JAIST Repository
https://dspace.jaist.ac.jp/

Title

ラーニングコモンズでのユーザー中心の問題ベースの学習：学界におけるユニークな学習教育学の探求

Author(s)Mohammed Khalid, Alam

CitationIssue Date2022-03

Type

Thesis or Dissertation

Text version

ETD

URL

http://hdl.handle.net/10119/17787

RightsDescription

Supervisor:神田陽治, 知識科学研究科, 博士

Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology

Doctoral Dissertation

User-Centered Problem-Based Learning at Learning
Commons: Exploration of a Unique Learning Pedagogy in
Academia

Mohammed Khalid AlamSupervisor: Youji Kohda

Graduate School of Knowledge Science
Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology(Knowledge Science)

March, 2022

Abstract
Learning Commons and learning are inseparable. The twenty-first century
digital technologies have challenged the library services and resources and as
well as it has changed the user behavior due to its service use aspect. Users ofacademic libraries are now very technology efficient and network or Internet
dependent for their learning and information needs. These Techie Gen users aredemanding wider access to digital resources and expecting interactive spaces forlearning. It has been noted that there is a growing trend among the learners as
they are becoming habituated to study in groups outside of the classroom spaces.
Therefore, libraries have adopted a user-centric approach due to its learning andresources. They are redesigning its spaces and resources and introducing
learning commons (LC) to accommodate the twenty-first century learning
behavior of the user students. It is a unique service from the library where
librarians, commons staff, student tutoring staff collaborate and interact withusers (for learning by teaching) for their coursework assignment, presentation,
research, writing report, technical support, program on information literacy,
faculty development, and so on. LC is a super hub for learning in academic
libraries where problem-based learning (PBL) method supported learners cancollaborate for self-responsible user-centered learning, group learning andinformal learning for out of class course work problem solving. During grouplearning users` transformer role for knowledge sharing and acquisition has been
determined as the confirm PBL cycle phase in LC. Thus, LC has created aunique user-centered learning (UCL) pedagogy in academia. The purpose of thisthesis is to contribute to a better understanding of these consequences. It tries to
explain the user learning in terms of how it relates to the PBL supported learningcommons for creating an extensive and time-befitting user-centered learning
environment.
Taking into account the above challenges, the main objective of the research is
to develop an integrated theoretical model of user-centered learning at learningii

commons. For answering the research questions, the study reviewed literature
on major issues of learning and LC. We have conceptualized that LC supports
problem-based learning (PBL) in an out of class space where knowledge sharing
and acquisition plays a transformer role for solving learning issues of thelearners and completing their learning.
For examining and exploring the outcome from a large research population, thestudy employed a quantitative research approach and took the survey design
within its methodology. To reach the LC users at their convenience an online
survey was conducted within Japan Advanced Institute of Science andTechnology (JAIST), Kanazawa University and Nagoya University of Japan.
Based on the PBL method, the survey was on LC use for learning, role ofknowledge sharing and acquisition in group learning and out of class informal
learning for course work problem solving. The study adopted Partial Least
Squares – Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) method to analyze thesurvey data and to examine the variables and their interaction with the dependent
variable. PLS-SEM employed a two-step model validation procedure, firstexamining and validating the measurement model and then testing the proposed
theoretical structure, as stated in this technique. The results show that learningcommons (LC) completely supports problem-based learning in an out of classspace and it is one of the main learning methods in this space. User learners are
pursuing their self-responsible learning and using the LC continuum of services.
Users` knowledge sharing and acquisition plays a vital role for solving learning
problems in the group learning process and it has been determined as a must
PBL phase for LC. Lastly, the users showed a great interest in PBL based
informal learning for solving their coursework learning problems. Finally, thestudy suggests that the learning commons of academic libraries should have tothink about the PBL method in its environment for user-centered learning. They
have to redesign its paces and services, and redefine the librarians, LC staff,
tutoring staff role for user-centered learning (UCL) at LC based on thetheoretical model and implications of the study.

iii

Keywords: Learning Commons, Problem-Based Learning, Knowledge Sharing
and Acquisition, User-Centered Learning, Continuum of Learning.

iv

Acknowledgements
Bismillah. First of all, I am grateful to almighty Allah, the most gracious and the most
merciful, who provided the strength and blessing for me while doing this research to bedone.
I would like to express my heartiest and utmost appreciation to my supervisor Professor
Dr. Youji Kohda, Graduate School of Knowledge Science, JAIST, for his sincere guidanceand support throughout this research work. I am delighted and appreciative to have hisconstructive direction relating to my research. This research would not have been possible
without his support, encouragement, and innovative ideas.
My sincere thanks also to my co-supervisor Professor Dr. Yukio Hayashi, Graduate Schoolof Knowledge Science, JAIST, for his cooperation and constructive suggestions. My
special acknowledgement to my minor research supervisor Professor Dr. Katsuhiro
Umemoto, Graduate School of Knowledge Science, JAIST. I also acknowledge and pray
for Late Professor Dr. Taketoshi Yoshida, Graduate School of Knowledge Science, JAIST.
He was my first supervisor and passed away in 2019. I am praying to God for his departed
soul rest in peace in heaven.
I also thankful to all the professors in JAIST who gave us lectures during different course
work. I also acknowledge Professor Tsutomu Fujinami for engaging me in researchsupport activities in JAIST. I acknowledge JAIST administration for providing financial
support during my study. I also duly acknowledge with thanks herewith the cooperationand support of the Librarians of Kanazawa University Library and JASIT Library in Japan
who spontaneously provided relevant data and necessary resources for the study. I am alsoindebted to the authors of scholarly publications used in my research. My appreciation to
the authority of various databases, websites and other resources used in my study.
My sincere thanks to all the Kohda Laboratory members who have directly or indirectly
helped me in productive discussion, constructive criticism, and effective suggestion during
lab seminar. My special thanks to Masuda San for his generous support in different issues.
Finally, I am grateful to my wife Dr. Farjana Quayum Keya, Associate Professor,
Department of Economics, University of Rajshahi, Bangladesh, and my son Mohammad
Walif Alam for their support and constant encouragement ignoring their inconveniencecaused during my research journey.
My sincere thanks and appreciations to all.
Mohammed Khalid Alam
Graduate School of Knowledge Science, JAIST, Ishikawa, Japanv

Table of Contents
Abstract ……………………………………………………………………………...

Page
ii

Keywords ……………………………………………………………………………

iv

Acknowledgements …………………………………………………………………..

v

Table of Contents …………………………………………………………………….

vi

List of Tables ………………………………………………………………………...

xi

List of Figures ………………………………………………………………………..

xii

Chapter 1: Introduction …………………………………………………………..

1

1.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………....

1

1.2 Statement of the problem ………………………………………………………….

4

1.3 Objectives and research questions ………………………………………………....

5

1.3.1 Research objectives ……………………………………………………………..

5

1.3.2 Research questions ……………………………………………………………...

6

1.4 Significance of the research ……………………………………………………….

6

1.5 Methodology ……………………………………………………………………..

7

1.6 Definition of research terms ………………………………………………………

8

1.7 Chapter outline of the dissertation ………………………………………………....

10

Chapter 2: Literature Review ……………………………………………………

12

2.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………....

12

2.1 Commons ………………………………………………………………………...

12

2.3 Information Commons (IC) ……………………………………………………….

13

2.3.1 Transformation of information commons (IC) to learning commons (LC) ………….

14

2.4 Learning Commons (LC) ………………………………………………………….

14

2.4.1 The Commons Model …………………………………………………………...

15

2.4.2 Components of information/learning commons …………………………………..

17

2.4.2.1 Computer Workstation Clusters ………………………………………………..

17

2.4.2.2 Service Desk ………………………………………………………………….

17

2.4.2.3 Collaborative Learning Spaces ………………………………………………....

17

2.4.2.4 Presentation Support Centers …………………………………………………..

17

2.4.2.5 Faculty Development Centers ………………………………………………….

17

2.4.2.6 Electronic Classrooms ………………………………………………………....

18vi

2.4.2.7 Writing Centers and Academic Support Units …………………………………...

18

2.4.2.8 Community Spaces …………………………………………………………....

18

2.5 Learning at Learning Commons …………………………………………………....

18

2.6 Constructivist Learning Theory …………………………………………………....

19

2.6.1 Constructivist Learning Principles ……………………………………………….

20

2.6.1.1 Active process ………………………………………………….......................

21

2.6.1.2 Social activity …………………………………………………...….…………

21

2.6.1.3 Context of learning …………………………………………………................

21

2.6.2 Constructivist Learning and LC ………………………………………………….

22

2.7 Problem-Based Learning (PBL) …………………………………………………...

22

2.7.1 Characteristics of problem-based learning ……………………………..………….

24

2.7.1.1 Students must be responsible for their own learning …………………………….

24

2.7.1.2 The posed problem must be ill structured and permit investigation …….…………

24

2.7.1.3 Learning from a variety of areas or subjects should be blended together …..………

24

2.7.1.4 Collaboration is necessary …………………………………………………......

24

2.7.1.5 Students must apply what they learn during their self-directed learning to the
problem through reanalysis and resolution …………………………………….……….
2.7.1.6 A final analysis of what has been learnt by working on the problem, as well as a
discussion of the concepts and principles learned, is required ……………………………
2.7.1.7 At the end of each problem and each curricular unit, students should assessthemselves and their peers ………………………………………………….................
2.7.1.8 Problem-based learning activities must be those that are related in the actual world ..
2.7.1.9 Exams for students must track their progress toward problem-based learning
objectives …………………………………………………........................................
2.7.1.10 Problem-based learning must be the pedagogical foundation of the curriculum, notpart of a didactic curriculum …………………………………………………..............
2.7.2 User-Centered Learning at LC …………………………………………………...

25

2.7.3 Group Learning (Collaborative Learning) at LC ………………………………….

26

2.7.4 Informal Learning at LC ………………………………………………………...

27

2.7.5 Knowledge Creation and Sharing at LC …………………………………………..

28

2.8 Problem-Based Learning (PBL) Cycle Phases ……………………………………...

28

2.8.1 PBL Phases in Learning Commons ………………………………………………

31

2.8.1.1 Phase 1: Problem Identification ………………………………………………..

31

2.8.1.2 Phase 2: Formulate Inquiry ………………………………………………….....

32

2.8.1.3 Phase 3: Knowledge Sharing and Acquisition …………………………………..

33

2.8.1.4 Phase 4: Solution Creation …………………………………………………......

34

2.8.1.5 Phase 5: Problem Conclusion …………………………………………………..

34

25
25
25
25
26
26

vii

2.9 Problem-Based Learning at Learning Commons ……………………………………

35

2.9.1 Theoretical Lens: PBL supported User-Centered Learning at LC ………………….

36

2.10 Summary of Literature Review …………………………………………………...

38

Chapter 3: Research Methodology ………………………………………………

41

3.1 Introduction …………………………………………………................................

41

3.2 Quantitative Approach ………………………………………………....................

41

3.3 Survey Research ……………………………………………….............................

42

3.4 Online Survey Questionnaire ……………………………………………….……..

43

3.5 Study Area …………………………………………….........................................

44

3.6 Population and Sample …………………………………………………................

44

3.7 Data Collection ………………………………………………...............................

45

3.8 Data Analysis ……………………………………………...…..............................

46

3.9 A Brief Acquaintance of the Surveyed University LC ……………………………….

47

3.9.1 JAIST Learning Commons (J-BEANS) …………………………………………..

47

3.9.2 J-BEANS: the Meaning of the Nickname of JAIST LC ……………………………

47

3.9.3 Learning at JAIST LC ………………………………………………...................

49

3.9.4 Kanazawa University Learning Commons ………………………………………..

50

3.9.4.1 Book Lounge ……………………………………………….............................

50

3.9.4.2 Open Studio (I & II) ………………………………………………...................

51

3.9.4.3 Global Communication Studio ………………………………………………...

52

3.9.4.4 Group Studio (A and B) ……………………………………………….............

52

3.9.4.5 Polaris Studio ………………………………………………...........................

53

3.10 Chapter Summary ……………………………………………….........................

53

Chapter 4: User-Centered Problem-Based Learning at Learning Commons ...

55

4.2 Objectives of the study …………………………………………………................

56

4.3 PBL at LC structural model …………………………………………………..........

57

4.4 Formulation of Hypothesis …………………………………………………..........

58

4.4.1 LC Use for Learning (LCUL) …………………………………………………...

59

4.4.2 Knowledge sharing and acquisition (KSA) ……………………………………….

59

4.4.3 Problem identification (PI) ………………………………………………….......

60

4.4.4 Formulate inquiry (FI) …………………………………………………...............

60

4.4.5 Solution creation (SC) and Problem conclusion (PC) ……………………………...

61

4.5 Methodology …………………………………………………..............................

61

viii

4.5.1 Survey instrument – online questionnaire ………………………………………...

61

4.5.2 Survey design and sample ………………………………………………….........

62

4.5.3 Development of constructs and variables …………………………………………

62

4.5.4 Data analysis …………………………………………………............................

64

4.6 Survey findings and hypothesis test ………………………………………………..

65

4.5.4 Data analysis …………………………………………………............................

65

4.6 Survey findings and hypothesis test ………………………………………………..

65

4.6.1 Part I: Demographics of Respondents …………………………………………….
4.6.1.1 Gender of Respondents ………………………………………………………...

65
66

4.6.1.2 Age group ………………………………………………….............................

66

4.6.1.3 Academic institutions …………………………………………………............

67

4.6.1.4 Academic status ………………………………………………….....................

67

4.6.1.5 Country of residents …………………………………………………...............

68

4.6.1.6 Country of response …………………………………………………..............

69

4.7 Part II: Partial Least Squares–Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) and Hypothesis test ...

69

4.7.1 Partial Least Squares (PLS) …………………………………………………......

70

4.7.1.1 Measurement model …………………………………………………..............

70

4.7.1.1.1 Internal consistency and Descriptive statistics ………………………………..

70

4.7.1.1.2 Indicator reliability and Convergent validity ………………………………….

71

4.7.1.1.3 Discriminant validity - Fornel and Larcker ……………………………………

73

4.7.2 Structural model and hypothesis test ……………………………………………..

74

4.8 Findings ………………………………………………….....................................

78

RQ1: How the learners use LC services and tools for solving their course studies learning
problems? …………………………………………………........................................
RQ2: To what extent knowledge sharing and acquisition support users to identify learning
problems formulate inquiry, solution creation and problem conclusion in learning? ……….
RQ3: How do LC users learning problem identification practice encourage them to learn
and formulate inquiry? …………………………………………………......................
RQ4: How does formulate inquiry motivate learners in solution creation of learning
problems? …………………………………………………........................................
RQ5: How does solution creation positively direct learners for problem conclusion at LC? ..

78

RQ6: How do problem conclusion solve problems and complete user learning at LC? …….

87

4.8.1 Summary of Findings …………………………………………………………………

88

4.9 Conclusion ………………………………………………….................................

89

Chapter 5: Conclusion and Implications …………………………………………

91

80
81
83
85

ix

5.1 Introduction …………………………………………………...............................

91

5.2 Answer to the Research Questions …………………………………………………

91

SRQ1: How do LCs` continuum of services are used for user-centered learning? ………….

91

Use of Physical Commons for learning ………………………………………………...

92

Use of Virtual Commons for learning ………………………………………………….

92

Use of Cultural Commons for learning ………………………………………………..

93

SRQ2: How does learners` transformer role in LC group learning knowledge sharing andacquisition solve problems? …………………………………………………..............
Discuss about collected knowledge to understand new findings (problem identification) ….
Discussion and sharing idea and knowledge help to innovate new ideas (formulate inquiry)
Integrate collected knowledge during group discussion (solution creation) ………………...
Combine knowledge and develop new concepts by writing results (problem conclusion) …
SRQ3: How does Problem-Based Learning (PBL) phases support informal learning at LC?.

93

Problem Identification ………………………………………………….......................

96

Formulate Inquiry …………………………………………………………………………..

97

Solution Creation …………………………………………………..............................

97

Problem Conclusion ………………………………………………….........................

98

5.3 Answer to the Major Research Question ……………………………………………

99

MRQ: How do academic libraries is constructing PBL supported user-centered ………….

99

5.4 Theoretical Model ………………………………………………….......................

102

5.5 Implications of the research ………………………………………………….........

106

5.5.1 Implications for LC in academic libraries and academicians …………………….......

106

5.5.2 Implications for knowledge science ……………………………………………...

107

5.6 Limitations and future research ………………………………………………….....

108

References ………………………………………………………………………………….

109

Appendix A: Questionnaire …………………………………………………………...........

118

94
94
94
94
95

x

List of Tables
Table 3.1 Population and sample of the study

45

Table 3.2 Responses of primary data collection

46

Table 4.1 Constructs and questions included in the questionnaire

63

Table 4.2 Gender of the respondents (N=105)

66

Table 4.3 Age group of the respondents (N=105)

66

Table 4.4 Academic institutions of the respondents (N=105)

67

Table 4.5 Academic status of the respondents (N=105)

68

Table 4.6 Country of residents of the respondents (N=105)

68

Table 4.7 Country of response of the respondents (N=105)

69

Table 4.8 Internal consistency and descriptive statistics

70

Table 4.9 Factor loading, composite reliability (CR) and average variance72

extracted (AVE) coefficient
Table 4.10 Square root of AVE (in bold) and correlations between constructs

72

Table 4.11 Results of Structural Equation Model (SEM) and hypothesis testing75

Table 4.12 LC use for learning in problem conclusion (PC)79

Table 4.13 Knowledge sharing and acquisition (KSA) support problem identification (PI),81

formulate inquiry (FI), solution creation (SC) and problem conclusion (PC)

Table 4.14 Problem Identification (FI) encourage Formulate Inquiry (FI)82

Table 4.15 Formulate inquiry (FI) motivates in solution creation (SC)84

Table 4.16 Solution creation (SC) direct for problem conclusion (PC)86

Table 4.17 Problem conclusion solve and complete user learning at LC87

xi

List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Three-Domain Diagram of the Commons (adapted from Beagle, 2012, p. 521)

16

Figure 2.2 Constructivism Learning Process (based on The Teachers Toolbox, 2020, p. 1)

20

Figure 2.3 Problem-Based Learning (based on UK Centre for Legal Education, 2010, p. 1)

23

Figure 2.4 The Problem-Based Learning Cycle Phases (Hmelo-Silver, 2004, p. 237)

29

Figure 2.5 Typical PBL Cycle (Mohd-Yusof, Helmi, Jamaludin, & Harun, 2011, p. 13)

30

Figure 2.6 Relationships of the phases of PBL and SRL (English & Kitsantas, 2013, p. 133)

31

Figure 2.7 Problem-Based Learning Cycle Phases in Learning Commons

33

Figure 2.8 Summary of Literature Review

39

Figure 3.1 Kanazawa University Central Library circulated posters and drop box

43

Figure 3.2 JAIST learning commons J-BEANS

47

Figure 3.3 Group learning at J-BEANS

48

Figure 3.4 Japanese style sitting in J-BEANS Figure

48

Figure 3.5 Out of class problem-based learning for course work at JAIST LC

49

Figure 3.6 Book lounge space of Kanazawa University Central Library LC

50

Figure 3.7 Book lounge coffee café in LC

51

Figure 3.8 Open studio of Central Library LC

51

Figure 3.9 LeCIS and learning support desk in LC

52

Figure 3.10 Group Studio in LC

53

Figure 4.1 Hypothesized Model of Problem-Based Learning at Learning Commons

58

Figure 4.2 Structural Model of Problem-Based Learning at Learning Commons76

Figure 4.3 Summary of findings

88

Figure 5.1 Knowledge Sharing & Acquisition as PBL Phase in Learning Commons95

Figure 5.2 Characteristics of PBL supported User-Centered Learning (UCL) at LC

102

Figure 5.3 User-Centered PBL Based Learning Pedagogy at LC in Academic Libraries

104

Figure 5.4 PBL supported Continuum of Learning in LC

107

xii

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Introduction
Academic libraries uphold and support the academic life of an educational institution andplay a role as an activator in the learning process. For a long time academic libraries havebeen treated as the soul of academic institutions. It develops a link between users and avariety of information (Freeman, 2000). For a long time, library experts have identified
that technology and user expectations are playing a dominant role for reshaping theservices of academic libraries (Allen, Mullins & Hufford, 2007). Survey shows that usersof this age are not using the library in the same way as they have used in the past due totechnological flexibility (Gardner & Eng, 2005). The traditional roles and functions ofacademic libraries have become outdated due to technological advancements (Lee &Schottenfeld, 2014). Currently libraries are facing a number of unprecedented challenges
like alternative body of library, declining user numbers, fall of circulation and lesser seatoccupancy, transition into digitalization and squeezing budget (Akeroyd, 2001; Johnson& Lilly, 2012). Academic libraries need to face those challenges. Users of academic
libraries are now very technology efficient and network or Internet dependent for theirinformation needs. Therefore, the current library users are mentioned as the ‘Techie
Generation’ (TechieGen). These TechieGen users are demanding wider access to digital
resources and expecting interactive spaces for their learning (Thomas & McDonald,2005). As a result, libraries are redesigning their facilities and creating services with thecollaborative relationship among the librarians, teachers and users.
For nearly the last four decades digital technologies have challenged the library services
and resources and as well as it has changed the user behavior due to its service use aspect.
Libraries are dealing with a new generation of Internet users that are technologicallysophisticated and integrate information access and use into every aspect of their life tounprecedented levels (Thomas & MacDonald, 2005). From then libraries have been
adapting their collections, services, and surroundings to the digital world (Lippincott,2005). The present trend of the library is to adjust toward digital collection and adopting
web 2.0 based social networking services and merging the traditional print resources with1

the hybrid digital resources and making it as a blended library (Jankowska & Marcum,2010).
Change is constant in the wider institutions and libraries are no exception. The core oflibrary technology change was that of the adoption of Khasawneh, 2013 based operations
and services for the user. It's a library service model that supports constant and deliberatechange, enabling users to participate in the construction of both physical and virtual
services they want, and it also tries to attract new users and better serve existing ones byenhancing customer-driven solutions (Casey & Savastinuk, 2006). It has introduced adigital revolution in today's libraries. Library 2.0 works on the creation of content andservices, the availability of multimedia materials, and the implementation of synchronousand asynchronous means for users to communicate with each other and librarians(Baryshev, Verkhovets & Babina, 2018).
The twenty-first century technology and network innovation are reshaping thecommunication and interaction of libraries and its users. The smart library is about areality where web and digital libraries have a symbiotic relationship that makes
information transmission easier and more convenient (Gul & Bano, 2019). Traditional
libraries can become smart libraries through strategic design and implementation ofadvanced technologies such as cloud computing, data mining, and artificial intelligence(Cao, Liang & Li, 2018). The smart library gathers data about its patrons and analyzes
their biographical information, questions, and search history (Baryshev, 2021). A smart
library is more than simply a technical foundation; it's also a service concept aimed atoffering high-quality service and a positive user experience (Cao, Liang & Li, 2018). But
all those technological changes will become meaningful when it will reach the users
virtually and physically to meet their diversified demand.
Academic libraries of the twenty-first century are undergoing a transformation due to itschanging nature of services and upcoming challenges (Lewis, 2007). Lewis (2007)
affirms that academic libraries are facing challenges due to migration of print to electroniccollection, retirement of print collection, introduces informal learning space, redefining
library and information tools and migration for purchasing to curating content. All thosechallenges are reshaping the academic library with the blending of today`s smart library.
Change is persistent in the library, and it is the responsibility to them to respond quickly
with the proper plan and design to manage the ever changing needs of the users.
2

Academic libraries are now in a paradigm shift from information resource-centric viewto user-centric approach (Scupola & Nicolajsen, 2010). It is evident that learners today
have fundamentally altered their learning needs/styles, together with the cumulativeadvances and breakthroughs in digital technology (Doiron & Asselin, 2011). It has been
noted that there is a trend among the learners as they are becoming habituated to study inthe out of classroom environment. To encourage students to continue their study beyond
the classroom, libraries provide collections, organized information, methods that enhanceaccess, and in-person and virtual help (Lippincott, 2005). Academic libraries need usercentered change of its services, collection, and spaces for accommodating the learningand research within the technological advancements. Survey shows that the learning styleof students has a growing relation with the learning space. So, the study takes the lens ofuser learning for redefining its services and resources.
From the very beginning libraries and learning have always been inseparable (Bennett,
2009). Libraries must design learning spaces that optimize the confluence of theTechieGen, contemporary learning theory, and information technology in order to best
serve the educational enterprise (Brown, 2005). Social interaction has become a highpreference of today`s learners and they want to learn in collaboration in out of class spaces.
Students in the Techie Generation are social and team-oriented, comfortable multitasking,and typically upbeat in their perspective and want to make their own content that is aided
by the IT resources available to them (Brown, 2005). Now learning has become social
and library spaces encourage informal learning and research for creating meaning insolving issues. Designing informal learning spaces is quickly becoming a hot topic ofdiscussion and innovation (Milne, 2006). These days, academic libraries are reshaping
their spaces and introducing Learning Commons (LC) service to meet the diverse needsof user learning. Flexibility, openness, and IT advancements that enable to establish zones
that may be utilized by groups or people as wanted are the key themes of such spaces,
particularly in learning commons or classrooms (Khasawneh, 2013). Informal learning at
LC supports problem-based learning (PBL) of Constructivist learning theory wherelearners create and share knowledge during solving learning problems in collaboration.
The literature highlights that libraries are managing technological changes within its
services and resources. They also took the opportunity to redesign its spaces for thelearning of its users. Accordingly, this research highlights how problem-based learning

3

(PBL) user students are pursuing out of class learning at LC and creating and acquiringknowledge for solving learning problems.

