VOL. 23 NO.

2, JUNE, 2017

Contents | Author index | Subject index | Search |

Home

Public librarians as partners in problem-based learning in

secondary schools: a case study in Finland

Virpi Pietikäinen, Terttu Kortelainen, and Pirkko Siklander.

Introduction. Teachers in Finland are demanded to develop students’ competencies in

information literacy. However, they can meet this demand only by collaborating with public
librarians. The aim in this case study was to explore the perspectives of teachers, librarians
and students in a problem-based project and to analyse the advantages and challenges of
collaboration between teachers and librarians.
Methods. Teachers and librarians together designed and implemented a learning project in
a secondary school, where triangulation of data collection took place: group interviews with
four teachers and two librarians and a questionnaire for forty students.
Analysis. The interviews and questionnaires were categorized and analysed by means of
qualitative content analysis, using QSR NVivo 10. The categorization followed theory-based
procedures.
Results. The study reveals that collaboration between teachers and librarians was
rewarding, especially in joint teaching situations. Challenges were related to lack of planning
time, students’ diverse skill levels and, to some degree, to the unclear roles of teachers and
librarians. The study resulted in a model for integrating information literacy with problem-
based learning.
Conclusion. The new model produces new understanding of the characteristics and critical
points of the collaboration and clarifies how information and communications technology
(ICT) can be used to support student-centred, problem-based learning processes facilitated
and instructed by teachers and public librarians located in physically separated places.

Introduction

Being able to access, evaluate and use information from a variety of sources
is the basis of an information literate person (American Library Association,
2000, p. 8-14; Doyle, 1994, p. 2-3). In formal education, information literacy
is seen as a precondition for lifelong learning. Information literacy is an
essential skill that needs to be integrated in teaching and learning at all
school levels. (American Association of School Libraries, 2007; Zmuda and
Harada, 2008, p. 43-44). By information literacy we refer to how
strategically-minded the students are in the problem-based learning process:
how they understand the task; how they set the goals; and their ability to
identify the need for information, to search for and locate relevant
information sources, to evaluate and use their contents and to monitor and
reflect their progress. The problem-based learning process should offer them
opportunities to regulate their emotions, motivation, behaviour and
cognition.

The ways students use information and communication technology and Web
sources is influenced by their literacies, which refer both to their skills to use
information and communication technology and their skills to critically
evaluate sources they find on the Web (Livingstone and Haddon, 2009, p.
25). The level of information and communication technology equipment in
Finnish schools is high, but its educational use has lagged behind many
European countries (European Commission, 2013). According to the
Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2012 (OECD 2013)
assessment, Finnish students’ skills in science literacy, for instance, have
declined and their confidence in their information and communication
technology skills was weaker than in former PISA assessments. To respond
to this deficiency, a great deal of emphasis is being placed on the
development of wide-ranging and cross-subject competence such as
information and communication technology and literacy skills, interaction
and learning skills in the ongoing reforms to the Finnish National Core
Curriculum (2014, p. 20-24). One way to act upon these challenges is to use
information resources and expertise beyond the school walls (Aceto, Borotis,
Devine and Fisher 2014, p. 45; Johnson, Adams Becker, Estrada, Freeman,
Kampylis, Vuorikari, and Punie, 2014, p. 28), in our case, in collaboration
between secondary schools and public libraries.

Reciprocal interaction between schools and cultural institutions, such as

libraries, museums and science centres can extend the learning environment
and add value to learning (Sawyer 2008, p. 11). In recent years, these
institutions have been expanding their educational offerings. In Finland,
there are generally no school libraries or school librarians, and schools and
libraries are usually physically separate institutions. Schools are expected to
use the services and collections of public libraries, but the distance between
them often complicates this. Although schools and libraries collaborate in
many cases, and the (potential) educational role of libraries and librarians is
generally recognized, the practices are still underdeveloped and need to be
emphasized in the future (Saarti, Kämäräinen and Sormunen, 2013, p. 3).

The integration of library know-how and reference skills into the school’s
curriculum is one response to develop students’ learning skills in problem-
based learning processes where several information sources are used.
According to Ray (1994, p. 27), teaching benefits from collaboration in which
the teacher and librarian work together in partnership for planning, teaching
and evaluating the learning process. Ray refers, however, to school libraries,
whereas our research is concerned with collaboration with public libraries.
The joint teaching and learning process by teachers and librarians aims at
literacy activities where the students increase their reading efficacy and
become more engaged. Engaged readers enjoy reading, pursue their own
interests and are intrinsically motivated (Tonks and Taboada, 2011, p. 173-
186).

Secondary school students’ learning processes that include literacy skills,

information searching on the Internet and from other sources, information
and communication technology-skills and source-based writing, are
discussed in this study based on the collaboration between public librarians
and teachers to support students in a problem-based learning process.
Previous studies on collaboration between teachers and librarians have
mostly dealt with school librarians (see e.g., Montiel-Overall, 2005, 2008).
Collaboration between teachers and public librarians has been explored by
Fitzgibbons (2000) at a general level but not at the classroom level, as in this
 study.

The aim of this study is to increase the understanding of the development of

students’ information literacy competencies, and the ways in which public
librarians, in collaboration with classroom teachers, can support the
development of these competencies. Specifically, the study examines the role
and contribution of a public librarian in a cross-subject project where
problem-based learning was applied. In addition, the study aims to create a
model of how information literacy instruction could be integrated into
problem-based learning processes in schools, how the collaboration between
the teacher and public librarian could be organized in such processes, and
how information and communication technology could be appropriately used
to support the learning process. The theoretical contribution of the study is
to compare and link the models of problem-based learning to the
information seeking process (Kuhlthau, 2004, p. 45) and the big six skills
developed by Eisenberg and Berkowitz (1990, p. 5-10).

A review of the literature is followed by methodology, results, conclusions

and discussion.

Literature review

In the first part of the literature review we describe the information

searching process models, the phases of problem-based learning, and source-
based writing. The second part deals with the issue of collaboration between
teachers and librarians.

Source-based writing, problem-based learning and

information skills

Source-based writing tasks, or discourse synthesis, contain both

comprehending and composing elements (Segev-Miller, 2004, p. 5): students
search for sources (texts) to support the authoring of another text. In
addition, skillful students have metacognitive strategies: they know how to
plan and evaluate their performance when gathering source material and
focusing on text processing (Kiili, Laurinen and Marttunen, 2009). By means
of source-based writing, the students create new meaningful texts from one
or multiple texts. They blend claims, arguments and resources together and
make a synthesis of them (Bulger, 2006, p. 6). However, these tasks have
different forms depending on the goals of the task, the genre it represents,
and the introduction given to the students (Sormunen and Lehtiö, 2011).

Source-based writing is beneficial for students’ learning, self-evaluation of

their tasks and analysis of the contents. During source-based writing tasks,
the students can increase their skills in searching for sources, comparing
them, approaching the texts, evaluating them and processing them (Segev-
Miller, 2004, p. 10-11), in addition to which they can learn to pay attention to
argumentative content and relationships between arguments (Kiili, 2012, p.
49).

