An Investigation of the Associations Among Professional Tasks, Document Genres and Document Assessments in the Context of University Teaching

大學教學情境裡專業任務、文體與文件評鑑之關聯研究

10.6182/jlis.201812_16(2).025

古敏君(Min-Chun Ku)

Document Genres ； Genre Repertoires ； Task Analysis ； Information Use ； Document Assessments ； 文體 ； 文體集 ； 任務分析 ； 資訊使用 ； 文件評鑑

圖書資訊學刊

16卷2期（2018 / 12 / 01）

25 - 61

英文

This study investigated the following three associations in the university teaching context: (1) between genres of the documents faculty used to support their teaching and the tasks they performed to use these genres; (2) between these genres and the criteria they employed to assess these genres; and (3) between their tasks and criteria. The author first employed qualitative citation analysis to identify the genres faculty used based on citations in their teaching materials (e.g., syllabi and lecture slides). Semi-structured interviews were then implemented to explore how they assessed and used different genres. A total number of 27 faculty from different disciplines contributed 28 courses. Qualitative content analysis was employed to analyze interview transcripts. The results indicate the criteria faculty employed served as function enablers that bridged genres and tasks. The tasks they performed served as the inclusion and exclusion criteria that determined what genres were used or not. Tasks determined the information characteristics of genres that mattered in faculty's task performance.

本研究旨在探索以下三種關聯之存在與內涵：（1）大學教師用以支援其教學之文體與運用這些文體來執行之任務之關聯；（2）這些文體及教師評鑑這些文體之標準之關聯；（3）其任務與標準之關聯。作者先採用質性引文分析，從教材（包含課程大綱與教學投影片等）裡分析出教師使用之文體，再採用半結構式訪談來搜集有關教師如何評鑑與使用不同文體之資料，最後以質性內容分析來分析訪談稿。共有27位來自不同領域之教師參與研究，貢獻了28門課。研究結果顯示教師採用之評鑑標準橋接了其所使用之文體與任務，任務則決定了哪些文體會被使用或會被排除在外，任務也決定了在教師執行特定任務時文體的哪些資訊特質是很重要的。

1. Andersen, J.(2008).LIS and genre: Between people, texts, activity and situation.Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,34(5),31-34.
2. Barry, C. L.,Schamber, L.(1998).Users’criteria for relevance evaluation: A crosssituational comparison.Information Processing & Management,34(2/3),219-236.
3. Bates, M. J.(Ed.),Maack, M. N.(Ed.)(2010).Encyclopedia of library and information sciences.New York, NY:CRC Press.
4. Boll, C. (2016). Syracuse University jumps into top research tier in new Carnegie Classifications. Retrieved from https://news.syr.edu/2016/02/syracuse-university-jumps-into-top-research-tier-in-new-carnegie-classifications-51145/
5. Borlund, P.(2003).The concept of relevance in IR.Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,54(10),913-925.
6. Byström, K.,Hansen, P.(2005).Conceptual framework for tasks in information studies.Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,56(10),1050-1061.
7. Cooper, W. S.(1971).A definition of relevance for information retrieval.Information Storage and Retrieval,7(1),19-37.
8. Crowston, K.,Kwasnik, B. H.(2003).Can document-genre metadata improve information access to large digital collections?.Library Trends,52(2),345.
9. Dillon, A.(2008).Why information has shape.Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,34(5),17-19.
10. El Mhouti, A.,Nasseh, A.,Erradi, M.(2013).How to evaluate the quality of digital learning resources?.International Journal of Computer Science Research and Application,03(03),27-36.
11. Fogg, B. J.,Soohoo, C.,Danielson, D. R.,Marable, L.,Stanford, J.,Tauber, E. R.(2003).How do users evaluate the credibility of Web sites? A study with over 2,500 participants.Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Designing for User Experiences,New York, NY:
12. Fogg, B. J.,Tseng, H.(1999).The elements of computer credibility.Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,New York, NY:
13. Freund, L. S.(2008).Toronto,University of Toronto.
14. Freund, L. S.(2013).A cross-domain analysis of task and genre effects on perceptions of usefulness.Information Processing & Management,49(5),1108-1121.
15. Freund, L. S.(2008).Bringing genre into focus: Situating relevance through task-genre relationships.Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,34(5),23-26.
16. Green, R.(1995).Topical relevance relationships. I. Why topic matching fails.Journal of the American Society for Information Science,46(9),646.
17. Hilligoss, B.,Rieh, S. Y.(2008).Developing a unifying framework of credibility assessment: Construct, heuristics, and interaction in context.Information Processing & Management,44(4),1467-1484.
18. Kari, J.(2010).Diversity in the conceptions of information use.Information Research,15(3)
19. Li, Y.,Belkin, N. J.(2008).A faceted approach to conceptualizing tasks in information seeking.Information Processing & Management,44(6),1822-1837.
20. Nesbit, J., Belfer, K., & Leacock, T. (n.d.). Learning object review instrument (LORI) user manual. Retrieved from http://www.transplantedgoose.net/gradstudies/educ892/LORI1.5.pdf
21. Park, H.(1997).Relevance of science information: Origins and dimensions of relevance and their implications to information retrieval.Information Processing & Management,33(3),339-352.
22. Rieh, S. Y.(2002).Judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the Web.Journal of the Association for informationScience and Technology,53(2),145-161.
23. Rosso, M. A.(2008).User-based identification of web genres.Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,59(7),1053-1072.
24. Rosso, M. A.,Haas, S. W.(2011).Identification of Web genres by user warrant.Genres on the Web,Dordrecht, Netherlands:
25. Roussinov, D.,Crowston, K.,Nilan, M.,Kwasnik, B.,Cai, J.,Liu, X.(2001).Genre based navigation on the web.Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,Washington, DC:
26. Savolainen, R.(2011).Judging the quality and credibility of information in Internet discussion forums.Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,62(7),1243-1256.
27. Schamber, L.,Eisenberg, M. B.,Nilan, M. S.(1990).A re-examination of relevance: Toward a dynamic, situational definition.Information Processing & Management,26(6),755-776.
28. Sundin, O.,Francke, H.(2009).In search of credibility: Pupils’ information practices in learning environments.Information Research,14(4)
29. Vakkari, P.(2003).Task-based information searching.Annual Review of Information Science and Technology,37(1),413-464.
30. Vakkari, P.(2001).A theory of the task-based information retrieval process: A summary and generalization of a longitudinal study.Journal of Documentation,57(1),44-60.
31. Vakkari, P.(2000).Relevance and contributing information types of searched documents in task performance.Proceedings of the 23rd Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval,New York, NY:
32. Vakkari, P.,Hakala, N.(2000).Changes inrelevance criteria and problem stages in task performance.Journal of Documentation,56(5),540-562.
33. Vaughan, M. W.,Dillon, A.(2006).Why structure and genre matter for users of digital information: A longitudinal experiment with readers of a web-based newspaper.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,64(6),502-526.
34. Wang, P.,Soergel, D.(1998).A cognitive model of document use during a research project. Study I. Document selection.Journal of the American Society for Information Science,49(2),115-133.
35. Wang, P.,White, M. D.(1999).A cognitive model of document use during a research project. Study II. Decisions at the reading and citing stages.Journal of the American Society for Information Science,50(2),98-114.
36. Wilson, P.(1973).Situational relevance.Information Storage and Retrieval,9(8),457-471.
37. Zhang, L.,Kopak, R.,Freund, L.,Rasmussen, E.(2011).Making functional units functional: The role of rhetorical structure in use of scholarly journal articles.International Journal of Information Management,31(1),21-29.