Problem-based learning and collaborative information literacy in an educational digital video course

CHAPTER 4 Problem-based learning and collaborative information literacy in an educational digital video course Ptiivi Hakkarainen and Sari Poikela

Information literacy is a central challenge for students, as multimedia information networks, especially the Internet, are being used more and more as information sources. Information literacy has traditionally been understood from an individualistic perspective as a set of generic skills, but recent research has highlighted the need to study the social construction of information literacy, as well as its context- and content-specific nature (Tuominen, Savolainen & Talja 2005). Different types ofinfonnation literacy are being formed in different groups and cultures and at different times (Street 2003). This chapter seeks to demonstrate the social construction ofinfonnation literacy and its context- and situation-specific nature in an educational digital video course that uses problem-based learning as the pedagogical framework (see also Hakkarainen 2008). It is based on design-based research (Design-Based Research Collective 2003), carried out while the course was designed, implemented and evaluated with the viewpoint of refining the course. The research focused on finding out how the course supported students' meaningful learning. Special attention was given to information literacy as part of learning (Hakkarainen 2007, 2008,2009). The study was conducted at the University of Lapland's Faculty of Education as part of the Web Searching, Information Literacy and Learning (WebSeaL) project, funded by the Academy of Finland. The research data was collected through two questionnaires completed by the course students, video recordings of the four problem-based learning tutorial sessions and the stimulated-recall interview organized at the end of the course for the students. The questionnaire data was analyzed quantitatively (mean values,

68

Practising information literacy

standard deviations, percentages) and qualitatively into themes. The video data of the problem-based learning tutorials was analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively into Bales-type function categories (Erickson 2006). We will begin with a short introduction to problem-based learning and information literacy, as understood and defined in this case, We then present the research questions and the research process and consider, in the light of the research results, the relationship between problem-based learning and information literacy.

Problem-based learning and information literacy The process of problem-solving may be structured in different ways. One of the most famous models was developed by Barrows at McMaster University, Ontario, Canada (Barrows 1985; Barrett 2005). The other well-known model is Schmidt's (1983) 'seven jump' model from the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands, and its variations in many universities. The cyclical model developed at the University of Linkoping, Sweden has been applied in many places too. For this reason, it is not possible to identify a single model of problem-based learning (Poikela 2003; Savin-Baden & Howell Major 2004; Barrett 2005). The idea of the cyclical model with eight phases (see Figure 4.1) is tested and further developed in the context of Finnish higher education in several organizations (Poikcla 2003; Poikela & Poikela 2005b, 2006). This model is used as an operational procedure in the digital video course as well. We emphasize, however, that problem-based learning should not be understood solely as a pedagogical approach or model, but rather as a general approach to teaching and learning and as a pedagogical and curricular innovation. In addition, problem-based learning is a unique educational philosophy with its own epistemological and ontological arguments. Carefully designed problems related to working life create a solid base for learning. The tutor facilitates the problemsolving process during tutorials that last two, three, or a maximum of four hours. A problem-based learning curriculum is organized around problems, rather than according to a particular topic or academic discipline. Studcnt-centredness, small . . group work, self-directed learning, experientialleaming and the tutor's role as a facilitator have been identified as core characteristics of problem-based learning. In Problem-based learning also emphasizes the crucial importance of critical and reflective thinking skills, contextual knowledge and the integration of disciplines (Barrows 1996; Hmelo-Silver 2004; Poikela & Poikcla 2005b, 2006). The importance of assessment and evaluation systems, including students' scIfevaluation, is emphasized (Dochy ct al. 2003; Poikela & Poikcla 2005b).

Problem-based learning and collaborative information literacy

69

A problem-based learning cycle (Figure 4.1) consists of collaborative learning ach ieved in two tutorial sessions that last approximately two hours each. The first session covers phases 1 to 5 and the second phases 7 to 8. Independent knowledge acquisition (phase 6) is situated between the two tutorial sessions. The tutor and from seven to nine students gather approximately once a week. During phase one, students have to reach a shared understanding of perspectives and conceptions of the problem. The purpose of the second phase is to elicit and elaborate on former knowledge about the problem phenomena. This is achieved by brainstorming ideas about possible ways of dealing with the problem. The third phase starts with connecting similar types of ideas together into separate categories and naming them. During the fourth phase, the most important and actual problem areas (named categories) are negotiated. The fifth phase culminates in the first tutorial session, the aim being that students form the learning task and the objects of study.

I I~

\ ~

I. Setting the

~ 8. Clarifying the solution to the problem

,,--1/ ~:l~nning probtem

-h. ~

0"U' 3. Structuring the

Assessment

I \

/

I

, t<...'

4. Selecting the problem area

7. Constructing ~ ..... ..... __ _ knowledge

Lessons

knowledge

I

6. Independent knowledge acquisition

Internet

Library Exercises

Workplaces

Experts

Figure 4.1: Problem-based learning cycle (adapted from Poikela & Poikcla 2006, p, 78)

The sixth phase is a period of information seeking and self-study between tutorials. Students work both alone, and in small groups, depending on the learning tasks and

70

Practising information literacy

aims. The second tutorial begins the seventh phase. It is a practical test to use new knowledge. Freshly acquired knowledge is used to tackle the learning task, and is then applied in constructing the problem in a new manner. New knowledge will be synthesized and integrated at a more advanced level, and provides a basis for learning to be continued. During the eighth phase, the whole process of problemsolving and the learning process 1S clarified and reflected in the light of the original problem. Unlike several other tutorial scripts (for example, Hmelo-Silver 2004; Moust, Van Berkel & Schmidt 2005), assessment, placed in the middle of Figure 4.1 above, is not included as a separate phase; rather, it is part of each phase. Tutorial sessions close with a feedback and assessment discussion, during which students get information and feedback about their learning, group processes and problemsolving skills (Poikela & Poikela, 2006, p. 79). Students' information-seeking skills may require a great deal of improvement when starting with problem-based learning. It is not enough for tutors to simply ask students to go and find information from the library or the Internet. It is essential that tutorials include discussion about where the most relevant information could be sought and what the most important resources arc. Acquiring information and becoming familiar with different kinds of information environments need practice and assistance. Librarians and informants are specialists whose help is needed too (Poikela & Portimojarvi 2004; Poikela & Poikela 2006). The importance of virtual and web-based environments is increasing as forums for finding, sharing and evaluating information resources. For example, social media (Web 2.0), including the idea of collaborative knowledge building, are the most rapidly developing phenomena in the web. 1am using social media here to refer to web services that receive most of their content from their users. The various web services of social media can be categorized into different genres, such as content creation and publishing (for example, blogs), content-sharing (for example, YouTube), social networking (for example, Facebook and MySpace), collaborative productions (for example, wikis) and virtual worlds (for example, Second Life and Habbo Hotel) (Lietsala & Sirkkunen 2008). These services are widely used by the younger generation and it is, therefore, only natural that the possibilities that social media offer should also be seriously considered by the educational sector (Poikela & Portimojarvi 2004; Manninen et al. 2007; Poikela, Vuoskoski & Kama 2009). The concept of infonnation literacy is the focus of lively discussion and debate (Breen & Fallon 2005; Tuominen et at 2005). The standards of information literacy and associated indicators put forward by the Association of College and

