2002
DOI: 10.1002/meet.1450390122
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Separating the knowledge layers: Cognitive analysis of search knowledge through hierarchical goal decompositions

Abstract: Hierarchical goal decompositions have proved to be a useful method to make explicit the knowledge required by users to perform tasks in a wide range of applications such as computeraided drafting (CAD) systems. This analysis method progressively decomposes a given task starting from the task layer on the top of the decomposition, to the keystroke layer at the bottom. The analysis enables a close inspection of the knowledge required to perform the task at each layer of the decomposition. In this paper we show h… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2003
2003
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Discovery of differences in cognitive load for different task stages should not be surprising in view of previous research that examined complexity and the associated cognitive demands at the level of information display (e.g., Rosenholtz et al, 2007;Harper et al, 2009, presented in this section), and given our understanding of differences between task-stages (Dennis et al, 2002;Kim & Rieh, 2005). More generally, elements of search tactics and strategies involved in interactive information search (e.g., Bates, 1979;Belkin, Cool, Stein, & Thiel, 1995;Marchionini, 1995;Bhavnani & Bates, 2002;Xie, 2002) imply differences in cognitive effort as different tactics and strategies are employed; for example, query reformulation versus monitoring content for changes. It may be surprising, though, that relatively little attention has been given to the study of cognitive load at units shorter than a task.…”
Section: Cognitive Load On Information Tasksmentioning
confidence: 68%
“…Discovery of differences in cognitive load for different task stages should not be surprising in view of previous research that examined complexity and the associated cognitive demands at the level of information display (e.g., Rosenholtz et al, 2007;Harper et al, 2009, presented in this section), and given our understanding of differences between task-stages (Dennis et al, 2002;Kim & Rieh, 2005). More generally, elements of search tactics and strategies involved in interactive information search (e.g., Bates, 1979;Belkin, Cool, Stein, & Thiel, 1995;Marchionini, 1995;Bhavnani & Bates, 2002;Xie, 2002) imply differences in cognitive effort as different tactics and strategies are employed; for example, query reformulation versus monitoring content for changes. It may be surprising, though, that relatively little attention has been given to the study of cognitive load at units shorter than a task.…”
Section: Cognitive Load On Information Tasksmentioning
confidence: 68%
“…This formalization helps reveal why some users do not transition to use strategic knowledge. The cause of this is argued to be the qualitative difference of acquiring the strategic knowledge in the intermediate layer, where the user chooses what combination of commands to use to complete a task (Bhavnani & Bates, 2002;Bhavnani & John, 2000). Bhavnani's distinction of strategic knowledge is similar to Anderson's model of procedural knowledge.…”
Section: Acquisition Of Expertisementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The results revealed “the existence of domain‐specific search knowledge” (p. 611). In another study, Bhavnani and Bates (2002) used hierarchical goal decomposition to better understand the knowledge required to complete particular search tasks. Because each of these studies included only a small sample, many of the findings could as appropriately be attributed to individual differences as to level of domain knowledge.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%