Sharing information search knowledge with corporate users: an experience
Dr. Shubhada Nagarkar Assistant Professor Department of Library and Information Science Savitribai Phule Pune University, Pune
[email protected] Prof. Rajendra Kumbhar Professor Department of Library and Information Science Savitribai Phule Pune University, Pune
[email protected] Abstract The paper describes the workshops conducted by LIS professionals to teach effective Google search strategies for employees of a service industry. It specifically describes the contents covered, the method adopted for imparting the search literacy, exercises used and feedback received. In the present paper authors are sharing their experiences of empowering Information literacy and retrieval skills of techno savvy professionals. This workshop was planned and organised for a small group of 50 participants from a service sector industry in India located at two different geographical locations. Participant‘s feedback was collected through questionnaire and during hands-on sessions. Results indicated that participants could solve given queries with the use of different search strategies taught during practical session. Such experiments and studies especially for the service industry employees will be useful for further improvements in such ventures. Keywords: Information search literacy; Google search workshop, Google search strategies, service industry user Introduction The scholarly community has realized that information literacy enhances people‘s information search and use abilities. This assertion about the need and impact of information literacy led to the evolvement of many types of information literacies. These included financial literacy, health literacy, information technology literacy, legal literacy, etc. All these types of literacies are genres of the all comprehensive ‗information literacy‘ concept. Within library and information domain there is a scope to work on further micro types of information literacies such as, ‗library literacy‘, ‗sources literacy‘ (i.e. literacy about information source), ‗information search literacy‘, etc. Recently, the authors conducted two-day workshops on Google search at two different places in India. These workshops were conducted for employees of a service industry who often search information from Google for preparation and execution of their projects. On the grounds of research ethics, the name of the organization and participants are not mentioned in this article.
This article reports result of a feedback received from the participants of the said workshops conducted for creating ‗information search literacy‘ with special reference to Google search. Information Search Literacy Information Search Literacy (ISL) is the literacy about the various components of information search process. Information search process is intellectual, complicated and time consuming process. It includes both mental and physical process. More specifically, the information search process includes the following activities: (a) Understanding the information need and its analysis: Tthis activity enables the searcher to know the breadth and depth of the search topic. This activity is also known as ‗query analysis‘ process. (b) Identification of all the relevant terms along with their thesaural and grammatical forms: Thesaural forms of terms include Equivalent Terms, Broader Terms, Narrower Terms, and Related Terms. The grammatical forms of terms include noun, verb, singular and plural, spelling variants, and other forms. This activity helps in finalizing the terms to be used for searching. (c) Formulation of effective search statement: This is the most intellectual component of the search process. Here the searcher has to formulate the search statement by using appropriate search operators and signs / punctuation marks. The search operators include AND, OR, NOT and punctuation marks like colon, slash, tilde, etc. While formulating search statement the searcher has also to decide about the various types of delimiting factors viz. language, geographical scope, time-frame, file formats and even the domains of the websites (e.g. gov, org, com) etc. This activity involves many decisions; therefore, referred to as ‗search strategy‘ formulation activity. (d) Searching the information by using the search statement. (e) Analyzing the results and if necessary, modifying the search statement and searching again, until one finds the relevant information. Need of information search literacy training Academic libraries of the present era are trying to impart information literacy skills to their students. However, considering the nature of curricula, teaching methods adopted and other reasons, the information literacy programmes of Indian academic libraries are yet to show their impact. The result of this situation is that the students completing their graduations and postgraduations do not possess adequate information search literacy. One of reasons for this is that at no level of education the students are specifically taught the information search skills at the required depth. This is the reason, everyone who needs to search information for their work needs special, short though, training in searching information. Ever growing information flood is another reason why we need to train people in searching information. Increasing spread of democracy and education, advancements in information and communication technologies are some of the factors that are responsible for the tremendous growth of information. Information search skills certainly enhance confidence of the citizens in searching pinpointed information from the ever growing ocean of information. To develop these skills, ISL need to be created by conducting special course/workshops.
