Noción de Práctica Pedagógica

How tasks have been conceptualised and different ways to describe tasks are outlined next. The relationship between activities and tasks is also explained.

2.4.1 Conceptions of task

A task is a focus “on a particular item of work” (Byström & Hansen, 2005, p. 1051). Tasks are purposeful, goal-based, and have start and end points (Byström & Hansen, 2005; Hackos & Redish, 1998). A task may consist of sequences of sub-tasks that need to be performed to achieve an outcome for a work function (Toms, 2011, p. 45). There are both work tasks and information tasks. Within a work task there may be many information tasks such as, search for information, synthesise information or write a report. The focus of this thesis is the search task that is the information task that occurs when new information is required to complete a work task. For example, a work task of “choose and purchase a yacht” could have an information task of “which models of yacht are available” and this information may need to be searched for (Toms et al., 2008).

Search is rarely carried out for its own sake and is a dynamic process that is part of a larger process of decision making and problem solving (Rouse & Rouse, 1984). Increasingly work

34

tasks, the “separable parts of a person’s duties to her/his employer” (Byström & Hansen, 2005, p. 1053) are considered an important motivator of search because it is from here that the “value and cost structure” (Pirolli & Card, 1995) of the search task is derived and it is the work task in which a “person’s search behaviours are situated” (Wildemuth & Freund, 2009). Work tasks are “always to some degree outlined by the work organisation”(Byström & Hansen, 2005, p. 1053) and the work task may be interpreted differently depending on the context within which it is operating (Byström & Hansen, 2005, p. 1052). Hence, what work tasks are and how work tasks motivate search may also vary depending on the work task domain (Taylor, 1991). For any given work task there may be multiple information tasks that lead to a search for information. The interconnections between these tasks may be hierarchical and / or serial (Toms, 2011, p. 48). In much of the research literature the hierarchy of the task that is the search for information is explicated into three named levels: information seeking task, search task and retrieval task. These levels are differentiated by number of consultations, the

specificity of the information goal and type of search system used (see for example Byström & Hansen, 2005; Y. Li & Belkin, 2008, p. 1823). Although there is some disagreement about the definitions of the different levels, there is consensus over their place in the hierarchy (Byström & Hansen, 2005, p. 1055).

There are, however, some problems with conceptualising these levels. Although the hierarchy between the levels is generally accepted, it is also recognised that there are situations in which the hierarchy collapses (Byström & Hansen, 2005; Y. Li, 2009, p. 275; Y. Li & Belkin, 2008, p. 1823; Pharo & Järvelin, 2004). For example, when a librarian searches for information for others the task could be categorised as a search task, an information seeking task or work task (Y. Li, 2009, p. 275; Pharo & Järvelin, 2004). Furthermore, empirically the differences,

particularly between information seeking tasks and search tasks are not always observed. Freund (2008) suggests that this may be because information seekers themselves do not distinguish between these two levels of task.

2.4.2 Descriptions of tasks

Hackman (1969, p. 103) suggests that tasks can be described in four different ways. Firstly, the properties of the task can be described. This is the “task qua task” approach. Secondly, the description can focus on what the task doer should do. This is the “task as behaviour

requirement” approach. Thirdly, what the task doer actually does can be described. This is the “task as behaviour description” approach. Finally, the description can be what abilities the task doer needs to have to successfully complete the task. This is the “task as ability requirement” approach.

Tasks can also be thought of as both independent of the task performer (objective) and how they are perceived by the task performer (subjective). For example, an assigned task given to a classroom of children is an objective task, but how individual children understand the task is subjective (Byström & Hansen, 2005; Hackman, 1969). So although children’s search tasks can be described objectively and a class of children may be given the “same” task, how each child experiences these tasks will differ (Hackman, 1969; Limberg, 1999).

This thesis is primarily concerned with “task qua task” with only objective elements of task considered. The term element is used here to mean “a component part of a complex whole”

35

(OED, 2017) whereby a description of a task may be broken down into different components. The subjective classification of task is considered a characteristic of the user rather than the task or activity per se. However, when validating the representation scheme in phase 2 “task as behaviour description” is also considered. This is important because as Hackman (1969, p. 102) suggests “ignoring this (probably sizable) portion of the behavioural variance in dealing with tasks would seem indefensible”.

A further problem though with the “task qua task” approach to describing tasks is that what to describe is potentially unlimited (Hackman, 1969). For this reason, when considering what to include it is necessary to give thought to the purpose of describing tasks. The purpose here is to describe children’s search tasks to better understand the variation. Therefore, it is the elements of tasks that most influence search that should be described. In the more general literature, there are four key schemes that can be used to describe tasks that focus on elements most likely to influence search (Kim & Soergel, 2006; Li & Belkin, 2008; Pharo & Järvelin, 2004; Xie, 2009). These are reviewed in Chapter 3.

2.4.3 Relationship between activities and tasks

The concept of activity is also needed to explain search in schools. Within LIS the term activity has been used as a synonym for task (see for example Y. Li & Belkin, 2008). However, in cognate fields an activity is considered a distinct concept. Norman (2005) explains that activities are composed of multiple work tasks which in turn may be composed of multiple information tasks some of which will be search tasks. So for example the activity "get caught up on the day's correspondence" has several tasks such as “reading email, responding, looking up information, sometimes to copy and paste into emails, checking calendars” and could be for more than one work task (Norman, n.d., p. n.p.). This conception of an activity is in keeping with how search is enacted in primary schools (Figure 4). In primary schools, lessons may be structured around an activity, with the lesson starting with instruction to the class and ending with children reporting the activity back to the class. During a search activity, information may be sought for more than one work task.

Figure 4: Relationship between activities and tasks

In this thesis, what is influencing the search activity is investigated in RQ1 and the individual search tasks described in RQ2. The reason why the individual search tasks are described rather than the overall activity is that although many of the properties of the search task will likely be

Work task Work task

Search task

A search activity

36

the same for all search tasks within an activity, not all properties will be shared (for example, information use). It is therefore thought more appropriate to describe the individual search tasks.