1.2 Statement of the Problem
Academic libraries are the impartial part of the academic institutions for accelerating
learning in academia. They are now in a paradigm shift from information resource-centric
view to user-centric approach (Scupola & Nicolajsen, 2010). Currently they are facing a
number of challenges like declining user numbers, fall of circulation and in-house use,transition into digitalization, continuous adoption of IT and squeezing budget (Alam,
Yoshida & Kohda, 2016). Learning needs of library users is ever changing, and it iscompelling the libraries to redesign their services according to users’ wants. Users are
expecting interactive and collaborative spaces for their learning in the library. To meetthe diverse needs of users’ learning, academic libraries introduced Learning Commons(LC) service. LCs are the interactive and collaborative spaces in the library which
combines other library services, LC resources and staff. It has been considered as aplatform and a super hub for informal learning in academia.
Learning commons is a group space where users come by themselves to solve theirlearning problems in collaboration. It has been a new phenomenon in academia whereusers engage them in a self-regulated manner. Also the library authority combines theirresources so as the users can engage in their problem solving procedures without any
hurdle. They integrate physical commons, virtual commons, and cultural commons
resources for learning of the users. For creating meaning in learning LC users integrate
their learning method for solving the learning problems in an out of class space. It is thelearning method of the users which they integrate with the LC offered resources forsolving their learning problems. Libraries already have studied to manage thetechnological changes of the TechieGen users and adopted innovative services of Library
2.0. Now they are heading to manage the smart library environment with its recent
technologies. Studies show that technology-based services and learning in libraries are
inseparable (Bennett, 2009; Brown, 2005; Gul & Bano, 2019; Khasawneh, 2013;
Lippincott, 2005). In both classrooms and libraries, technology-enhanced active andcollaborative learning environments are becoming increasingly popular for group content(Lee & Schottenfeld, 2014). For this purpose, this research takes the lens of learning in4

an out of class space of LC. Libraries have redesigned their spaces and introduced
collaborative places for learning. User students are using this space for their selfresponsible learning. They are using problem-based learning (PBL) phases for creating
and sharing knowledge and solving their coursework problems.
As an informal learning space LC has introduced an emerging learning pedagogy byoffering together users own learning, knowledge sharing and acquisition and problembased learning (PBL) method for problem solving. Using these three constructs together,
we frame the challenge for the current study from the theoretical perspective of how
problem-based learning study and knowledge creation and sharing is constructing usercentered learning pedagogy at learning commons.

1.3 Objectives and Research Questions
1.3.1 Research Objectives
Earlier research indicates that learning activities of PBL are supported by LC which
encourages users to engage in an out of class environment (Brown, 2005; Gillette &Somerville, 2006). But the problem statement identifies some significant areas where thispresent study attempts to contribute. Librarians have designed LC spaces for facilitating
students` self-responsible own learning without considering any learning method like
PBL. Moreover, there is an emerging learning pedagogy based on knowledge sharing andacquisition where students are playing the role of knowledge transformer in LC spaces
which libraries are not aware about. LC has introduced user-centered emerging learningpedagogy which need to be identified for the extended use of its redesigned spaces,
services, and resources. Aiming to investigate all these major issues, the present study
focuses the following major objectives;• To explore how learning commons (LC) and users are constructing problem-basedlearning (PBL) supported user-centered learning (UCL) in academic libraries.
• To propose problem-based learning (PBL) supported theoretical models forsupporting user-centered learning (UCL) at learning commons.

51.3.2 Research Questions
To achieve the objectives and investigate the major issues, this research has the following
Major Research Questions (MRQ) and three Subsidiary Research Questions (SRQ):
MRQ: How do learning commons (LC) is constructing problem-based learning (PBL)
supported user-centered learning (UCL) in academic libraries?
SRQ1: How do LC continuum of services are used for user-centered (self-responsible)
learning?
SRQ2: How does learners` transformer role in group learning knowledge sharing andacquisition at LC solve learning problems?
SRQ3: How does problem-based learning (PBL) phases support out of class informal
learning at LC?

1.4 Significance of the Research
The popularity of using Learning Commons among the student learners of academic
libraries for out of class own learning and their transformer role for knowledge sharing
and acquisition in PBL phases for solving coursework problems is investigated in thisstudy. The research is noteworthy in several ways.
Firstly, learning commons is a collaborative space in academia where learners gather towork in groups. Learning commons provide physical, technological, social andintellectual spaces and offer learners, researchers and information professionals to pursue
numerous learning and research curricula and activities (Bailey, 2006). Most of thestudies have focused on the relationship of space and learning (Gillette & Somerville,
2006; Khasawneh, Shibayama, Kato, Mori & Taniguchi, 2011; Nitecki & Simpson, 2016).
Therefore, this study is a timely addition to these, with a focus on the use of LC continuum
for users' own learning.
Secondly, LC is a facilitator for users to engage them in active learning in an out ofclassroom environment and helps them to construct knowledge by solving learning
problems. This collaborative setting not only allows students to unlock their capacity to
manage and produce their own knowledge, but it also enriches social learning and living(Oliveira, 2018). LC offers collaborative and interactive learning spaces where group6

processes create and share knowledge for solving learning issues. It is a unique
phenomenon in the LC space which has been overlooked for long in the LC learning
process. Therefore, the findings of the present study will be significant with evidence thatlearner`s transformer role for knowledge sharing and acquisition helps in learning
problem solving.
Thirdly, as an informal learning space, LC has introduced an emerging learning pedagogy
by collaborating multiple support units and tutoring and learning services. Users` learningat LC supports PBL phases in an out of class environment. Problem-based learning (PBL)
of constructivist theory encourages learners to construct knowledge based on theexperience of solving problems (Brown, 2005). Therefore, the present research adopts
knowledge sharing and acquisition as a phase of PBL in LC and enables thereby further
theorizing of PBL cycle phases in LC learning perspectives.
Finally, additional multidisciplinary fields, such as self-regulated learning at LC,
information literacy and learning value co-creation in the library service system canbenefit from this study.

1.5 Methodology
The goal of this study was to see if there is a link between learning commons (LC) use
and problem-based learning (PBL) in an out of class environment learning in academic
libraries. To uncover significant characteristics of links between the two, a comprehensive
assessment of the literature on LC and PBL was conducted.
For the empirical analysis of this novel phenomenon the study has undertaken quantitative
method approach for addressing the objectives and research questions with statistical data.
In checking the problem-solving practices of users during learning at LC we have
employed the quantitative method for data collection and analysis. Partial least squaresstructural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) were used to analyze the quantitative data.
The research uses mainly two cases from Japan and included another one with personal
interest. Finally, there are three university form Japan, the Japan Advanced Institute of
Science and Technology (JAIST), the Kanazawa University and the Nagoya University.
Other than that, there are some other universities included in the survey as the respondents
were available in Japan as Intern or Special students of those three universities. The other7

cases universities are the Central European University (Kosovo), Mount Royal University(Canada), New Platz State University of New York (USA), South West University of
Science and Technology (China) and University Toulouse (France).
Data were collected through questionnaire survey from the three Japanese universities
and used the Google Drive platform as an online survey collection tool. A structured
questionnaire was developed to collect responses from the respondents. The survey data
analysis explicitly addresses subsidiary research questions (SRQ) 1, 2 and 3 specifically.

1.6 Definition of Research Terms
Learning Commons
Learning Commons (LC) provide physical, technological, social and intellectual spaces
and support learners to pursue learning and research activities (Bailey, 2006). Learningin LC is a process of collaboration and interaction among the learners, tutoring staffs,
faculty, information technologists, learning contents and peers (Alam, Yoshida & Kohda,
2016). It supports PBL methods by confirming out of class activity for identifying,
formulating, searching and solving learning problems (Khasawneh, 2013).

Learning
Learning before 1900 was mostly based on memorizing; now, it is primarily based onunderstanding (Brown, 2005). Learning is an active process in which learners construct
new ideas or concepts based upon their current and past knowledge (Bruner, 1990). Fromthe psychological perspective learning has been characterized both functionally andmechanistically as changes in behavior that occur as a result of experience (De Houwer,
Barnes-Holmes & Moors, 2013).

Constructivist Learning
Constructivist theory holds that learners construct knowledge by understanding new
information building on their current understanding and expertise (Brown, 2005). The
theory implies that learning is best served when it is contextual, active, and social (Brown,2005).

8

Problem-Based Learning (PBL)
Problem based learning (PBL) is an instructional method in which students learn throughfacilitated complex problem that does not have a single correct answer (Hmelo-Silver,2004). PBL develop learning skills such as solving complex problems, thinking critically,
analyzing, and evaluating information, working cooperatively, and communicating
effectively (Duch, Groh, & Allen, 2011; English & Kitsantas, 2013). PBL engage students
in active learning and helps them to become self-directed and self-regulated learner(Savery, 2006).

Knowledge Sharing and Acquisition
During learning new information is assimilated into the learner's knowledge paradigm tocreate knowledge (Brown, 2005). Lauriden and Cruz (2013) has stated that, ``Learning is
the acquisition of knowledge. Sharing is a way of attaining new knowledge among
learners``. Knowledge sharing among the learners makes the learning happens. The
success of collaborative learning like LC largely depends upon the students’ attitude
toward sharing information and knowledge (Majid & Chitra, 2013). In PBL process
students learn and solve course work problems by sharing and acquisitioning of
knowledge in engagement.

LC User
In general term, users of a library are the regular consumer of its resources and services.
In academic library, users do not reflect a single category, they are the undergraduates,
postgraduates, researchers, teachers, and external users from a variety of fields including
the general public (Carr, 2006). But in the context of learning commons of academic
libraries, we have conceptualized LC user for this study. LC users are the student learners
who use this space for their self-responsible, group or informal learning for course workor individual problem solving.

Academic Library
The academic library has been known as the "heart" of the learning community since itallows students and faculties to do research and expand their knowledge (Simmonds &Andaleeb, 2001). The aim of an academic library is to support learning and research needs
9and interests of the users in academia. For the present study we have chosen university
libraries as an academic library among the several types of academic libraries.

1.7 Chapter Outline of the Dissertation
The research is summarized in this chapter. It contains the precise research questions aswell as the study's objectives. It also describes the research's relevance, as well as thescope and constraints of the endeavor. The dissertation consists of five chapters.

Chapter 1: Introduction
It comprises the introduction and explanation of the problem statement of the study. Also
includes the specific objectives and research questions of the phenomenon.

Chapter 2: Literature Review
This chapter is distributed into seven sections including Commons, Information
Commons and Leaning Commons. Also included the Transformation of Information
Commons (IC) to Learning Commons (LC), Constructivist Learning Theory and its
relationship with LC, and the Collaborative learning, User-Centered Learning at LC, andKnowledge Creation and Sharing. Problem-Based Learning (PBL) at LC and its cycle
phases for PBL process learning.

Chapter 3: Research Methodology
It explains how the Problem-Based Learning phenomena in Learning Commons wasstudied using a systematic methodology. It covers the intellectual groundworks of theresearch paradigm, as well as justifications for sample selection and explanations for datacollecting implementation.

Chapter 4: User-Centered Problem-Based Learning at Learning Commons
This chapter focuses on Problem-Based Learning at Learning Commons. It presents thefindings from the quantitative survey conducted on in three university students of Japan.
The findings mainly evident the constructs that LC are used for learners own learning,
PBL is supported by LC, and users are in transformative practice of Knowledge Sharing
and Acquisition in LC PBL phases.

10Chapter 5: Conclusion and Implications
Finally, this chapter gives a synopsis of the research, findings to the research questions,and research implications, including limitations and future work scope.

11

Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1 Introduction
The literature review of this chapter explores the pedagogy that has taken place in users`
learning in out of classroom spaces in the context of collaboration at Learning Commons(LC). This review is to identify the gap in the research and placing insight in the present
study in the perspective of past studies. Through reviewing the existing literature of
Learning Commons, Problem-Based Learning (PBL), Self-Directed Learning (SDL) andknowledge sharing, the present chapter will determine and create a research space. The
evaluation procedure will assist in the development of a good comprehension in order toshed light on the dissertation's issue statement. The review starts with a general overview
of the associated literature from a wide range of standpoint. Then it moves on to moreexact or confined investigations that are increasingly focused on the definite issues justaround the corner.
The first section is a review of the Learning Commons and how it has to be used by thelearners of academia. The discussion is then followed by the Learning Commons
phenomenon in the context of collaborative learning of library users. After that theramifications of Learning Commons with users` course studies, problem solving practicein problem-based learning (PBL) and understanding of knowledge sharing andacquisition trends are going to be reviewed. The final section examines self-directednessof users to come to use the LC from the perspective of Self-Directed Learning (SDL) forchecking the user-centered learning (UCL) pedagogy at LC. The learned gaps in theliterature will also be used to justify the current investigation.

2.2 Commons
Commons is the core focus of Learning Commons. But the term does not always indicate
that, and it has some other meaning from different perspectives. In general the Wikipedia(``Commons,`` 2020) has described the Commons as the cultural and natural resourcesthat are available to all members of a community, such as air, water, and a habitable planet.
These are the shared resources rather than privately owned. On the other hand, in

12connection with this study from the perspective of a library, the term "commons" refers
to a collection of resources, services, and venues whose core focus is research. It`s
broader viewpoint emphasizes integrated and participatory teaching, learning, andresearch (Bailey, 2014). In this research we have accepted this definition as a lens of thestudy.
Due to the advancement of information technology and wider variation in user demand,academic libraries have adopted Commons as an option for change management inservices and resources (Cowgill, Beam & Wess, 2001). For a long library and information
professionals are used to the culture to embrace change and innovation and they haveembodied and nourished the commons - information, learning, research, and teaching in
the libraries (Bailey & Tierney, 2008). Which later directed them to introduce a newservice line - Information Commons for information and research of the users.

2.3 Information Commons (IC)In the mid 1980`s, academic libraries of North American educational institutions haveseen the emergence of a new model of service delivery for its users and most of the cases
the model was mentioned as the Information Commons (IC) (Beagle, 1999). The modelis based on the ``integrated library public services`` implementations models which hascovered numerous service areas and this implementation process has been referred as
Information Commons (Bailey, 2006). At that period academic libraries of North
American were anxious about their future because of declining gate counts, unfilled
reading-rooms and reduced circulation (Beagle, 2002). To overcome the situation and tosurvive for the future, academic library experts started to re-think about the condition.
They have started to focus on a patron-centered, learner-centered, user-friendly service
delivery system for information and research (Bailey, 2006; Somerville & Collins, 2008).
It has focused on renovating the library and more specifically re-designing the services(Applegate, 2009). As a result, the IC was introduced to overcome the situation.
The information commons have arisen as a new and crucial way for users to accessresources and services (Cowgill, Beam & Wess, 2001). It is broadly defined as a model
for providing integrated access to electronic information resources, multimedia, print
resources, and services to students (Bailey & Tierney, 2008). In his sensational writing
Beagle (1999) mentioned that Information Commons has been used on two parallel levels.

13

On first level, it's been used to describe an entirely online environment in which the digital
services may be accessible through a single graphical user interface (GUI) and potentiallysearched from any networked workstation (Beagle, 1999). On a second level, the term
refers to a new sort of physical facility that is expressly built to organize workspace andservice delivery for an integrated digital environment. As a physical structure, theInformation Commons could be a department or floor of a big academic library (Beagle,1999). It is a single spot where users may locate resources (e.g., on how to write a paperor solve a computer or network problem), access multiple databases (both indices andfull-text) or the library's online catalog, visit websites through Internet, and use selected
research tools (Bailey & Tierney, 2008).
Basically, information commons were designed to facilitate information literacy
instructions for faculty and users. But later IC took the students` learning priority inservices and converted from Information Commons to Learning Commons (Beagle,2009).

2.3.1 Transformation of Information Commons (IC) to Learning Commons(LC)
The Information Commons (IC) model was being expanded outside of the information
literacy rubric to include collaboration with other learning-related campus units liketutorial programs, writing centers, faculty development centers etc. and this new
expanded model was distinguished with a designation of Learning Commons (LC)(Beagle, 2008). All features of the information commons are included in a learningcommons, but they are expanded and enhanced (Bailey & Tierney, 2008). After
successfully effectuating IC, libraries expanded their services and facilities to hostcollaborative learning support programs, renaming them LC (Beagle, 2008). Both provide
resource-rich environments in which students can develop certain skills that are
fundamental to a liberal education (Bennett, 2003).

2.4 Learning Commons (LC)With the advancement of rapid technological changes and its high acceptance by the‘Techie Generation’ (Techie Gen) library users, libraries are now in paradigm shift
regarding their spaces, collections and services. Over the last three decades, academic

14

libraries are embracing a new model of service delivery system which is referred to as
Learning Commons (LC). Academic libraries are trying to convert them into social,
cultural and technological centers by renovating their physical spaces for the diverse usergroups as they can work collaboratively with digital and print media (Sinclair, 2009). In
defining LC, Beagle (2006, p. xviii) mentioned as it happens when all Information
Commons (IC) resources supporting the IC are “organized in collaboration with learning
initiatives sponsored by other academic units, or aligned with learning outcomes defined
through a cooperative process.” So, LC is a service of libraries that brings in one locationof other services, facilities and learning resources to support users’ learning (Donkai,
Toshimori & Mizoue, 2011).
Academic libraries are now trying to reinvent themselves and they are initiating LC tomeet the changing needs of the users (Sinclair, 2009). As IC reflects on transmission ofknowledge primarily to users, whereas LC reveals a change in learning theory byemphasizing on creation of knowledge by the collaboration and interaction of commonsstaffs and users and users’ self-direction in learning (Bailey & Tierney, 2008). It is aunique service from the library where librarians, commons staff, technical staff, student
tutoring staff collaborate and interact with users (for learning by teaching) for theirassignments, research, writing, technical support, program on information literacy,
faculty development, curricula development and so on. LC creates an environment of
combined understanding of user needs together with library commons staff and users fortheir learning. For the successful implementation of LC in libraries, librarians andcommons staff needs to have sufficient knowledge and skills of ‘Blended Librarianship’
which combines traditional skill set of librarianship with information technology skills,
and educational designer’s ability to apply them in teaching and learning (Shank, 2006).

2.4.1 The Commons Model
Donald Robert Beagle (2006) in his The Information Commons Handbook has provided
a model for Information Commons/Learning Commons which he mentioned as the‘Commons Model’ for library. This conceptual model has combined three interrelated
and interdependent levels: the Physical Commons, the Virtual Commons and the Cultural
Commons (Beagle, 2006; Beagle, 2008). The first one Physical Commons consists of the15

Figure 2.1 Three-Domain Diagram of the Commons (adapted from Beagle, 2012, p. 521)

computer hardware, furnishings, designated spaces, and traditional library collections(Beagle, 2006, p. 8). The second level, the Virtual Commons, contains the Web
environments (portals, websites, etc.), digital library collections, e-learning tools andonline tools (search engines, productivity software, etc.) of the library. The third level,
the Cultural Commons, is made up of social resources like workshops, tutoring programs,
research collaborations, coaching, and so on, that takes place as a result of the groupenvironment created through the Commons (Beagle, 2006, p. 8). Social, cultural andpolitical envelope of cultural commons supports and extends the physical commons andvirtual commons and these are the enabler for learning in LC (Beagle, 2006, p. 5). These
three levels of commons model forms a ‘continuum of service’ (Beagle, 2012) and cocreate the value of learning among the library users.

2.4.2 Components of Information/Learning Commons
LC arranges various components to create a collaborative learning environment in thelibrary spaces. To some extent, facilities and components of LC in each academic libraryare different but they hold the same objectives. In their studies Lippincott (2005; 2006)
and McMuller (2007; 2008) has identified some components of information/learningcommons that are more or less available in academic libraries. Most common components

16

of LC are Computer Workstation Clusters, Service Desk, Collaborative Learning Spaces,
Presentation Support Centers, Faculty Development Centers, Electronic Classrooms,
Writing Centers and Academic Support Units and Community Spaces.

2.4.2.1 Computer Workstation Clusters
These are the public access computers designed for the work areas of LC as the students
can use them with comfort (Bailey, 2006). Configuration of those computers isdetermined with productivity software for helping the students in different learning tasks.

2.4.2.2 Service Desk
For providing support to students in their versatile learning activities libraries arrange
integrated services from a single service desk or they co-locate desks jointly with
commons staff and IT staffs in LC (Lippincott, 2006, p. 7.3; McMullen, 2008).

2.4.2.3 Collaborative Learning Spaces
The heart of LC is ‘collaborative learning’ and collaborative learning spaces create theopportunity for knowledge creation in learning. Libraries provide group study rooms,
Internet Cafés and Cafés equipped with computer workstations, large monitor andprojectors including specially designed furniture for collaboration. Students gather here
to learn in groups or teams including the commons staff.

2.4.2.4 Presentation Support Centers
Most of the LC is equipped with high technology centers to support the students in
multimedia presentation works. Presentation support centers are equipped with extended
configuration computers, image scanners, special purpose software for presentation anddigital display devices where students get support from technology staff (McMullen,2008).

2.4.2.5 Faculty Development Centers
This center is also known as a teaching learning center which is frequently supported by
the Instructional Technology department of the university (McMullen, 2008). Faculty get
support for instructional design, technology supported teaching design, use of digital
resources, assistance for course management software and presentation software(Lippincott, 2006, p. 7.4; McMullen, 2008).
17

2.4.2.6 Electronic Classrooms
Most of the LC has incorporated electronic classrooms equipped with computer
workstations, multimedia projectors, scanners, interactive boards, wide screens, andcommunication devices for video conferencing (Lippincott, 2006). These classrooms areused for various learning functionalities for students, faculty and training for library staff(Lippincott, 2006; McMullen, 2008).

2.4.2.7 Writing Centers and Academic Support Units
For enhancing academic and research writing skills of the users most of the LC has
introduced ‘Writing Centre/Lab’ with the partnership of university’s writing center orother academic support units like Academic Advisement, Student Success Center,
Tutoring and Service Learning, Career Center (Lippincott, 2006; McMullen, 2008).

2.4.2.8 Community Spaces
LC offers academic and social spaces outside the classroom for student’s formal andinformal learning which also encourages the creation of a campus community (Lippincott,2006). Community spaces for meetings, seminars, arts display, film show, and cultural
events can fuel exchange of ideas among the student community (Lippincott, 2006;
McMullen, 2008). The community spaces of LC are treated as ‘Ba’, the shared context
where knowledge is shared, utilized and created in action, interaction and sharing withothers (Siddike, Umemoto & Kohda, 2014; Somerville & Harlan, 2008, p. 11).

2.5 Learning at Learning Commons
Libraries and learning have always been inseparably linked from the very beginning(Bennett, 2009). Learning in LC is a collaborative and interactive process including
learners, librarians, instructor, tutoring staff, instructional designers, information
technologists, learning contents, and peer learners. Learners, researchers, and information
professionals can pursue a variety of learning and research curricula and activities inlearning commons, which provide physical, technological, social, and intellectual
environments (Bailey, 2006). LC fosters a collaborative atmosphere in which librarycommons staff and users collaborate to better understand user learning and researchrequirements.

18

2.6 Constructivist Learning Theory
Constructivism isn't a specific pedagogy. We need to keep in our mind that constructivism
is a term that integrates numerous theories into one to better explain how students learn
and acquire and organize their knowledge for use in learning. It refers to both learningtheory and epistemology, which includes both the study of how individuals learn and thenature of knowledge (Hein, 1991). Jean Piaget (1896–1980) is largely credited withformalizing constructivism theory. Piaget (1973) and von Glaserfeld (1984) have viewed
learning as a process in which students actively generate meaning (knowledge).
According to Piaget (1977) learning takes place in the active process of creation of
meaning and not it happens passively by learners. He argues that a condition of
disequilibrium or imbalance is formed when we, as learners, face an event or a state thatchallenges our way of thinking (Amineh & Asl, 2015). To re-establish equilibrium orbalance, we must change our way of thinking. We make sense of new information for thispurpose by linking it with what we already know, or by striving to incorporate it into ourprevious knowledge (Amineh & Asl, 2015). As mentioned by Oldfather & Dahl (1994)
that Vygotskian (1978) views learning emphasize mutuality between the individual
person and the social context, as well as the role of the more knowledgeable other inlearning facilitation. There is no other form of learning but constructing meaning (Hein,
1991). Constructivism has been defined as, ``an approach to learning that holds thatpeople actively construct or make their own knowledge and that reality is determined by
the experiences of the learner`` (Elliott, et al., 2000, p. 256). Learners actively participate
in the learning process, and they share their previous experience to create something
meaningful (knowledge).
Constructivist theory holds that learners construct knowledge by understanding new
information building on their current understanding and expertise (Brown, 2005). It
emphasizes development of learners’ ability in solving their real life problems (Huang,
2002). Collaboration, personal autonomy, generativity, reflectivity, active engagement,
personal relevance, and pluralism are the values that form its instructional principles(Lebow, 1993; cited in Savery & Duffy, 1995). Students interact within the ring, forming

19

Figure 2.2 Constructivism Learning Process (based on The Teachers Toolbox, 2020, p. 1)

a group that interacts with the educator, who functions as a mediator, bringing students
closer to the situation and to achieve this, the educator must use social interactions togenerate meaningful zones of proximal development and cognitive bridges (Brandon &All, 2010). Whether learners are using their experiences to understand a lecture or
following the directions of instructors to solve problems, the constructivism theory
implies that learners construct knowledge from their experience in both circumstances(Wikipedia, 2020). It is, however, obvious that learners share their experiences in active
interaction and participate in the learning process to construct knowledge within thissocial interaction in the context of solving problems.

2.6.1 Constructivist Learning Principles
Piaget (1973), von Glaserfeld (1984), Glaserfeld (1984) and Huang, (2002) has suggested
that learners may learn actively and create new knowledge based on what they alreadyknew. The constructivist theory implies that learning is best served when it is contextual,
active and social (Brown, 2006; Hein, 1991; Oldfather & Dahl, 1994). Hein (1991) hassummarized those ideas in the principles of constructivist learning theory which isconcisely written below.

202.6.1.1 Active process
Learning is an active process in which the learner generates meaning from sensory input(Hein, 1991). Learning, according to Piaget (1977), occurs through the active process of
meaning construction rather than passively by learners. It denotes that learners are not thepassive receiver of knowledge, rather they engage in an active process of creating
meaning (knowledge). They collect new information during the active collaboration oflearning and mixed information with the old one and transform existing knowledge into
knowledge. Throughout learning they share and acquire the collected knowledge andcreate new knowledge.

2.6.1.2 Social activity
Learning is a social activity, our learning is inextricably linked to our interactions withother people, including our teachers, friends, family, and casual acquaintances, such as
those in line ahead of us or next to us at the exhibit (Hein, 1991). The relevance of thesocio-cultural context in which learning occurs, as well as how the setting influences what
is learned, is emphasized by Vygotskian theory (Vygotsky, 1978). Learners engage in thesocial production of knowledge in an effective learning process. It is clear that knowledge
is created in the active social learning of the learners.

2.6.1.3 Context of Learning
Learning is contextual, we don't learn solitary facts and ideas in some ethereal realm of
the mind distinct from the rest of our life; we learn them in context (Hein, 1991). Learners
need a proper context for pursuing their learning actively. If the context is too far off fromtheir expected vista, individuals may stop their hunt for meaning, bored or puzzled, orboth (Smith, 1975). The contextual view considers two key components of learning: theinteractive character of learning and the structural features of learning that are based on asocial framework (Caffarella & Merriam, 1999). As a whole, learning is an active process
where learners socially engage to construct meaning (knowledge) in a certain context intheir mind.
The principles of constructivist learning theory has explained that learning occurs in theactive engagement of learners and knowledge is created socially within the context. Now
it would be clear to the library practitioners that LC is a place which supports the21constructivist theory by providing an out of class learning environment as a learning
resource for the learners to solve learning problems.

