This article was downloaded by: [University of Coruna]On: 27 October 2014, At: 03:18Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Community & Junior CollegeLibrariesPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjcl20

A PBL Approach for TeachingComplex Information andCommunication Technology(ICT) Skills in Higher EducationAlexis Smith Macklin aa Senator John Heinz History Center ,Published online: 12 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Alexis Smith Macklin (2008) A PBL Approach for TeachingComplex Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Skills in HigherEducation, Community & Junior College Libraries, 14:4, 233-249, DOI:10.1080/02763910802336381

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02763910802336381

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any

losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

orun

a] a

t 03:

18 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

A PBL Approach for Teaching ComplexInformation and Communication

Technology (ICT) Skills in Higher Education

Alexis Smith Macklin

ABSTRACT. This study explored the use of a problem-based learning(PBL) approach for teaching information and communication technology(ICT) skills to first-year students. Two questions were posed. The first ad-dressed the ICT skill needs of 20 students enrolled in a first-year compositioncourse. The second focused on the use of PBL to facilitate ICT skill acqui-sition. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected and analyzed.Results indicate that ICT instruction was most useful when: (1) studentsdefined/interpreted information needs by recalling prior knowledge and ex-periences; (2) those interpretations were tested, refined, rejected, or revisedfor a specific purpose; (3) access to resources and tools (artifacts, symbols,and language) were readily available; and (4) formative feedback supportedcritical thinking about the information retrieval process. These findings pro-vided important insights into using PBL to facilitate and reinforce learning.

KEYWORDS. Problem–based learning (PBL), information and commu-nication technology (ICT) literacy, prior knowledge, information retrievalprocess, critical thinking

INTRODUCTION

According to the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education(NCIHE), college and university administrators acknowledge ICT literacy

Alexis Smith Macklin, PhD, is the Director of the Library and Archives at theSenator John Heinz History Center, 1212 Smallman Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15222(E-mail: asmacklin@hwsp.org).

Community & Junior College Libraries, Vol. 14(4), 2008Available online at http://www.haworthpress.comC© 2008 by The Haworth Press. All rights reserved.

doi: 10.1080/02763910802336381 233

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

orun

a] a

t 03:

18 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

234 COMMUNITY & JUNIOR COLLEGE LIBRARIES

as “key skills” for graduates in a knowledge-driven economy (1997). Infact, Purdue University’s strategic plan states that all students will graduateinformation and computer literate (H. Webb, personal communication,August 2, 2006), but there is no plan of action for accomplishing thistask – nor is there a method for assessing students’ skills to see if theyacquired them during their academic training. This dilemma is pervasive.Breivik’s (1998; 2005) research indicated that students are entering highereducation lacking basic ICT skills and, because these skills are not beingtaught or reinforced in the classroom, they are also entering the workforcewith a deficit of critical ICT abilities. As a result, the Computer Scienceand Technocommunications Board (CSTB) and the National ResearchCouncil (NRC) issued a report (NRC 1999) that identified three areashigher education should be addressing to support ICT literacy and betterprepare graduates:

� Foundational skills: “the basic principles and ideas of computers,networks, and information” (pp. 2–3).

� Contemporary skills: “the ability to use particular (and contemporary)hardware or software resources to accomplish information processingtasks” (p. 18).

� Intellectual capabilities: skills that “integrate knowledge specific toinformation technology with problem domains” (p. 20).

Academic librarians attempt to teach skills that address complex infor-mation problem solving with library instruction sessions, formerly calledbibliographic instruction (Farber 1999), but at lower levels of skill acquisi-tion. Resource constraints often preclude these sessions from concentratingon knowledge for increasing intellectual capabilities and problem solvingskills needed for research, particularly as they relate to information tech-nologies within specific subject domains. Still, the demand for some type ofinstruction is evident. According to the Association of Research Libraries(ARL 2004), requests for library instruction sessions (group presentations)continue to remain high – increasing by 50% since 1991:

The typical ARL library offered 768 “teaching” sessions in 2003–04.If we assume that each session was at least an hour long, then themedian ARL library offered the equivalent of 21 three-hour creditcourses last year. Since a median number of 13,034 people receivedformal education through library instruction in a typical ARL library,those 768 “teaching” sessions averaged about 17 attendees (p. 7).

