Эффективные стратегии онлайн-поиска информации школьниками: от теоретической модели к технологиям формирования
Аннотация
Представлены критерии эффективности стратегии онлайн-поисковой активности, установленные путем сравнительного анализа характеристик интернет-среды, трудностей современных школьников в ее освоении и особенностей поисковых учебных заданий. Выявлено, что проблемными зонами у учащихся являются навыки фокусировки внимания, выделения существенной информации в процессе поиска и ее критической оценки. Показано, что качество онлайн-поиска существенно выше при проблемном (не предполагает однозначного ответа) поисковом задании. Предложена теоретическая модель онлайн-поисковой активности, в которой ключевым объектом педагогического воздействия является развитие метакогнитивных способностей у школьников. Подробно рассмотрены обучающие технологии повышения эффективности онлайн-поиска информации на основе метакогнитивных каркасов, которые дают возможность учащимся стать субъектом своей метакогнитивной активности благодаря навыкам рефлексии собственных эпистемологических убеждений.
Литература
- Wilson TD. Information seeking behaviour and the digital information world. European Science Editing. 2004;30(3):77–81.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Bogacheva NV, Sivak EV. Mify o «pokolenii Z» [Myths about «Generation Z»]. Moscow: HSE University; 2019. 56 p. Russian.
- Martsinkovskaya TD. [Information socialisation of adolescents]. Educational Policy. 2010;4:30–35. Russian.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Berkowitz RE, Eisenberg MB. Curriculum initiative: an agenda and strategy for library media programs. Norwood: Ablex; 1988. 196 p.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.