2.6.2 Constructivist Learning and LC
Constructivist theories are now prevalent in most of the non-formal education sector(Wikipedia, 2020). LC`s implementation of new knowledge media and the functional
integration of new campus IT infrastructure, as well as the creation of group learningspaces would connect the library with the increased interest among faculty inconstructivist learning theory (team-based, group-process, resource-based, inquirydriven, etc.) (Beagle, 2012). LC is an informal learning environment in which all
resources, services, and spaces are brought together in a service continuum to connect
learners. Here learners gather to work through their course work concerns with peers,
faculty, and LC tutoring professionals. It is a warm and inviting out-of-class area wherestudents can collaborate to create meaning. In a way, LC is a place where learners canactively participate in learning through social interaction in order to co-create knowledge
while addressing issues in context.

2.7 Problem-Based Learning (PBL)
Constructivist theories have influenced a variety of educational practices, including
Problem-Based Learning (PBL) and in general, include various characteristics that arethought to facilitate successful learning (Loyens & Gijbels, 2008). PBL is a tutorial
process and was introduced in the Medical Faculty at McMaster University in Canada(Barrows & Tamblyn, 1980). The fundamental approach of PBL is problem solving basedlearning. It's a learner-centered instructional (and curricular) strategy that encourages
students to conduct research, integrate theory and practice, and use knowledge and skills
to come up with a viable solution to a problem (Savery, 2006). It not only helps the22Figure 2.3 Problem-Based Learning (based on UK Centre for Legal Education, 2010, p. 1)

learners engage in learning but also help them to create meaning (knowledge) for solving
the learning issues. PBL is an instructional approach in which students learn via the useof an assisted complex problem with no one correct answer. (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). In thisapproach learning starts with a posed problem which the students try to reach in an answer.
It makes them understand how to deal with the given problems and also enhance theirskills to work collaboratively and think logically. PBL develops learning skills of students
such as how to solve complicated problems, think critically, analyze and evaluate
information, collaborate effectively, and communicate efficiently (Duch, Groh & Allen,
2001; English, & Kitsantas, 2013). It uses a simple tool to assist students' problem solving
and learning: a structured whiteboard containing lists of facts, thoughts (i.e., hypotheses),learning challenges, and action plans (Hmelo-Silver, 2004).
In the PBL process students take charge towards their own learning and the major role ofthe teacher is to spark motivation of the students towards problem solving. Students areencouraged to apply what they've learned and to be reflective and self-directed learners(Hmelo-Silver, 2004). Students make use of what they already know about the problems
they encounter. In the course of learning they create new knowledge and mix it with theold one by sharing and acquiring between them and it continues till checking their
hypothesis. Teachers inspire reflection of learners and ensure opportunity for learning bylogical thinking, providing scaffolding, feedback, and advice (English & Kitsantas, 2013).
In the PBL process students need to take charge of their learning and they start with ill23

structured problems. They keep motivating themselves and pursue research within theirself-directed learning.

2.7.1 Characteristics of Problem-Based Learning
In his study Barrows (1996) has mentioned six characteristics of PBL. Some other studies
have also identified a few characteristics of this method (Dahlgren and Dahlgren, 2002;
De Graaff & Kolmos, 2003; Oliveira, dos Santos, & Garcia, 2013). Savery (2006) has
outlined the following characteristics of PBL.
2.7.1.1 Students must be responsible for their own learning.
PBL learners are responsible for their own learning to solve the learning issues and it isa learning-centered approach. Learner motivation increases when the learner is
responsible for the solution to the problem and the process (Savery, 2006). Here learners
feel self-directedness for collecting new information and creating meaningful solutions.
2.7.1.2 The posed problem must be ill structured and permit investigation.
In PBL, problem simulations must be unstructured and allow for unfettered investigation(Savery, 2006). The organizing focus and stimulus for learning are problems and it needs
to engage learners to combine their understanding (Barrows, 1996).
2.7.1.3 Learning from a variety of areas or subjects should be blended together.
Students should be able to acquire, examine, and integrate information from all
disciplines that may be relevant to understanding and addressing a specific problem(Barrows, 1996). In this process students need to be self-directed to obtain new
information and blend with the previous base to create ideas.
2.7.1.4 Collaboration is necessary.
PBL is a method where collaboration among the learners is a must do activity for solving
the problems. At one stage of learning they actively engage in groups for creating
meaning (knowledge). During a PBL session, the tutor asks questions of any and all
members to ensure that knowledge about the group's problem has been shared andacquiesced with the existing one (Savery, 2006).

24

2.7.1.5 Students must apply what they learn during their self-directed learning to the
problem through reanalysis and resolution.
The goal of self-directed research is for individuals to gather information that will help
the group make better decisions about the situation (Savery, 2006). Learners of PBL must
convey their collected information to the other mates in a way that can perform to solve
the problem.
2.7.1.6 A final analysis of what has been learnt by working on the problem, as well as
a discussion of the concepts and principles learned, is required.
Learners are often very near to the immediate details of the problem and the proposedsolution because PBL is such an engaging, motivating, and immersing kind ofexperiential learning (Savery, 2006). It is necessary for the PBL learners to review that
before the solution of the problem, what was their level of knowledge, what they havelearnt and how well they did (Barrows, 1996).
2.7.1.7 At the end of each problem and each curricular unit, students should assessthemselves and their peers.
The preceding key trait of reflection on knowledge gains is closely tied to these evaluation
activities associated with the PBL process (Savery, 2006). It ensures the self-reflective
behavior of the learners.
2.7.1.8 Problem-based learning activities must be those that are related in the actual
world.
In the PBL process it is expected that learners should be assigned to solve real life
problems, so that the knowledge they gain in problem solving can contribute to theirlifelong learning.
2.7.1.9 Exams for students must track their progress toward problem-based learning
objectives.
PBL has both knowledge-based and process-based aims, and to ensure that students are
benefiting as intended from the PBL approach, they must be examined on both aspects atregular intervals (Savery, 2006). Here they need to self-recognize what they know, andthey have learnt in covering the curriculum for solving its problems.

25

2.7.1.10 Problem-based learning must be the pedagogical foundation of the curriculum,
not part of a didactic curriculum.
Problem-based learning must be the pedagogical foundation of the curriculum, not only
a supplement to it (Savery, 2006).

2.7.2 User-Centered Learning at LC
In todays` student–centered learning implies that students have a choice in what they
study and how they study (O’Neill & McMahon, 2005). A student-centered learning
strategy encourages students to take more responsibility for their own learning and is aprocess that significantly relies on professional confidence to 'let go' of standard teachingobligations (McCabe & O'Connor, 2014). Gibbs (1992) has defined student-centeredlearning as it, "gives students greater autonomy and control over choice of subject matter,learning methods and pace of study" (p. 23). So, in student-centered learning students aremuch more responsible to take charge of their learning and they can choose what to study,
how to study and set the learning goals by themselves.
Libraries are now in a paradigm shift from information resource-centric view to usercentric approach (Scupola & Nicolajsen, 2010). LC is a facilitator for user students toengage them in active learning in an out of classroom environment and helps them toconstruct knowledge by solving learning problems. As an informal learning space, LC
has introduced an emerging learning pedagogy by collaborating multiple support units
and tutoring and learning services. User students use LC spaces for pursuing their selfdirected learning and work collaboratively with their group mates. They are very muchopen to choose their own topics and methods by themselves and are responsible for theirown learning goals. So the student-centered learning at LC is nothing but user-centeredlearning (UCL) for libraries. It is a unique learning pedagogy in academia based on selfresponsible learning of LC users.

2.7.3 Group Learning (Collaborative Learning) at LC
The LC has inspired librarians and others on campus to consider the role of learning inlibraries in a variety of ways (Bennett, 2015). LC is an integrative and dynamic modelthat contextualizes information and offers collaborative workspaces where groupprocesses can modify knowledge in ways that reflect the large-scale growth of knowledge

26

in the culture around us will be more beneficial to them (Beagle, 1999). Here students
across the places were increasingly forming their own collaborative study groups toengage more deeply and frequently and sometimes quite adventurously with theircoursework and assignments (Bennett, 2003). LC offers a more comprehensive set oftechnology resources, more fully integrated services, and a wide selection of collaborative
work spaces with varying types, sizes, and adaptability (Bailey & Tierney, 2008, part 1).
The purpose of LC resources and services is to foster collaboration and group activity
among the learning mates. Students were increasingly forming their own collaborative
study groups to engage more deeply and, in some cases, more adventurously with theirschoolwork. Recognizing the value of this type of learning, many professors included
experiential and problem-solving materials in their classes and designed tasks toencourage collaboration (Bennett, 2003).

2.7.4 Informal Learning at LC
Learning Commons (LC) is a location where new ways of thinking and acting emerge(Bennett, 2015). It`s main goal is to facilitate student learning by leveraging theconvergence of materials, technology, and services in a physical space to link LCs`development with the requirements and aspirations of the `TechieGen` students (Beagle,
2012; Lippincott, 2006). As Bennett (2008) mentions that “the words academic,collaboration, teaching, technology, and media often appear in names, along with or in
the place of information and learning.” Those elements studies that focus on staff learning,
student learning, focal points of service delivery, and job redefinition are of particularimportance to an examination of learning paradigms founded in organizational change(Beagle, 2012). LC support for informal learning through face-to-face reference
encounters, group study rooms, and social areas (Beatty & White, 2005). This type ofopportunity creates the environment for informal learning for students (Lippincott, 2006).
In fact, they stimulate learning in a way that we can evaluate (Bennett, 2015).
LC creates group study rooms, cafes, display areas, digital lab, tutor zone and digital
resources to facilitate users learning in this area. It offers the opportunity for formal andinformal learning in an out of class space to work in groups to solve their course studies
problems. Basically, when students are learning at LC they use the three interrelated andinterdependent levels: of the Physical Commons, the Virtual Commons, and the Cultural

27

Commons (Beagle, 2006; Beagle, 2008). They use the services, resources and spaces toengage in collaborative works among the peers in solving the course work learning issues.
It is a unique place to pursue informal learning in an out of class environment in academia.

2.7.5 Knowledge Creation and Sharing at LC
A learning commons would be based on the social elements of learning and knowledge,
and it would be run by students for a variety of learning goals that change often (Bennett,
2003). It extends the "electronic continuum of knowledge media" to place a greater
emphasis on knowledge creation and construction (Bailey & Tierney, 2008). The
fundamental activity of a learning commons, unlike an information commons, would becollaborative learning, in which students turn information into knowledge and,occasionally, wisdom (Bennett, 2003). Collaborative learning is based on the Kuhnianconcept that knowledge is a consensus; it is something that people create together throughdiscussion (Bruffee, 1999). As cited by Beagle (2012) that Nagata (2008) is working on
a project that looks at IC and LC spaces as manifestations of the Japanese notion of the`ba`. According to Nagata (2008), the two Commons should share the role of `Ba' whichis crucial in fostering knowledge and learning among the student users during course
studies and problem solving. Knowledge is not a preformed, static substance and it is inperpetual flux, where learning entails active participation in the changing processes(Beagle, 1999). Accordingly, LC offers collaborative and interactive learning spaces forstudents. Learners are creating knowledge during the group process of learning, and theyshare that knowledge among the group mates for generating new ideas and solving
problems. Constructivism is a learning metaphor that compares the process of acquiringknowledge to that of building or construction (Fox, 2001).

2.8 Problem-Based Learning (PBL) Cycle Phases
In the PBL method, students accept responsibility for their own learning, and the teacher
primarily functions as a motivator for them to solve problems from the curriculum. Students
are assigned to solve real-world problems related to their coursework. They are encouraged
to collaborate for their problem solving process and collect new information to mix with theprevious information. Students need to be self-directed for sharing and acquisition ofknowledge on the way to solve their problems. At the end of the process, they need to assessthemselves and their peers to self-recognize what they know and what they have learnt.

28

PBL method has several interrelated phases that students need to go through to complete theircoursework curriculum. Throughout the phases it needs several days to weeks to complete
the curriculum. Hmelo-Silver (2004) has delineated PBL phases as a cycle of tutorial

process

Figure 2.4 The Problem-Based Learning Cycle Phases (Hmelo-Silver, 2004, p. 237)
where students are posed with a problem situation. She states the phases as, ``They
formulate and analyze the problem by identifying the relevant facts from the scenario.
This fact-identification step helps students represent the problem. As students understandthe problem better, they generate hypotheses about possible solutions. An important partof this cycle is identifying knowledge deficiencies relative to the problem. Theseknowledge deficiencies become what are known as the learning issues that students
research during their self-directed learning (SDL). Following SDL, students apply their
new knowledge and evaluate their hypotheses in light of what they have learned. At thecompletion of each problem, students reflect on the abstract knowledge gained`` (HmeloSilver, 2004).

29

In their study Mergendoller, Maxwell and Bellisimo, (2006) has mentioned seveninterrelated PBL phases of problem definition, problem framing, knowledge inventory,
problem research and resources, problem twist, problem log, problem exit, and problem
debriefing are all steps in the problem-solving process. Mohd-Yusof, Helmi, Jamaludin
and Harun (2011) have shown that a typical PBL cycle consists of three phases. Theseare:

Figure 2.5 Typical PBL Cycle (Mohd-Yusof, Helmi, Jamaludin, & Harun, 2011, p. 13)
Phase 1: problem restatement and identification,
Phase 2: peer teaching, synthesis of information, and solution formulation, andPhase 3: generalization, closure and reflection.
English and Kitsantas, (2013) has summarized all the learning activities of PBL cycle inthree main phases and they have shown a relationship between the activities of ProblemBased Learning (PBL) and Self-Regulated Learning (SRL). Their phases for PBL are: 1)
project/problem launch, 2) guided inquiry and product/solution creation, and 3)
project/problem conclusion.

30

Figure 2.6 Relationships of the phases of PBL and SRL (English & Kitsantas, 2013, p. 133)

2.8.1 PBL Phases in Learning Commons
Nowadays, PBL is gaining interest among the educationists because of its active
collaboration and increased motivation of students for learning. All the learning activities
of PBL students need not to be done within the classroom in the presence of their teachers.
Students are usually allowed to do some activities outside of their classroom and most of
the time they go to their library to use LC spaces. Thus, LC provides services and tools
to support PBL activities of its user students and the environment of LC is very muchsuitable for user-centered learning. Based on the above-mentioned literature this study
has identified the PBL cycle phases from the perspective of learning commons (LC) users
as follows:

2.8.1.1 Phase 1: Problem Identification
The students in the first phase of PBL cycle are presented with real world complex
problems which do not have a single answer. In the beginning students learn about thedriving question of the problem statement and the learning objectives (Mergendoller,

31Maxwell & Bellisimo, 2006). Students would use current knowledge, inquiry, and otherlearning processes to develop an original response to this topic, rather than looking up theanswer in a textbook (English & Kitsantas, 2013).
The problem-solving approach creates a clear picture of the learning issue (English &Kitsantas, 2013; Hmelo-Silver, 2004). To work with learning issues in out of class spaces,
students go to the LC to engage in learning. Students use LC to solve challenges related
to learning, such as assignments, presentations, projects, and exams. They strive to grasp
and describe the problem by various learning activities such as discussion, sharing,
feedback, and so on with their group mates.

2.8.1.2 Phase 2: Formulate Inquiry
In the next phase, the students formulate and analyze the problem by identifying the key
facts from the complex situation which helps them to represent the problem (HmeloSilver, 2004). As cited from Mergendoller, Maxwell and Bellisimo, (2006) by English &Kitsantas (2013) that gathering knowledge, producing meaning, reflecting, and testing
discoveries (via evidence checking, experimentation, application of logic and reason, andinput from peers and the teacher), and revising as needed are all part of the iterative cycleof PBL activities. Here the students determine what they need to know more to start theinquiry, try to identify the knowledge gap about the problem and they formulate
hypotheses for the solution. Students may consult websites, TV and they may go to thelibrary and get books and DVDs (English & Kitsantas, 2013).
Students working in LC use inquiry to try to come up with the questions they need toknow in order to solve challenges (English & Kitsantas, 2013; Hmelo-Silver, 2004). Theycollect information/knowledge from a variety of sources and share it with their peers inorder to identify knowledge gaps that may be investigated further. This is the peak time
when user students use the LCs` designated learning tools and spaces to collaborate with
their peers and take help from the tutoring staff for furthering the inquiry and closing theknowledge gap. In this way the out of class spaces of LC helps them to collaborate andgenerate hypotheses.

32

2.8.1.3 Phase 3: Knowledge Sharing and Acquisition
This study has identified knowledge sharing and acquisition as a new phase of the PBL
cycle. Identifying knowledge gaps in relation to the problem is an important aspect of thiscycle and these gaps are known as the learning issues that students research during theirself-directed learning (SDL) of PBL (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). The students create questions
based on self-identified knowledge gaps, and they use these questions to steer
independent study outside of the classroom, with research assignments distributed among
team members (Allen, Donham, & Bernhardt, 2011). In their learning process students
collect knowledge and share and acquire among them for creating new knowledge on theway to solve learning issues. In the first phase students try to find the knowledge gap andgradually they collect, share, acquire, create new knowledge, apply, and review what they
have learnt at the end of the phases. Thus, the knowledge sharing and acquisition process
begins in the first phase of the cycle and ends till the last phase before concluding thelearning problems.

Figure 2.7 Problem-Based Learning Cycle Phases in Learning Commons33

User students of LC are no exception to this knowledge sharing and acquisition practiceduring their PBL process. LC provides spaces and environment for the collaboration oflearners to share and acquire knowledge among them. Students use information resources
and take help from the LC staff to collect information about their problem topics. LCs`
group work opportunity for the learners gives them the chance to identify knowledge gaps
and they share and acquire new knowledge for solving the learning problems.

2.8.1.4 Phase 4: Solution Creation
In this phase students build hypotheses about possible solutions as they have a deeper
understanding of the problem (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). Students would share their findings
with one another, interpret them, come up with new ideas and discoveries, and decide
how best to convey their findings (English & Kitsantas, 2013). They try to summarize
what they knew in the beginning and what they have learnt within the scaffolding process.
Students then use their findings to construct a final product or solution that not only
addresses the driving issue but also displays their conceptual grasp and achievement of
the learning goal (English & Kitsantas, 2013). It is needed for students to retain and apply
new knowledge with the problem situations when they are preparing the solution (Allen,
Donham, & Bernhardt, 2011).
In this stage students start thinking about the possible solution of the problem. They strive
to make sense of the information gathered by coming up with fresh ideas and looking forthe best answer (Allen, Donham, & Bernhardt, 2011; English & Kitsantas, 2013).
Students start to practice their tentative solutions in the LCs` designated classrooms,
writing lab, digital labs and take help from their teachers as well as LC staff to reach aconcrete answer.

2.8.1.5 Phase 5: Problem Conclusion
This is the last phase of the PBL cycle where students present their final solution to the
problem. Students consider the project goals and expectations in relation to the overall
learning outcomes and process outcomes (Mergendoller, Maxwell & Bellisimo, 2006).
They continue to designate new areas of essential learning as they progress through thestages of a difficult problem in search of a solution (Allen, Donham, & Bernhardt, 2011).
During this phase students present their idea or solution, as well as how they arrived at34

their conclusions (English & Kitsantas, 2013). They summarize their findings and present
the final solution to meet the learning goals of their coursework.
In LC, for presenting the final conclusion of the problem, students prepare the final
presentation in collaboration with their group mates and also take help from its tutoring
staff. Through collaboration and group discussion in the LC`s designated space they reachthe problem conclusion. Student groups generally move through the phases in the orderindicated but may return to a previous phase or linger in a phase as they consider a particularly
difficult part of the problem (Mergendoller, et.al, 2006). In order to be successful in the PBL
process it needs the students to be more responsible for their own learning. This includes

self-regulatory activities such as maintaining motivation, setting goals, tracking progress,
and reflecting on oneself. (English & Kitsantas, 2013).

2.9 Problem-Based Learning at Learning Commons
PBL learners tackle contextual real-world problems through active participation in
problem-solving activities, as well as considerable networking, communication, andcollaboration (Brown, 2005). Students all across the world were increasingly forming
their own collaborative study groups in order to engage more deeply and, in some cases,
more daringly with their assignments (Bennett, 2003). Hmelo-Silver (2004) has identified
two key issues of PBL process which are very pertinent with the LC services. She(Hmelo-Silver, 2004) states that, ``first, all the approaches emphasize that learners areactively constructing knowledge in collaborative groups. Second, the roles of the student
and teacher are transformed. The teacher is no longer considered the main repository ofknowledge; she is the facilitator of collaborative learning ``.
The heart of LC is to provide collaborative spaces for actively engaging the learners inlearning and research. Learning in LC is a collaborative and interactive process including
students, tutors, instructors, information technologists, learning materials, and peers(Alam, Yoshida & Kohda, 2016). Moreover, during collaboration learning students are
creating new knowledge and sharing and acquisitioning knowledge among them in the
problem-solving process. Thus, the students themselves are playing the knowledgetransformer role in out of class space which has been introduced by LC. From the above
discussion it is already evident that LC has created the environment for pursuing PBL
activities for its users.

35

2.9.1 Theoretical Lens: PBL supported User-Centered Learning at LC
LC and learning are inseparable, and it is a designated space in the library for user students
to solve their learning issues. It is a new model of service delivery system in the academic
libraries which has introduced a `continuum of services` from a single location. Learningat LC is completely user-centered as today's student–centered learning implies thatstudents have a choice in what they study and how they study (O’Neill & McMahon,2005). In user-centered learning at LC students are responsible for their own learning andthey determine the course work learning problems to reach in the conclusion.
As an out of class space LC support for informal learning through face-to-face reference
encounters, group study rooms, and social areas (Beatty & White, 2005). LC grouplearning spaces have connected the library with the increased interest among faculty inproblem-based learning (PBL) of constructivist learning theory (Beagle, 2012). It is PBL
that supports LC users by confirming out of class activity for identifying, formulating,searching and sharing learning problems (Khasawneh, 2013). The fundamental approachof PBL is problem solving based learning. It's a learner-centered instructional (andcurricular) strategy that encourages students to conduct research, integrate theory andpractice, and use knowledge and skills to come up with a viable solution to a problem(Savery, 2006). In this approach learning starts with a posed problem which the students
try to reach in an answer. It makes them understand how to deal with the given problems
and also enhance their skills to work collaboratively and think logically. Students makeuse of what they already know about the problems they encounter. In course of learningthey create new knowledge and mix it with the old one by sharing and acquiring between
them and it continues till checking their hypothesis. In this way they follow the PBL cycle
phases of problem identification, formulate inquiry, solution creation and problem
conclusion and reach in the solution of the problems (English and Kitsantas, 2013;
Hmelo-Silver, 2004; Mergendoller, Maxwell and Bellisimo, 2006).
LC learners are creating knowledge during the group process of learning, and they shareknowledge among the group mates for generating new ideas and solving problems. They
play a knowledge transformer role among the group mates in the absence of their course
teacher. In LC collaborative learning, users actively construct knowledge byacquisitioning knowledge to their early knowledge base as they interpret new information

36

that they have already collected (Loyens & Gijbels, 2008). That is knowledge sharing andacquisition in the PBL process at LC helps the user students to reach the solution andcomplete the learning. Therefore, taking the transformer role of users for knowledge
sharing and acquisition into consideration the study has extended the PBL cycle phase forLC.
In research Nitecki and Simpson (2016) has studied the LC as informal learning
environments and the relationship between space and learning. It also emphasizes how
space facilitates learning. The findings of the study have assisted in specifying designs
for improved library spaces, advocating for the value the library environment provides
educational experiences, evaluating return on investment in renovation and construction,and contributing research to understanding the relationships between learning and space.
Alam, Yoshida and Kohda (2016) has determined a value co-creation framework to
explore the co-created learning value at LC. They found that diverse actors, such as
librarians, faculty members, commons staff, writing tutors and instruction designers,
students, and community members, engage and integrate resources to co-create value at
LC. To determine and address the different requirements of users, librarians collaborate,
communicate, and dialogue with them. According to their findings, knowledge creation,
learning skills enhancement, collaborative learning, generating knowledge products, andcollaborative co-design are the co-created learning values at LC. Hunter and Cox (2014)
have found that students are using information commons (IC) as informal learning space
for their learning. According to their findings, students reported that the surrounding
environment had a significant impact on their choice of study place, and that technicalequipment was only used rarely. Students modified their study habits to meet theirpreferred learning environments. In another study, Kim (2016) has tried to understand themeanings and the dimensions of a library as a place of study. This study's findings give
empirical evidence of users' perceptions of libraries as places, thereby advancing ourunderstanding of users and techniques for effective library space design. Moreover,studies have identified the factors affecting library space assessment, and relationship ofspace to an academic library’s purpose and ambitions (Nitecki, 2011). She mentioned thatas reader-centered, book-centered, and learning-centered, it suggests the nature ofessential parts of an assessment connected with different library paradigms. In sections
titled "space for accumulation, space for service, and space for learning," these three37

viewpoints on the library's purpose are briefly explained, along with corresponding
assessment perspectives. In their study, Harrop and Turpin (2013) has tried to judge thesuccessful informal learning space design within and outside of the library from thelearning theory, place making, and architecture perspectives. They investigated students'
attitudes, actions, and preferences regarding informal studying environments in higher
education, both inside and outside of the academic library. The learning spaces study adds
to the conversation on informal learning spaces design by generating a typology of nine
learning space preferences. The few studies on LC and learning theory have focused onuser learning. In his study Brown (2005) suggests that LC can adopt constructivist
learning theory where learners develop knowledge by understanding new information
while building on their existing knowledge and skills. In a study Beagle (2012) has
identified that LC group learning spaces have connected the library with the increased
interest among faculty in problem-based learning (PBL) of constructivist learning theory.
Finally, in his study Khasawneh (2013) has found that it is a problem-based learning(PBL) method that supports LC users by confirming out of class activity for identifying,
formulating, searching and solving learning problems. Learning commons support user
learning in out of class spaces for solving their learning problems. It is apparent thatlearning methods like PBL support LC learning and enhance user learning for solving
their course work learning problems. But due to lack of empirical evidence in theliterature, this research took the lens of PBL methods that support LC user selfresponsible, group learning and informal learning in out of class space and solving theircoursework learning problems and created a `Continuum of Learning` in LC.

2.10 Summary of Literature Review
By reviewing previously published books and papers, the study has focused on the state
and advancement of current literature on learning commons, problem-based learning,knowledge sharing, and user-centered learning at learning commons. All of these studies
demonstrated how LC, knowledge sharing and acquisition, and problem-based learning
are intertwined, and what LC must do if they want to provide user-centered PBL process
based creative services for their students. The review has evidenced that the current
Techie Gen (Techie Generation) students are demanding out of class collaborative
learning spaces to work with groups. Learning commons has taken the opportunity in38

academia, and they have initiated technology based collaborative spaces. In doing so theyneed to go beyond that and understand how users are using LC three interrelated andinterdependent levels: the physical commons, the virtual commons and the culturalcommons for learning (Beagle, 2006; Beagle, 2008).