Undergraduate level library instruction is often designated to one 50-minute session with minimal interaction or follow-up from the instructor

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

orun

a] a

t 03:

18 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Alexis Smith Macklin 235

of record. Within that period, the expectation is for students to becomefamiliar with various research databases, print resources, advanced searchstrategies, and evaluation of information to conduct literature reviews forinitiating research agendas. Given the nature of ICT literacy skill ac-quisition, this is unrealistic, but librarians continue to try to meet thesedemands.

In an effort to address information problem-solving skills heuristicproblem-solving models have been developed for teaching informationliteracy skills (Eisenberg and Berkowitz 1990). These models, which em-phasize a hierarchical approach using techniques such as “make a connec-tion between the data and the unknown,” attempt to map to standards ofinformation literacy, as defined by the Association of College and ResearchLibraries (ACRL 2000):

� 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

While there is substantial literature over the past four decades on usingheuristic models to teach problem-solving skills (Eisenberg and Berkowitz1990; McAllister 1994; Polya 1957), current researchers question this ap-proach. In particular, Lesh and Harel (2003) argued that these models donot provide an explanation of students’ problem-solving processes in indi-vidual problem-solving sessions, nor do they help understand the situateddevelopment of general reasoning skills necessary for information literacy.diSessa (1988) stated that problem-solving activities are more situated,multidimensional, unstable, and require more useful ways to synthesizeinformation, define information goals, and determine solution paths. Thisinterpretation process may include filtering and sorting given information,and testing and revising possible products. Students reveal their reasoningskills by developing interpretations, explanations, predictions, and descrip-tions that are related to the problem situation (Lesh and Doerr 2003), apractice conducive to ICT literacy instruction.

RATIONALE

Global industry, international media, and academic institutions are in-creasingly using the term “ICT literate” to define the key qualities and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

orun

a] a

t 03:

18 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

236 COMMUNITY & JUNIOR COLLEGE LIBRARIES

competencies they are looking for in well-educated people. These includea combination of cognitive proficiencies (the ability to identify and ad-dress information needs and problems) and technical proficiencies (theability to use digital tools, software, and infrastructure that facilitate thecreation, storage, manipulation, and transfer of information) (Newell andSimon 1972). While appropriate application of ICT literacy skills entailsrecognition of social, educational, ethical, and economic issues, the charac-teristics of an ICT literate person include the ability to (Katz, Williamson,Nadelman, Kirsch, Almond, Cooper, Readmon, and Zapata 2004):

� Define: Formulate a research statement to facilitate the search forinformation

� Access: Find and retrieve information from a variety of sources� Evaluate: Judge the usefulness and sufficiency of information for a

specific purpose� Manage: Organize information for later retrieval� Integrate: Summarize or otherwise synthesize information from a

variety of sources� Create: Generate or adapt online information to express or support a

point� Communicate: Adapt information for an audience for delivery via

a different medium (e.g., e-mail, presentation software, word docu-ments, and spreadsheets)

In January 2001, the Educational Testing Service (ETS) convened anInternational ICT Literacy Panel to study the growing importance of exist-ing and emerging information and communication technologies and theirrelationship to digital age literacy. In recognition that critical ICT literacyskills were not being addressed in higher education, a consortium of ex-perts in ICT literacy assembled to serve as advisors to ETS test developersas they designed an Internet-delivered assessment that measures students’abilities to research, organize, and communicate information using tech-nology. Development of the iSkills TM assessment is a key componentof raising the awareness of the importance of ICT literacy as a founda-tional skill critical for success in higher education and the workplace. Forthis study, the test was used to benchmark students’ proficiency levelsand to make decisions about curriculum integration in a research methodscourse.

Three assumptions about how students acquire ICT skills guided thisstudy: First, knowledge is socially constructed (Bandura 1977; Vygotsky

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

orun

a] a

t 03:

18 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Alexis Smith Macklin 237

1978; 1986) and students learn to use information technologies by test-ing their ideas in real-world situations; Second, real-world problems ofinterest to the students motivate them to learn and retain ICT skills(Lave and Wenger 1991); Third, the construction of knowledge is re-inforced when students produce something tangible to demonstrate thatthey have in fact achieved the desired learning outcome (Lesh, Hoover,Hole, Kelly, and Post 2000). For the purpose of this investigation, a com-munity of practice was used to investigate how students construct (andco-construct) ICT knowledge to solve information problems in a PBLactivity.

PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING

Problem-based learning (PBL) was used as a means to empower studentsto conduct research and apply knowledge and skills to develop a viablesolution to a given problem (Savery 2006). This approach to teaching andlearning started at McMaster University in 1969 as the result of curriculumreform for medical schools. It is now recognized as an innovative instruc-tional methodology and is used across disciplines (Duch, Groh, and Allen2001). The problems are deliberately ill-structured (or open-ended) andare typically based on real-life situations; they are designed for thoughtfuland careful analysis to help improve critical thinking skills by applyingthe learner’s own expertise and experience to data collection, analysis, andformulation of a solution (Jonassen 1999).

PBL is well suited to helping students become ICT literate becauseit situates learning in real-world problems. It has a dual emphasis ondeveloping strategies for learning content, and skills, and constructingknowledge (Hmelo-Silver 2004). For every problem scenario, there is anindividual level of interpretation that takes into consideration a student’sown experiences, domain knowledge, bias, etc. For teaching ICT literacy,these scenarios are best developed in collaboration with subject-matterexperts where ICT skills are imbedded into the content. As Savery andDuffy (1996) noted, the focus of PBL is on students as constructors of theirown knowledge. As such, they are placed in situations where they mustdevelop strategies for identifying learning issues and locating, evaluating,and learning from resources relevant to that issue (p. 143). Because theseare also the goals of ICT literacy, using the PBL approach seemed to be ameaningful and productive way to teach and reinforce skill acquisition.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

orun

a] a

t 03:

18 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

238 COMMUNITY & JUNIOR COLLEGE LIBRARIES

COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE

The community of practice provided an environment for sharing ex-periences and disseminating information for collaboration and problemsolving. This approach put students in situations where they were requiredto construct knowledge by testing and refining their thinking through activ-ities that are meaningful to them. In order for knowledge to be constructed,however, learning must be anchored in experience and concrete understand-ing. Lave and Wenger (1991) identified four features that are fundamentalto this theoretical perspective:

� Active construction — Knowledge that is developed by testing, revis-ing, and refining ideas.

� Situated learning — Real-world experiences of individuals such asactivities or conversations where knowledge is used and extended tosolve problems.

� Community — A group of people who come together to build a sharedpractice for learning, problem-solving, and completing tasks.

� Discourse — Shared meanings among community members thatevolve through dialog, debate, and negotiation.

In this environment, learning occurs when students actively create theirown knowledge by trying to make sense out of material that is presentedto them. The librarians’ role in this study was to facilitate organizing anddirecting these activities so that students became responsible for their ownlearning and the learning of others (Palloff and Pratt 1999). For ICT instruc-tion, this meant encouraging students to think and talk about informationproblem solving. These dialogs functioned as a way of formulating, testing,and sharing ideas where students raised questions, proposed hypotheses,and extended their knowledge. As with learning any new concept, compe-tence is gained through practice, participation in problem-solving activi-ties, and argument using rhetoric and analytic discourse (Roth, McGinn,Woszczyna, and Boutonne 1999).

In contrast to learning paradigms that focus on the transmission ofinformation, a discourse perspective such as that provided by the commu-nity of practice framework implies learning through active participation(McGinn and Roth 1999). To encourage this type of behavior, activitiesshould be designed to generate significant information about the ways ofthinking that produced them. Specifically, the tasks should be authentic innature and they should focus on the development of constructs (models

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

orun

a] a

t 03:

18 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Alexis Smith Macklin 239

or conceptual systems) that provide the foundation for deeper and higher-order understandings (Lesh and Lehrer 2003), as they do in PBL. Forexample, as students present ideas about some phenomenon, they makeinferences, predictions, and observations based on assumptions from priorknowledge or experiences. When they engage in debate with other students,they learn to justify and explain their reasoning and suggested actions. Asthey clarify their own understandings, their representations of the prob-lem become more sophisticated (Lesh, Post, and Behr 1987) and theirknowledge increases.

