The Use of Information Retrieval Tools: a Study
of Computer Science Postgraduate Students
Nor Liyana Mohd Shuib; Noorhidawati Abdullah
Faculty of Computer Science & Information Technology
Universiti Malaya 50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Mohammad Hafiz bin Ismail
Faculty of Computer and Mathematical Sciences Universiti Teknologi MARA
02600, Arau, Malaysia [email protected]
Abstract—Students may seek information for various reasons such as to understand a specific subject matter or to conduct a research. In this digital age, they may not have a problem to find information. However, they are having problem to find scholarly information that suits their learning needs. This is because they are having difficulties to find the scholarly information that suitable for their learning styles. The objectives of this research are (a) to investigate information retrieval tools that students use to find scholarly information; (b) to compare the tools in terms of access, search techniques, and search facilities and (c) to propose architecture of information retrieval tool for learning needs. Therefore, this research investigates several information retrieval tools such as Online Public Access Catalogues (OPAC), Internet search engine, online databases and digital libraries. Survey questionnaire was conducted on 129 postgraduate’s students of Faculty of Science Computer and Information Technology, University of Malaya. They were chosen because of their level of education and their proficiency in using IT infrastructure. The quantitative data were analyzed using statistical program SPSS. The result shows that postgraduate students having difficulties in finding information that suitable to their learning style using available information retrieval tools.
Keywords-component; information retrieval; postgraduate;search tools; scholarly information; learning styles
I. INTRODUCTION
It is undeniable that information is pivotal in our lives. We need information to do a lot of activities such as to resolve a problem, to make a decision, to reduce the uncertainty, to resolve conflict, to answer questions and to satisfy curiosity. Students need scholarly information in order to fulfill their course. Scholarly information is intellectual information that written by experts in particular field and it have a few elements such as the use of technical writing, references and peer-reviewed. For example, students will need to seek scholarly information for their dissertation research. This eventually led students to depend on information retrieval (IR) tools to satisfy their needs. According to Lancaster [1], IR tool also known as search system, is a system that informs the user about the existence or non-existence of the document relating to user request. IR tool can be in any form of
printed or electronic catalogue, index, bibliographic records or application that facilitates information retrieval. As there are various IR tools available such as online public access catalogues (OPAC), Internet search engine, subject directory, online database and digital library, it is important to investigate the available IR tools that are commonly used by students in university settings.
With the volume of information available today, it is difficult to find accurate information that suits students’ learning need. When a student seeks for information on a particular subject, he looks at all possible information sources such as books, articles or journals and ends up with mountains of information. The problem is to find the right information for his needs. The material retrieved is often not suitable to student’s learning style. Thus, this paper focuses on the study of electronic IR tools usage among postgraduate students and their preference for specific IR tools. Then we propose IR architecture for learning needs.
The paper structure has six parts. First, this paper discusses the literature of information retrieval, its tool and students’ learning need. This is followed by comparative analysis of IR tools. Next, the data collection process is discussed. Then, the results and the discussion of the data analysis are presented and summarized. After that, architecture of IR tool for learning needs is discussed. Finally, the paper concludes with research contribution and future research.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
A. Information Retrieval
The use of IR in electronic form can be traced back since 1960s in which the management of full text and multimedia document has been electronically catalogued in a range of models and systems [2].
IR was designed to facilitate user retrieving relevant information that related to their desired needs effectively and efficiently. Lancaster [1] has stated that IR system function is to inform the user about the existence or non-existence of document related to user request. IR is just not a system that stores and retrieves information [3], but rather consists of a set of components which are interrelated together to facilitate searching process. This 2010 International Conference on Science and Social Research (CSSR 2010), December 5 - 7, 2010, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
involves storing, indexing, filtering, organizing, searching and presenting the information. Basic process of IR system started with an inverted file of potential search term is produced from organized information. When a user submits a query, a comparison is made between the inverted file and the query. As a result, a set of documents is retrieved.
The major functions of IR systems as described by [4] are:
• To identify the information (sources) relevant to the areas of interest of the target users’ community.
