Advertisement

Search Support for Exploratory Writing

  • Jonas OppenlaenderEmail author
  • Elina Kuosmanen
  • Jorge Goncalves
  • Simo Hosio
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11748)

Abstract

Writing articles involves searching, exploring, evaluating and reflecting upon different perspectives. To this end, online search engines are commonly used tools to support writing. However, online search engines, such as Google, fall short in supporting complex queries that satisfy multiple criteria simultaneously. In this paper, we present our studies with GAS, a crowd-powered tool that allows writers to discover viewpoints, solutions and ideas that best fulfil multiple criteria simultaneously. Our user studies validate GAS as a beneficial companion to online search engines in supporting writing. We found that GAS helps people come up with ideas and write with more confidence, resulting in a higher self-reported article quality and accuracy when compared to only using an online search engine. Through our experiments, we also develop an understanding of the distinct process that people employ when searching for and exploring open-ended, subjective information to support exploratory writing.

Keywords

Exploratory writing Crowdsourcing Exploratory search Complex search Creativity support Qualitative insights 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This work is partially funded by the Academy of Finland (grants 313224-STOP, 316253-SENSATE and 318927-6Genesis Flagship).

References

  1. 1.
    Albers, M.J.: Human-information interaction with complex information for decision-making. Informatics 2(2), 4–19 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amabile, T.M.: Motivation and creativity: effects of motivational orientation on creative writers. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 48(2), 393 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andolina, S., Klouche, K., Cabral, D., Ruotsalo, T., Jacucci, G.: InspirationWall: supporting idea generation through automatic information exploration. In: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition (C&C 2015), pp. 103–106. ACM, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bates, M.J.: Information search tactics. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 30(4), 205–214 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bates, M.J.: The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface. Online Rev. 13(5), 407–424 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bean, J.C.: Engaging Ideas: The Professor’s Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and Active Learning in the Classroom. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bell, D.J., Ruthven, I.: Searcher’s assessments of task complexity for web searching. In: McDonald, S., Tait, J. (eds.) ECIR 2004. LNCS, vol. 2997, pp. 57–71. Springer, Heidelberg (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24752-4_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    van Berkel, N., Hosio, S., Goncalves, J., Kostakos, V.: Informed diet selection: increasing food literacy through crowdsourcing. In: Proceedings of the Designing Recipes for Digital Food Futures CHI 2018 Workshop (2018)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bernstein, M.S., et al.: Soylent: a word processor with a crowd inside. In: Proceedings of the 23nd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST 2010), pp. 313–322. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bernstein, M.S., Teevan, J., Dumais, S., Liebling, D., Horvitz, E.: Direct answers for search queries in the long tail. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2012), pp. 237–246. ACM, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bozzon, A., Brambilla, M., Ceri, S.: Answering search queries with crowdsearcher. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW 2012), pp. 1009–1018. ACM, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Collins-Thompson, K., Hansen, P., Hauff, C.: Search as learning (dagstuhl seminar 17092). Dagstuhl Rep. 7(2), 135–162 (2017). http://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2017/7357Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Demartini, G., Trushkowsky, B., Kraska, T., Franklin, M.J.: CrowdQ: crowdsourced query understanding. In: Conference on Innovative Data Systems Research (CIDR 2013) (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Flower, L., Hayes, J.R.: A cognitive process theory of writing. Coll. Compos. Commun. 32(4), 365–387 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Franklin, M.J., Kossmann, D., Kraska, T., Ramesh, S., Xin, R.: CrowdDB: answering queries with crowdsourcing. In: Proceedings of the 2011 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD 2011), pp. 61–72. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hahn, N., Chang, J.C., Kittur, A.: Bento browser: complex mobile search without tabs. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2018), pp. 251:1–251:12. ACM, New York (2018)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Haushalter, K.A.: Developing critical thinking in introductory biochemistry through exploratory writing in an electronic collaborative learning environment. FASEB J. 21(5), A297 (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Horowitz, D., Kamvar, S.D.: The anatomy of a large-scale social search engine. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW 2010), pp. 431–440. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hosio, S., Goncalves, J., Anagnostopoulos, T., Kostakos, V.: Leveraging wisdom of the crowd for decision support. In: Proceedings of the 30th International BCS Human Computer Interaction Conference: Fusion! (HCI 2016). BCS Learning & Development Ltd., Swindon (2016)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hosio, S., Goncalves, J., van Berkel, N., Klakegg, S.: Crowdsourcing situated & subjective knowledge for decision support. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing: Adjunct (UbiComp 2016), pp. 1478–1483. ACM, New York (2016)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hosio, S., et al.: Crowdsourcing treatments for low back pain. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2018). ACM, New York (2018)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hyland, K.: Teaching and Researching Writing, 3rd edn. Routledge, New York (2016)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Iqbal, S.T., Teevan, J., Liebling, D., Thompson, A.L.: Multitasking with play write, a mobile microproductivity writing tool. In: Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, UIST 2018, pp. 411–422. ACM, New York (2018)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kaufman, J.C., Gentile, C.A., Baer, J.: Do gifted student writers and creative writing experts rate creativity the same way? Gifted Child Q. 49(3), 260–265 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kerne, A., Smith, S.M.: The information discovery framework. In: Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques (DIS 2004), pp. 357–360. ACM, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kittur, A., Peters, A.M., Diriye, A., Telang, T., Bove, M.R.: Costs and benefits of structured information foraging. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2013), pp. 2989–2998. ACM, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Klouche, K., Ruotsalo, T., Cabral, D., Andolina, S., Bellucci, A., Jacucci, G.: Designing for exploratory search on touch devices. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2015), pp. 4189–4198. ACM, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lautamatti, L.: Observations on the development of the topic in simplified discourse. AFinLAn Vuosikirja 8(22), 71–104 (1978)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lee, J., Son, J., Settle, Q.: Exploratory writing in student learning. Int. J. Fashion Des. Technol. Educ. 9(1), 9–15 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Marchionini, G.: Exploratory search: from finding to understanding. Commun. ACM 49(4), 41–46 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Murray, D.M.: Teach writing as process not product. Leaflet 71, 11–14 (1972)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nebeling, M., et al.: WearWrite: crowd-assisted writing from smartwatches. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2016, pp. 3834–3846. ACM, New York (2016)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nurse, J.R., Rahman, S.S., Creese, S., Goldsmith, M., Lamberts, K.: Information quality and trustworthiness: a topical state-of-the-art review. In: The International Conference on Computer Applications and Network Security (ICCANS 2011), pp. 492–500. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Parameswaran, A., Teh, M.H., Garcia-Molina, H., Widom, J.: DataSift: a crowd-powered search toolkit. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD 2014), pp. 885–888. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Petersen, C., Simonsen, J.G., Lioma, C.: Power law distributions in information retrieval. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 34(2), 1–37 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pirolli, P.: Powers of 10: modeling complex information-seeking systems at multiple scales. Computer 42(3), 33–40 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pirolli, P., Card, S.: Information foraging. Psychol. Rev. 106(4), 643–675 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Robson, C., McCartan, K.: Real World Research, 4th edn. Wiley, Chichester (2016)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rohman, D.G.: Pre-writing the stage of discovery in the writing process. Coll. Compos. Commun. 16(2), 106–112 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Samuelson, W., Zeckhauser, R.: Status quo bias in decision making. J. Risk Uncertain. 1(1), 7–59 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sharples, M.: Cognition, computers and creative writing. The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK (1984)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Shneiderman, B.: Creativity support tools: a grand challenge for HCI researchers. In: Redondo, M., Bravo, C., Ortega, M. (eds.) Engineering the User Interface: From Research to Practice, pp. 1–9. Springer, London (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-136-7_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Siangliulue, P., Chan, J., Dow, S.P., Gajos, K.Z.: IdeaHound: improving large-scale collaborative ideation with crowd-powered real-time semantic modeling. In: Proceedings of the 29th Annual Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST 2016), pp. 609–624. ACM, New York (2016)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Simon, H.A.: The structure of Ill structured problems. Artif. Intell. 4(3), 181–201 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Surowiecki, J.: The wisdom of crowds. Anchor (2005)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sweller, J.: Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cogn. Sci. 12(2), 257–285 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Talmor, A., Berant, J.: The web as a knowledge-base for answering complex questions. In: Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pp. 641–651. Association for Computational Linguistics (2018)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    White, R.W., Bilenko, M., Cucerzan, S.: Studying the use of popular destinations to enhance web search interaction. In: Proceedings of the 30th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR 2007), pp. 159–166. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    White, R.W., Roth, R.A.: Exploratory search: beyond the query-response paradigm. In: Marchionini, G. (ed.) Synthesis Lectures on Information Concepts, Retrieval, and Services #3. Morgan & Claypool, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Yang, J., Adamic, L.A., Ackerman, M.S.: Crowdsourcing and knowledge sharing: strategic user behavior on Taskcn. In: Proceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC 2008), pp. 246–255. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonas Oppenlaender
    • 1
    Email author
  • Elina Kuosmanen
    • 1
  • Jorge Goncalves
    • 2
  • Simo Hosio
    • 1
  1. 1.University of OuluOuluFinland
  2. 2.University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations