As a future teaching librarian, I guide my pedagogical practices first and foremost under the “Authority is Constructed and Contextual” frame of the ACRLFramework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. I want my students to develop healthy skepticism and a critical eye toward all the information they consume. The frame also helps to remind me of the place of authority in the information landscape and of instances I could be promoting undue or inequitable authority in my teaching practices.
There are three central values I believe teacher librarians should promote in their instruction. They are accessibility, literacy, and autonomy. If I look at these values through the “Authority is Constructed and Contextual” frame, I’m able to flesh them out.
Teaching values
When I consider who is in power and how information is relayed, I can consider who is being left out and how this information may be inaccessible for those not in power. Leung et al. write, “history is told from the “winning” side” (Leung et al., 2021, pg. 74). How many students do not fit neatly into the winning side archetype?
In Roberts (2017), community college students are examined to see what may motivate nontraditional learners. Nontraditional learners, Roberts points out, often have work obligations, dependents, and other real-world responsibilities (2017 p. 532). These many demands for a nontraditional learner’s time could make learning theoretical, academic, work more challenging. Teaching librarians need to be cognizant of these demands and called upon to create immediately relevant instruction helpful to nontraditional students.
Literacy is a given objective for information instructors, but how do we define literacy? Elmborg (2006) proposes that the definition of literacy isn’t as crucial as applying critical practices in librarianship. While I think there are multiple literacies and that the concept of metaliteracy is essential for teaching librarians to understand, I also prioritize the concept of critical information literacy in instruction. Critical information literacy emphasizes the power structures underpinning information production and encourages students to “engage with and act upon” them (Tewell, 2015, p. 25). It is essentially a call to action and blends well within the “authority is constructed and contextual frame.
Autonomy encourages students to navigate the information landscape on their own. A classmate of mine emphasized this need in a class discussion, “information literacy instructors should be helping students develop into their own agents in the digital information landscape” (Jannsch, 2021). Autonomy is a core underlying value of the “Authority is Constructed and Contextual” frame because the frame enables learners to suss out authority for themselves and critically analyze everyday information.
Information Infrastructure
To better understand how to apply these values, we must first understand the information infrastructure.
In the “Ethnography of Infrastructure,” Star defines infrastructure, in part, as something embedded and accessible to the community (Star, 1999, p. 381). It provides a structure for the rest of the world to build off. Information infrastructure can be as specific as the Facebook algorithm or as broad as the structures of academic texts. It could be how we deliver information via phone, television, podcast, or YouTube video. It could be the way we design print books.
Star challenges researchers looking to study infrastructure to think about who is othered and to make invisible structures seen. If we’re evaluating the design of a print book, we should ask if the book is readable? Is the text too small? Does this book have a brail copy and or/audiobook version to make it readable for all?
A classmate of mine once wrote that information is the “western-centric codification of knowledge. It is knowledge made legitimate through passing through artificial societal parameters, sometimes for the better sometimes for the worse.” (Teachout, 2021).
This is a broader theory of information infrastructure that challenges academic sensibilities when it comes to verification.
Teaching students to identify information infrastructures and question who may be othered by them is a step toward breaking down an inequitable verification system.
Theoretically teaching students critical information literacy and evaluating information infrastructures is all well and good, but how do we enact these theories and values in practice?
Teaching practices
When teaching about the accessibility of information, I can embed instruction with conversations about equitable practice. My classmate had a fantastic idea where she assigned students different money values and then limited their research access per their designated funds (Jannsch, 2021). The activity would generate conversation about information as a commodity. That lesson seems appropriate for an embedded librarian but does not work as well in a one-shot format. A simple inclusion of information accessibility in a one-shot catalog-focused lesson could be showing students how they could attempt a search without university resources. I would showcase items that lead paywalls. This activity could prompt a brief discussion on information privilege, and the access students are afforded as university community members.
A lesson on literacy could involve journaling. In class, students could make a list, as a class, (with librarian assistance and prompting when needed) of criteria to evaluate three types of media they consume at home. Only one can be homework-based. The other types of media must be practical or consumed for entertainment. Students are given a week to evaluate their three media consumptions in their journals and then share what they’ve learned in a class discussion.
For a one-shot lesson, a brief student-centered discussion on various information formats and types will have to suffice, with special focus placed on the format students think would be most appropriate for their assignments.
Lastly, a lesson focused on autonomy would involve problem-based learning, as Roberts (2017) described. In class, I developed an appropriate lesson focused on adult learners (Birch, 2021). The lesson involves three in-person workshop series and some asynchronous courses focusing on unsolved mysteries, ancestry, researching for fiction, and healthcare. The first of each workshop would be held in the public library. The second two would be in the university library space, so patrons can better understand how to use the university library. Patrons would choose a research topic in the workshops and start their research plan with library assistance and instruction on search techniques. Then they’d be tasked with completing the rest of the lesson asynchronously through the librarian would still be accessible to them throughout their research.
I would develop student-centered activities on crafting search terms and research questions in a one-shot lesson. I would be available to assist students during this crafting process, and as a class, I would have students lead us in a group search to test keywords and search strategies. Throughout the search, I could make suggestions to students about methods they could use to improve the search.
These are just a few lessons I could use that encourage students to think critically about the information they consume, think critically about the structures behind the information, and develop autonomous learning practices.
My teaching philosophy prioritizes the “Authority is Constructed and Contextual” frame as a method of critical information literacy. I firmly believe that information is not neutral and that librarians, especially instruction librarians, have a duty to empower students to act justly and craft equitable information practices.
Works Cited
Birch, Harmony. (2021, September 24). Module 4 Discussion: Connecting Higher Education Information Literacy to the Public Library System [Discussion post]. Rutgers University Canvas. https://rutgers.instructure.com/courses/142752
Elmborg, James. (2006). Critical information literacy: Implications for instructional practice. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32(2), 192–199. doi: 10.1016/j.acalib.2005.12.004
Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL). (2016, February 9). Retrieved October 16, 2021, from https://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework.
Jannsch, Heidi. (2021, October 14). Module 6 Discussion: Applying Learning Theories in the Library [Discussion post]. Rutgers University Canvas. https://rutgers.instructure.com/courses/142752
Leung, S. Y., López-McKnight Jorge R., Morales, M., & Williams, S. (2021). Moving toward Transformative Librarianship: Naming and Identifying Epistemic Supremacy. In Knowledge Justice: Disrupting Library and Information Studies Through Critical Race Theory. The MIT Press.
Roberts, L. (2017). Research in the real world: Improving adult learners web search and evaluation skills through motivational design and problem-based learning. College & Research Libraries, 78(4), 527–551.
Star, Susan Leigh. (1999). "The Ethnography of Infrastructure."
Teachout, Dash. (2021, September 4). Module 1 Discussion: Information and Literacy [Discussion post]. Rutgers University Canvas. https://rutgers.instructure.com/courses/142752
Tewell, E. (2016). A decade of critical information literacy: A review of the literature.
Actions. Communications in Information Literacy, 9(1), 24–43.