Literature review The literature reveals that there are several programs and workshops organized by librarians to enhance skills of students regarding searching web and use of Google effectively. Workshops on Google Search for students were conducted by Kingsley (dental students) Badia (2013) (for biology and anthropology students), Lange, Hamada and Cook et.al. (for all students) (Lange & Hanz, 2013, Hamada & Nahl, 2011, Cook & Ramm, 2010) Anderson for media students (Anderson, 2012), Quinn and Leligdon for Executive MBA students (Quinn and Leligdon, 2014). The results of these workshops indicated that most of the students lack information search skills whereas biology students are good to certain extent. After the workshop students‘ search literacy level considerably. Some researchers conducted a survey of use of Google and Information Search behavior of students (Bloom, 2012, Frankoff and Peters 2012, Leichner et al., 2013) and results indicated that students need assistance in searching information from Web. Leichner mentioned that information literacy could be assessed using information search tasks. Information literacy programmes were conducted for professionals like doctors engineers, psychologists, life scientists and teachers etc. (Tang & Ng, 2006, Prud‘Homme and d‘Huy, 2010, Levitt and Rosch, 2010, Sokoloff, 2011, Duran-Nelson, Gladding, Lykke et al., 2012, Beattie, & Nixon, 2013). These programmes found that professional and or workplace searching is different from general searching, because it is typically limited to specific facets and targeted to a single answer. Failures were mostly caused by the well-known vocabulary problems. The review of related literature revealed that information literacy programs help to a great extent to train users to use search engines effectively. These programmes also help librarians to understand user‘s information search behavior. In most of the studies, information literacy skills are tested before and after the programmes or workshops. Inclusion of topic into curricula is also equally important (Karlsson et al., 2012). Scope Realizing the need of ISL mentioned earlier in this article, a special Google search workshops were planned and organized for a small group made up of 50 participants from a service sector industry in India. These participants were from four specific domain fields i.e. training, infrastructure, environment, and finance and cluster development. Teaching Google search strategies was the main purpose of this workshop. The two-day workshops included theory lectures and hands on sessions. For the hands on sessions the trainers had prepared imaginary problem situations/information need situations. During practice session these problems / situations were assigned to individual participant. Each participant analyzed the given problem situation, identify keywords, formulate search statements, search information from Google and write a brief annotation about few relevant documents retrieved. At the end of the two-day workshop we gathered feedback from the participants. This article analyses those feedbacks. The paper also gives the brief information about the queries / situations designed for participants as well as the analysis of search strategies they used before and after the training.
Objectives Aim of this research article is to assess the feedback of the workshop. Specific objectives are: 1. To analyse the queries solved by participants before and after the training about the Google search strategies. 2. To understand participants opinions about relevancy of the contents, training method, trainers knowledge and skills 3. To know the participants level of search literacy before and after the workshop. 4. To analyze participants overall feedback about the workshop. Method Data for analysis were collected at two levels. At first level, the ISL skills of participants were checked by providing them queries listed below. 1. Banking sector is one of the most attractive business sectors. Search information on: new opportunities such as unbanked areas, vehicle loan, educational loan, housing loans in rural area etc. 2. Govt. is interested in developing number of Smart Cities. Search and annotated relevant document with reference to: need and advantages of smart cities; cost-effectiveness; market; difficulties and risks, feasibility etc. We requested them to solve the queries before the training and also requested to write the search strategies on paper. These papers were collected before the training. After providing them necessary training, participants were given the same queries to solve using the skills acquired during the training. Participants were also requested to prepare power point presentation explaining the analysis of the query, strategies they have used and the relevancy of the results received. Feedback questionnaire designed on Google Docs was circulated among participants. The questionnaire was of mixed nature containing eight close ended and one open ended question. Out of total 50 participants 34 (68%) have responded to the online feedback. The following paragraphs present and discuss the quantitative and qualitative responses. Results and discussions Queries / situations Participants solved queries twice before the training and after the training. It was noticed that before the training most of the participants used keywords from the situations provided. They hardly used synonyms for retrieval of information. After the workshop they again solved the queries with differently. They used various Google search strategies including boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT), proximity operators (*, ―..‖, ~, etc.) as well as various fields (allintext, related, inurl, allintitle, etc.). Participants prepared power point presentation in which they explained the analysis of query with keywords and strategies used. They were requested to select twenty relevant web sites and explain the relevancy.