In source-based writing, time management seems to be one factor that has a

significant effect on the quality of writing processes and products (Segev-
Miller, 2004, p. 18). To help students, teachers and librarians in source-
based writing, a step-by-step method has been created (Sormunen,
Heinström, Romu and Turunen, 2012). The method is useful as a practical
guide, but it does not focus on understanding the way in which people learn.

(P

Source-based writing has a lot in common with problem-based learning.

Problem-based learning is an instructional framework in which students
learn through facilitated problem solving. Student-centredness, small-group
work, self-directed and experiential learning are characteristics of problem-
based learning (Poikela and Poikela, 2005, p. 35-37). Problem-based
learning is an effective way to learn and also develops students’ skills in
lifelong learning, collaborative problem solving and information literacy
(Hakkarainen and Poikela, 2010, p. 88; Smith Macklin, 2001, p. 307).
According to Poikela and Poikela (2005, p. 36) the problem-based learning
process can be seen as a model consisting of several phases starting with (1)
the presentation of the problem, followed by (2) brainstorming in a group
and free association, (3) analysing and grouping of the themes, (4) choosing
the themes, (5) defining the learning task, (6) information seeking, (7)
constructing knowledge and (8) clarification. Every phase in the process is
combined with assessment. Problem-based learning has been applied in
many fields, especially in schools and education (e.g., Pearson, 2004, p. 61-
69; Hakkarainen and Poikela, 2010; Sormunen, Alamettälä and Heinström,
2013, p. 499-506) and medical education (Eskola, 2005; Barrows, 1986)
contexts. It has also been applied in library instruction (Kenney and
McMullen, 2006; Pelikan, 2004, p. 356-357). Problem-based learning may
be a useful method to integrate information literacy skills into content
teaching and to improve critical thinking (Smith Macklin, 2001, p. 313;
Hakkarainen and Poikela, 2010, p. 88).

Problem-based learning is close to Kuhlthau’s concept of guided inquiry

(Kuhlthau, Maniotes and Caspari, 2007, p. 1-5) and her model of the
information seeking process (ISP) (Kuhlthau, 2004, p. 45). Both models
include a few similar phases. The information seeking process is a
constructive process, which can be seen as integrated into inquiry-based
learning. Kuhlthau’s (2004, p. 45) model of the information seeking process
consists of six phases. (1) The initiation phase includes the presentation of
the need for information, followed by (2) selection of the topic of information
seeking, (3) exploration in searching information from the general to the
specific, (4) formulation, i.e. development of the focus of the problem. The
collection phase (5) includes the more detailed information searching and (6)
presentation of the study results. In Kuhlthau’s study (2004, p. 45), the
feelings appearing in each phase were studied, as well as thoughts and
actions that varied depending on the phase. Kuhlthau defines the concept of
the zone of intervention (2004, p. 129), which is derived from Vygotsky’s
zone of proximal development (1978, p. 87), and means the point where a
student needs assistance and support in the information searching process.
The critical question is whether the intervention takes place at the right time
and is helpful to individuals in their information seeking process. Kuhlthau’s
model has been widely applied in information seeking research, e.g., in
studies of information seeking by occupational groups (Kuhlthau and Tama,
2001) and examining emotions in the information seeking process (Kalbach,
2006).
Not far from the above models is Eisenberg and Berkowitz’s (1990, p. 22)
model of the big six skills necessary to solve information problems. The skills
are (1) task definition in the meaning of determining the purpose and need
for information, (2) information seeking strategies, (3) location and access,
(4) use of information, (5) synthesis and (6) evaluation. The skills are close to
several definitions of the elements of information literacy, e.g., that of the
American Library Association (2000, p. 8-14). The characteristics common
to all these models include the definition of a research problem and its
solution with support from information, and the evaluation of the entire
process.

All the models presented above are based on a constructivist epistemology,

which means that students construct their knowledge from information
through their own activities, e.g., by reading, perceiving, thinking and
comparing. The learner is an active agent and constructor of knowledge. A
successful knowledge construction process begins with the activation of the
existing knowledge base, and new knowledge is constructed via complex
learning tasks and can be transferred to new contexts (Bransford and
Schwartz, 1999). To make it easier to compare the three models described
above, they are combined in Table 1 below.

Problem-based Kulthau's Big six

Phase
learning model skills
Problem Presentation of the
Initiation
setting problem
Brainstorming in a
Brainstorming group and free
association
Analysing and
Defining
grouping of the
themes
themes
Topic
Choosing themes Selection
selection
Task Defining the Exploration Task
definition learning task Formulation definition
Information
seeking
Information Information
Collection strategies
seeking seeking
Location
and access
Constructing Constructing Use of
Presentation
knowledge knowledge information
Synthesis
Reflection Clarification
Evaluation

Table 1: Phases of problem-based learning, Kuhlthau’s information

seeking process and the big six skills of information literacy

The models partly overlap but they also differ and consequently complement
each other. The focus in the beginning of the problem-based learning process
is on previous knowledge about the research problem, brainstorming and
joint defining of the learning tasks for which students seek new information
to solve the problems. Meanwhile the big six skills model starts from task
definition and the main emphasis is on information seeking, access, use and
synthesis, all of which are also present in the problem-based learning
process. Kuhlthau’s model bridges these two to some extent by identifying
phases of research task formulation.
Information and communication technology in problem-based learning has
been investigated, e.g., by Pearson (2004, p. 56-73) and Kaldoudi, Bamidis,
Papaioakeim and Vargemezis (2008). The latter consider that an important
feature of using Web 2.0 tools in problem-based learning is that they enable
various expert instructors, also remotely located, to comment and participate
in the discussions in students’ learning process. By using virtual
environments the students can record their learning process, and the way
they dealt with the problem and their search for information, among other
things. The students’ contribution to discussions can vary greatly. An online
situation can be analysed to discover to what extent students participate in
the discussion or contribute to joint research (Pearson, 2004, p. 65-67).

The students may face different challenges and problems in the information
seeking process. According to Kiili (2012, p. 43), the students’ problems in
information searching on the Web concern the formulation of search
questions, understanding the logic of the search engines, analysing the
search results and planning information searching and its regulation. The
problems built up for certain students. Students with poor search strategies
also seldom evaluated the credibility of obtained information (Kiili, 2012, p.
44). Hongisto and Sormunen (2010, p. 105-108) also found significant
problems in information searching and in the evaluation and use of sources
in their study of secondary school students’ inquiry-based learning process.
These problems were strongly associated with the multiplicity of sources on
the Internet.

In Kuhlthau’s (2004, p. 45) research, students underwent distinct changes in

their thoughts and confidence during the information search process. The
exploration stage (searching information from the general to the specific)
was found to be the most difficult. At this point the students were most likely
to change their topics, expressed more confusion and frustration, and were
less engaged in their project than in later stages. The students’ interest in the
topic commonly increased after formulation, when they had constructed
their own understandings of the topic under investigation and had formed
their own perspective of certain aspects of the problem. According to Kiili
(2012, p. 49-50) tools need to be developed to promote students’ engagement
in different online reading processing practices. There seems to be a special
need for tools that support critical evaluation. Additionally, metacognitive
tools to help to plan and regulate the search for information would be
beneficial for students. Students need to know how to use tools, access a
variety of information sources and apply criteria to identify and evaluate
different forms of information (Diehm and Lupton, 2014, p. 18).

