1 Introduction

1.1 Searching as Learning: Overview

Searching for information is a fundamental human activity. In the modern world, it is frequently conducted by users interacting with online search systems (e.g., web search engines), or more formally, Information Retrieval (IR) systems. As early as in 1980, Bertam Brookes, in his ‘fundamental equation’ of information and knowledge, had stated that an information searcher’s current state of knowledge is changed to a new knowledge structure by exposure to information (Brookes, 1980, p. 131). This indicates that searchers acquire new knowledge in the search process, and the same information will have different effects on different searchers’ knowledge states. Fifteen years later, Marchionini (1995) described information seeking as “a process, in which humans purposefully engage in order to change their state of knowledge”. Thus, we have known for quite a while that search is driven by higher-level human needs, and IR systems are a means to an end, and not the end in itself. Interactive information retrieval (IIR), a.k.a. human-computer information retrieval (HCIR) (Marchionini, 2006) refers to the study and evaluation of users’ interaction with IR systems and users’ satisfaction with the retrieved information (Borlund, 2013).

Despite their technological marvels, modern IR systems falls short in several aspects of fully satisfying the higher level human need for information. In essence, IR systems are software that take, as input, some query, and return as output some ranked list of resources.

Within the context of information seeking, (search engines and IR systems) feel like they play a prominent role in our lives, when in actuality, they only play a small role: the retrieval part of information …

  • Search engines don’t help us identify what we need – that’s up to us; search engines don’t question what we ask for, though they do recommend queries that use similar words.

  • Search engines don’t help us choose a source – though they are themselves a source, and a heavily marketed one, so we are certainly compelled to choose search engines over other sources, even when other sources might have better information.

  • Search engines don’t help us express our query accurately or precisely – though they will help with minor spelling corrections.

  • Search engines do help retrieve information—this is the primary part that they automate.

  • Search engines don’t help us evaluate the answers we retrieve – it’s up to us to decide whether the results are relevant, credible, true; Google doesn’t view those as their responsibility.

  • Search engines don’t help us sensemake – we have to use our minds to integrate what we’ve found into our knowledge.

Ko (2021)

In recent years, the IIR research community has been actively promoting the Search as Learning (SAL) research direction. This fast-growing community of researchers propose that search environments should be augmented and reconfigured to foster learning, sensemaking, and long-term knowledge-gain. Various workshops and seminars have been organized to develop research agendas at the interaction of IIR and the Learning Sciences (Agosti et al., 2014; Allan et al., 2012; Collins-Thompson et al., 2017; Freund et al., 2013, 2014; Gwizdka et al., 2016). Additionally, special issues on Search as Learning have also been published in the Journal of Information Science (Hansen & Rieh, 2016) and in the Information Retrieval Journal (Eickhoff et al., 2017). Articles in these special issued presented landmark literature reviews (Rieh et al., 2016; Vakkari, 2016), research agendas, and ideas in this direction. Overall, these works generally advocate that future research in this domain should aim to:

  • understand the contexts in which people search to learn
  • understand factors that can influence learning outcomes
  • understand how search behaviours can predict learning outcomes
  • develop search systems to better support learning and sensemaking
  • help searchers be more critical consumers of information
  • understand the cognitive biases fostered by existing search systems
  • develop search engine ranking algorithms and interface tools that foster long term knowledge gain

Parallelly, the Educational Science and the Learning Science research communities have also been organizing workshops and formulating research agendas to conceptualize forms of ‘new learning’ (Cope & Kalantzis, 2013; Kalantzis & Cope, 2012; New London Group, 1996) that are afforded by innovations in digital technologies and e-learning ecologies (Cope & Kalantzis, 2017). Higher education researchers have been increasingly studying how students’ information search and information use behaviour affect and support their learning (Weber et al., 2018, 2019; Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia et al., 2021). Efforts are underway to conceptualize a theoretical framework around new forms of e-Learning that is aided and afforded by digital technologies (Amina, 2017; Cope & Kalantzis, 2017). In the community’s own words: “learning today is more about navigation, discernment, induction, and synthesis” of the wide body of information present ubiquitously at every student’s fingertips (Amina, 2017). Therefore, “knowing the source, finding the source, and using the information aptly is important to learn and know now more than ever before” (Cope & Kalantzis, 2013). All of these interests in the intersection of searching and learning goes to emphasize that understanding learning during search is critical to improve human-information interaction.

1.2 Problem Statement

A major limitation in the area of Search as Learning, Interactive IR (IIR), and more broadly, in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) research is that, the user is examined in the short-term, typically over the course of a single experimental session in a lab (Karapanos et al., 2021; Kelly et al., 2009; Koeman, 2020; Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia et al., 2021). Very few studies exist in the search-as-learning domain that have observed the same participant over a longer period of time than a single search session (Kelly, 2006a, 2006b; Kuhlthau, 2004; Vakkari, 2001a; White et al., 2009; Wildemuth, 2004). This ephemeral approach has acute implications in any domain where learning is involved because “learning is a process that leads to change in knowledge … (which) unfolds over time” (Ambrose et al., 2010), and “…does not happen all at once” (White, 2016b).

To the best of the author’s knowledge, almost no new longitudinal studies were reported in major search-as-learning literature in the last five years, that systematically studied students’ information search behaviour and information-use over the long term, in their in-situ naturalistic environment and contexts, and linked those behaviours quantitatively to the students’ learning outcomes and individual differences.

Higher education students are increasingly using the Internet as their main learning environment and source of information when studying. Yet, the short term nature of research in this domain creates significant gaps in our knowledge regarding how students’ information search behaviour and information use develop over time, and how it affects their learning (Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia et al., 2021).

When research in this area relies so heavily on (short-term) lab studies, can we realistically say we are comprehensively studying human-tech interactions – when many of those interactions take place over long periods of time in real-world contexts? … An over-reliance on short studies risks inaccurate findings, potentially resulting in prematurely embracing or disregarding new concepts.

Koeman (2020)

Current search engines and information retrieval systems “do not help us know what we want to know, …do not help us know if what we’ve found is relevant or true; and they do not help us make sense of the retrieved information. All they do is quickly retrieve what other people on the internet have shared” (Ko, 2021). Unless we have more long-term understanding of the nature of knowledge gain during search, the limitations of current search systems will continue to persist. Increased knowledge and understanding of students’, and more broadly searchers’, information searching and learning behaviour over time will help us to overcome the limitations of current IR systems, and transform them into rich learning spaces where “search experiences and learning experiences are intertwined and even synergized” (Rieh, 2020). The internet and digital educational technologies offer great opportunities to transform learning and the education experience. Enabled by our increased comprehension of the longitudinal searching-as-learning process, improved and validated by empirical data, we can create a new wave of fundamentally transformative educational technologies and “e-learning ecologies, that will be more engaging for learners, more effective (than traditional classroom practices), more resource efficient, and more equitable in the face of learner diversity” (Cope & Kalantzis, 2017).

1.3 Purpose of this Dissertation

To address the gaps in our knowledge of how information searching influences students’ learning process over time, this dissertation conducted a semester-long longitudinal study (approx. 16 weeks) with university student participants. The overarching research aim is to identify how students’ online searching behaviour correlate with their learning outcomes for a particular university course. Building upon principles from the Learning Sciences (Ambrose et al., 2010; National Research Council, 2000; Novak, 2010; Sawyer, 2005), and empirical evidences from the Information Sciences (Rieh et al., 2016; Vakkari, 2016; White, 2016a), this dissertation aimed at:

  • situating students as learners in their naturalistic contexts, and characterized by their individual differences
  • measuring students’ information search and information use behaviour over time
  • correlating the information search behaviour with the learning outcomes for the university course

Learning, or addressing a gap in one’s knowledge, has been well established as an important motivator behind information-seeking activities Section 1.1. Therefore, search systems that support rapid learning across a number of searchers, and a range of tasks, can be considered as more effective search systems (White, 2016a, p. 310). This dissertation takes a step in this direction. “It opens great expectations for many-sided, great contribution to our knowledge on the relations between search process and learning outcomes” (anonymous reviewer for Bhattacharya, 2021).

1.4 Outline

This dissertation document is structured as follows. First, principles of learning and relevant background from the domain of Educational Sciences are presented in Chapter 2. Next, relevant empirical evidences from the Information Searching Literature are discussed in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 presents the research questions, and discusses their rationale in the context of the existing research gaps. Chapter 5 describes the research methods, specifically the longitudinal study design and experimental procedures. Chapter 6 and 7 presents the data analyses framework, results, and discussions of the findings the study. Chapter 8 places the findings in terms of the research questions introduced in Chapter 4. Finally, Chapter 9 presents the conclusion, limitations, and future work.

