Competency K

Design collaborative/individual learning experiences based on learning principles and theories.

Section 1: Introduction

Regardless of the type of institution in which they work, information professionals often serve as educators, whether they are teaching students research skills and information literacy, helping users navigate unfamiliar systems, creating exhibits and educational events, or training colleagues. Designing an effective learning experience involves more than simply presenting correct information; it requires understanding how people actually acquire new skills and knowledge, and structuring an experience around that process, rather than around the content alone. Two instructional approaches may present the exact same information and produce very different learning outcomes, depending on how well they account for a learner’s existing knowledge, the support available to them as they practice, and whether they are learning alone or alongside others.

One of the most influential frameworks for understanding how learning happens is Vygotsky’s (1978) concept of the Zone of Proximal Development, which describes learning as occurring in the space between what a learner can do independently and what they can do with assistance from a more capable other. Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976) built on this idea with their concept of scaffolding: temporary support that allows a learner to perform at a higher level than they could unassisted, which is gradually withdrawn as the learner internalizes the skill. Discovering these theories reframed my understanding of what makes instruction effective. Simply providing correct information to a learner, whether through a written guide or a lecture, is not the same as providing scaffolding; scaffolding involves support tailored to where a specific learner is currently struggling, and adapting how materials are presented to different learners.

A second, complementary framework comes from Lave and Wenger (1991), who argue that learning is not only a cognitive process of acquiring knowledge, but also a social process in which newcomers become members of a community of practice, defined as a group of people who share a profession, craft, or way of doing things. Lave and Wenger call this process of becoming peripheral participation: newcomers start out by doing real but lower-stakes work, observing how more experienced members operate, and gradually take on greater responsibility as their competence grows. This framework highlights something scaffolding alone does not fully capture: learning often happens through social immersion in a community’s practices. Where scaffolding emphasizes the cognitive support an individual learner needs, communities of practice emphasize the social context in which that learning is embedded, together offering a fuller picture of how people develop new skills.

These broader theories also connect to instructional principles that are particularly relevant to information work, including cognitive load theory and active learning. Cognitive load theory centers around the idea that a learner’s working memory has limited capacity, so effective instruction should minimize unnecessary complexity so learners can focus their attention on the core skill being taught, while active learning is based on the principle that learners retain and apply skills more effectively when they actively practice and build their own understanding, instead of passively receiving information. I see all of these frameworks as complementary, not competing: an effective learning experience should be scaffolded to meet a learner where they currently are, should engage learners actively, not passively, should manage cognitive load thoughtfully, and, where possible, should situate learning within a genuine community of practice.

I expect to use this competency in my future career whether I am training interns, orienting new volunteers, or helping a patron navigate an unfamiliar database or collection. In each of these situations, understanding how people learn allows me to do more than simply present information; it allows me to help others develop the knowledge, skills, and confidence to apply it independently.

References

Section 2: Evidence

My understanding of learning theory comes from both formal engagement with educational research and hands-on application in designing instructional materials for both individual and group learning contexts.

My first piece of evidence is a research proposal from INFO 285, in which I designed a study comparing two approaches to training volunteers in metadata creation at a regional historical society. My initial research focus was narrower than the final proposal: I began by reading existing literature on metadata training, most of which centers on standards documents and written guidelines as the default training tool, with little attention paid to how volunteers are actually taught to use them. It was only in considering why guideline-based training might fall short that I turned to broader learning theory, and began to wonder if interactive, guided practice might outperform a standards document consulted alone. I grounded this hypothesis in Vygotsky’s (1978) Zone of Proximal Development and Wood, Bruner, and Ross’s (1976) concept of scaffolding, predicting that guided practice would succeed specifically because it offers responsive support a static document cannot provide. I also drew on Lave and Wenger’s (1991) concept of peripheral participation, noting that guided practice allows volunteers to observe a professional’s judgment in context and gradually take on more responsibility, situating their learning within a real community of practice rather than acquiring technical skills separate from the professional context in which they are used. I grounded this proposal in real-world precedent, citing cooperative cataloging programs like the Name Authority Cooperative Program (NACO) and the Bibliographic Record Cooperative Program (BIBCO), in which more experienced catalogers train other staff and review their work, as an existing example of scaffolded, peer-supported learning already used in the profession. Beyond the theoretical framing, I designed a full methodology to test this hypothesis, including stratified random assignment to control for prior cataloging experience, a benchmark metadata record against which participant work would be coded for specific error types, and structured post-training focus groups to gather qualitative data on participants’ actual training experiences.

My second piece of evidence is an instructional video I created for INFO 244, teaching a viewer how to search using thesaurus terms and controlled vocabulary. I deliberately structured the video around a single research question and a small number of databases instead of attempting to cover every possible thesaurus interface, which reflects cognitive load theory’s emphasis on keeping learners’ attention focused on the core skill while reducing unnecessary complexity. More importantly, I modeled the iterative reasoning involved in developing a search strategy. When combining the terms I had identified produced zero results in Sociological Abstracts, I worked through the problem on screen: I reconsidered which terms were necessary, examined retrieved records for alternative subject headings, and explained why thesaurus searching often requires revision of one’s initial search strategy. I strove to make the reasoning behind my decisions visible, instead of presenting only the final answer. The goal was not simply for the learner to know how to locate and use a thesaurus in a search interface, but to understand how to respond when a seemingly reasonable search does not work, and how to use the results of one search to construct the next.

My third piece of evidence is a film festival screening program I designed for INFO 284, which demonstrates group-oriented learning design. As I selected and arranged the films, I found myself thinking constantly about the resonances between them, which shaped how I paired films within each evening of the multi-day program. A double feature can be intellectually productive because pairing two films encourages an audience to compare and contrast them, letting each one stand out in sharper relief than it would on its own. I extended this same logic across the full week, opening with lighter, comic films and building toward the darkest, most psychologically complex entries, before closing with two documentaries specifically intended, as I wrote in the program itself, to help participants “pivot to reality and consider the nature of deception, complicity, and storytelling more broadly.” I designed the closing Q&A panel to build on this progression, choosing questions that prompted the audience to draw connections across the full week’s films rather than simply receive a summary of what they had seen. Together, these choices demonstrate my ability to design learning as a cumulative group experience involving active learning, using pairing, sequencing, and discussion to build on participants’ prior engagement and encourage them to make connections for themselves.

Section 3: Conclusion

What connects these three pieces of evidence is that they all involve building on a learner’s prior knowledge. My research design tests whether guided practice builds on a volunteer’s existing understanding more effectively than a static document alone; my video works through a failed search in real time and shows how failure can inform the next attempt; my festival program pairs and sequences films so that each one gains meaning from what came before it. In each case, the goal is to guide a learner’s thinking, a process which requires me to deconstruct my own expertise in order to re-experience the friction of being a beginner. I have some teaching experience as a graduate teaching assistant in sociology, but I have learned that effective teaching requires deliberate thought, not just knowing a subject well. Studying learning theory directly is how I’ve chosen to develop this skill: it gives me a framework for making deliberate choices about instruction, especially in moments where the right approach isn’t obvious. In my future career, I intend to apply this competency directly to educating patrons, interns, and volunteers, treating instructional design as a deliberate exercise in scaffolding and active learning, rather than simply handing someone a manual and assuming they will absorb it.

To continue developing this competency, I plan to follow the American Library Association’s eLearning catalog for webinars on information literacy and library instruction and consult the Association of College and Research Libraries’ Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. These resources will help me continue developing evidence-based approaches to teaching information skills and, more importantly, become more intentional about how I design learning experiences for people with different levels of prior knowledge.