the mean number of Web sites they visited during the Web search was 22.6 (SD=16.8) WORKSHOP IFIP'2010

12. Results 2/5 Table 1: Spearman correlations between representative participants’ variables Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (*) or at the 0.01 level (**). WORKSHOP IFIP'2010

13. Results 3/5 • Students were separated in three groups based on reported self-efficacy in Internet search engines, reported to the questionnaire: • students who seem to consider themselves as moderately capable users (22.4%) • who consider themselves as capable users (46.9%) • as very capable usersof search engines (30.61%). WORKSHOP IFIP'2010

14. Results 4/5 Participants Searching Strategies Table 2: Student’s information searching strategies

15. Results 5/5 • Students seem to commit errors and have misconceptions while employing information searching strategies • they used the same keywords in more than one search attempt • they did not attempt to use a Boolean operator other than “AND”, • which often was erroneously typed • they also have misconceptions about the way the search engines work • students (18.37%) seem to believe that search engines are capable of interpreting the semantics of the queries they formulate WORKSHOP IFIP'2010

16. Conclusions 1/2 • No correlation between participants' search engine self efficacy and task performance was revealed • Student’s self efficacy and satisfaction are related with their expressed task performance • The strategies used to execute a search were: a combination of multiple keywords, use of logical operators, use of natural language, use of natural language in quotations marks and use of the exact question given in the task description • No significant differences in the information search strategies used by the students according to their reported search engine self efficacy on using were shown WORKSHOP IFIP'2010

17. Conclusions 2/2 • The strategy mostly used by the students while attempting to find the required information was the use of multiple keywords • The participants seem to lack knowledge of how to use search engines while seeking specific information • limited use of logical operators and other logical expressions by the students • errors in the expression the Boolean operators • difficulties when choosing keywords and phrases • there is a need to the design of effective didactical situations (Walraven et al., 2008). WORKSHOP IFIP'2010

18. Implications Further research goals are: • The identification of patterns formulation queries in search engines used by the students • The derivation of appropriate instructional design schemes • proper learning activities should contain suitable cognitive conflicts and should be presented through students’ everyday information needs • in order to contribute to the deeper acquiring of relevant competencies WORKSHOP IFIP'2010

19. References • Fournier, H. and Loiselle, J. (2009) Les strategies de recherche et de traitement de l’information des futurs enseignants dans des environnements informatiques. International Journal of Technologies in Higher Education, 6, 18−−29. • Holscher, C. and Strube, G. (2000) Web search behavior of Internet experts and newbies. Computer Networks, 33, 337−−346. • Jenkins, C., Corritore, C. L. and Wiedenbeck, S. (2003) Patterns of information seeking on the web: A qualitative study of domain expertise and web expertise. IT and Society, 1, 64−−89. Marchionini, G. (2003) Information Seeking in Electronic Environments. Cambridge University Press, New York. • Walraven, A., Brand-Gruwel, S. and Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2008) Information problem-solving: A review of problems students encounter and instructional solutions. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 623−−648. WORKSHOP IFIP'2010

20. Thank you for your attention! MarioleniParissis,parisima@upatras.gr Nikolaos Tselios, nitse@ece.upatras.gr VassilisKomis,komis@upatras.gr University of Patras, ICT in Education