Main Body
5 A Pedagogical Manifesto
Short Manifesto: Fall 2019
R. I. Clarke (2020) explains that design thinking is “a way of looking at the world that is guided by problem finding, framing, and solving; creativity; human-centeredness; divergent thinking; the idea that anything is possible; comfort with failure; and iteration” (13). My teaching philosophy is uncannily summarized in this statement. I favor process-oriented, active, student-centered environments, where hands-on, mindful academic exploration is encouraged.
I am enormously at ease with failure as it provides a platform to continually redesign lesson plans and materials; it’s an opportunity to rethink assumptions and engage in critical discussions. Since students are far less comfortable with failure, I strive to create nurturing, enthusiastic learning spaces and model “problematic searches” to demonstrate that “failure” is, in information literacy, something of a myth. For instance, a database search with few relevant results is an invitation for individual or collaborative creativity. How many synonyms can students generate in five minutes in small groups? Given database context and familiarity, which synonyms might yield results, and which one may not?
The “no results” search is also an enriching example of problem solving in action, though I’m equally fond of modeling problem finding, particularly if it’s the discovery of a compelling article that students are not yet sure about: “How does it relate to my research?” they might thoughtfully and rightly ask. I view this problem as an opportunity to engage the class in brainstorming activity—mind-mapping, for instance. Or I might construct a short, step-by-step activity to catalyze their thinking about source incorporation.
While Clarke does not explicitly address reflection-in-action in this statement, that is, altering one’s course in the moment to better accommodate a latent discovery, it is at the heart of design thinking and my own pedagogical practice. Though risky, these in-the-moment instructional changes often assist students’ thinking and model the importance of revision—for all. During team-taught library sessions at UW-Bothell, the instructional librarian and I deviated, as needed, from our lessons plans to give students more time to search, to assist them one-on-one, and/or to try out a newly improvised version of a familiar activity.
Altering the course is especially essential when your students have ranged from teenagers enrolled in Running Start to single parents uncovering learning disabilities. You can plan in advance to create a wholly inclusive classroom, a space where international students, gender non-binary students, and underrepresented minority students will all feel at home learning alongside the teacher. Yet you never know until you’re in the classroom if your methods are helping or hindering learning. So my teaching has always been open to improvisation, accountability, and change; that is, like the most productive design thinking, compassionately human-centered.
Reference
Clarke, R. I. (2020). Design Thinking. Chicago, ALA.
Second Iteration: Spring 2020 Teaching Philosophy
During fall quarter of 2019, I walked into a three-hour digital storytelling instructional session with UW’s English literature and Social Work subject librarians. I was keenly aware of the diverse identities and life experiences represented in the classroom and ready to draw on years of teaching to co-create a welcoming, inclusive learning space. Nonetheless, an hour into class, a search I modelled for “military veterans” on the site Pexels.com returned several photographs of white, male-presenting veterans. One of my co-teachers explicitly called out the lack of diversity in our results. He additionally explained that Pexels.com, while providing gorgeous, copyright-free images, overtly aestheticized poverty and suffering. When a student suggested that we use Broadly’s Gender Spectrum Collection, the librarian immediately added the site to the class’s notes. Moreover, the three of us thanked the student and the entire class as a whole for assisting us in this vital learning experience.
I am a middle-class, hard-of-hearing, white Jewish woman with an unwavering commitment to equity and inclusion. From San Antonio to Seattle I’ve taught in community college and university classrooms. I’ve overhauled outdated English literature curriculum and developed program assessment methods for an HSI (Hispanic Serving Institution); I’ve also mentored a small cohort of underrepresented minority graduate students. But the three-hour digital storytelling session illustrates that mindful, inclusive instruction is an ongoing process of re-learning and revising, of listening to and seeking input from students as well as peers.
I conceptualize information literacy instruction, then, as a collaborative, open, iterative event attuned to diverse identities and learning experiences. Though I may have a fifty-minute lesson planned down to the millisecond, I’m happy, at a moment’s notice, to toss any portion of it aside if it’s not engendering active, mindful learning for the class.
Since so much information literacy instruction I’ve engaged in relies on database searching, I strive for students to leave the session with a sense that searching is a process-based event. A list of few results is an invitation for creative, critical thinking. How many synonyms for keywords can students generate in five minutes in small groups? Given the database’s content and structuring, are there biases in the results we are obtaining? If so, do they derive from the database creators, ourselves, or both parties?
The “few results” search is also an enriching example of problem solving, which has value well-beyond the world of information literacy. By breaking down and, with students’ input, illustrating ways to revise and modify searches, I seek to model ways they might transform a vexing situation so as to bolster their confidence with future endeavors. Equally, I love to model problem finding. Upon discovering a compelling academic essay or newspaper article that might not (at first glance) relate to students’ research, I’m excited by the prospect that we can think through the source’s relevance together. We might engage in a brainstorming activity—such as mind-mapping—or a more dynamic think-pair-share activity where students cycle through at least two partnered rotations.
Importantly, I try to include reflective writing in every library session. Given students’ stressful lives, offering space and time to think through their own learning goals (at the beginning of class) and concepts they still have questions about (at the end of class), reinforces the idea that learning is an ongoing process. It also sends a powerful message about the value of slowing down and making space for the individual and the classroom community. Though I doubt that reflective writing in a one-shot information literacy session will strike a blow at the many inequities and oppressions our schools and societies perpetuate, I hope that it’s a step in the right direction.
R. I. Clarke (2020), assistant professor at Syracuse University, has written extensively on design thinking. She explains that it is “a way of looking at the world that is guided by problem finding, framing, and solving; creativity; human-centeredness; divergent thinking; the idea that anything is possible; comfort with failure; and iteration” (13). My teaching philosophy is summarized in this statement. I favor active, student-centered environments, where hands-on information literacy learning is mindfully supported. My teaching strives to be compassionately human-centered, holding space for co-creation, accountability, creative problem solving, and reflection.
Reference
Clarke, R.I. (2020). Design Thinking. Chicago, ALA.
Feedback/Errata