As a theoretical framework for this study, the community of practiceserved as a means to study how shared knowledge about information re-trieval and use progresses and how groups learned to collect, organize,and manage data for problem solving. Traditional learning environmentsdo not support this type of investigation because skill development andunderstanding are assessed on an individual basis, where there is no evi-dence of how collective knowledge is used to support the learning process.Researchers, however, are currently using communities of practice as adiagnostic tool for understanding knowing and reasoning by examiningthe varying degrees of participation during a PBL activity (McGinn andRoth 1999; Palincsar, Magnusson, Marano, Ford, and Brown 1998). Thisis known as “situated learning” because knowledge is situated in practicefor a significant purpose, where members of the community work to solveauthentic problems (Brown, Collins, and Druguid 1989; Lave and Wenger1991). Learning, therefore, occurs in the act of solving the problem and inthe social arrangements in which the activity is taking place.

METHODOLOGY

Twenty students enrolled in the required first-year composition courseparticipated in this study. They were sectioned into four groups of five forparticipation in the think-aloud protocols and semi-structured interviews.At the beginning of the semester, they all took the iSkills TM assessment,which was delivered via the Internet in a proctored computer lab. Over a2.5-hour period, they completed a background questionnaire, assessmenttasks, and an exit survey. Each interactive task, separated into five-minuteand fifteen-minute tasks, used simulated software with the look and feel oftypical applications (databases, search engines, spreadsheets, etc.). Therewere 16 tasks: 12 five-minute single proficiency activities and four fifteen-minute complex problem-solving scenarios. The simpler tasks contributed

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

orun

a] a

t 03:

18 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

240 COMMUNITY & JUNIOR COLLEGE LIBRARIES

to the overall reliability of the assessment whereas the more complex tasksfocused on the richer aspects of ICT performance (Katz et al. 2004). Thetest was administered again at the end of the semester.

The iSkills TM assessment was appropriate for this study because it isthe only evaluation tool currently that addresses both cognitive problemsolving and critical thinking skills associated with using technology tohandle information. As such, scoring algorithms target decision-making,rather than technical competencies. The assessment measures ICT literacythrough seven performance areas, which represent important problem-solving and critical thinking aspects of ICT literacy skills (i.e., define,access, manage, integrate, evaluate, create, communicate).

iSkillsTM score reports provided aggregated data on the performance ofthe class, as a whole, for the purpose of building an ICT curriculum tomeet specific needs. Feedback from individual score reports also enabledcomparisons between proficiency levels from other groups of students oncampus who took the test, including students enrolled in other graduate-level courses, graduating seniors, and entering freshmen. These commentsprovided valuable insights into the actual performances on each of sevenICT competencies, including defining an information need, accessing ap-propriate resources, integrating and managing information, and creatingand communicating new ideas.

Think-aloud protocols and semi-structured interviews were conductedweekly to watch as students engaged in discourse that led to increasedunderstandings about information retreival and problem solving. Actions(i.e., search behaviors) and reactions (i.e., selection of information) weredemonstrated successfully most often when the students had opportunitiesto practice search strategies and see others practice them, and when theywere able to discuss what these activities meant in relationship to othersituations (i.e., accessing appropriate resources; establishing evaluationcriteria).

An example of the PBL activities used for this study is found in Figure 1.This particular problem scenario is representative of a service-learningproject that the students did for the Boiler Gold Rush (BGR) orientationstaff. At the beginning of each fall semester, the BGR hosts a weeklong ori-entation for incoming freshmen. Part of their schedule includes workshopsto familiarize students with facilities and services on campus. Last yearthe staff introduced wellness workshops to discuss problems with bingedrinking and sexually transmitted diseases. This PBL activity required thestudents to design a brochure to educate next year’s freshmen about thedangers of binge drinking and STDs on campus.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

orun

a] a

t 03:

18 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Alexis Smith Macklin 241

FIGURE 1. Example of a PBL activity used in the ICT integrated curriculum

Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) among college-aged students are on

the rise. One factor may be binge drinking and reduced social inhibitors

because of alcohol consumption.

Many colleges and universities are addressing risky behavior problems through

various types of awareness campaigns. The Boiler Gold Rush orientation

program included a session this year on sexual health issues. Next year, they

want to target STDs prevention in their presentation. They are asking you to

create a brochure for the Welcome Boilermakers packet. This brochure needs

to focus on the STDs most common among college students, behaviors that

put this population at risk, long-term problems associated with STDs, and

prevention measures.

Some problem activities are more difficult than others. To resolve anyanxiety associated with an open-ended PBL experience (Jonassen 2004),a set of questions were designed to generate discussion and initiate brain-storming activities (Figure 2). These questions were also useful as pre-assessment activities to determine what the students already knew about agiven problem, and the strategies they might employ to identify informationneeds.

During these weekly sessions, students engaged in a process of ver-balizations to reveal their assumptions, inferences, misconceptions, andproblems associated with information retrieval for a given task (Ericssonand Simon 1993). They worked in a computer lab in groups of four andexplained each step of the problem-solving process in as much detail asthey were able. They were only prompted to “Say more” if they stoppedtalking. Each session was audio taped and screen captures of their searcheswere recorded (when possible). Savery and Duffy (1996) explained howthis collaborative process works in a problem-based learning environment:

The students begin with the problem “cold” – they do not know whatthe problem will be until it is presented. They discuss the problem,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

orun

a] a

t 03:

18 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

242 COMMUNITY & JUNIOR COLLEGE LIBRARIES

FIGURE 2. Guided instruction questions used for PBL activities

Example guided instruction questions:

A. Give some specific examples of how colleges and universities are dealing with health

related issues like binge drinking and STDs.

Pick the best source of information: Book; Journal article; Newspaper; Google TM

B. What are students' reactions to STD prevention measures?

Pick the best source of information: Book; Journal article; Newspaper; Google TM

C. What are some of the health issues regarding the most common STDs?

Pick the best source of information: Book; Journal article; Newspaper; Google TM

generating hypotheses based on whatever experience or knowledgethey have, identifying relevant facts in the case, and identifying learn-ing issues.After the session, the students all engage in self-directed learning.There are no assigned texts. Rather, the students are totally responsi-ble for gathering the information from the available medical libraryand computer databases resources.After self-directed learning, the students meet again. They begin byevaluating resources – what was useful and what was not so useful.They then begin working on the problem with this new level ofunderstanding (p. 141).

As the students engaged in these activities, substantial data were generatedregarding how they were thinking about information retrieval and use. Forexample, they made inferences, predictions, and observations based onassumptions from prior knowledge or experiences. They also engaged indebate with each other, as they learned to justify and explain their reasoningand suggested actions. All observable behaviors, discussions, and eventswere documented systematically and coded for examination.

The following coding structure in Table 1 illustrates concepts thatemerged during the think-aloud protocols (Strauss and Corbin 1998):

FINDINGS

Evidence gathered from the iSkillsTM posttest suggested that studentsdid not improve in the targeted areas. The results of the mean scores on

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

orun

a] a

t 03:

18 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Alexis Smith Macklin 243

TABLE 1. Coded categories

Categories Sample concepts

Negotiating meaning “That idea may be a little broad, but maybe we canfind some other key words that will help usnarrow it down.” (Meg)

Seeking approval/validation “Is there some kind of specific question we couldask? You said something about innovation.”(Erin)

Clarifying targeted information goal “We need information on how technology isaffecting patients and the delivery of health care,but haven’t used these terms yet in our keywords. I guess we should try them.” (Kim)

Recalling prior experience “I’m going to use Health Source. I learned it in highschool.” (Fran)

Learning from previous attempts “I went to MEDLINE, but I didn’t really come upwith anything. I’m going to need to revise thesearch.” (Fran)

Peer mentoring “I just did a combined search using the advancedsearch tools to join these two searchestogether.” (Dana)

Identifying connection betweeninformation retrieved and need

“Well, this article talks about if a patient transfers toa different hospital or health care provider, theremay be different information systems. Thisanswers our question about if computers helphealth care professionals communicate.” (Tad)

the posttest (M = 556.17, SD = 31.45) were not considerably differentthan those of the pretest (M = 555.5, SD = 28.87). A t-test supports thisconclusion, t(1, 16) = −0.25, p = .80, and indicates that there was littlechange in proficiency level as a result of instruction. While the learningobjectives for the ICT-PBL tasks were designed to teach specified compe-tencies, students were not able to transfer understanding from activity totest. Furthermore, while these data were useful in deciding what to teach,they were unsatisfactory in determining the impact of using an integratedproblem-based learning approach for ICT skill instruction.

Three findings, however, emerged from the qualitative data analysis,corresponding with the elements of information processing theory that un-derlie the PBL methodology (Schmidt 1993). Overall, students’ ICT skillacquisition in the PBL environment was supported by: (1) the use of priorknowledge as a means of understanding or making sense of the given prob-lem, (2) situated learning to incorporate components of everyday cognition

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

orun

a] a

t 03:

18 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

244 COMMUNITY & JUNIOR COLLEGE LIBRARIES

and meaningful experiences into the learning process, and (3) discourseand debate for task interpretation and testing, revealing, modifying, andrefining problem-solving strategies. Those students who fully participatedin the exchange of information and ideas were able to develop their ICTskills to appropriately interpret problem scenarios and identify specificinformation needs within the problem statement. The benefits included in-creased idea creation and problem representation, and an increased qualityof knowledge for problem solving.

In the first finding, students used their prior experiences to help themidentify their place in the group, to give meaning to the problem scenario,and to leverage their existing knowledge on a given topic to gain credibilityamong other group members. As students shared what they knew — eitherfrom their own experiences or from prior knowledge — they achievedlegitimacy and place in the group because they provided experiences othersmay not have had, but to which they could relate. In addition, studentsquestioned each other’s experiences and knowledge to justify their ownbeliefs and to extend their own knowledge bases. This type of feedbackfulfills one of the purposes of a community of practice to promote learningvia communication and peer mentoring (Ertmer and Russell 1995; Laveand Wenger 1991).

The second finding focuses on the use of a situated learning environmentto provide context and meaning for the learning process. Lave (1988) andGreeno (1997) referred to this context as participation in a social practice.For example, the comparison can be made between learning to solve prob-lems in mathematics using traditional textbooks vs. using settings that aremore reflective of the kinds of mathematics used in everyday experiences(e.g., completing an assignment vs. making change on the street; Cobb andBowers 1999; Lesh et al. 2000). Similarly, a situated perspective provideda unique purpose and intention for acquiring and using critical ICT skills.Students contributed to the development of ICT literacy practices by mov-ing beyond finding information to complete a given task (e.g., fact-finding)to finding information to fulfill a need (e.g., finding relevant informationsources to help establish a research agenda). This change in behavior sug-gests that students were becoming more receptive to the rhetoric of theacademic community, and more knowledgeable about using appropriateterminologies for developing search strategies.

The third finding describes the use of discourse and debate to test, re-veal, modify, and refine problem-solving strategies. Throughout the study,students engaged in discussions to make sense of their experiences, negoti-ate meaning, and contribute to a collective knowledge base. These dialogs

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

orun

a] a

t 03:

18 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Alexis Smith Macklin 245

functioned as a way of formulating and sharing ideas where students raisedquestions, proposed hypotheses, and extended their knowledge. Discoursewithin a community of practice fosters a culture of discovery and engage-ment, where both individuals and the group, as a whole, are learning howto learn (O’Neill 2001). In contrast to learning paradigms that focus onthe transmission of information, a discourse perspective implies learningthrough active participation (McGinn and Roth 1999). As with learningany new concept, competence was gained through practice and participa-tion in problem-solving activities (Roth et al. 1999).The Venn diagram in Figure 3 shows how these findings fit into the overallconcept of the community of practice, as it relates to PBL. As studentsrecalled and shared experiences, they were better able to identify informa-tion needs based on what they knew – collectively and individually – andwhat they needed to know regarding a given problem or topic (Pea 1993).Throughout the study, they were engaged in activities where they wererequired to select resources and develop artifacts to explain their thinking.These artifacts included annotated bibliographies, research journals, andproducts to disseminate new information. Through continuous discussion

FIGURE 3. Relationship between findings related to PBL and principles ofa community of practice

Situated Learning

Identify connections between information retrieved (or known) and information needs

Prior Knowledge

Recall Seek approval/validation

Discourse

Debate Justify/explain

Define an information need

Evaluate selected information

Access appropriate resources

Community

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

orun

a] a

t 03:

18 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

246 COMMUNITY & JUNIOR COLLEGE LIBRARIES

and debate, they were able to develop criteria for choosing the most rel-evant information. Eventually, they learned how to test and refine theirthinking about the information goals, selection of resources, and evalua-tion and use of information to formulate solutions (Rosebery, Warren, andConant 1992).

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study indicated that when using a PBL approachto teach and reinforce ICT skills, students were able to (1) formulatemore sophisticated problem representations than they did on their own bysharing experiences and prior knowledge, (2) create a shared repertoire ofthese experiences and collective knowledge to build and refine their searchstrategies, and (3) use discourse to validate their decisions and actions, aswell as extend their proficiency levels beyond what they could do on theirown to find and select relevant information. This research addresses thepedagogical needs Carey (1998) identified, moving instruction from thecurrent practice of teaching library skills to using an integrated problem-solving approach to teach critical thinking for information literacy.

