A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Information Seeking in Open-Ended Information Systems Author(s): Janette R.

Hill Source: Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol. 47, No. 1 (1999), pp. 5-27 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30220227 Accessed: 27/03/2010 05:59
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Educational Technology Research and Development.

http://www.jstor.org

for Conceptual Framework Understanding in Open-Ended Information Seeking

Information
O Janette R.Hill

Systems

such and Technologies as theInternet World our WideWebarechanging conceptions of who information systems,from usesthemand howtheyareused,to howthesystemsarecreatedandwhois doingthecreating. Everyday the usersareafforded sameinformation as scienretrieval opportunities information tists or librarians usingemerging informaby tionsystemssuchas theWeb.Yet,defining bestpractices assistingusersinfindingthe for an they information seekremains unrealized howusersengagein inforgoal.Discovering while and mationretrieval strategy building in sysfor searching information open-ended temssuchas the Webis an areain needof explorationfthesesystemsaretofulfill their and as for seeking potential tools information a Thispaper describes theoretically learning. based andempirically for framework howusers andemploy information-seeking formulate in information strategies open-ended systems and (OEISs). Background information related OEISsareprovided. to challenges are and theoretical userperspectives OEIS An based a recent on described. example to use research studyis provided illustrate of theOEISinformation-seeking framework. are and Implications practice research for offered.1

1 An originalversionmanuscript was submittedfor the 1997 YoungScholarscompetition,and was evaluatedby a panel of reviewers as having potential for publication.The present version includes revisions recommendedby that review and an additionalreview. 1042-1629 Vol. ETR&D, 47, No. 1, 1999,pp. 5-27 ISSN

7 Information technologiescontinueto expand on a variety of levels. Point-and-clickaccess to and creation of information,is now a desktop activity available to anyone, anyplace and anytime (Dawson, 1996; Gehl & Douglas, 1997). Informal (e.g., personal Web pages) as well as formal(e.g., universitylibrarycollections)information sources are increasingly accessible via the Internetand the WorldWide Web. The ability for the everyday user to customize and even create personal informationspace is now available through specialized Web-based technologies (see, e.g., Apple's Cyberdog [www.cyber dog.apple.com]or NorthernLights [www.nlnet .melfort.sk.ca]). Additionally,these open-ended information systems (OEISs)have created an environmentwhere information-seekingactivities areno longerthe sole domainof librarians or informationscientists,nor must searchactivities occur in a particular context (i.e., the library). The exponential growth and use of the Internet and Web have had and continue to have substantial impacts on how we share and access information(Tenopir& Lunin,1998). Bringing informationsystems to the level of manipulationand accessibilityby the everyday user is indeed a major accomplishment.However, significant issues remain unresolved, many of which have carried over from traditional informationsystems (e.g., electroniccard catalogs) (see Sugar, 1995for a review of issues related to informationsystems). One persevering issue that is now impactingOEISsrelates to information retrieval. The evolutionary nature of meaning-making and developing understanding in OEISs such as the Web creates a complex environmentin which to assist users in finding the informationthey seek. Conducting

6
researchto reveal searchstrategiesutilized in an OEISmay facilitateprofessionalsin establishing best practices (e.g., techniques,tools, strategies) for helping users as they seek informationin OEISs. Research involving OEISsis occurring(see, for example, Chen, Houston, Sewell, & Schatz, 1998;Dickstein,Greenfield,& Rosen, 1997;Hill, 1997; Hill & Hannafin, 1997),but not at a rate comparableto the growth of the systems themselves. The majorityof the informationretrieval researchto date was conducted using electronic card catalogs or content-specificindexes rather than OEISs such as the Web (see, e.g., Belkin, Marchetti, & Cool, 1993; Henninger & Belkin, 1996;Hert, 1995;Laurel,1990;Park,1994;Small & Grabowski,1992;Watters&Shepard,1994).In addition, OEISstudies have not reportedinformation specifically related to strategies developed and employed, or both, in the systems. Identifying the strategies used to operate in an OEISis an importantfirst step toward developing the techniques,tools, and strategiesto assist users seeking informationin emerginginformation systems. In discovering the effective techniques, tools, and strategies and then guiding users in employing them, we can help OEISsfulfill their promise as "easy, intuitive and powerful" tools for learning (Healey, 1995,p. 441).

Vol ETR&D, 47, No. 1

technologies. The most widespread example to date is the Web. Traditionalelectronicinformation systems are those more structuredand stable, including electronic card catalogs and subject-oriented retrieval databases (e.g., the Educational Resources Information Center [ERIC], PsychInfo,BioSys). OEISsdiffer from traditionalsystems in several aspects. These differences can be categorized into threebroadareas:(a) user orientation, (b) system form, and (c) type of information retrieved. Key differences are summarized in Table1. One key difference relates to who does the work. A majorityof the work is or can be done for the user in a traditionalinformationsystem, ranging from limiting searches, to a controlled vocabulary for subject retrieval, to processing the requestbased on a highly prescriptedsearch scheme (see Salton& McGill,1983,for an extensive discussionof retrievalschemes).In contrast, OEISsdirectly involve the user in the process. The user actively engages in navigating and searchingthe system, playing a primaryrole in processing the information retrieved. In an OEIS,the functionsof the system are more obvious and accessibleto the user, moving information systems from a black box to a glass box paradigm(Feinstein,1989). Techniques for accessing information also differ between traditionalinformationsystems and OEISs. Traditional information systems generallyrestrictthe user to keyboardinput for submitting an informationrequest.OEISsoften retrievalenviplace the user in a point-and-click of hyperlinksfor text and ronment.The addition multimedia retrievalhas created dramaticnew possibilities for informationaccess (Efthimiadis & Carlyle,1997). Retrieval methods represent another differ-

SYSTEMS: INFORMATION OPEN-ENDED A PRIMER Electronic vs. OEISs Traditional Information Systems To assist the reader in developing an understanding of OEISs,a comparisonis made with traditional information systems. Information systems open-ended in nature are emerging

vs. Table 1 0 Open-ended information systems system (OEIS) traditionalelectronic information

Systems Open-Ended Information Traditional Electronic Information Systems

user box: Glass active Pointandclickorientation documents sametime at multiple Hyperlinks: retrieval media Multiple

Black passive user box: Keyboard input Linear at retrieval: document a time one Text retrieval

IN SEEKING OEISES INFORMATION

7 Shin, Schallert,& Savenye, 1994).How information is presented and the number of resources retrieved for considerationalso challenge OEIS users. Seeking information via the Web often results in lists containingnumerous hyperlinks, leading to specific Web sites which themselves often contain numerous hyperlinks.This places the user in a role traditionallyperformedby the system-weeding through the information in the list to determine relevancy (Harter, 1986; Salton& McGill,1983).As stated by Croninand Hert (1995), searching for information on the Web is like foraging-only we do not necessarily possess all the necessary skills and tools we need to help ensure a successful hunt. The lack of necessary skills and tools can lead to an increase in user frustrationwith the retrieval process as well as with the system in general (Chau,1997;DeBra& Post, 1994;Hert, 1995). The challenges associated with OEISs are considerable. Yet,the promisesthe systems hold make effortsto overcome obstaclesworthwhile. Previous research on the retrieval process has demonstratedthat the use of information-seeking strategiescan make the process more effective and efficient (Borgman,Hirsh, Walter, & Gallagher, 1995; Eisenberg & Berkowitz, 1990; Kuhlthau,1991,1996; Marchionini, 1995;Michel, 1994; Savolainen, 1993;Stripling & Pitts, 1988; Wells,1996).Information-seeking strategies,like are techniques and procognitive strategies, cesses designed to assist the user in managing a process (Gagne, 1985), in this instance, finding information.Discovering how users engage in information seeking and strategy building in OEISsand then determining best practices for the process are needed if these systems are to reach their potential as tools for learning (Heffron, Dillon, & Mostafa,1996;Owston, 1997).

informaence between the systems. Traditional tion systems retrieve information in a linear fashion-one documentat a time. Thehyperlink capabilitiesof OEISscreatethe ability to access, link and retrievemultipledocuments,furthering Bush's (1945)conceptionof associativeindexing and connectingitems together. Finally,traditionalinformationsystems have focused on the retrievalof text. OEISsoffer text retrievaland more. OEISsprovide the user with access to a variety of media (e.g., text, images, sound, video, animation),enablingqualitatively differentmodes of communication. Traditional information systems can be viewed as "informationbooths" that provide users with addresses and directions (i.e., citations and call numbers) to get the desired resources. OEISsnot only provide pointers;in many instances, they also provide the information. OEISs reduce or eliminate the middle ground as they actively engage the user in the process. The user collaborateswith the system, creatinga partnershipgroundedin human-computer cooperation. The process moves beyond mere informationretrieval,creatingthe opportunity for a user-centeredenvironmentconducive to learning(Nahl, 1998;Watson,1998). Challenges Associated with OEISs OEISs present new challenges beyond those encounteredin traditionalinformationsystems. Many OEIS challenges are inherent to fundamental components of the systems: search engines are not standardized;resourcesare not indexed;and the overallinformationspace is illstructured(Efthimiadis& Carlyle, 1997).Additionally, users of OEISs are juggling more variablesthan are users of traditionalelectronic information systems. Not only are OEISusers dealing with system and subject-knowledge issues, they are also working in a hypermediabased system, raising issues associated with that being "lostin hyperspace"; is, being disconcerted, confused or disoriented (Marchionini, 1988;Nielsen, 1990). Level of user control (high, low) is another challenge in an OEIS. Research indicates that level of control in a system can createconsiderable challenges (Cho, 1995;Romiszowski, 1990;