Problem-based 'earning and collaborative information literacy

71

Research Libraries (ACRL 2000) are among those most used and cited. According to these standards, an information literate individual is able to: • determine the extent of information needed • access the needed information effectively and efficiently • evaluate information and its sources critically • incorporate selected information into one's knowledge base • use information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose • understand the economic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of information, and access and use information ethically and legally (ACRL 2000, pp. 2-3). Information literacy is one of the expected learning outcomes, as well as one of the factors contributing to learning outcomes (Breen & Fallon 2005; Hakkarainen 2007, 2008, 2009). Information literacy pertains centrally to the qualifications required in working life: independent knowledge acquisition; knowledge application; multi-professional skills; ability to learn constantly; critical and creative thinking; and collaboration and problem-solving skills (Poikela & Nummenmaa 2004; Tynjala 2001). Information literacy research seems to follow a similar trend to recent learning research. In both areas of research, the focus has shifted to the interaction of groups and communities and to the processes through which the knowledge and skills that the research focuses on are being collaboratively defined and developed. In the light of both research (for example, Eskola 2005; Rankin 1996) and practical experience (for example, Breen & Fallon 2005), problem-based learning has been found to be a meaningful and successful learning environment for information literacy. Integrating information literacy teaching and guidance into the problem-

based learning curriculum is considered a central strategy. In practice, this means increasing the collaboration between librarians and problem-based learning tutors, teachers and students in designing, implementing and evaluating curricula and individual courses (Breen & Fallon 2005; Poikela & Poikela, 2005a; Rankin 1996).

Research questions and procedure The research questions were: I. Does the operational procedure of problem-based learning support the collaborative learning and construction of information literacy and, if so, how?

72

Practising information literacy

2. Does the operational procedure of problem-based learning demonstrate the collaborative nature of information literacy? Course description

The research focused on a course called 'Digital Video: Supporting Meaningful Learning through Using and Producing Digital Videos'. It is a new and optional course for a Master's Degree in Media Education at the University of Lapland's Faculty of Education. The students receive five European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) credits for completing the course, which is graded as pass/fail. The course is the first course in which problem-based learning is applied in the Media Education curriculum. The primary aim of the course is to make students able to use and produce digital videos in a way that supports meaningful learning. In addition, students should learn how to negotiate copyright issues related to digital video productions. A special feature of the course is that students will produce, in pairs or in small groups, educational digital videos as commissioned works for Faculty teachers. The students take care of the whole production process: developing ideas; writing the manuscript; shooting; editing; and negotiating copyright issues. As their written assignment, students write an analysis of the digital video they have produced. The first-named author of this chapter has conducted the research, designed the course and worked as both the teacher responsible and the problem-based learning tutor for the course. Ten students (seven female and three male), aged between 20 and 36, enrolled in the first implementation of the course in September and October 2006. The students were second- to fifth-year pre-service teacher students and undergraduate students of Media Education. The course started with an introductory meeting, after which the students participated in three problem-based learning tutorial cycles (Figure 4.1) that were realized through weekly tutorial sessions (n=4). The problems to be solved by the students during the problem-based learning cycles were: I. How can we support meaningful learning by using and producing digital videos? 2.•Iow can we write a script for an educational digital video? 3. How can we avoid the most typical beginner's mistakes in shooting a digital video? Between the tutorial sessions, the students engaged in independent knowledge acquisition in workshops on scriptwriting, filming, editing with Microsoft MovieMaker software and copyright issues (twenty-eight hours altogether). In

Problem-based learninq and collaborative information literacy

73

addition, the students used the Internet and the library, attended a lecture, and used their peers and social networks as information resources. The course was supplemented by a web site with links to suggested learning resources and to the digital videos produced by the students. However, the production of the digital videos was not the primary aim of the course; the digital video was, rather, one of the resources of independent knowledge acquisition and the primary aim was problem-solving and learning. At the end of the course, a final assessment meeting was organized.

Data collection and analysis To promote the validity, reliability and applicability of the research, data of various kinds and from multiple sources was used (Cobb et al. 2003; DBRC 2003; Wang & Ilannafin 2005). Because the study focused on a single course and did not seek statistical significance, quantitative analysis was applied as a tool for describing and interpreting the data and for making its internal generalization more explicit. In this chapter we describe the data that was collected and analyzed through the following procedures:

Questionnaire focusing on the learning process and outcomes. Nine of the ten students enrolled in the course completed the questionnaire, which included twenty-three statements concerning the meaningfulness of the learning process and thirteen statements concerning the learning resources and learning outcomes (workshops, problem-based learning tutorials, commissioned video assignment, lecture and the course web site). The students completed the questionnaire two weeks after the course had ended and they had received their grades. They were asked to evaluate the statements using a five-point Likert scale. The construction of the questionnaire and the analysis of the questionnaire data is reported elsewhere (Ilakkarainen 2007, 2009; Hakkarainen, Saarelainen & Ruokamo 2007, 2009). The mean values, standard deviations and percentages of the students' ratings were extracted. Questionnaire focusing on the independent know/edge acquisition phase. The questionnaire included both closed and open-ended questions which were used to find out: (a) the information resources that students had used; and (b) students' reasons for choosing these resources. The students completed the questionnaire after the independent knowledge acquisition phase in each of the problem-based learning cycles, a total of three times. Nine students completed the first questionnaire, whereas the second and the third questionnaires were completed by eight students. The questionnaire data was analyzed by

74

Practising information literacy

calculating how many students had used certain resources. In addition, the reasons students gave for their choices of resources were analyzed into themes.

Video recordings ofthe Jour problem-based learning tutorial sessions. The video recordings comprised 7.5 hours of video data. The length of the problem-based learning sessions varied from 1.5 to 2 hours. In two of the sessions, five minutes were left unrecorded because the cassettes ran out before the end of the session. One fixed digital camera was positioned at the front of the room to capture the student group and the tutor. The tutor was, however, sometimes outside the camera's range. First, the recordings were transcribed word for word and nonverbal communication (pauses, silences, laughter, humorous tones, and hand gestures) was also noted. Next, the data was analyzed according to the number of tutor comments and student comments. A comment was defined as a meaningful verbal comment ranging from a short 'rnmm... ' indicating agreement to comments that lasted several minutes. The student comments were then analyzed and coded into Bales-type function categories (Erickson 2006). A single comment could include units that belonged to two or three different coding categories. A total of2.3% (n=61) of the comments were coded in the category 4 inaudible', because more than one student was talking at once, or they were talking too quietly, or the technical quality of the recording was inadequate. NVivo qualitative data analysis software was used as a tool in analyzing and coding the data. To enhance the reliability of the coding procedures and categories, the entire collection of video data was first viewed several times and then coded in two rounds.

