Information Retrieval Journal

, Volume 20, Issue 5, pp 524–545 | Cite as

Online searching and learning: YUM and other search tools for children and teachers

  • Ion Madrazo Azpiazu
  • Nevena Dragovic
  • Maria Soledad PeraEmail author
  • Jerry Alan Fails
Search as Learning


Information discovery tasks using online search tools are performed on a regular basis by school-age children. However, these tools are not necessarily designed to both explicitly facilitate the retrieval of resources these young users can comprehend and aid low-literacy searchers. This is of particular concern for educational environments, as there is an inherent expectation that these tools facilitate effective learning. In this manuscript we present an initial assessment conducted over (1) children-oriented search tools based on queries generated by K-9 students, analyzing features such as readability and adequacy of retrieved results, and (2) tools used by teachers in their classrooms, analyzing their main purpose and target audience’s age range. Among the examined tools, we include YouUnderstood.Me, an enhanced search environment, which is the result of our ongoing efforts on the development of a search environment tailored to 5-15 year-olds that can foster learning through the retrieval of materials that not only satisfy the information needs of these users but also match their reading abilities. The results of these studies highlight the fact that search results presented to children have average reading levels that do not match the target audience. In addition, tools oriented to teachers do not go beyond showing the progress of their students, and seldomly provide a simple way of retrieving class contents that fit current needs of students. These facts further showcase the need for developing a dual environment oriented to both teachers and students.


Children Search as learning Personalization Teachers 



Portions of this research work were funded by the National Science Foundation - CRII:III Award Number 1565937. We also want to thank Oghenemaro Anuyah for her contributions to our work.


