The Relationship between Online Information Searching Strategies and English Reading Proficiency

Subject Areas : Infomartion Technology

Mehrak Rahimi ¹ , Mahboobeh Hosseini ²

1 - Assistant Professor of Shahid Rajaei University, Iran
2 - M.A. Student of Shahid Rajaei University, Iran

Received: 2013-05-24 Accepted : 2013-06-12 Published : 2013-08-01

Keywords: Strategy, Gender, English, Internet, Information Searching, Reading Proficiency,

Abstract :

This study investigated the strategies Iranian high-school students use to search the Internet and the role of students’ gender and English reading comprehension proficiency in the use of these strategies. The population of the research included all male and female students who were studying in public high-schools of Gorgan in the academic year 2011-12. One hundred and ninety high-school students were selected based on convenience sampling among the population who used the Internet for their studying. They filled in the Online Information Searching Strategy Inventory (OISSI) with three components including procedural, behavioral and metacognitive strategies (tool reliability =0.75). They also took part in the reading section of Cambridge University’s Key English Test (tool reliability =0.71). The data was analyzed using Multiple Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) and Correlation Coefficient. The result of the study showed the influence of gender on behavioral strategies, indicating that boys used this strategy more frequently than girls. However, gender did not show any effect on using procedural and metacognitive strategies. Further, evidence indicated a positive and significant relationship between English reading proficiency and online searching strategies. Besides, regarding information searching strategy inventory sub-scales, positive and significant relationship was found between English reading proficiency and metacognitive and procedural strategies. In general and two types of strategies, that is, metacognitive and procedural strategies. However, English reading was not found to be significantly related to using behavioral strategies to search the Internet. 

References:

1. Amini, K., Amini, A., Yaghoubi, M., & Amini, D. (2007). High-school students and computer games. Iranian Psychologists, 4(14), 189-198. (in Persian).


2. Bates, R., & Khasawneh, S. (2007). Self-efficacy and college students’ perceptions and use of online learning systems. Computers in Human Behavior, 23,175-191.


3. Borgman, C. L., Hirsh, S., Walter, V., & Gallagher, A. (1995). Children’s searching behavior on browsing and keyword online catalogs: The Science Library Catalog Project. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46, 663-684.


4. Bos, N. (2000). High school students’ critical evaluation of scientific resources on the World Wide Web. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 9, 161-173.


5. Brand-Gruwel, S., Wopereis, I., & Vermetten, Y. (2005). Information problem solving: Analysis of a complex cognitive skill. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 487-508.


6. Britt, M. A., & Aglinskas, C. (2002). Improving students’ ability to identify and use source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 485-522.


7. Brown, S., Fuller, R. & Vician, C. (2004). Who’s afraid of the virtual world? Anxiety and computer-mediated communication. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 5, 99-107.


8. Burdick, T. A. (1996). Success and diversity in information seeking: Gender and the information search styles model. School Library Media Quarterly, Fall, 19-26.


9. Cooper, J. (2006). The digital divide: The special case of gender. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22,320-334.


10. Hartley, K., & Bendixen, L. D. (2001). Educational research in the Internet age: Examining the role of individual characteristics. Educational Researcher, 30, 22-26.


11. Ho, L. A., Kuo, T. H., & Lin, B. (2012). The mediating effect of website quality on internet searching behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 840-848.


12. Johnson, K., & Johnson, H. (1999). Error Analysis. In K. Johnson and H. Johnson (Eds.). Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Linguistics, (pp. 110-115). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.


13. Kuhlthau, C. C. (1999). Accommodating the user’s information search process: Challenges for information system designers. American Society for Information Science, 25, 12-16.


14. Large, A., Beheshti, J., & Rahman, T. (2002). Gender differences in collaborative Web searching behavior: An elementary school study. Information Processing & Management, 38, 427-443.


15. Lazonder, A. W., & Rouet, J. F. (2008). Information problem solving instruction: Some cognitive and metacognitive issues. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 753-765.


16. Leong, S., & Hawamdeh, S. (1999). Gender and learning attitudes in using Web-based science lessons. Information Research, 5(1). Retrieved from http://www.shef.ac.uk/is/publications/infres/paper66.html


17. Lorenzen, M. (2002). The land of confusion? High school students and their use of the World Wide Web for research. Research Strategies, 18, 151-163.


18. Martin, S. (1998). Internet use in the classroom. Social Science Computer Review, 18, 411-418.


19. Mashhadi, M., Rezvanfar, A., & Yaghoubi, J. (2007). Effective factors on IT application by agricultural and natural resources members at Tehran University. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 2(44), 151-168. (In Persian).


20. Montazer, G., Nasiri Saleh, F., & Fathian, M. (2007). A  model for information literacy development in Iran. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 2(44). 109-130. (in Persian).


21. Movahed-Mohammadi, H., & Iravani, H. (2002). The pattern of Internet use by students of Agricultural Faculties of Iran. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 4(33), 717-727. (in Persian).


22. Nejati, R., & Ashrafi, H. (2011). Applied statistics in simple. Tehran: Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University Press. (in Persian).


23. Rahimi, M., & Yadollahi, S. (2011). A study on the relationship between high-school students’ computer anxiety with their field of study, gender, and English language achievement. Quarterly Journal of Educational Innovations, 10(39), 51-74. (in Persian).


24. Rouet, J. F., & Levonen, J. J. (1996). Studying and learning with nonlinear documents: Empirical studies and their implications. In J.F. Rouet, J. J. Levonen, A. P. Dillon, & R. J. Spiro (Eds.), Hypertext and cognition (pp. 9-24). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.


25. Roy, M., & Chi, M. T. H. (2003). Gender differences in patterns of searching the Web. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29, 335-348.


26. Simons, R. J., Van der Linden, J., & Duffy, T. (2000). New learning: Three ways to learn in a new balance. In R. J. Simons, J. Van der Linden, & T. Duffy (Eds.), New learning (pp. 1–20). Dordrecht: Kluwer.


27. Tsai, M. J. (2009). Online Information Searching Strategy Inventory (OISSI): A quick version and a complete version. Computers & Education, 53, 473-483.


28. Walraven, A., Brand-gruwel, A., & Boshuizen, P. A. H. (2008). Information-problem solving: A review of problems students encounter and instructional solutions. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 623-648.


29. Walraven, A., Brand-gruwel, A., & Boshuizen, P. A. H. (2010). Fostering transfer of websearchers’ evaluation skills: A field test of two transfer theories. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 716-728


30. Yee, P., Hsieh-Yee, I., Pierce, G. Grome, R., & Schantz, L. (2004). Self-evaluative intrusive thoughts impede successful searching on the Internet. Computers in Human Behavior, 20, 85-101.