Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …
New journal!

Open Information Science

Editor-in-Chief: Sturges, Paul

1 Issue per year

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2451-1781
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Value Perception of Information Sources in the Context of Learning

Daphne Ruth Raban / Yonit Rusho
Published Online: 2018-07-26 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opis-2018-0007

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

Keywords: Value of information; supportive; reflective and reciprocal information sources; Experiential learning; Informal learning; Problem based learning; Experimental research

References

  • Ariely, D. (2000). Controlling the information flow: Effects on consumers’ decision making and preferences. Journal of consumer research, 27(2), 233-248.Google Scholar

  • Barzilai, S., & Blau, I. (2014). Scaffolding game-based learning: Impact on learning achievements, perceived learning, and game experiences. Computers & Education, 70, 65-79Google Scholar

  • Becker, G. M., DeGroot, M. H., & Marschak, J. (1964). Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behavioral Science, 9(3), 226-232.Google Scholar

  • Chapanis, A. (1988). Interactive human communication. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work: A Book of Readings, 125-139.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).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.Google Scholar

  • Hassenzahl, M., & Tractinsky, N. (2006). User experience-a research agenda. Behaviour & Information Technology, 25(2), 91-97.Google Scholar

  • Holton, D., & Clarke, D. (2006). Scaffolding and metacognition. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 37(2), 127-143.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.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.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.Google Scholar

  • Klašnja-Milićević, A., Vesin, B., & Ivanović, M. (2018). Social tagging strategy for enhancing e-learning experience. Computers& Education, 118, 166-181.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.Google Scholar

  • Linde, F., & Stock, W. G. (2011). Information markets: A strategic guideline for the I-commerce. Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Livingstone, D. W. (2001). Adults’ informal learning: Definitions, findings, gaps, and future research. NALL Working Paper, # 21Google 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.Google Scholar

  • McLoughlin, C. (2002). Learner support in distance and networked learning environments: Ten dimensions for successful design. Distance Education, 23(2), 149-162.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.Google Scholar

  • Nelson, P. (1970). Information and consumer behavior. The Journal of Political Economy, 78(2), 311-329.Google Scholar

  • Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things Basic books.Google Scholar

  • Norman, D. A., & Spohrer, J. C. (1996). Learner-centered education. Communications of the ACM, 39(4), 24-27.Google Scholar

  • Puustinen, M., & Rouet, J. (2009). Learning with new technologies: Help seeking and information searching revisited. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1014-1019.Google Scholar

  • Raban, D. R. (2007). User-centered evaluation of information: A research challenge. Internet Research, 17(3), 306-322.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.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.Google Scholar

  • Shapiro, C., & Varian, H. R. (1999). Information rules: A strategic guide to the network economy. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.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.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.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2017-11-15

Accepted: 2018-06-08

Published Online: 2018-07-26


Citation Information: Open Information Science, Volume 2, Issue 1, Pages 83–101, ISSN (Online) 2451-1781, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opis-2018-0007.

Export Citation

© 2018 Daphne Ruth Raban, Yonit Rusho, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. BY-NC-ND 4.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in