Video recordings ofthe stimulated-recall interview. A stimulated-recall interview (Erickson 2006; Marland 1984) was organized two weeks after the course had ended and the students had received their grades. The I.S-hour interview was undertaken as a group interview in which nine of the ten students in the course participated in the interview. During the interview the tutor-researcher viewed seven video clips extracted from the video recordings of the problem-based learning sessions of the Digital Video course with the students. The students were asked to describe what was happening in the situations that the video clips portrayed and what they had thought and felt during those situations. The tutorresearcher selected the video clips because she thought that they served as a showcase for the collaborative nature of students' information literacy. The selection was not a result of a systematic analysis. Moreover, the video clips viewed and discussed at the stimulated-recall interview served as possible examples of how the collaborative nature of information literacy can be seen in students' talk during the tutorials. In this chapter, we describe one of the video clips that the tutor-researcher discussed with the course students.

Problem-based 'earning and collaborative information literacy

75

Research results What follows is a description of the relationship between problem-based learning and information literacy, especially its collaborative nature, in the digital video course that the research focused on. The structure of our description is based on the ACRL information literacy standards (2000). We discuss how the operational procedure of problem-based learning supports and demonstrates the collaborative construction of information literacy within its different content areas, that is, in determining the extent of information needed, accessing the needed information and evaluating and using information, Determining the extent of information needed

According to the ACRL standards (2000, p. 2) 'an information literate individual is able to determine the extent of information needed'. Students have the main responsibility in this; the teacher's role is not to define the nature and quantity of knowledge that students should acquire or how much they should learn. In the core characteristics of problem-based learning-student-centredness, self-directed learning, and the tutor's role as a facilitator (Barrows 1996; Hmelo-Silver 2004; Poikela & Poikela 2005b)-this responsibility is clearly apparent. The students' responsibility is also apparent in the operational procedure of problem-based learning. During the first session, students work through setting the problem (phase 1), brainstorming (phase 2), structuring the ideas generated during the brainstorming (phase 3), selecting the problem area (phase 4) and setting the learning task (phase 5). It is the student group that defines the information that it needs to solve the problem at hand. After this, the student group sets its learning task for which it seeks answers during the independent knowledge acquisition stage (phase 6). In the problem-based learning cycle, determining the extent of information needed is most clearly realized in phases one to five. The student

group defines the information needed with respect to what they already know about the problem at hand and its solutions. Constructive characteristics are therefore realized in the problem-based learning cycle, which could be seen in the high ratings (M=4.44-4.67, 8D=0.5-1.73) that the students gave for the statements measuring the constructiveness of the learning process (Table 4.1).

76 Practising information literacy

Table 4.1: Student ratings of realization of the meaningful learning process

$8 23 .a.$ -$5 31

Sluremen1 in the q ~ e ~ t i o n n u i r e / o c u son in~ process choructeristic,

4i7

0.5

Studcnts' rolc was to actively acquirc. cvaluatc. and apply information.

