Cited by 193Information Retrieval and Search BehaviorLibrary Science and Information LiteracyEducational Strategies and Epistemologies

Searching as learning: A systematization based on literature

Vakkari, Pertti·2016·Journal of Information Science

Abstract

The paper surveys empirical studies on the relations between information searching and learning, and presents some reflections about learning in a search process based on the findings. First, the meaning of the concepts ‘learning’ and ‘searching’ is briefly defined. Learning is conceptualized as changes in one’s knowledge structures. Then it is described more in detail how learning occurs in the search process. The point of departure is to focus on tasks that require the restructuring of knowledge structures and to analyse how gradual stabilization of those structures is related to accessing and interacting with information sources. After that, empirical studies on searching and learning are categorized by identifying independent and dependent variables in those studies. In conclusion, some general remarks on the topic are presented.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0165551515615833

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The study found significant differences in performance across different technologies in tasks involving knowing, understanding, and applying (Task 1 and Task 2), with both the ChatGPT and Google groups outperforming the control group in these tasks.

    “The study found significant differences in performance across different technologies in tasks involving knowing, understanding, and applying (i.e., Task 1 and Task 2). Both the ChatGPT and Google groups outperformed the control group in these tasks, aligning with Vakkari's findings on the relationship between Bloom's taxonomy and search tasks [15].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 53 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vakkari, P.
Affiliations
University of Tampere (FI)
Corresponding author
Vakkari, Pertti
Venue
Journal of Information Science
Published
2016-01-12
Volume
42
Issue
1
Pages
7-18
ISSN
  • 0165-5515 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-6485
OpenAlex
W2237396823
Cited by
189
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 6
FWCI
36.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Information Science (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information Literacy
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
Keywords
information searching, learning, knowledge structure, knowledge restructuring, information seeking, information sources, independent and dependent variables

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review