Figure 2.8 Summary of Literature Review
There is a widespread agreement that, in the initial stage PBL learners try to find theirknowledge gaps and later they create new knowledge. In the absence of their teachers in
LC they play a knowledge transformer role through peer learning and teaching and forsolving the learning issues when they share and acquire that knowledge among them.
Here LC needs to increase the mediating facility for knowledge sharing and acquisition
to the self-responsible learners and patronize user-centered informal learning andresearch. Moreover, users of LC are PBL learners, and they evolve within its cycle phases
for concluding their learning problems. In general, PBL phases have taken into granted
that students are working in classes under the supervision of teachers, and they are
creating knowledge for solving the issues. In LC the picture is much different from thegeneral PBL process and users are responsible for their own learning and knowledge
sharing and acquisition. LC needs to offer the extended PBL phases to see the students’problem identification to problem conclusion phases including knowledge sharing andacquisition in an out of class environment. Learning commons has been regarded as a
new service dominant space in the academic libraries. Reviews have identified the gap
that it needs to check the LC use for leaning against the PBL phases of users. This study

39

has to shed light on LC services and take it out from its embryonic stage against the user
centered PBL learning.
This research has focused on user learning at LC of academic libraries. There was noevidence that any research has tried to check user learning and learning methods in out
of class spaces. In the literature review of this study, it has been found that earlier research
has tried to focus on how LC space facilitate learning and tried to judge the successful
informal learning space design within and outside of library from the learning theory,
place making, and architecture perspectives (Harrop & Turpin, 2013; Khasawneh, 2013;
Nitecki & Simpson, 2016; Nitecki, 2011). It has motivated the researchers of this study
to take the lens of user learning at LC and found that user learning at LC is supported byproblem-based learning (PBL) method.

40

Chapter 3: Research Methodology

3.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses and justify the methodological approach and methods used in thisexamination of the user-centered learning at learning commons. The researchmethodology should be developed in accordance with the research goal and questions of
the study (Onwuegbuzie, Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2003). Leedy and Ormrod (2001) define
research methodology as the comprehensive steps taken by a researcher before beginninga research project (p. 14). The methodologies employed for quantitative aspects of thestudy are covered to address the research question driving this study, as well as the mainparts of data analysis. The chapter goes through the research design in detail, with thegoal of clarifying the data collection, analysis, and interpretation employed in this study.
For conducting the survey constructs were determined from the literature review uponwhich data collection instrument was developed.

3.2 Quantitative Approach
Quantitative research, qualitative research, and mixed method research are the three broadtypes of research techniques that are often employed in the social sciences as well as
research in Library and Information Science (Neuman, 2007; Williamson, 2013). The
literature supports the use of quantitative tools in interpretative research like the current
study (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992). Quantitative research uses measurable data, as well as
statistical analysis, to answer the research questions "what" and "how many" regarding
the phenomenon under investigation (Babbie, 2011). Checking the variables from theliterature and the relevant elements of the study all required access to a large research
population which is possible in quantitative tools. Quantitative research entails gathering
data in order to quantify information and apply it to statistical analysis in order to support
or refute competing knowledge assertions (Williams, 2011). Apuke (2017) explainsquantitative research methods as the process of acquiring data in numerical form andevaluating it using mathematical approaches, particularly statistics, to understand aproblem or phenomenon. Therefore, the present study has adopted the quantitative41

research approach in order to get insights from a large population and generate statistical,
quantitative data.

3.3 Survey Design
The main objective of the research was to empirically confirm the problem-based learning(PBL) supported user informal learning at learning commons (LC). Survey research is a
research design that involves surveying a subset or the total population to acquire
information on the population's characters, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. Survey
research is defined as “the collection of information from a sample of individuals throughtheir responses to questions” (Check & Schutt, 2012). This sort of research provides fora wide range of ways for recruiting participants, collecting data, and using various
instrumentation techniques (Ponto, 2015). Survey research supports quantitative research
approach and use of questionnaire instruments with numerical scale (i.e., Likert Scale)for getting an overall perception of the population. As the quantitative approach is a morescientific and reliable one to dig into the problem, a structured questionnaire was needed
to develop (Eyisi, 2016). Therefore, the study adopted the survey research design andconducted an online survey in the learning commons of university libraries of Japan. The
study conducted the survey in the university libraries of Japan Advanced Institute of
Science and Technology (JAIST), Kanazawa University and Nagoya University. A totalof 105 respondents participated in the survey and among them 53 students are from
Kanazawa University, 45 students are from JAIST, 2 students from Nagoya University
and 5 intern, special and certificate students are from outside of Japan. JAIST and
Kanazawa University respondents formed 93.1% of the total responses in the survey. The
researchers also tried to include two other renowned university libraries in the survey
from outside of Ishikawa Prefecture and contacted them through email. But one of them
directly regretted conducting the survey in their library and the other one was taking avery long time to complete their official procedures for the permission. Owing to the time
limitations of the research and to complete the survey in due time, we failed to conduct
the survey in the later one. As a result, the study completed the online survey in the abovementioned three universities of Japan. The research goal would be met by using a variety
of statistical analysis approaches to the acquired respondent survey dataset, as explained
below.

42

This study took the lens of learning at LC to check whether PBL method supports the user
learning. Apart from that, as the researcher is not efficient in Japanese language, it is very
common to make mistakes in communication with others in interaction. So, the survey
only included the users, but not the other stakeholders of LC like librarians, support staff
and other students.

3.4 Online Survey Questionnaire
Three main types of survey research methods are found in the literature including theonline/email, phone and face-to-face. Depending on the survey method type andaccording to its time, either questionnaire or interview survey instruments are used togather the responses from the respondents. For this study, we have taken the opportunity
to conduct the online survey as it is preferred by the participant. Due to the cost-effective
process, ease of completion for users compared to paper-based surveys, and flexibility offollow-up with

Figure 3.1 Kanazawa University Central Library circulated posters and drop box
43relatively inconspicuous reminders, online surveys have the potential for better response
rates (Perkins, 2011). A well-designed questionnaire is a crucial component of a
successful and well-justified quantitative study (Creswell, 2003). Therefore, in order toperform the online survey, a questionnaire was developed that was deemed to be thegreatest fit for the participant. The study used an online questionnaire and was emailed tothe student mailing list of JAIST. The Kanazawa University Library authority circulated
posters and drop boxes in the Central Library entrance attaching the printed copy of theonline questionnaire and some respondents of the Nagoya University were in personal
email contact of the researchers. Because of the participants' ease of access, Google Forms
was employed as an online survey collecting tool (Majid, 2014; Yip, Lo, Ho & Chiu,
2021) to reach a larger audience. It has identified six constructs and the survey instrumentused was developed from the relevant literature review. The questionnaire consisted of
26 questions (item) and a seven-point Likert scale was used ranging from 1= strongly
disagree to 7= strongly agree. Google Forms allows you to automatically record replies
and export them to an MS-Excel spreadsheet. The questionnaire contained a 'Definitionof Key Terms' section to help participants understand their unfamiliar terms.

3.5 Study Area
The study was conducted at Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (JAIST),
Kanazawa University and Nagoya University. They are the public universities in Japan.
The first two universities are in Ishikawa Prefecture and the later one is in Aichi
Prefecture of Japan. These three university libraries have established learning commonsfor their user students and serve with a good reputation to the community.

3.6 Population and Sample
For each empirical investigation, sample selection is crucial, and enough diversity should
be ensured so that acceptable results can be produced from statistical analyses (Alolah,
Stewart, Panuwatwanich & Mohamed, 2014). Rather than statistical requirements,
sample selection needs to be based on a theoretical perspective (Yin, 2009). The
population of this study was the users of learning commons (LC) at Japan Advanced
Institute of Science and Technology (JAIST) Library, Kanazawa University Central
Library and Nagoya University Library. In search of deep insight about learning at LC
the study used a purposive sample by a confined survey participant to LC users. The
44

sample included the bachelor, master, doctoral, certificate, special and visiting studentsof those three universities. For widening the global view of the study, certificate, special
and visiting students were included who were studying in the mentioned three Japanese
universities. Which has brought the opportunity to get varied responses from theTable 3.1 Population and sample of the study
Academic Institution

Country

Respondent

Central European University

Kosovo1

JAIST (Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology)

Japan

45

Kanazawa University

Japan

53

Mount Royal University

Canada1

Nagoya University

Japan

2

New Platz State University of New YorkUSA

1South West University of Science and Technology

China

1

University Toulouse

France

1

Total

N=105

university students of the USA, Canada, France, Kosovo and China. A total of 105
respondents participated in the survey and among them 53 students are from Kanazawa
University, 45 students are from JAIST which formed 93.1% of the total responses in thesurvey. Due to the limitation in Japanese language the researcher failed to include more
universities as a sample of the study.

3.7 Data Collection
The study used the quantitative approach to define the problem and conducted an online
survey for collecting data. For this purpose, a structured questionnaire was developed anddistributed to the respondents since the quantitative technique is more scientific anddependable for digging into the topic (Eyisi, 2016). Data were collected through surveys
from JAIST, Kanazawa University and Nagoya University of Japan during the months ofJune and July 2017. The online questionnaire was emailed to the student of JAIST byusing the university student email list. The Kanazawa University Central Libraryauthority circulated posters and drop box in the entrance attaching the printed copy of theonline45

Table 3.2 Responses of primary data collection
Institutions
JAIST
Kanazawa University

Responses
45
53

Percent
42.9
50.2

Nagoya University
Other universities

2
5

1.9
5.0

N=105

100

Total

Method to reach questioner
Student email list
Printed copy of online
questionnaire
Personal email
Student email list/ Printed copy of
online questionnairequestionnaire for the convenience of the respondents. Moreover, some respondents of the
Nagoya University were in personal contact with the researchers and the questionnaire
was directly emailed to them. Out of 105 respondents, 45 respondents took part from
JAIST and 53 respondents are from Kanazawa University. 5 international students also
took part in the survey as they were staying in those three universities during that time asintern, special and certificate students.

3.8 Data Analysis
The analysis of the questionnaire data for this study was mostly done with the SPSSTM
25 program and also MS-Excel. It has used the Google Drive platform as a survey
collection tool. From the original replies, the online dataset was tallied in MS-Excel andthen translated to SPSS. The collected dataset was tabulated in three independent projects(JAIST, KU, and NU) and then compiled into a single Excel file. A total of 105 students
from the three universities took part in the survey. The study adopted Partial Least
Squares – Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) method to examine the factors orvariables and their interaction with the dependent variable. PLS-SEM is a generally
established approach for research with a sufficient amount of data and theoreticalunderstanding (Alolah, Stewart, Panuwatwanich, & Mohamed, 2014; Hair, Risher,
Sarstedt & Ringle, 2019). PLS-SEM employed a two-step model validation procedure,
first examining and validating the measurement model and then testing the proposed
theoretical structure, as stated in this technique (Babin & Attaway, 2000; Gerbing &Anderson, 1992).

46

3.9 A Brief Acquaintance of the Surveyed University LC
3.9.1 JAIST Learning Commons (J-BEANS)
The Learning Commons of JAIST started its journey in November, 2011 with a nickname
J-BEANS. Among several other activities, this space is mainly used for group learningand presentation. It is a gathering area for students, faculty, and staff to study and share
intellectual ideas together. The room is bright, barrier-free, and has no blind sheet,allowing people to use it freely. Users can utilize it to gather information and, of course,
to connect with other people. A group meeting or an event can be held in the room withprior reservation. Comfortable tables and chairs are there for encouraging group learning
activities which can be moved around the room as desired. Also, some other low heightdesks can be used for Japanese style sitting on the floor.

Figure 3.2 JAIST learning commons J-BEANS

3.9.2 J-BEANS: the Meaning of the Nickname of JAIST LC
The seats and tables in this area are designed like beautiful green peas. With friendly lovein the image of beans it has been named as "J-BEANS (Jay Beans)" that are packed up
warmly together in harmony in a pod. When a bean germinates, it shoots rapidly towards
the sky, forming a pod that is firmly packed with beans. In other terms, the bean might be47viewed as a sign of "unlimited expanse" of possibility. J-BEANS becomes a place whereindividuals develop their knowledge and thoughts, where everyone germinates and grows
ideas, like one bean grows into a hundred or thousand more (beans).

Figure 3.3 Group learning at J-BEANS

Figure 3.4 Japanese style sitting in J-BEANS
48

3.9.3 Learning at JAIST LC
JAIST students, faculty and course tutors are the main users of its LC. They use this spacefor course work problem solving during the semesters. As an out of class space, it
encourages learners to gather for group learning with their course mates. During thesemester students are assigned several learning issues like assignments, presentations,exams, report writing, minor research, etc. from their courses. User students gather here
to work with their group mates to solve those learning issues. J-BEANS doesn't assign
tutoring staff to help its users in learning. Most of the time course tutors use this space towork with their fellow students for solving the course work learning problems. Course
tutors join or bring with their user student groups in LC and help them to solve theirlearning issues. J-BEANS has sufficient arrangement of projectors, screens, display board,
VGA adapter, etc. for the practice and rehearsal with the solution of the learning issues.
In this way the learners try to reach the problem conclusion.
Moreover, as a social commons, every month J-BEANS arrange lecture series, logic
series, workshops, etc. for the LC users. It brings the opportunity for the users to learn
unknown topics to generate new ideas and share their knowledge with others for theirbrain storming. Users can reserve J-BEANS for any occasion or a group meeting with
their peers or local people. J-BEANS is a super hub for the students of JAIST as acommon space for informal learning within the campus.

Figure 3.5 Out of class problem-based learning for course work at JAIST LC
49

3.9.4 Kanazawa University Learning Commons
The Kanazawa University Central Library provides the learning commons (LC) services
to the learners for group study and various learning activities including information
resources. These are the designated spaces for students to use for learning, education,
research, classes, seminars, etc. Sufficient furniture including movable desks and chairs,
whiteboards, projectors are in there for comfortable informal learning. Learners areallowed to talk and drink in the designated spaces during their group learning without
disturbing others. To support the local and global learners for learning and make theiracademic life easy, the LC has sufficient tutoring staff to cooperate with them. The LC
services have been located in different floors and designated spaces of the library which
are mentioned below.
3.9.4.1 Book Lounge
It is the communication space for the learners near the entrance of the Central Library.
Learners can arrange events like lecture, presentation, movie screening, etc. with priorappointment. They also can exhibit the club activities, research projects, etc. in the`Gallery α` exhibition space of this lounge. There is a café in this space which servescoffee to the learners. It is the most vibrant space of the LC where learners can talk,Figure 3.6 Book lounge space of Kanazawa University Central Library LC
50read newspapers, watch TV, eat and drink, communicate and collaborate for learning.

Figure 3.7 Book lounge coffee café in LC
3.9.4.2 Open Studio (I & II)
It is an open studio space where students can study in collaboration with peers orindividuals. Students can use part of the studio for a class or a seminar with prior

Figure 3.8 Open studio of Central Library LC
51

appointment. They can use desks, chairs, projectors, whiteboard, screens, etc. during theirlearning activities.
3.9.4.3 Global Communication Studio
Mainly this space is designed to support the international students in their learning as wellas information is provided to make their everyday life easy. To support the self-study ofthe international students the LC has Learning Concierge for International Students(LeCIS) service. On the other side, students self-learning is supported by the learning
advisers of

Figure 3.9 LeCIS and learning support desk in LC
this space. The global communication studio holds a unique learning strategy within theuniversity campus. In everyday situations they try to make communication among thedomestic and international students. For this reason, the LC arranges a foreign language
learning program, discussion of different topics by the international students for domestic
students.
3.9.4.4 Group Studio (A and B)
These are the highly designated spaces for group study of the learners. They can arrange
seminars and workshops for their group study in these studios. To reach the course work
problem conclusion they can practice and rehearsal their presentation in this dedicatedspace. Students need to reserve the studio before use.
52

Figure 3.10 Group Studio in LC
3.9.4.5 Polaris Studio
It is a bit of an isolated closed space in the LC for the students where they can study andarrange a class or seminar. The library also exhibits their precious materials, works ofalumni and KU staff in this space in a display case.

3.10 Chapter Summary
The methodologies utilized in this study have been described in depth in this chapter. For
this study, the quantitative research technique was chosen as an acceptable means ofgathering data to answer the research question and objectives. The research design
selected was a survey method, in which qualitative data was gathered to determine usercentered learning supported by Problems-Based Learning (PBL) at Learning Commons(LC) in academic libraries. The study conducted an online survey and therefore an online
was emailed to the student mailing list of JAIST, printed copy to Kanazawa University
Library authority and personally to some respondents of the Nagoya University.
Purposive sampling method was used in the study to get deep insight about learning at
LC. The sample included the bachelor, master, doctoral, certificate, special and visiting
students of those three universities. The population of the study was the users of Learning
Commons (LC) at Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (JAIST) Library,53

Kanazawa University Library and Nagoya University Library. In search of deep insightabout learning at LC the study used a purposive sample by a confined survey participant
to LC users. Collected data was analyzed by using Partial Least Squares – Structural
Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) method and presented the results in tables and figures.

54

Chapter 4: User-Centered Problem-Based Learning at
Learning Commons
4.1 Introduction
Academic libraries provide resources and information, initiate spaces, and personal andvirtual assistance to encourage learners to pursue their studies in an out of classenvironment (Lippincott, 2005). The user community of this age is demanding wider
access to print, digital and multimedia sources of information and expecting assistancefor their learning and research (MacWhinnie, 2003). Nowadays users are very techie andnetwork dependent and want to search information independently. They are expecting
interactive spaces to work in collaboration for their learning (Thomas & McDonald, 2005).
Academic libraries have been facing a paradigm shift to user-centric approach to meet thediverse needs of users and introduced learning commons (LC) for meaningful services(Alam, Umemoto & Yoshida, 2016). LC provides physical, technological, social andintellectual spaces and offers learners, researchers and information professionals to
pursue numerous learning and research curricula and activities (Bailey, 2006). It is aunique service from the library where librarians and commons staff collaborate with users
for learning by teaching to solve the problems of assignments, research, writing, technicalsupport, program on information literacy, faculty development, curricula development
and so on. LC creates an environment of combined understanding of user needs together
with library commons staff and users for their learning. Learners come and use the LC
services and resources for solving their learning problems of course studies together with
their group mates. Several studies have identified libraries as a social and learning place
where learners and library staff are sharing and using information and knowledge forteaching and learning (Beagle, 1999; Jain, 2013; Maury, 2012; Somerville, & Collins,2008). Learning at LC has created the context of knowledge sharing and acquisition
among the learners on the way to conclude the problems. It is a collaborative andinteractive social space which combines users, services, and resources to use for learning.
Since LC has a different setting from the conventional classroom, they need to use
different techniques and learning methods to lead to success. Learning methods can help
the LC authority for better understanding of how users are using this space for theirlearning problem solving. Apart from that, they will be able to rearrange their learning55

support services based on the learning methods followed by the users. Like other learning
methods, problem-based learning (PBL) supports the learners to identify course studies
problems, formulate inquiry, knowledge sharing and acquisition, determine the tentative
solution and conclude for solving their learning problems. It is PBL that supports LC
users by confirming out of class activity for identifying, formulating, searching, andsolving learning problems (Khasawneh, 2013). This study investigates how the LC use
experience of learners helps them to actively collaborate for creating meaning(knowledge) and solve coursework problems within an out of class PBL environment.

4.2 Objectives of the Study
The objective of this study is to understand how PBL methods prevail in an out of classenvironment and help to leverage the use of a dedicated learning space like LC. Thus, tosee that LC use for learning supports PBL learners as well as helps them to create andshare knowledge for problem conclusion and make the authority understand how the users
are using this learning space. To achieve this, following research questions (RQs) were
designed:
RQ1: How do learners use LC tools and services for solving their course studies learning
problems?
RQ2: To what extent knowledge sharing and acquisition support users to identify
learning problems, formulate inquiry, solution creation and problem conclusion inlearning?
RQ3: How do LC users learning problem identification practice encourage them to learn
and formulate inquiry?
RQ4: How does formulate inquiry motivate learners in solution creation of learning
problems?
RQ5: How does solution creation positively direct learners for problem conclusion at
LC?
RQ6: How do problem conclusion solve problems and complete user learning at LC?
There are five phases of the PBL method which leads the learners from problem
identification to problem conclusion. LC users are coming to this space for solving their56

course related problems. The authority of LC has furnished some dedicated services andfacilities (lecture seminar, events, writing support, academic support, etc.) to help thoselearners without employing any learning method. It is evident that PBL supports the users
learning problem solving in an out of class environment. This study is the first effort ofits type to carry out empirical measures to check that the PBL method supports user`slearning at LC. The output of the study will give more insight of the authority to dig into
the matter and employ need-based learning methods for users learning.

4.3 PBL at LC Structural Model
LC is a new model of service delivery system where librarians and users collaborate tomeet the user`s learning needs. The purpose of this study is to see if PBL learners actively
interact at learning commons to use its resources and spaces for sharing and obtaining
knowledge in order to develop new meaning (knowledge) for addressing problems thathave been posed in their coursework. PBL is an instruction-based method where students
learn through facilitated problem solving that centers on a complex problem that does nothave a single correct answer (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). It is a learner-centered approach thatempowers learners to conduct research, integrate theory and practice, and apply
knowledge and skills to develop solutions to a defined problem (Savery, 2006). Learning
activities in PBL occur in three phases which have been conceptualized from
Mergendoller et al. (2006) and English & Kitsantas (2013) to develop the theoreticalmodel of the problem-based learning of users at learning commons. Later the Phase 2(Guided Inquiry and Product/Solution Creation) was divided into two separate phases by
the researchers and `formulate inquiry` and `solution creation` was determined as phases.
Thus this study takes `problem identification`, `formulate inquiry`, `solution creation` and`problem conclusion` as PBL phases. Besides that, Hmelo-Silver (2004) has determined
Knowledge Deficiencies as a phase of PBL cycle. Based on that phase this research adopts`knowledge sharing and acquisition` as a phase of the PBL process. All those five phases
have been identified as the construct of the study and survey was conducted to check therelationship among the five constructs. Initial construct `problem identification` is theindependent variable whereas rest of the constructs formulate inquiry`, `solution creation`,`problem conclusion`, `knowledge sharing and acquisition` and `LC use for learning` are
the dependent variables.

57

Figure 4.1 Hypothesized Model of Problem-Based Learning at Learning Commons

To initiate the research methodologically and to check the epistemological relationshipamong the constructs seven hypotheses were formulated.

4.4 Formulation of Hypothesis
Researchers have suggested formulating the research questions and hypothesis before thestart of the study (Farrugia, Petrisor, Farrokhyar & Bhandari, 2010). Based on the PBL
model of Mergendoller et al. (2006) and English & Kitsantas (2013) phases of problem
identification, formulate inquiry, solution creation and problem conclusion has been
considered as the construct of the study. In her PBL cycle study, Hmelo-Silver (2004) has
determined knowledge deficiencies as one of the vital phases during learning. It was
depicted that during learning learners apply their new knowledge to create ideas andevaluate the hypothesis towards creating solutions. In addition, as the research attempts
to investigate the knowledge sharing perspective of users during learning, it takes
knowledge sharing and acquisition as a phase of PBL. Based on those constructs thisstudy formulates the mentioned hypothesis following deductive approach to guide theresearch.

58

4.4.1 LC Use for Learning (LCUL)LC provides various services, spaces and resources for enhancing learning among thestudents in the library building with a combined effort of students, librarians, faculty,
commons staff, tutoring staff, writing tutors and instructional designers. LC has integrated
traditional library elements with the recent information technologies for creating a vibrantatmosphere to support the joint effort of learning with collaboration and interaction. The‘Commons Model’ of Donald R. Beagle (2006) has combined three interrelated andinterdependent levels of LC; the Physical Commons, the Virtual Commons and the
Cultural Commons. The first level Physical Commons includes computer hardware,
furnishings, designated spaces and traditional library collections (Beagle, 2006, p. 8). The
second level, the Virtual Commons, contains the digital library collections, e-learning
tools and online tools (search engines, productivity software, etc.) of the library. The thirdlevel, the Cultural Commons, is made up of social resources like workshops, tutoring
programs, research collaborations, coaching etc. (Beagle, 2006, p. 8). Social, cultural andpolitical envelope of cultural commons supports and extends the physical commons andvirtual commons and these are the enabler for learning in LCs (Beagle, 2006, p. 5). The
users of LC make use of services and resources from those three levels of commons intheir course studies learning problem solving process. So, the LC gets connected with thefour phases of PBL and also with the knowledge sharing and acquisition process oflearning. Therefore, the study formulates the hypothesis as;
H1: LC use for learning has statistically significant relation with learning problem
identification.
H2: LC use for learning has statistically positive relation with formulate inquiry.
H3: LC use for learning has statistically significant relation with knowledge sharing
and acquisition.
H4: LC use for learning has statistically positive relation with solution creation oflearning.
H5: LC use for learning has statistically significant relation with learning problem
conclusion.

4.4.2 Knowledge Sharing and Acquisition (KSA)
Knowledge sharing and acquisition plays a role in every aspect of solving assigned
learning problems. This activity helps the users to gather previous knowledge and share59

knowledge among the groupmates and they integrate those with their own knowledge
base and try to generate new ideas on the way to solve problems (Hmelo-Silver, 2004).
Learner`s knowledge sharing and acquisition process has a contributing relationship withproblem identification, formulate inquiry, solution creation and problem conclusion
phases of PBL. Thus, it leads to the following hypothesis:
H6: Knowledge sharing and acquisition has statistically significant relationship withlearning problem identification at LC.
H7: Knowledge sharing and acquisition has statistically positive effects on formulateinquiry.
H8: Knowledge sharing and acquisition has statistically significant influence on
solution creation.
H9: Knowledge sharing and acquisition has statistically positive relation with problem
conclusion.

4.4.3 Problem Identification (PI)
Problem identification process develops a clear idea about the learning problem (English& Kitsantas, 2013; Hmelo-Silver, 2004). Students use LC for solving their learning
problems such as assignments, presentations, projects and examinations. Through various
learning activities like discussion, sharing, feedback, etc. with group mates they try tounderstand and define the problem. After the completion of the problem identification
phase the next phase formulate inquiry begins. Therefore, the study formulates the
hypothesis as;
H10: Problem identification practice has statistically significant relation with formulateinquiry.