Collaboration between teachers and librarians

In problem-based learning, particularly when learning information literacy,

both the resources in the library and schools, and the expertise of their staff
are important to support the students’ work. This calls, however, for
successful collaboration between the teachers and school or public librarians.
In addition, school principals or head teachers are key people to improve the
school culture: they should support collaboration and communication and
open new avenues to improvements (Kurttila-Matero 2011, p. 117; Montiel-
Overall, 2008, para. 6.2). Collaboration between teachers and librarians on
the practical level is an iterative process: the higher the visible effect of
collaboration on the students’ learning, the greater the motivation to
collaborate (Montiel-Overall, 2008, para.7.5). Previous literature mostly
refers to collaboration between teachers and school libraries, while this study
concerns collaboration between teachers and public librarians, something
that was brought out in Kurttila-Matero’s (2011) research. Collaboration
between public libraries and schools has a long history, but it does not
usually cover an entire course in the curriculum, being limited to book talks,
library visits, etc. In this study the focus is on long-term curriculum-
integrated collaboration between the teacher and librarian. Loertscher
(2000) describes teacher-librarian collaboration through a taxonomy
consisting of eleven levels, with level one meaning no collaboration and level
11 joint curriculum development. This study aimed at levels 9-10 (joint
instruction design) of collaboration.

Common problems that librarians and teachers may encounter in these

projects are reported to be the lack of time, confusion of roles and poorly
designed assignments (Kuhlthau, 2004, p. 149; Montiel-Overall, 2008, para.
7.2). Other barriers deal with insufficient constructivist strategies to engage
students’ learning, lack of resources (like books and computers) and
problems in communication and across discipline. In addition, different
understandings of the librarian’s role in the library and in the field of
education make collaboration confused (Montiel-Overall and Grimes, 2013;
Montiel-Overall, 2008). Physical distance between the organizations and
insufficient resources in the library can result in special challenges to
collaboration between schools and public libraries.

Previous research has pointed out several prerequisites for successful

collaboration between librarians and teachers. An equal and reciprocal
partnership between the teacher and librarian is important, as pointed out by
Yukawa and Harada (2009, p. 103), who investigated twenty-one teacher-
librarian teams in inquiry-based learning. The teachers had the subject
expertise and knowledge of students and their skills, while the librarians
provided knowledge of the information seeking process and technology
expertise. Successful collaboration encompasses joint planning, assessment
and responsibility for the entire process (Yukawa and Harada, 2009, p. 113.
Additional requisites for successful collaboration between teacher and
librarian concern school culture, which should support collegiality, working
together, establishment of relationships and the integration of information
skills instruction into the curriculum (Montiel-Overall, 2008).

The intensity of the collaboration between teachers and librarians can be

evaluated, for instance, by using Loertscher’s (2000) taxonomies. The lowest
level of the taxonomies indicate a total lack of involvement, while on the
highest level of expertise both teachers and librarians contribute successfully
to integrating information literacies into the curriculum (see also Montiel-
Overall, 2005, p. 9).

Students’ skills also had an effect on the problem-based learning process. In

addition to literacy skills, they need to develop their information and
communication technology skills, which can be taught and learned through
problem-based learning with an emphasis on information seeking skills
(Smith Macklin, 2001, p. 311-313; Finnish National Core Curriculum, 2014,
 p. 23). At schools, this could happen through collaboration between teachers
and librarians in the problem-based learning process. Combining expertise
in the fields of education and information could produce meaningful learning
and develop information skills that are essential future skills. By future skills
we refer especially to ways of working and thinking, and tools for working in
which problem-solving, collaboration and creativity are essential skills
(Binkley et al., 2012; Dede, 2010; Trilling and Fader, 2009).

Method

The aim of this study is to extend the understanding of students’ information

literacy competencies in the context of a problem-based learning process
jointly supported by classroom teachers and public librarians in formal
education at the secondary school level. The study is based on the teachers’,
librarians’ and students’ perspectives. The research questions are as follows:
1. How does a problem-based learning process take place when implemented
jointly by public librarians and teachers?
2. How is the role of the public librarian constructed in different phases of
the problem-based learning process?
3. What are the advantages and challenges of collaboration between teachers
and librarians in a problem-based learning process in secondary school?

Because both problem-based learning and information seeking process are

highly student-centred, it is important also to study:
4. In what ways is the problem-based learning process implemented by the
teacher and librarian experienced by the students?

Research design and setting

The study is related to the national Joy of Reading (Lukuinto) programme in

Finland. The programme aims to improve the interest and ability of children'
and young people aged 6-16 years in diversified reading and writing of texts
and media content. The programme started in 2012 with thirty-three school
and library pilot projects (Lukuinto, 2014), one of which is the case project of
this study.

The study was implemented in the spring and autumn terms of 2013 in one
secondary school in Oulu, in two school classes that collaborated with the
Oulu City Library located about one kilometre from the school. The aim of
the students’ learning process was to learn information literacy and to create
a school magazine about the history of their school. The learning process
started with two different lectures: the first one given by the history teacher
and the second by a librarian. The learning process was carried out using
problem-based learning, following Eisenberg and Berkowitz’s (1990, p. 22)
big six steps from task definition to evaluation. Students worked in small
groups formed by the teacher. The groups did not assign any roles, such as
leader or recorder.

The learning process started with a leading lecture given by the history
teacher. He presented to the students the phases of the history of the school
and gave them tips on how to choose the subjects of their school magazine
articles. After that, the librarian presented the information seeking process
as a route. She guided the students to the steps of inquiry using a map based
on Eisenberg and Berkowitz’s (1990, p. 5) big six model (Figure 1) and gave
advice on what should be taken into account in each phase.

Figure 1: Information seeker’s route applied in the project,

based on Eisenberg and Berkowitz (1990, p. 5).
[Click for a
larger figure]

The librarian described the information seeker’s route in six phases from
task definition (1) to evaluation of the process (6). Each phase of the route
was described to students to sketch the process and to help them to prepare
themselves for the learning and information seeking process. The phases
were opened with questions and observations related to them.

After the preliminary lectures the students were divided into groups of three
to four to discuss the project. The groups chose their subject and started to
conceptualize them by drawing mind maps. The teacher and the librarian
circulated amongst the groups, asking defining questions and helping groups
to focus on the subject. The students chose subjects such as the history of the
school building, dress in school in the 1960s, the school during wartime and
methods of school discipline.

A wiki environment was established as a workspace for the students’ articles.

After the first lesson the students were given the assignment of formulating
preliminary search questions related to their subjects. The aim of this phase
was to find more accurate viewpoints on their subjects and to get prepared
for information searching. The teacher and the librarian commented on the
questions on the wiki.

