Swipe to navigate through the articles of this issue
Information discovery tasks using online search tools are performed on a regular basis by school-age children. However, these tools are not necessarily designed to both explicitly facilitate the retrieval of resources these young users can comprehend and aid low-literacy searchers. This is of particular concern for educational environments, as there is an inherent expectation that these tools facilitate effective learning. In this manuscript we present an initial assessment conducted over (1) children-oriented search tools based on queries generated by K-9 students, analyzing features such as readability and adequacy of retrieved results, and (2) tools used by teachers in their classrooms, analyzing their main purpose and target audience’s age range. Among the examined tools, we include YouUnderstood.Me, an enhanced search environment, which is the result of our ongoing efforts on the development of a search environment tailored to 5-15 year-olds that can foster learning through the retrieval of materials that not only satisfy the information needs of these users but also match their reading abilities. The results of these studies highlight the fact that search results presented to children have average reading levels that do not match the target audience. In addition, tools oriented to teachers do not go beyond showing the progress of their students, and seldomly provide a simple way of retrieving class contents that fit current needs of students. These facts further showcase the need for developing a dual environment oriented to both teachers and students.
Please log in to get access to this content
To get access to this content you need the following product:
Azpiazu, I. M., Dragovic, N., & Pera, M. S. (2016). Finding, understanding and learning: Making information discovery tasks useful for children and teachers. In Proceedings of the second international workshop on search as learning, SAL 2016, co-located with the 39th International ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, SIGIR 2016, Pisa, Italy, July 21, 2016.
Bennett, S., & Lockyer, L. (2004). Becoming an online teacher: Adapting to a changed environment for teaching and learning in higher education. Educational Media International, 41(3), 231–248. CrossRef
Bilal, D., & Boehm, M. (2013). Towards new methodologies for assessing relevance of information retrieval from web search engines on children’s queries. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries, 1, 93–100.
Bilal, D., & Ellis, R. (2011). Evaluating leading web search engines on children’s queries. In J.A. Jacko (Ed.), Human–computer interaction. Users and applications. HCI2011. Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 6764. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Bowey, J. A., Cain, M. T., & Ryan, S. M. (1992). A reading-level design study of phonological skills underlying fourth-grade children’s word reading difficulties. Child Development, 63(4), 999–1011. CrossRef
Chu, S. K.-W., & Law, N. (2008). The development of information search expertise of research students. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 40(3), 165–177. CrossRef
Chu, S. K. W., Tavares, N. J., Chu, D., Ho, S. Y., Chow, K., Siu, F. L. C., & Wong, M. (2012). Developing upper primary students 21st century skills: Inquiry learning through collaborative teaching and Web 2.0 technology. Hong Kong: Centre for Information Technology in Education, Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong.
Cole, R. W. (2008). Educating everybody’s children: Diverse teaching strategies for diverse learners. Alexandria: ASCD.
Collins-Thompson, K., Bennett, P. N., White, R. W., de la Chica, S., & Sontag, D. (2011). Personalizing web search results by reading level. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM international conference on information and knowledge management (CIKM) (pp. 403–412). ACM.
Crescenzi, A. (2016). Metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation in time-constrained in information search. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1647/SAL2016_paper_5.pdf.
Danby, S. (2013). Going online: Young children and teachers accessing knowledge through web interactions. Educating Young Children: Learning and Teaching in the Early Childhood Years, 19(3), 30.
Dragovic, N., Madrazo, I., & Pera, M. S. (2016). “Is sven seven?”: A search intent module for children. In Proceedings of the 36th international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval (SIGIR) (pp. 885–888).
Dragovic, N., Madrazo, I., & Pera, M. S. (2017). A multi-criteria strategy to recommend queries for children (under review)
Duarte Torres, S., Hiemstra, D., & Serdyukov, P. (2010). An analysis of queries intended to search information for children. In Proceedings of the 3rd symposium on information interaction in context (pp. 235–244). ACM.
Duarte Torres, S., & Weber, I. (2011). What and how children search on the web. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM international conference on information and knowledge management (pp. 393–402). ACM.
Eickhoff, C., Collins-Thompson, K., Bennett, P. N., & Dumais, S. (2013). Personalizing atypical web search sessions. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM international conference on web search and data mining (WSDM) (pp. 285–294).
Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32(3), 221. CrossRef
Freund, L., He, J., Gwizdka, J., Kando, N., Hansen, P., & Rieh, S. Y. (2014). Searching as learning (SAL) workshop 2014. In Proceedings of the 5th information interaction in context symposium IIiX ’14 (pp. 7–7). ACM.