Following table and figure explains one query solved by participant which indicates the difference in searching the information before and after the training and use of search strategies. Figure shows the results and reason of selecting the web site. Table 1: Solved query by participant Query: Govt. is interested in developing number of Smart Cities. Search and annotated relevant document with reference to: need and advantages of smart cities; costeffectiveness; market; difficulties and risks, feasibility etc. Search strategies used before training Search strategies used after training • • • • • •
Define smart cities Need of smart cities Advantages, Difficulties Cost-effectiveness Management of smart cities across the world Documents based on smart cities
• • • • • • • • •
Define: ―smart cities‖ (Need OR relevance) ―smart cities‖ (difficulties OR issues OR challenges) ―smart cities‖ (cost-effectiveness OR economics) ―smart cities Management* ―smart cities‖ world allintext: ―smart cities‖ filetype:doc allintext: ―smart cities‖ filetype:pdf allintitle: ―smart cities‖ filetype:doc allintitle: ―smart cities‖ filetype:doc
Results with annotations Above table and figure indicates clearly the difference in writing search strategies by the participant before and after the training. Participants powerpoint presentations clearly indicated the knowledge gained by participants during the workshop. Participants feedback about the workshop Data collected through the online questionnaire were analyzed, interpreted and discussed below. These workshops were different for researchers due to two main aspects viz. sharing of
knowledge with corporate users who uses Google almost 24/7 for their projects and secondly sharing of knowledge with non-librarians. The analysis is given in percentage of 50 participants. Opinions about of session on search strategies
Figure 1: Opinion about session on Search Strategies During first session of the workshop we explained with examples how to use the various search operators, signs and symbols in formulating search strategies. As researchers we were interested in knowing whether the explained search operators, and strategies were relevant to the participant‘s purposes or not. For this, in our brief survey we had asked whether the session on search strategies was fully relevant or somewhat relevant or not at all relevant. Responses to this question shown in the figure No. 1 indicate that 94% respondents found the explained search strategies were fully relevant to their expectations. Apart from the responses given in the above figure, one respondent expressed that, “This workshop has taught me very useful information about Google shortcuts. Now I have started liking searching”. Another respondent‘s remark about search strategies explained by us was that “Formulating a search strategy is now a new thing I have learnt from the workshop, which will reduce the time spent in information search”. These remarks indicate that the content and examples we discussed in the search strategy session were very appropriate and useful. Opinions about teaching methods Various teaching methods are available to impart Google search literacy programme. We used power point having hyperlinks to examples explaining various search strategies. The examples were selected thoughtfully so as to help in easy understanding of the given concept. The power point presentation in pdf format was made available to participants on the workshop web site. During the hands-on session participants used hyperlinks and observed results of each search strategy. Most importantly, each participant was given a well-thought situation (query) to analyze and prepare search strategy. The whole training-learning experience was interactive and
collaborative. We asked the participants whether the adopted teaching methods were ―best‖, ―good‖ or ―not good‖. The opinion was very encouraging as 47% fell the teaching method adopted was best and remaining 53% felt it good. This response proves that the teaching method adopted in this workshop was very appropriate.
Figure 2: Opinions about teaching method Opinions about resource persons The authors of this paper were resource persons for this workshop. Both of us had taught Information Retrieval papers more than five years to MLISc students. One of the resource persons has conducted more than 15 Google search and other Information Technology Literacy workshops. Another resource person has his doctoral research in vocabulary control.