The next phase took place in the library, where the students searched the
library’s information sources for information for their articles. The librarian
introduced them to the databases and books relevant to their projects, and
the students deepened their knowledge of the subject with help from the
librarian and teacher and wrote their articles in the wiki.

After the summer holiday, students returned to their article projects. The
librarians organized an information searching clinic, where the groups were
given help based on their specific information needs. The teachers were
present to advise students with their articles. A visit to the provincial
archives and another visit to the library as well as interviews with old
students of the school took place in the autumn term, after which the
students finalized their reports in the wiki, scaffolded by teachers. The
librarian’s role diminished in the final phase of the process.

Data collection and analysis

This study is based on a case study approach (Flyvbjerg, 2006; Yin, 1981)
consisting of the study of three qualitative semi-structured group interviews
with four teachers (three female and one male) and two female librarians,
both separately and jointly. Moreover, the first author participated in the
first few lessons (phases 1-3 in Figure 1) of the course to observe the
beginning of the students’ work. Their later progress was observed and
evaluated by the teachers. Two of the teachers taught Finnish, while one
taught Swedish and one history. The interviews took place in the school and
in the library. They were recorded and transcribed. The text comprises of
about fifty pages in written form, providing a good basis for this study. The
data was gathered in December 2013 and January 2014.

The participants were eager to talk rather openly about their experiences,
and the group interviews lasted from one to one and a half hours. The
themes covered in the interviews included planning and practices of
collaboration, its advantages and challenges and the problem-based learning
process, the role of information and communication technology, and future
plans for collaboration.

The students were asked about their experiences by means of a questionnaire

consisting of thirteen open questions regarding their learning, use of
information and communication technology, group work, positive
experiences and problems they faced. The students answered the
questionnaire in the Finnish lesson and therefore all the students that were
present at school were reached. The group of respondents was formed by
forty secondary school students aged thirteen to fourteen. There were thirty-
one females and nine males in the group. The survey was carried out at the
end of the course.

Teachers, librarians and students were chosen as informants for this study to
get a comprehensive view of the process and factors that influence the
collaboration between the public library and school. The study also examines
participants’ experiences of information and communication technology:
what it enables for different parties and how it challenges students, teachers
and librarians.

On the basis of the research questions, the interview data was coded and
analysed in the categories below. The categories are neither too small nor too
numerous, meeting the requirements of a case study (Yin, 1981).

Main category: collaboration

Sub-categories:
librarians’ experiences of collaboration
teachers’ experiences of collaboration
experiences of the librarians in guiding information seeking
possibilities of collaboration
obstacles to collaboration
role of the library and librarians in the problem-based learning
process
teachers’ and librarians’ views of the level of their collaboration
according to Loertscher’s taxonomy
development of collaboration during the process
 lessons learnt about collaboration between teachers and
librarians
developing of collaboration in the future
Main category: problem-based learning in secondary school
Sub-categories:
challenges of problem-based learning in secondary school
students’ challenges in information searching
students’ needs for guidance
success in group work
Main category: students’ experiences
Sub-categories:
students’ experiences in making the journal
students’ experiences of problem-based learning
students’ experiences in group work

Table 2 shows examples of the categorization of the research data.

Reduced Sub- Main

Original quotation
quotation category category
'At the library, it
was my
responsibility to
teach information
The role of Librarian’s
retrieval, and the Librarians’
the librarian experience
teacher was experiences
in teaching of joint
working with the of
information teaching
students. It was collaboration
retrieval situation
quite good that
there were two of
us in this situation'.
(Librarian)
'Yes, because of the
haste during the
whole project, we
Difficulties
did not have time
in joint
to organize a Time Obstacles to
planning
sufficient number of pressure collaboration
because of
joint meetings. So
haste
both parties had
meetings of their
own'. (Librarian)
'It was most
pleasant to work in
Students’
groups because we Convenience
experiences Students’
could discuss the of group
of group experiences
topic from different work
work
viewpoints'.
(Student)
'It [problem-based
learning] should be
a process into Students’
Ways to
which students lack of Problem-
increase the
grow since the first prior based
benefit of
grades at school experience learning in
problem-
and it should be in problem- secondary
based
used constantly. based school
learning
Then it would be learning
beneficial'.
(Teacher)

Table 2: Examples of research data categorization

 The data analysis is supported by the theoretical models of knowledge
construction presented in Table 1, the instructional framework of problem-
based learning and previous research on teaching information literacy
through collaboration between teachers and librarians presented in the
previous chapters. The categorized interviews and questionnaire answers
were studied by qualitative analysis supported by QSR NVivo 10 for
Windows analysis software which was used to transcribe and encode the
data. To increase the reliability of the study, the data was encoded by two
researchers.

Results

Problem-based learning in the process

The learning process of the students is described in a five-phase model in

Table 3. It is based on interviews with teachers and the librarian, the
questionnaire for students and observation of students’ work. The phases are
connected with the big six skills (Eisenberg and Berkowitz, 1990, p. 5-10)
and the phases of Kuhlthau’s (2004, p. 45) process model and those of
problem-based learning (Poikela and Poikela, 2005, p. 36; Smith Macklin,
2001). The students’ tasks, the responsibilities of the teachers and librarians,
and the use of the wiki originate from the results of this project.

The phases of problem-based learning could be identified in the process and

they mainly followed the phases shown in Table 1. The activities of the
students, teachers and librarians in this case study can be divided into five
phases shown in Table 3 below. Phase 1 is task definition (or initiation or
presentation of the problem); brainstorming and free association help in
further focusing and defining the learning task. Phase 2 is planning of
information searching strategies. In this phase, the students can also share
on the wiki their key words connected with information searching. In the
next phase (3) the students seek, locate, access, collect and evaluate
information and start to use it in preliminary writing. In Phase 4 the
emphasis is on reading the information they have found and writing, with
information seeking also still continuing. In Phase 5 the report writing is
finished. The role of ICT was also described in the process, because the
library was not located in the school building and there was a need to use
information technology to facilitate distant guidance by the librarians.

Phase Students Teachers Librarians Role of ICT

1 Task Learn the Plan and Receive the  
definition general subject teach the subjects of the
and context of general tasks to plan
the study subject teaching of
Brainstorming, matter and information
free contexts of seeking
association, the project Instruction for
mind mapping Formulation task
and discussions of students’ formulation
on the general working
subject groups
Analysis and Instruction
definition of the for task
research formulation
problem of the Comments
group on the
defined
 research
problems
Sharing        
information
on the
research
topics
between
teachers
and
librarians on
the wiki
environment
Sharing and
commenting
on research
topics with
students
2 Planning Information Comments Teaching Online
of seeking on the databases,
information
information strategies plans for seeking journals,
searching based on information Websites,
strategies and
strategies results of seeking process inarchives
phase 1 etc. as
interaction with
Sharing key teachers sources of
words on the Commentinginformation
wiki Librarians
on students’
share plans
key words on
the wiki of
instruction
of
information
seeking
strategies
Sharing and
commenting
on key
words for
information
seeking on
wiki
3 Location of, Support in Instruction on Online
Information and access to, the information databases,
seeking information assessment seeking and journals,
Use of of the evaluation of Websites,
information: information information archives
reading and sources etc. as
starting found by sources of
preliminary the information
writing and students Students
final definition and write and
and focusing of starting the share
the topic writing information
process on a wiki
Support in environment
the final and receive
focusing of comments
the topics from
teachers
and
librarians
4 Use of Use of Support in Support in the Writing,
information information, the writing complementary sharing
reading and process of information information
writing the text students searching and and
continues evaluation of commenting
 Complementary found in the wiki
information information environment
searching Writing and
revision of
the report
5 Getting the Supporting Writing and
Presentation report ready the writing revision of
process, the report
comments
and
feedback

Table 3: Teacher-public librarian collaboration model in problem-based learning

The students’ dependence on teachers’ and librarians’ support is at its

highest in the early phases, but their autonomy grows towards the end and
the supportive role of the librarians diminishes towards the final phases. The
teachers’ role as commentators and evaluators of students’ texts is important
all the time. The librarians’ expertise supplements the support given by
teachers.

There are important zones of intervention located in the first four phases,
when students are defining their research problems, seeking and using
information and writing their reports. In the early phases both the teachers
and librarians support the process, but in the final phases the teacher’s role
is emphasized. The model in Table 3 presents the situation from the point of
view of the students aged 13-14 years. More advanced students may be able
to proceed more independently.

The models of Kuhlthau (2004, p. 45), Eisenberg and Berkowich (1990, p.

22), Poikela and Poikela (2005, p. 36) and Smith Macklin (2001) contributed
to this study by specifying the phases of the learning process and the
contribution of this empirical study originates from the description of the
activities of students, teachers and librarians in different phases of the
process. Moreover, it describes how information technology is used to
support them.

Role of the librarian

The librarians considered they had reached level five in Loertscher’s

taxonomy (informal planning of teaching) in collaboration with teachers
during the project, because the shared planning mostly took place via email.
They wished they could participate more in formal planning with teachers or
even participate in the development and implementation of a resource-based
teaching unit as described in Loertscher’s taxonomy (Loertscher 2000, p. 15-
28; Montiel-Overall, 2005, p. 9). The teachers thought that the collaboration
occurred at level seven, where the library specialist is a teaching partner to
construct instruction in the teaching unit.

In the teachers’ opinion the most effective way to collaborate was when both
the librarians and teachers took care of their own responsibilities in the
process, that is, when the librarians instructed on information seeking and
teachers on the writing of articles.

To some degree the views of collaboration between teachers and librarians

were contradictory. The librarians saw their role above all as providers of
support to the teachers, while in the teachers’ opinion the librarians’ role was
to directly support the students.

The lack of time probably increased the division of work between teachers
and librarians, rather than the seamless integration of information seeking
into teaching the subject. As the project moved on, the librarians had to
repeatedly remind students that the information searching part should be
integrated into the project. The original plan was probably partly forgotten,
although there was a good spirit in the project.

We often had to remind them to keep in mind the library and

information searching. The train was going quite fast by itself at
school… So in several cases we had to call attention to our own part.

The project proceeded in the school, but the librarians felt they were left
aside from time to time. This sense was emphasized because they were
working in a separate organization.

The librarians felt unsure of how the information seeking instruction

progressed, because the students’ outputs to the school magazine were quite
short. They would have liked more feedback from the teachers in this
respect. They also felt that the role of the librarian in the process should have
been clarified.

The school journal was written in a wiki environment. For the librarian the
wiki was a very good tool for distant instruction, commenting, asking
questions and preparing to teach information searching, because the
students’ topics and research questions could be seen in the environment,
enabling the construction of search examples based on them. The librarians
see this as a good opportunity to instruct the students distantly, because they
can rarely be present at school: ‘A tool like this [wiki] enabling commenting
and students’ questions would obviously be an awesome thing: to be
virtually or distantly present at school‘.

The wiki environment enabled the librarians to monitor the students’ choice
of topics to adjust their instruction to them, and teachers to evaluate the
texts to allocate their support, i.e. information technology was used to
support the instructors’ presence and continuous monitoring of the learners’
progress (see also Kaldouli et al., 2008).

Advantages and challenges of collaboration

The librarians and teachers shared the responsibility in teaching situations.

The teachers followed students’ progress, instructing them when needed. The
librarians found that it was an important sign and motivator for the students
that the teacher was committed to teaching information seeking. In these
situations the librarians and teachers complemented each other’s activities:
‘The teacher provides knowledge about the characteristics of students: who
need more instruction and in what style’ (see also Yukawa and Harada,
2009, p. 109).

Everybody experienced that the librarians’ presence at school was important

to integrate information searching more deeply into learning.
Communication between the teacher and librarian in the information
searching lesson was important. The information search clinic organized on
one Saturday was very useful. The librarians could give individual instruction
and support to groups, which encouraged students to continue their work,
giving them optimism and confidence. One of them said: ‘When the students
saw how it [information searching] was done, how I also made mistakes
and restarted, it dawned on them.’ Students realized that making mistakes
did not mean failing or that the task was impossible. The students needed
quite a lot of guidance in their information seeking. The need for intensive
instruction might reflect the phases of exploration and formulation in the
information seeking process where students’ feelings change from
uncertainty to optimism (Kuhlthau, 2004, p. 45).

During the project the awareness of each other’s expertise between the
teachers and librarians grew deeper. At the beginning phase the teachers
would not know who a librarian was. After the project they felt that they had
a high-functioning team with which to work. Although deep collegiality did
not emerge during the project, an awareness of the library’s resources and
trust in getting help from the librarians developed among teachers. The
librarians felt that there was an increase in appreciation towards them and
their awareness of what they can offer was deepened. The results are similar
to those in Montiel-Overall’s (2008, para. 6.3) and Yukawa and Harada’s
(2009, p. 109) studies.

The time frame is one of the challenges in project-based learning.

Formulating the research questions takes time, and so does the whole
process. Yet it must match the timetable of the class and other school
subjects. It can be difficult to allocate a certain class a double lesson essential
for a library visit, for instance. Time frames restrict the possibilities for
teaching the use of computers to a sufficient degree. Time was also
considered an important factor by Kuhlthau (2004, p. 197-198) and Segev-
Miller (2004, p. 18). It is needed for the quality of the writing process. Lack
of time may inhibit both joint planning and instruction of the course, the
application of different teaching methods, visits, etc. One of the informants
asserted:

The project was characterized by haste all the time, making it

impossible to organize joint meetings. Each group [teachers and
librarians] gathered in their own meetings but a joint meeting never
came true in the early phase.

A tight time frame also restricts the possibilities of developing something

new. It is quickest for teachers to plan on their own what to do and how to
proceed without a need to take anyone else into account, which was also
noticed by Kuhlthau (2004, p. 149). In this project there was not enough
time for joint planning. Both the teachers and the librarians wished they had
had more time to plan the project together, and especially the teachers were
worried about whether they informed the librarians enough of what was
going on at school.

Another problem is the scale of the task, which may be difficult to grasp
without earlier experience of such projects, as one teacher said: ‘Some of the
students were not able to progress independently. They still needed a lot of
intensive support’. This problem would not have existed if the students had
been accustomed to individual information searching since their early school
years. Another factor was that the students’ leisure time activities restricted
the time available at home: an essay sometimes seems to strain too much the
time allocated for hobbies.

The size of the classes may also cause problems. With twenty-seven or
twenty-eight students in a class, there is no time to guide individual work.
The beginning of the project was chaotic. Although there were three teachers
in one class, they did not have enough time to instruct all the groups.
Moreover, a whole class, even one of only ten students, is too large a group to
visit an archive.

The students had highly varying levels of skills at the beginning of the
project, posing challenges for instruction: some groups needed hands-on
support for their work. Some were still slow readers, which could have an
impact on their ability to sieve the relevant from the irrelevant in a great
mass of information. The use of archive sources was too challenging for some
of the groups. The students’ information technology skills also differ from
each other. Although they may be experienced users of the Google search
engine, their information searching skills may still be inadequate (see e.g.,
Kiili, 2012, p. 44).

The topic of the project was challenging to some extent, as there were not
many published sources available. It would benefit the students’ work if the
teachers were pointing out more openly the topics of research to the
students, making sure that there are relevant sources available.

Students’ experiences

Students’ experiences were studied by means of a questionnaire after the

project. As in Segev-Miller’s study (2004, p. 17), many students in this study
had liked the history project, new working methods, information seeking and
group work; one pupil said:

It was most fun to work in the group and search for information from
different sources, without a need to do ordinary school stuff, trying
something new instead.

One of the main working methods in the project was co-operative learning,
where the students were able to learn from each other. Some students found
this successful, others not, which was shown in their comments: ‘Group
work advanced my learning because in the group everyone helped and
guided each other’ and:

Both. In a group you can do and ponder about things better than
alone. But on the other hand , you sometimes become too enthusiastic
in a group, and working turns into nonsense.

Writing was experienced as motivating, and so were interviews with old

students, learning about the history of one’s own school, finding photos and
visiting the archive and library. Opinions about the wiki environment were
almost evenly divided in half: some found the environment to be easy and
the others frightening.

A less pleasant feature of the project for the students was its lengthiness and
 that there were project lessons so rarely. One informant mentioned: ‘The
rush at the end and long duration of the process were the most unpleasant
things‘. The task was found to be inspiring by many of the students, although
not all of them, and some students did not see anything unpleasant in the
project. The students also learnt something about their own ways of learning.
The project was perceived to be a new, more studious way to learn. Learning
skills was also mentioned as a learning result by Segev-Miller (2004, p. 20).

The students perceived they had learned how to seek, find and compile
information, how to limit and formulate the research topic, how to be
patient, how to collaborate and reflect from different viewpoints and how to
develop literacy and ICT skills such as using the wiki environment and
uploading photos. The student’s 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 to
assume this role (Hakkarainen and Poikela, 2010, p. 77, 88). When asked
what s/he had learnt, one student answered:

You must search tenaciously from different sources to be sure to arrive

at the right information. In addition to this, the compiling of
information in a textual form was good practice.

Another student’s answer was: ‘I learned to interview, to search for

information and to use the wiki environment‘.

A problem in searching for information was that the students often did not
have the patience to try different search terms or to otherwise refine the
search. It was not easy to find an individual search term or think broadly
about the scope of the topic. They had difficulties in the evaluation of the
reliability of the results and sieving the relevant from the non-relevant. Kiili
(2012, p. 44) and Hongisto and Sormunen (2010, p. 105-108) found similar
difficulties in their studies.

In summary, the students were mostly satisfied both with the results of their
information seeking and with their articles: ‘I am satisfied because we found
information and could compile it into a text in a group‘.

Conclusions and discussion

The aim of this study was to increase the understanding of students’

information literacy competencies and of ways in which the librarian can
support them in collaboration with teachers in Finland, where there are
generally no school libraries.

The results reveal that teacher-librarian collaboration was fulfilled: the

collaboration was generally successful when expertise in the two domains
was integrated in the problem-based process. Referring to Loertscher’s
taxonomy, the teachers estimated that their collaboration was at level seven
(the librarian is a teaching partner constructing a unit of instruction in
information literacy), while the librarians evaluated the level to be five
(informal planning). Further levels are characterized by library media
specialist who is consulted as curriculum changes are being considered, and,
e.g., formal planning with the teacher on a research-based teaching unit
(Loertscher, 2000, p. 15-28, 29-42). The use of information technology
enhanced collaboration between teachers and librarians. Particularly, the
virtual presence of the librarian was useful, letting her participate in the
learning processes.

The second research question was based on previous studies (Montiel-

Overall, 2005, 2008; Yukawa and Harada, 2009) and concerned the role of
the public librarian in the joint process. Confusion concerning the roles was
mainly caused by unequal participation in planning the process and
differences in how collaborative learning was understood. We can conclude
that even though the teachers and librarians shared their expertise, their
activities and responsibilities were divided: they co-operated rather than
collaborated. The role of a teacher is changing from disseminating
information to the students to supporting their activities in producing
information and guiding them to the sources of information, which was also
the case in this project. The problem-based learning process also emphasizes
social skills, such as collaboration, interaction and peer activity, as also
mentioned by Kaldouli et al. (2008).

The third research question concerned the advantages and challenges of

collaboration. Our study is in line with previous studies (Montiel-Overall,
2008, para. 7) indicating that lack of time can be an inhibitor. In the present
case study, lack of time inhibited real collaboration and common
understanding, resulting in unequal roles between teachers and librarians.
However, many advantages can also be reported. Teachers and librarians
could complement each other and there was an increase in awareness of each
other’s expertise.

Students’ experiences in the problem-based school history project were

positive and publishing the magazine was felt to be rewarding. Since the aim
for them was to learn new literacy skills, such as source-based writing (e.g.,
Segev-Miller 2004, p. 1; Sormunen-Lehtiö, 2011), the process resulted in
practising and enhancing these skills as well as problem-based, self-direction
and collaborative learning skills (cf. Hakkarainen and Poikela, 2010; Poikela-
Poikela, 2005). Consequently, the process was time-consuming and the
students faced too many new challenges in their learning. Independent
information searching is challenging to students aged thirteen to fourteen
years, thus many students would have needed close instruction in the
information seeking process (cf. Segev-Miller, 2004, p. 2). The wiki
environment made it possible for all participants to see the products of
others’ work and learn from them, and most students liked to write in the
wiki.

The problem-based learning process in this study is in many respects in line

with the models presented by, e.g., Kuhlthau (2004, p. 45), Eisenberg and
Berkowitz (1990, p. 22), Poikela and Poikela (2005) and Smith Macklin
(2001, p. 308-313). Besides the phases of the process, this model (in Table 3)
also presents the roles of the teacher, librarian, students and information
technology contributing to the planning of a problem-based learning based
course that would benefit from detailed plans for both the students’ tasks,
scheduling and the roles of the participants.

