Introduction and background

Young people spend a large part of their time in digital environments, for example searching for information using search engines. Search engines have also been used in to facilitate fact-finding in school teaching but learning to use search engines to increase one's understanding has received less attention (Haider & Sundin, 2019). Easy access to information online can also affect our ability to remember information and Kang (2022) has shown that many people are more likely to remember how to access information online (e.g., remembering keywords used in a search engine) than detailed content they retrieved through online searches. Different types of online search activities present different challenges to the searcher: simple searches, so-called lookup searches, can be successful without high levels of subject expertise, but more extensive searches may require more formalized approaches employing subject-specific concepts (Marchionini, 2006). Unfortunately, many policy documents and teaching practices have been slow to adapt to the rapidly changing internet landscape (McGrew, 2020).

In Sweden, just under half of all school students do not know how to use keywords for online searches or the information provided under links displayed in search results (OECD, 2021). These findings are worrying since we know that certain online search practices can lead to selective exposure where users only encounter information that aligns with their beliefs (Flaxman. 2016, Sunstein, 2009), leading to filter bubbles (Pariser, 2011) or echo chambers (Gescheke, 2019). Research has also shown that many secondary school students have insufficient knowledge about algorithms, filter bubbles and echo chambers and their effects on search results (Otrel-Cass & Fasching, 2021). 

Didactic research has further shown that subject knowledge plays an important role in online information retrieval (Nygren, 2019). For example, to be able to assimilate scientific subject content, one needs to be able to read, write and talk about the content (Lemke, 1998). To demonstrate an understanding of a scientific concept, one also needs to be able to describe the concept in one’s own words, find a metaphor for it, or translate it into a mental or physical model (Kampourakis, 2018, Konicek-Moran, 2015). In the Swedish school context, educational policy documents for the natural sciences do not mandate teachers to work with online search strategies (The Swedish National Agency for Education2011), but researchers have argued that school teaching should develop students’ abilities to search (Haider & Sundin, 2022), communicate and produce information online, as well as students' critical awareness of, for example, how algorithms work, selective exposure, filter bubbles, and the ways in which conspiration theories spread online (Haider & Sundin, 2016, Otrel-Cass & Fasching, 2021, Sundin, Lewandowski & Haider, 2022).

Acknowledging the importance of teaching online search strategies in all school subjects, this study focused specifically on natural science education, where digital competencies in general have received less attention than in the social sciences. The aim of the study was to explore what upper secondary school students' search strategies looked like, how students and teachers reasoned about students’ search strategies, and how search strategies could be linked to scientific subject knowledge.

The following research questions were addressed:

1. What do secondary school students' search strategies look like when they search for scientific information online? 

2. How do the students reason about subject-specific search strategies?

3. How do pedagogues reason about students’ search strategies?

Methodology To generate data for this study, the first author collaborated with a science teacher and an educator in information technology (we will refer to this constellation of teacher-researchers as “pedagogues”). Together, they developed an intervention on online search strategies, based on their own experiences of science teaching and their previous insights into students' search strategies. For example, the pedagogues discussed situations during which students demonstrated low persistence in online searches and how this lack in persistence has led students to prioritizing simple and superficial information in search results. They also discussed how the intervention could be directly connected to the Swedish natural science curriculum. The resulting intervention was then carried out in two classes over a period of seven weeks, again in collaboration between the three pedagogues. The following data types were collected: (1) video recordings of pairs of students searching for information online during a collaborative online search exercise focusing on specific science concepts (protein synthesis, body-building, resilience, biodiversity); filming the students from behind made it possible to record both what the students did (i.e., what happened on the screen) and their verbal reflections on their search processes; (2) students’ written reflections collected during a teacher-led lesson about online search strategies linked to scientific content, and (3) written notes and audio-recordings from discussions between the pedagogues as they were planning the intervention. The intervention and data collection were carried out in two natural science classrooms in different upper secondary school programs (one vocational program and one higher education preparatory program) in Sweden. Altogether, 30 students provided informed consent and participated in the study. All data was analysed using abductive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006, Kvale, 2014). The aim of the analysis was to identify prominent themes in students’ and pedagogues’ reasoning about search strategies in science.

Preliminary Result and Discussion The preliminary results indicate that students used different strategies to search for scientific information online. In our first analysis, we identified three themes focusing on (1) search processes, (2) science content, and (3) students’ reactions to search results. The first theme related to students’ search processes. We could observe many messy and unsystematic processes and how some students seemed to have difficulties keeping track of their what they were doing. Other students, however, were able to navigate more easily by keeping tabs with results from previous searches open in their browsers, which allowed them to revisit specific pages several times. We could also see how students often returned to familiar, easily understandable pages. The second theme was about ways in which students discussed science concepts during their searches. Overall, most students expressed a belief that scientific knowledge is necessary for conducting more precise online searches. They also suggested that using several similar concepts ¬or synonymous concepts – may help. The third theme focused on students' reactions to search results, where many students did not persist for a long time if they struggled to find results they are satisfied with. Rather, they often chose the first option that appeared on their screens, leading to rather superficial information retrieval. These preliminary findings support the need to improve teaching to develop students’ search strategies in general and in science education in particular. Our analysis is still ongoing, and during the conference we will also present the findings based on data from the in-class lesson on search strategies (research question 2) and findings about educators' experiences of students' search strategies (research question 3). We will also present conclusions regarding how teachers can help students develop the abilities and attitudes they need to manage the ever-increasing amounts of science-related information online through effective search strategies.

References Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psycology, 3(2), 77-101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Flaxman, S., Goel, S., Rao, J. (2016). Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80, 298-320. doi:10.1093/poq/nfw006 Geschke, D., Lorenz, J., Holtz, P. (2019). The triple-filter bubble: Using agent-based modelling to test a meta-theoretical framework fort he emergence of filter bubbles and echo chambers. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58, 129-149. doi:10.1111/bjso.12286 Haider, J., Sundin, O. (2016). Algoritmer i samhället. Regeringskansliet Haider, J., Sundin, O. (2019). Invisible Search and Online Search Engines: The Ubiquity of Search in Everyday Life. doi:10.4324/9780429448546 Haider, J., Sundin, O. (2022). Paradoxes of media and information literacy: The Crises of Information. doi:10.4324/9781003163237 Kampourakis, K. (2018). On the Meaning of Concepts in Science Education. Science & Education, 27,591–592. doi:10.1007/s11191-018-0004-x Kang, E. (2022). Easily accessible but easily forgettable: How ease of access to information online affects cognitive miserliness. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Doi:10.1037/xap0000412 Konicek-Moran, R. a. (2015). Teaching for Conceptual Understanding in Science. National science teachers association. Virginia Kvale, S., Brinkman, S. (2014). Den kvalitativa forskningsintervjun. Lund Lemke, J. L. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. Reading Scinece. Marchionini, G. (2006). Exploratory search: from finding to understanding. Communications of the ACM, 49(4), 41-46. McGrew, S. (2020). Leraning to evaluate: An intervention in civic online reasoning. Computers & Education. 145. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103711 Nygren, T. (2019). Fakta, fejk, fiktion, källkritik, ämnesdidaktik, digital kompetens. Stockholm OECD (2021), 21st-Century Readers: Developing Literacy Skills in a Digital World, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a83d84cb-en. Otrel-Cass, K., & Fasching, M. (2021). Postdigital Truths: Educational Reflections on Fake News and Digital Identities. Postdigital Humans: Transitions, Transformations and Transcendence (pp. 89-108). Savin-Baden Pariser, E. (2011). The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding from You. New York: Penguin Press. Schwarts, D. L., Tsang, J., & Blair, K. P. (2016). The ABCs of how we learn: 26 scientifically proven approaches, how they work, and when to use them. London Sundin, O. Lewandowski, D., Haider, J. (2022). Whose relevance? Web search engines as multisided relevance machines. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 73(5), 637-642 Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Republic.com 2.0. New Jersey The Swedish National Agency for Education. (2011). https://www.skolverket.se/undervisning/gymnasieskolan