Desde el trabajo a la ocupación significativa

Future work could be done to investigate whether different projects would affect students’ choice of their collaboration way at different stages. One participant in our study had project requirements that were very different from requirements in other fields. Face-to-face meetings played a more important role in their collaboration. It’s worthy to explore whether and how the content of project would affect collaborative search process.

Some participants mentioned grouping with familiar classmates would make their experience better, especially at the initiation and selection stage, which indicates social factors might affect how students collaborate. Further research could be conducted on what and how social factors play roles in student group projects.

Also, this qualitative study mainly focuses on collaboration and technologies with no or little regard to emotional feelings. A quantitative study could be conducted on how their collaboration search process would affect their emotional feelings towards the whole project to see whether some collaboration ways are more efficient than others.

6 Conclusion

An exploratory study was conducted with UNC graduate students to find out how students search for information collaboratively for their student projects. We conducted a qualitative analysis for semi-structured interviews and discussed three research questions: 1) What kind of collaboration have students used at different stages of CIS process? 2) What roles do technologies play in control, communication, and awareness of CIS? 3) What kind of user roles occurs during their collaboration?

The result indicates that both classic and digital collaboration occurs in the whole process. There is usually at least one classic face-to-face meeting at the initiation stage and selection stage. Then either classic meetings or digital messages or both would occur on the exploration stage. There might be little collaboration during the formulation stage and more digital collaboration at the collection stage. Both the classic way and digital collaboration would occur at the last presentation stage.

Technology helps a lot in the whole process, including group text messaging tools, email service, cooperative work tools, video conferencing tools, project

management tools, research assistants and educational platforms. Group text messaging tools and cooperative work tools are the most prevalent tools.

We found evidence of the four user roles identified by Karen, Kari, and Bruce (2011) occurring in the project based on our analysis of the results. The supportive

enabler play an important part in the whole process. The free rider might occur in some groups which would affect their coordination experience.

Future work could be done to investigate whether different projects would affect students’ choice of their collaboration way at different stages and whether social factors would affect group experience. Emotional feelings could be taken into consideration for further study.

Appendix A: Interview Guide

1. Would you mind showing me the instruction for that project on the class? 2. What are the main goals and the project?

3. What kinds of information are you looking for? 4. Is there any one you turn to besides the Internet? 5. How long did the project take?

Part 3: Wrap-up

1. Were you satisfied with the searching and collaboration of aspects of the project? Why or why not?

2. Thanks for your participation. Is there anything else you would like to add?

Bibliography

1. Preben Hansen and Kalervo Jarvelin. Collaborative information retrieval in an information- intensive domain. Information Processing and Management, 41:1101–1119, 2005.

2. Gene Golovchinsky, Jeremy Pickens and Maribeth Back. A taxonomy of

collaboration in online information seeking. In Proceedings of JCDL 2008 Workshop on Collaborative Exploratory Search, Pittsburgh, PA, June 2008. 3. Hyldegård, J. (2006). Collaborative information behaviour––exploring Kuhlthau’s

Information Search Process model in a group-based educational setting. Information processing & management, 42(1), 276-298.

4. Williams, K. C., Morgan, K., & Cameron, B. A. (2011). How do students define their roles and responsibilities in online learning group projects?. Distance Education, 32(1), 49-62.

5. Kelly, R., & Payne, S. J. (2014, February). Collaborative web search in context: a study of tool use in everyday tasks. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing (pp. 807-819). ACM.

6. Shah, C. (2013). Effects of awareness on coordination in collaborative

information seeking. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(6), 1122-1143.

7. Shah, C. (2014). Collaborative information seeking. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(2), 215-236.

8. Shah, C. (2010). Collaborative information seeking: A literature review. Advances in librarianship, 32(2010), 3-33.

9. McNeese, N. J., & Reddy, M. C. (2017). The role of team cognition in collaborative information seeking. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(1), 129-140.

10.Tao, Y., & Tombros, A. (2017). How collaborators make sense of tasks together: A comparative analysis of collaborative sensemaking behavior in collaborative information-seeking tasks. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(3), 609-622.

11.Shah, C. (2009). Toward collaborative information seeking (CIS). arXiv preprint arXiv:0908.0709.

12.Leeder, C., & Shah, C. (2016). Collaborative information seeking in student group projects. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 68(5), 526-544. 13.Shah, C., & Marchionini, G. (2010). Awareness in collaborative information

seeking. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(10), 1970-1986.

14.Toze, S., & Toms, E. G. (2010, September). Examining group work: Implications for the digital library as Sharium. In International Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries (pp. 282-293). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

15.Saleh, M., Lazonder, A. W., & De Jong, T. (2005). Effects of within-class ability grouping on social interaction, achievement, and motivation. Instructional Science, 33(2), 105-119.

16.Muukkonen, H., Lakkala, M., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). Technology-mediation and tutoring: How do they shape progressive inquiry discourse?. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 527-565.

17.Payne, S. L. B. (2014). The Art of Asking Questions: Studies in Public Opinion, 3 (Vol. 451). Princeton University Press.

18.Rodden, T., & Blair, G. (1991). CSCW and distributed systems: The problem of control. In Proceedings of the Second European Conference on Computer- Supported Cooperative Work ECSCW’91 (pp. 49-64). Springer, Dordrecht. 19.Shah, C., Pickens, J., & Golovchinsky, G. (2010). Role-based results

redistribution for collaborative information retrieval. Information processing & management, 46(6), 773-781.

20.Evans, B. M., & Chi, E. H. (2010). An elaborated model of social search. Information Processing & Management, 46(6), 656-678.

21.Laurillau, Y. (1999, May). Synchronous collaborative navigation on the WWW. Hertzum, M. (2008). Collaborative information seeking: The combined activity of information seeking and collaborative grounding. Information Processing & Management, 44(2), 957-962.

22.Foster, J. (2006). Collaborative information seeking and retrieval. Annual review of information science and technology, 40(1), 329-356.

23.Hyldegård, J. (2009). Beyond the search process–Exploring group members’ information behavior in context. Information Processing & Management, 45(1), 142-158.

24.Esenther, A. (2002). U.S. Patent Application No. 09/814,190.

25.Pickens, J., & Golovchinsky, G. (2007, October). Collaborative exploratory search. In Proc. 2007 HCIR workshop (pp. 21-22).

26.Morris, M. R., & Horvitz, E. (2007, October). SearchTogether: an interface for collaborative web search. In Proceedings of the 20th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology (pp. 3-12). ACM.

27.Kuhlthau, C. C. (1991). Inside the search process: Information seeking from the user's perspective. Journal of the American society for information science, 42(5), 361-371.

28.Kuhlthau, C. C. (2004). Seeking meaning: A process approach to library and information services (Vol. 2). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.