As a whole, we can conclude that the project was successful from the
teachers’, librarians’ and students’ perspective, but added practice in similar
 teaching and learning methods is still needed to gain more advantages.

The main limitation in this research is that the case only deals with a single
learning project in a single school in Finland. Thus, we cannot generalize the
result widely and the results are only transferable to similar contexts,
participants and projects. However, according to Flyvbjerg (2006, p. 229)
formal generalization is only one of many ways of accumulating knowledge.

The implications are both practical and theoretical. The outcomes of this
study are significant because collaborative teaching processes will be needed
in both formal and informal educational contexts. In accordance with the
results, the teachers’, librarians’ and students’ perspective can be taken into
account in similar learning projects when teaching and learning are designed
and implemented. It would be ideal if one librarian could be working with a
couple of schools, planning how to combine information skills instruction
with different subjects and projects. Theoretically, this research brings new
insights into different models focusing on problem-based learning. This
project was by and large successful, the students learned information skills
and collaboration between teachers and librarians supported students’
learning. However, we suggest the model (Table 3) should be tested in
different settings, applying various ways of collaboration between students
and all the other parties, supported by a larger variety of information
technology applications.

About the authors

Virpi Pietikäinen is a Project Coordinator at the University of Oulu,

Finland, Extension School. She has Master's degrees in Information Studies
and in Education at the Learning and Educational Technology Research Unit
(LET), University of Oulu. Her research interests are school-library
collaboration and utilising ICT in teaching. She can be contacted at:
[email protected].
Terttu Kortelainen works as a University Lecturer of Information Studies
at the University of Oulu, Finland. The topic of her doctoral thesis was the
international diffusion of a national scientific journal and her research
interests are in informetrics and in information literacy. She can be
contacted at: [email protected].
Pirkko Siklander is an Associate Professor in the field of collaborative
learning and diverse learning environments. She works currently in the
Faculty of Education, University of Lapland, Finland. Her doctoral thesis is
titled as "Affordances of playful learning environment for tutoring, playing
and learning". She can be contacted at: [email protected].