• To analyze the contents of the sources (documents)
• To represent the contents of the analyzed sources in a way that will be suitable for matching users’ queries
• To analyze users’ queries and to represent them in a form that will be suitable for matching with the database
• To match the search statement with the stored database
• To retrieve the information that is relevant, and • To make necessary adjustments in the system
based on feedback from the users
B. IR Tools
There is an increasing number of IR tools that available via the Internet. User can choose the tools available to retrieve the desired materials. Different people access and use these various sources for different reason [5]. Because of that, user needs to use the right tools to locate their materials [6]. Examples of IR tools are online public access catalogues (OPAC), Internet search engine; subject directory, online database and digital library.
Information retrieval tools differ in structure by their function and use various methods and techniques for storing and retrieving the information. This is reflected by their target audience as well as their intended use. Each IR tools below will be described as general and not specific to one tool.
OPAC is a computerized catalogue containing bibliographic records of items in a library [7]. Students usually used OPAC to find books from library online before they go to the library to borrow it. However, students in digital age rely heavily on the Internet [8]. They usually used Internet search engine to find sources of information or to obtain the information itself. The information in search engine may consist of a web page, images and other types of files. Unlike others, search engine use web crawler to retrieve information from millions of web pages on the web and then stores the information in the search engine index. This makes search engine the most comprehensive coverage of the web [5]. Examples of Internet search engines are AltaVista, AOL Search, and Google.
Students also used subject directories such as Yahoo and DMOZ to locate information. Subject directories are created manually by assigning the submitted sites to a suitable subject category by the directory developers. However, students always assume subject directories as Internet search engine. In this research, subject directories will be put under Internet search engine. Despite of
Internet search engine popularity, students usually turn to online database, and digital library to find scholarly and trustworthy information. Online database provided access to remote database through a database vendor or service provider. Examples of online databases are Elsevier, IEEE and ACM. [31] defined digital library as a managed collection of information, with associated services, where the information is stored in digital formats and accessible over a network. It provides a high quality resource that has been filtered by library professionals and subject experts and added manually.
Students need to use the right tools to locate their materials [6]. It is important to select an IR tool that is relevant to information needs and to use that tool effectively.
C. Students’ Learning Needs
Each individual learn in different ways. This is influenced by individual characteristics such as prior knowledge, education level, past experience, level of literacy, motivation, task confidence, aptitudes, and learning styles [32; 33]. Learning style is one of the most important factors that affect the outcomes of learning. Learning style is an individual’s preferred way in approaching new information. It can be influenced by the type of learning task and the environment [34].
Existing information retrieval tools do not have the function that can match the information or learning material with student’s learning style. Because of lack of knowledge, students tend to pick the wrong material that unsuitable to their capabilities. The results will be disappointed. Students cannot understand and fully used the material.
III. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Table 1 illustrates the differences between several IR tools in terms of the capabilities and functionalities provided. For the ease of reading, these differences are separated in three categories:
• Access - Denotes how the information is presented to the users. Whether in forms of full length texts, as a list of bibliography or metadata or in a form of links to other websites or other databases.
• Search Techniques – Describes the functionality or techniques employed by the search engines to aid users in narrowing down their query or search results. Usually the more search techniques supported by a particular IR tools, the more user-friendly it becomes.
• Search Facilities – The number of type or categories of searches that is available for the users to perform
From Table 1, we can see that none of the IR tools provide facilities to search document based on learning styles.
Table 1: Comparison of IRTools
IV. DATA COLLECTION
As this study is focusing on the usage of IR tools among Computer Science postgraduates students, the data sampling were gathered from postgraduates students of Masters by Coursework, Masters by Coursework and Research, Master by Research and PhD studying under Faculty of Science Computer and Information Technology (FSCIT), University Malaya.
The sample was selected because they represent a unique user group in information seeking behavior studies based on their level of education and their proficiency in using IT infrastructure. The sample selected is in agreement with [9] which states the sample chosen should be able to provide information since they are expert and are privileged in witnessing the event. The unit of analysis was the individual postgraduate student.
The sampling frame was a list of postgraduate students that currently active at FCSIT. With a FSCIT postgraduate student’s population of 498 students, representative study populations of 129 students were used, giving a satisfactory response rate of 26 per cent. The respondents provided a reasonable representative profile of all postgraduate students. Responses were obtained from various age groups, gender, types of study, mode of study and nationality.
Several research method have been use in order to get a comprehensive result, including quantitative-based method like questionnaire [10], [11], [12] and log analysis [13], [14] or qualitative like interview [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]; [8], [20], [21] focus group [22] and observation [23]. Some study used both [24], [25], [26], [27]. Questionnaire is selected because according to [28], it is one of the
preferred research methods to study student’s information behavior.
The initial questionnaire was subjected to [29] pre-testing method, which consists of two-prepre-testing stage. The first stage known as researcher pretesting, involves the questionnaire reviewed by other researchers in the same area. This is to ensure the questions are valid and accurate. Then, the questionnaire is moved to the second-stage pretesting, known as participant pretesting. In this stage, the questionnaire was field-tested by a sample of 10 respondents which have similar background with desired respondents, in this case, computer science graduates from other university. The questionnaire was then distributed to the desired respondents between November 2009 to January 2010 in form of online questionnaire after it has passed the two-stage pretesting.
Quantitative method like questionnaire usually has been used in studies of information seeking [17]. Two weeks after the initial email, an email was sent to remind respondents to complete the questionnaire. Follow up surveys were sent to those respondents who had not returned their survey within one month period. No incentives were provided to respondent to complete the questionnaire.
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
A total of 129 respondents out of a target population are responded to the questionnaire. Of the 129 respondents, 58.4 per cent are male. Types of study of the postgraduate student are Masters by Coursework (6.5 per cent), Masters by Coursework and Research (61 per cent), Master by Research (15.6 per cent) and PhD (16.9 per cent). The majority of postgraduate student’s modes of study are fulltime student with 84.4 per cent. 49.4 per cent are Malaysians and 50.6 per cent are non-Malaysian like students from Iraq, Iran, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.
IR Tools
There are various types of IR tools available that students can used to seek and retrieve the desired information. Different students access and use these various sources for distinct reason [5]. First, we asked respondents whether they used variety types of IR tools or are they only focusing in one type of IR tool (see Table 2). From the findings, most of them use more than one IR tools with Very Often (56.5 per cent), Often (28.7 per cent), and Sometimes (13.20 per cent). There are only two students who rarely and almost never use more than one IR tools.
Table 2: Student Use More than one Information Source
(n=129) Frequency Per cent (%)
Very Often 73 56.5 Often 37 28.7 Sometimes 17 13.2 Rarely 1 .8 Almost Never 1 .8 Total 129 100.0
Then we asked which tools they preferred as the first option to search for information. Based on Figure 1, 73.6 per cent are choosing Internet search engine as their first choice. 54.6 per cent choose online database while 29.7 per cent choose digital library. Only 9.3 per cent choose OPAC as their first choice. This is due to postgraduate students use journals and proceedings that can easily found from Internet search engine, online database and digital library.
Figure 1: Student first option to search for information From the survey we also found out that Internet search engine is the most popular IR tools with 73.4 per cent of respondents use it as a first choice and 94.6 per cent of respondents use it frequently (with mode response 1). This findings correlate with [12] findings that shows Internet search engine is the most preferred IR tools. This is followed by online database with 52.7 per cent of respondents use it frequently. Other resources such as OPAC and digital library are only used occasionally (with mode response equal to 2). Refer to Table 3 for the tabulation of the results:
Table 3: Information Resources Usage Rating IR Tools Uses (n=129) Mode Response Average Rating Internet search engine 1 1.07
Library Catalogue 2 2.12
Online Database 1 1.53
Dugital Library 2 2.10
1-3 scale, where 1=Use it frequently, 2=Use it occasionally and 3=Never use
Postgraduate students also having problem in seeking information with Very often (12.4 per cent), Often (17.1 per cent), Sometimes (53.5 per cent), Rarely (14.7 per cent) and Almost never (1.6 per cent). The results show that postgraduate students are no having difficulties in information seeking process. This may be due to their background in IT and their experience in information seeking process.
Table 4 rank problems which student faced in seeking information. The findings revealed that students selected “It is difficult to deal with the large amount of information available” as the main problem in seeking information, with “It is difficult to ensure that the information resources are trustworthy” being the second most popular choice.
Table 4: Problem faced by Postgraduate Students Problems (n=129) Responses (%) It is difficult to deal with the large
amount of information available
70.5 It is difficult to ensure that the
information sources are trustworthy 57.4 It is difficult to categorize my
information needs 45.7
It is difficult to know where to find
relevant information 46.5
It is difficult to know how to access the information sources
33.3 It is difficult to find the
information that relevant to my search subject
33.3 It is difficult to understand the
information found 32.6
Note: Respondents could select more than one option The results show that postgraduate students can find the information they desired but they are having problem to filter the information (information overload) and to evaluate them.
The findings demonstrate that most of the participants use several IR tools. While most participants opt for Internet search engine as their first source, they acknowledge that they just use it as a first step to understand the subject. Once they have acquainted with the subject matter, they will use other sources to gain more understanding, especially the reputable ones, by perusing digital library and online database. Postgraduate students are found to use online database to find journal for their research, in contrast with undergraduates, where they prefer books because their unfamiliarity with journals as reported in [16], [21].The findings are in line with [30], [16] and [8] that showed students rely heavily on Internet search engine particularly Google.
V. PROPOSED ARCHITECTURE
From the findings, we would like to propose architecture of IR tools for learning needs. This architecture embed students’ learning style as a component in IR tool as shown in Figure 2. When student submit a keyword, search component will retrieve information based on student’ learning style.
IR TOOL
Information Retrieved Keywords
Learning Style Component Search Component Student
Other IR Components
Figure 2: An Arhitecture of IR Tools For Learning Needs VI. CONCLUSION
This study compares four IR tools; OPAC, Internet search engine, online database and digital library. Based on the study, it can be concluded that postgraduates still rely on Internet search engine to get information for their academic work, despite of their level of knowledge and experience in the academic. The findings also highlight that postgraduates are inclined to use online databases and digital library to find information regarding scholarly works such as reputable journal and references. This however, does not extend to OPAC, where postgraduates are found not to favor using it as a source for information searching.
The data collected and analyzed also showed that Computer Science postgraduate students not having difficulties to seek for information. With their IT skills and experience in seeking information, they can find a lot of information. The problems are information overload and difficulties in evaluate the information that they found. As a solution, we propose IR tool architecture for learning needs. This architecture will consider student’s learning style in the process of retrieving information. For future work, we will investigate on how student’s learning style can be embedded in IR tools.
REFERENCES
[1] F. Lancaster.”Information retrieval systems: characteristics, testing, and evaluation” . John Wiley & Sons, New York : 1968.
[2] R. Ferber, U. Thiel. “Digital Libraries and Information Retrieval: Research at GMD IPSI, ERCIM News Vol. 27, 1996
[3] G.G. Chowdhury . Introduction to modern information retrieval. London: LA. Publishing, 1999.
[4] A. Kent. “Information analysis and retrieval”. Becker and Hayes: New York, 1971
[5] A. Cooke. “A guide to finding quality information on the Internet: selection and evaluation strategies”. London: Library Association, 2001.
[6] C.P. Singh. “Digital libraries: Tools and techniques”. New Delhi, India: Alfa Publications, 2008
[7] P.G. Ariyapala. “Use of the University of Malaya's Library OPAC by foreign postgraduate students “, Unpublished Masters of Library & Information Science University of Malaya, 2002
[8] H. Julien & S. Barker. “How high-school students find and evaluate scientific information: A basis for information”, Journal of Library & Information Science Research,2009, 31(1), 12-17.
[9] R. Weiss. Learning From Strangers; The Art and Method of Qualitative Interview Studies. New York, 1994,The Free Press [10] J. Brown & D. Nahl. “Test Instrument Effectiveness in
Measurement of Student Affective Skills”, 2001. Available:
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~nahl/students/665-Jennifer-Brown-Action-Research.htm. [Accessed: 28 October 2010]
[11] B.T. Fidzani.” Information needs and information seeking behavior of graduate students at the University of Botswana”. Library Review, 1998, 47(7), 329-340.
[12] A. Saiti,, & G. Prokopiadou. “Post-graduate students and learning environments: Users' perceptions regarding the choice of information sources”. The International Information & Library Review, 2008, 40(20), 94-103.
[13] D. Nicholas , P. Huntington, H.R. Jamali , I. Rowlands , & M. Fieldhouse. “Student digital information-seeking behaviour in context”. Journal of Documentation, 2009, 65(1), 106-132. [14] R.W. White, & S.M. Drucker, S. M. “Investigating behavioral
variability in web search”. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on World Wide Web, 2007, pp 21-30.
[15] A. Amin, A, J. Ossenbruggen, L. Hardman, & A. Nispen, A. “Understanding cultural heritage experts' information seeking needs”. Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries, 2008, 39-47.
[16] A. Barrett. “The Information-Seeking Habits of Graduate Student Researchers in the Humanities”. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 2005, 31(4), 324-331.
[17] E.L. Eskola,. “Information literacy of medical students studying in the problem-based and traditional curriculum”. Information Research, 2005. 10(2).
[18] A.E. Foster. “A non-linear model of information seeking behavior”. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2004, 55(3),228-237.
[19] M. Gross & D. Latham. “Undergraduate Perceptions of Information Literacy: Defining, Attaining, and Self-Assessing Skills”. College & Research Libraries, 2009, 70(4), 336-350. [20] M.S.M. Saad, & A.N. Zainab. “Information Search and Use of
Computer Science and Information Technology Undergraduates.” Proceedings of the International Conference on Libraries, Information and Society, ICOLIS 2007,2007, 291-304.
[21] M.S.M. Saad, & A.N.Zainab. “An investigation of information seeking behaviour of Computer Science and Information Technology undergraduates: a qualitative approach”. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Sciences, 2009, 14(3), 15-34. [22] C. Urquharta, R. Thomasa, S. Spinka, R. Fentona, A. Yeomana,
Lonsdalea, R. “Student use of electronic information services in further education”. International Journal of Information Management, 2005, 25, 347-362
[23] L. Limberg, “Experiencing information seeking and learning: a study of the interaction between two phenomena”. Information Research, 5(1), 1999
[24] C. Clark, “Exploring Evidence-Based Information Literacy”. 3rd International Evidence-Based Librarianship Conference, 2005. [25] M. Kakai, R. Ikoja–Odongo & I.M.N Kigongo–Bukenya. “A study
of the information seeking behavior of undergraduate students of Makerere University, Uganda”. World Libraries,,2004, 14(1) [26] N. Kwon. “A mixed-methods investigation of the relationship
between critical thinking and library anxiety among undergraduate students in their information search process”. College and Research Libraries,2008, 69(2), 117-131.
[27] M. Skov & P. Ingwersen. “Exploring information seeking behaviour in a digital museum context”. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Information Interaction in Context, IIiX, 2008, 110-115.
[28] D. Nicholas, P. Huntington, & H. R. J. Watkinson. “The information seeking behaviour of the users of digital scholarly journals”. Information Processing and Management, 2006, 42, 1345-1365.
[29] D.R. Cooper & P. S. Schindler. Business research methods. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin, 2006.
[30] N. J. Becker,. “Google in perspective: understanding and enhancing student search skills”. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 2003, 9(1), 84-100.
[31] W.Y. Arms, Digital Libraries. USA: MIT Press, 2000
[32] E. Sadler-Smith, “Learning Styles: a holistic approach”, Journal of European Industrial Training, 1996, 20(7), 29-36
[33] H. Atkins, D.J.Moore, S. Sharpe, D.J. Hobbs, “Learning Style Theory and Computer Mediated Communication”, in Proceedings of EDMEDIA 2001: World Conference on Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, Tampere, Finland, 2001.
[34] E.R. Peterson, S.G. Rayner & S.J. Armstrong. “Researching the psychology of cognitive style and learning style: Is there really a future?”. Learning and Individual Difference, 19(4), Dec 2009, 518-523
