Reflective Searching

   I find myself to be an eclectic and reflective searcher. The way I search depends highly on what I'm trying to find, and why I'm trying to find it. If I am just looking around for areas of personal interest, I try to select the best keywords, and I will in effect, "just Google it." From there I will select pages and artifacts that mean something to me, and from there choose new search terms, or explore the sources that come up. Often, in this type of casual searching, something will catch my eye, and I'll end up searching that next, looking for more information. If I am doing a more informative search, I may start with Google to get an idea of what's out there, or I may find myself in Galileo, looking up scholarly articles on the subject matter. As mentioned in "Information Behavior of the Researcher of the Future," there are two types of search processes, horizontal and vertical. Horizontal searching is a type that is often associated with today's "Google generation," as the study calls it, where searchers, both young and old, skim and flip between pages  or tabs of information, trying to seek out a specific "answer," and not really digging deeper into content. A vertical search, on the other hand, is more reflective and analytic, reading thoroughly for understanding and application. I actually tend to be both, as stated before, depending highly upon the purpose of my search.

    The problem with today's searchers, however, is that they lack the discrepancy to decide when to do which. More often than not, most searching is done horizontally, and not vertically. According to the study just mentioned, viewers spend only an average of 4-8 minutes on any given webpage, which, for the average reader, is not enough time to read an article in its entirety. Also, with the overwhelming amount of content out there, searchers spend just as much time in the actual process of searching, finding, and navigating content as they do actually studying the information found. This, in itself, I believe, is actually a factor that contributes to searcher's lack of desire to spend an considerable amount of time studying content once found. Once you finally find what you are looking for, so much time has already past just in the process of finding it. I too am guilty of this, as by the time I finally sift through results and sources and settle on something of use to me, I'm too tired to go through it effectively. To combat this, I will often break up my research into 2 or more sessions, where the first session is spent solely identifying, saving, and collecting the sources I wish to review in depth. At the subsequent sessions is when I will take the time to review and study the resources, giving them their due allowance.

    The strategies listed above, however, are not reflective of most of our "Google generation" searchers. They are seeking instant gratification, as is the norm for our culture today. Students lack the reflective aspect of searching, which makes them evaluate what they are seeking out in a meaningful way. Purcell and others, of "How Teens Do Research in the Digital World," hit upon this as well in their study. The study summarized both pros and cons of digital "Google" searching based on the experience of teachers' observations of their students. There were some definite pros given in the study, such as the access to greater depth and breadth of information, the availability of such information, the variety of formats available, all of which encourages self-reliance. (of course, Terry Heick will argue that there is an "illusion" of accessibility because of the quickness of "answers," with no synthesis taking place) Piggy backing off that idea, though, is the cons, which are over dependence on search engines, students' inability to accurately judge content for reliability, and the increasing distractions the digital world creates, along with a diminished amount of critical thinking from students. Students over-rely on search engines to produce everything they need, when in fact, that is not always the case, and when they do find it, they do not have the skills they need to adequately study, process, and analyze the content. The rather scary thing to this, is two fold. First, this particular study was completed using AP teachers and National Writing Project teachers, which means their students were the cream of the crop. If these students are having difficulties maneuvering the digital world effectively, how much more difficult is it then, for your average and below average students? Secondly, as pointed out by Debbie Abilock, in "True or Not," why are we surprised that students are having this difficulty, when even in today's society, educated adults are also being duped by scams and false information every day? How many times do we hear of credit card fraud or theft by deception on the news because some slick website designer created a reputable looking site and then robbed its supposed customers?

    Lastly, there is something else to consider, of which I found myself most involved in, and that is the idea of a "filter bubble." After watching the TED talk, "The Filter Bubble," I found I was fascinated by Eli Pariser's thoughts and evidence surrounding the concept that Google's algorithms for searching based on our "click" history can highly affect our search results. I knew something of the idea, as when scrolling down Facebook, I often find "suggested" articles or sites on my feed that are eerily similar to not only things I have clicked on within Facebook, but also shadow things I have searched for with Google, outside of Facebook. I knew there was a degree of click counting going on, but I had no idea that it extended to the way I received results in a search. This TED talk was created and published in 2011, and I am interested to know if the powers and creators responsible for these search algorithms have worked to improve this, and give unbiased and unfiltered results based solely on the relevance to search terms, and based less on our own click history. Since watching, I have been trying to get others to participate with me and search a specific term from their search engines and post the results, so I can see the broad range of results we could potentially get, but have yet to see much on that yet. I wonder if 4 years has made a difference. If I find out, I'll let you know in a follow up.

     All of this evidence and research leads me to believe that is vital in today's education to teach students how to properly search and analyze information found digitally. They must become reflective and evaluative searchers, and know the difference between when it is time to search horizontally and vertically. They must develop these skills early and practice them often so they do not drown in the sea of information that is floating around the digital world. And how can we expect them to be able to do this if we also do not know and practice it regularly?


Resources: 
Pariser, E. (2011). The Filter Bubble. retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles

UCL. (2008). information behavior of the researcher of the future. CIBER study

Purcell, K, et al. (2012). How Teens do Research in the Digital World. retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/11/01/how-teens-do-research-in-the-digital-world/

Heick, T. (2014). How Google Impacts the Way Students Think. retrieved from http://www.teachthought.com/featured/how-google-impacts-the-way-students-think/

Abilock, D. (2011) True -- or Not. Educational Leadership. 70-74.