4,89

o,33

4,h7

o,5

4'44

OS3

4.00

0.00

4,x9

o,33

Ql

Process churucterisiic a/

c

2

meuning/ul

9

leorning ~~~

Activc

~

$4

~~~~

loo

My partncr and I wcrc pcrsonally rcsponsiblc for our vidco production proccss.

I was ablc to influcncc thc conlcnt and rcallzatton of our vidco assignment. Tho students dircctcd thcir own studying proccss in the problcm-bascd lcarning sessions.

Scl f-dircctcd 100

I was ablc to cvaluatc my own lcarning during the

course,

My partncr and I wcrc pcrsonally rcsponsiblc for our video production proccss.

4.67

O.'

loo

I was ablc to utilizc my prior knowlcdgc about the coursc topics.

4'44

0'73

88'9

Thc coursc dccpcncd my undcrstanding of what I had lcarncd bcforc.

4,22

o,97

88.x

I was ablc to apply my own practical cxpcricnccs during thc coursc.

hb,h

Studying cnablcd thc achicvcment of my pcrsonal goals.

Constructivc

3,x9

Collaborative Co-opcrational Convcrsational

Abstract Critical

4.89

0.33

100

Thc studcnts wcrc committcd to collaboration

4.44

I .01

88.9

Co-opcration with my partncr was succcssful.

4s6

OS3

loo

Co-opcration with thc commissioncr of thc vidco was succcssful.

4,56

o,73

8H,9

Problcm-based lcarning tutorials hclpcd me to Icarn.

3,44

I,I

66,7

On thc coursc. practical cxamplcs wcrc studicd in a theorctical frdmcwork.

55.5

The studying dcvclopcd my critical thinking

3,56

.24

skills.

n-9 5-poinl scale. I=drsagree, 2- modcratcly diragrcc, Gncithcr disagrcc or agrce. 4 modcratcly agrce. 5- a g r x

Problem-based learning and collaborative information literacy

77

In the questionnaire, the students stated that their role was to actively acquire, evaluate, and apply information (M=4.67, SD=O.5). Out of the characteristics of meaningful learning applied in the research, activeness also entails students' attitude towards information and knowledge. An active attitude towards information and knowledge is central both in the ACRL standards, and in problembased learning. According to Poikela and Poikela (2005, p. 33), in problem-based learning, 'knowledge is not only an object for memorising, it is a subject and tool for observing, analysing, integrating and synthesising'. In the problem-based learning sessions, determining the extent of information needed is collaborative (Repo-Kaarento 2004); instead of the individual students, the student group is the subject of the process. In addition, collaborative characteristics were realized in the sense that, in defining the information needed (problem-based learning tutorial phases I to 5), the students were processing concepts, ideas or working procedures suggested by their fellow students or themselves by explaining, commenting, agreeing, giving examples, clarifying or asking for clarification. In the four problem-based learning tutorial sessions, the largest number of units (n=1074, 47.60/0) was coded in the category 'processing suggestions', which clearly indicates that the students were engaged in collaborative and conversational knowledge construction by explaining or commenting on the suggested ideas, giving examples, or asking for clarification or for one another's opinions. The results indicate that the students were taking a responsible role in determining the extent of the information needed. Both the analysis of the questionnaire focusing on the learning process and the outcomes and analysis of the video recordings of the problem-based learning sessions support this argument In the questionnaire, student experience concerning the self-directedness of the problembased learning sessions was measured through the statement "The students directed their own studying process in the problem-based learning sessions', which the students rated favourably (M=4.44, SD=O.53). The analysis of the video recordings showed that the tutor's comment units accounted for only 19.20/0 (n=537) of all the coded comment units (n=2791 ) of the tutorial sessions. This indicates that the students played a central role. Students' talk was in a more central role, contrary to a more teacher-centred teaching approach, in which approximately two-thirds of the talking has been shown to be done by the teacher (Ruberg, Moore & Taylor 1996).

78

Practising information literacy

Table 4.2: Division of students' comment units into coding categories in the four problem-based learning sessions (Hakkarainen 2007, 2008, 2009). Coding categories

Descriptionofthe coding category

Examplefrom the data

Processing suggestions

Student processes a suggested concept, a preliminary idea or a working procedure by explaining, commenting, agreeing, giving examples, clarifying or asking for clarifications, or fur the other students' opinions.

'You mean, the manuscript is kind of like a blueprint for a house?'

1074 (47.6%)

Suggesting a new concept or its placement

Student suggests a new concept, a preliminary idea or a working procedure for the ongoing stage of the problem-based learning session. Student makes a suggestion concerning me placement of a concept, or the relationship between concepts in a mind map.

'Could we think that this preplanning is one big thing and the manuscript is subordinate to il-a subsection?'

332 (14.7%)

Student asks for instructions, or replies to tutor's comments.

'Okay, what arc we supposed to do next?'

308 (13.7%)

Chairperson directing the process

Chairpcrson manages the group by keeping the discussion flowing and focused on the issues at hand, and by summarizing the outcomes before moving to the next stage.

'Can you think of anything clsc-e-we've got a few minutes left?'

185 (8.2%)

Assessing the problem-based learning tutorial session

Student assesses how the problem-based learning tutorial session has proceeded and how the group has worked together towards the common goal, i.e., setting the learning assignment or solving the problem.

'It was a good thing that everyone could present their own thoughts, so, it wasn't just agreeing un everything. It is quite an important thing in life, after all.'

89 (3.9%)

Assessing information

Student describes, summarizes, and evaluates her/his prior information, or the information s/hc has found during the independent knowledge acquisition stage.

'Well, what I found was that a good manuscript answers the questions what, to whom, why, and how.'

59 (2.6%)

Arguing against student comments

Student argues against suggestions or their processing in a concise or elaborate way.

•But isn't it then mostly an editing problem?'

53(2.4%)

Assessing knowledge acquisition

Student describes and evaluates her/his independent knowledge acquisition stage.

'From the sources I noticed that the more sources of info you used, the more comprehensive the picture got.'

34(1.5%)

Assessing the

Student assesses the outcomes of the problembased learning tutorial session, i.e., the learning assignment or the solution to the problem.

'I think there's quite a lot of information in it.'

23(1%)

Student makes a comment thai is not related to the topics or working procedures of the problem-based learning tutorial session.

'Where is the University Senate's meeting room on the third floor?'

36(1.6%)

Addressing tutor

problem-based

learning session outcomes Providing otTtopic comments

Number & %ofun;~'

Number of students: session 1 (n=9), session 2 (n=9), session 3 (0=8), session 4 (n~)

Problem-based learning and collaborative information literacy

79

All in all, the collaborative, co-operational and conversational characteristics of meaningful learning proved to be the core characteristics of the course, as is typically the case in problem-based learning. This can be argued on the basis of the analysis of the questionnaire data and the video recordings of the problem-based learning tutorial sessions. The students' ratings on the questions focusing on these characteristics were very high (M=4.44-4.89, SD=O.33-1.01). In the four problembased learning tutorial sessions, the largest number of units (n=1074, 47.6%) was coded in the category 'processing suggestions', which indicates that the students were engaged in collaborative and conversational knowledge construction by explaining or commenting on the suggested ideas, giving examples, or asking for clarifications or for one another's opinions. The second largest number of units (n=332, 14.7%)was coded in the category 'Suggesting a new concept or its placement'. The percentage of students' comment units in the coding categories remained approximately the same in all four tutorial sessions. We interpret these comment units as collaborative knowledge construction, which necessitates and, in the best cases, also promotes students' skills in collaboratively assessing and applying information. As working life requires, among other things, the ability to learn constantly, as well as collaboration and problem-solving skills (Poikela & Nummenmaa 2004; TynjaHi 2001), that students are offered well-guided possibilities in developing these skills is justifiable. Accessing the needed information

After defining the extent of the information needed (phases 1 to 5), the students moved into the independent knowledge acquisition phase, which lasted about a week in each of the four problem-based learning cycles. According to the ACRL standards (2000, p. 2), 'an information literate individual is able to use information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose'. What is meant by 'effectively'? According to the standards (ACRL 2000, pp. 9-10), the information-literatestudent selects the most appropriate investigative methods or information retrieval systems for accessing the information that is needed, constructs and implements effectively designed search strategies and retrieves information online or in person using a variety of methods. The student is also able to refine the search strategy if necessary and to extract, record and manage the information and its sources. Out of these performance indicators, the versatility of the information retrieval methods and resources seems to have been realized during the course.

80

Practising information literacy

Versatile information retrieval methods and resources During their independent knowledge acquisition phase, students used versatile material and social resources: workshops given by the teachers of different disciplines; a lecture; and accompanying literature in Finnish. Six out of the ten students had used the video clips that were available through the Internet and were linked into the course web site. In addition, five students had searched Google using Finnish search terms. All students had used the commissioners of their video, that is, the Faculty teachers, as an information resource. In addition, all students indicated that they had used their fellow students and social networks outside the university as information resources. Previous studies on problem-based learning in medical education have shown that problem-based learning students spend more time in the Iibrary and use a greater variety of learning resources (Rankin 1996). An authentic and adequately complex and bewildering problem guides and motivates students to search for information from versatile resources (Valtanen 2005). This seems to have been the case in this course too, although this docs not mean that the problemshandled during the course do not need to be further developed. An additional challengeof the independent knowledge acquisition phase is to usc more working-life experts outside the university as learning resources.

Transgressing one's comfort zone and the boundaries of competencies The analysis of the questionnaire focusing on students' independent knowledge acquisition showed also that knowledge acquisition was limited with respect to scientific articles in English. Reading these articles is essential, since there is at present very little, if any, research literature in Finnish that focuses on the educational use of digital videos. Only three of the ninc students who completed the questionnaire had used articles in English as learning resources. The course web site includes links to suggested articles, so it was not a question of the availability of articles. These limitations in knowledge acquisition resulted in students' difficulties in integrating theoretical viewpoints into their written assignments. Moreover, according to the analysis of the research questionnaire focusing on the learning process and outcomes, the abstract characteristics of teaming were not realized to the same extent as the other characteristics of meaningful leaming. Students gave the lowest rating to the statement measuring the abstract characteristics of the learning process: 'On the course practical examples were studied in a theoretical framework' (M=3.44, SD=1.13).

Problem-based learning and collaborative information literacy

81

Integrating theoretical and practical knowledge is central in problem-based learning, as noted by E Poikela (2001, p. 105): 'Formulating theory requires practical experimenting and understanding practice requires conceptual knowledge". One of the challenges of the Digital Video course is to increase the amount of guidance that focuses on understanding practice with the help of theoretical knowledge. It seems that there is a need to allocate more hours in lectures and workshops that focus on theoretical viewpoints related to the educational use of digital video. In addition, students' scant usc of research articles in English spurs one on to consider integrating the teaching of this specific information literacy skill into the course. It seems that students were using resources they were famiIiar with and could easily access and use (Breen & Fallon 2005). Students should be supported in transgressing their comfort zone. Problem-based learning seems to offer a good model to support students' knowledge and skills in producing and using educational digital videos. It accentuates the importance of the integration of disciplines and shared knowledge construction for producing multi-professional competence (Poikela & Poikela 2005b). Educational digital video production is a challenging assignment for students from the perspective of knowledge acquisition. It requires that students develop knowledge and skills in multiple domains besides media pedagogy and media didactics, including dramaturgy, video expression, video production, copyright laws and regulations, andjoumalism (Figure 4.2).

..

~

-'

Alta .nd Meet.. Studin:

A . __,---------

.-1

, ,

d,amat\.W9)1.vdeoe~

..~ l)(oduetioo

L.ftt Stud••: copytlQhllilM an

Figure 4.2: Multiple skill domains needed in educational digital video production (cf. Poikcla & Poikela 2005a~ p. 39).

82

Practising information literacy

The core competencies that the course aims at are media pedagogical and didactical skills. In addition, students need to develop some expressive, technological, copyright and journalistic skills. Traditionally these skills have been taught mainly within different disciplines and programs at universities. The results of the pilot study, which focused on the design process of the Digital Video course, indicated that novice Media Education students can experience difficulties in acquiring, evaluating and using knowledge when transgressing the boundaries of their own discipline into arts and media studies, journalism, and law studies (Hakkarainen 2006). This can also be interpreted as transgressing one's comfort zone. However, the analysis of the video recordings of the problem-based learning tutorials showed that, when transgressing the boundaries of their own discipline, the students experienced the workshops on filming and scriptwriting as more useful information and learning resources. In the workshops, students were practising shooting and preparing the manuscripts with the help of a teacher.

Did the Digital Video course support students' skills in acquiring and evaluating knowledge? Despite the fact that the students stated in the questionnaire that their role was to actively acquire, evaluate and apply information (M=4.67, SD=O.5), they were less convinced that they had learned to acquire and evaluate information (M=3.56, SD=O.53) and to think critically (M=3.56, SD=1.24) during the course. Students' role in problem-based learning is to actively acquire, evaluate and apply knowledge. The operational procedure of problem-based learning guides, motivates and even forces students into this role. A central finding of the research is, however, that for the development of students' information literacy, more goaloriented and integrated information literacy teaching and guidance is needed. Evaluating and using information

According to the ACRL standards, an information-literate individual is able to 'evaluate information and its sources critically, incorporate selected information into one's knowledge base, and use information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose' (ACRL 2000, p. 3). Assessment, including students' selfassessment, is central in problem-based teaming (Dochy et a1. 2003; Poikela & Poikela 2005b). The assessment realized within the problem-based learning tutorials is both process assessment and product assessment, and it focuses on the different phases of the problem-solving process, learning and group processes. Part of the students' comment units in the problem-based learning sessions was clearly assessive in nature. These comment units were coded into four categories. Out of these four categories, two categories comprised comment units assessing the problem-based learning tutorial session (' Assessing the problem-based learning

Problem-based learning and collaborative information literacy

83

tutorial session' and 'Assessing the problem-based learning session outcomes') and two categories comprised comment units assessing information and knowledge acquisition ('Assessing information' and' Assessing knowledge acquisition'). The coding categories are described in more detail in Table 4.2. All in all, comment units including assessment (n=205) accounted for 9.1 % of all students' comment units. These evaluative comment units centred clearly in the phases following students' independent knowledge acquisition, that is, during phase seven ('Constructing knowledge') and phase eight ('Clarifying the solution to the problem'). In other phases of the problem-based learning cycle, only sporadic instances of evaluative comments could be found.

Evaluative talk focusing on knowledge acquisition, information and sources The relative amount of comment units coded into the categories' Assessing information' (n=59, 2.60/o) and 'Assessing knowledge acquisition' (n=34, 1.50/o) was small. These comment units centred on the 'Constructing knowledge' phase that took place after students' independent knowledge acquisition. In the problembased learning tutorials, the students talked in turns about their independent knowledge acquisition and its results and assessed both of these aspects. Students were provided with a list of questions that they were expected to cover when telling the group about their independent knowledge acquisition: •

How did your independent knowledge acquisition succeed? Assess your own activeness.

• What were the most important things that you discovered during independent knowledge acquisition? •

Based on which criteria did you choose the particular information resources?

• Did the information resources offer you enough information? What information did you miss? •

Was the information you found reliable, accurate, current, suitable for your own purposes?

Although there were not many instances when students assessed information" they demonstrated, however, that students were evaluating information and its sources, as well as incorporating selected information into their knowledge base (ACRL 2000, pp. 2-3). The following excerpt illustrates this. In the excerpt, a student assesses the Citizen Kane movie script she has found on the Internet. The student

84

Practising information literacy

assesses the script with respect to the value that it may provide for the group's learning. Student 7: The Internet part actually ended up with me finding the script of Citizen Kane. I started reading it, saw that in the '50s [laughs]. They were pretty thorough back then too-they were professionals when you think of it. The shooting scripts say exactly what angle the camera comes down at, exactly what path it follows coming down and where it goes through [shows with hands]. The directions arc very detailed, so we have to be too, even though were just novices in this business.

During the stimulated-recall interview, students discussed difficulties that they had experienced when assessing their independent knowledge acquisition in turns during the problem-based learning tutorials. They reported having themselves experienced, and having seen other students experience, difficulties in summing up the results of their knowledge acquisition into a concise comment. The rounds of comments in the problem-based learning tutorials took a long time and, in the video recordings, it could be seen that students were at times getting tired of listening to each other's lengthy comments. The questions for the assessment of independent knowledge acquisition were not provided for students until after the knowledge acquisition phase. In the future realizations of the course, they should be given to the students beforehand, More emphasis should also be put into guiding students to sum up the central findings of their knowledge acquisition into concise comments. In addition, a web-based environment, for example, a blog, could be used by the students to share and evaluate information found during their independent knowledge acquisition phase (sec also

Kama &

Kallionicmi 2006).

This way, the students could get started at evaluating information during the knowledge acquisition phase, and not after it. llowever, the students reported that the experience of listening to other students discussing and assessing their knowledge acquisition was useful for their own learning. Students' comments during the problem-based learning tutorial were collaborative, in the sense that students focused their comments in relation to the comments of other students-they had to think what kind of knowledge had already been presented by others, and what new knowledge they could bring to the conversation. Based on the results of this research, guiding students to critically assess information and its sources can be seen as one of the development needs of the Digital Video course. The analysis of the questionnaire focusing on the learning process and outcomes revealed that students gave the second lowest rating to the

Problem-based learning and collaborative information literacy

85

statement focusing on the critical aspects and characteristics of the learning process: 'The studying developed my critical thinking skills' (M=3.56, SD=I.24). In the ACRL standards, critical assessment of information is central. Ilow should we better guide students in critical thinking, including the critical assessment of information, in the Digital Video course? One way is to have students collaboratively perform a critical media analysis of the digital videos they have previously produced. Media presentations do not mirror reality, but instead are constructed representations, which need to be evaluated critically. Pupils' and students' own video productions have been shown to have a positive effect on the development of their media literacy (Adams & Hamm 2000~ Reid, Bum & Parker 2002; Schuck & Kearney 2006; Shewbridge & Berge 2004). Media literacy and media proficiency are new challenges for education (Ruokamo 2005; Suoranta 2003; lelia et al. 2001; Vcsterincn et at. 2006). According to Tella, media proficiency refers to a more active and productive command of and greater ability to communicate using media and new technologies than the concept of media literacy denotes. Media proficiency entails ethical and aesthetic considerations, as well as a broader understanding than prevails at present of the significance of audiovisual communication (Tella ct al. 200 I, p. 30; see also Ruokamo & Tella 2005, p. 4). The analysis of the video recordings of the problem-based learning tutorials suggests that the production of digital videos helped students to understand videos as constructed representations. In phase seven rConstructing knowledge'), students explained how writing the manuscripts, shooting and editing the videos had required selecting viewpoints and content.

Student 5: The [camera] angle and perspective the things are presented from. Is it brought. .. can it be seen clearly or is it ambiguous or ... the clearer it is brought out, the more alternatives you have to get a clearer image. Tutor Are you thinking of broader, sort of critical perspectives in addition to the visual expression? What perspectives for example? Student 3: Yeah, for me it's never just how something looks but in a way what content has been chosen for it... Tutor: Yeah. Student 3: ... in its own right. Student 5: It's those choices you have to make-there are many di fferent situations and you just have to choose one. According to Suoranta (2003" p. 60), one can ask any media presentation, for example, the following questions, which help to understand media content as

86

Practising information literacy

constructed representations: What kind of a version about the incident is being told?, Who is the narrator?, From whose viewpoint is the story being told?, What is left untold?, and What kind of rhetoric means are being used? Integrating this kind of media literacy teaching into the Digital Video course seems justifiable and is one of the development needs of the course.

Example: Is an information source from the 19805 still usable?

The analysis of the video recordings of the problem-based learning tutorials showed that the teacher-researcher did not seize on each student comment or other cue, for example laughter, possibly demonstrating the collaborative aspects of students' information literacy. In a sense, these fleeting moments for discussing and teaching information literacy were therefore 'lost'. On the other hand, they demonstrate that the problem-based learning tutorials can make the collaborative nature of information literacy visible. They also hint at specific information literacy issues that could be discussed with students in the future and at issues that could be included in information literacy teaching. Next, we will make a closer examination of one of these 'Iost moments'. This episode took place in phase seven ('Constructing knowledge'), during which students reported and assessed their knowledge acquisition and its results. We interpret the episode as demonstrating the collaborative nature of students' information literacy. In the following excerpt, a student is describing her knowledge acquisition and its results in the following way:

Student 8: Yeah. I found a really new [sarcastically] book that came out in '84. It's in great shape. But you'd be surprised-it has pretty much everything. It's Annamaria Ollikainen's Koulutelevisiosta videoon [From school TV to video]. It talks about school TV in East Germany [some students laugh] but it has a pretty good-maybe rather old-but what I find to be a good list of the types of AV learning material according to teaching goals. It has ...they have fancy names here based on the purposes the materials are used for and when I read through the book last night, there really were sensible things, things you can use even today. And for the most part I looked for material elsewhere than on the Internet, because I figured all the rest of you would be looking there. Tutor: Could you tell us where you found it? Student 8: In the library. Tutor: Here, or where? Student 8: Yeah, here! Tutor: Wow!

Problem-based learning and collaborative information literacy

87

Student 8: I was pretty surprised, too. Tutor: Was it some book down in the storage? [laughs] Student 8: No. It was right there on the shelf [laughs]

What is interesting is how the student justifies the usability of this book, published in 1984, by saying 'you'd be surprised-it has pretty much everything'. The book made some of the students and the tutor laugh. Viewing and discussing the video recording of the episode later in the stimulated-recall interview revealed that the students and the tutor shared an understanding about the age of the information source with respect to its usability. Students and the tutor had laughed because the book was 'old' and also because of the humorous way the student had justified using this particular information source. According to the students' understanding, only books written in the 2000s are usable information in their community. Student 8: The more recent the [book] better. A lot of students might be told

to find newer material if they write something using such an old book. Researcher: Where do they assume this? Student 7: That's what they demand. Student 8: Right. We're required to have new material. Researcher: You mean in the Media Education curriculum or by the teachers in the program? Student 2: No, I mean the lecturers tell us to. Researcher: The lecturers? Really? Student 8: It's not written down anywhere. Student 2: The bachelor's thesis supervisors and others. Researcher: Right, the bachelor's thesis supervisors. Student 1: And the master's thesis supervisors. Student 2: On the master's thesis. Researcher: So it's sort of an unwritten rule? Student 8: Right. As the stimulated-recall interview proceeded, the students started evaluating

information and its sources and age. It seems reasonable to integrate this kind of evaluative discussion into the problem-based learning tutorials. One student mentioned a 1980s book that one of his teachers uses persistently in his teaching. This example evoked a more general discussion about 'old' information sources. Student 1: The things [covered in the 'old' books] are still relevant and

useful. Student 3: And somehow it seems like a lot of the older books are in fact

more carefully written--better thought-out, with better structure and content.

88

Practising information hteracy

Student J: They're clearer. Student 3: Right. Researcher: [Clearer] than today's sort of project-type, quick ... quickly

produced [publications]? Student 1: Right. Student 3: You have pictures all over the place and like... this looks

great!... but this is not necessarily something that works in a book.

Conclusions The research results suggest that problem-based learning supports the collaborative construction and development of information literacy, as defined in this research. The operational procedure of problem-based learning supports the realization of characteristics that are central to the learning of information literacy, that is, student-centredness, students' active role, small-group work, self-directed learning, experiential learning and the tutor's role as a facilitator (Barrows 1996; HmeloSilver 2004; Poikela & Poikela 2005b). The results indicate that Digital Video course students were in a self-directed and active role with relation to information, knowledge and learning. Determining the extent of information needed, acquiring knowledge and evaluating and using information were collaborative, cooperational and conversational processes. In addition, it seems that information literacy teaching can be integrated into problem-based learning procedures. Interestingly, the results indicate that problem-based learning functioned as a showcase for the collaborative nature of students' information literacy. The research revealed that students shared conceptions of the age of information with respect to its usability.

On the basis of the results it can also be argued that, to better support students' information literacy, more information literacy teaching should be integrated into the Digital Video course. The teaching should take place just in time with respect to students' problem-solving process, and it should focus on issues relevant to the course goals and problems handled during the course. The results of this research confirm previous arguments about the need to integrate problem-based learning and information literacy teaching (Breen & Fallon 2005; Poikela & Poikela 2005a; Rankin 1996). Evaluative talk focusing on knowledge acquisition, information and its sources was scarce during the course. One possibility for developing the course is to use a course blog during students' independent knowledge acquisition to make sharing and evaluating of information and its sources possible. Furthermore, the research

Problem-based learning and collaborative information literacy

89

revealed the need to integrate in the Digital Video course guidance in searching and using research articles in the English language. The results indicate a need to integrate critical media literacy and media proficiency teaching in the course. In practice, this can mean integrating a mcdia-eritical analysis (Suoranta 2003) of the digital videos into the learning process. This chapter presents a fairly optimistic picture of the relationship between problem-based learning and information literacy. We want, therefore, to emphasize some possible limitations that applying problem-based learning may have with respect to students' information literacy learning. First, we want to emphasize that, although the research results of three decades of problem-based learning have demonstrated that problem-based learning students learn to apply their knowledge better, more research on the moderating factors is needed because there a lack of homogeneity across studies (Strobel & van Barneveld 2009; Walker & Leary 2009). Second, in this research problem-based learning was applied to a single course, not at the curriculum level. This can be problematic with respect to pedagogy (Poikela & Poikela 2005a) and with respect to the practical organization of teaching, and it can have a negative effect on students' learning motivation (Hrnclo-Silver2004). Despite the limitations, this research encouraged students to reflect on their knowledge and information literacy. In addition, the research has, in a positive way, forced the authors to reflect on how problem-based learning can be utilized to promote students' information literacy.

References Adams, 0 & Hamm, M 2000, Media and literacy: Learning in an electronic age: issues, ideas, and leaching strategies, Charles C Thomas, Springfield, Ill. Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) 2000, Information literacy competency standards for higher education, Chicago, Ill., viewed 5 October

2009, . Barrett, T 2005, 'Understanding problem-based learning' in Handbook ofenquiry and problem-based learning: Irish case studies and international perspectives, T Barrett, I Mac Labhrainn & II Fallon (eds), All Ireland Society of Higher Education (AISIIE) & National University of Ireland, Galway, pp. 13-25,

viewed 21 May 2009, Barrows, II 1985, 110"' to design a problem-based curriculum for the preclinical years, Springer, New York.

90

Practising information literacy

Barrows, HS 1996, 'Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview' in New directionsfor teaching and learning, L Wilkerson & WH Gijselaers (eds), Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 3-11. Breen, E & Fallon, H 2005, 'Developing student information literacy to support project and problem-based learning' in Handbook ofenquiry and problembased learning: Irish case studies and international perspectives, T Barrett, I Mac Labhrainn & H Fallon (eds), All Ireland Society of Higher Education (AISHE) & National University of Ireland, Galway, pp. 179-188, viewed 21 May 2009, Bruce, C 2000, 'Information literacy research: Dimensions of an emerging collective consciousness', Australian Academic and Research Libraries, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 91-109. Cobb, P, Confey, J, diSessa, A, Lehrer, R & Schauble, L 2003, 'Design experiments in educational research', Educational Researcher, vol. 32, no. I, pp.9-13. Design-Based Research Collective (DBRC) 2003, 'Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry', Educational Researcher, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 5-8. Dochy, F, Segers, M, Van den Bossche, P & Gijbels, D 2003, 'Effects of problembased learning: A meta-analysis', Learning and Instruction, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 533-8. Erickson, F 2006, 'Definition and analysis of data from videotape: Some research procedures and their rationales' in Handbook ofcomplementary methods in education research, JL Green (ed.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 177-91. Eskola, EL 2005, 'Information literacy of medical students studying in the problem-based and traditional curriculum', Information Research, vol. 10, no. 2, paper 221, viewed 21 May 2009, Hakkarainen, P 2009, 'Designing and implementing a PBL course on educational

