La prensa escrita en Ecuador

Identifying what in phase 1 and 2 should be the search task to represent in the scheme was not straightforward. In large part this is because a group perspective has been taken whereby all the tasks that are a search for information within an IUE are represented. However, this was further complicated by employing two different study methods: interviews and observation. Why search task was difficult to operationalise in the two phases is discussed next.

Phase 1 interview study

To represent tasks that are a search for information within an IUE, the task must be identified and a consistent approach to identification needs to be taken. In much of the research literature tasks are considered hierarchical (in that there are tasks and sub-tasks). Byström & Hansen (2005, p. 1056) suggest that there are three levels: work task, information seeking task and search task. So within a work task there may be multiple information seeking tasks, and within an information seeking task there may be multiple search tasks. An information seeking task is “the satisfaction of an entire information need” and a search task is “satisfaction of a separable fraction of an information need” (Byström & Hansen, 2005, p. 1056). Li & Belkin (2008) also suggest that there is another level of retrieval task. The hierarchy though is not rigid and a search task can also be an information seeking task (Byström & Hansen, 2005; Y. Li, 2009, p. 275; Y. Li & Belkin, 2008, p. 1823; Pharo & Järvelin, 2004).

In phase 1 in the interview transcripts it was hard to distinguish whether a task description related to a search task or to an information seeking task. In the research literature, the levels of the sub-tasks are differentiated by number of consultations, the specificity of the

information goal and type of search system used. Information seeking tasks have general goals that usually cannot be answered by one source, and information may be sought from printed documents, people and electronic systems. By contrast search tasks have specific goals, the task may be completed in a single consultation (Byström & Hansen, 2005, p. 1056; Y. Li & Belkin, 2008, p. 1823) and electronic systems are used (Y. Li & Belkin, 2008, p. 1823). When considering the different tasks that the teachers described it was problematic to use these conceptualisations to identify whether a task was an information seeking task or a search task, for the following three reasons.

Firstly, the number of consultations and types of search system used (Q12) could depend on the location (Q7) of the task rather than the information requirements. For example, in Y4 “research a minibeast” was conducted in school whereas “research the habitat of a creature” was given as homework. The differences between these tasks was that homework tasks (it was hoped!) could be conducted on more than one occasion and using any resource (search technologies, people, books and so on) whereas at school the same task could only be conducted once using often only search technologies. To place these two tasks (“research a

154

minibeast” and “research the habitat of a creature”) in separate categories based on possible number of consultations and search systems used is somewhat problematic when the

information requirements are similar.

Secondly, what search systems are used may depend on the child not the task. Some children may only use electronic systems whereas other children may use people and books too. Particularly with the younger year groups the teachers would provide alternative sources of information for children who found using the Internet difficult.

Thirdly, work tasks with essentially the same information requirements can have sub-tasks of different goals (Q14). For example, the Y6 teacher describes how there are two ways that they will search for information at the start of a new work task. They may start with a general search or the class will share what they already know, and then based on this prior knowledge search for specific information. The initial work task information requirement is the same for both search/seeking tasks but in the first scenario the information is sought from one system (the Internet) and the search requirement remains general. In the second scenario, the information is sought from two systems (people and the Internet) and the search requirement when using the Internet is specific. Not only is it hard to consider these search/seeking tasks as occurring at different levels but also neither scenario fits any definition.

So although it is already recognised that task levels can collapse in some circumstances, for example a search task can become a seeking task if the information requirement is satisfied in one consultation (Byström & Hansen, 2005, p. 1065) the problem here is somewhat different. Regardless of whether the task levels have collapsed, it is difficult to use specificity of goal, the number of consultations and the type of search system to differentiate the level of task. It may be that in many cases the different task levels are there but they cannot be identified through this. However, in terms of providing a description it does not appear to matter whether a task is an information seeking task or a search task. The same representation scheme can be used regardless of the level of task (Y. Li & Belkin, 2008). Therefore, in this study tasks were not differentiated according to a hierarchy and all tasks that resulted in a search for information are called search tasks. During this phase, search task was operationalised as the specification of an information requirement as reported by a teacher.

Phase 2 observation study

Whether the same operationalisation could be used in phase 2 needed consideration. In theory in this phase, using the conceptualisations in the literature, the task assigned to the class could be categorised as an information seeking task and all the changes to information requirements could be categorised as search tasks that are sub-tasks of the overall information seeking task. However, practically this was also not straightforward for two reasons.

Firstly, how children performed the tasks differed. Although some children did split the task that was assigned to them into smaller sub-tasks, others did not. This is as could be expected: search tasks may become information seeking tasks if resolved in a single consultation

(Byström & Hansen, 2005, p. 1065), and how the assigned task is perceived will depend on the task recipient (Byström & Hansen, 2005; Hackman, 1969). However, in terms of describing the task from a group perspective this is problematic as no single description applied to all in a class. Secondly, where there were sub-tasks it was difficult to identify the start and end points. Changes in information requirement could be identified from children’s queries but the

155

information requirements were not always expressed and could not be identified as so many of the children’s queries were broad. In part not being able to identify start and end points is linked to the research design. A task performer may only recognise start and end points of tasks retrospectively (Byström & Hansen, 2005; Hackos & Redish, 1998) and so a particular problem for this study is that the tasks have not been described by the task performer but are from class observations. Had children been interviewed it may have been possible to have identified the different sub-tasks. However, it is also well known that search evolves, and the task at the start of a search may not be the same task at the end (Bates, 1989). Some of the searches went off-topic and whether they are a new task or part of the same task is then debatable (although again this could perhaps have been resolved in an interview study). As with phase 1, in terms of providing a parsimonious description of the task that is the search for information, the description of the assigned task is mostly the same as the description of any sub-tasks. While information use and search goal could change from the assigned task that was given, all other elements remained the same. As such the operationalisation employed in phase 1 could be used in phase 2 with only minor adjustments to the wording used in the representation scheme.