skip to main content
research-article

Task-Based Information Interaction Evaluation: The Viewpoint of Program Theory

Published:17 March 2015Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Evaluation is central in research and development of information retrieval (IR). In addition to designing and implementing new retrieval mechanisms, one must also show through rigorous evaluation that they are effective. A major focus in IR is IR mechanisms’ capability of ranking relevant documents optimally for the users, given a query. Searching for information in practice involves searchers, however, and is highly interactive. When human searchers have been incorporated in evaluation studies, the results have often suggested that better ranking does not necessarily lead to better search task, or work task, performance. Therefore, it is not clear which system or interface features should be developed to improve the effectiveness of human task performance. In the present article, we focus on the evaluation of task-based information interaction (TBII). We give special emphasis to learning tasks to discuss TBII in more concrete terms. Information interaction is here understood as behavioral and cognitive activities related to task planning, searching information items, selecting between them, working with them, and synthesizing and reporting. These five generic activities contribute to task performance and outcome and can be supported by information systems. In an attempt toward task-based evaluation, we introduce program theory as the evaluation framework. Such evaluation can investigate whether a program consisting of TBII activities and tools works and how it works and, further, provides a causal description of program (in)effectiveness. Our goal in the present article is to structure TBII on the basis of the five generic activities and consider the evaluation of each activity using the program theory framework. Finally, we combine these activity-based program theories in an overall evaluation framework for TBII. Such an evaluation is complex due to the large number of factors affecting information interaction. Instead of presenting tested program theories, we illustrate how the evaluation of TBII should be accomplished using the program theory framework in the evaluation of systems and behaviors, and their interactions, comprehensively in context.

References

  1. A. Adler, A. Gujar, B. L. Harrison, K. O’Hara, and A. Sellen. 1998. A diary study of work-related reading: Design implications for digital reading devices. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’98). ACM/Addison-Wesley, New York, NY, 241--248. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. T. D. Anderson. 2006. Uncertainty in action: Observing information seeking within the creative processes of scholarly research. Inf. Res. 12, 1 (2006), Article 283.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. P. Arvola and J. Kekäläinen. 2010. Simulating user interaction in result document browsing. In Workshop Proceedings of the 33rd Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference: Simulation of Interaction, Automated Evaluation of Interactive IR. ACM, New York, NY, 27--28.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. P. Arvola, J. Kekäläinen, and M. Junkkari. 2010. Expected reading effort in focused retrieval evaluation. Inf. Retrieval 13, 5 (2010), 460--484. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. P. Arvola, J. Kekäläinen, and M. Junkkari. 2011. Contextualization models for XML retrieval. Inform. Process. Manage. 47, 5 (2011), 762--776. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. S. Attfield and J. Dowell. 2003. Information seeking and use by newspaper journalists. J. Doc. 59, 2 (2003), 187--204.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. C. L. Barry and L. Schamber. 1998. Users’ criteria for relevance evaluation: A cross-situational comparison. Inform. Process. Manage. 34, 2/3 (1998), 219--236. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. M. J. Bates. 1989. The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface. Online Inform. Rev. 13, 5 (1989), 407--424.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. M. J. Bates. 1990. Where should the person stop and the information search interface start? Inform. Process. Manage. 26, 5 (1990), 575--591. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. M. J. Bates. 2007. What is browsing—really? A model drawing from behavioural science research. Inf. Res. 12, 4 (2007), Article 330.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. N. J. Belkin. 1980. Anomalous states of knowledge as a basis for information retrieval. Can. J. Inform. Lib. Sci. 5 (1980), 133--143.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. N. J. Belkin. 2010. On the evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems. In The Janus Faced Scholar. A Festschrift in Honor of Peter Ingwersen. Det Informationsvidenskabelige Akademi (Royal School of Library and Information Science, Copenhagen); ISSI (International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics), Copenhagen, Denmark, 13--22.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. N. J. Belkin, R. Seeger, and G. Wersig. 1983. Distributed expert problem treatment as a model for information system analysis and design. J. Inform. Sci. 5 (1983), 153--167.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. E. S. Berner. 2007. Clinical Decision Support Systems. Springer, New York, NY. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. J. Biggs. 1988. The role of metacognition in enhancing learning. Aust. J. Educ. 32, 2 (1988), 127--138.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. A. Blandford and S. Attfield. 2010. Interacting with Information. Morgan and Claypool, San Rafael, CA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. B. S. Bloom, M. D. Engelhart, E. J. Furst, W. H. Hill, and D. R. Krathwohl. 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. David McKay, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. A. Bookstein. 