Effective strategies for online information search by schoolchildren: from a theoretical model to formation technologies

  • Anastasia V. Miklyaeva Herzen University, 48 Moika Embankment, Saint Petersburg 191186, Russia
  • Svetlana A. Bezgodova Herzen University, 48 Moika Embankment, Saint Petersburg 191186, Russia
  • Ekaterina A. Yumkina b St. Petersburg University, 7/9 Universitetskaya Embankment, Saint Petersburg 199034, Russia

Abstract

The article presents the criteria for the effectiveness of the strategy of online search activity, which are formulated on the basis on a comparative analysis of the characteristics of the Internet environment, problem areas of modern schoolchildren, and features of search learning tasks. It has been established that the problem areas for students are the skills of focusing attention, highlighting essential information in the process of searching and critically evaluating it. It is shown that the quality of online search is significantly higher with a problematic (not implying an unambiguous answer) search task. A theoretical model of online search activity is proposed, in which the key target of pedagogical influence is the development of schoolchildren’s metacognitive abilities. Learning technologies for increasing the efficiency of online information retrieval based on metacognitive frameworks are considered in detail. As a result of using these technologies, students develop the skills to reflect on their epistemological beliefs and become subjects of their metacognitive activity.

Author Biographies

Anastasia V. Miklyaeva, Herzen University, 48 Moika Embankment, Saint Petersburg 191186, Russia

doctor of science (psychology), docent; associate professor at the department of general and social psychology, institute of psychology

Svetlana A. Bezgodova, Herzen University, 48 Moika Embankment, Saint Petersburg 191186, Russia

PhD (psychology), docent; associate professor at the department of general and social psychology, institute of psychology

Ekaterina A. Yumkina, b St. Petersburg University, 7/9 Universitetskaya Embankment, Saint Petersburg 199034, Russia

PhD (psychology); senior lecturer at the department of social psychology, faculty of psychology

References

  1. Wilson TD. Information seeking behaviour and the digital information world. European Science Editing. 2004;30(3):77–81.
  2. Bhavnani SK, Drabenstott K, Radev D. Towards a unified framework of IR tasks and strategies. Proceedings of the ASIST Annual Meeting. 2001;38:340–354.
  3. Sharit J, Taha J, Berkowsky RW, Profita H, Czaja SJ. Online information search performance and search strategies in a health problem – solving scenario. Journal of cognitive engineering and decision making. 2015;9(3):211–228. DOI: 10.1177/1555343415583747.
  4. Graesser AC, Wiley J, Goldman SR, O’Reilly T, Jeon M, McDaniel B. SEEK Web tutor: fostering a critical stance while exploring the causes of volcanic eruption. Metacognition and Learning. 2007;2(2–3):89–105. DOI: 10.1007/s11409-007-9013-x.
  5. Frumkin KG. Clip thinking and the fate of a linear text. Topos [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2020 January 30];9. Available from: http://www.topos.ru/article/7371. Russian.
  6. Hope A. Internet pollution discourses, exclusionary practices and the ‘culture of over-blocking’ within UK schools. Technology, Pedagogy and Education. 2008;17(2):103–113. DOI: 10.1080/14759390802098599.
  7. Iyengar SS, Lepper MR. When choice is demotivating: сan one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2000;79(6):995–1006. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.995.
  8. Kurt AA, Emiroğlu BG. Analysis of students’ online information searching strategies, exposure to Internet information pollution and cognitive absorption levels based on various variables. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2020 January 30];6(1):18–29. Available from: https://mojet.net/index.php/mojet/article/view/118.
  9. Hargittai E, Fullerton L, Menchen-Trevino E, Thomas KY. Trust online: young adults’ evaluation of web content. International Journal of Communication [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2020 January 30];4(1):468–494. Available from: https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/636/423.
  10. Hunt A, Gentzkow M. Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 2017;31(2):211–236. DOI: 10.1257/jep.31.2.211.
  11. Loos E, Ivan L, Leu D. «Save the Pacific Northwest tree octopus»: а hoax revisited. Or: how vulnerable are school children to fake news? Information and Learning Sciences. 2018;119(9–10):514–528. DOI: 10.1108/ILS-04-2018-0031.
  12. Schacter J, Chung GKWK, Dorr A. Children’s internet searching on complex problems: performance and process analyses. Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 1998;49(9):840–849. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-4571(199807)49:9<840::aidasi9>3.0.co;2-d.
  13. Hämäläinen EK, Kiili C, Marttunen M, Räikkönen E, González-Ibáñez R, Leppänen PHT. Promoting sixth graders’ credibility evaluation of web pages: an intervention study. Computers in Human Behavior [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 January 30];110. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0747563220301254?via%3Dihub. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106372.
  14. Tseng Shengсhau, Liang Jyhсhong, Tsai Chinсhung. Students’ self-regulated learning, online information evaluative standards and online academic searching strategies. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2020 January 30];30(1):106–121. Available from: https://ajet.org.au/index.php/AJET/article/view/242. DOI: 10.14742/ajet.242.
  15. Bowler L. A taxonomy of adolescent metacognitive knowledge during the information search process. Library & Information Science Research. 2010;32(1):27–42. DOI: 10.1016/j.lisr.2009.09.005.
  16. Gerjets P, Kammerer Y, Werner B. Measuring spontaneous and instructed evaluation processes during web search: integrating concurrent thinking-aloud protocols and eye-tracking data. Learning and Instruction. 2011;21:220–231. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.02.005.
  17. Berezovskaya IP. The problem of methodological substantiation of the concept «clip thinking». St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University Journal. Humanities and Social Sciences. 2015;2:133–138. Russian. DOI: 10.5862/JHSS.220.15.
  18. Belozerova LA, Polyakov SD. Transformation of the cognitive sphere of children of «digital generation»: experience analysis. Izvestiya of Saratov University. Educational Acmeology. Developmental Psychology. 2021;10(1):23–32. Russian.
  19. Bogacheva NV, Sivak EV. Mify o «pokolenii Z» [Myths about «Generation Z»]. Moscow: HSE University; 2019. 56 p. Russian.
  20. Martsinkovskaya TD. [Information socialisation of adolescents]. Educational Policy. 2010;4:30–35. Russian.
  21. Miklyaeva AV, Bezgodova SA. «Clip mind» in the structure of the style characteristics in students’ cognitive activity: results of the experimental study. Yaroslavl Pedagogical Bulletin. 2017;5:223–227. Russian.
  22. Wildemuth B, Freund L, Toms EG. Untangling search task complexity and difficulty in the context of interactive information retrieval studies. Journal of Documentation. 2014;70(6):1118–1140. DOI: 10.1108/JD-03-2014-0056.
  23. Sünkler S, Lewandowski D. Does it matter which search engine is used? A user study using post-task relevance judgments. In: Erdelez, S, Agarwal N, editors. 80th Association for Information Science and Technology annual meeting. Diversity of engagement: connecting people and information in the physical and virtual worlds. Proceedings of the 80th Annual meeting of the Association of Information Science and Technology. Volume 54; 27 October – 1 November 2017; Washington, USA. Crystal City: Association for Information Science and Technology; 2017. p. 405–414. DOI: 10.1002/pra2.2017.14505401188.
  24. Walhout J, Oomen P, Jarodzka H, Brand-Gruwel S. Effects of task complexity on online search behavior of adolescents. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2020 January 30];68(6):1449–1461. Available from: https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/asi.23782. DOI: 10.1002/asi.23782.
  25. Qu Peng, Liu Chang, Lai Maosheng. The effect of task type and topic familiarity on information search behaviors. In: Belkin NJ, Kelly D, editors. IIiX 2010: information interaction in context symposium; 2010 August 18–20; New Brunswick, USA. New York: Association for Computing Machinery; 2010. p. 371–376. DOI: 10.1145/1840784.1840841.
  26. Bezgodova SA, Miklyaeva AV. Interest and awareness as factors mediating the content of online search queries made by schoolchildren when they are doing simple and problem-oriented training assignments. RUDN Journal of Psychology and Pedagogics. 2022;19(2):367–381. Russian. DOI: 10.22363/2313-1683-2022-19-2-367-381.
  27. Bezgodova SA, Miklyaeva AV. Strategies for online information search as an object of psychological research: a theoretical model. Izvestia: Herzen University Journal of Humanities & Sciences. 2020;197:96–112. Russian.
  28. Flavell JH. Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive – developmental inquiry. American Psychologist. 1979;34(10):906–911. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906.
  29. Zhou Mingming, Kelly Ka Lai Lam. Metacognitive scaffolding for online information search in K-12 and higher education settings: a systematic review. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2019;67(6):1353–1384.
  30. Berkowitz RE, Eisenberg MB. Curriculum initiative: an agenda and strategy for library media programs. Norwood: Ablex; 1988. 196 p.
  31. Wolf SE, Brush T, Saye J. Using an information problem-solving model as a metacognitive scaffold for multimedia-supported information-based problems. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 2003;35(3):321–341.
  32. Molenaar I, van Boxtel C, Sleegers P. Metacognitive scaffolding in an innovative learning arrangement. Instructional Science. 2011;39(6):785–803. DOI:10.1007/s11251-010-9154-1.
  33. Huertas-Bustos A, López-Vargas O, Sanabria-Rodríguez L. Effect of a metacognitive scaffolding on information web search. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2020 January 30];16(2):91–106. Available from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1199450.pdf.
  34. Mason L, Boldrin A, Ariasi N. Epistemic metacognition in context: evaluating and learning online information. Metacognition Learning. 2010;5:67–90. DOI: 10.1007/s11409-009-9048-2.
  35. Whitmire E. Epistemological beliefs and the information-seeking behavior of undergraduates. Library & Information Science Research. 2003;25(2):127–142. DOI: 10.1016/S0740-8188(03)00003-3.
  36. Tu Yiwen, Shih Meilun, Tsai Chinсhung. Eighth graders’ web searching strategies and outcomes: the role of task types, web experiences and epistemological beliefs. Computers & Education. 2008;51(3):1142–1153. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.11.003.
  37. Tsai Peishan, Tsai Chinchung, Hwang Gwojen. The correlates of Taiwan teachers’ epistemological beliefs concerning Internet environments, online search strategies, and search outcomes. The Internet and Higher Education. 2011;14(1):54–63. DOI: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.03.003.
  38. Hofer BK. Epistemological understanding as a metacognitive process: thinking aloud during online searching. Educational Psychologist. 2004;39(1):43–55. DOI: 10.1207/s15326985ep3901_5.
  39. Quintana C, Zhang Meilan, Krajcik J. Framework for supporting metacognitive aspects of online inquiry through software-based scaffolding. Educational Psychologist. 2005;40(4):235–244.
Published
2023-11-07
Keywords: online search strategies, online search theoretical model, metacognitive skills, epistemological beliefs
Supporting Agencies The research was performed with finantial support of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (project No. 19-29-14005).
Issue
No 1 (2023): University pedagogical journal
Section
Methodics and Modern Educational Technologies