References

Agosti, M., Fuhr, N., Toms, E., & Vakkari, P. (2014). Evaluation methodologies in information retrieval dagstuhl seminar 13441. ACM SIGIR Forum, 48, 36–41.
Allan, J., Croft, B., Moffat, A., & Sanderson, M. (2012). Frontiers, challenges, and opportunities for information retrieval: Report from SWIRL 2012 the second strategic workshop on information retrieval in lorne. ACM SIGIR Forum, 46, 2–32.
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching. John Wiley & Sons.
Amina, T. (2017). Active knowledge making: Epistemic dimensions of e-learning. In E-learning ecologies (pp. 65–87). Routledge.
Bhattacharya, N. (2021). A longitudinal study to understand learning during search. Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval, 363–366.
Borlund, P. (2013). Interactive Information Retrieval: An Introduction. Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice, 1(3), 12–32. https://doi.org/10.1633/JISTAP.2013.1.3.2
Brookes, B. C. (1980). The foundations of information science. Part i. Philosophical aspects. Journal of Information Science, 2(3-4), 125–133.
Collins-Thompson, K., Hansen, P., & Hauff, C. (2017). Search as learning (dagstuhl seminar 17092). Dagstuhl Reports, 7.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2013). Towards a New Learning: The Scholar Social Knowledge Workspace, in Theory and Practice. E-Learning and Digital Media, 10(4), 332–356. https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2013.10.4.332
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2017). E-Learning Ecologies: Principles for New Learning and Assessment. Taylor & Francis.
Eickhoff, C., Gwizdka, J., Hauff, C., & He, J. (2017). Introduction to the special issue on search as learning. Information Retrieval Journal, 20(5), 399–402.
Freund, L., Gwizdka, J., Hansen, P., Kando, N., & Rieh, S. Y. (2013). From searching to learning. Evaluation Methodologies in Information Retrieval. Dagstuhl Reports, 13441, 102–105.
Freund, L., He, J., Gwizdka, J., Kando, N., Hansen, P., & Rieh, S. Y. (2014). Searching as learning (SAL) workshop 2014. Proceedings of the 5th Information Interaction in Context Symposium, 7–7.
Gwizdka, J., Hansen, P., Hauff, C., He, J., & Kando, N. (2016). Search as learning (SAL) workshop 2016. Proceedings of the 39th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 1249–1250.
Hansen, P., & Rieh, S. Y. (2016). Editorial: Recent advances on searching as learning: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of Information Science, 42(1), 3–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551515614473
Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2012). New Learning: Elements of a Science of Education. Cambridge University Press.
Karapanos, E., Gerken, J., Kjeldskov, J., & Skov, M. B. (Eds.). (2021). Advances in Longitudinal HCI Research. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67322-2
Kelly, D. (2006a). Measuring online information seeking context, Part 1: Background and method. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(13), 1729–1739. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20483
Kelly, D. (2006b). Measuring online information seeking context, Part 2: Findings and discussion. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(14), 1862–1874. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20484
Kelly, D., Dumais, S., & Pedersen, J. O. (2009). Evaluation challenges and directions for information-seeking support systems. IEEE Computer, 42(3).
Ko, A. J. (2021). Seeking information. In Foundations of Information. https://faculty.washington.edu/ajko/books/foundations-of-information/#/seeking
Koeman, L. (2020). HCI/UX research: What methods do we use? – lisa koeman – blog. https://lisakoeman.nl/blog/hci-ux-research-what-methods-do-we-use/.
Kuhlthau, C. C. (2004). Seeking meaning: A process approach to library and information services (Vol. 2). Libraries Unlimited Westport, CT.
Marchionini, G. (1995). Information Seeking in Electronic Environments. Cambridge University Press.
Marchionini, G. (2006). Toward human-computer information retrieval. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 32(5), 20–22.
National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school: Expanded edition. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9853
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92.
Novak, J. D. (2010). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations (2nd ed). Routledge.
Rieh, S. Y. (2020). Research area 1: Searching as learning. https://rieh.ischool.utexas.edu/research.
Rieh, S. Y., Collins-Thompson, K., Hansen, P., & Lee, H.-J. (2016). Towards searching as a learning process: A review of current perspectives and future directions. Journal of Information Science, 42(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551515615841
Sawyer, R. K. (2005). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge University Press.
Vakkari, P. (2001a). Changes in search tactics and relevance judgements when preparing a research proposal a summary of the findings of a longitudinal study. Information Retrieval, 4(3), 295–310.
Vakkari, P. (2016). Searching as learning: A systematization based on literature. Journal of Information Science, 42(1), 7–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551515615833
Weber, H., Becker, D., & Hillmert, S. (2019). Information-seeking behaviour and academic success in higher education: Which search strategies matter for grade differences among university students and how does this relevance differ by field of study? Higher Education, 77(4), 657–678. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0296-4
Weber, H., Hillmert, S., & Rott, K. J. (2018). Can digital information literacy among undergraduates be improved? Evidence from an experimental study. Teaching in Higher Education, 23(8), 909–926. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1449740
White, R. (2016a). Interactions with search systems. Cambridge University Press.
White, R. (2016b). Learning and use. In Interactions with search systems (pp. 231–248). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139525305.010
White, R., Dumais, S., & Teevan, J. (2009). Characterizing the influence of domain expertise on web search behavior. Proceedings of the Second ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining - WSDM ’09, 132. https://doi.org/10.1145/1498759.1498819
Wildemuth, B. M. (2004). The effects of domain knowledge on search tactic formulation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(3), 246–258. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10367
Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., Hartig, J., Goldhammer, F., & Krstev, J. (2021). Students’ online information use and learning progress in higher education A critical literature review. Studies in Higher Education, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021.1953336