References

Aceto, S., Borotis, S., Devine, J., & Fisher, T. (2014). Mapping and
analysing prospective technologies for learning: results from a
consultation with European stakeholders and roadmaps for policy
action. Joint Research Centre Institute for Prospective Technological
Studies. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Retrieved from http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC88469.pdf (Archived by
WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6drrRHzzT)
American Association of School Libraries. (2007). Standards for the 21st-
Century Learner. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1x5rqVO (Archived by
 WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6drrZrgDa)
American Library Association (2000). Information literacy competency
standards in higher education. Retrieved from
http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/standards/standards.pdf
(Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6drre9ge4)
Barrows, H.S. (1986). A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods.
Medical Education, 20(6), 481-486. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-
2923.1986.tb01386.x
Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley M., Miller-Ricci, M.
& Rumble, M. (2012). Defining twenty-first century skills. In P.
Griffin, B. McGaw & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st
century skills(6)(pp. 17–66). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Bransford, J.D. & Schwartz, D.L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: a simple
proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in
Education, 24(1), 61–100.
Bulger, M. (2006). Beyond search: a preliminary skill set for online
literacy. Information Research, 5(1), paper 67. Retrieved from
http://informationr.net/ir/5-1/paper67.html (Archived by WebCite®
at http://www.webcitation.org/63UQ672d7)
Dede, C. (2010). Comparing frameworks for 21st century skills. In J.
Bellanca & R. Brandt (Eds.),21st Century Skills , (pp. 51–76).
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Diehm, R. & Lupton, M. (2014). Learning information literacy.
Information Research, 19(1), paper 607. Retrieved from
http://InformationR.net/ir/19-1/paper607.html (Archived by
WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6drrtzpD1)
Doyle, C.S. (1994). Information literacy in an information society: a
concept for the information age. Syracuse, NY: Eric Clearinghouse.
Eisenberg, M.B. & Berkowitz, R.E. (1990). Information problem-solving:
the big six skills approach to library and information skills
instruction. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
Eskola, E-L. (2005). Information literacy of medical students studying in
the problem-based and traditional curriculum. Information Research,
10(2), paper 221. Retrieved from http://InformationR.net/ir/10-
2/paper221.html (Archived by WebCite® at
http://www.webcitation.org/6drryr2fv)
European Commission. (2013). Survey of schools: ICT in education.
Benchmarking access, use and attitudes to technology in Europe’s
schools. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/dae/itemdetail.cfm?
item_id=9920 (Archived by WebCite® at
http://www.webcitation.org/6drs2gEG2)
Finnish National Core Curriculum. (2014). Renewal of core curriculum of
Finland 2016. Finnish National Board of Education. Retrieved from
http://www.oph.fi/download/163777_perusopetuksen_opetussuunnitelman_perusteet_2014.pdf
(Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6drs7EW1c)
Fitzgibbons, S.A. (2000). School and public library relationships: essential
ingredients in implementing educational reforms and improving
student learning. School Library Media Research, 31-66. Retrieved
from
http://www.ala.org/aasl/aaslpubsandjournals/slmrb/slmrcontents/volume32000/relationships
(Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6drsAa1Hi)
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research.
Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245.
Hakkarainen, P. & Poikela, S. (2010). Problem-based learning and
collaborative information literacy in an educational digital video
 course. In A. Lloyd & S. Talja (Eds.), Practising information literacy:
bringing theories of learning, practice and information literacy
together (pp. 67–94). Centre for Information Studies, Charles Sturt
University, Australia.
Hongisto, H. & Sormunen, E. (2010). The challenges of the first research
paper: Observing students and the teacher in the secondary school
classroom In A. Lloyd & S. Talja (Eds.), Practising information
literacy. Bringing theories of learning, practice and information
literacy together (pp. 95–120). Wagga Wagga, Australia: Charles
Sturt University.
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., Kampylis, P.,
Vuorikari, R. & Punie, Y. (2014). Horizon report Europe: 2014
schools edition. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European
Union, & Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from
http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC90385
(Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6drsDglgs)
Kalbach, J. (2006). “I'm feeling lucky”: the role of emotions in seeking
information on the Web. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science & Technology, 57(6), 813–818.
Kaldoudi, E., Bamidis, P., Papaioakeim, M. & Vargemezis, V. (2008).
Problem-based learning via Web 2.0 technologies. In S. Puuronen, M.
Pechenizkiy, A. Tsymbal & D.J. Lee (Eds.), 21st IEEE International
Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems (pp. 391-396). Los
Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.
Kenney, B. & McMullen, S. (2006). Effective methods for incorporating
problem-based learning to library instruction. In T. Valko & B. Sietz
(Eds.), Proceedings of the LOEX 34th Conference (pp. 7–11).
Ypsilanti, MI: LOEX. Retrieved from
http://commons.emich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1003&context=loexconf2006 (Archived by WebCite® at
http://www.webcitation.org/6drsJYv6l)
Kiili, C. (2012). Online reading as an individual and social practice.
Jyväskylä studies in education, psychology and social research, 441.
Jyväskylä, Finland: University of Jyväskylä. Retrieved from
https://jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/handle/123456789/38394 (Archived by
WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6drsOc8yt)
Kiili, K., Laurinen, L. & Marttunen, M. (2009). Skillful internet reader is
metacognitively competent. In L.T.W. Hin & R. Subramaniam (Eds.),
Handbook of research on new media literacy at the K-12 level: issues
and challenges (pp. 654-668). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Kuhlthau, C.C. (2004). Seeking meaning: a process approach to library
and information services (2nd. ed.). Westport, CT: Libraries
Unlimited.
Kuhlthau, C.C., Maniotes, L.K. & Caspari, A. (2007). Guided inquiry:
learning in the 21st century. Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited.
Kuhlthau, C.C. & Tama, S.L. (2001). Information search process of
lawyers: a call for 'just for me' information services. Journal of
Documentation, 57(1), 25–43.
Kurttila-Matero, E (2011). School library: a tool for developing the
school’s operating culture. Acta Universitatis Ouluensis B Humaniora
103. Oulu, Finland: University of Oulu. Retrieved from
http://jultika.oulu.fi/files/isbn9789514297366.pdf (Archived by
WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6ed2LoOjr)
Livingstone, S. & Haddon, L. (2009). EU Kids Online: Final Report. LSE;
London: EU Kids Online (EC Safer Internet Plus Programme
Deliverable D6.5). Retrieved from
http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/EUKidsOnline/EU%20Kids%20I%20%282006-
 9%29/EU%20Kids%20Online%20I%20Reports/EUKidsOnlineFinalReport.pdf
(Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6qNRmIRJS)
Loertscher, D. (2000). Taxonomies of the school library media program.
San Jose, CA: Hi Willow Research & Publishing.
Lukuinto (2014). Joy of reading program 2012-2015. Retrieved from
http://www.lukuinto.fi/lukuinto.html. (Archived by WebCite® at
http://www.webcitation.org/6drsTDaIw)
Montiel-Overall, P. (2005). Toward a theory of collaboration for teachers
and librarians. School Library Media Research, 8, 1-31. Retrieved
from http://bit.ly/1nX9eOa (Archived by WebCite® at
http://www.webcitation.org/6egS7fcXa)
Montiel-Overall, P. (2008). Teacher and librarian collaboration: a
qualitative study. Library & Information Science Research, 30(2),
145–155.
Montiel-Overall, P. & Grimes, K. (2013). Teachers and librarians
collaborating on inquiry-based science instruction: a longitudinal
study. Library & Information Science Research, 35(1), 41–53.
OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 results. Retrieved from
http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results.htm.
(Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6drstxbm6)
Pearson, J. (2004). Investigating ICT using problem-based learning in
face-to-face and online learning environments. Computers &
Education, 47(1), 56–73.
Pelikan, M. (2004). Problem-based learning in the library: evolving a
realistic approach. Libraries and the Academy, 4(4), 509–520.
Poikela, E. & Poikela, S. (2005). Ongelmaperustainen opetussuunnitelma -
teoria, kehittäminen ja suunnittelu. In: E. Poikela & S. Poikela (Eds.),
Ongelmista oppimisen iloa. Ongelmaperustaisen pedagogiikan
kokeiluja ja kehittämistä (pp. 25-52). Tampere, Finland: Tampere
University Press.
Ray, J.T. (1994). Resource-based teaching: media specialists and teachers
as partners in curriculum development and the teaching of library and
information skills. The Reference Librarian, 44(14), 19–27.
Saarti, J., Kämäräinen, J. & Sormunen, E. (2013). Informaatiolukutaitoa
määrittelemässä ECIL 2013 konferenssi Istanbulissa.
Informaatiotutkimus, 32(3-4), 1–3.
Sawyer, K. (2008). Optimizing learning: implications of learning sciences
research. In OECD/CERI International Conference “Learning in the
21st century: research, innovation and policy”(pp. 1-14). Retrieved
from http://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/40805146.pdf (Archived by
WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6drt2QuFb)
Segev-Miller, R. (2004). Writing from sources: the effect of explicit
instruction on college students’ processes and products. L1 -
Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 4(1), 5-33.
Smith Macklin, A. (2001). Integrating information literacy using problem-
based learning. Reference Services Review, 29(4), 306-313.
Sormunen, E., Alamettälä, T. & Heinström, J. (2013). The teacher’s role as
facilitator of collaborative learning in information literacy
assignments. In S. Kurbanoglu, E. Grassian, D. Mizrachi, R. Catts and
S. Špiranec (Eds.), Worldwide Commonalities and Challenges in
Information Literacy Research and Practice: European Conference
on Information Literacy, ECIL 2013 Istanbul, Turkey, October 22-25,
2013. Revised Selected Papers (pp. 499-506). Heidelberg, Germany:
Springer International Publishing.
Sormunen, E., Heinström, J., Romu, L. & Turunen, R. (2012). A method
for the analysis of information use in source-based writing.
 Information Research, 17(4), paper 535. Retrieved from
http://InformationR.net/ir/17-4/paper535.html (Archived by
WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6drt5nYWU)
Sormunen, E. & Lehtiö, L. (2011). Authoring Wikipedia articles as an
information literacy assignment – copy-pasting or expressing new
understanding in one’s own words? Information Research, 16(4),
paper 503. Retrieved from http://InformationR.net/ir/16-
4/paper503.html (Archived by WebCite® at
http://www.webcitation.org/6drt9qsuP)
Tonks, S. M. & Taboada, A. (2011). Developing self-regulated readers
through instruction for reading engagement. In B. J. Zimmerman &
D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulated learning and
performance (pp. 173-186). New York, NY: Routledge.
Trilling, B. & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: learning for life in our
times. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher
psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Yin, R. K. (1981). The case study crisis: some answers. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 26(1), 58–65.
Yukawa, J. & Harada, V. (2009). Librarian-teacher partnership for inquiry
learning: measures of effectiveness for practice-based model of
professional development. Evidence based library and information
practice, 4(4), 97–119. Retrieved from
http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/4633/5317
(Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6egSRXjUz)
Zmuda, A. & Harada, V.H. (2008). Reframing the library media specialist
as a learning specialist. School library media activities monthly,
24(8), 42–46.

How to cite this paper

Pietikäinen, V., Kortelainen, T. & Siklander, P. (2017). Public librarians as

partners in problem-based learning in secondary schools: a case study in
Finland. Information Research, 22(2), paper 755. Retrieved from
http://InformationR.net/ir/22-2/paper755.html (Archived by WebCite® at
http://www.webcitation.org/6r2RAXf32)

Find other papers on this subject

Scholar Search Google Search Bing

Check for citations, using Google Scholar

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Delicious More 113

© the authors, 2017.  

Last updated: June 5, 2017

Contents |
Author index |
Subject index |
Search |
Home