Understanding the “Pathway” Towards a Searcher’s Learning Objective

Abstract

Search systems are often used to support learning-oriented goals. This trend has given rise to the “search-as-learning” movement, which proposes that search systems should be designed to support learning. To this end, an important research question is: How does a searcher’s type of learning objective (LO) influence their trajectory (or pathway ) toward that objective? We report on a lab study (N = 36) in which participants gathered information to meet a specific type of LO. To characterize LOs and pathways , we leveraged Anderson and Krathwohl’s (A&K’s) taxonomy [ 3 ]. A&K’s taxonomy situates LOs at the intersection of two orthogonal dimensions: (1) cognitive process (CP) (remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create) and (2) knowledge type (factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge). Participants completed learning-oriented search tasks that varied along three CPs (apply, evaluate, and create) and three knowledge types (factual, conceptual, and procedural knowledge). A pathway is defined as a sequence of learning instances (e.g., subgoals) that were also each classified into cells from A&K’s taxonomy. Our study used a think-aloud protocol, and pathways were generated through a qualitative analysis of participants’ think-aloud comments and recorded screen activities. We investigate three research questions. First, in RQ1, we study the impact of the LO on pathway characteristics (e.g., pathway length). Second, in RQ2, we study the impact of the LO on the types of A&K cells traversed along the pathway. Third, in RQ3, we study common and uncommon transitions between A&K cells along pathways conditioned on the knowledge type of the objective. We discuss implications of our results for designing search systems to support learning.

Types of domain and task‐solving information in media scholars' data interaction

“…In their study about search tactics in solving how‐to technical tasks, Rutter et al (2019) found that participants were able to find procedural information that was relevant but not necessarily useful in solving the task. Furthermore, Urgo and Arguello (2022) discovered that performing search tasks with procedural objectives required more creating compared to factual and conceptual objectives.…”