UNDERSTANDING IN DEVELOPING THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES OEIS: Two theoretical perspectives related to how users engage and develop understandingduring the retrievalprocess have received attention in the literature across a variety of disciplines (e.g., human-computerinteraction,information science, and instructionaldesign): (a) informa-

Vol ETR&D, 47, No. 1

tion processing and (b) ecological psychology. Gaining a perspective of how users process, integrateand manipulateinformationaccording to each theory can provide a foundation for understandingthe retrievalprocessin OEISs. Information Processing The theory of informationprocessingdates back to Atkinsonand Shiffrin'smultistore,multistage theory of memory developed in the late 1960s (Driscoll, 1994). Information-processing theory is a subtheoryin the umbrellaof cognitive-learntheing theories.The focus of cognitive-learning ories is on mechanismsinside the learner'shead, stressing the importance of processes such as attention and perception. Informationprocessing ".
..

examines the way new information is

entered, stored and ultimately retrieved from memory"(Eggen& Kauchak,1994). theory, According to information-processing the ways people process informationare similar to how computersprocessinformation(parallels are indicatedin parenthesesbelow where applicable). Informationstores act as repositoriesfor data, sensory registersgather information(keyboard, microphone), working memory is used for short-term storage (RAM), and long-term memory permanently stores information(hard drive). Cognitive processes (e.g., attention, encoding) move information from one storage area to another.Finally, metacognitioncontrols the cognitive processes, enabling us to know about what we know (Flavell, 1979). Information-processing theory has been the predominate theory for understandinghow we process and retrieve information for some time (see Sugar, 1995, for a review of retrieval research approachedfrom a cognitive perspective).It is a view more aligned with a systems focus: user adapting to the system, user as a passive receiver,and interactionsas input-output. Ecological Psychology An ecological perspective of the retrievalprocess provides an alternativeview of how individuals acquire, process, and integrate information. An ecological perspectiveincorporates many theories, including ecologicalpsychology

and activity theory. The roots of the ecological perspectivecan be tracedto the 1920sin Martha Muchow's work with children'sway-finding in Hamburg, Germany (see the special issue of HumanDevelopment [1985,28(4)]for an in-depth review of her work). The perspective did not gain recognition for several decades until the works of Barker (1968), Gibson (1979) and Vygotsky (1978)were published. Given a focus on the user as a sentient being, the ecological perspective has gained increased interest from researchers' examiningthe information-retrieval (see, e.g., Dervin & Nilan, 1986; Hert, process 1995;Hjorland,1997;Nahl, 1998;Stonier, 1997; Watson,1998;Watters& Shepherd,1994). An ecological perspective shifts the view of processing from the brain as a computer to "...an interpersonaland ecological 'self-' psy1997,p. 2). It is a view incorchology"(Hjorland, the socialand active aspectsof learning porating theory as presented in Vygotsky's and Leont'ev'swork in the 1970s(see Wertsch,1985, for a thorough review) and a Gibsonian worldview that everyday perceiving cannot be separated from acting (Allen & Otto, 1996).An ecologicalperspectivefocuses on the user, viewing the user as an active player in an evolving environment where interactions lead to constructionof meaning(Sugar,1995). According to Jacob(1987),an ecological perspective involves studying human behavior in natural environments, seeking to understand ". .. the relationshipsbetween human behavior and its environment" 3), thus revealinga fun(p. damental tenet of an ecologicalperspective:the individual and the environmentare interdependent. One should seek to understand the individual (behavior, objects used, effectivities, or capabilities) and the environment (patterns of behavior in the setting, propertiesin the setting creating the need for adaptation, affordances) (Barker, 1968;Gibson, 1979).As stated by Allen & Otto (1996), "it is meaningless to consider whetheran objectaffords[providesopportunity for] action without also considering the nature of correspondingeffectivities [capabilities]that some organism might employ to exploit that affordanceto achieve the organism'sintention" (p. 211).
Given the characteristics of an OEIS, an eco-

INFORMATION SEEKING OEISES IN

9
in any knowledge domain, is likely to impact how they interact within an OEIS (Borgman, 1989).Insightsinto the potential effects of varyare ing user characteristics importantto consider as we seek to build understandingof how OEISs can be used for learning(Marchionini, 1995)and how to guide users as they develop the skills necessary for successful navigation of OEISs. Some individuals, such as domain experts, are likely to possess a great deal of subject and metacognitiveknowledge, but may be unfamiliar with the availablesystem, potentially reducing confidence in their ability to use the system effectively. Others,such as librarians, may possess comparativelylimited subject knowledge, but be especiallyeffectiveusing the system, thus being very confident in their ability to manipulate the system to locate needed information (Hill & Hannafin, 1997).Prominentcharacteristics of users of electronic informationsystems are summarizedin Table2.3 To simplify the present discussion, the extremesof the user continuum(naive to knowledgeable) will be examined. While most users are not uniformly low, medium or high across knowledge domains (e.g., system, subject), examinationof the extremesmay make the various combinationsmore readily understandable. In describingstereotypicalusers within each category, the strategies they are likely to employ will be presentedfor consideration. Both naive and knowledgeable users face challengesas they work in hypermediainformation systems; the size of the challenge varies depending on the type of user (Khan& Locatis, 1998;Marchionini,1995). When users are reactive, as in the case of typical naive users, the challengesthey face are considerable.Restricted by theirlimited system, subject,and metacognitive knowledge, naive users are unable to move to higher levels of problem solving and understanding. Unable to call on a strong resource base of system or subjectknowledge, the reactive naive user focuses on responding to what is displayed on the screen, trying to make sense fromwhat is seen (Dervin& Nilan, 1986).

logical perspective for understanding the retrievalprocess in an OEISseems more aligned with the OEISenvironment.As stated by Duffy
and Cunningham (1996): "Learning ... is nei-

ther a matter of discriminatingthe symbols of the world and the rules for manipulatingthem nor of activating the right connections in the brain. It is, rather,a matter of constructingand navigating a local, situated path through a rhizomous labyrinth,a process of dialogue and negotiation with and within a local ... context" (p. 177). Duffy and Cunninham'sstatementcan also be applied to informationseeking in OEISs. By adopting an ecological perspective of the retrievalprocess,we can examinethe individual as well as the environment, assessing interactions as informationis retrievedby the user, an approachholding considerablepromise for propelling research into the retrieval process forward (Nahl, 1998). IN DEVELOPING UNDERSTANDING PERSPECTIVES OEIS: USERS' Varioususers engage electronicinformation systems to satisfy informationneeds. As with other users of information systems, users of OEISs possess multiple levels of knowledge domains, including metacognitive, system, and subject. Additionally, users have diverse levels of selfefficacyand experiencevariedlevels of disorientation as they seek information in OEISs (Borgman, 1989;Hill, 1997;Watson, 1998).The possible combinations of user characteristics have long posed challenges for designers and developers of information systems (Dillon, 1997a),as well as to librariansand other educators assisting users in using information systems. Theoretically, an infinite number of combinationsis possible across the user continuum. Priorresearchindicates that users can be categorized into three broad categories:(a) naive, (b) somewhat knowledgeable, and (c) knowlThe multidiedgeable (Hill & Hannafin,1997).2 mensionality of their expertise (or lack thereof)

2 It is importantto note thata particular user may fall across categories.The categoriesshould not be viewed as mutually exclusive.

3 Although the somewhat knowledgeableuser will not be discussed in detail, major characteristics presented in are Table2 forthe reader'sconsideration.

10

Vol ETR&D, 47, No, 1

of information of Table2 O Characteristics users a hypermedia system

User Naive Characteristics * * * * * * low level user reactive struggleto survive seek externalcontrol randomactions no understanding Strategies * basicsearchstrategies (e.g.,browsing,exploration)

Somewhat Knowledgeable

* mid level user * active * survive and some degree of thriving * may seek externalcontrol, but to assist not to direct * workingwith direction * some understanding * some questioningof the system * high level user

* advancedsearchstrategies (e.g.,planning,organization) * some metacognitivestrategies (e.g., reflection,priorknowledge)

Knowledgeable

* * * * *

* advancedsearchstrategies (e.g.,differentiating) proactive * metacognitive self-directed strategies (e.g., integrating,transforming) high level of understanding * problem-solving strategies well-developedmentalmodel (e.g., "whatif") seeking to improvewhat they do