The results of this study showed behavioral changes in the ways inwhich students found and used information as noted in observations, tran-scripts of interviews and protocols, and documented in assignments andprojects. Despite the fact that the sample size was small, students col-lectively demonstrated a shift from weakly defined information goals, towell-articulated research needs, and using a thoughtful efficient approach toselecting keywords and search strategies. Given more time, greater changesmay have been possible. The three findings from this study, however, haveled to specific suggestions regarding ways to support ICT skills includingcreating learning environments that invite discourse, developing a sense ofcommunity through shared experiences, and reinforcing skill developmentby providing opportunities for testing, refining, and revising ideas.

Finally, there are three assertions, based on practice and the results ofthis investigation, regarding next steps for those interested in promotingICT literacy skill using a community of practice approach.

� The traditional 50-minute information literacy session is insufficientto meet graduate students’ research needs.

� Assessment practices for ICT skills should be conducted so that in-struction can be developed and revised as needed.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

orun

a] a

t 03:

18 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Alexis Smith Macklin 247

� ICT literacy education is too demanding for librarians to managealone. Rather, they should collaborate with subject matter faculty tointegrate these competencies into the curriculum, and reinforce skilldevelopment through active participation in information problem-solving activities.

The third assertion is perhaps the most important. Breivik (2005) in-dicated that more collaboration is the only way to effectively teach ICTcompetencies. As experts on the topic, librarians need to be proactive inexplaining what ICT literacy is and how it will help improve student-learning outcomes. Using a problem-based learning approach, the resultsof this study extend the existing research (Eisenberg and Berkowitz 1990;Kuhlthau 1993, Webber and Johnston 2000) by demonstrating an innova-tive way to incorporate these skills into the curriculum through a commu-nity of practice, and by using iSkills TM for establishing valid and reliablebenchmarks to address critical learning needs.

REFERENCES

Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL). 2000. Information literacycompetencies for higher education. http://www.ala.org/Content/NavigationMenu/ACRL/Standards and Guidelines/Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher E-ducation.htm (accessed December 19, 2004).

Association of Research Libraries (ARL). 2004. Statistics. http://www.arl.org/stats/arlstat/(accessed August 27, 2004).

Bandura, A. 1977. Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.Breivik, P. S. 1998. Student learning in the information age. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.Breivik, P. S. 2005. 21st century learning and information literacy. Change 37(2): 20–28.Brown, J. S., A. Collins, and P. Duguid. 1989. Situated cognition and the culture of learning.

Educational Researcher 18(1):32–42.Carey, J. O. 1998. Library skills, information skills, and information literacy: Implication

for teaching and learning. School Library Media Quarterly. http://www.ala.org/ala/aasl/aaslpubsandjournals/slmrb/slmrcontents/volume11998slmqocarey.cfm (access-ed May 15, 2006).

Cobb, P. & Bowers, J. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning perspectives in theory andpractice. Educational Researcher 28(2): 4–15.

DiSessa, A. A. 1988. Knowledge in pieces. In Constructivism in the computer age (pp.49–70), ed. G. Forman and P. B. Pufall. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Duch, B., S. Groh, and D. Allen. 2001. The power of problem-based learning: A practical“how to” for teaching undergraduate courses in any discipline. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Eisenberg, M., and R. Berkowitz. 1990. Information problem-solving: The Big6 TM Skillsapproach to library information skills instruction. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

orun

a] a

t 03:

18 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

248 COMMUNITY & JUNIOR COLLEGE LIBRARIES

Ericsson, K. A., and H. A. Simon. 1993. Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (rev.ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Ertmer, P. A., and J. D. Russell. 1995. Using case studies to enhance instructional designeducation. Educational Technology 35(4):23–31.

Farber, E. 1999. Faculty-librarian cooperation: A personal retrospective. Reference ServicesReview 27:229–234.

Greeno, J. G. 1997. On claims that answer the wrong questions. Educational Researcher26(1):5–17.

Hmelo-Silver, C. E. 2004. Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn?Educational Psychology Review 16:235–266.

Jonassen, D. H. 1999. Designing constructivist learning environments. In Instructionaldesign theories and models (Vol. 2, pp. 215–239), ed. C. M.

Jonassen, D. H. 2004. Learning to solve problems: An instructional design guide. SanFrancisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Reigeluth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Katz, I. R., D. M. Williamson, H. L. Nadelman, I. Kirsch, R. G. Almond, P. L. Cooper,

M. L. Readmon, and D. Zapata. 2004, June. Assessing information and communicationstechnology literacy for higher education. Paper presented at the 30th Annual Conferenceof the International Association of Educational Assessment (IAEA), Philadelphia, PA.www.ets.org/iaea (accessed November 24, 2005).

Kuhlthau, C. C. 1993. A principle of uncertainty for information seeking. Journal ofDocumentation 49:339–355.

Lave, J. 1988. Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lesh, R., and H. Doerr. 2003. In what ways does a models and modeling perspective movebeyond constructivism? In Beyond constructivism: A models and modeling perspectiveon teaching, learning, and problem solving in mathematics education (pp. 383–403),ed.R. Lesh and H. Doerr. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lesh, R., and G. Harel. 2003. Problem solving, modeling, and local conceptual develop-ment. Mathematical Thinking & Learning, 5:157–189.

Lesh, R., M. Hoover, B. Hole, A. Kelly, and T. Post. 2000. Principles for developingthought-revealing activities for students and teachers. In Handbook of research design inmathematics and science education (pp. 591–645), ed. E. Kelly and R. Lesh. Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lesh, R. and Lehrer, L. 2003. Models and modeling perspectives on the development ofstudents and teachers. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5: 109–129.

Lesh, R., T. Post, and M. Behr. 1987. Representations and traditions among representa-tions in mathematics learning and problem solving. In Problems of representation inteaching and learning mathematics (pp. 33–40), Ed. C. Janvier. Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

McAllister, H. C. 1994. 21st century problem solving. http://www.suremath/suremath/home1.html (accessed February 15, 2000).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

orun

a] a

t 03:

18 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Alexis Smith Macklin 249

McGinn, M. K., and W. H. Roth. 1999. Preparing students for competent scientific prac-tice: Implications of recent research in science and technology. Educational Researcher28(3):14–24.

National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education (NCIHE). 1997. A report.http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/niche/ (accessed November 12, 2005).

National Research Council (NRC). 1999. Being fluent with information technology. Com-mittee on information technology literacy. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Newell, A., and H. A. Simon. 1972. Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

O’Neill, D. K. 2001. Knowing when you’ve brought them in: Scientific genre knowledgeand communities of practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 10:223–264.

Palincsar, A. S., S. J. Magnusson, N. Marano, D. Ford, and N. Brown. 1998. Designinga community of practice: Principles and practices of the CiSML community. Teachingand Teacher Education 14(1):5–19.

Palloff, R., and K. Pratt. 1999. Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effectivestrategies for the online classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Pea, R. D. 1993. Learning scientific concepts through material and social activities: Con-versational analysis meets conceptual change. Educational Psychologist 28:265–277.

Polya, G. 1957. How to solve it (2nd ed.).Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Rosebery, A. S., B. Warren, and F. R. Conant. 1992. Appropriate scientific discourse:

Findings from language minority classrooms. The Journal of the Learning Sciences2:61–94.

Roth, W.-M., M. K. McGinn, C. Woszczyna, and S. Boutonne. 1999. Differential participa-tion during science conversations: The interaction of focal artifacts, social configurations,and physical arrangements. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 8:293–347.

Savery, J. 2006. Overview of PBL: Definitions and distinctions. The InterdisciplinaryJournal of Problem-based Learning 1(1):9–22.

Savery, J. R., and T. M. Duffy. 1996. Problem-based Learning: An instructional model andits constructivist framework. In Constructivist learning environments: Case studies ininstructional design (pp.. 135–148). B. G. Wilson. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: EducationalTechnology.

Schmidt, H. G. 1993. Foundations of problem based learning: Some explanatory notes.Medical Education, 27: 422–432.

Strauss, A., and J. Corbin. 1998. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and proceduresfor developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press.Vygotsky, L. S. 1986. Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Webber, S., and B. Johnston. 2000. Conceptions of information literacy: New perspectives

and implications. Journal of Information Science 26:381–397.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

orun

a] a

t 03:

18 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014