1983. Information retrieval: A sequential learning process. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 34, 5 (1983), 331--342.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. C. L. Borgman. 1985. The user's mental model of an information retrieval system. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR’85). ACM, New York, NY, 268--273. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. P. Borlund. 2000. Experimental components for the evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems. J. Doc. 50, 1 (2000), 71--90.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. P. Borlund. 2003. The concept of relevance in IR. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 54, 10 (2003), 913--925. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. L. Bowler. 2010. A taxonomy of adolescent metacognitive knowledge during the information search process. Libr. Inform. Sci. Res. 32, 1 (2010), 27--42.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. M. Bron, J. van Gorp, F. Nack, M. de Rijke, A. Vishneuski, and S. de Leeuw. 2012. A subjunctive exploratory search interface to support media studies researchers. In Proceedings of the 35th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR’12). ACM, New York, NY, 425--434. doi:10.1145/2348283.2348342 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. K. R. Butcher, S. Davies, A. Crockett, A. Dewald, and R. Zheng. 2011. Do graphical search interfaces support effective search for and evaluation of digital library resources? In Proceedings of the 11th Annual International ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL’11). ACM, New York, NY, 315--324. doi:10.1145/1998076 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. K. Byström and P. Hansen. 2005. Conceptual framework for tasks in information studies. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 56, 10 (2005), 1050--1061. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. K. Byström and K. Järvelin. 1995. Task complexity affects information seeking and use. Inform. Process. Manage. 31, 2 (1995), 191--213. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. M. Carr, B. E. Kurtz, W. Schneider, L. A. Turner, and J. G. Borkowski. 1989. Strategy acquisition and transfer among German and American children: Environmental influences on metacognitive development. Dev. Psychol. 25, 5 (1989), 765--771.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. P. Checkland and S. Holwell. 1998. Action research: Its nature and validity. Syst. Pract. Act. Res. 11, 1 (1998), 9--21.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. C.-M. Chen and S.-T. Lin. 2014. Assessing effects of information architecture of digital libraries on supporting e-learning: A case study on the Digital Library of Nature & Culture. Comput. Educ. 75, 1 (2014), 92--102.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. C. Cool and N. J. Belkin. 2002. A classification of interactions with information. In Emerging Frameworks and Methods, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS4). Greenwood Village, CO, Libraries Unlimited, 1--15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. C. L. S. Coryn, L. A. Noakes, C. D. Westine, and D. C. Schröter. 2011. A systematic review of theory-driven evaluation practice from 1990 to 2009. Am. J. Eval. 32, 2 (2011), 199--226.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. E. Cosijn and P. Ingwersen. 2000. Dimensions of relevance. Inform. Process. Manage. 36, 4 (2000), 533--550. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. A. Dillon and D. Turnbull. 2005. Information architecture. In Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences (3rd ed.). 1, 1 (2005), 2361--2368.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. J. H. Flavell. 1979. Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. Am. Psychol. 34, 10 (1979), 906--911.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. L. Flower and J. R. Hayes. 1981. A cognitive process theory of writing. College Compos. Commun. 32, 4 (1981), 365--387.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. L. Freund, E. G. Toms, and C. L. A. Clarke. 2005. Modeling task-genre relationships for IR in the workplace. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR’05). ACM, New York, NY, 441--448. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. S. Goldman, K. Lawless, and F. Manning. 2013. Research and development of multiple source comprehension assessment. In Reading - From Words to Multiple Texts, M. A. Britt, S. R. Goldman, and J.-F. Rouet (Eds.). Routledge, New York, NY, 180--199.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. K. Halttunen and K. Järvelin. 2005. Assessing learning outcomes in two information retrieval learning environments. Inform. Process. Manage. 41, 4 (2005), 949--972. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. P. Hansen. 2011. Task-Based Information Seeking and Retrieval in the Patent Domain: Processes and Relationships. Acta Universitatis Tamperensis: 1631, Tampere University Press, Tampere, Finland.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. J. Heinström. 2005. Fast surfing, broad scanning and deep diving: The influence of personality and study approach on students’ information-seeking behavior. J. Doc. 61, 2 (2005), 228--247.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. J. Heinström. 2006. Fast surfing for availability or deep diving into quality—motivation and information seeking among middle and high school students. Inform. Res. 11, 4 (2006), Article 433.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. W. Hersh. 1994. Relevance and retrieval evaluation: Perspectives from medicine. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 45, 1 (1994), 201--206. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. W. Hersh, J. Pentecost, and D. Hickam. 1996. A task-oriented approach to information retrieval. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 47, 1 (1996), 50--56. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. R. Howard, T. Serviss, and T. Rodrigue. 2010. Writing from sources, writing from sentences. Writing and Pedagogy 2, 2 (2010), 177--192.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. S. Huuskonen and P. Vakkari. 2010. Client information system as an everyday information tool in child protection work. In Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Information Interaction in Context (IIiX’10). ACM, New York, NY, 3--12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. P. Ingwersen and K. Järvelin. 2005. The Turn: Integration of Information Seeking and Retrieval in Context. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. K. Järvelin. 2009. Explaining user performance in information retrieval: Challenges to IR evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on the Theory of Information Retrieval (ICTIR’09). Springer, Berlin, Germany, 289--296. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. K. Järvelin. 2011. Evaluation. In Interactive Information Seeking, Behaviour and Retrieval, I. Ruthven and D. Kelly (Eds.). Facet Publishing, London, UK, 113--138.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. M. G. Jones, J. D. Farquhar, and D. D. Surry. 1995. Using metacognitive theories to design user interfaces for computer-based learning. Educational Technol. 35, 4 (1995), 12--22.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. J. Kekäläinen, P. Arvola, and S. Kumpulainen. 2014. Browsing patterns in retrieved documents. In Proceedings of the 5th Information Interaction in Context Symposium (IIIX’14). ACM, New York, NY, 299--302. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. J. Kekäläinen and K. Järvelin. 2002. Evaluating information retrieval systems under the challenges of interaction and multi-dimensional dynamic relevance. In Proceedings of the 4th CoLIS Conference. Libraries Unlimited, Greenwood Village, CO, 253--270.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. C. Kiili, L. Laurinen, M. Marttunen, and D. J. Leu. 2012. Working on understanding during collaborative online reading. J. Literacy Res. 44, 4 (2012), 448--483.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. R. Kopak, L. Freund, and H. L. O’Brien. 2010. Supporting semantic navigation. In Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Information Interaction in Context (IIIX’10). ACM, New York, NY, 359--364. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. D. R. Krathwohl. 2002. A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory Pract. 41, 4 (2002), 212--264.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. C. Kuhlthau. 1991. Inside the search process. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 42, 5 (1991), 361--371.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. C. Kuhlthau. 1993. Seeking Meaning. Ablex, Norwood, NJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. C. Kuhlthau. 1999. The role of experience in the information search process of an early career information worker: Perceptions of uncertainty, complexity, construction, and sources. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 50, 5 (1999), 399--412. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. C. Kuhlthau and S. L. Tama. 2001. Information search process of lawyers: A call for ‘just for me’ information services. J. Doc. 57, 1 (2001), 25--43.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  59. S. Kumpulainen. 2013. Task-Based Information Access in Molecular Medicine: Task Performance, Barriers, and Searching Within a Heterogeneous Information Environment. Ph.D. Thesis, Tampere University Press, Acta Universitatis Tamperensis: 1879.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. S. Kumpulainen. 2014. Trails across the heterogeneous information environment: Manual integration patterns of search systems in molecular medicine. J. Doc. 70, 5 (2014), 856--877. doi: 10.1108/JD-06-2013-0082Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  61. S. Kumpulainen and K. Järvelin. 2010. Information interaction in molecular medicine: Integrated use of multiple channels. In Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Information Interaction in Context (IIiX’10). ACM, New York, NY, 95--104. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. S. Kumpulainen and K. Järvelin. 2012. Barriers to task-based information access in molecular medicine. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 63, 1 (2012), 86--97. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. Y. Li and N. Belkin. 2008. A faceted approach to conceptualizing tasks in information seeking. Inform. Process. Manage. 44, 6 (2008), 1822--1837. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. Y. Li and N. Belkin. 2010. An exploration of the relationships between work task and interactive information search behavior. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 61, 9 (2010), 1771--1789. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. Y. Li and C. P. Casanave. 2012. Two first-year students’ strategies for writing from sources: Patchwriting or plagiarism? J. Second Lang. Writing 21, 2 (2012), 165--180.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  66. J. Liu and N. Belkin. 2012. Searching vs. writing: Factors affecting information use task performance. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 49, 1 (2012), 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  67. C. Lucchese, S. Orlando, R. Perego, F. Silvestri, and G. Tolomei. 2011. Identifying task-based sessions in search engine query logs. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM’11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 277--286. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. G. Marchionini. 2006. Exploratory search: From finding to understanding. Commun. ACM 49, 4 (2006), 41--46. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  69. M. Markkula and E. Sormunen. 2006. Video needs at the different stages of television program making process. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Information Interaction in Context (IIiX’06). ACM, New York, NY, 111--118. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  70. C. C. Marshall. 2009. Reading and Writing the Electronic Book. Morgan and Claypool, San Rafael, CA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  71. M. Mateos and I. Solé. 2009. Synthesising information from various texts: A study of procedures and products at different educational levels. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 24, 4 (2009), 435--451.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  72. C. Monte-Sano and S. De La Paz. 2012. Using writing tasks to elicit adolescents’ historical reasoning. J. Lit. Res. 44, 3 (2012), 273--299.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  73. A. de Moor and M. Aakhus. 2006. Argumentation support: From technologies to tools. Commun. ACM 49, 3 (2006), 93--98. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  74. N. Moraveji, D. Russell, J. Bien, and D. Mease. 2011. Measuring improvement in user search performance resulting from optimal search tips. In Proceedings of the 34th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR’11). ACM, New York, NY, 355--364. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  75. D. C. Neale, J. M. Carroll, and M. B. Rosson. 2004. Evaluating computer-supported cooperative work: Models and frameworks. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’04). ACM, New York, NY, 112--121. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  76. D. W. Oard and J. Kim. 2001. Modeling information content using observable behavior. In Proceedings of the 64th Annual Conference of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (ASIST’01). 481--488.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  77. J. Pearson, G. Buchanan, and H. Thimbleby. 2013. Designing for Digital Reading. Morgan and Claypool, San Rafael, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  78. Y. Qu and G. Furnas. 2008. Model-driven evaluation of exploratory search: A study under sensemaking framework. Inf. Process. Manage. 44, 2 (2008), 534--555. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  79. P. J. Rogers, A. Petrosino, T. A. Huebner, and T. A. Hacsi. 2000. Program theory evaluation: Practice, promise, and problems. New Directions Eval. 87 (2000), 5--13.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  80. P. H. Rossi, M. W. Lipsey, and H. Freeman. 2004. Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  81. J.-F. Rouet. 2006. The Skills of Document Use: From Text Comprehension to Web-Based Learning. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  82. I. Ruthven. 2008. Interactive information retrieval. Annu. Rev. Inform. Sci. 42, 1 (2008), 43--91. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  83. I. Ruthven. 2012. Grieving online: The use of search engines in times of grief and bereavement. In Proceedings of the 4th Information Interaction in Context Symposium (IIIX’12). ACM, New York, NY, 120--129. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  84. M. Saastamoinen, S. Kumpulainen, and K. Järvelin. 2012. Task complexity and information searching in administrative tasks revisited. In Proceedings of the 4th Information Interaction in Context Symposium (IIIX’12). ACM, New York, NY, 204--213. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  85. T. Sakai and Z. Dou. 2013. Summaries, ranked retrieval and sessions: A unified framework for information access evaluation. In Proceedings of the 36th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR’13). ACM, New York, NY, 473--482. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  86. M. Sanderson. 2010. Test collection based evaluation of information retrieval systems. Foundations and Trends Inform. Retrieval 4, 4 (2010), 247--375.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  87. T. Saracevic. 1975. Relevance: A review of and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 26, 6 (1975), 321--343.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  88. T. Saracevic. 1996a. Modeling interaction in information retrieval (IR): A review and proposal. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science 33 (1996), 3--9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  89. T. Saracevic. 1996b. Relevance reconsidered ’96. In Information science: Integration in Perspectives. Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science. The Royal School of Librarianship, Copenhagen, DK, 201--218.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  90. G. Schraw. 1998. Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instruct. Sci. 26, 1--2 (1998), 113--125.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  91. M. Scriven. 1991. Evaluation Thesaurus (4th ed.). Sage, Newbury Park, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  92. R. Segev-Miller. 2004. Writing from sources: The effect of explicit instruction on college students’ processes and products. Educ. Stud. Lang. Lit. 4, 1 (2004), 5--33.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  93. C. Shah. 2012. Collaborative Information Seeking: The Art and Science of Making the Whole Greater Than the Sum of All. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  94. C. L. Smith and P. B. Kantor. 2008. User adaptation: Good results from poor systems. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR’08). ACM, New York, NY, 147--154. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  95. E. Sormunen and L. Lehtiö. 2011. Authoring Wikipedia articles as an information literacy assignment -- copy-pasting or expressing new understanding in one's own words? Inf. Res. 16, 4 (2011), Article 503.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  96. E. Sormunen, J. Heinström, L. Romu, and R. Turunen. 2012. A method for the analysis of information use in source-based writing. Inf. Res. 17, 4 (2012), Article 535.