The limited metacognitive abilities of naive

users can also hamper their use of the system. Not only do naive users experience difficulties in articulatingwhat they know, they also find it difficult to describe what is not known. Naive users have difficulty interpreting the system response; the lack of understandingcan lead to confusion and frustration(Shaw, 1991).This, in turn,can affectuser confidenceand self-efficacy, further strengthening the reactive, rather than the planning, orientationof the naive user. The knowledgeable user also faces challenges, but of a different nature.Challengesfor knowledgeable users are not related to the system as much as to improving what they do in relation to problem solving and patternmatching (Eggen & Kauchak, 1994). Knowledgeable users may experience occasionaldisorientation, but in most instances, readily overcome it. Utilizing a rich knowledge base in relation to the system, the subject,and theirmetacognitiveabilities, knowledgeable users are able to plan for, interpret, and prioritize tasks based on the response of the system (Khan& Locatis,1998). The skills of planning,interpretingand prior-

itizing make knowledgeable users more proactive in their informationseeking. The knowledgeable user moves readily into problem solving and higher-level understanding (see Marchionini,1995, for a comprehensivereview of strategies utilized by expert searchers). Instead of assuming that a system response is final, knowledgeable users, being proactive in their actions, question the information,both in terms of usefulness of contentand in its validity. Knowledgeable users plan, evaluate, generate, and construct,using the system as a resourceto supporttheirunderstanding(Eggen& Kauchak, 1994;Khan& Locatis,1998). Whethernaive or knowledgeable,the type of user using the system influences a number of criticalfactorsassociatedwith the searchprocess (see Allen, 1993;Marchionini,1995, for a more complete review). Researchindicates that some of these factorsinclude:the terminologyused to define problems;how the user analyzes the relevance of information retrieved; user ability to adjustsearch strategies;and, perhaps most fundamental, the type of strategies users are likely to employ as they work in the system (Hill, 1997;

INFORMATION SEEKING OEISES IN

11
ant to note. The repeat symbol (1 I: :I I), typically used in musical notation, is used to indicate that the activities between the beginning and ending bars can be repeated any number of times (Fargis & Bykofsky, 1989; Fitzgerald, 1998).The numberof times the cycle is repeated will vary with each use and user. The shape of the model is also unique.Analysis of the information-seeking process within an OEIS (Hill, 1997; Hill & Hannafin, 1997) revealed that a different form was needed to illustrate what occurs in these systems rather than the more traditionalcirclesor straightlines (see, e.g., Eisenberg& Berkowitz,1990;Stripling & Pitts, 1988).Accordingto semiotictheory, our interpretationsare mediated by signs and symbols (Cunningham, 1987). Therefore, it was importantto select a shape to communicatethe clearestmessage of the activitiesoccurringin the OEISinformation-seeking process. Circles tend to convey predictabilityand reliability;straight lines convey stability and linearity of thought and time (Weed, 1989), all characteristics more with static,closed systems. aligned As a complex, ever-changingenvironment, an OEISdoes not inherentlysupport the characteristics of predictability,reliability,stability or linearity.As such, the model is representedas a spiral to depict the ever-evolving and infinite nature of the information-seeking process in an OEIS. According to Weed (1989), the spiral depicts activities as they move through time. The spiral indicates movement around and beyond a circle, returning to itself, but never exactly at the same place. Each movement is

Hill & Hannafin,1997).Gainingan understanding of effective search practices in an OEISis necessary if the systems are to continue their evolution.

IN STRATEGIES INFORMATION-SEEKING A MODEL AND OEIS: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK A proposed conceptual model for the information-seeking process in OEISs is presented in Figure la. The grey line added to the model in Figures lb and ic indicates how a user might move through the process (Figure ib: novice; Figureic: knowledgeable).A conceptualframework outlining the model is presented in Table 3. The model and conceptual frameworkrepresent the culminating analysis of previous researchin informationretrievalin a variety of contexts and across disciplines (see, e.g., Hjorland, 1997; Kuhlthau, 1991; Laurel, 1993; Marchionini, 1995; Stonier, 1997; Stripling & Pitts, 1988;Walster, 1996), as well as my own research in the information-seeking process (Hill, 1997;Hill & Hannafin,1997). The framework should not be viewed as the only way to retrieve information in an OEIS. Given the evolving and ever-changingnature of the user and the environment, there are many ways in which the retrievalprocess could be engaged in an OEIS (Leont'ev, as cited in Wertsch, 1985). Additionally, the model and frameworkrepresent original and evolving theory;they should, therefore,be viewed as a work in progress. A few characteristics the model areimportof

Table 3 O Information systems (OEISs) seeking strategies in Open-ended information

Phases Information Seeking Navigational Stage Strategies Employed

Purposeful Thinking Acting System Responding

Process Stage

Planning, Organizing, Selecting, Scanning Browsing, Searching, Foraging, Retrieving, Exploring

Evaluation Transformation &Integration Resolution

Differentiating, Monitoring, Encoding, Formulating, Integrating Extracting, Angling, Collecting, Controlling Decision Making, Reflecting

12

Vol ETR&D, 47, No. 1

Figurela

for Conceptual framework information seeking in open-ended information systems (OEISs)

Purposeful

Acting

Thinking

Systenm espondin

Evaluatio

ransfer

tion

integra

ion

Navig ation
Start

Process
Resolution

Figure1b EDConceptual frameworkfor information seeking in open-ended information systems Novice userorientation (OEISs):

p*rpwseru Thinking

Acting

e3spndiy

Sg stem

Evaluati

ransfer

ation

Integ

ion

1
Start

Navigation

Process
Resolution

systems Figure1c D Conceptual frameworkfor information seeking in open-ended information userorientation (OEISs): Knowledgeable

~.

:.o,

..

erpeful Thinking

Actig

Stem pndi

Earan3flr

ti n In:gr

Navig ation
Start

Process
Resolution

SEEKINGOEISES IN INFORMATION

13
ning, and organizing; see Eggen & Kauchak, 1994)are focused and directed toward assisting users in achieving goals as they make decisions aboutwhat to do (Hannafin,Hill, & Land, 1997; Laurel, 1993). As users explore, they begin to sortwhat is possible into what is probablebased on individual goals and any previous interactions with the system (Ausubel, 1963; Weil, Rosen,& Wugater,1990;Wertsch,1985). One possible starting point for information seeking on the Web is a classifiedlist (Schwartz, 1998), such as the one depicted in Figure 2. As users engage purposeful thinking, they clarify their information problem and assess the options presented. Users seek input-guidance from the environment(Jacob,1987)to help facilitate movement to the next phase:acting.

unique and is influenced by many factorsfrom the user and environment(Allen & Otto, 1996). Five search phases, (a) purposeful thinking, (b) acting, (c) system responding,(d) evaluation, and integration,are repand (e) transformation in the framework,housed within two resented main stages, (a)navigationand (b)process.Navigation represents the most fundamentalstage of the search process, encompassing strategies typically engaged by all users of OEISs:naive, somewhat knowledgeable, and knowledgeable. The process stage includes the higher-order operationsassociatedwith the searchprocess, a stage generally engaged by somewhat knowledgeable or knowledgeable users. The Web pages depicted in Figures 2-5 will be used to illustrate the phases in the OEIS informationseeking process. The framework components and.associated strategies,summarized in Table 3 and Figuresla-1c, are exploredin depth in the following sections.

Acting Actingcan take two primaryforms in OEISs:(a) browsing or (b) searching (Catledge & Pitkow, 1995;Chen et al., 1998;DeZelar-Tiedman, 1997; Falk, 1997). According to Marchionini (1995), users who browse arenot usually engaged in an active search for specific information.They are exploring various options, often without any formulated plan. In contrast, searching demonstrates intent (Marchionini, 1995), and may involve directly accessing a Web site or using a search engine and keywords to locate information(Falk, 1997).Users searching in an OEIS are modifying their state of knowledge (Belkin,Oddy, & Brooks,1982) as they engage sense-making(Dervin& Nilan, 1986),calling on metacognitive,system and subjectknowledge to directtheiractions:clickinga "hotlink"(e.g., sciencein Figure2) or enteringa keyword, such as rhinoceros Figure3). (see

Navigation
Users navigatethe system, exploringor foraging (Cronin& Hert, 1995;Sandstrom,1994)as they seek to build orientation. Occupied with wayfinding (Kerr,1990),users engaged in navigation are usually attemptingto establishfamiliarity, deciding what to seek, how to begin, and what is availablein the system. Based on previous examinationof a user engaged in searching in an OEIS(Hill, 1997;Hill & Hannafin,1997),it appears that the user moves through three phases in this stage: (a) purposeful thinking,(b) acting, and (c) system responding (see Figure la).

Purposeful Thinking Purposeful thinking, usually one of the first inforactivities engaged, differs from mation-seeking the never-ending thinking task of the human mind (Whitehead, as stated in Duffy & Cunningham, 1996). When engaged in purposeful thinking, users are involved in a "means to an end" activity, what Leont'ev refers to as goaldirected action (Wertsch, 1985). The cognitive processes (e.g., familiarizing,recognizing,planSystemResponding refers to the feedback proSystem responding vided to users by the system (Spink & Losee, 1996). Feedback may take several forms in an a OEIS: "hitlist"of data points (see Figure4), an errormessage from the system (e.g., "unableto locate DNS [domain nameserver]address"),or a Webpage. specific The possibilitiespresented and actions taken

14 of 2 system(OEIS) Figure O Beginning a searchinan open-ended information

Vol ETR&D, 47, No, 1

.:

actioninan open-ended information 3 system(OEIS) Figure O Taking

:;:::...........

.. . -

oad:

..................................... A New -44,r

wiftat
evr

::zoX:

iiaiiiiiia'si~~il~ii `: :':::'::::::::::';:':':::::::i:::::::i

IN INFORMATION SEEKINGOEISES

15

4 list system(OEIS) Figure O Hit fromsearchinopen-ended information

:xtopw

...

...

..............

..... gii.

::I., . . . i~i!iiiiiiiiiiiii~iiiiiiiiiiiii~i.

. . ......... . . . . . . . . . ..
Ya~Q#~k~u*"NOW
....... ..