Gossen, T. (2016). Search engines for children: Search user interfaces and information-seeking behaviour. Berlin: Springer.
Gossen, T., Hempel, J., & Nürnberger, A. (2013). Find it if you can: Usability case study of search engines for young users. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 17(8), 1593–1603. CrossRef
Gossen, T., Höbel, J., & Nürnberger, A. (2014). A comparative study about children’s and adults’ perception of targeted web search engines. In Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1821–1824). ACM.
Gossen, T., Kotzyba, M., & Nürnberger, A. (2015). Knowledge journey exhibit: Towards age-adaptive search user interfaces. In A. Hanbury, G. Kazai, A. Rauber, & N. Fuhr (Eds.), Advances in information retrieval. ECIR 2015. Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 9022. Cham: Springer.
Graham, L., & Metaxas, P. T. (2003). Of course it’s true; i saw it on the internet! Critical thinking in the internet era. Communications of the ACM, 46(5), 70–75. CrossRef
Greenhill, V. (2010). 21st century knowledge and skills in educator preparation. In Partnership for 21st century skills. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED519336.
Gwizdka, J., Hansen, P., Hauff, C., He, J., & Kando, N. (2016). Search as learning (SAL) workshop 2016. In Proceedings of the 39th international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval (SIGIR) (pp. 1249–1250). ACM.
Hammonds, L., Matherson, L. H., Wilson, E. K., & Wright, V. H. (2013). Gateway tools: Five tools to allow teachers to overcome barriers to technology integration. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 80(1), 36–40.
Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into k-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223–252. CrossRef
Huurdeman, H. C., & Kamps, J. (2015). Supporting the process: Adapting search systems to search stages. In S. Kurbanoglu, J. Boustany, S. Špiranec, E. Grassian, D. Mizrachi, & L. Roy (Eds.), Information literacy: Moving toward sustainability. Communications in computer and information science, vol. 552. Cham: Springer.
Jatowt, A., Akamatsu, K., Pattanasri, N., & Tanaka, K. (2012). Towards more readable web: Measuring readability of web pages based on link structure. SIGWEB Newsletter, 1–7.
Kabali, H. K., Irigoyen, M. M., Nunez-Davis, R., Budacki, J. G., Mohanty, S. H., Leister, K. P., & Bonner, R. L. (2015). Exposure and use of mobile media devices by young children. Pediatrics, 136(6), 1044–1050. CrossRef
Kammerer, Y., & Bohnacker, M. (2012). Children’s web search with google: The effectiveness of natural language queries. In proceedings of the 11th international conference on interaction design and children (pp. 184–187). ACM.
Kepple, M., Campbell, L. O., Hartshorne, R., & Herlihy, C. (2015). An introductory examination of factors influencing k-12 teachers perceptions and use of emerging technological tools in the classroom. In Proceedings of society for information technology & teacher education international conference (pp. 2154–2156).
Knight, S. (2014). Finding knowledge—what is it to ’know’ when we search? http://networkcultures.org/query/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2014/06/17.Simon_Knight.pdf.
Knight, S., & Mercer, N. (2015). The role of exploratory talk in classroom search engine tasks. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24(3), 303–319. CrossRef
Koesten, L., Kacprzak, E., & Tennison, J. (2016). Learning when searching for web data. In SAL@ SIGIR.
Kuhlthau, C. C., Maniotes, L. K., & Caspari, A. K. (2015). Guided inquiry: Learning in the 21st century: Learning in the 21st century. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.
Kuiper, E., Volman, M., & Terwel, J. (2005). The web as an information resource in k-12 education: Strategies for supporting students in searching and processing information. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 285–328. CrossRef
Lau, T., & Horvitz, E. (1999). Patterns of search: Analyzing and modeling web query refinement. In J. Kay (Ed.), UM99 user modeling. CISM International Centre for Mechanical Sciences (Courses and Lectures), vol. 407. Vienna: Springer.
Lennon, C., & Burdick, H. (2004). The lexile framework as an approach for reading measurement and success. https://cdn.lexile.com/cms_page_media/135/The%20Lexile%20Framework%20for%20Reading.pdf.
Leu, D. J., Forzani, E., Burlingame, C., Kulikowich, J., Sedransk, N., Coiro, J., & Kennedy, C. (2013). The new literacies of online research and comprehension: Assessing and preparing students for the 21st century with common core state standards (pp. 219–236). http://newliteracies.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/448/2014/07/Leu-D.J.-Forzani-E.-Burlingame-C.-Kulikowich-J.-Sedransk-N.-Coiro-J.-Kennedy-C..pdf.
Mc Laughlin, G. H. (1969). Smog grading—A new readability formula. Journal of Reading, 12(8), 639–646.
Ofcom. (2014). Children and parents: Media use and attitudes report. https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0027/76266/childrens_2014_report.pdf.
PLB. (2016). Learning by repetition: Does it work? Professional Learning Board. http://k12teacherstaffdevelopment.com/tlb/learning-by-repetition-does-it-work/.
Rideout, V., & Saphir, M. (2013). How do children reformulate their search queries? (Vol. 40). San Francisco: Common Sense Media.
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. CrossRef
Rieh, S. Y., Gwizdka, J., Freund, L., & Collins-Thompson, K. (2014). Searching as learning: Novel measures for information interaction research. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 51(1), 1–4.
Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., Williams, P., Huntington, P., Fieldhouse, M., Gunter, B., Withey, R., Jamali, H. R., Dobrowolski, T., & Tenopir, C. (2008). The google generation: The information behaviour of the researcher of the future. In Aslib proceedings (Vol. 60, pp. 290–310). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Rutter, S., Ford, N., & Clough, P. (2015). How do children reformulate their search queries? Information Research: An International Electronic Journal, 20(1), n1.
Sadaf, A., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2012). Exploring pre-service teachers’ beliefs about using web 2.0 technologies in k-12 classroom. Computers & Education, 59(3), 937–945. CrossRef
Shihab, M. M. (2009). Web 2.0 tools improve teaching and collaboration in high school English language classes. Nova Southeastern University.
Shin, T., Davison, M. L., Long, J. D., Chan, C.-K., & Heistad, D. (2013). Exploring gains in reading and mathematics achievement among regular and exceptional students using growth curve modeling. Learning and Individual Differences, 23, 92–100. CrossRef
Spache, G. (1953). A new readability formula for primary-grade reading materials. The Elementary School Journal, 53(7), 410–413. CrossRef
Spink, A., Danby, S., Mallan, K., & Butler, C. (2010). Exploring young children’s web searching and technoliteracy. Journal of Documentation, 66(2), 191–206. CrossRef
Syed, R., Collins-Thompson, K. (2016). Optimizing search results for educational goals: Incorporating keyword density as a retrieval objective. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1647/SAL2016_paper_21.pdf.
Top 5 safe search engines for kids to filter out adult contents from search results (2016). http://mashtips.com/search-engines-for-kids.
Theng, Y.-L., Lee, E. A., Chu, S. K.-W., Lee, C. W. Y., Chiu, M. M.-L., & Chan, R. C. (2016). Scaffolding in information search: Effects on less experienced searchers. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 48(2), 177–190. CrossRef
Ullrich, C., Borau, K., Luo, H., Tan, X., Shen, L., & Shen, R. (2008). Why web 2.0 is good for learning and for research: Principles and prototypes. In Proceedings of the 17th international conference on World Wide Web (WWW), (pp. 705–714). ACM.
Usta, A., Altingovde, I. S., Vidinli, I. B., Ozcan, R., & Ulusoy, Ö. (2014). How k-12 students search for learning? Analysis of an educational search engine log. In Proceedings of the 36th international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval (SIGIR) (pp. 1151–1154). ACM.
Valenza, J. K., Boyer, B. L., & Curtis, D. (2014). Curation platforms. Library Technology Reports, 50(7), 60.
Wall, L. K., & Pentz, R. D. (2016). Another look at the informed consent process: The document and the conversation. Cancer, 122(3), 352–354. CrossRef
Wang, H., He, X., Chang, M.-W., Song, Y., White, R. W., & Chu, W. (2013). Personalized ranking model adaptation for web search. In Proceedings of the 36th international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval (SIGIR) (pp. 323–332). ACM.
West, D. M. (2001). State and federal e-government in the United States. https://www.brown.edu/academics/taubmancenter/sites/brown.edu.academics.taubman-center/files/uploads/egovt03us(1).pdf.
Wilson, M. L., Ye, C., Twidale, M. B., Grasse, H., Rosenthal, J., & McKittrick, M. (2016). Search literacy: Learning to search to learn. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1647/SAL2016_paper_15.pdf.
Wu, D. T., Hanauer, D. A., Mei, Q., Clark, P. M., An, L. C., Proulx, J., et al. (2016). Assessing the readability of clinicaltrials.gov. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 23(2), 269–275. CrossRef
- Online searching and learning: YUM and other search tools for children and teachers
Ion Madrazo Azpiazu
Maria Soledad Pera
Jerry Alan Fails
- Publication date
- Springer Netherlands