skip to main content
research-article

A Specialized Search Assistant for Learning Objects

Published:01 October 2011Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The Web holds a great quantity of material that can be used to enhance classroom instruction. However, it is not easy to retrieve this material with the search engines currently available. This study produced a specialized search assistant based on Google that significantly increases the number of instances in which teachers find the desired learning objects as compared to using this popular public search engine directly. Success in finding learning objects by study participants went from 80% using Google alone to 96% when using our search assistant in one scenario and, in another scenario, from a 40% success rate with Google alone to 66% with our assistant. This specialized search assistant implements features such as bilingual search and term suggestion which were requested by teacher participants to help improve their searches. Study participants evaluated the specialized search assistant and found it significantly easier to use and more useful than the popular search engine for the purpose of finding learning objects.

References

  1. Belkin, N. J. 2000. Helping people find what they don’t know. Comm. ACM 43, 8, 58--61. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Belkin, N. J., Kelly, D., Kim, G., Kim, J.-Y., Lee, H.-J., Muresan, G., Tang, M.-C. M., Yuan, X.-J., and Cool, C. 2003. Query length in interactive information retrieval. In Proceedings of SIGIR ACM, 205--212. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Broisin, J. and Vidal, P. 2006. A management framework to recommend and review learning objects in a web-based learning environment. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies. 41--42. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Cacheda, F. and Via, A. 2001. Understanding how people use search engines: A statistical analysis for e-business. In Proceedings of the e-Business and e-Work Conference and Exhibition. pp. 319--325.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Capra, R., Marchionini, G., Oh, J. S., Stutzman, F., and Zhang, Y. 2007. Effects of structure and interaction style on distinct search tasks. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL’07). ACM, New York, 442--451. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Chen, H. and Dumais, S. 2000. Bringing order to the web: Automatically categorizing search results. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’00). ACM, New York, 145--152. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Chen, J. and Bao, Y. 2009. Cross langage search: The case of google language tools. First Monday 14, 3.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Churchill, D. 2007. Towards a useful classification of learning objects. Educat. Tech. Res. Develop. 55, 5, 479--497.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Cisco-Systems. 2001. Reusable learning object strategy. Designing information and learning objects through concept, fact, procedure, process, and principle templates. http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/10/wwtraining/elearning/implement/rlo_strategy.pdf (accessed 5/02).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis, F. D. 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quart. 13, 3, 319--339. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Doorten, M., Giesbers, B., Janssen, J., Daniels, J., and Koper, R. 2004. Transforming Existing Content into Reusable Learning Objects. Routledge, New York, NY, Chapter 9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Downes, S. 2004. Learning Objects, Resources for Learning Worldwide. Routledge, New York, NY, Chapter 1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Dumais, S., Cutrell, E., and Chen, H. 2001. Optimizing search by showing results in context. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’01). ACM Press, New York, 277--284. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Dunning, J. 2002. Talon learning object system. http://www.indiana.edu/scstest/jd/learningobjects.html (accessed 4/03).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Farrell, R. G., Liburd, S. D., and Thomas, J. C. 2004. Dynamic assembly of learning objects. In Proceedings of the 13th International World Wide Web Conference on Alternate Track Papers & Posters (WWW Alt.’’04). ACM Press, New York, 162--169. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Friesen, N. 2001. What are educational objects? Interac. Learn. Environ. 9, 3, 219--230.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Graddol, D. 2000. The Future of English? A Guide to Forecasting the Popularity of the English Language in the 21st Century. The British Council.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Hargittai, E. 2004. Classifying and coding online actions. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 22, 2, 210--227. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Hassan, S. and Mihalcea, R. 2009. Learning to identify educational materials. In Proceedings of the Conference on Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing (RANLP).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Hearst, M. A. 2009. Search User Interfaces. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Hölscher, C. and Strube, G. 2000. Web search behavior of internet experts and newbies. In Proceedings of the 9th International World Wide Web Conference on Computer Networks. North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 337--346. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Huang, C.-K., Chien, L.-F., and Oyang, Y.-J. 2003. Relevant term suggestion in interactive web search based on contextual information in query session logs. J. Amer. Soc. Inf. Sci. Tech. 54, 7, 638--649. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. IEEE. 2002. IEEE standard for learning object metadata. IEEE standard 1484.12.1. Tech. rep., IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Internet World Stats. 2010. http://www.internetworldstats.com/languages.htm (accessed 2/10).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Jansen, B. J. and Spink, A. 2005. An analysis of web searching by european alltheweb.com users. Inf. Process. Manage. 41, 2, 361--381. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Jansen, B. J., Spink, A., and Saracevic, T. 2000. Real life, real users, and real needs: A study and analysis of user queries on the web. Inf. Proc. Manage. 36, 2, 207--227. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Käki, M. 2005a. Findex: Search result categories help users when document ranking fails. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’05). ACM Press, New York, 131--140. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Käki, M. 2005b. Optimizing the number of search result categories. In Proceeding of Human Factors in Computing Systems (Extended Abstract) (CHI’05). ACM, New York, 1517--1520. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Keleberda, I., Repka, V., and Biletskiy, Y. 2006. Building learner’s ontologies to assist personalized search of learning objects. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Electronic Commerce (ICEC’06). ACM, New York, 569--573. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Kelly, D., Dollu, V. D., and Fu, X. 2005. The loquacious user: a document-independent source of terms for query expansion. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR’05). ACM, New York, 457--464. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Kelly, D., Gyllstrom, K., and Bailey, E. W. 2009. A comparison of query and term suggestion features for interactive searching. In Proceedings of the 32nd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR’09). ACM, New York, 371--378. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Kelly, D., Cushing, A., Dostert, M., Niu, X., and Gyllstrom, K. 2010. Effects of popularity and quality on the usage of query suggestions during information search. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’10). ACM, New York, 45--54. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Koper, R. 2001. Modelling units of study from a pedagogical perspective: The pedagogical meta-model behind EML. Heerlen. Open University of the Netherlands. http://eml.ou.nl/introduction/docs/pedmetamodel.pdf (accessed 6/02).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Koper, R. 2003. Combining Reusable Learning Resources and Services with Pedagogical Purposeful Units of Learning. Kogan Page, London, 46--59.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Koper, R. and van Es, R. 2004. A First Step Towards a Theory of Learning Objects. Routledge, New York, NY, Chapter 3.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Learning Alberta. 2002. Learn alberta glossary. http://www.learnalberta.ca/l (accessed 4/03).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Liaw, S.-S. and Huang, H.-M. 2003. An investigation of user attitudes toward search engines as an information retrieval tool. Comput. Hum. Behav. 19, 6, 751--765.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Mayer, R. E. and Moreno, R. 2003. Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educa. Psych. 38, 1, 43--52.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. McGreal, R., Ed. 2004. Online Education Using Learning Objects. Routledge, New York, NY. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Moore, D. S. and McCabe, G. P. 2006. Introduction to the Practice of Statistics. W. H. Freeman and Company.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Morales, R., Ochoa, X., Sanchez, V. G., and Ordonez, V. 2009. La flor-repositorio latinoamericano de objetos de aprendizaje. In Recursos Digitales para el Aprendizaje. Ediciones de la Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan, 308--317.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Morris, M., Morris, M. G., and Dillon, A. 1997. The influence of user perceptions on software utilization: Application and evaluation of a theoretical model of technology acceptance. IEEE Softw. 14, 58--76. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Mortimer, L. 2002. (Learning) objects of desire: Promise and practicality. Learning Circuits, http://www.learningcircuits.org/2002/apr2002/mortimer.html (accessed 6/03).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Mostafa, J. 2005. Seeking better web searches. Sci. Amer., 66--73.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Nash, S. S. 2005. Learning objects, learning object repositories, and learning theory: Preliminary best practices for online courses. Interdisciplinary J. Knowl. Learn. Obj. 1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Neven, F. and Duval, E. 2002. Reusable learning objects: A survey of lom-based repositories. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM International Conference on Multimedia (MULTIMEDIA’02). ACM, New York, 291--294. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Ochoa, X. and Duval, E. 2006. Use of contextualized attention metadata for ranking and recommending learning objects. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Contextualized Attention Metadata: Collecting, Managing and Exploiting of Rich Usage Information (CAMA’06). ACM, New York, 9--16. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Ortega, B. H., Martinez, J. J., and Hoyos, M. J. M. D. 2007. Aceptacion empresarial de las tecnologias de la informacion y de la comunicacion: Un analisis del sector servicios. J. Inf. Syst. Technol. Manage. 4, 1, 3--22.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Petrelli, D., Levin, S., Beaulieu, M., and Sanderson, M. 2006. Which user interaction for cross-language information retrieval? Design issues and reflections. J. Amer. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 57, 5, 709--722. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Polsani, P. R. 2004. A First Step Towards a Theory of Learning Objects. Routledge, New York, NY, Chapter 8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Pressman, R. 2006. Software Engineering: A Practitioner’s Approach. McGraw-Hill Science/Engineering/Math. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Quinn, C. and Hobbs, S. 2000. Learning objects and instructional components. Educational Technology and Society 3, 2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Recker, M., Dorward, J., Dawson, D., Halioris, S., Liu, Y., Mao, X., Palmer, B., and Park, J. 2005. You can lead a horse to water: Teacher development and use of digital library resources. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL’05). ACM, New York, 1--8. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Rehak, D., and Mason, R. 2003. Keeping the Learning in Learning Objects. Kogan, London, 20--34.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Rieger, O. 2009. Search engine use behavior of students and faculty: User perceptions and implications for future research. First Monday 14, 12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. Seyedarabi, F. 2006. The missing link how search engines can support the informational needs of teachers. eLearn Mag. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Si, L. and Callan, J. 2005. Modeling search engine effectiveness for federated search. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR’05). ACM, New York, 83--90. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Sigurbjornsson, B., Kamps, J., and de Rijke, M. 2005. Blueprint of a crosslingual web retrieval collection. In Proceedings of the 5th Dutch-Belgian Information Retrieval Workshop. R. van Zwol Ed. Utrecht University, Center for Content and Knowledge Engineering.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Skår, L. A., Heiberg, T., and Kongsli, V. 2003. Reuse learning objects through LOM and XML. In Companion of the 18th Annual ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA’03). ACM, New York, 78--79. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Sloep, P. B. 2004. Reuse, Portability and Interoperability of Learning Content. Routledge, New York, NY, Chapter 10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Sosteric, M. and Hesemeier, S. 2004. A First Step Towards a Theory of Learning Objects. Routledge, New York, NY, Chapter 2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Spink, A., Jansen, B. J., Blakely, C., and Koshman, S. 2006. A study of results overlap and uniqueness among major web search engines. Inf. Proc. Manage. 42, 5, 1379--1391. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. Teevan, J. 2008. How people recall, recognize, and reuse search results. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 26, 4, 1--27. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. Teevan, J., Morris, M. R., and Bush, S. 2009. Discovering and using groups to improve personalized search. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM’09). ACM, New York, 15--24. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. Thompson, C., Smarr, J., Nguyen, H., and Manning, C. D. 2003. Finding educational resources on the web: Exploiting automatic extraction of metadata. In Proceedings of ECML Workshop on Adaptive Text Extraction and Mining.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Walraven, A., Brand-Gruwel, S., and Boshuizen, H. P. 2009. How students evaluate information and sources when searching the world wide web for information. Comput. Educat. 52, 1, 234--246. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. Weller, M., Pegler, C., and Mason, R. 2003. Putting the pieces together: What working with learning objects means for the educator. Elearn International, Edinburgh.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. White, R. W. and Morris, D. 2007. Investigating the querying and browsing behavior of advanced search engine users. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR’07). ACM Press, New York, 255--262. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  69. White, R. W., Richardson, M., Bilenko, M., and Heath, A. P. 2008. Enhancing web search by promoting multiple search engine use. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR’08). ACM, New York, 43--50. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  70. Wieseler, W. 1999. Rio: A standards-based approach for reusable information objects. Cisco Systems. http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/779/ibs/solutions/publishing/whitepapers/ (accessed 5/00).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. Wiley, D. A. 1999. The post-lego learning object. http://wiley.ed.usu.edu/docs/post-lego/ (accessed 4/03).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. Wiley, D. A., Ed. 2001. Instructional Use of Learning Objects. Agency for Instructional Technology. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  73. Xu, Y. and Mease, D. 2009. Evaluating web search using task completion time. In Proceedings of the 32nd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR’09). ACM, New York, 676--677. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. A Specialized Search Assistant for Learning Objects

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on the Web
      ACM Transactions on the Web  Volume 5, Issue 4
      October 2011
      154 pages
      ISSN:1559-1131
      EISSN:1559-114X
      DOI:10.1145/2019643
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2011 ACM

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 1 October 2011
      • Accepted: 1 May 2011
      • Revised: 1 April 2011
      • Received: 1 March 2010
      Published in tweb Volume 5, Issue 4

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!