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

)m

p4U3

Isnsu

will differ from person to person, and even session to session as the user navigates in an OEIS (Duffy & Cunningham,1996;Laurel,1993).The user is engaged in what Hert (1995) calls the
situatedness of action: "... as a user moves

through an interaction [in an information retrievalsystem], his or her actions are not completely predeterminedof planned; instead, elements of the situation are utilized to determine action" (p.174).The user and the system affect each other and each responds to the other in some form (Smith,1994).As representedby the spiral model (see Figure la), it is an ever-evolving process (Weed, 1989).

Hannafin,1997).The processes engaged during this stage requireactiveengagementby users, as they bring all previous and currentknowledge and experience to the task (Allen & Otto, 1996; Hert, 1995;Hjorland,1997;Smith, 1994;Sugar, 1995). The proposed frameworkpresents three phases in this stage: (a) evaluation, (b) integration and transformation, and (c) resolution (see la). Figure Evaluation Evaluation been defined in many ways (see has Fitzgerald,1998,for a thorough examinationof evaluation and the information retrieval process). Some have equated evaluation with critical thinking(see, e.g., Beyer,1985;Yinger,1980). Thosewho equateevaluationwith criticalthinking view the process from two perspectives:a process that has to be initialized,or the process itself. Bloom, Englehart, Furst, Hill, and Krathworhl(1956)combineboth perspectivesin their definition: "evaluation is defined as the making of judgments about the value, for some

Process
In the process stage, users typicallyevaluate the data received fromthe system, attemptto assimilate it and transformit into personallyrelevant information and knowledge as they build understanding, and make decisions related to continuing or ending their search task (Hill &

16
Figure5 D Web page selected fromhit list
:M A

Vol ETR&D, 47, No. 1

Ff,4f

A,

uii

W4L.

F7The:

.................

i0

h
......

!a !!ai ! a a !i !!a a .... ....!aa .!a! !.~ i... a..i !!.a ....!.! i..!!!!!!!. .!.!! .!!a a.. .a...a.a,.....a.!........j :.! !!.!! .! .a .!.!

purpose, of ideas, works... etc. It involves the use of criteria... for appraising.. (p. 185). .." For purposes of information seeking in an will be defined as the assessOEIS,evaluation ment of informationand its ability to fulfill an information need. While some form of assessment or evaluation is taking place throughout the searchprocess (Fitzgerald,1998),during this phase, users make a conscious choice to evaluate. Users actively differentiateand monitorthe response from the system, interpretingwhat the system returned and assessing its abilityto fulfill theirinformationneed. The evaluation phase is the point at which the users' level plays a particularlypivotal role in their progression through the process. Researchindicates that users utilize one of two levels of evaluation: functional or optimal eval(Fischer,1980;Fitzgerald,1998).Functional naive users, takesplace duruation, engaged by ing normal cognitive operations and can occur quickly,implying a shallow processingof information (Fitzgerald, 1998). Optimal evaluation occursat the highest intellectualcapabilitiesof a

particularuser, typically a knowledgeableuser, implying a more detailed or reflective processing of information(Fitzgerald,1998). As depicted in Figure 5, the user was presented with a Web page displaying information related to the topic and made a choice deemed relevant to the informationneed (e.g., InternationalRhinoFoundation,see Figure5). Thismay not always be the case, as relevant information may not be readily apparent or discernable (Hert,1995).Theuser may restartthe searchprocess (e.g., purposefulthinking or acting) (see Figure lb) or, if relevantinformationis identified, the user may move to the next phase, beginning to integrateand transformthe informationinto personallyrelevantknowledge (see Figure lc). and Integration Transformation and During the integration transformation phase, users engage in extracting information that is relevantto their informationneed, making connections to preexisting information (Driscoll, 1994).Forusers with limited subjectknowledge,

IN INFORMATION SEEKINGOEISES

17
and retrieval strategies in OEISs. The participants were volunteers from a technology for teachers course and represented categories acrossthe user continuum(naive " knowledgeable).The participantssearchedfor information on the Web, selecting their own topics and techniques for the task (see Hill, 1997; Hill & Hannafin, 1997, for study details). To simplify the description,the perspectivesof two types of users will be representedin the scenario:naive and knowledgeable(see Table1 for a description of user characteristics).4 This scenario describes the processes users engage for the following search task: I need to on The find information rhinoceroses. explanation of the search process will be presented within the OEISframework(see Figuresla-1c). Table4 summarizesthe stages and phases of the framework, as well as typical questions or statements fromusers as they engage the searchprocess. Navigation:Exploring, Acting and Receiving Feedback inthe Information Space For purposes of this scenario, initiation of the search begins when the user formally begins interactionwith the OEIS;that is, has a Web browser active on a computer and is ready to begin searchingfor information(as depicted in Figure 2). Users of the system will begin their quest in the navigationstage of the searchspiral (see Figurela). Purposeful Thinking Question: What am I lookingfor? The search begins by determining what information is sought from the system. One major difference between knowledgeableand novice users is the specificity with which the search problem is defined. The problem posed for this search session is relativelybroad;the user's ability to further refine the problem will depend largely on the extent of the user's subjectknowledge and ability to articulatethe contextualneeds for the information(Ausubel,1963).

this phase can create high levels of frustration (Hill, 1997; Nahl, 1998). Users with extensive prior knowledge can transformthe information and apply it to a specificcontext(Ausubel,1963). As active participants,users can take advantage of the affordancesof the system, making use of their effectivities (i.e., capabilities)to transform the information(Allen & Otto, 1996). users During integrationand transformation, also engage in angling: viewing the information from varied perspectives, seeking to recognize where the information achieves a "best fit" in regardingcontextand linking the information as new informationis genermeaningful ways ated (Borsook & Higginbotham-Wheat,1992; Duchastel, 1990; Kuhlthau, 1996;Smith, 1994). The information found within the Web page depicted in Figure 5 can then evolve to a new level: personallyrelevantknowledge. Resolution Resolution depicts a point of final judgment in the search process. The ability to reach some form of decision in regard to the search task often depends on both the user's metacognitive knowledge and level of disorientation(Hill & Hannafin, 1997).Some users may perceive limited choices;others,vast potential(Laurel,1993). The information displayed in Figure 5 may well fulfill the information needs of the user. However, it may be that the informationis not on target-or that more informationis needed. Regardless,the user will judge the information presented and pursue one of several options: continuing the current search, starting a new search at the purposeful thinking phase, creating a physicalproductfromthe search(print-out or electronic file), or ending the search (Eisenberg & Berkowitz, 1990;Kuhlthau, 1991; Marchionini,1995;Stripling& Pitts, 1988).

STRATEGY IN AN BUILDING OEISS: EMPIRICALLY-BASED EXAMPLE To assist the readerin understandingthe search process in an OEIS, the following search scenariohas been created.The scenariopresentedis modeled after information searches completed during a research project exploring cognitive

4 The reader should keep in mind that there are an infinite number of paths in the process. Those represented here are but two of those possibilities.

18
Table 4 O Stage, phase, question matrix
Stage Navigation Phase I. PurposefulThinking Questions
* Whatam I looking for? * Wheredo I begin?

Vol ETR&D, 47, No. 1

Navigation

II. Acting III.SystemResponding IV. Evaluation Functional

* I am readyto initiatethe search.

Navigation Process

Optimal

* * * * *

Whatdoes this mean? Is this what I want? Whatdo I do now? Whatdo I have? Whatelse do I need?

Process

V. Transformation & Integration VI. Resolution

* Will this information work in a specificcontext? * Does what I have link with otherinformation?

Process

* Is what I have sufficient?

* Am I ready to end the search?

Knowledgeable users, understanding how to use subject knowledge to enhance the search

screen, naive users are placed in a situation of

process, are likely to generatewell-defined,specific search statements or phrases to better match the context in which the informationwill be used (e.g., looking for informationon rhinocand or and eroses extinction rhinoceroses eatinghabuser engages a search its). The knowledgeable driven by informed intention (Norman, 1988), enablingpurposeful thought to guide action. In contrast, naive users tend to broadly define the topic for searching,frequentlyfailing to refine their search statements or phrases. Naive users typically fail to approachthe search task with informedintent;deriving a clearproblem statement and generating key words for searching is indeed problematic(Belkin,Oddy, & Brooks,1982). The do Question:Where I begin? answerto Where do I begin? generally depends on the extent of the user's system knowledge (Weil, Rosen, & Wugaster,1990).Deciding where to startcan be particularly challenging for naive users. If a searchengine is not alreadyon the Webbrowser

finding one in order to perform their search. Naive users discover the system through trial and error,browsing through the options, "fishing" for somethingrecognizable. Knowledgeable users know how to begin searchingin the system. Not only do they know about using a search engine, they also know which searchengine is likely to yield the highest or number of relevant results (e.g., Alta Vista@ If the subject area is one in which InfrSeek@).
they frequently look for information, knowledgeable users may bookmark the best sites to access information they seek (e.g., International

or Rhino Foundation SanDiegoZooHome pages).

Acting Statement:I am readyto initiatethesearch. to Up this point, users were engaged in the purposeful thinkingphase of the Navigation Stage (see Figure la). Now, users are at the point of taking action(see Figure 3): entering a key term into a searchengine, selecting a term from a classification index provided by a searchsite, or going to

INFORMATION SEEKINGOEISES IN

19
now? Users appear to make two decisions as they decipher the system response: Is this the informationI want?and Whatdo I do next?This is the point at which the user either returns to work within the navigation stage, or moves further into the process stage (see Figures lb and ic). The differences between naive users and knowledgeable users become increasinglypronounced at this point in the information-seeking process. Previousresearchhas noted severalcommon responses from naive users, including:What is going on? I don't understand. What is this? What am I doing wrong? (Hill, 1997; Hill & Hannafin, 1997).Limited metacognitiveknowledge impedes the ability of naive users to integrate the informationwith prior knowledge or to make connections with related knowledge areas (Flavell, 1979). Naive users are likely to select the most obvious related choices for the informationthey seek (e.g., White Rhinolink). While knowledgeable users may demonstrate similar confusion initially, their extensive knowledge enables them to decide how to proceed. Theirabilityto utilize metacognitiveskills and reflect on their actions assists knowledgeable users in decision makingto determinetheir next action(Flavell,1979). Evaluation: Optimal Questions: Whatdo I have?and Whatelse do I need? this phase of the searchprocess,the user In interprets the data, relating it to prior subject knowledge and goals. The user is criticallyevaluating the data to gain understanding. Naive users are likely unable to evaluate the information presented at the optimal level (Fischer, 1980). While all of the links have the word rhinoceros prominentlydisplayed (see Figure 4), there is no clear match between rhinoceros (the mammal) and some list items. At this point, the naive user will eitherstartthe process again or proceedto resolutionas depictedin Figure lb. Knowledgeable users, in contrast, readily and easily move into optimal evaluation of the information(Marchionini,1995). They work to determineexactlywhat the informationis, identifying what works as well as what remainsto be

a specific Web site via a bookmarkor uniform resourcelocator(URL)(see Schwartz,1998,for a thorough review of Web searchtechniquesand tools). As with purposeful thinking, how the user initiatesthe searchis largely dependent on the user's level (naivevs. knowledgeable). and Process:Evaluating,Transforming Resolvingthe Search Task During this phase of the information-seeking process, users move into the process stage (see Figure la). Users are primarilyengaged in cognitive processes as they work to make sense of the information, build understanding, and decide next steps (Dervin& Nilan, 1986). Evaluation: Functional Question: What does this mean? After users engage in purposeful thinking, selecting where and how to begin, and actingto initiatea search, the system responds to the users' entry. The challengefor users at this point becomes how to decipherthe system response (see Figure4). In Yahoo@ example,the list of results-hit for list-can range from a Web page title (International Rhino Foundation), a document title to (WhiteRhino),to an address of where the Web page is located (rhinoceros.cs.inf.shizuoka.ac.jp /dns.html). Knowledgeableusers have distinct advantages over naive users when deciphering options presented on the hit list. They are accustomed to interpretingthe crypticlists and determining their meanings, and are more likely to recognize a relevant item. In addition, knowledgeable users prioritize their tasks as they work in the system (Khan& Locatis,1998). Naive users in the same situation may become confused at this point in the process. The hit list may make little sense to them, especially if the keyword they used to startthe search is not readily visible in any entry on the screen. As demonstratedin previous research,limited system and subject knowledge appears to hinder their ability to recognize and fully understand the response from the system (Hill, 1997; Hill & Hannafin, 1997;Park & Hannafin, 1992; Weil, Rosen,& Wugaster,1990). Questions:Is this whatI want?and Whatdo I do

20 uncovered.Knowledgeableusers begin to transform the informationto meet specificcontextual needs (Fischer,1980;Fitzgerald,1998). and Integration Transformation workin a specific Questions: Willthis information need?Is it validor useful and context meeta specific I to in relation otherinformation haveon thetopic? Naive users are not likely to move throughthis phase of the process stage (see Figure ib). The limited knowledge base of naive users restricts theirprogress.Knowledgeableusers can link the retrieved information to a specific need (Ausubel, 1963). In addition, their ability to view from multiple perspectives (Duchastel, 1990) greatly assists with integratingand transforming (see Figureic). Resolution Questions: Is what I have sufficient?and Am I At readyto end thesearch? this point in the pronaive users are likely to express frustration cess, and disorientation(Hill & Hannafin,1997).Others examining the retrievalprocess have found frustrationand disorientationto be debilitating for system users, leaving them in states of neither understandingwhat they have nor knowing what to do next (Hill, 1997; Jonassen & Grabinger, 1989; Marchionini, 1988). Naive users either start through the search process again, returning to the navigation stage (purposeful thinking, acting, or both), or end their search, reaching some form of resolution (see Figurelb). Knowledgeable users are likely to move to this phase more confidently, assured in their previous actions in finding a solution to their information problem (Marchionini,1995). One of the options on the hit list may have answered their question sufficiently(see Figure5), or they may be ready to continue the process, returning to navigate the system (see Figurelc). Search Summary The information-seeking processis iterativeand embedded;a user may move throughthe spiral several times during a search task (Hendry &

Vol ETR&D, 47, No. 1

Harper,1997).Themajorityof the processis also instantaneous.Withthe exceptionsof actionand system response,the other activitiesoutlined in the information-seekingmodel are primarily cognitive in nature,occurringin the mind of the user (see Figures la-1c). What differs among users is how farand how quicklythey areable to move through the phases on the spiral. Again, naive and knowledgeable users can be contrasted. Naive users, at the low end, move through the navigationstage throughoutthe searchtask: purposeful thinking, acting, and system responding. They learn to navigate the system, making fairlyrandomchoices while working in the system. Naive users do not, however, successfully advance through the process stage, to integrate and transform their knowledge (see Figure ib). They are typically unable to take what is learned during the search and use it to intentionallyinformtheirsearchdecisions. Knowledgeable users, in contrast, move throughboth stages, integratingand transforming the informationprovided to and presented by the system. They use the data returnedfrom the system to informtheir decisions. The phases in the processstage arecriticalto theirsuccess in using OEISs(see Figureic). AND FOR IMPLICATIONS PRACTICE FOR RECOMMENDATIONSFURTHER RESEARCH for Implications Practice The challenges for assisting naive and somewhat knowledgeableusers in OEISsare considerable;the implicationsfor creatingproductive and successfulOEISsarecompelling.Thepotential for using informationsystems and OEISsfor learning has been widely heralded (Hill, 1997; Hill & Hannafin,1997;Marchionini,1995;Nahl, 1998; Walster, 1996; Watson, 1998). However, much work is needed to turn potential into reality. Several researchershave discussed issues to be resolved related to systems open-ended in their orientation, including OEISs (see, e.g., Chang & McDaniel,1995;Hannafin,Hall, Land, & Hill, 1994; Hill & Hannafin, 1997; Land &

SEEKINGOEISES IN INFORMATION

21
the development of these systems challenging for the designer, and also presents significant challenges to users of the systems as they attempt to create a functional model (Norman, 1983) of the informationsystem. According to Marshall(1997),the tools used to find information in emerging information systems (e.g., directories,pointers) must continue to evolve if the systems are to maintain their viability for information retrieval. In her review of Web search engines, Schwartz (1998) indicates that the evolution is indeed occurring,although not necessarilyat a rapid pace. The creationof standards and guidelines for design and development would facilitatethe continued growth and utility of these environments (see Lynch, 1998, for an overview of currentstandardswork and other emerging issues with the Internet and Web). A final implication relates to human cognitive processes.A fundamentalobstacleunderlying the lack of understanding associated with OEISs is the manner in which "compliant" thinking is shaped by conventional learning activities (McCaslin& Good, 1992). Education has a history of engendering lockstep, highly directed, isolated learning experiences (Hannafin et al., 1994; Maddux, 1997). This approach may inhibit users working in OEISs who lack the orientation,mental models, and strategies(or capabilitiesfor creatingthem) necessary for the successfuluse of open-ended systems (Hill & Hannafin, 1997). For the user to successfullynavigateand processinformationin OEISs, divergent thinking, the ability to view from multiple perspectives, problem solving and independent thinking skills are critical (Howard-Vital,1995; Owston, 1997).Users must attend the search task, be self-directed, actively and adapt to theirinteractionswith the system if they are to find the information they seek (Duchastel, 1990; Hert, 1995; Locatis & Weisberg,1997). It is possible that those users who develop an orientationand functionalmodel of the system will prove more successful in their task than those who do not. They will tend to use two primary techniques associatedwith successful use of OEISsfor finding information: divergent and independentthinking(Hill, 1997).Adjustingthe

Hannafin, 1996).One issue raised is that of discomfort for users engaged in open-ended environments. In a recent study, disorientationwas the second most influentialfactorinhibitinguse of a hypermedia information system (Hill & Hannafin, 1997).Ultimately, disorientationhindered the users in their search task; it also appeared to keep the naive user from progressing through the process stage (see Figure ib). Methods for overcoming disorientationremain undiscovered to date. Finding techniques and strategies for assisting and supporting users in their use of the systems is criticalif OEISsare to be utilized to their full potential (Lehman,1996; Locatis& Weisberg,1997). Anotherissue relatesto the design and development of OEISs. Computer and information scientistshave developed design models for creating informationsystems (Agosti & Marchetti, 1992; Dillon, 1997b;Hitchcock & Wang, 1992; Kay, 1990; Kuo, 1993). Instructionaldesigners and psychologists have created design models for the developmentof learningsystems (Dick& Carey, 1996; Kemp, Morrison, & Ross, 1996; Leshin, Pollock & Reigeluth, 1992;Tennyson & Foshay, in press). However, none of the models to date seems to satisfactorily supportthe design and development of OEISs.These models tend to work for systems more static in nature.OEIS design models need to create structurewithout hindering expansion;focus on the user, encouraging self-directedness;and create systems that empower and guide users in their tasks. While some design models have recently been proposed in the literature (see Dillon, 1997b, for models specifically related to improving human-computer interaction; Khan, 1997, for presentation of models for Web-basedinformation) few (if any) have undergone vigorous research (Cottrell & Eisenberg, 1997). It is an area rich with significant,but unfulfilled,promise. The development of standards and guidelines, both for guiding users in theirinformation retrieval task in OEISs and for developing OEISs,is also critical.Specificationsfor placing informationon the Web and Internet,as well as indexing and providing pointersto this information, are not standardized (Efthimiadis& Carlyle, 1997). The lack of standardizationmakes

22
ways we teach to foster divergent thinkingand multiple perspectives may assist users in using these environments effectively and with minimal disorientation.Finding ways to assist users in acquiring and using these skills is challenging, yet appears critical if OEISsare to realize their full potential for learning (Locatis & Weisberg,1997).

Vol ETR&D, 47, No, 1

(or conceptual) models for devices: (a) strong analogy, (b) surrogate, (c) mapping, (d) coherence, (e) vocabulary,(f) problemspace, (g) psychological grammar, and (h) commonality. Identifyingthe model (if any) that best supports informationseeking in OEISsis an area in need of exploration. How to organizeand present the information residing in OEISsalso needs continued exploration. In a recent study, Khan and Locatis(1998) examined the effects of link density and display on formaton searchperformance the Web.Their results indicatethat low link densities in list format producedthe best overallsearchresults (i.e., users' finding the informationthey sought in the system). However, more research is needed to substantiateand extend their findings. Socialinteractionbetween users and OEISsis another potential area for research. Many researchers becominginvolved in the areaof are computer-mediated communication and electronic interaction(see Shackel, 1997, for a comprehensive review of relevant literature). My informal analysis of interactionsbetween users and an OEIS indicates an interaction more aligned with human-human communication patterns(i.e.,interactivedialogues) thanhumancomputer communication (i.e., one-way communication) (Brennan, 1990; Laurel, 1993; Schmidt,1997;Watson,1998).Users appearedto interactwith the computermuch as they would with a human, expecting the Web-basedsearch engine to understandwhat they requested during a search and to return feedback directly related to their request. Several users actually talked to the computer much as they would to anotherperson with whom they might be solving a problemor working on a task. Research conducted in traditional information-retrievalsystems examining the dialogue process also supports my preliminaryspeculations (Iseke-Bames,1996; Sitter & Stein, 1996; Sundar, 1994).Recent researchwith Web-based environmentsand communication patternsindicates that the ways in which the tools are used may actuallyhamperthe communication process (Harper,1998). Furtherinvestigation related to interactionsand dialogue in OEISsfrom a communication and linguistics orientation has the potentialof informingthese findings.

for Research Recommendations Further

Studies have been conducted indicating the promise of open-ended systems (see, e.g., Hill & Hannafin, 1997;Land & Hannafin, 1996).Continued researchis needed if we are to design and use these systems in the most effective and efficient manners (Heffron et al., 1996; Khan & Locatis,1998).Severalareas appearparticularly promising for continued examination. One area ripe for explorationis the effect of mental models on the development of strategies in OEISs.While some research has been done with mental models in the informationretrieval process (Borgman, 1996; Dimitroff, 1992;Kerr, 1990; Marchionini,1995;McGregor,1994;Pitts, 1995), this research has not been extended to OEISs.A closely relatedareaof potentialexamination is cognitive mapping and wayfinding skills in OEISs.It has been indicatedin the ecological psychology literaturethat this areaholds considerable promise (Siegel, 1985). An approach similar to that used by Mayer (1989) could be used to explore mental models in OEISs.One group could be provided with a con(NetscapeCommuceptualmodel of Navigator@ nications Corporation,1997)and the Web prior to beginning the search task;the other group of users could simply be left to "figureit out."The results of the search task for each group could provide further insight into the strategiesused in an OEIS as well as the value of providing users of OEISswith a model prior to use of the system. This, in turn, could inform instruction provided to users of the systems, as well as for designers of OEISsas they work to improve the systems. Another area of OEISresearchrelates to the type of mental model needed to facilitateeffective and efficient use of the systems. Young (1983) discusses eight differentkinds or mental

IN SEEKINGOEISES INFORMATION

23
and learning. As stated by Smith (1994), ". there is a narrow window of opportunitywhen new mediating devices can most easily be observed, often occurring as an individual ... attempts to resolve a problem" (p. 181). If we take advantageof this window, the promises of OEISsmay yet be realized. Clebome Maddux (1996) states, "the potential for building user interactioninto hypertext and hypermedia is almost unlimited, and this potential leads to the potential for highly individualized learning.. ." ( p. 70).OEISsalso provide the opportunity for users of all types to come together to share and explore (Marchionini & Maurer,1995). Intuitive, user-focused access to the informationprovided in OEISsis criticalif these opportunitiesare to be realized (Nahl, 1998). Continued researchand exploration of OEISsarekey componentsof this goal.E R. of Professor Janette Hillis anAssistant Instructional at State Technology Georgia University in Atlanta. e-mail Her is address janette@gsu.edu. Thismanuscript based, part, dissertation was in on research at conducted TheFlorida University State The wishesto acknowledge Marcy Dr. (FSU). author P.Driscoll Dr.Robert Reiser the A. and of Instructional FSU; Program, Dr.Elisabeth Systems

of A characteristic previous researchrelated to OEISs and other open-ended systems has been the examination of the novice user (Hill, 1997;Hill & Hannafin, 1997;Land & Hannafin, 1996; Watson, 1998). My interactions with experts in searching the Web have generated interesting insights into the differences in the orientationof the novice and expertin using the system. While information related to how experts seek informationin OEISshas been published (see, e.g., Basch, 1996; Khan & Locatis, 1998), continued investigation is needed so we can further our understanding of how users become increasinglycapablein the retrievalprocess and how system affordances can further enhanceuser effectivities(Allen & Otto, 1996). One of the most significantchallengesfacing designers, teachers and users who work with open-ended learning environmentssuch as the Web is linear thinking. The linear approachis not only taughtin schools, it is also reinforcedin one of the oldest technologies-print. "[The Web] is the veritable antithesis of linearity, as nested reflectedin the full arrayof hierarchically components of networks, computers, HTML documents, hypertextobjects,and the near infinite numberof links between them"(Castleford, 1997, p. 133). OEISsrequire divergent, abstract thinkingand problem-solvingskills for effective and efficient use (Cottrell & Eisenberg, 1997; Eisenberg & Johnson, 1996; Pettersson, 1994; Uline, 1996). One possible way to examine the effects of linear thinkingon the use of these systems is a comparisonstudy: examine how users trained in a traditional linear model differ in theiruse of the systems when comparedto users trained in a non-linear fashion. This is an area that may help inform further research with emerging technologies open-ended in their orientation.

and Loganof the Schoolof Library Information Studies,FSU;Dr. KentGustafsonof the Instructional TechnologyProgram, Universityof Georgia(UGA), for theircooperation and supportduringthe project. Specialthanksto MichaelJ.Hannafin,Director, Learningand Performance SupportLaboratory, to UGA, for his continuedcontributions this effort. The preliminary was preparedwhile I manuscript was workingas an AssistantProfessorof Educational Technologyat the Universityof NorthernColorado.

REFERENCES P.G. User M., June). navigaAgosti, &Marchetti, (1992,

tion in the informationretrievalsystem conceptual structurethrough a semantic associationfunction. TheComputer 35, Journal, 194-199.

CONCLUSION Information systems have played a primaryrole in educational settings for many years. OEISs offerthe opportunityto expand and enhancethe roles of informationsystems in the teachingand learning process. The fundamental nature of OEISsopens the door for new ways of thinking

& system usability. Information Processing Management,30(2),177-191. Allen, B.S.,&Otto,R.G.(1996).Mediaas lived environments: The ecological psychology of educational technology.In D.H. Jonassen(Ed.),Handbook eduof cational and communications technology 199-225). (pp.

abilities information and Allen,B. (1993). Cognitive

NewYork: Macmillan.

Ausubel,D.P.(1963).Cognitivestructureand the facil-

24

Vol ETR&D, 47, No. 1

itation of meaningful verbal learning. Journalof of niques.Journal theAmerican Society Information for Teacher Education, 217-221. 14, Science, 49(7),582-603. and Barker,R.G.(1968).Ecological Cho, Y. (1995). User control, cognitiveprocessesad Concepts psychology: environments. behavmethods studyingtheenvironment human learning hypertext for of Paper presented at ior.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversity. the annual meeting of NECC. (ERIC Document ServiceNo. ED 392 439) The Basch, R. (1996). Secretsof the supernet searchers: Reproduction and wisdom 35 ofthe Cottrell, J., & Eisenberg,M. (1997). Web design for revelations, hard-won reflections, of information world's top Internet researchers.Wilton, CT: problem-solving: Maximizingvalue for in Pemberton. users. Computers Libraries, 17(5),52-54,56-57. Cronin,B., & Hert,C.A. (1995).Scholarlyforagingand Belkin,N.J.,Oddy, R.N., & Brooks,H.M. (1982).ASK network discovery tools. Journal Documentation, for information retrieval. Part I: Backgroundand of 51(4),388-403. 38(2),61-71. Journal Documentation, theory. of D.J. Belkin, N.J., Marchetti, P.G., & Cool, C. (1993). Cunningham, (1987).Outlineof an educationsemiotic.American 5(2), Journal Semiotics, 201-216. BRAQUE:Design of an interfaceto support user of Prointeractionin informationretrieval.Information Dawson, A. (1996). The World Wide Web: Spun in and 29(3),325-344. cessing&Management, Management gold or just a cobweb?Information 29(3),112-115. Technology, Beyer,B.K.(1985).Criticalthinking:Whatis it? Social retrievalin the Education, 49(4),270-276. DeBra,P., &Post,R.(1994).Information World-WideWeb: Making client-based searching Bloom,B.S.,Engelhart,M.D.,Furst,E.J.,Hill, W.H.,& and Networks ISDNSystems, feasible.Computer 27(2), Krathworhl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy educational of 183-192. New Theclassification educational of goals. objectives: needs and York:David McKay. Dervin,B., & Nilan, M. (1986).Information uses. In M.E.Williams(Ed.),Annualreviewof inforBorgman, C.L. (1989). All users of information and mation science technology, 3-33. 21, retrievalsystems are not createdequal:An exploraC. Process- DeZelar-Tiedman, (1997).Known-itemsearchingon tion into individual differences.Information Services the World Wide Web. InternetReference 25, ing andManagement, 237-251. 2(1), Quarterly, 5-14. C.L.(1996).Why areon-linecatalogshardto Borgman, use? Lessons learned from information retrieval Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1996).Thesystematic designof instruction ed.). New York:HarperCollins. studies.Journal theAmerican (4th for Society Information of L, Science, 37(6),387-400. Dickstein,R.,Greenfield, and Rosen,J.(1997).Using the WorldWide Webas a referencedesk. Computers Borgman,C.L.,Hirsh,S.G.,Walter,V.A., & Gallagher, in Libraries, A.L. (1995). Children's searching behavior on 17(8),61-65. and keywordon-linecatalogs:Thescience Dillon, A. (Ed.) (1997a).Currentresearchin humanbrowsing Journal theAmerican Journal theAmerican Society of Society of computerinteraction. librarycatalogproject. Science, Science, 46(9),663-684. 48(11). for Information for Information N. Dillon, A. (1997b).Introduction[special topic issue]. Borsook, T.K., & Higginbotham-Wheat, (1992).A A conceptual Science, Journal theAmerican for for Society Information framework of psychology hypermedia: of R&D. (ERICDocument ReproductionService No. 48(11),965-969. ED 345 697) Dimitroff,A. (1992).Mentalmodels theoryand search retrievalsystem. Library as outcome in a bibliographic S.E. Brennan, (1990).Conversation directmanipulaScience andInformation tion:An iconoclasticview. In B. Laurel(Ed.),Theart Research, 14(2),141-56. Driscoll,M.P. (1994).Psychology learning instrucfor of interfacedesign (pp. 393-404). of human-computer tion.Boston:Allyn & Bacon. Reading,MA:Addison-Wesley. Bush, V. (1945).As we may think. AtlanticMonthly, Duchastel, P.C. (1990).Examiningcognitive process176,101-108. 2(3), ing in hypermediausage. Hypermedia, 212-233. Castleford, J. (1997). World-Wide-Web: D.J. Surfing or Duffy,T., & Cunningham, (1996).Constructivism: and drowning in a sea of information?Computers Implicationsfor the design and delivery of instruction. In D.H. Jonassen(Ed.),Handbook educational Geosciences, 23(1),133-134. of and communications technology (pp. 170-198). New Catledge, L., & Pitkow, J. (1995). Characterizing Macmillan. York: browsing strategies in the World-WideWeb. Comand 27(6),1065-1073. Efthimiadis, puterNetworks ISDNSystems, E.N.,&Carlyle,A. (Eds.)(1997).Introduction. Bulletinof the American Society Information for Chang, C., & McDaniel, E.D. (1995). Information Science, 24(1),4-5. searchstrategiesin loosely structuredsettings.Journalof Educational Research, 12(1),95-107. psycholEggen, P., & Kauchak,D. (1994).Educational Computing connections ed.). New York:Mer(2nd ogy:Classroom Chau,M.Y.(1997).Findingorderin a chaoticworld:A rill. model for organizedresearchusing the WorldWide Web.Internet Services, 2(2/3), 37-53. Reference Eisenberg,M.B.,& Berkowitz,R.E.(1990).Information & The to Chen, H., Houston, A.L., Sewell, R.R.,& Schatz,B.R. problem-solving: bigsix skillsapproach library skills Norwood, NJ:Ablex. Userevalu(1998).Internet information instruction. browsingand searching: skills ations of category map and concept space techEisenberg,M.B.,& Johnson,D. (1996).Computer

IN INFORMATION SEEKINGOEISES

25
action. Proceedings the ASIS AnnualMeeting,32, of
172-180.

and problem-solving: learning teaching for information in DocumentReproduction (ERIC technology context. ServiceNo. ED 392 463) Falk,H. (1997).WorldWide Web searchand retrieval. Electronic 15(1),49-55. Library, Fargis, P., & Bykofsky,S. (1989)(Eds.).TheNew York Public Library deskreference. New York:Webster's New World. Feinstein, D. (1989, Spring). Glass boxes: Liftingthe veil on information. 12-15. Benchmark, Fischer,K.W. (1980).A theory of cognitive developof ment:The controland constructionof hierarchies skills. Psychological Review, 87(6),477-531. Fitzgerald,M.A. (1998).Thecognitive process informaof tion evaluation: collective A case study.Unpublished doctoraldissertation, Universityof Georgia,Athens. and Flavell,J.H.,(1979).Metacognition cognitivemonitoring: A new area of cognitive development 34, inquiry.American Psychologist, 906-911. (4th of Gagne, R.M.(1985).Theconditions learning ed.). New York:Holt, Rinehart Winston. & Gehl,J.,& Douglas, S. (Eds.)(1997,September14). The proliferation ISPsand otheramusingstatisof tics. Edupage [On-line]. http://www.educom.edu/web/pubs/ pubHomeFrame.html to Gibson,J.J.(1979).Theecological approach visualperBoston,MA:HoughtonMifflin. ception. Hannafin, M.J., Hall, C., Land, S., & Hill, J. (1994). Learning in open-ended environments:AssumpTechtions, methods, and implications.Educational 34(8),48-55. nology, Hannafin,M.J.,Hill, J.R.,& Land,S.M.(1997).Studentcenter learning and interactivemultimedia:Status, Education, issues, and implication. Contemporary 68(2),94-99. Harper,A. (1998,30 August).Internetincreaseslonelifind. TheAtlantaConstitution-Journess, researchers nal,pp. Al, A18. retrieval: ConHarter, S.P. (1986). Online information and techniques. Orlando, FL: Acacepts, principles, demic Press. Healey, P.D. (1995).Untanglingthe Web:The World Wide Web as a referencetool. RQ,34(4),441-444. Heffron, J.K.,Dillon, A., & Mostafa,J. (1996).Landmarksin the WorldWide Web:A preliminary study of (p. 143-145). Baltimore,MD: Proceedings the59th AnnualMeeting theAmerican Information of Societyfor Science. Hendry, D.G., & Harper, D.J. (1997). An informal information-seeking environment. Journal of the American Science, 48(11),1036Societyfor Information 1048. Henninger, S., & Belkin, N.J. (1996).Interfaceissues and interactionstrategies for informationretrieval systems. In R. Bilger,S. Guest, & M.J.Tauber(Eds.), CHI'96 Electronic Proceedings [On-line]: http://www.acm.org/sigchi/chi96/proceedings tutorial/ Henninger/njb_txt.htm Hert, C.A. (1995). Informationretrieval as situated

Hill, J.R.(1997).The World Wide Web as a tool for information retrieval: exploratorystudy of users' An strategies in an open-ended system. SchoolLibrary Media Quarterly. Hill, J.R.,& Hannafin,M.J.(1997).Cognitivestrategies and learningfromthe WorldWideWeb.Educational Research Development, & 45(4),37-64. Technology Hitchcock,P., & Wang, B. (1992,September).Formal approach to hypertext system design based on and object-orienteddatabase system. Information 34, Software Technology, 573-592. B. and Hjorland, (1997).Information seeking subject repreAn sentation: activity-theoretical to approach informationscience. Westport,CT:Greenwood. Howard-Vital, M. (1995). Information technology: Teaching and learning in the 21st century. EducationalHorizons, 73(4),193-96. Iseke-Barnes, (1996).Issues of educationaluses of J.M. the Internet. Research, Journal Educational of Computer
15(1), 1-23.

Jacob, E. (1987). Qualitative research traditions: A review. Review Educational Research, 57(1), 1-50. of R.S. D.H., &Grabinger, (1989).Problemsand Jonassen, issues in designinghypertext/hypermediaforlearning. In D.H. Jonassen and H. Mandel (Eds.), Designing hypermedia for learning. New York: Springer-Verlag. A Kay, A. (1990).User interface: personal view. In B. Laurel (Ed.), The art of human-computer interaction design(pp. 191-207).New York:Addison-Wesley. Kemp, J.E., Morrison, G.R., & Ross, S.M. (1996). instruction (2nd ed.). Upper SadDesigningeffective dle River,NJ:Merrill. Kerr,S.T.(1990).Wayfindingin an electronicdatabase: The relative importance of navigational cues vs. mental models. Information and processing management, 26, 511-523.

instruction. Khan,B. (Ed.)(1997).Web-based Englewood Cliffs,NJ:Educational Technology. Khan, K., & Locatis, C. (1998). Searching through The cyberspace: effectsof link display and link density on informationretrievalfrom hypertexton the World Wide Web.Journal theAmerican of Society for Science, 49(2),176-182. Information Kuhlthau,C.C.(1991).Insidethe searchprocess:Information seeking from the user's perspective.Journal Science, 42(5), of theAmerican Society Information for
361-371.

Kuhlthau,C.C. (1996).The process of learning from information. In C.C. Kuhlthau (Ed.), The virtual school to Gateway theinformation library: superhighway Unlimited. (pp. 95-104).Englewood,CO:Libraries Kuo, F. (1993, November). A cognitive engineeringbased approachto designing hypermedia applications. Information Management, 253-263. and 25, Land, S.M., & Hannafin, M.J. (1996). A conceptual framework for the development of theories-inaction with open-ended learning environments.

26
Research Development, & Educational 44(3), Technology 37-53. Laurel,B. (1990).Art of computer design.Readinterface ing, MA:Addison-Wesley. as Laurel, B. (1993). Computers theatre. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. lab The on Lehman,L. (1996).From tolibrary: Web's effect DocumentReproduction the (ERIC teaching Internet. ServiceNo. ED 403 899) Leshin, C.B., Pollock, J., & Reigeluth, C.M. (1992). and Instructional designstrategies tactics.Englewood Cliffs,NJ:Educational Technology. Locatis,C., & Weisberg,M. (1997).DistributedlearnEducation, 68(2), ing and the Internet.Contemporary 100- 103. Lynch, C. (1998).The evolving Internet:Applications and network service infrastructure. Journalof the American Science, 49(11),961Society Information for 972. Maddux, C.D. (1997). The World Wide Web and in school culture: Are they compatible?Computers theSchools, 13(1/2), 7-11. Maddux,C.D. (1996).Thestateof the artin Web-based in 12(4),63-70. learning.Computers theSchools, Marchionini,G. (1988, November). Hypermediaand Technollearning: Freedom and chaos. Educational 8-12. ogy, in G. Marchionini, (1995).Information seeking electronic New environments. York: CambridgeUniversity. G., Marchionini, & Maurer,H. (1995).Theroles of digital librariesin teaching and learning.Communicationsof theACM,38(4),67-75. Marshall, L. (1997). Health and medical industry research information on the World Wide Web. Database, 20(2),57-58, 60. Mayer,R.E.(1989).Models for understanding.Review Research, 59(1),43-64. of Educational McCaslin,M., & Good, T. (1992).Compliantcognition: The misalliance of management and instructional goals in current school reform. Educational 21(3),4-17. Researcher, McGregor,J.H. (1994).Informationseeking and use: Student'sthinkingand theirmentalmodels. Journal in Services Libraries, 69-76. 8(1), of Youth Michel, D.A. (1994). What is used during cognitive processing in information retrieval and library for Society Informasearching.Journal theAmerican of tionScience, 45(7),498-514. Nahl, D. (1998).Learningthe Internetand the structure Socibehavior.Journal theAmerican of information of Science, 49(11),1017-1023. etyfor Irnformation Netscape CommunicationsCorporation(1997).Navigator.Mountain View, CA: Netscape Communications Corporation. Boston: Nielsen, J. (1990). Hypertextand hypermedia. AcademicPress. on Norman,D. (1983).Someobservations mentalmodmodels. In D. Gentner& A.L.Stevens (Eds.),Mental els (pp. 7-14). Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum. Norman, D. (1988). Thepsychology everyday things. of

Vol ETR&D, 47, No. 1

New York:BasicBooks. Owston,R.D.(1997).TheWorldWide Web:A technology to enhance teaching and learning?Educational Researcher, 26(2),27-33. Park, I., & Hannafin,M.J. (1992). Empirically-based guidelines for the design of interactivemultimedia. EducationalTechnology,Research& Development, 41(3),63-85. Park,T.K.(1994).Towarda theory of user-basedrelevance:A call for a new paradigmof inquiry.Journal Science, 45(3), Society Information for of theAmerican 135-141. Pettersson,R. (1994).Learningin the informationage. EducationalTechnology Researchand Development, 42(1),91-96. In Pitts,J.M.(1995).Mentalmodels of information. B.J. MediaAnnual (p. 187-200). Morris, SchoolLibrary Unlimited. Englewood,CO:Libraries Romiszowski, A.J. (1990). Hypertext/hypermedia solution-but what exactlyis the problem?In D.H. Jonassen,& H. Mandel (Eds.) Designinghypermedia (pp. 321-354).New York:Springer-Verfor learning lag. to Salton,G, & McGill,M.J.(1983).Introduction modern retrieval. New York:McGraw-Hill. information Sandstrom,P.E.(1994).An optimalforagingapproach to informationseeking and use. Library Quarterly, 64(4),414-449. Savolainen, R. (1993). The sense-making theory: Reviewingthe interestsof a user-centered approach Processto informationseeking and use. Information &Management, 29(1),13-28. ing Schmidt, C.T. (1997).The systemics of dialogism:On the prevalenceof the self in HCIdesign.Journal the of American Science, 48(11),1073Society Information for 1081. Schwartz,C. (1998).Web searchengines. Journal the of American Science, 49(11),973Society Information for 982. Shackel, B. (1997). Human-computer interactionWhenceand whither?Journal theAmerican of Society Science, 48(11),970-986. for Information Shaw, D. (1991). The human-computerinterfacefor informationretrieval.AnnualReviewof Information & Science Technology, 155-195. 26, Shin, E.C., & Schallert,D.L., & Savenye, W.C. (1994) Effectsof usercontrol,advisement,and priorknowledge on young student's learning in a hypertext environment. EducationalTechnologyResearch& 41(1),33-46. Development, Siegel,A.W. (1985).MarthaMuchow:Anticipationsof current issues in development psychology. Human 28(4),217-224. Development, Sitter,S., & Stein,A. (1996).Modelinginformationseeking dialogues:TheCo nversationalRoles 1(1). (COR)model. Review information science, of Availableon-line:http://www.inf-wiss.unikonstanz.de/RIS/ Small,R.V.,& Grabowski,B.L.(1992).An exploratory behaviors and learnstudy of information-seeking

INFORMATION SEEKINGOEISES IN

27
Harvard University. D. Walster, (1996). Technologiesforinformationaccess in librariesand informationcenters.In D. Jonassen communica(Ed.),Handbook research educational of for tionsandtechnology 720-752).New York:Simon (pp. &SchusterMacmillan. Watson,J.S.(1998)."Ifyou don'thave it, you can'tfind it." A close look at students' perceptions of using technology.Journal theAmerican of Society Inforfor mation Science, 49(11),1024-1036. Watters, &Shepard,M.A. (1994).Shiftingthe inforC., mation paradigm from data-centeredto user-centered. Information & 30(4), Processing Management, 455-471. Weed, S.S. (1989).Healingwise.Woodstock,NY: Ash Tree. Weil, M.M.,Rosen,R., & Wugaster,R. (1990).The etiology of computerphobia. Computersin Human Behavior, 361-379. 6(4), Wells,J.G.(1996).Searchstrategiesforthe WorldWide Web. Technology Teacher, 55(7),34-36. and Wertsch,J.V.(1985).Vygotsky thesocialformation of mind.Cambridge, MA:HarvardUniversity. Yinger,R.J.(1980).Can we really teachthem to think? In R.E. Young (Ed.), Fostering criticalthinking(pp. 11-31).SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass. Young, R.M. (1983).Surrogatesand mappings: Two kinds of conceptualmodels for interactivedevices. In D. Gentner& A.L. Stevens (Eds.),Mentalmodels (p. 35-52).Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.

ing with hypermediainformation of systems.Journal Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 1(4), 445464. in Smith, J.B. (1994). Collective intelligence computerbased collaboration. Hillsdale, Erlbaum. NJ: Spink,A., & Losee, R.M.(1996).Feedbackin information retrieval.AnnualReview Information Science & of 31, Technology, 33-78. and An Stonier, T. (1997).Information meaning: evoluNew tionary perspective. York:Springer-Verlag. and Stripling, B.K., & Pitts, J.M. (1988). Brainstorms as research a thinking blueprints: Teaching library process.Englewood,CO:Libraries Unlimited. Sugar, W. (1995).User-centeredperspectiveof information retrievalresearchand analysis methods. In M.E.Williams(Ed.),Annualreview information sciof enceandtechnology 77-110).Medford,NJ:Infor(pp. mationToday. interaction social Sundar,S.S. (1994).Is human-computer orparasocial? Paperpresentedat the AnnualMeeting of the Association for Educationin Journalism and mass Communication, Atlanta,GA. Tennyson, R.D., & Foshay, W.R. (in press). Instructional systems development. In S. Tobias & D. Fletcher(Eds.),Handbook instructional New of design. York: McGraw-Hill. Tenopir, C., & Lunin, L.F. (1998). Introductionand overview. Journal theAmerican of Society Informafor tionScience, 49(11),957-960. Uline, C.L. (1996).Knowledgein the information age. Educational 36(5),29-32. Technology, Vygotsky, L. (1978).Mindin society.Cambridge,MA: