Abstract
Information sources require consumers to use them in order to evaluate their quality, meaning that they are experience goods. The value perceived before acquisition and use may be different from the value obtained by actual use. Understanding the value perception gap is likely to inform more efficient selection of information sources. The current research studies the value gap in a learning situation. We examine information value perceptions before and after experiencing information in an experiment with 113 software engineers engaged in a problem-based learning task while using and evaluating three types of information sources: supportive, reflective and reciprocal. The results indicate that before using an information source, the subjective value for supportive information is lower than for reflective information. In addition, 55% of the participants preferred to obtain information when presented with a choice. After using an information source no correlation was observed between perceived value of information before and after the use of information source (value gap); participants assigned a higher user experience (UX) value to reflective and reciprocal information than to supportive information; positive correlation between UX value and revealed information value; positive correlation between learning achievement and revealed information value; Reciprocal information is associated with higher learning achievement than reflective and supportive; use of information led to higher learning achievement than avoidance of information. Reciprocal information supports high achievement in software engineering informal learning. Reflective information is valued higher than supportive information sources. If supportive information is essential, learning environments designers should invest heavily in interface design combining reciprocal and reflective elements, such as forums and "try it yourself", respectively
References
Ariely, D. (2000). Controlling the information flow: Effects on consumers’ decision making and preferences. Journal of consumer research, 27(2), 233-248.10.1086/314322Search in Google Scholar
Barzilai, S., & Blau, I. (2014). Scaffolding game-based learning: Impact on learning achievements, perceived learning, and game experiences. Computers & Education, 70, 65-7910.1016/j.compedu.2013.08.003Search in Google Scholar
Becker, G. M., DeGroot, M. H., & Marschak, J. (1964). Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behavioral Science, 9(3), 226-232.10.1002/bs.3830090304Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Chapanis, A. (1988). Interactive human communication. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work: A Book of Readings, 125-139.Search in Google Scholar
Grinberg, N. (2018). Identifying Modes of User Engagement with Online News and Their Relationship to Information Gain in Text. In Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference on World Wide Web (pp. 1745-1754).10.1145/3178876.3186180Search in Google Scholar
Hassenzahl, M., Burmester, M., & Koller, F. (2003). AttrakDiff: Ein Fragebogen zur Messung wahrgenommener hedonischer und pragmatischer Qualitat. In Mensch & Computer 2003 (pp. 187-196). Vieweg+ Teubner Verlag.10.1007/978-3-322-80058-9_19Search in Google Scholar
Hassenzahl, M., & Tractinsky, N. (2006). User experience-a research agenda. Behaviour & Information Technology, 25(2), 91-97.10.1080/01449290500330331Search in Google Scholar
Holton, D., & Clarke, D. (2006). Scaffolding and metacognition. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 37(2), 127-143.10.1080/00207390500285818Search in Google Scholar
Horowitz, J. K., & McConnell, K. E. (2002). A review of WTA/WTP studies. Journal of environmental economics and Management, 44(3), 426-447.10.1006/jeem.2001.1215Search in Google Scholar
Iiyoshi, T., & Kumar, M. V. (Eds.). (2008). Opening up education: The collective advancement of education through open technology, open content, and open knowledge. Mit Press, 42.Search in Google Scholar
Iqbal, A. (2013). Analyzing social behavior of software developers across different communication channels. International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE), Jackson, S. L., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). The design of guided learner-adaptable scaffolding in interactive learning environments. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 187-194.Search in Google Scholar
Klašnja-Milićević, A., Vesin, B., & Ivanović, M. (2018). Social tagging strategy for enhancing e-learning experience. Computers& Education, 118, 166-181.10.1016/j.compedu.2017.12.002Search in Google Scholar
Lin, T., Hsu, J. S., & Chen, H. (2013). Customer willingness to pay for online music: The role of free mentality. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 14(4), 315-333.Search in Google Scholar
Linde, F., & Stock, W. G. (2011). Information markets: A strategic guideline for the I-commerce. Walter de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Livingstone, D. W. (2001). Adults’ informal learning: Definitions, findings, gaps, and future research. NALL Working Paper, # 21Search in Google Scholar
Mbogo, C., Blake, E., & Suleman, H. (2013). A mobile scaffolding application to support novice learners of computer programming. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Information and Communications Technologies and Development: Notes-Volume 2, 84-87.10.1145/2517899.2517941Search in Google Scholar
McLoughlin, C. (2002). Learner support in distance and networked learning environments: Ten dimensions for successful design. Distance Education, 23(2), 149-162.10.1080/0158791022000009178Search in Google Scholar
Moreno, R., Reisslein, M., & Ozogul, G. (2009). Optimizing Worked‐Example Instruction in Electrical Engineering: The Role of Fading and Feedback during Problem‐Solving Practice. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(1), 83-92.10.1002/j.2168-9830.2009.tb01007.xSearch in Google Scholar
Nelson, P. (1970). Information and consumer behavior. The Journal of Political Economy, 78(2), 311-329.10.1086/259630Search in Google Scholar
Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things Basic books.Search in Google Scholar
Norman, D. A., & Spohrer, J. C. (1996). Learner-centered education. Communications of the ACM, 39(4), 24-27.10.1145/227210.227215Search in Google Scholar
Puustinen, M., & Rouet, J. (2009). Learning with new technologies: Help seeking and information searching revisited. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1014-1019.10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.002Search in Google Scholar
Raban, D. R. (2007). User-centered evaluation of information: A research challenge. Internet Research, 17(3), 306-322.10.1108/10662240710758948Search in Google Scholar
Repo, A. J. (1986). The dual approach to the value of information - an appraisal of use and exchange values. Information Processing & Management, 22(5), 373-383.10.1016/0306-4573(86)90072-5Search in Google Scholar
Savery, J. R. (2015). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Essential readings in problem-based learning: Exploring and extending the legacy of Howard S. Barrows, 5-15.10.2307/j.ctt6wq6fh.6Search in Google Scholar
Shapiro, C., & Varian, H. R. (1999). Information rules: A strategic guide to the network economy. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Search in Google Scholar
Van Alstyne, M. W. (1999). A proposal for valuing information and instrumental goods. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Information Systems, Charlotte, North Carolina. 328-345.Search in Google Scholar
Wu, O., Chen, Y., Li, B., & Hu, W. (2011). Evaluating the visual quality of web pages using a computational aesthetic approach. In Proceedings of the fourth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining (pp. 337-346). ACM.10.1145/1935826.1935883Search in Google Scholar
© 2018 Daphne Ruth Raban, Yonit Rusho, published by De Gruyter
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.