  1. Azpiazu, I. M., Dragovic, N., & Pera, M. S. (2016). Finding, understanding and learning: Making information discovery tasks useful for children and teachers. In Proceedings of the second international workshop on search as learning, SAL 2016, co-located with the 39th International ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, SIGIR 2016, Pisa, Italy, July 21, 2016.Google Scholar
  2. Bennett, S., & Lockyer, L. (2004). Becoming an online teacher: Adapting to a changed environment for teaching and learning in higher education. Educational Media International, 41(3), 231–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bilal, D., & Boehm, M. (2013). Towards new methodologies for assessing relevance of information retrieval from web search engines on children’s queries. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries, 1, 93–100.Google Scholar
  4. Bilal, D., & Ellis, R. (2011). Evaluating leading web search engines on children’s queries. In J.A. Jacko (Ed.), Human–computer interaction. Users and applications. HCI2011. Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 6764. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Bilal, D., & Kirby, J. (2002). Differences and similarities in information seeking: Children and adults as web users. Information Processing & Management, 38(5), 649–670.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowey, J. A., Cain, M. T., & Ryan, S. M. (1992). A reading-level design study of phonological skills underlying fourth-grade children’s word reading difficulties. Child Development, 63(4), 999–1011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chu, S. K.-W., & Law, N. (2008). The development of information search expertise of research students. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 40(3), 165–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chu, S. K. W., Tavares, N. J., Chu, D., Ho, S. Y., Chow, K., Siu, F. L. C., & Wong, M. (2012). Developing upper primary students 21st century skills: Inquiry learning through collaborative teaching and Web 2.0 technology. Hong Kong: Centre for Information Technology in Education, Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  9. Cole, R. W. (2008). Educating everybody’s children: Diverse teaching strategies for diverse learners. Alexandria: ASCD.Google Scholar
  10. Collins-Thompson, K., Bennett, P. N., White, R. W., de la Chica, S., & Sontag, D. (2011). Personalizing web search results by reading level. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM international conference on information and knowledge management (CIKM) (pp. 403–412). ACM.Google Scholar
  11. Crescenzi, A. (2016). Metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation in time-constrained in information search.
  12. Danby, S. (2013). Going online: Young children and teachers accessing knowledge through web interactions. Educating Young Children: Learning and Teaching in the Early Childhood Years, 19(3), 30.Google Scholar
  13. Dragovic, N., Madrazo, I., & Pera, M. S. (2016). “Is sven seven?”: A search intent module for children. In Proceedings of the 36th international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval (SIGIR) (pp. 885–888).Google Scholar
  14. Dragovic, N., Madrazo, I., & Pera, M. S. (2017). A multi-criteria strategy to recommend queries for children (under review)Google Scholar
  15. Duarte Torres, S., Hiemstra, D., & Serdyukov, P. (2010). An analysis of queries intended to search information for children. In Proceedings of the 3rd symposium on information interaction in context (pp. 235–244). ACM.Google Scholar
  16. Duarte Torres, S., & Weber, I. (2011). What and how children search on the web. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM international conference on information and knowledge management (pp. 393–402). ACM.Google Scholar
  17. Eickhoff, C., Collins-Thompson, K., Bennett, P. N., & Dumais, S. (2013). Personalizing atypical web search sessions. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM international conference on web search and data mining (WSDM) (pp. 285–294).Google Scholar
  18. Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32(3), 221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Freund, L., He, J., Gwizdka, J., Kando, N., Hansen, P., & Rieh, S. Y. (2014). Searching as learning (SAL) workshop 2014. In Proceedings of the 5th information interaction in context symposium IIiX ’14 (pp. 7–7). ACM.Google Scholar
  20. Gossen, T. (2016). Search engines for children: Search user interfaces and information-seeking behaviour. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Gossen, T., Hempel, J., & Nürnberger, A. (2013). Find it if you can: Usability case study of search engines for young users. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 17(8), 1593–1603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gossen, T., Höbel, J., & Nürnberger, A. (2014). A comparative study about children’s and adults’ perception of targeted web search engines. In Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1821–1824). ACM.Google Scholar
  23. Gossen, T., Kotzyba, M., & Nürnberger, A. (2015). Knowledge journey exhibit: Towards age-adaptive search user interfaces. In A. Hanbury, G. Kazai, A. Rauber, & N. Fuhr (Eds.), Advances in information retrieval. ECIR 2015. Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 9022. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Graham, L., & Metaxas, P. T. (2003). Of course it’s true; i saw it on the internet! Critical thinking in the internet era. Communications of the ACM, 46(5), 70–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Greenhill, V. (2010). 21st century knowledge and skills in educator preparation. In Partnership for 21st century skills.
  26. Gwizdka, J., Hansen, P., Hauff, C., He, J., & Kando, N. (2016). Search as learning (SAL) workshop 2016. In Proceedings of the 39th international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval (SIGIR) (pp. 1249–1250). ACM.Google Scholar
  27. Hammonds, L., Matherson, L. H., Wilson, E. K., & Wright, V. H. (2013). Gateway tools: Five tools to allow teachers to overcome barriers to technology integration. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 80(1), 36–40.Google Scholar
  28. Hansen, P., & Rieh, S. Y. (2016). Recent advances on searching as learning: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of Information Science, 42(1), 3–6. doi: 10.1177/0165551515614473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into k-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Huurdeman, H. C., & Kamps, J. (2015). Supporting the process: Adapting search systems to search stages. In S. Kurbanoglu, J. Boustany, S. Špiranec, E. Grassian, D. Mizrachi, & L. Roy (Eds.), Information literacy: Moving toward sustainability. Communications in computer and information science, vol. 552. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. Jatowt, A., Akamatsu, K., Pattanasri, N., & Tanaka, K. (2012). Towards more readable web: Measuring readability of web pages based on link structure. SIGWEB Newsletter, 1–7.Google Scholar
  32. Kabali, H. K., Irigoyen, M. M., Nunez-Davis, R., Budacki, J. G., Mohanty, S. H., Leister, K. P., & Bonner, R. L. (2015). Exposure and use of mobile media devices by young children. Pediatrics, 136(6), 1044–1050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kammerer, Y., & Bohnacker, M. (2012). Children’s web search with google: The effectiveness of natural language queries. In proceedings of the 11th international conference on interaction design and children (pp. 184–187). ACM.Google Scholar
  34. Kepple, M., Campbell, L. O., Hartshorne, R., & Herlihy, C. (2015). An introductory examination of factors influencing k-12 teachers perceptions and use of emerging technological tools in the classroom. In Proceedings of society for information technology & teacher education international conference (pp. 2154–2156).Google Scholar
  35. Knight, S. (2014). Finding knowledge—what is it to ’know’ when we search?
  36. Knight, S., & Mercer, N. (2015). The role of exploratory talk in classroom search engine tasks. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24(3), 303–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Koesten, L., Kacprzak, E., & Tennison, J. (2016). Learning when searching for web data. In SAL@ SIGIR. Google Scholar
  38. Kuhlthau, C. C., Maniotes, L. K., & Caspari, A. K. (2015). Guided inquiry: Learning in the 21st century: Learning in the 21st century. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.Google Scholar
  39. Kuiper, E., Volman, M., & Terwel, J. (2005). The web as an information resource in k-12 education: Strategies for supporting students in searching and processing information. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 285–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lau, T., & Horvitz, E. (1999). Patterns of search: Analyzing and modeling web query refinement. In J. Kay (Ed.), UM99 user modeling. CISM International Centre for Mechanical Sciences (Courses and Lectures), vol. 407. Vienna: Springer.Google Scholar
  41. Lennon, C., & Burdick, H. (2004). The lexile framework as an approach for reading measurement and success.
  42. Leu, D. J., Forzani, E., Burlingame, C., Kulikowich, J., Sedransk, N., Coiro, J., & Kennedy, C. (2013). The new literacies of online research and comprehension: Assessing and preparing students for the 21st century with common core state standards (pp. 219–236).
  43. Mc Laughlin, G. H. (1969). Smog grading—A new readability formula. Journal of Reading, 12(8), 639–646.Google Scholar
  44. Ofcom. (2014). Children and parents: Media use and attitudes report.
  45. PLB. (2016). Learning by repetition: Does it work? Professional Learning Board.
  46. Rideout, V., & Saphir, M. (2013). How do children reformulate their search queries? (Vol. 40). San Francisco: Common Sense Media.Google Scholar
  47. Rieh, S. Y., Collins-Thompson, K., Hansen, P., & Lee, H.-J. (2016). Towards searching as a learning process: A review of current perspectives and future directions. Journal of Information Science, 42(1), 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rieh, S. Y., Gwizdka, J., Freund, L., & Collins-Thompson, K. (2014). Searching as learning: Novel measures for information interaction research. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 51(1), 1–4.Google Scholar
  49. Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., Williams, P., Huntington, P., Fieldhouse, M., Gunter, B., Withey, R., Jamali, H. R., Dobrowolski, T., & Tenopir, C. (2008). The google generation: The information behaviour of the researcher of the future. In Aslib proceedings (Vol. 60, pp. 290–310). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  50. Rutter, S., Ford, N., & Clough, P. (2015). How do children reformulate their search queries? Information Research: An International Electronic Journal, 20(1), n1.Google Scholar
  51. Sadaf, A., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2012). Exploring pre-service teachers’ beliefs about using web 2.0 technologies in k-12 classroom. Computers & Education, 59(3), 937–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Shihab, M. M. (2009). Web 2.0 tools improve teaching and collaboration in high school English language classes. Nova Southeastern University.Google Scholar
  53. Shin, T., Davison, M. L., Long, J. D., Chan, C.-K., & Heistad, D. (2013). Exploring gains in reading and mathematics achievement among regular and exceptional students using growth curve modeling. Learning and Individual Differences, 23, 92–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Spache, G. (1953). A new readability formula for primary-grade reading materials. The Elementary School Journal, 53(7), 410–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Spink, A., Danby, S., Mallan, K., & Butler, C. (2010). Exploring young children’s web searching and technoliteracy. Journal of Documentation, 66(2), 191–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Syed, R., Collins-Thompson, K. (2016). Optimizing search results for educational goals: Incorporating keyword density as a retrieval objective.
  57. Top 5 safe search engines for kids to filter out adult contents from search results (2016).
  58. Theng, Y.-L., Lee, E. A., Chu, S. K.-W., Lee, C. W. Y., Chiu, M. M.-L., & Chan, R. C. (2016). Scaffolding in information search: Effects on less experienced searchers. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 48(2), 177–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ullrich, C., Borau, K., Luo, H., Tan, X., Shen, L., & Shen, R. (2008). Why web 2.0 is good for learning and for research: Principles and prototypes. In Proceedings of the 17th international conference on World Wide Web (WWW), (pp. 705–714). ACM.Google Scholar
  60. Usta, A., Altingovde, I. S., Vidinli, I. B., Ozcan, R., & Ulusoy, Ö. (2014). How k-12 students search for learning? Analysis of an educational search engine log. In Proceedings of the 36th international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval (SIGIR) (pp. 1151–1154). ACM.Google Scholar
  61. Valenza, J. K., Boyer, B. L., & Curtis, D. (2014). Curation platforms. Library Technology Reports, 50(7), 60.Google Scholar
  62. Wall, L. K., & Pentz, R. D. (2016). Another look at the informed consent process: The document and the conversation. Cancer, 122(3), 352–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wang, H., He, X., Chang, M.-W., Song, Y., White, R. W., & Chu, W. (2013). Personalized ranking model adaptation for web search. In Proceedings of the 36th international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval (SIGIR) (pp. 323–332). ACM.Google Scholar
  64. Wilson, M. L., Ye, C., Twidale, M. B., Grasse, H., Rosenthal, J., & McKittrick, M. (2016). Search literacy: Learning to search to learn.
  65. Wu, D. T., Hanauer, D. A., Mei, Q., Clark, P. M., An, L. C., Proulx, J., et al. (2016). Assessing the readability of Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 23(2), 269–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ion Madrazo Azpiazu
    • 1
  • Nevena Dragovic
    • 1
  • Maria Soledad Pera
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jerry Alan Fails
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceBoise State UniversityBoiseUSA

Personalised recommendations