4.4.4 Formulate Inquiry (FI)Through inquiry students who are working in LC try to create the questions that they needto know for solving the problems (English & Kitsantas, 2013; Hmelo-Silver, 2004). They
gather information/knowledge from different sources and share it among group mates tofind the knowledge gap for further query. In this way they develop hypotheses for creating
best possible solutions of the problem. Therefore, it formulates the hypothesis;
H11: Formulate inquiry has statistically significant relation with solution creation.
60

4.4.5 Solution Creation (SC) and Problem Conclusion (PC)In this stage students start thinking about the possible solution of the problem. They try
to make sense of the collected knowledge by developing new ideas and searching for thebest solution (Allen, Donham, & Bernhardt, 2011; English & Kitsantas, 2013). It leads
them to the final phase of problem conclusion where students are prepared for submitting
their overall learning outcome and process outcome. LC learners use the presentation
support center, collaborative learning spaces, and community spaces to work with groupmates for creating solutions to their learning issues and try to prepare the tentative
conclusion (Lippincott, 2006; McMullen, 2008). During their rehearsal of the candidate
solution in LC presentation support spaces they integrate group feedback and revise thesolution and try to evaluate its accuracy. Through numerous practices and revisions, they
combine the collected knowledge with the old concept and prepare the final presentation
for best conclusion. Thus, it leads to the following hypothesis:
H12: Solution creation has statistically significant relation with problem conclusion.

4.5 Methodology
The aim of the survey is to get a deep insight about the problem-solving practice oflearners at LC and to ascertain the influence of knowledge sharing in the learning problem
solving cycle. The study relied upon the quantitative approach to define the problem andconducted the survey for collecting data. As the quantitative approach is a more scientificand reliable one to dig into the problem, a structured questionnaire was circulated to the
respondents (Eyisi, 2016). The survey was conducted online during June and July 2017.
4.5.1 Survey Instrument – Online Questionnaire
An online questionnaire was used to collect data for the survey, and we have used theGoogle Form platform as an online survey collection tool. The questionnaire consisted of
37 questions with 26 close-ended questions (e.g., Q1 - Q26). In target of getting scaled
responses from the users a 7-point Likert scale was used ranging from 1= strongly
disagree to 7= strongly agree. Some of the questions had multiple selection options whilesome of them had a single response option with open-ended questions.
The instrument comprises 7 sections including the introductory section in the beginningwhich has described the background, participation, confidentiality, guideline, definition61

of key terms and contact information. In the next five sections, questions for 6 constructs
were arranged (Q1 – Q26). Just to avoid the congested condition in the sections thequestions of knowledge sharing and acquisition construct were distributed among the fourother constructs. Last two sections have been arranged to gather users' LC use experienceand academic status. The theme of this structured questionnaire covers the learning
problem-solving practice of the users at Learning Commons of the library.
4.5.2 Survey Design and Sample
The population of the study was the users of Learning Commons in libraries including
bachelor, master, doctoral, certificate, special and visiting students of the institutions. For
the study, the participation in the survey was opened to Japan Advanced Institute of
Science and Technology (JAIST) and Kanazawa University (KU) students as thoseinstitutions are in Japan. Apart from this, there are few students from Nagoya University(NU) with the researchers’ personal contact. Accordingly, those two academic libraries
of JAIST and Kanazawa University comprised the population of the study. To participate
in the survey, the JAIST student mailing list was used to request the students. Kanazawa
University Library authority used a poster in the entrance and LC area to ask their users
to participate in the online survey.
In search of deep insight about learning at LC the study used a purposive sample by aconfined survey participant to LC users. For widening the global view of the study
certificate, special and visiting students were included who were studying in thementioned three Japanese universities. Which has brought the opportunity to get varied
responses from the university students of the USA, Canada, France, Kosovo, and China.
As the Japanese students are not very familiar with the English language, five LC
instructors of Kanazawa University extended their significant effort to make students
understand the questionnaire.

4.5.3 Development of Constructs and Variables
In determining the complex process of problem-based learning at LC the constructs andvariables were developed based on previous studies and in some cases self-developed.
The proposed model has six key constructs which have been checked by 26 items ofvariables. Demographic variables were also added to get the users` experience of using
LC and their personal details of academic status.

62LC is an interactive space in the library where users come to use it together with theirpeers to solve learning problems. Here LC put an effort with their integrated resources,
tutoring staff and spaces to help to solve the coursework problems. Learners do theircollaborative work to identify the learning problems that they need to solve with the outof class ability. After determining the learning problems users progressively go for next
steps to formulate inquiry, solution creation, knowledge sharing and acquisition andproblem conclusion. As a whole the learning process ascertained that LC use for learningis the independent variable whereas PBL phases up to problem conclusion is thedependent variable of the study.
Table 4.1 Constructs and questions included in the questionnaire
Construct
LC Use forLearning(LCUL)

Item
scale
LCUL1
LCUL2
LCUL3

Knowledge
Sharing andAcquisition
(KSA)

KSA1
KSA2
KSA3
KSA4

Problem
Identification
(PI)

PI1
PI2
PI3
PI4
PI5

Question
We use LC computer devices, designatedspace and library collection during
learning
LC portals, digital library collections, elearning tools, productivity software helps
us to prepare the solution
LC social resources like workshops,
tutoring programs, research collaborations
and coaching help to generate new idea
and create solution
We discuss about collected knowledge tounderstand new findings
Discussion and sharing idea andknowledge helps me to innovate newideas
In group discussion we integrate thecollected knowledge
By writing results we combine knowledge
and develop new concepts with old one
Outside of classroom LC gives me theopportunity to work for solving learning
problems with groupmates
Here we determine the driving questionthat we need to answer for solving the
problemGroup learning helps me to understand thebroad nature of the problem
LC learning helps me to organize ideas bygathering previous knowledge
Learning in LC is improving my problemsolving skills

Theoreticalfoundation
Beagle, 2006
Beagle, 2006
Beagle, 2006

English &Kitsantas, 2013
English &Kitsantas, 2013
Somerville &Collins, (2008)
Self-developed
Khasawneh, 2013
English &Kitsantas, 2013
Khasawneh, 2013
Self-developed
English &Kitsantas, 201363

Formulate
Inquiry (FI)

FI1
FI2
FI3
FI4
FI5

Solution
Creation (SC)

SC1
SC2

SC3
SC4
SC5
ProblemConclusion
(PC)

PC1
PC2
PC3
PC4

In LC group work several questions andunknown issues arise that we need toknow
I can understand what information weneed to know further
We plan to take help from experts andsearch information
Here I share and explain my ideas
Group mates teaches each other about the
new findings
During LC learning I can determine which
topic is important to know in the
beginning
We assign group or individual tasks like
information collection, report writing,creating presentation, etc. for solving the
problems
We work to create the best possible
presentation or solution of the problem
While working in LC we rehearsal andrevision our tentative presentation or
solution
LC programs (J-Beans lecture seminars,
events) helps me to generate the bestsolution
Through discussion we summarize
relevant knowledge and identify what isneeded to know more
Through practice and preparation, we try
to decide the best ways for solution
Based on group feedback we revise thepresentation and evaluate its’ accuracy
While preparing the final solution we stillfind some unanswered issues

Khasawneh, 2013
English &Kitsantas, 2013
English &Kitsantas, 2013
English &Kitsantas, 2013
Self-developed
Somerville, &Collins, (2008)
Somerville, &Collins, (2008)
Somerville, &Brar, (2006)
Tick, A. (2007)
Somerville, &Collins, (2008)
Self-developed
Khasawneh, 2013
Khasawneh, 2013
Khasawneh, 2013

4.5.4 Data Analysis
The study conducted an online survey and used the Google Form platform as a survey
collection tool. Primarily JAIST and Kanazawa University (KU) students were
determined as the population of the study and later some students at Nagoya University(NU) were included with the researchers personal contact. In a target of broadening theinsight about the phenomenon, the certificate, special and visiting students at those
universities were purposely included. Which has brought the opportunity to get responses
from the university students of the USA, Canada, France, Kosovo, and China. The
64

questionnaire comprises five constructs including items of variables which were
determined from earlier studies and researchers' self-experience. Based on the constructs
and demographic variables all questions were arranged into seven different sections.
The analysis of the questionnaire data for this study was mostly done with the SPSSTM
25 program and also MS-Excel. The online dataset was first tabulated in MS-Excel fromthe original responses and then converted into SPSS. Collected dataset were tabulated inthree (JAIST, KU, and NU) different projects and they were accumulated in a single Excel
file. From the three universities a total of 105 students participated in the survey. Survey
instruments were mailed to the JAIST and KU students using student mailing lists. As it
was not possible to predict how many students would get the mail, it was difficult to
calculate the response rate of the survey. The study adopted partial least squares –structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) method to examine the factors or variables andtheir interaction with the dependent variable.

4.6 Survey Findings and Hypothesis Test
This section of the study presents the findings from the data that was collected throughonline questionnaire surveys conducted on LC users of university libraries. The findings
section has two parts: Part I presents the demographic data of the respondents
participating in the survey, and Part II Partial Least Squares – Structural Equation
Modeling (PLS-SEM) analysis and test of hypothesis.

4.6.1 Part I: Demographics of Respondents
In research it is a usual practice to report the response rate of the respondents. But in manycases recent research has mentioned that it is not easy to regularly report the online survey
response rate (Zhang, 2000). In their study Cook, Heath, & Thompson (2000) has statedthat the sample which is less than 1% of the population is even significantly moredemonstrative than a sample of 50% or 60% of the population. Recent research has foundthat surveys with extremely low response rates are more accurate than surveys with
substantially greater response rates (Krosnick, 1999). In this study it was not possible todetermine the sample size of the survey because it was unidentified how many students
received the email of the questionnaire. There were 105 valid respondents to this online
questionnaire survey. Except one, all of them have participated from within Japan.

65

4.6.1.1 Gender of Respondents
Among the 105 respondents, table 4.2 shows that 37.1% (39) were female and 62.9% (66)were male respondents. The age range of the male and female respondents were between
19 to 35 years. Most of the female respondents’ age ranges between 19 to 25 years, on
the other hand male respondents age ranges between 19 to 27 years. The table shows thata big portion of 15 male and 9 female respondents belong to 20 years of age as well as 13
male and 6 female belong to 24 years of age.
Table 4.2 Gender of the respondents (N=105)
Year of Age
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
Total

Female
4
9
3
2
5
6
6
0
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
39 (37.1%)

Male
3
15
5
3
7
13
7
2
5
0
1
1
0
1
1
2
66 (62.9%)

Total
7
24
8
5
12
19
13
2
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
105

4.6.1.2 Age GroupThe mean age of the respondents is 23.27 and the median age is 23.00. A majority of 75
respondents (71.4%) belonged to the age group 19 – 24. The table 4.3 indicated that as
Table 4.3 Age group of the respondents (N=105)
Age Group

Frequency

Percent

Statistics

19 – 24

75

71.4

Mean

23.27

25 – 30

25

23.8

Median23.00

31 – 35
Total

05
105

04.8
100.0

Minimum
Maximum

19
35

66

the age group increased and the number of respondents decreased. The second largest partof the respondents were in the age group of 25 – 30, which has 23.8% of respondents. It
is noticeable here that the usual age ranges of learning common users are between 19 to
30 years.
4.6.1.3 Academic Institutions
The majority of respondents belong to the Japanese universities and all together it hasformed about 95% from the JAIST, Kanazawa University and Nagoya University. The
survey included five universities from outside of Japan as their students were studying inthese three Japanese universities as certificate, special and intern students. 50.2% of the
respondents had participated from Kanazawa University and 42.9% were from Japan
Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (JAIST). These two universities haveformed 93.1% of the total responses. There were 5 international students participating inthe survey as they were studying in the surveyed universities as certificate, special andintern students. It has given the opportunity to include five universities from outside ofJapan. Those five universities are from Kosovo, Canada, USA, China and France.
Table 4.4 Academic institutions of the respondents (N=105)
Academic Institution
Central European University
JAIST (Japan Advanced Institute of Science andTechnology)

Kanazawa University
Mount Royal University
Nagoya University
New Platz State University of New YorkSouth West University of Science and Technology
University Toulouse
Total

Country Respondent
Kosovo1
Japan
45

Percent
1.0
42.9

Japan
Canada
Japan
USA
China
France

50.2
1.0
1.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
100.0

53
1
2
1
1
1
105

4.6.1.4 Academic Status
Among the respondents, 46.7% (49 respondents) were both the Bachelor and Master level
students which has coincidently made an equal position in the survey. Other than that,
4.8% (5 respondents) were Doctoral students. There were also 1.0% each of Certification
Course and Special Auditor students. Among the 49 Bachelor students there were 20

67female and 29 male students. On the other side, there were 17 female and 32 male students
amongst the 49 Master students.
Table 4.5 Academic status of the respondents (N=105)
Academic Status

Frequency

Percent

FemaleMale

Bachelor

49

46.7

20

29

Certification Course

1

1.0

0

1

Doctoral

5

4.8

2

3

Master

49

46.7

17

32

Special Auditor Student

1

1.0

0

1

Total

105

100.0

39

66

4.6.1.5 Country of Residents
The vast majority of survey responses came from Japanese students as the survey was
conducted in three Japanese universities. Out of 105 responses the majority of 56.2%
Table 4.6 Country of residents of the respondents (N=105)
Country of residents
Australia
Bangladesh
Belgium
China
FranceIndonesia
Japan
Korea
KosovoMongolian
RussiaSwaziland
ThailandUSA
Vietnam
Total

Frequency
1
6
2
18
1
3
59
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
5
105

Percent
1.0
5.7
1.9
17.1
1.0
2.9
56.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.8
1.0
4.8
100.0

Female
0
3
1
8
1
1
21
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
39

Male
1
3
1
10
0
2
38
1
0
0
0
1
4
1
4
66

were Japanese (59 respondents) students. They were followed by 17.1% China (18respondents), 5.7% Bangladesh (6 respondents), 4.8% Vietnam (5 respondents), 3.8%

68

Thailand (4 respondents), and 2.9% of Indonesian (3 respondents) students. Out of 59
Japanese responses, there were 21 female and 38 male students and in 18 Chinese
responses there were 8 female and 10 male students.
4.6.1.6 Country of Response
Table 4.7 reveals that 95.2% of responses have come from Japan and mainly from JAIST,
Kanazawa University and Nagoya University. The rest were coming from 5 othercountries as their students were studying as intern, special or certificate students in thesurveyed universities. Thus, the survey responses have come from 6 countries and 2 ofeach response has come from the continent of Asia, Europe and North America.
Table 4.7 Country of response of the respondents (N=105)
Country
CanadaChina
FranceJapan
KosovoUSA
Total

Frequency
1
1
1
100
1
1
105

Percent
1.0
1.0
1.0
95.2
1.0
1.0
100.0

4.7 Part II: Partial Least Squares–Structural Equation Modeling (PLSSEM) and Hypothesis Test
The study has employed Partial Least Squares-Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM)
which is a widely accepted method for the research that has sensible amount of data andtheoretical information (Alolah, Stewart, Panuwatwanich, & Mohamed, 2014; Hair,
Risher, Sarstedt & Ringle, 2019). As suggested in this method the study used a two-stepmodel validation process that first examines and validates the measurement model andthen tests the proposed theoretical structure (Babin & Attaway, 2000; Gerbing &Anderson, 1992). Several statistical analyses were performed which includes thedescriptive statistics of mean, standard deviation, skewness, kurtosis and Cronbach`salpha related with the profile of sample (Sekaran, 2003). In addition, factor loading,composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) was employed to check69

the reliability and validity of the dataset. The analysis also includes a test of hypothesis
to validate the proposed structural model. The statistical analysis techniques used in thisresearch are mentioned as follows.

4.7.1 Partial Least Squares (PLS) Analysis
As suggested in Partial Least Squares (PLS) method the study first examines and validates
the measurement model (Babin & Attaway, 2000; Gerbing & Anderson, 1992).

4.7.1.1 Measurement Model
To examine and validate the measure model several statistical analyses were carried out,
including descriptive statistics such as mean, standard deviation, skewness, kurtosis, andCronbach's alpha for the sample profile (Sekaran, 2003). The dataset's reliability andvalidity were also tested using factor loading, composite reliability (CR), and averagevariance extracted (AVE). The following are the statistical analysis approaches employedin this study.
4.7.1.1.1 Internal Consistency and Descriptive Statistics
The descriptive statistical analysis of the six constructs LC Use for Learning (LCUL),
Knowledge Sharing & Acquisition (KSA), Problem Identification (PI), Formulate Inquiry(FI), Solution Creation (SC) and Problem Conclusion (PC) was conducted in order to gain
Table 4.8 Internal consistency and descriptive statistics
Item

Mean

Standard
Deviation

Skewness

Kurtosis

Cronbach’s
Alpha (≥ 0.70)

LC Use for Learning(LCUL)
Knowledge Sharing &Acquisition (KSA)

3

5.349

0.769

-0.751

1.343

0.746

4

5.374

0.932

-0.531

0.651

0.750

Problem Identification (PI)

5

5.337

0.893

-0.818

1.241

0.740

Formulate Inquiry (FI)

5

5.356

0.921

-0.817

1.273

0.779

Solution Creation (SC)

5

5.276

0.972

-0.864

0.452

0.772

Problem Conclusion (PC)

4

5.260

0.944

-0.578

0.565

0.744

Constructinsight into the variables. Mean, standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis was calculated
as part of the process. The LC users of the study have shown a positive attitude towards
70the problem-solving process throughout the problem identification to problem conclusion
steps and the mean resembles a high positivity ranging from 5.374 to 5.260 (in a scale of
1 to 7). The standard deviations for all the variables are less than one and they are ranging
from 0.893 to 0.972, which indicates the item scores are relatively close to mean scores.
The skewness of the latent variables ranges from -0.531 to -0.864 and kurtosis ranges
from 1.3 to 0.452. Kline (2010) recommends that the indices of skewness should be below
3.0 and the kurtosis is 8.0. Last of all Cronbach’s alpha (1951) measures the internalconsistency between items in a scale. Results of Cronbach's alpha have exceeded therecommended value of 0.70 (Table 4.8) and show strong consistency among the items.
So the data of this study are found to be normal for the purpose of partial least squares –structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) and multiple regression analysis for hypothesis
testing.
4.7.1.1.2 Indicator Reliability and Convergent Validity
In examining the measurement model the primary step is to assess the indicator loading.
The expected loading value is above 0.70 as the construct can explain 50 percent varianceof the indicator (Hair, Risher, Sarstedt & Ringle, 2019). In this study the loadings havebeen adjusted according to the recommendations of Ping (2009) for having improved thevalue of loading. Thus, the loading ranges from 0.599 to 0.892 (Table 4.9) and items are
not deleted as there are no loadings below 0.50 (Chen & Tsai, 2007; Chin, 1998; Hair,
Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). As a result, they showed a strong reliability of indicatorloading and contributed to having increased composite reliability (CR) and averagevariance extracted (AVE). Convergent validity is the extent which helps to measure thelevel of correlation of multiple indicators and other measures of the same construct (AbHamid, Sami, & Sidek, 2017). For testing the convergent validity of the scale composite
reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) has been examined (Thomas &Veloutsou, 2013). Reliability proves the internal consistency to which the individual
items that constitute a test (scale) correlate with one another or with the test total. The
composite reliability (CR) has been regarded as an alternative measure to Cronbach's
alpha as it`s items are unweighted (Ando et al., 2005). The composite reliability (CR) andaverage variance extracted (AVE) coefficient are related with the quality of a measure.
The value of 0.70 and higher is required in composite reliability (CR) to be adequate for71

Table 4.9 Factor loading, composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted(AVE) coefficient
Construct

LC Use for Learning(LCUL)

Knowledge Sharing &Acquisition (KSA)

Problem Identification (PI)Formulate Inquiry (FI)Solution Creation (SC)Problem Conclusion (PC)

LCUL1

FactorLoading(≥ 0.70)
0.715

LCUL2

0.803

LCUL3

0.646

KSA1

0.837

KSA2

0.676

KSA3

0.803

KSA4
PI1

0.860
0.668

PI2

0.683

PI3

0.758

PI4

0.796

PI5

0.662

FI1

0.609

FI2

0.670

FI3

0.761

FI4

0.889

FI5
SC1

0.795
0.599

SC2

0.663

SC3

0.867

SC4

0.629

SC5

0.787

PC1

0.828

PC2

0.689

PC3

0.666

PC4

0.892

LCUL3

0.646

Item

Composite
Reliability (CR)(≥ 0.70)0.7664

Average Variance
Extracted (AVE)(≥ 0.50)
0.52445

0.874

0.636

0.839

0.512

0.864

0.564

0.838

0.513

0.855

0.600

reliability. In this study the CR of all the six constructs are above the recommended value
and they range from 0.838 to 0.874. The next step of examining convergent validity ismeasuring average variance extracted (AVE). Table: 4.9 shows that the AVE of six
constructs have satisfactorily crossed the recommended value 0.50. AVE of this study
ranges from 0.512 to 0.636 and it indicates a strong convergent validity of the constructs.

72

4.7.1.1.3 Discriminant Validity - Fornel and Larcker
Discriminant validity is the process of measuring empirically how the constructs arediffering from one another (Afari, 2013). For assessing the discriminant validity, thesquare root of average variance extracted (AVE) of each construct was followed assuggested in Fornel and Larcker (1981). The discriminant validity appears whencomparing the square root of average variance extracted (AVE) (in bold) with theTable 4.10 Square root of AVE (in bold) and correlations between constructs

Construct

Problem
Identification

Problem
Identification

0.715

FormulateInquiry

Knowledge
Sharing &Acquisition

Solution
Creation

ProblemConclusion

FormulateInquiry0.660**

0.751

Knowledge
Sharing &Acquisition

0.643**

0.865**

0.797

Solution
Creation

0.551**

0.738**

0.723**

0.716

ProblemConclusion

0.690**

0.756**

0.790**

0.536**

0.774

LC Use forLearning

0.651**

0.702**

0.740**

0.647**

0.754**LC UseforLearning

0.724**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)correlation coefficients of each construct. This study finds that formulate inquiry knowledge sharing & acquisition and formulate inquiry - problem conclusion is having
slight variances. The differences between them are 0.114 and 0.005 which can be ignored
as it has been reported that Fornel and Larcker do not always work well with the loadings
having strong values (Ab Hamid, et al. 2017; Hair et al., 2019). Moreover, thediscriminant validity of this study can be accepted as the factor loadings below 0.70 was
not deleted. Lastly, the other four construct square roots of AVEs are higher than thevalues of its columns and absolutely they have established the discriminant validity. Thus,
the measurement model has established the internal consistency, indicator reliability,
convergent validity and discriminant validity adequately.
73

4.7.2 Structural Model and Hypothesis Test
As a part of the two-step model validation process of structural equation modeling (SEM),
the last step is to validate the structural model. Figure 4.1 shows the hypothesized
structural model which has been delineated based on the literature review of chapter 2.
Linear regression was performed to test the proposed structural model and hypothesis to
fit the model by checking the relationship of dependent and independent variables (Van
Tonder, & Petzer, 2018). The structural model comprises five latent constructs that havetwenty-three observable variables. It shows the path relationships among the dependentand independent variables as hypothesized in the study. To test the competence of thestructural model the factor loading, path coefficient (β) and coefficient of determination(R2) were employed (Chin, 1998). For computing the path coefficient (β) and its
subsequent t-values and p-values linear regression were carried out using the SPSS 25
program.
The overall fit of the model is determined by the coefficient of determination (R2) of eachconstruct (Martinez-Ruiz and Aluja- Banet, 2009). The study has followed the estimatesof 0.04 as minimum, 0.25 as moderate and 0.64 as strong for the coefficient ofdetermination (R2) as suggested by Ferguson (2009) for social science research. The
structural model has formulated twelve hypotheses H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, H6, H7, H8, H9,
H10, H11 and H12. It has appeared from the analysis that all the hypotheses have been
supported. The results of coefficient of determination (R2) shows the explanatory powerof the research model and moderate to strongly support all the hypotheses. Table 4.11 haslisted the results of the hypothesis testing and all the hypotheses were strongly supported.
The first phase of the structure model shows the relationship of independent variable of
LC Use for Learning (LCUL) with the dependent variable of PBL phases of Problem
Identification (PI), Formulate Inquiry (FI), Knowledge Sharing and Acquisition (KSA),
Solution Creation (SC) and Problem Conclusion (PC). It specifies that in hypothesis H1
and H2 LC use for learning has statistically significant relation with Problem
Identification (PI) and Formulate Inquiry (FI) has 41% (R2 = 0.41) and 50% (R2 = 0.50)
of inner relationship with the PBL learners problem dealing phases. The hypothesis H3
indicates that LC use for learning has statistically significant positive relation withlearners Knowledge Sharing and Acquisition (KSA) and helping to create 55% (R2 =74

0.55) new knowledge during learning. Hypothesis H4 and H5 shows the relationshipbetween LC use for learning with Solution Creation (SC) and Problem Conclusion (PC).
It depicts a statistically significant relationship with H4 of 40% (R2 = 0.40) and H5 of
74% (R2 = 0.74).
Table 4.11 Results of Structural Equation Model (SEM) and hypothesis testing
Hypothesis

Path

Coefficient
(β)

R2

t
Value

Sig.
(p)

Test
Status

H1

LCUL

PI

0.64

0.41

8.43

0.00***

Supported

H2

LCUL

FI

0.71

0.50

10.18

0.00***

Supported

H3

LCUL

KSA

0.74

0.55

11.16

0.00***

Supported

H4

LCUL

SC

0.63

0.40

8.30

0.00***

Supported

H5

LCUL

PC

0.86

0.74

11.44

0.00***

Supported

H6

KSA

PI

0.64

0.41

8.53

0.00***

Supported

H7

KSA

FI

0.87

0.75

17.52

0.00***

Supported

H8

KSA

SC

0.72

0.52

10.62

0.00***

Supported

H9

KSA

PC

0.79

0.62

13.10

0.00***

Supported

H10

PI

FI

0.66

0.44

8.93

0.00***

Supported

H11

FI

SC

0.74

0.55

11.10

0.04**

Supported

H12

SC

PC

0.84

0.70

6.44

0.03**

Supported*** p<.001, ** p<. 05, * p<. 01, based on two-tailed test
The second phase of the model shows the relationship of the independent variable
Knowledge Sharing and Acquisition (KSA) with the dependent variables of PBL Phases.
The hypothesis H6 and H7 explains that Knowledge Sharing and Acquisition (KSA) has
41% (R2 = 0.41) and 75% (R2 = 0.75) of variance (of inner relationship) with Problem
Identification (PI) and Formulate Inquiry (FI) and it shows the statistically significant
relationship of the two hypotheses. Moreover, in hypothesis H8 and H9, Knowledge
Sharing and Acquisition (KSA) can be accounted for Solution Creation (SC) and Problem
Conclusion (PC) to the extent of 52% (R2 = 0.52) and 62% (R2 = 0.62).

75

The last stage of the structural model shows the relationship of the independent variable
Problem Identification (PI) with the rest of PBL phases and displays statisticallysignificant relationships among them. In hypothesis H10 Problem Identification (PI)having 44% (R2 = 0.44) of variation (to encourage the learners) in connection with the
Formulate Inquiry (FI). On the other side, hypothesis H11 interprets that 55% (R2 = 0.55)
of Formulate Inquiry (FI) influences learners for Solution Creation (SC). According tohypothesis H12, Solution Creation (SC) including all the independent variables caninterpret Problem Conclusion (PC) to the extent of 70% (R2 = 0.70). Thus, the coefficientof determination (R2) resolves that the model fits near strongly.