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  97. E. Sormunen, M. Tanni, T. Alamettälä, and J. Heinström. 2014. Students’ group work strategies in source-based writing assignments. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 65, 6 (2014), 1217--1231.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  98. N. N. Spivey 1997. The Constructivist Metaphor. Reading, Writing, and the Making of Meaning. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  99. L. Suchman. 1987. Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication. Cambridge University Press, New York. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  100. D. Swanson. 1977. Information retrieval as a trial-and-error process. Libr. Quart. 47, 2 (1977), 128--148.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  101. J. Tague and R. Schultz. 1988. Some measures and procedures for evaluation of the user interface in an information retrieval system. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR’88). ACM, New York, NY, 371--385. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  102. M. Tanni and E. Sormunen. 2008. A critical review of research on information behavior in assigned learning tasks. J. Doc. 64, 6 (2008), 893--914.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  103. R. Todd. 2006. From information to knowledge: Charting and measuring changes in students’ knowledge of a curriculum topic. Inf. Res. 11, 4 (2006), Article 264.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  104. A. Turpin and F. Scholer. 2006. User performance versus precision measures for simple search tasks. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR’06). ACM, New York, NY, 11--18. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  105. P. Vakkari. 1999. Task complexity, problem structure and information actions: Integrating studies on information seeking and retrieval. Inform. Process. Manage. 35, 6 (1999), 819--837. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  106. P. Vakkari. 2000. Relevance and contributing information types of searched documents in task performance. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR’00). ACM, New York, NY, 2--9. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  107. P. Vakkari. 2001a. A theory of the task-based information retrieval process: A summary and generalization of a longitudinal study. J. Doc. 57, 1 (2001), 44--60.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  108. P. Vakkari. 2001b. Changes in search tactics and relevance judgments in preparing a research proposal: A summary of findings of a longitudinal study. Inf. Retrieval 4, 3--4 (2001), 295--310. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  109. P. Vakkari. 2003. Task based information searching. Annu. Rev. Inform. Sci. 37, 1 (2003). Information Today, Medford, NJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  110. P. Vakkari. 2010. Exploratory searching as conceptual exploration. In Proceedings of 4th Workshop on Human-Computer Interaction and Information Retrieval. Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA, 24--27.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  111. P. Vakkari and N. Hakala. 2000. Changes in relevance criteria and problem stages in task performance. J. Doc. 56, 5 (2000), 540--562.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  112. P. Vakkari and S. Huuskonen. 2012. Search effort degrades search output but improves task outcome. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 63, 4 (2012), 657--670.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  113. P. Vakkari, M. Pennanen, and S. Serola. 2003. Changes of search terms and tactics while writing a research proposal. Inform. Process. Manage. 39, 3 (2003), 445--463. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  114. P. Wang and D. Soergel. 1998. A cognitive model of document use during a research project: Study I: Document selection. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 49, 2 (1998), 115--133. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  115. B. Wildemuth. 2004. The effects of domain knowledge on search tactic formulation. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 55, 3 (2004), 246--258. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  116. B. M. Wildemuth, R. de Bliek, C. P. Friedman, and D. D. File. 1995. Medical students’ personal knowledge, searching proficiency, and database use in problem solving. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 46, 8 (1995), 590--607. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  117. I. C. Wu, D. R. Lu, and P. C. Chang. 2008. Towards incorporating a task-stage identification technique into long-term document support process. Inform. Process. Manage. 44, 5 (2008), 1649--1672. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  118. I. Xie. 2008. Interactive Information Retrieval in Digital Environments. IGI, New York, NY. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  119. H. Zaugg, R. E. West, I. Tateishi, and D. L. Randall. 2011. Mendeley: Creating communities of scholarly inquiry through research collaboration. TechTrends 55, 1 (2011), 32--36.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Task-Based Information Interaction Evaluation: The Viewpoint of Program Theory

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        • Published in

          cover image ACM Transactions on Information Systems
          ACM Transactions on Information Systems  Volume 33, Issue 1
          Special Issue on Contextual Search and Recommendation
          March 2015
          148 pages
          ISSN:1046-8188
          EISSN:1558-2868
          DOI:10.1145/2737806
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Copyright © 2015 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 17 March 2015
          • Revised: 1 November 2014
          • Accepted: 1 November 2014
          • Received: 1 March 2014
          Published in tois Volume 33, Issue 1

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader