1 / 17

Use of Online Information Tools in Academic Studies

Use of Online Information Tools in Academic Studies. Project investigators - Dr. Asim Qayyum - Dr. David Smith. Study Purpose and Significance.

stacey-curtis
Download Presentation

Use of Online Information Tools in Academic Studies

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Use of Online Information Tools in Academic Studies Project investigators - Dr. Asim Qayyum - Dr. David Smith

  2. Study Purpose and Significance The purpose of this project is to study the use of information tools in online learning environments of university students when they engage with course- related reading material. • To find distinct patterns of information behaviour in e-learning environments by investigating use, organization, and management of information tools by students in academic learning activities The results of this study will enhance our understanding of use of information tools by individuals e.g. videos, podcasts, social media (including blogs, wikis), search engines, and the information-seeking activities. • Assist in developing a distinct model of synergy between online technology use, learning behaviour, and assessment design.

  3. Methodology - Usability study • A mixed methods research design approach. • Study conducted in the Usability lab at CSU Wagga campus. • 10 student participants enrolled in a transition-to-university subject. • Undertook two tasks related to the subject during a usability session. • An eye tracker was used to capture eye movements on the screen. • A short retrospective interview was held to investigate how participants use information tools in assessment related work.

  4. USABILITY LAB

  5. Methodology - Tasks for Participants TASK #1 (15-20 minutes duration): Examine threewebsites of human service organizations that provide information on the selected human services. The objective will be to evaluate the websites of organisations that identify how your profession caters to the needs of people at specific developmental stages. The three websites will be: • The website of the organization you visited. • The website of the organisation that another student visited. • Search a similar organisation through a general internet search. Browse these three websites and answer the following questions in a word document: • In your opinion, which website was the best? Give two reasons to justify answer your answer. • What was the one best feature that you saw in these three websites? And why?

  6. Methodology - Tasks for Participants • TASK #2 (15-20 minutes duration): • Using the internet, search for a blog OR ashort video about your profession as it caters to the needs of the people. Choose one resource you think is the most helpful to you. Copy and paste the URL on a Word document and give it a rating from 1 to 10, with 1 being poor and 10 being excellent. • In one or two sentences, tell the reader: • Why did you choose this resource and gave it this rating? • How would you improve the resource you found?

  7. Findings – Task Reading Patterns

  8. Findings – Reading the Question Observations: • Of the 10 tasks observed by eye tracker, mostly the objectives and deliverables sections were carefully read (7 instances). Outcomes section was mostly skimmed in first reading (8 instances). • Participants spent on average around 30 seconds when reading task descriptions in the question for the first time • Approx 29 instances were noted where readers revisited the tasks description in question (2 participants dominated these stats). - 7 participants asked 25 questions from researchers during the sessions. • 3 participants verbalized their thoughts aloud while doing the work. - Only 3 instances noted when participants focused on keywords when reading the tasks

  9. Findings – Information Tools selection & usage Observations: • Popular tools mentioned for academic use: Google, Google Scholar, Wikipedia, YouTube • Facebook used mostly for course related interaction; generally not considered an academic tool • YouTube only used for how-to-do tasks, otherwise text is preferred. • Library catalogue used for book search, databases not used much as Google Scholar is preferred. • Actual use instances: Google - 43, YouTube – 5, Social Networking – 1, Discovered dept. Websites – 4, Blog – 1, Lib Cat – 0, Lib DBs - 0 • Most information tools are perceived to be easy to use • people are generally comfortable with their interfaces

  10. Findings – Google Usage Observations: • Most times, people barely read as they quickly go over the Google search results (skimmed) – 15 instances. • Seven people scanned - did not seem to read at all - before making a selection. • Only one instance of a person scrolling down beyond the first few Google results • Most people used targeted search or just picked a link from among the top most listed ones. • Two instances noticed of people giving up after not finding a desired link on the first page of search results. • None of the participants went to the second page.

  11. Findings – Searching and Browsing Behaviour • Only 3 instances of people opening Word/PDF documents • 2 instances of people going back to recently visited sites to fulfil new information requirements.

  12. Findings – WebsiteReading Behaviour Observations: • Mostly bouncing around (scanned) without seemingly reading anything on the website (51 instances) . • Only a few people read the top paragraphs (7 instances); • Only two instances of careful reading of some text at the bottom of the page also. • 14 instances of careful reading, and 13 instances of fast reading (skimming). • Only 2 instances of rereading. • Headings/titles almost always skimmed • Only one person slowly read a few headings. • Site navigation and menus: • 5 instances of scanning, 12 of skimming, and one of slow reading. • Most people scanned when revisiting a site (12 instances of going back). • Serendipity: One person got distracted by a link; read something totally unrelated.

  13. Findings – Photos & Videos Watching Behaviour • Observations: • A couple of participants were “visual learners”. Looked intently at faces in photographs and videos. • Mix of skim, scan, and watch for others. • Two participants watched full videos and 3 watched only partially.

  14. Findings – Matching Observed Behaviour with Final Answer - Only 2 instances of re-reading the question while forming a response.

  15. Findings – Answer Formation Behavior Observations: • 9 instances where people typed their entire response without revisiting any of the sites. • 3 instances of quick look-backs to websites to review some aspect they remembered. • 11 instances of going back to a website to seek justification for an answer being formed. Only one answer was revised after looking back. • 6 instances where people looked back, seemingly with purpose, to find an exact item. • 3 instances where an answer was formed after watching only partial videos. • 4 answers were formed even though the required topic/matter was not found!

  16. Next Steps – Future Research • Observe people in real world settings with real learning and assessment tasks • Observe people as they undertake academic tasks on mobile devices.

  17. Project team Dr. Asim Qayyum aqayyum@csu.edu.au Tel: +61 2 6933 2186 Dr. David Smith davismith@csu.edu.au Tel: +61 2 6051 9419 Research Assistant Dr. Joy McGregor jmcgregor@csu.edu.au

More Related