Figure 3: Opinions about resource persons Participants opinion in this case were more valuable as most of the participants were double graduates and had been searching frequently information from internet. Total 94% participants expressed that the resource persons had full knowledge about the subject explained in the workshop. This proved that our subject knowledge and preparation for the workshop was appropriate. Two respondents expressed their views about resources persons as follows,
“It is an excellent workshop. I am very glad I was a participant. I had very little or no knowledge about various search criteria, however post this workshop, I am confident of searching various things efficiently (relevant results in less time) Very good work trainers! Thank you!” “ The trainers were excellent and taught the course very well!” Opinion about of time allotted
Figure 4: Time allotted for Theory and Practical sessions During the two days‘ workshop there were actual nine hours of teaching learning sessions. Out of these, three hours were allotted for theory lectures and six hours for demonstrations and practices. This was our executed plan and we believed that this is perfect time allocation for lectures and practical sessions in this workshop. However the participants felt it otherwise. Though 59% participants felt that the time allotted for theory lectures as perfect; 47% participants felt that the time allotted for practical sessions was insufficient. Of course, 35% participants felt that even the time allotted for lecture sessions was less. Finally considering participants specific response to the question about time allocation and their general remarks, it could be concluded that our time allocation for lecture and practical session was perfect. Opinion about practical sessions The workshop contained two types of practical sessions. In the first part the participants were asked to try to use the given Boolean operators or signs and symbols for formulate their statements. For this hyperlinked queries were given. The participants were asked to use their search terms to try out the given search operations and signs. The second part contained more interesting activity. In the second part of the practical session, each participant was given a paper containing a ―query‖ or ―Information need situation‖ or ―Problem statement‖. Nature of problem statement was like: “Your organization is interested in establishing a training center for selfemployed, non-matriculate women entrepreneurs in rural region of Maharashtra State of India. Search the required information and identify
about 10 to 15 most relevant documents. Write a brief annotation about each document identified by you” Thus, each participant was asked to: (a) analyze the given problem situation (b) identify all relevant keywords, their variants and synonyms (c) prepare one or more search statements by using appropriate search operators, signs and punctuation marks recommended by Google for formulating search statement (d) search information in Google by using the search statement prepared in the earlier step (e) browse, identify and annotate 10 to 15 relevant documents Thus there was a fair bit of self-working in this workshop. Of course it was well arranged instant help from the workshop trainers. We were interested in knowing the participants opinions about these practical sessions. The data of their opinions is presented in figure number 6.
Figure 5: Practical Session Out of total 35% respondents expressed that the nature of practical session was excellent, where as a majority (i.e. 65%) participants said it was very good. From this response it could be said that there is a scope for improving the experiences of practical sessions. Knowledge about the participant‘s educational background and their work activity will be always useful in designing effective exercises for practical sessions. Opinion about level of search literacy This workshop was organized to improve Google search literacy skills. Therefore at the end of the workshop we were interested in knowing from the participants, what was their level of search literacy before and after the workshop. For getting data about their search literacy level the participants were given a five point‘s scale indicating search literacy as level 1…5. The feedback shown in figure is very encouraging. Total 77% participants explained that before workshop their search literacy level as of scale 1 and 2 and just 6% participants had their search literacy
level at scale 4. Furthermore before workshop no respondent had their search literacy level at scale 5. After workshop 82% participants search literacy level reached at level 4 and 5 and now one of them was at level 1 and only 18% were at level 2 and 3. One respondent in his general remarks mentioned that “It [the workshop] was very interesting as earlier google only meant a search engine which by typing my requirement i used to spend lot of time in getting my result. But now after this session I am able to get the result very quickly and in a very efficient manner”. Another participant expressed that “The workshop has really helped us to improve our efficiency which will help me day-in and out to search Google quickly”. These remarks are evidences that the workshop was instrumental in increasing the participants search literacy level considerably.
Figure 6: Literacy Level after the workshop This result help us infer that the nature of workshop contents, teaching methods adopted, exercises planned and time allotted was appropriate. From this discussion it can be said that this is the right replicable method for imparting Google Search Literacy. Participants were requested to give their general remarks about the workshops. Some of them were really encouraging us and their suggestions were helped to plan future workshop. Representative feedback and suggestions are as follows: “Very useful workshop for each human being whosoever is using "Google" in his life or need to "Google" for anything. Very good workshop, recommends all to attend this” “The workshop was extremely useful in terms of applicability in daily life”
“Though lot of things are covered which we are able to learn. However, following can be looked upon to include in the workshop: 1. Google Drive and its uses 2. Google history and its evolution and its uses” “Need to involve more practical sessions” Conclusion Information literacy and within that ISL is a valuable pre-requisite for developing knowledge societies. ISL enhances peoples‘ search efficiency which ultimately increases their work performance. ISL can be imparted by many agencies and by using various teaching methods. More and more experiments and evidences about methods useful for imparting ISL should be collected. Studies of effectiveness of such methods should be conducted. Such experiments and studies will be useful for further improvements in such ventures. Communication of such efforts is equally important. The present article is a small effort in this direction.
References Anderson, M.A. (2012), ―Google Literacy Lesson Plans: Way beyond ‗Just Google It‘‖, Internet @ Schools, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 20–22. Bloom, B.S. (2012), ―The truth is out: How they really search‖, Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Charleston Conference, available at: http://works.bepress.com/beth_bloom/15/ (accessed 25 September 2014). Cook, B. and Ramm, R. (2010), ―So You Think You Can Google?‖, Incite, Vol. 31 No. 1/2, p. 21. Duran-Nelson, A., Gladding, S., Beattie, J. and Nixon, L.J. (2013), ―Should we Google it? Resource use by internal medicine residents for point-of-care clinical decision making‖, Academic Medicine, Vol. 88 No. 6, pp. 788–794. Frankoff, M. and Peters, M. (2012), ―When Google meets Scholar: An examination of postsecondary students online search strategies and the extent of assistance from their instructors‖, World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, Vol. 2012, pp. 2624–2629. Karlsson, L., Koivula, L., Ruokonen, I., Kajaani, P., Antikainen, L. and Ruismäki, H. (2012), ―From Novice to Expert: Information Seeking Processes of University Students and Researchers‖, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, The 5th International Conference of Intercultural Arts Education 2012: Design Learning, University of Helsinki, Finland, Vol. 45, pp. 577–587. Kingsley, K., Galbraith, G.M., Herring, M., Stowers, E., Stewart, T. and Kingsley, K.V. (2011), ―Why not just Google it? An assessment of information literacy skills in a biomedical science curriculum‖, BMC Medical Education, Vol. 11 No. 1, p. 17. Lange, J. and Hanz, K. (2013), ―Using student questions to direct information literacy workshops‖, Reference Services Review, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 9–9. Leichner, N., Peter, J., Mayer, A.-K. and Krampen, G. (2013), ―Assessing information literacy among German psychology students‖, Reference Services Review, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 6–6. Lykke, M., Price, S. and Delcambre, L. (2012), ―How doctors search: A study of query behaviour and the impact on search results‖, Information Processing & Management, Vol. 48 No. 6, pp. 1151–1170.
Prud‘Homme, D. and d‘Huy, P. (2010), ―Teaching After Google?‖, Documentaliste - Sciences de l’Information, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 52–53. Quinn, T. and Leligdon, L. (2014), ―Executive MBA students‘ information skills and knowledge: Discovering the difference between work and academics‖, Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 234–255. Sokoloff, J. (2011), ―Information Literacy in the Workplace: Employer Expectations‖, Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 1–17. Tang, H. and Ng, J.H.K. (2006), ―Googling for a diagnosis—use of Google as a diagnostic aid: internet based study‖, Bmj, Vol. 333 No. 7579, pp. 1143–1145.