Figure 4.2 Structural Model of Problem-Based Learning at Learning Commons

Finally, the partial least squares-structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) analysis(Table 4.11 and Figure 4.2) shows the path coefficient (β), t-values and p-values for testof hypothesis. The table indicates that all path of the twelve hypotheses (H1, H2, H3, H4,
H5, H6, H7, H8, H9, H10, H11 and H12) are statistically significant and positive withpath coefficient (β) and p-value.

76For testing the hypothesis, we have observed the relationship of LC Use for Learning(LCUL) as independent variable with Problem Identification (PI), Formulate Inquiry (FI),Knowledge Sharing and Acquisition (KSA), Solution Creation (SC) and Problem
Conclusion (PC) as dependent variable. As is evident from Table 4.11, in LC Use forLearning (LCUL) is found (H1) significantly encourages Problem Identification (PI) (β= 0.64, p < 0.001). In the same way, where the LC Use for Learning (LCUL) has (H2 andH3) statistically significant relationship with Formulate Inquiry (FI) (β = 0.71, p < 0.001)
and Knowledge Sharing and Acquisition (KSA) (β = 0.74, p < 0.001). PBL learners use
LC resources and services for their problem solution, and it has been found that (H4 andH5) there is a significant relationship of LC Use for Learning (LCUL) with Problem
Solution (SC) (β = 0.63, p < 0.001) and Problem Conclusion (PC) (β = 0.86, p < 0.001).
In this way to fit the structural model, we have observed the relationship of Knowledge
Sharing and Acquisition (KSA) as independent variable with the PBL phases of Problem
Identification (PI), Formulate Inquiry (FI), Solution Creation (SC) and Problem
Conclusion (PC) as dependent variable. It is found statistically significant that (H6 and
H7) Knowledge Sharing and Acquisition (KSA) supports the positive relationship with
Problem Identification (PI) (β = 0.64, p < 0.001) and Formulate Inquiry (FI) (β = 0.87, p< 0.001). In addition, there has statistically significant relationship (H8 and H9) among
Knowledge Sharing and Acquisition (KSA) with Solution Creation (SC) (β = 0.72, p <0.001) and Problem Conclusion (PC) (β = 0.79, p < 0.001).
The relationship among PBL phases of the model has also been checked to see theproblem-solving process of the learners where Problem Identification (PI) was theindependent variable and Formulate Inquiry (FI), Solution Creation (SC) and Problem
Conclusion (PC) was dependent variable. It is found statistically significant that the
hypothesis (H10) supports the positive relationship of Problem Identification (PI) with
Formulate Inquiry (FI) (β = 0.66, p < 0.001). While Formulate Inquiry (FI) impacts
positively (H11) on Solution Creation (SC) (β = 0.74, p < 0.05). Lastly, (H12) Solution
Creation (SC) is having a positive influence on Problem Conclusion (PC) (β = 0.84, p <0.05) and shows that all the independent variables have positive impact on dependent
variables.

77

4.8 Findings
As was mentioned earlier in the literature review, there is a gap in the literature that
Learning Commons supports users learning in an out of class space. Here the learners use
LC resources and services for creating meaning to solve coursework problems as assignedby their faculty. Beagle (2006) mentioned that LC is an informal learning space which
ensures a constructivist environment by facilitating the contextual, active, and social
engagement of learners. But there was lack of evidence that users are employing
constructivist learning methods in LC for their learning. To shed light on this underresearch topic, this research took the investigation to seek out clear insights that users are
employing learning methods for engaging in learning in an out of class facility. The
findings of the research questions and the analysis of PLS-SEM measurement andstructural model of the study are reported in earlier tables. The findings that have emerged
as a result of the research questions are mentioned in the following section.
RQ1: How do learners use LC services and tools for solving their course studies
learning problems?
Learners use the Physical Commons, the Virtual Commons and the Cultural Commonsof LC for their collaborative active learning towards problem solving. They pass throughthe PBL method in their coursework and get assigned problems to solve. They come to
the LC and use its services and resources with their group mates. It is a vibrant place of alibrary where users can learn through inquiry, collaboration, discussion, knowledge
sharing and consultation with their peers. Questions (Q24, Q25 & Q26) were asked to thelearners as to how they are using the LC for learning. A big portion (84%) of the
respondents has strongly agreed that they use LC services, resources and spaces forlearning and knowledge sharing and acquisition (agree somewhat 38.4%, agree 37.5%,
strongly agree 8.6%) and its mean score is 5.34 and standard deviation is 0.769 (Table
4.12). Respondents were asked (Q24) about the use of LC computer devices, designatedspaces and library collection during learning. Almost 80% of them have positively agreed
that they use those Physical Commons services and resources during learning for solving
their course studies problems (mean score 5.29, standard deviation 1.02). In another78

question (Q25) it was tried to understand the intensity of use of Virtual Commons inlearning. 85.7% of the respondents have clearly

Q24: We use LC
computerdevices,designated spaceand librarycollection during
learning.
Q25: LC portals,
digital librarycollections, elearning tools,
productivity
software helps us
to prepare thesolution.
Q26: LC social
resources likeworkshops,
tutoring
programs,
research
collaborations
and coachinghelps to generate
new idea andcreate solution.
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent

0.0

0.0

1.9

0.0

1.0

3.8

17.1

10.5

36.2

37.1

34.3

42.9

Mean

SD

5.29

1.02

5.7

Disagree
3.8
Agree
85.7

5.36

0.89

Disagree
3.8
Agree
87.6

5.40

0.93

9.5

0.0

0.0

3.8

8.6

41.9

35.2

10.5

0.0

1.9

2.9

12.1

38.4

37.5

8.6

4.0

12.0

Cumulative
Percent

Strongly
agree

Agree

Agree
somewhat

Disagreesomewhat
Neitherdisagreenor agree

Disagree

Question

Strongly
disagreeTable 4.12 LC use for learning in problem conclusion (PC)Disagree
2.9
Agree
80.0

84.0

Note: Cumulate Percent: Disagree = Sum of Strongly disagree + Disagree + Disagree somewhat andAgree = Sum of Agree somewhat + Agree + Strongly agree.

agreed that they use LC portals, digital library collections, e-learning tools, productivity
software, etc. to prepare the solution (mean score 5.36, standard deviation 0.89). Last ofall, users were asked (Q26) about the use of Cultural Commons services and social
resources like workshops, tutoring programs, research collaborations, coaching, etc. forcoursework problem solutions. 87.6% of the users gave a positive opinion that use of79

those services and resources helps them to generate new ideas and create solutions (meanscore 5.40, standard deviation 0.93).
RQ2: To what extent knowledge sharing and acquisition support users to identify
learning problems, formulate inquiry, solution creation and problem conclusion inlearning?
Knowledge sharing and acquisition has been identified as a mediating construct of thestudy which proves a positive connection with the respondents in identifying theirlearning problems, formulate inquiry, solution creation and problem conclusion (H6, H7,
H8, H9). Evidence and practice of knowledge sharing of the users during learning arepresented here. In seeking the link of knowledge sharing and acquisition with the phasesof problem-based learning (PBL) several questions (KSA1, KSA2, KSA3, & KSA4) wereasked to the respondents. Most of the participants (77.5%) perceived that knowledge
sharing and acquisition has a positive influence on them for overall learning at LC. The
mean response for knowledge sharing and acquisition was 5.37 with a standard deviationof 0.932 (Table 4.13). Of the respondents, 75% have agreed that (Q20) they discusscollected knowledge of the problem topics to understand new findings of the matter (meanscore 5.18, standard deviation 1.34). Q21 asked them how discussion and knowledge
sharing help in learning. Among them 85% have given the opinion that it helps them toinnovate new ideas on the way to problem identification, formulate inquiry, solution
creation and problem conclusion (mean score 5.81, standard deviation 1.24). The Q22 hastried to understand their perception of group discussion with knowledge acquisition, 82%of them have given a positive opinion that it helps them to integrate the collected
knowledge with their current information and knowledge base (mean score 5.41, standard
deviation 1.14). They have been asked (Q23) how writing results (knowledge acquisition)
helps them on the way to problem conclusion and 72% of respondents replied that
preparation of solution assist them to combine new knowledge with the old one and they
can generate new concepts for concluding the problems (mean score 5.10, standard
deviation 1.23).

80

0.0

0.0

5.7

1.9

1.9

4.8

3.8

12.4

7.6

12.4

28.6

16.2

31.4

Agree

Agree
somewhat

Neitherdisagreenor agree

Disagreesomewhat

6.7

32.4

35.2

34.3

Cumulative
Percent

0.0

Strongly
agree

Q20: We discuss
about collected
knowledge tounderstand new
findings.
Q21: Discussion
and sharing idea
and knowledge
help me toinnovate newideas.
Q22: In group
discussion we
integrate thecollected
knowledge.
Q23: By writing
results we combine
knowledge anddevelop newconcepts with oldone.
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent

Disagree

Question

Strongly
disagreeTable 4.13 Knowledge sharing and acquisition (KSA) support problem
identification (PI), formulate inquiry (FI), solution creation (SC) and problem
conclusion (PC)

Mean

SD

14.3

Disagree
12.4
Agree
75

5.18

1.34

34.3

Disagree
6.7
Agree
85

5.81

1.24

16.2

Disagree
5.7
Agree
82.0

5.41

1.14

Disagree
10.5
Agree
72.0

5.10

1.23

0.0

2.9

7.6

18.1

31.4

28.6

11.4

0.0

3.1

6.8

12.0

26.9

32.0

19.0

9.9

12.6

77.5

Note: Cumulate Percent: Disagree = Sum of Strongly disagree + Disagree + Disagree somewhat andAgree = Sum of Agree somewhat + Agree + Strongly agree.

RQ3: How do LC users learning problem identification practice encourage them tolearn and formulate inquiry?
LC has been regarded as a potential service system for the academic libraries. It has
introduced a unique learning environment for library users in academia. To find out theuse of Problem Based Learning (PBL) methods by the LC users, the researchersinvestigated the users with a questionnaire. Thus, the users were asked several questions(PI1, PI2, PI3, PI4, & PI5) on their problem identification practice of semester course
studies with groupmates during learning at LC (H10). As shown in Table 4.14 that81

Problem Identification (PI) has a mean score of 5.337 and standard deviation is 0.893 (ona seven-point Likert scale) and demonstrated 78% of high dependency of its practice by
the users. Respondents of the questionnaire were asked (Q1) do they think that LC gives
them the opportunity to work for solving learning problems with group mates outside of
the classroom. 78.1% of the respondents have evidently agreed that LC is a great

Q1: Outside ofclassroom LC
gives me theopportunity towork for solving
learning
problems withgroupmates.
Q2: Here we
determine thedriving questionthat we need toanswer forsolving the
problem.
Q3: Grouplearning help me
to understand thebroad nature of
the problem.
Q4: LC learning
helps me toorganize ideas bygathering
previous
knowledge.
Q5: Learning in
LC is improving
my problem
solving skills.
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent

0.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

4.8

2.9

2.9

2.9

6.7

7.6

7.6

7.6

10.5

10.5

11.4

10.5

22.9

25.7

27.6

25.7

38.1

37.1

36.2

37.1

Mean

SD

5.34

1.329

16.2

Disagree
10.5
Agree
79.0

5.35

1.256

13.3

Disagree
11.4
Agree
77.1

5.24

1.297

16.2

Disagree
10.5
Agree
79.0

5.35

1.256

Disagree
10.5
Agree
80.0

5.40

1.237

17.1

0.0

1.9

8.6

9.5

24.8

38.1

17.1

0.95

3.1

7.6

10.4

25.0

37.0

16.0

11.6

10.4

Cumulative
Percent

Strongly
agree

Agree

Agree
somewhat

Disagreesomewhat
Neitherdisagreenor agree

Disagree

Question

Strongly
disagreeTable 4.14 Problem Identification (PI) encourage Formulate Inquiry (FI)Disagree
11.4
Agree
78.1

78.0

.,

Note: Cumulate Percent: Disagree = Sum of Strongly disagree + Disagree + Disagree somewhat andAgree = Sum of Agree somewhat + Agree + Strongly agree.

82

opportunity for them to work outside of the classroom (mean score 5.34, standard
deviation 1.33). It is found 79% of them clearly agreed that (Q2) here they can determine
the driving questions that need to be answered for solving course assigned problems(mean score 5.35, standard deviation 1.26). Respondents were asked also (Q3) about the
influence of group learning on problem identification (mean score 5.24, standard
deviation 1.30). It shows that 77.1% of the respondents gave a strong opinion that grouplearning assists them to understand the learning problem. It emerged that about 79% of
the respondents have agreed (Q4) learning with group mates at LC helps them to organize
ideas by gathering course related previous knowledge (mean score 5.35, standard
deviation 1.26). However, by combining agree somewhat (24.8%), agree (38.1%) andstrongly agree (17.1%), a total of 80% respondents has strongly agreed that (Q5)collaborative learning opportunity at LC is continuously improving their problem solving
skills (mean score 5.40, standard deviation 1.24).
RQ4: How does formulate inquiry motivate learners in solution creation of learning
problems?
Formulate inquiry assists the users to identify the topics that they need to know for solving
problems. During LC learning some questions arise to learners that need to be answeredon the way to solve the problem. The questionnaire asked questions (FI1, FI2, FI3, FI4 &FI5) to find out how formulate inquiry stimulated them for solution creation (H4). About
79% of the respondents have agreed (agree somewhat 25.71%, agree 38.28%, strongly
agree 15.80%) that formulating inquiry inspires them for solution creation and its meanscore was 5.36 and standard deviation was 0.921 (Table 4.15). Participants were asked(Q6) do they need to know answers of questions and unknown issues that arise during
learning in groups at LC. In this issue 82% users showed a positive response that theyneed to search for answers for their unsolved questions and topics (mean score 5.42,
standard deviation 1.20). When answering the question Q7 about 76% of respondents
have agreed that they can realize what information is needed to know further for creating
the tentative solution (mean score 5.23, standard deviation 1.38). They were asked
questions Q8, Q9 and Q10 with an intention to know the respondent`s behavior for
locating and sharing their needed information. Most of them (80%) have expressed thatthey (Q8) plan to take help from the experts regarding to locate information and try to83search information by themselves (mean 5.35, SD 1.30). 79% of the respondents have
conveyed that (Q9) they share and explain ideas with learning mates which helps them toformulate new inquiry

Q10: Group matesteaches each otherabout the new
findings
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent

0.0

1.9

1.0

3.8

9.5

8.6

9.5

26.7

24.8

39.0

36.2

Mean

SD

16.2

Disagree
9.5
Agree
82.0

5.42

1.2

15.2

Disagree
14.3
Agree
76.2

5.23

1.38

5.35

1.30

5.35

1.25

5.43

1.19

Strongly
agree

Agree

Agree
somewhat

Disagreesomewhat
Neitherdisagree
not agree
7.6

Cumulative
Percent

Q6: In LC group
work several
questions andunknown issues
arise that we needto know
Q7: I canunderstand what
information weneed to know
further
Q8: We plan totake help fromexperts and search
information.
Q9: Here I shareand explain my
ideas

Disagree

Question

Strongly
disagreeTable 4.15 Formulate inquiry (FI) motivates in solution creation (SC)

1.0

2.9

6.7

9.5

25.7

38.1

16.2

0.0

2.9

7.6

10.5

24.8

39.0

15.2

0.0

1.9

6.7

9.5

26.7

39.0

16.2

0.95

2.6

7.6

9.5

25.7

38.2

15.8

12.0

9.0

Disagree
10.5
Agree
80.0
Disagree
10.5
Agree
79.0
Disagree
8.6
Agree
81.9

79.0

Note: Cumulate Percent: Disagree = Sum of Strongly disagree + Disagree + Disagree somewhat andAgree = Sum of Agree somewhat + Agree + Strongly agree.

on the way to create solutions (mean score 5.35, standard deviation 1.25). Moreover, thisresearch reveals a unique behavior of the respondent when they were preparing candidate
solutions to the problems. In response to the question Q10, remarkably 81.9% of the users
agreed that they taught each other about the new findings during inquiry formulation. This
teaching is nothing but peer learning practices of the users which is believed to becontinued as a lifelong learning behavior in their future endeavor (mean score 5.43,
standard deviation 1.19).

84

Here we found formulate inquiry to solution creation are very interactive phases of PBL
as the users of LC work together with their group mates during learning. Throughout thegroup work they try to know answers to new questions and unsolved issues and take help
from LC staff and experts for searching information and sharing new information withgroupmates. They generate new ideas with discussion and propose candidate solutions of
the problems that they have from their course of studies.
RQ5: How does solution creation positively direct learners for problem conclusion at
LC?
In problem-based learning (PBL), learners try to create the tentative solutions of the
problems which leads them to the final phase of problem conclusion where they submit
their overall learning outcome. More than 73% of the respondents have agreed that (H12)the activities for solution creation (SC1, SC2, SC3, SC4 & SC5) definitely direct them
towards the final stage of problem conclusion (mean score 5.27, standard deviation 0.972).
About 71% of the respondents agreed that during LC learning (Q11) they can determine
the topics which are important to know in the beginning (mean 5.18, SD 1.41). In responseto the indirect question (Q12) what the activities are they do for solving the problems.
More than 75% of the participants have given an overall agreed statement that they assign
group or individual tasks like information collection, report writing, creating presentation,etc. for reaching a tentative solution of the problems (mean score 5.30, standard deviation
1.32). When the users were asked (Q13) about their main purpose of learning activities
together with groupmates. Around 76% of them have positively agreed that here theywork together for creating the best possible presentation or solution of the problem (mean5.30, SD 1.33). Although there is some evidence of enhancement of problem-solving
skills of the respondents which might persist in their professional life. 75% of theparticipants (Q14) have agreed that while working in LC they rehearse and review theirtentative presentation or solution which makes them reach the final stage (mean 5.26, SD
1.36). Moreover, it is evident from responses that learners are integrating resources intheir learning from LC services. In the question (Q15) how LC programs and facilities
help in learning. More than 76% of the respondents have overall agreed that services andfacilities arranged by LC (lecture seminar, events, writing support, academic support,85

etc.) helps them to generate the best solution (mean score 5.35, standard deviation 1.30).
It indicates that LC has a direct and positive contribution in learning of the users.

1.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.9

2.9

2.9

3.8

9.5

10.5

10.5

12.4

12.4

10.5

10.5

21.9

23.8

24.8

23.8

32.4

33.3

33.3

34.3

Mean

SD

17.1

Disagree
16.2
Agree
71.4

5.18

1.41

18.1

Disagree
12.4
Agree
75.2

5.30

1.32

18.1

Disagree
13.3
Agree
76.2

5.30

1.33

17.1

Disagree
14.3
Agree
75.2

5.26

1.36

Disagree
11.4
Agree
76.2

5.35

1.30

Strongly
agree

Agree

Agree
somewhat

Disagreesomewhat
Neitherdisagreenor agree
13.3

Cumulative
Percent

Q11: During LC
learning I candetermine which
topic is important toknow in the
beginning.
Q12: We assign
group or individualtasks like
informationcollection, reportwriting, creatingpresentation, etc. forsolving the
problems.
Q13: We work tocreate the best
possiblepresentation or
solution of the
problem.
Q14: While working
in LC we rehearsal
and revision our
tentative
presentation or
solution.
Q15: LC programs(J-Beans lecture
seminars, events)
helps me to generate
the best solution.
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent

Disagree

Question

Strongly
disagreeTable 4.16 Solution creation (SC) direct for problem conclusion (PC)

0.0

1.9

9.5

12.4

23.8

32.4

20.0

0.9

2.7

12.2

11.6

22.6

33.4

17.6

14.8

11.6

73.6

Note: Cumulate Percent: Disagree = Sum of Strongly disagree + Disagree + Disagree somewhat andAgree = Sum of Agree somewhat + Agree + Strongly agree.

86RQ6: How do problem conclusion solve problems and complete user learning at LC.
Problem conclusion is the last phase of PBL for reaching the final stage of solution. Herethe user summarizes and combines their knowledge, practice and revise the output of theassigned course problems and move forward with the final solution. A total of 75% of the

0.0

0.0

0.0

4.8

1.0

2.9

10.5

5.7

14.3

8.6

16.2

28.6

22.9

31.4

35.2

40.0

26.7

Mean

SD

14.3

Disagree
7.6
Agree
78.1

5.30

1.24

17.1

Disagree
11.4
Agree
80.0

5.42

1.23

17.1

Disagree
8.6
Agree
75.2

5.25

1.25

Disagree
10.5
Agree
70.5

5.08

1.31

Strongly
agree

Agree

Agree
somewhat

Disagreesomewhat
Neitherdisagreenor agree
2.9

Cumulative
Percent

Q16: Throughdiscussion wesummarize
relevant
knowledge andidentify what isneeded to know
more.
Q17: Throughpractice andpreparation we try
to decide the best
ways for solution.
Q18: Based ongroup feedback
we revise thepresentation andevaluate its’accuracy.
Q19: While
preparing thefinal solution we
still find someunanswered
issues.
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent

Disagree

Question

Strongly
disagreeTable 4.17 Problem conclusion solve and complete user learning at LC

1.0

3.8

5.7

19.0

29.5

28.6

12.4

0.5

3.0

7.0

14.5

28.0

32.5

14.5

10.5

14.5

75.0

Note: Cumulate Percent: Disagree = Sum of Strongly disagree + Disagree + Disagree somewhat andAgree = Sum of Agree somewhat + Agree + Strongly agree.

respondents have agreed that in the problem conclusion phase they prepare the final
presentation or solution for best conclusion (mean score 5.26, standard deviation 0.944).
About 78% of the respondents have exhibited a positive response that (Q16) throughdiscussion they can summarize relevant knowledge and identify what is needed to know
more for solving the problem. In PBL group learning, while the learners prepare the final87

solution, practice helps them to move forward. When they were asked to know about thematter (Q17), 80% of the respondents gave a positive response that they try to decide thebest ways for a solution on the basis of practice and preparation during group work (meanscore 5.42, standard deviation 1.23). In response to the indirect question (Q18) on how
they judge the accuracy of the solution. More than 75% of the participants have overall
agreed (agree somewhat 31.4%, agree 26.7%, strongly agree 17.1%) that based on groupfeedback they revise the presentation and evaluate its accuracy (mean score 5.25, standard
deviation 1.25). Moreover, 70.5% of the learners has (Q19) confidently answered thatwhile preparing the final solution they find some unanswered issues which they solve
before submission with the help of LC tutoring staff as well as course teachers (meanscore 5.08, standard deviation 1.31).

4.8.1 Summary of Findings
The study conducted an online survey which lasted for two months and included bachelor,master, doctoral, certificate course and special auditor students. The survey led to deep
analysis of LC use of the JAIST, Kanazawa University and Nagoya University libraryand results are summaries from the agreed opinion of the users in percentage.
The findings that have emerged as a result of the research questions delineates a highdependency of the users on LC services and existence of problem-based learning (PBL)
technique in users` learning. RQ1 show that users are using physical commons, the virtual
RQ1: LC use forLearning

Agree
RQ6

RQ2: Knowledge
Sharing & Acquisition

75

RQ5

73.6

RQ4

RQ3: Problem
Identification

79

RQ3

RQ4: Formulate
Inquiry

78

RQ2

77.5

RQ1

RQ5: Solution
Creation

84
65

70

75

80

85

RQ6: Problem
Conclusion

Figure 4.3 Summary of findings88commons and the cultural commons for their collaborative learning towards problem
solving (84%). RQ2 confirms that users are playing a knowledge transformer role during
their group process of learning in LC spaces. They are sharing and acquisitioning new
knowledge in their earlier knowledge base and completing learning (77.5%). For theevidence of existence of problem-based learning in out of class spaces of LC, the RQ3
confirm that users identify their learning problems during group or informal learning(78%). RQ4 also indorse that LC users formulate inquiry towards their learning problems
solving process (79%). Users have agreed that learning at LC spaces in RQ5 helps themto create the tentative solution (73.6%). In RQ6, users have expressed that they reach theconclusion of the learning problems during out of class LC learning (75%).

4.9 Conclusion
Analyzing the findings of the questionnaire the study found that LC has given theopportunity to the learners to work in groups for solving their course study problems.
After the problems assigned in their coursework, learners come to the library and use LC
as one of the pioneer vibrant learning spaces in the campus. It is a unique space for themto interact with their learning mates in an out of class environment. Learners appear here
for solving the problems absentmindedly bearing the problem-based learning (PBL)
method in their mind. During their learning they try to identify the actual problem thathas been assigned by the course teachers. For solving the problems, they proceed toformulate inquiry, solution creation and problem conclusion phases of PBL. Thus, thestudy shows that LC supports the PBL method of learning outside of class space. So, thelibraries need to provide sufficient orientation to their LC staff about learning methods.
Apart from that the knowledge sharing and acquisition culture of the users are found as
an inseparable part of group learning at LC. It shows that knowledge sharing andacquisition helps the learners to generate new ideas and reach a conclusion with a suitable
solution. Therefore, LC needs to give more attention in this part and arrange its spaces
and services for the proliferation of this behavior of the users. The study also found that
LC is a super hub for the learners for its spaces, services, and resources. It shows that they
use the services and resources for solving the learning problems. They take help from the
LC staff and use resources to integrate knowledge in their earlier ideas and rehearse thetentative solution. Thus, it is high time for LC to rethink their continuum of services andresources. They need to arrange the services and resources bearing the PBL learning
89

method and knowledge sharing and acquisition culture in their mind and ensure the best
continuum of services for the learners. LC has created a new learning pedagogy byintegrating the PBL method, knowledge sharing and acquisition culture and its continuumof services. It is the user-centered learning (UCL) pedagogy of LC in academia.

90Chapter 5: Conclusion and Implications

5.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the summary of the current research general findings and as well as
highlights the study's key findings in order to offer responses to the research questions.
The study was mostly descriptive and exploratory in nature, with the goal of identifying
a significant causal relationship of PBL and LC learning and problem-solving practice.
In the previous chapter data presented and interpreted to investigate LC user for learning(user centered learning), knowledge sharing and acquisition as transformative behavior
of LC learners for new PBL phased in LC and support of PBL process learning at LC.
Then it proposed a theoretical model for supporting user centered PBL learning at LC
followed by implication, limitations and directions for future research.

5.2 Answer to the Research Questions
SRQ1: How do LC continuum of services are used for user-centered (selfresponsible) learning?
In the beginning the present study has perceived the LC use for users self-responsible
learning. The importance of learning in academic libraries were considered very
importantly and they have redefined their spaces for introducing collaborative learning
among the users. Academic libraries are attempting to transform themselves into social,
cultural, and technical hubs by upgrading their physical facilities to accommodate avariety of user groups who may collaborate with digital and print material (Sinclair, 2009).
They have introduced Learning Commons (LC) to engage the learners groups so that they
can use this space for their own self-learning. LC continuum of service includes thephysical commons, virtual commons and cultural commons which is a logical division ofits services. The first one Physical Commons consists of the computer hardware,
furnishings, designated spaces, and traditional library collections (Beagle, 2006, p. 8).
The second level, the Virtual Commons, contains the Web environments (portals,
websites, etc.), digital library collections, e-learning tools, and online tools (search91

engines, productivity software, etc.) of the library. The third level, the Cultural Commons,
is made up of social resources like workshops, tutoring programs, research collaborations,coaching, and so on, that takes place as a result of the group environment created throughthe Commons (Beagle, 2006, p. 8). Social, cultural, and political envelope of culturalcommons supports and extends the physical commons and virtual commons, and these
are the enabler for learning in LC (Beagle, 2006, p. 5).
LC is a space where new ways of learning are happening. As an informal learning space,
LC has introduced an emerging learning pedagogy by collaborating multiple support units
and tutoring and learning services. A LC must be able to accommodate students'
constantly changing learning activities, rather than information-management duties set
and taught by library or faculty (Bennett, 2003). It is highly accepted that user students
engage cooperatively with their group mates in LC areas to pursue their self-directed
learning. They have a lot of freedom in terms of choosing their own topic and methods,
and they are in charge of their own learning objectives. So, at LC, student-centeredlearning is nothing more than library user-centered learning (UCL). It is a new kind oflearning pedagogy in academia based on self-responsible learning of the LC users. Herethey complete the PBL phases of problem identification, formulate inquiry, knowledge
sharing and acquisition, solution creation and problem conclusion for solving the learning
issues.
In summary, the main uses of LC for user-centered learning can be summarized as;
Use of Physical Commons for learning
Learners have confirmed that they use physical common, the first continuum of services
of LC. Survey analysis in the previous chapter provides the opinion that users use LC
computer devices, designated spaces, and library collection during learning (Mean 5.29,
SD 1.02).
Use of Virtual Commons for learning
LC users can directly access the virtual commons services of LC and they use it strongly
for their learning and research purposes. When trying to understand the intensity of useof virtual commons in learning, users have clearly agreed that they use LC portals, digital

92

library collections, e-learning tools, productivity software, etc. for learning (Mean 5.36,
SD 0.89).
Use of Cultural Commons for learningThis entails that the user uses the cultural commons continuum instantly for their learning.
They expressed strong opinions about their usage of cultural commons services and social
resources for coursework issue solving, such as workshops, tutoring programs, research
partnerships, coaching, and so on. Using those services and tools helps them come up
with new ideas and solve problems (Mean 5.40, SD 0.93).
The findings lead to the conclusion that user students use LCs` continuum of services fortheir self-responsible own learning and it is the unique user-centered learning (UCL) or
self-responsible learning of the users in out of class spaces.
SRQ2: How does learners` transformer role in group learning knowledge sharing
and acquisition at LC solve learning problems?
User students were asked these questions on the basis of the problem-based learning cycle
phases mainly based on the Hmelo-Silver (2004); Mohd-Yusof, Helmi, Jamaludin, andHarun (2011); and English and Kitsantas, (2013). Libraries are now in a paradigm shift
from information resources-centric view to user-centric approach and learning is in theheart of that approach. Academic libraries have introduced learning commons to meet thediversified learning and research needs of the TechieGen user. LC is a collaborative
learning space where students come to solve their course studies problems. Constructivist
theory based PBL learning enhances effective learning at LC. In LC collaborative
learning, users actively construct knowledge by acquisitioning knowledge to their earlyknowledge base as they interpret new information that they have already collected(Loyens & Gijbels, 2008). During the group learning process of LC, learners createknowledge and share it with their peers in order to generate new ideas and solve issues.
Apart from that LC is an out of class environment for the learners where they can engage
in active learning for completing their PBL process. Students construct questions basedon self-identified knowledge gaps, which they use to guide independent study outside of
the classroom, with research tasks allocated among team members (Allen, Donham, &Bernhardt, 2011). Students gather knowledge and share and acquire it among themselves93

as part of their learning process in order to create new knowledge and address learning
problems. In the problem-solving process, students are creating new information andsharing and acquiring knowledge through cooperative learning. As a result, in the out ofclass space that LC has established, the students themselves are acting as knowledgetransformers among the peers in the absence of their teachers.
Knowledge transformer role of LC learners is now quite clear in the regular PBL cycle
phase, and it looks a new phenomenon in LCs` out of class learning activity. Therefore,taking the transformer role of users for knowledge sharing and acquisition into
consideration the study has extended the PBL cycle phase for LC. This finding supports
Hmelo-Silver (2004) opinion of ``at the completion of each problem, students reflect on
the abstract knowledge gained``. However, the results support the opinion of the PBL
experts of its cycle phases and it can be summarized from the survey respondents:
Discuss about collected knowledge to understand new findings (problem identification)
Users have agreed that they discuss collected knowledge of the problem topics tounderstand new findings of the matter (Mean 5.18, SD 1.34).
Discussion and sharing idea and knowledge help to innovate new ideas (formulateinquiry)
It was asked how discussion and knowledge sharing helps in learning. Among them 85%
have given the opinion that it helps them to innovate new ideas on the way to problem
identification, formulate inquiry, solution creation and problem conclusion (Mean 5.81,
SD 1.24).
Integrate collected knowledge during group discussion (solution creation)
This implies understanding the learner`s perception of group discussion with knowledge
acquisition. They have given a positive opinion that it helps them to integrate the collected
knowledge with their current information and knowledge base (Mean 5.41, SD 1.14).
Combine knowledge and develop new concepts by writing results (problem conclusion)
When asked how writing outcomes (knowledge acquisition) helps them in the problem
solution they strongly said that solution preparation helps them mix new information with94

the existing knowledge and produce new thoughts for solving problems (Mean 5.10, SD
1.23).
Finally, the summary of this SRQ finds out that the users` transformative behavior forknowledge sharing and acquisition is an inseparable phase of PBL process learning in LC.

Figure 5.1 Knowledge Sharing & Acquisition as PBL Phase in Learning Commons

The finding supports the PBL cycle phases of Hmelo-Silver (2004) where she identified`Knowledge Deficiencies` and `Apply New Knowledge` as the steps of the process. So,
it determines that `Knowledge Sharing and Acquisition` behavior of LC users is aconfirmed phase of the PBL cycle phase of LC.

SRQ3: How does problem-based learning (PBL) phases support out of class
informal learning at LC?
Learning commons has created out of class spaces for the students for pursuing their PBL
activities of learning. Its collaborative spaces encourage the learners to work with groupmates for solving their coursework problems. It is a kind of library service in which95librarians, commons staff, technical staff, and student tutoring staff collaborate andinteract with users for their assignments, research, writing, technical support, information
literacy program, faculty development, curricula development and some other things.
This type of opportunity creates an informal learning space for the learners (Lippincott,2006). To help people learn in this area, LC develops group study rooms, cafés, exhibition
places, a digital lab, a tutor zone, and digital resources. It provides a chance for informal
learning in an out-of-class setting where students may work in groups to solve challenges
related to their course topics.
In the PBL process learners start their learning with ill-structured problems as assignedby their teachers in the courses. Students pursue their learning here without directsupervision of the course teachers. So, it becomes an informal learning within the PBL
process and students continue to study in LC to complete the PBL cycle phases for solving
learning problems. Problem identification is the first phase where user students try to
identify the driving questions of the problem posed (Mergendoller, Maxwell & Bellisimo,2006). Then gradually they complete the formulate inquiry, solution creation and problem
conclusion phase to reach the solution of their coursework problems. LC informal
learning space supports the PBL activities.
The purpose of this research question was to empirically examine how LC informal
learning spaces support PBL process learning in academia. We have analyzed the
responses of the survey and found strong evidence of PBL phased in LC. Knowledge
sharing and acquisition role of the users was not checked here as it was confirmed in theearlier. Evidence of PBL in LC can be summarized as;
Problem Identification
In determining the evidence of Problem Based Learning (PBL) approaches of LC users
learning, they were asked questions for problem-solving skills in semester course studies.
They think that LC gives them the opportunity to work for solving learning problems
outside of the classroom. They can determine the driving questions that need to beanswered for solving course assigned problems (Mean 5.35, SD 1.26). Moreover, theygave a strong opinion that group learning assists them to understand the learning problems.
Learning opportunities with group members at LC helps learners to organize ideas bygathering course related previous knowledge. However, respondents have strongly agreed
96

that collaborative learning opportunities at LC are continuously improving their problem
solving skills (Mean 5.40, SD 1.24). Thus, the learners identify their learning problems
within the group learning process of LC.
Formulate Inquiry
After identifying the problems that the learners need to solve, they proceed to theformulate inquiry phase of the PBL process. Here they try to identify the topics that areneeded to know for answering the problems. In this process some questions arise to thelearners that need to be answered on the way to reach the final answer. Regarding theissue, users showed a positive response that they need to know answers to questions andunknown issues that arise during learning in groups at LC (Mean 5.42, SD 1.20). 76% of
the learners have agreed that they can realize what information is needed to know further
to reach the answer. They were asked questions with an intention to know their behavior
for locating and sharing needed information. Most of them (80%) have expressed thatthey plan to take help from the LC staff or experts to locate information and try to search
information by themselves (Mean 5.35, SD 1.30). The learners have conveyed that theyshare and explain ideas with group mates which helps them to formulate new inquiry(Mean score 5.35, SD 1.25). Moreover, this research reveals a unique behavior of the
respondent when they were preparing candidate solutions to the problems. 81.9% of theusers agreed that they teach each other about the new findings during inquiry formulation.
This teaching is nothing but peer learning practices of the users which is believed to becontinued as a lifelong learning behavior in their future endeavors (Mean 5.43, SD 1.19).
In this way learners generate new ideas with discussion and propose candidate solutionsof the problems that they have from their course of studies.
Solution Creation
The target of PBL learners is to reach the tentative solution of the learning issues. Theystrongly agreed that the collaborative learning opportunity at LC helps them to create thecandidate solution by combining their collected knowledge. Learners expressed that they
assign group or individual tasks like information collection, report writing, creatingpresentation, etc. for reaching a tentative solution of the problems (Mean 5.30, SD 1.32).
When they were asked about the main purpose of collaborative learning together with97

groupmates, they confirmed that they would work together for creating the best possible
presentation or solution of the problem (Mean 5.30, SD 1.33). Although it was evident
from them that collaborative work enhances their problem solving skills which they thinkmight persist in professional life. 75 percent of the users have agreed that while working
in LC they rehearse and review the tentative presentation or solution which makes themreach the final stage. Moreover, it is evident that LC programs and facilities help them inlearning, and they integrate resources from its services. More than 76% of the respondents
have overall agreed that services and facilities arranged by LC (lecture seminar, events,
writing support, academic support, etc.) helps them to create the best possible solution. It
indicates that LC has a direct and positive contribution in the solution creation process of
the users.
Problem Conclusion
The last phase of PBL is problem conclusion, which leads to the ultimate stage of final
solution. Here, the user consolidates and integrates their knowledge, as well as practiceand revise the output of the assigned course tasks before moving on to the final answer.
In this phase they prepare the final presentation or solution for the best conclusion of thelearning issues. When knowing the LCs` role for problem conclusion, about 78 percentof the users said through conversation they could summarize important knowledge anddetermine what they needed to know more to solve the problem. Most of the users gave
a positive response that they try to decide the best ways for a solution on the basis ofpractice and preparation during group work. More than 75 percent of the users haveagreed that based on group feedback they revise the presentation and evaluate its accuracy.
Furthermore, students have firmly said that when preparing the final solution, theyencounter certain unsolved challenges that they resolve before submitting the final
solution (Mean 5.08, SD 1.31). Thus, the users complete their PBL cycle phases of
informal learning at LC and solve their course work learning issues in an out of classenvironment.

985.3 Answer to the Major Research Question
MRQ: How do learning commons (LC) is constructing problem-based learning(PBL) supported user-centered learning (UCL) in academic libraries?
The major research question (MRQ) is addressed in this chapter as part of a series of threesubsidiary research questions (SRQ) targeted at identifying the evidence of user-centeredproblem-based learning (PBL) for the first time at learning commons in academic
libraries. The summary of the three SRQs that have been addressed through the data
supplied in Chapters 4 to this research topic. We have produced subsidiary researchquestions, literature review components, and some background of this study to address
the research problem.
The research concentrated on learning at learning commons (LC), with a particular focus
on user learning and PBL phases. Academic libraries are now in a paradigm shift tomanage the Techie Gen offered challenges due to new technological changes and learning
activities. They are redesigning their spaces, services, collections and introducing LC foruser learning. Beagle (2012) has indicated the faculty interest about constructivist
learning which can connect LC due to its informal learning spaces. Brown (2005) has
affirmed that LC supports PBL process learning in its out of class environment as thelearners collaborate to engage in active learning. LC has been introduced to engage thelearner groups so that they may utilize this place for their self-learning. The physicalcommons, virtual commons, and cultural commons are all part of the LC service
continuum, which is a logical split of its services. LC learning is student-centered or usercentered where they come by themselves for pursuing their out of class learning activities.
In user-centered learning students take much responsibility for their own learning. They
are consuming the continuum of services as per their learning requirements and sufficient
literary evidence is not available that libraries are checking their usability regularly.
Academic libraries need to pay attention to this, and they need to offer special programs
to motivate users to come and use the space for regular learning. They should have tocheck the usability of its continuum of services and collect feedback from the users on aregular basis so that the services can meet the learning needs. User-centered learning(UCL) is a shift in learning theory in which LC staff need to generate ideas from the selfregulated and self-directed learning theories and must try to achieve LC goals.

99

The learning commons (LC) is a collaborative learning place where students can meet totackle challenges related to their course study. PBL learning based on constructivist
philosophy improves learning at LC. The present study has focused on the transformer
role of the user for knowledge sharing and acquisition in learning. It is evident from theresults that users are creating new meaning (knowledge) and acquiring and sharing
knowledge in the LC group learning process in absence of their course teachers outsideof class. LC group learning process has confirmed the learners to play the role ofknowledge transformer during collaboration. It is quite a new phenomenon for PBL
phases in LC.
This study aims to show that users` knowledge sharing and acquisition during grouplearning is a confirmed PBL phase of LC. So, it needs to give importance to enhancegroup learning activities of the users. LC can redesign its spaces to engage them in groups
and encourage discussion and idea generation. A lively library seeks to arouse interest ingroup learning via inquiry, cooperation, conversation, and consultation (McMullen,2008). Taking knowledge sharing and acquisition as a confirmed PBL phase in LC, they
have to enhance skills of the LC tutoring staff in the group learning process. An increased
skill of staff will encourage the learners to engage in group learning and learners will beable to discuss to understand new findings, share ideas and knowledge to innovate newideas, integrate collected knowledge during discussion and combine knowledge to create
the best possible solutions of their learning issues. It will encourage the learners for thegroup process of learning, and they will become independent learners in an out of classenvironment.
LC fosters PBL supported informal learning environments in which common tutoring
staff and users collaborate to identify user requirements. In PBL process learners are
assigned ill-structured learning problems from their course work. Learners come to thisspace for their out of class informal learning to work with their group mates. LC is alibrary service where librarians, commons staff, technical staff, and student tutoring staff
collaborate and interact with users for their assignments, research, writing, technicalsupport, information literacy program and so on. In the group process of collaborative
learning users complete the PBL cycle phases to reach the solution of their learning
problems. This research has evidenced that the informal learning at LC is primarily basedon the PBL method.

100Therefore, LC needs to understand the learning methods of user learners in its spaces.
Learners of this space are completing their tasks bearing the PBL method in their mind.
Commons and tutoring staff need to keep it remembered for arranging all of theirofferings according to its phases. It needs to redefine their role to better serve with the
PBL process learning. They need a deep understanding of the PBL method as well ascomplete ideas about its cycle phases. They have to help users to determine the specificlearning issues, what they need to know more about the subject topics, combine theirunderstanding for preparing the tentative solutions and help them to practice and trial the
final solution. It will stimulate the user learners to go to these spaces for informal out ofclass PBL learning. Surely learning commons will become a super hub for learning inacademia.
The overall findings of the investigation are summarized in Figure 5.2.

101

LCs` Continum of services use for User-Centred Learning (UCL)
Physical Commons
Use of LC computer devices,
designated spaces and librarycollection

Virtual Commons
Use of LC portals, digital librarycollections, e-learning tools,
productivity software, etc.

Cultural Commons
Uses workshops, tutoring
programs, research partnerships,
coaching, etc.

Knowledge Sharing and Acquisition in Group Learning as PBL Phase in LC
Knowledge to understandnew findings (problem
identification)

Sharing idea andknowledge to innovate
new ideas (formulateinquiry)

Integrate collected
knowledge during group
discussion (solution
creation)

Combine knowledge anddevelop new concepts inresults (problem
conclusion)

Problem-Based Learning (PBL) supported Informal Learning at LC
Problem Identification

Formulate Inquiry▪ Opportunity to workoutside of the classroom,▪ Need to know answers ofquestions,▪ Ralize what information isneeded to know further,▪ Take help from LC staffs tolocate information,▪ Share and explain ideas withgroup mates to formulate new
inquiry,▪ Peer learning practices,▪ determine the driving
questions,▪ understand the learning
problems,▪ organize idea bygathering previous
knowledge,

Solution Creation▪ Work together for best
possible presentation,▪ Enhance their problem
solving skills,▪ Review the tentative
solution,▪ Integrate resources fromLC programs,

Problem Conclusion▪ Summarize knowledge
and determine what isneeded to know more,▪ Decide the best ways forsolution during groupwork,▪ Encounter unsolved
challenges that they resolve
before submitting final
solution

Figure 5.2 Characteristics of PBL supported User-Centered Learning (UCL) at LC

5.4 Theoretical Model
This dissertation makes a significant contribution by proposing a theoretical model ofuser-centered learning (UCL) at learning commons (LC) of academic libraries. We
suggest the following model for our study based on the literature review, the researchquestions, and data from prior chapters we have undertaken, and the hypothesis wedeveloped (see Figure 5.3). The model has taken into consideration the three key
constructs of the study - LC use for learning, knowledge sharing and acquisition and102

problem-based learning (PBL) for out of class user learning at LC. The model should beseen from left to right and then downwards.
Libraries and learning are inseparable and for long academic libraries are in charge oflearning in academia. For the learning of the learners libraries develop numerous
relationships with them by offering time buffeting services and resources. But recent
studies determine that technology and user expectation are reshaping the services ofacademic libraries (Allen, Mullins, & Hufford, 2007). Academic library users of this age
are very technology dependent and Internet skilled for their information and learningneeds. So these library users are determined as `Techie Generation` (TechieGen) users.
Due to technological advancements and evolving leaning demand of the users, libraries
are facing challenges like shift to digitization and budget constraints, alternative body oflibrary, diminishing user numbers, decline in circulation and lower seat occupancy(Akeroyd, 2001; Johnson & Lilly, 2012). These TechieGen users want to seek
information on their own and expect to have more access to digital resources, online
services, and interactive places for their learning (Thomas & McDonald, 2005).
Libraries are trying to face those challenges by adopting technological changes andredesigning its spaces for introducing changes of user learning demand. They are
introducing Learning Commons (LC) spaces for the best practice of out of class learningof its users in the library. But literary evidence shows that LC is not much aware about
the learning behavior and learning methods of its users. This research has taken the chancefor framing a theoretical model to introduce PBL based user-centered learning pedagogy
at LC.
The group learning in LC of academic libraries is the focus of the second part of thismodel. Based on Beagle (1999) as LC is a collaborative learning space where groupprocesses can modify knowledge in ways that reflect the large-scale growth of knowledge
in the culture around us will be more beneficial to them, the study concentrated on users`
knowledge sharing and acquisition transformer role in group learning (Hmelo-Silver,2004). The finding of the study has already evidenced knowledge sharing and acquisition
as a confirmed PBL phase for LC learning. LC is an interactive space where users arelearning in groups through discussion, reflection, feedback, peer teaching, sharing andacquisition of thoughts and knowledge. But there are some barriers to the knowledge
sharing of learners, including learning ability, sources knowledge, motivation and103

transmission channels (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000). Moreover, information technology
and socialization of team members also influence knowledge sharing during

Learning Commons (LC)Constructivist - Problem-Based Learning (PBL)
User-Centered Learning

Virtual Commons
Use of portals, digitalcollections, elearning tools,
productivity software

Discuss about collected
knowledge to understand new
findings (Problem identification)
Transformer role of User

Physical Commons
Use of computerdevices, designatedspaces, library collection

Group Learning

Knowledge
Sharing &Acquisition

Discussion and sharing idea
and knowledge help to innovate
new ideas (Formulate inquiry)(New PBL
Phase in LC)

Cultural Commons
Uses workshops,
tutoring programs,
research, coaching

InformalLearning

Integrate collected knowledge
during group discussion(Solution creation)
Combine knowledge anddevelop concepts by writing
results (Problem conclusion)

PBL based Out of Class Course Work learning
Problem Identification

Formulate Inquiry

Solution Creation

Problem Conclusion

User-Centered PBL Based Learning

Figure 5.3 User-Centered PBL Based Learning Pedagogy at LC in Academic Libraries

learning (Lagerstrom & Andersson, 2003). LC needs to concentrate on group learning
process of its collaborative spaces. Tutoring staffs needs to give emphasis to engage theusers in groups so that they can engross in problem solving process based on theknowledge sharing and acquisition PBL phase of LC model.
The third part of the model in the down portion refers to informal learning in out of class
LC environment. Its` social spaces and group study rooms support face to face encounter
for informal learning (Beatty & White, 2005). LC promotes a PBL-supported informal
learning environment in which users and commons tutoring staff cooperate to discover104

user needs. Learners are handed ill-structured learning tasks from their course material in
the PBL process. Learners use this place for informal learning outside of class and tocollaborate with their peers. LC is a library service in which librarians, commons staff,
technical staff, and student tutoring staff engage and interact with users on assignments,
research, writing, technical help, and information literacy programs, among other things(Beagle, 2012). Users in the collaborative learning group process complete the PBL cycle
phases to arrive at a solution to their learning problems. The survey findings in theprevious chapter has already evident that the informal learning at LC is based on the PBL
technique.
Earlier research indicates that learning activities of PBL are supported by LC which
encourages users to engage in an out of class environment (Brown, 2005). But this study
has identified some significant areas where this research shades light on those gaps.
Librarians has designed LC spaces for facilitating informal learning without considering
any learning method like PBL. LC needs to consider the informal learning methods of its
user learners in out of class PBL environment. Librarians and LC tutoring staffs need to
study the PBL method to better support in learning. They have to determine their learning
support strategy according to the learning methods of the learners. Tutoring staffs needto support the PBL learners to identify their learning issues, understand how to formulateinquiry, create solution with practice and rehearsal and reach in problem conclusion.
Those support for informal learning will make the PBL supported out of class LC spaces
fruitful to its users.
According to the arguments presented in the model, the suggested approach may have an
impact on user-centered learning at LC spaces. Its` paradigm has included problem-basedlearning phases, collaborative group learning, knowledge sharing and acquisition, andinformal learning in out of class space. These elements are mapped together as they canaccelerate to manage the changing needs of user learning in academic libraries. LC
continuum of services must manage the technological changes in user self-responsible
own learning. Collaborative group learning needed to accelerate knowledge sharing andacquisition for reaching in problem conclusion. PBL process informal learning confirms
a strong support from the LC tutoring staffs to complete the out of class course work
problem solving. Based on the elements of the present study, LC learning is user centered.
Users are in the charge of their own learning and course work teachers, librarians and LC

105

tutoring staffs are the motivator to them in out of class environment. It is LC who hascreated this new user-centered learning (UCL) pedagogy in the academia.

5.5 Implications of the Research
From the originality point of view this research has evident that LC supports problembased learning (PBL) method in it’s out of class space. In PBL process learners start theirlearning with ill-structured problems as assigned by their teachers in the courses. Students
pursue their learning here without direct supervision of the course teachers. So, it becomesan informal learning within the PBL process and students continue to study in LC tocomplete the PBL cycle phases for solving learning problems. Problem identification is
the first phase where user students try to identify the driving questions of the problem
posed (Mergendoller, Maxwell & Bellisimo, 2006). Then gradually they complete theformulate inquiry, solution creation and problem conclusion phase to reach in the solutionof their coursework problems. The survey findings in chapter 4 have already evident thatthe informal learning of students at LC is based on the PBL technique. This study has thefollowing implications for academic libraries as well as knowledge science.

5.5.1 Implications for LC in Academic Libraries and Academicians
The main point emerges from this study that has implications for library service delivery
is that libraries, need to boost their commons spaces, improve and reorganize up to themark services and resources, and provide services that support their users' preferredlearning. The heart of learning commons is learning. LC has created a unique learningpedagogy in the academia by introducing designated learning spaces in out of classenvironment. Now the library authority needs to concentrate on PBL process-based usercentered learning, knowledge sharing and acquisition in group learning and informal
learning for mapping the complete picture of learning. They can determine it as PBL
supported `Continuum of Learning` for LC. Librarians, LC staffs, tutoring staffs, IT staffs
need to understand this continuum for better serve the learners in problem solving. The
user-centered learning, group learning, and informal learning in out of class environment.

106

UserCentered
Learning
Use of LC
Continuumof Service

LC
Continuumof Learning

Figure 5.4 PBL supported Continuum of Learning in LC
In the wider world, learning is gaining recognition as a key factor for success of academic
institutions. This research has explored PBL supported user-centered learning pedagogy
in out of class space to the academic world. Academics need to contribute their knowledge
to make the pedagogy fruitful in academia.

5.5.2 Implications for Knowledge Science
Knowledge management (KM) has been regarded as a process that covers the creation,
capture, identification, organize, store, sharing and acquisition or use of knowledge(Aharony, 2011). Knowledge sharing and acquisition is a collaborative process whichleads to generating new knowledge and ideas and that helps to solve our real-life problems.
The main axiom of knowledge science is to create, share and use knowledge for getting
maximum output of its resources. It has been evident in academic libraries that advanced
technology setting and collaborative learning space leverage knowledge co-creation
through knowledge sharing and acquisition of the learners (Lee & Schottenfeld, 2014).
Learning commons is a user centered approach of the libraries intended to provide avibrant space for learning of today`s library users. The intention of this space is to giveopportunity to the learners for group learning outside of the classroom. The result of this107

present research has evidenced that knowledge sharing and acquisition is contributing as
a mediating factor of learning at learning commons. It helps the learners to generate newideas and gradually proceed to problem conclusion.
Knowledge science is a multidisciplinary concept and LIS professionals of this age needto extend their focus at the user learning level. They need to integrate resources at LC
with an aim to create an environment for knowledge sharing and acquisition among theusers outside of class. The present study has contributed to show that KM is playing arole in user learning of academic libraries. The implication of this research needs to widen
the concentration of LIS professionals from the narrow objectives of LC. They need toalign its services, spaces, and resources. This present research can contribute more toknowledge science by adding valued services with much concentration of knowledge
sharing and acquisition in user learning at LC.