digital video production: Lessons learned from a design-based research', Educational TechnologyResearch & Development, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 211-28. Hakkarainen, P 2008, 'PBL infonnaatiolukutaidon yhteisollisena tukena ja nakyvaksi tekijana' in Informaatio, irformaatiolukutaito ja oppiminen, E Sonnunen & E Poikela (eds), Tampere University Press, Tampere, pp. 130-60.

Problem-based learning and collaborative information literacy

91

Hakkarainen, P 2007, 'Promoting meaningfulleaming through the integrated use of digital videos', Doctoral dissertation, Acta Universitatis Lapponiensis 121, University of Lapland, Faculty of Education, Rovaniemi, Finland. Hakkarainen, P 2006, 'Designing and producing digital videos as a problem-based learning cycle to support meaningful learning' .Proceedings ofthe Workshop on Human Centered Technology HCT06, J Multisilta & H Haaparanta (eds), Tampere University of Technology, Pori, Finland, pp. 4-]3, viewed 21 May 2009, Hakkarainen, P, Saarelainen, T & Ruokamo, H 2009, 'Assessing teaching and students' meaningful learning processes in an E-leaming course' in E-/earning technologies and evidence-based assessment approaches, C Spratt & P Lajbcygier (eds), IGI Global: New York, pp. 20-37. Hakkarainen, P, Saarelainen,T & Ruokamo, H 2007, 'Towards meaningful learning through digital video supported case based teaching', Australasian Journal ofEducational Technology, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 87-109, viewed 21 May 2009, Hmelo-Silver, CE 2004, 'Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn?', Educational Psychology Review, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 235-66. Kama, M & Kallioniemi M 2006, 'Verkkotyoskentelyn osuus yhteisen tietoperustan rakentamisessa' in Ongelmaperustaisen oppimisen verkko, T Portimojarvi (ed.), Tampere University Press, Tampere, pp. 47-68. Lietsala, K & Sirkkunen E 2008, Social media: Introduction to the tools and processes ofparticipatory economy (Hypermedia Laboratory Net Series 17), Tampere University Press, Tampere, viewed 21 May 2009, Manninen, J, Burman, A, Koivunen, A, Kuittinen, E, Luukannet, S, Passi, S & Sarkka, H 2008, Environments that support/earning: An introduction to the learning environments approach, Finnish National Board of Education,

Vammala. Marland, P 1984, 'Stimulated recall from video: Its use in research on the thought processes of classroom participants' in Video in higher education, 0 ZuberSkcrritt (cd.), Kogan Page, London, pp. 156-65.

Moust, JHC, Van Berkel, HJM & Schmidt, HG 2005, 'Signs of erosion: Reflections on three decades of problem-based learning at Maastricht University', Higher Education, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 665-83.

92

Practising information literacy

Poikela, E 2001, 'Ongelmaperustaincn oppimincn yliopistossa' in Tutkiminen on oppimista: ja oppiminen tutkimista, E Poikela & S Oystila (eds), Tampere University Press, Tampere, pp. 101-17. Poikela, E. 2006, 4 Knowledge, knowing and problem-based learning: Some epistemological and ontological remarks' in Understanding problem-based learning, E Poikela & AR Nummenmaa (eds), Tampcrc University Press, Tampere, pp. 15-31. Poikela, E & Nummcnmaa, R 2004, 'Ongclmapcrustainen oppiminen ticdon ja osaamisen tuottamiscn strategiana' in Ongelmaperustainen pedagogiikka, E Poikela (ed.), Tampcre University Press, Tampcre, pp. 33-52. Poikela, E & Poikela S 2005a, 'Ongclmapcrustaincn opctussuunnitclma: Teoria, kehittamincn, suunnittelu' in Ongelmista oppimisen i/oa. Ongelmaperustaisen pedagogiikan kokeiluja ja kehittdmista, E Poikcla & S Poikela (cds), Tampere University Press, Tampere, pp. 27-52. Poikela, E & Poikela S 2005b, 'The strategic points of problem-based learning: Organising curricula and assessment' in PBL in context: Bridging work and education, E Poikela & S Poikela (cds), Tamperc University Press, Tampcre, pp.7-22.

Poikela, E & Poikela, S 2006, 'Problem-based curriculum: Theory, development and design' in Understanding problem-based learning, E Poikcla & AR Nummenmaa (eds), Tampere University Press, Tampere, pp. 71-90. Poikela, S 2003, Ongelmaperustainen pedagogiikka ja tutorin osaaminen, Tampcre University Press, Tampcrc.

Poikela, S & Portimojarvi, T 2004, 'Opcttajana verkossa. Ongclmapcrustainen pedagogiikka verkko-oppimisymparistojcn toimijoidcn haastecna' in Verkkooppiminen ja yliopistopedagogiikka, V Korhonen (cd.), Tampere University Press, Tampere, pp. 93-] 12. Poikcla, S, Vuoskoski, P & Kama, M 2009, 'Developing creative learning environments in problem-based learning' in Problem-based learning and creativity, Tan Oon-Scng (cd.), Cengagc Learning, Singapore, pp. 67-85. Rankin, JA 1996, 'Problem-based learning and libraries: A survey of the literature', Health Libraries Review, vol. )3, no. l , pp. 33-42. Reid, M, Bum, A & Parker, D 2002, Evaluation report ofthe Recta digital video pilot project, British Film Institute.

Problem-based learning and collaborative information literacy

93

Rcpo-Kaarento, S 2004, 'Yhtcisollista ja yhteistoiminnallista oppimista yliopistoon-kasittciden tarkastelua ja sovellutustcn kehittelya', Kasvatus, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 499-5] 5. Ruberg, LF, Moore, DM & Taylor, CD 1996, 'Student participation, interaction, and regulation in a computer-mediated communication environment: A qualitative study' , Journal of Educational Computing Research, vol. 14, no. 3, pp.243-68. Ruokamo, 11 2005, 'Nakokulmia mediakasvatuksen opetukseenja tutkimukseen' in Osaamisen jakaminen kasvatustieteessd. Professor; Jorma Enkenbergin 60vuotisjuhlakirja, A Niikko, M-L Julkuncn & M-B Kentz (eds), Joensuun yliopisto, kasvatusticteidcn tiedckunta, Joensuu, pp. 131-53. Ruokamo, H & Tella, S 2005, 'An M+I+T++ research approach to network-based mobile education (NBME) and teaching-studying-learning processes: Towards a global mctamodcl', Transactions on Advanced Research, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 312. Savin-Badon, M & Howell Major, C 2004, Foundations ofproblem-based learning, Open University Press, London. Schmidt, ItG 1983, 'Problem-based learning: Rationale and description', Medical Education, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 11-16. Schuck, S & Kearney, M 2006, 'Capturing learning through student-generated digital video', Australian Educational Computing, vol 21, no. I, pp. 15-20. Shewbridge, W & Berge, ZL 2004, 'The role of theory and technology in learning video production: The challenge of change', International Journal on Elearning, vol. 3, no. I, pp. 31-9. Street, B 2003, 'What's "new' in new literacy studies? Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice', Current Issues in Comparative Education, vol, 5, no. 2, viewed 21 May 2009, Strobel, J & van Barneveld A 2009, "When is PBL more effective: A metasynthesis of meta-analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms', Interdisciplinary Journal ofProblem-based Learning, vol. 3, no. l , pp. 44-58. Suoranta, J 2003, Kasvatus mediakulttuurissa, Vastapaino, Jyvaskyla. Tella, S, Vahtivuori, S, Wager, p~ Vuorento, A & Oksancn, U 2001, Opettaja verkossa-verkko opetuksessa, Edita, Helsinki. Tuominen, K, Savolaincn, R & Talja, S 2005, 'Information literacy as a sociotechnical practice' ~ Library Quarterly, vol. 75, no. 3, pp. 329-45.

94

Practising information literacy

Tynjala, P 2001, 'Writing, learning and the development of expertise in higher education' in Writing as a learning too: Integratingtheory and practice, P Tynjala, L Mason & K Lonka (eds), Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 37-56. Valtanen, J 2005, 'Ongelma ongelmaperustaisessa oppimisessa' in Ongelmista oppimisen iloa. Ongelmaperustaisen pedagogiikan kokei/ujaja kehittdmistd, E Poikela & S Poikela (eds), Tampere University Press, Tampere, pp. 211-39.

Vestcrinen, 0, Vahtivuori-Hanninen, S, Oksanen, U, Uusitalo, A & Kynaslahti, H 2006, 'Mediakasvatus medianja kasvatuksen alueena - deskriptiivisen mediakasvatuksenja didaktiikan nakokulmia', Kasvatus, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 14861. Walker, A & Leary H 2009, loA problem-based learning meta analysis: Differences across problem types, implementation types, disciplines, and assessment levels', Interdisciplinary Journal ofProblem-based Learning, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 12-43. Wang, F & Hannafin, MJ 2005, 'Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments', Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 5-23.