5.6 Limitations and Future ResearchThis study has some limitations, which opens up new avenues for further study.
Firstly, the research sample was drawn only from Japan and three universities were
included in the survey. More survey samples from the other countries may incorporate
different opinions of the respondents and surely increase the reliability of the study.
Secondly, the survey instrument was prepared in English, and it was found that someJapanese respondents are not always comfortable with it. There was a possibility to
express their opinion without understanding the query.
Thirdly, the study has put forward the problem-based learning method to see the usercentered learning at LC. It did not check the motivation and strategies of the learners as
the reasons why they are coming to this space to use for learning. Further study needs tosee the self-directed learning (SDL) and self-regulated learning (SRL) methods of usercentered learning at LC.
Finally, the present study considers that the combined understand of Problem-Based
Learning (PBL), Self-directed learning (SDL) and Self-regulated learning (SRL) methodsof constructivist learning theory would make the User-Centered Learning (UCL) as awide-ranging learning pedagogy in the academia.

108References
Ab Hamid, M. R., Sami, W., & Sidek, M. M. (2017, September). Discriminant validity
assessment: Use of Fornell & Larcker criterion versus HTMT criterion. In Journal of
Physics: Conference Series, IOP Publishing.
Afari, E. (2013). The Effects of Psychosocial Learning Environment on Students’Attitudes Towards Mathematics. In Application of Structural Equation Modeling in
Educational Research and Practice, Khine, M. S. (edt).
Aharony, N. (2011). Librarians’ attitudes toward knowledge management. College &Research Libraries, 72(2), 111-126.
Alam, M. K., Umemoto, K. & Yoshida, T. (2016). Co-creating values at learningcommons in academic libraries. In Proceedings of the international conference on
library and information science (pp. 314-328), Kyoto, July 12-14.
Alam, M. K., Yoshida, T. & Kohda, Y. (2016). Value Co-Creation at Learning Commons:
A Service-Dominant Logic Perspective. Proceedings of the 7th Asia-Pacific Conferenceon Library & Information Education & Practice (A-LIEP 2016) (pp. 338-347), Nanjing,
China, November 3-4.
Allen, D. E., Donham, R. S., & Bernhardt, S. A. (2011). Problem-based learning.
Evidence-Based Teaching: New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 128, 21-29.
Allen, F. R., Mullins, J. L., & Hufford, J. R. (2007). Top ten assumptions for the futureof academic libraries and librarians: A report from the ACRL research committee.
Alolah, T., Stewart, R. A., Panuwatwanich, K., & Mohamed, S. (2014). Developing acomprehensive safety performance evaluation framework for Saudi schools.
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management.
Amineh, R. J., & Asl, H. D. (2015). Review of constructivism and social
constructivism. Journal of Social Sciences, Literature and Languages, 1(1), 9-16.
Ando, M., Asakura, T. and Simons-Morton, B. (2005). Psychosocial influences on
physical, verbal, and indirect bullying among Japanese early adolescents. The Journal of
Early Adolescence, 25(3), 268-297.
Applegate, R. (2009). The library is for studying: student preferences for study space.
The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 35(4), p. 341-346.
Apuke, O. D. (2017). Quantitative research methods: A synopsis approach. Kuwait
Chapter of Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, 6 (11), 40–47.
Babbie, E. R. (2011). The basics of social research (4 ed.). Belmont: Thomson
Wadsworth.
Babin, B. J., & Attaway, J. S. (2000). Atmospheric affect as a tool for creating value
and gaining share of customer. Journal of Business Research, 49(2), 91-99.

109

Bailey, D. R. (2006). Information commons services for learners and researchers:
evolution in patron needs, digital resources and scholarly publishing. Library Commons,1.
Bailey, D. R. (2014). A commons for the digital age: flipping the commons into thecloud. Providence College. http://www.pingree.org/page.cfm? p=3113.
Bailey, D. R., & Tierney, B. (2008). Transforming library service through informationcommons: part 1- introduction. Library Commons Basics, paper 1.
http://digitalcommons.providence.edu/lib_commons_basics/1.
Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. M. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to
medical education. New York: Springer.
Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem‐based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief
overview. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, (68), 3-12.
Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. M. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to
medical education. New York: Springer.
Baryshev, R.A. (2021). From electronic to smart library systems: Concept, classificationof services, scheme of work and model. Journal of Siberian Federal University.
Humanities & Social Sciences, 14(3), 426–443.
Baryshev, R.A., Verkhovets, S.V., & Babina, O.I. (2018), The smart library project:
Development of information and library services for educational and scientific activity,
The Electronic Library, 36(3), 535-549.
Beagle, D. (1999). Conceptualizing an information commons. The Journal of Academic
Librarianship, 25(2), 82-89.
Beagle, D. (2002). Extending the information commons: From instructional testbed tointernet 2. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28(5), 287-296.
Beagle, D. R. (2006). The information commons handbook. New York: NealSchuman Publishers.
Beagle, D. (2008). The learning commons in historical context. Annals of Nagoya
University Library Studies, 7, 15-24.
Beagle, D. (2012). The Emergent Information Commons: Philosophy, models, and 21st
century learning paradigms. Journal of Library Administration, 52(6-7), 518-537.
Beatty, S., & White, P. (2005). Information commons: Models for e-literacy and theintegration of learning. Journal of E-Literacy, 2(1), 1-14.
Bennett, S. (2003). Libraries designed for learning. Washington, DC: Council on
Library and Information Resources.
Bennett, S. (2008). The information or the learning commons: which will we have?
Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(3), 183–185.

110

Bennett, S. (2009). Libraries and learning: A history of paradigm change. Portal:
Libraries and the academy, 9(2), 181-197.
Bennett, S. (2015). Putting learning into library planning. Portal: Libraries and theAcademy, 15(2), 215-231.
Brandon, A. F., & All, A. C. (2010). Constructivism theory analysis and application tocurricula. Nursing Education Perspectives, 31(2), 89-92.
Brown, M. (2005). Learning spaces. In Diana G. Oblinger, & James L. Oblinger (Eds.),
Educating the Net generation (pp. 12.1–12.22). Louisville, CO: Educause.
Brown, T. H. (2005). Beyond constructivism: Exploring future learning paradigms.
Education today, 2(2), 1-11.
Bruffee, K. A. (1999). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, andthe authority of knowledge. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Caffarella, R. S., & Merriam, S. B. (1999). Perspectives on adult learning: Framing ourresearch. In 40th Annual Adult Education Research Conference Proceedings. DeKalb,
IL: Northern Illinois University.
Cao, G., Liang, M., & Li, X. (2018). How to make the library smart? The
conceptualization of the smart library. The Electronic Library. 36(5), 811-825.
Carr, R. (2006). What users want: An academic" hybrid" library perspective. Ariadne,(46), 2.
Casey, M. E., & Savastinuk, L. C. (2006). Service for the next-generation library.
Library journal, 131(1), 40-42.
Chen, C. F., & Tsai, D. (2007). How destination image and evaluative factors affectbehavioral intentions?. Tourism management, 28(4), 1115-1122.
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling.
Modern methods for business research, 295(2), 295-336.
Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in
web-or internet-based surveys. Educational and psychological measurement, 60(6),821-836.
Commons. (2020). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons.
Constructivism (philosophy of education). (2020). In Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons.
Cowgill, A., Beam, J., & Wess, L. (2001). Implementing an information commons in auniversity library. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 27(6), 432-439.
Creswell, J.W. (2003), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches, 2nd ed., Sage Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA.

111

Dahlgren, M. A., & Dahlgren, L. O. (2002). Portraits of PBL: Students' experiences of
the characteristics of problem-based learning in physiotherapy, computer engineeringand psychology. Instructional Science, 30(2), 111-127.
De Graaff, E., & Kolmos, A. (2003). Characteristics of problem-based learning.
International Journal of Engineering Education, 19(5), 657-662.
De Houwer, J., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Moors, A. (2013). What is learning? On thenature and merits of a functional definition of learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,
20(4), 631-642.
Doiron, R., & Asselin, M. (2011). Exploring a new learning landscape in tertiary
education. New Library World. 112(5/6), 222-235.
Donkai, S., Toshimori, A., & Mizoue, C. (2011). Academic libraries as learning spaces
in Japan: Toward the development of learning commons. The International Information& Library Review, 43(4), 215-220.
English, M. C., & Kitsantas, A. (2013). Supporting student self-regulated learning in
problem-and project-based learning. InterdisciplinaryJjournal of Problem-Based
Learning, 7(2), 128-150.
Elliott, S.N., Kratochwill, T.R., Littlefield, C.J. & Travers, J. (2000). Educational
psychology: Effective teaching, effective learning (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill
College.
Eyisi, D. (2016). The usefulness of qualitative and quantitative approaches and methods
in researching problem-solving ability in science education curriculum. Journal of
Education and Practice, 7(15), 91-100.
Farrugia, P., Petrisor, B. A., Farrokhyar, F., & Bhandari, M. (2010). Research questions,hypotheses and objectives. Canadian Journal of Surgery, 53(4), 278.
Ferguson, C. J. (2009). An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 40(9), 532-538.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models withunobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 3950.
Fox, R. (2001). Constructivism examined. Oxford review of education, 27(1), 23-35.
Gardner, S. & Eng, S. (2005). What Students Want: Generation Y and the Changing
Function of the Academic Library. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, Vol. 5, No. 3, p.
405-420.
Geoffrey T. Freeman, “The Academic Library in the 21st Century: Partner in
Education,” in Building Libraries for the 21st Century: The Shape of Information, ed. T.
D. Webb (Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2000), 168–75.
Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1992). Monte Carlo evaluations of goodness of fit
indices for structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 132160.
112

Gibbs, G. (1992). Assessing more students. Oxford: Oxford Brookes University.
Gillette, D. D., & Somerville, M. M. (2006). Toward lifelong knowledge making:
Faculty development for student learning in the Cal Poly Learning Commons. In
Lifelong Learning-Partners, Pathways, and Pedagogies: Proceedings of the 4thInternational Lifelong Learning Conference (pp. 117-123).
Gul, S., & Bano, S. (2019). Smart libraries: an emerging and innovative technologicalhabitat of 21st century. The Electronic Library. 37(5), 764-783.
Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge Flows within Multinational
Corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 473-496.
Hair, Jr., J. E., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data
analysis (7th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how toreport the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review. 31(1), 2-24.
Hein, G. E. (1991). Constructivist learning theory. Institute for Inquiry. Available
at:/http://www.exploratorium.edu/ifi/resources/constructivistlearning.html.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn?.
Educational psychology review, 16(3), 235-266.
Huang, H. M. (2002). Toward constructivism for adult learners in online learning
environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(1), 27-37.
Jain, P. (2013). Knowledge management in academic libraries and information centres:
A case of university libraries. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management,
12(04), 1-13.
Jankowska, M. A., & Marcum, J. W. (2010). Sustainability challenge for academic
libraries: Planning for the future. College & research libraries, 71(2), 160-170.
Johnson, B.L. and Lilly, R. (2012). Current Challenges Facing U.S. Academic
Libraries- From a 2012 Elsevier & Digital Resources Acquisition Alliance Event.
Khasawneh, F. A. (2013). Student-Centered Learning Pedagogy as Innovative Place
Maker in Campus (Doctoral dissertation, Mie University).
Khasawneh, F.A., Shibayama, Y., Kato, A., Mori, S., & Taniguchi, G. (2011).
Emerging Learning Commons in Japanese Academic Libraries: Behavioral Aspects ofActual Usage
and Communication Patterns, In proceedings of the 42nd Annual Conference of theEnvironmental Design Research Association, Chicago, Illinois, May 25-28, p.145-153.
Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.).
New York: Guilford Press.
Krosnick, J. (1999). Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 537-567.

113

Lagerstrom, K., & Andersson, M. (2003). Creating and sharing knowledge within atransnational team: the development of a global business system. Journal of World
Business, 38(2), 84-95.
Lauriden, B., & Cruz, A. (2013). Knowledge sharing and problem-based learning. In
Proceedings of ASBBS, 20(1), 423-435.
Lee, Y. S. and Schottenfeld, M.A. (2014). Collaborative Knowledge Creation in theHigher Education Academic Library, Journal of Learning Spaces, 3(1).
Leedy, P. & Ormrod, J. (2001). Practical research: Planning and design (7th ed.).
Upper Saddle River: NJ.
Lewis, D. W. (2007). A strategy for academic libraries in the first quarter of the 21st
century. College & Research Libraries, 68(5), 418-434.
Lippincott, J. K. (2005). Net Generation Students and Libraries. Educause Review,40(2), 56-66.
Lippincott, J. K. (2006). Linking the information commons to learning. In D. Oblinger(Ed.), Learning Spaces. Washington, DC; Boulder, CO: Educause.
Loyens, S. M., & Gijbels, D. (2008). Understanding the effects of constructivist
learning environments: Introducing a multi-directional approach. Instructional science,
36(5), 351-357.
MacWhinnie, L. A. (2003). The Information Commons: The Academic Library of the
Future. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 3(2), 241-257.
Majid, N. A. A. (2014). Integration of web 2.0 tools in learning a programming course.
Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 13(4), 88-94.
Majid, S., & Chitra, P. K. (2013). Role of knowledge sharing in the learning process.
Literacy Information and Computer Education Journal (LICEJ), 2(1), 1201-1207.
Martinez-Ruiz, A., & Aluja-Banet, T. (2009). Toward the definition of a structural
equation model of patent value: PLS path modelling with formative constructs.
REVSTAT–Statistical Journal, 7(3), 265-290.
Maury, Y. (2012, November). Information and Knowledge Management in Libraries:
the Reference Texts in Question. In 2nd International Symposium ISKO-Maghreb'2012Concepts and Tools for Knowledge Management.
McCabe, A., & O'Connor, U. (2014). Student-centred learning: the role andresponsibility of the lecturer. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(4), 350-359.
McLeod, S. A. (2019). Constructivism as a theory for teaching and learning. Simply
Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/constructivism.html
McMullen, S. (2008). US academic libraries: Today’s learning commons model. PEB
Exchange 4, MA: OECD.

114

Mergendoller, J. R., Maxwell, N. L., & Bellisimo, Y. (2006). The effectiveness ofproblem-based instruction: A comparative study of instructional methods and student
characteristics. Interdisciplinary journal of problem-based learning, 1(2), 49-69.
Milne, A. J. (2006). Designing blended learning space to the student experience. In
Diana G. Oblinger (eds.), Learning Spaces, Boulder: EDUCAUSE, 11.1-11.15.
Mohd-Yusof, K., Helmi, S., Jamaludin, M. Z., & Harun, N. F. (2011). Cooperative
problem-based learning (CPBL): A practical PBL model for a typical course.
International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 6(3), 12-20.
Nagata, H. (2008). New `ba` (locale) in academic libraries: Information commons andlearning commons. Annals of Nagoya University Library Studies, 7(1), 3–14.
Neuman, W. L. (2007). Basics of social research: Qualitative and quantitative
approaches (2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Nitecki, D. A., & Simpson, K. (2016). Communicating the library as a learning
environment. Journal of Learning Spaces, 5(2), 39-52.
Oblinger, D. G. & Oblinger, J. L. (2005). Is it age or IT: First steps toward
understanding the net generation. In J. Oblinger, D. Oblinger (eds.) Educating the Net
Generation, Boulder: EDUCAUSE.
Oldfather, P., & Dahl, K. (1994). Toward a social constructivist reconceptualization of
intrinsic motivation for literacy learning. Journal of Literacy Research, 26(2), 139-158.
Oliveira, S. M. (2018). Trends in academic library space: from book boxes to learningcommons. Open information science, 2(1), 59-74.
Oliveira, A. M. C. A., dos Santos, S. C., & Garcia, V. C. (2013, October). PBL inteaching computing: An overview of the last 15 years. In 2013 IEEE Frontiers in
Education Conference (FIE) (pp. 267-272). IEEE.
O’Neill, G., & McMahon, T. (2005). Student-centred learning: What does it mean forstudents and lecturers?. In: O’Neill, G., Moore, S., McMullin, B. (Eds). Emerging
Issues in the Practice of University Learning and Teaching. Dublin: AISHE.
Onwuegbuzie, A., Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods
in social & behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Perkins, R. A. (2011). Using research-based practices to increase response rates of
web-based surveys. Educause Quarterly, 34(2), 9-17.
Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent: The future of education. New York:Grossman.
Ping, R. A. (2009). Is there any way to improve Average Variance Extracted (AVE) in a
Latent Variable (LV) X (Revised)? [on-line paper].
http://www.wright.edu/~robert.ping/ImprovAVE2.doc)

115

Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1 (1), 9-20.
Scupola, A., & Nicolajsen, H. W. (2010).Service innovation in academic libraries: Is
there a place for the customers? Library Management, 31(4/5), 304-318.
Sekaran, U. (2003), Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach, 4thed., JohnWiley & Sons Inc, New York, NY.
Shank, J. D. (2006). The blended librarian: A job announcement analysis of the newly
emerging position of instructional design librarian. College & Research Libraries, 67(6),514-524.

Siddike, M. A. K., Umemoto, K., & Kohda, Y. (2014, August). Transformation of
public libraries: co-creation of values at multipurpose community learning centers. In
2014 IIAI 3rd International Conference on Advanced Applied Informatics (pp. 109114). IEEE.
Simmonds, P. L., & Andaleeb, S. S. (2001). Usage of Academic Libraries: Role ofService. Library Trends, 49(4), 626-634.
Sinclair, B. (2009). The blended librarian in the learning commons: New skills for the
blended library. College & Research Libraries News, 70(9), 504-516.
Smith, F. (1975). Comprehension and Learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Somerville, M. M., & Brar, N. (2006). Collaborative co-design: the cal poly digitalteaching library user centric approach. Library Scholarship, Vol. 24, 1-14.
Somerville, M. M., & Collins, L. (2008). Collaborative co-design: a learner‐centeredlibrary planning approach. The Electronic Library, 26(6), p. 803–820.
Somerville, M. M., & Harlan, S. (2008). From information commons to learningcommons and learning spaces: An evolutionary context. In S. Barbara (Eds.), Learning
Commons: Evolution and Collaborative Essentials (1-36). Oxford: Chandos.
Thomas, C., & McDonald, R. H. (2005). Millennial Net Value(s): Disconnects Between
Libraries and the Information Age Mindset. Florida State University D-Scholarship
Repository, 93-105. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/ Robert_
Mcdonald4/publication/Thomas, A. M. & Veloutsou, C. (2013). Beyond Technology Acceptance: Brand
Relationship and Online Brand Experience. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 21-27.
Tick, A. (2007, January). Application of problem-based learning in classroom activities
and multimedia. In 5th Slovakian Hungarian joint symposium on applied machine
intelligence and informatics, Poprad, Slovakia.
von Glaserfeld, E. (1984). An introduction to radical constructivism. In P. Watzlawick(Ed.), The Invented Reality (pp. 17-40). New York: Norton.

116

Van Tonder, E., & Petzer, D. J. (2018). The interrelationships between relationshipmarketing constructs and customer engagement dimensions. The Service Industries
Journal, 38(13-14), 948-973.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Williams, C. (2011). Research methods. Journal of Business & Economics Research(JBER), 5(3).
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods, (5th ed.). Sage
Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Yip, K. H. T., Lo, P., Ho, K. K., & Chiu, D. K. (2021). Adoption of mobile library apps
as learning tools in higher education: A tale between Hong Kong and Japan. Online
Information Review, 45(2), 389-305.
Zhang, Y. (2000). Using the internet for survey research: a case study. Journal of theAmerican Society for Information Science. 51(1), 57-68.

117Appendix A: Questionnaire

Questionnaire on Problem Solving Practices in Students’ Learning at
Learning Commons of Academic Libraries
Background
This survey is being undertaken as a part of my doctoral research. The aim of the survey
is to know your practices regarding solving learning problems as a user of Learning
Commons (LC) of your university library as well as to know how group work is helping
in your problem solving.
Participation
The survey takes approximately 10 minutes to complete. It is conducted online andparticipation is voluntary. If you are a user of the Learning Commons of your university
library (Group Learning Spaces, Presentation Studio, Café, etc.) then you are requested
to participate in the survey.
Confidentiality
Strict confidentiality will be maintained for all responses and the data and information
provided by you will be used for my doctoral dissertation and journal or conference
papers. In order to confirm the confidentiality, results of the survey will be aggregatedand your participation will remain anonymous.
Guidelines
Each section of this questionnaire will ask you about 4-6 questions. You do not need towrite or type any answer, rather you have to choose your answer from a 7-point answer
scale that best reflects your opinion.
7 Point Answer Scale
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Disagree somewhat
4 Neither disagree nor agree (Neutral)
5 Agree somewhat
6 Agree
7 Strongly agree

118

Definition of Key Terms
Learning Commons
Learning Commons (LC) of a library provide physical, technological and social spaces
and offer student learners and researchers to pursue numerous learning and research
activities in those spaces.
Learning Problem
Learning problems are the students' assignment, presentation, project, examination, etc.
for which they use the LC to learn with group mates for solving those problems.
Contact
If you have any questions or more information to know of this survey, please feel free tocontact with the researcher:
Mohammed Khalid Alam
Doctoral Candidate
Graduate School of Knowledge Science
Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (JAIST)
1-1 Asahidai, Nomi, Ishikawa, 923-1292 Japan
Email: khalid@jaist.ac.jp
If you have further query or concerns about your rights as a research participant, pleasecontact supervisor of this research:
Professor Dr. Youji Kohda
Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (JAIST), Ishikawa, Japan
Email: kohda@jaist.ac.jp,

Thank you very much for your kind cooperation. Please click “NEXT” to start thesurvey.
Section 1: LC Use for Learning (LCUL)
Learning Commons (LC) provides various services, spaces and resources for enhancing
learning among the students in the library building. LC has combined three interrelated
and interdependent levels, Physical Commons, Virtual Commons and Cultural Commons.
The users of LC makes use of services and resources from those three levels of commons119

in their course studies learning problem solving process. Do you use those resources andservices for your learning?
Construct

Question
Number

Item
scale

Variable(s)Question

LC UseforLearning(LCUL)Q24

LCUL1

PhysicalCommons

Q25

LCUL2

VirtualCommons

Q26

LCUL3

CulturalCommons

We use LC computer devices, designatedspace and library collection during
learning
LC portals, digital library collections, elearning tools, productivity software helps
us to prepare the solution
LC social resources like workshops,
tutoring programs, research collaborations
and coaching help to generate new idea
and create solution

Section 2: Knowledge Sharing and Acquisition (KSA)
Knowledge sharing and acquisition plays a role in every aspect of solving assigned
learning problems. This activity helps you to gather previous knowledge and shareknowledge among the groupmates and they integrate those with their own knowledge
base and generate new ideas on the way to solve problems.
Construct
Knowledge
SharingandAcquisition(KSA)

Question
Number
Q20

Item
scale
KSA1

Q21

KSA2

Q22

KSA3

Q23

KSA4

Variable(s)Question

Understandnewfindings
Knowledge
sharing
Integrate
knowledge
Combineknowledge& complete
solution

We discuss about collected knowledge tounderstand new findings
Discussion and sharing idea andknowledge help me to innovate new ideas
In group discussion we integrate thecollected knowledge
By writing results we combine
knowledge and develop new concepts
with old one

Section 3: Problem Identification (PI)
Problem identification process develops a clear idea about the learning problems.
Students use Learning Commons (LC) for solving their learning problems such as
assignments, presentations, projects and examinations. Through various learning
activities like discussion, sharing, feedback, etc. with group mates they try to understandand define the problem.

120

Construct
Problem
Identification(PI)

Question
Number
Q1

Item
scale
PI1

Q2

PI2

Q3

PI3

Q4

PI4

Q5

PI5

Variable(s)Question

Work withgroupmate

Outside of classroom LC gives me
the opportunity to work for solving
learning problems with groupmates
Here we determine the driving
question that we need to answer forsolving the problem
Group learning helps me tounderstand the broad nature of the
problem

Determinethe driving
question
Understandbroad natureof theproblem
Gathering
previous
knowledge
ImprovingproblemsolvingskillsLC learning helps me to organize
ideas by gathering previous
knowledge
Learning in LC is improving my
problem-solving skills

Section 4: Formulate Inquiry (FI)Through inquiry students who are working in LC try to create the questions that they needto know for solving the problems. They gather information/knowledge from different
sources and share it among group mates to find the knowledge gap for further query.
Construct
FormulateInquiry(FI)

Question
Number
Q6

Item
scale
FI1

Q7

FI2

Q8

FI3

Q9

FI4

Q10

FI5

Variable(s)Question

Severalquestions andunknown
issues arise
What
informationneed to know
furtherTake help
and search
information
Share andexplain ideas
Peer learning

In LC group work several questions
and unknown issues arise that we needto know
I can understand what information weneed to know further
We plan to take help from experts andsearch information
Here I share and explain my ideas
Group mates teaches each other about
the new findings

121Section 5: Solution Creation (SC)In this stage students start thinking about the possible solution of the problem. They try
to make sense of the collected knowledge by developing new ideas and searching for thebest solution.
Construct
Solution
Creation(SC)

Question
Number
Q11

Item
scale
SC1

Q12

SC2

Q13

SC3

Q14

SC4

Q15

SC5

Variable(s)Question

Determine
important
topics to know
beginning
Assign groupor individualtasks

During LC learning I can determine
which topic is important to know in the
beginning

Createsolution
Rehearsal andpractice
LC programs

We assign group or individual tasks like
information collection, report writing,creating presentation, etc. for solving the
problems
We work to create the best possible
presentation or solution of the problem
While working in LC we rehearsal andrevision our tentative presentation or
solution
LC programs (lecture seminars,
workshops, events, etc.) help me togenerate the best solution.

Section 6: Problem Conclusion (PC)This is the final stage where students are prepared for submitting their overall learning
outcome and process outcome. Through numerous practices and revisions they combine
the collected knowledge with the old concept and prepare the final presentation for best
conclusion.
Construct
ProblemConclusion(PC)

Question
Number
Q16

Item
scale
PC1

Q17

PC2

Q18

PC3

Q19

PC4

Variable(s)Question

Identify
unknown
issues
Decide thebest solutionGroup
feedback
Findunanswered
issues forsolution

Through discussion we summarize
relevant knowledge and identify what isneeded to know more
Through practice and preparation we try to
decide the best ways for solution
Based on group feedback we revise thepresentation and evaluate its’ accuracy
While preparing the final solution we stillfind some unanswered issues

Alhamdhulillah
122