Pedagogy, power, practice (and stuff)

The Master’s students resource needs a robust pedagogical underpinning, and this is a much longer blog post than I ever intended it to be but that’s just how important pedagogy is. The state of higher education at the moment, its pressures and its ideologies, means that we need to be ever more critical about this pre-arrival resource. We need to be critical about its content, delivery, structure, technology and yes, its pedagogy. So this very long post is an attempt at some transparency in terms of pedagogical approach as well as an invitation to you to be critical of it.

Situated learning theory

The video above is (a) short and (b) pretty good. In it, Etienne Wenger-Traynor explains about situated learning theory and, in particular, what is and isn’t meant by the word ‘situated’. It’s worth a watch and if you’re interested then there’s a reference in the bibliography below to lots of Wenger’s stuff (and see especially Farnsworth et al., 2016 for a contemporary perspective on this).

Situated learning theory is sociocultural – learning is advanced through collaborative social interaction, and achieved by authentic activities, expert modelling and supporting the generalisation of activities. Learning is a social process, it is participation, it is situated in a specific social and cultural context. This context fundamentally shapes the nature of what is to be learned, the process of learning, and the identities of the learners (Wenger, 1998). Learning, then, is relative to one’s own ‘geographies of practice’, and the nature of these practices is shaped by one’s own social context.

But how does learning take place? In 1989, Brown et al. developed the idea of a ‘cognitive apprenticeship’, where learning happens when an ‘expert’ outlines to a ‘novice’ the stages of learning that they must go through in order to become an expert. Two years later, Lave and Wenger (1991) published on the notion of the ‘community of practice’, avoiding the novice/expert dichotomy and instead focusing on the mutual engagement, joint enterprise and shared repertoire of people (cf. Wenger, 1998). So situated learning is not learning-by-doing, nor does it refer to a specific physical location (e.g. a classroom) where learning takes place. Instead it’s about the trajectory one takes, as a newcomer to a community of practice towards full participation in it. It is social, and about our identity as much as it is about our practices.

If you’re still with me at this point you might be thinking that this all sounds super interesting or whatever but how do you turn this into something concrete? Discussions of pedagogy sometimes sound very grand (‘geographies of practice’, anybody?) but not always hugely applicable. So in what follows I’m going to attempt to give you five practical reasons why situated learning theory and ideas relating to it, especially communities of practice, are relevant to the development of this pre-arrival resource. In summary, it’s because they focus attention on the following things: practices, identities, learning as social, and the implications of learning as social: power.

(1) The first reason is that it gives us a way to conceptualise the potential audience for the resource. There is no typical Cambridge Master’s student and so attempting to pitch the resource at an imaginary typical student is not only inappropriate but also daft. Thinking in terms of communities of practice can give us a way to negotiate the differences in the potential audience, and it does it in a way which is vastly superior to passively accepting that they’re all different. Let’s think in terms of the students’ communities of practice, and the fact that they are participants in multiple communities of practice all at once: their subject, former place of study, workplace. These might overlap, might cohere nicely, might produce tension.

At the same time, the students have in common the fact that they’re about to join a new community of practice: Cambridge graduate study. They’ll arrive with different but equally legitimate pre-existing levels of participation in it, and their experiences of it won’t be identical. But it means we should consider what the Cambridge graduate community of practice is like. What is its discourse? What does it entail, and what doesn’t it? And – I can’t stress this enough – who does it include, and who does it exclude? Who has power, and who doesn’t? Gender, race, class, and more – all of these might facilitate participation in the community of practice, or they might create barriers to it. How might this resource sit within this? How can it help students to negotiate these barriers? What barriers might the resource itself create?

(2) The second reason is the idea of learning as a trajectory, and the reason this is important is that the resource focuses on information literacy and academic skills. There are loads of real-life examples from Cambridge both of information literacy being taught as a set of generalizable skills and as discipline-based competences (Kuglitsch, 2015, is brilliant on the implications of this). But no matter how or why it is taught, information literacy and academic skills are not the disciplines that students are coming to Cambridge to study. That old chestnut that we’re not trying to churn out mini librarians from our ref management sessions might be a truism, but it’s still (hopefully) true.

So part of the pedagogical approach has to be around supporting transfer of knowledge to the actual subjects they’ve come to Cambridge to do. We should be thinking about how information literacy and academic skills support students in more fully participating in their subject’s community of practice, not how to turn them into database wizards. And we should be thinking of this in social terms – how their communities of practice might affect their experience of this resource (if, for example, their subject naturally denigrates the importance of these types of skills, or bestows upon students the sacred importance of them), and how the resource might affect their post-arrival experiences.

(3) Third, I like situated learning for providing a small, quiet solution – but nonetheless a sensible, manageable one – to the specific vs generic problem. (That is, how do you make a thing be relevant to an engineer and a modern linguist at the same time). Situated learning is related to situated cognition, and a theorist in this, Gee (1997), writes about ‘situated meanings’. Dead simply, this is the idea that the meaning of a word changes depending on the social context and an individual’s experience of that context. This encourages us to think about the specific vs generic problem in terms of discourse. Like, if we use the phrase ‘information literacy’, will bad things happen? What if we use the word ‘data’? or information, or resource, or digital? or assignment? or literature?

Gee advises us to take the strategy of being neither too specific nor too general if we want to maximise transfer of knowledge. (Easier said than done, though, amirite). What does this middle ground look like? Is it barren landscape where none of these words are used? Do we swap the word ‘information’ for the emoji with hearts for eyes? Do we include a glossary? Do we call the resource itself ‘ALL MEANINGS ARE CONTESTED’? No, of course not. At the very least we would have to have an open-ended survey on which emoji to use in place of the word ‘information’.

Instead I think we need to focus on creating a sense of authenticity in the resource, and using this to frame the situated nature of the discourse. Herrington and Oliver (2000) are useful here – they developed nine guidelines for developing authentic experience in ‘learning environments’, including things like reflecting the way that knowledge is used in real life, incorporating authentic activities, modelling processes. This may all sound a bit theoretical right now but it does give us a clue to things like tone and content and format.

(4) The fourth reason I like these theories is that they make us think critically about the technologies we use, how we use them, and how they use us. At a broad, functional level this might be how to recreate an authentic experience online, or how we use the technology to support knowledge transfer? How might technology enable this new and evolving community of practice to explore or define or express their shared identity? How might it support an experience of this community? At a micro level it means thinking closely about the domain name, the look-and-feel, the ways in which the resource might invoke a ‘Cambridge identity’ or sense of community. Can we achieve this through Cambridge name-dropping? Is it branding, symbols, skylines, references to Chelsea buns? Do we need a button that says ‘DON’T WALK ON THE GRASS’?

We might very well need all of these things. But we also need to think through the assumptions we’re making about technology, about how we use it, and about those who use it. What does it mean for us to use a libguide, or Moodle, or something else entirely? What are the social implications of this? What does it mean for us to put the resource online? Who do we include or exclude through our technology choices?

(5) Finally (yes, finally) situated learning assumes that there are experts, those who are fully participating in communities of practice. Yes, there are, and (guess what!) we are not them. The current Master’s students are the experts. And so in the development of this resource, we must elevate their voices and their experiences.



Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

Farnsworth, V., Kleanthous, I., & Wenger-Trayner, E. (2016). Communities of Practice as a Social Theory of Learning: a Conversation with Etienne Wenger. British Journal of Educational Studies, 64(2), 139–160.

Gee, J. P. (1997). Thinking, learning and reading: the situated sociocultural mind. In D. Kirshner & J. A. Whitson (Eds.), Situated cognition: social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives (pp. 37–55). Mahwah, N.J: L. Erlbaum.

Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23–48. 

Kuglitsch, R. Z. (2015). Teaching for Transfer: Reconciling the Framework with Disciplinary Information Literacy. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 15(3), 457–470. 

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Masters’ pre-arrival: three dilemmas (and a potentially rogue apostrophe)

Hello! Time for a Masters’ pre-arrival project update? Please, and comment below, or email me, or phone, or whatever. Soz that it ended up being a bit long.

So far the project has mostly consisted of reading, thinking, wondering if there really is an apostrophe after the word Masters, and talking to people. I genuinely have had the most joyful conversations with members of the library community here in Cambridge, so an enormous ‘thank you’ if you’ve had the misfortune to be visited by me. (If I haven’t spoken to you yet, it’s not that I don’t care, please invite me to your library).

As you might expect, I’m hearing some enormously diverse views and as soon as David M’s FutureLib/Student Journey data starts to reach me I imagine it’ll diversify even further. The conversations have uncovered a variety of perspectives, concerns, biases, investments. But for the purpose of this blog post I want to focus on three of them. Three dilemmas. None are black-and-white – I’m thinking in terms of a spectrum, and what I’ve outlined below are definitely the extremes. But please, help me out with my internal struggles, have a read, and let me know where you stand.

1) Induction or not-induction

Man's hand holding out a compass on top of a hill, looking at a mountainous range in the background.The ‘pre-arrival’ element of the resource is pretty important. It’s aimed at people who are not yet in Cambridge. They haven’t had reading lists yet. They might not even have applied yet (okay yes wishful thinking whatever). The pre-arrival focus gives the resource some boundaries, and underlines the ongoing and desperate need for the context which post-arrival teaching, resources, and experiences can provide. But there are things that a pre-arrival resource could do to help students to orient themselves in the ways of Cambridge, and the ways of our libraries. So welcome to the first spectrum: induction or not-induction.

At one end of the spectrum, the resource contains an enormous amount of induction and orientation material. There are three types of library in Cambridge, and this is how to get printing credit, and iDiscover is a library catalogue, and this is what non-print legal deposit means, and so on. This is useful introductory information, armed with which, students might be able to navigate the library system better.

At the other end, there’s a real and specific focus on skills. At this end, iDiscover is not introduced as a library catalogue but singularly in the context of finding resources. The orientation information is incidental, not core. After all, this information is widely available elsewhere – sent out by colleges, departments, the Graduate Union, the Language Centre, and probably loads of other people too. Including it would dilute the purpose of the resource and it’s just a duplication of effort.

Over to you. Where do you stand on the issue?


2) Self-directed or tailored

A signpost against a mountainous backdrop. There are three yellow signs pointing in different directions but all of them are blank.

One of the major challenges presented by the creation of this resource is how you make something that can be used by complex and varied students addressing themselves to the study of complex and varied subjects. My (flawed) answer to this is to create a resource which isn’t linear, and which incorporates an element of choice – which allows the users of the resource to pick and choose what they require. But how much choice do we give them?

Again, think of this as a spectrum. At one end, we have an entirely self-directed resource. All options, all skills, are presented to the students equally, and they pick what they need. After all, self-direction is mentioned in no less than 38 entries in the course catalogue for Masters’ students, where it genuinely is cross-disciplinary: Sociology mentions it, and so does Mathematics, Medicine, Education, Physics, Philosophy and more. So let’s start ’em off right. Let’s give them the whole resource, with little guidance. Let’s let them decide what to view or read, or how much. Let’s not presume that we know better than they do about the skills that they need.

At the other end of the spectrum is a closely tailored resource (not quite personalised, sorry – we didn’t get that much funding!). At this end, students enter details about their course, or about themselves, and the resource gives them guidance as to the areas that would be most useful to them. Because surely an MPhil student in Public Health will need different stuff to an MPhil student in Modern British History? And that Public Health student is going to close the tab straight away if they find themselves on a page that looks entirely irrelevant to them, right?

What would you do?


3) Library or University

Two labradors facing each other, each holding and tugging on a rope toy.

This one’s related not to content but to the hosting, location, look-and-feel, and branding of the resource, and it sort of comes down to a decision between the university and the library. (Now, to be fair, this might well be a moot point: it might be that the resource ends up going wherever it ends up going and that’s the end of it but let’s continue to believe we have options…).

So come on then, join me on this spectrum. At one end, it’s a Library resource. It’s clearly branded as being created by and owned by the library community. It’s hosted on a library website – maybe the UL, maybe the gateway. It’s named in such a way that makes its connection to libraries unmistakeable and inalienable. Because it’s about information literacy and that’s what we do. Let’s own it.

And at the other end of the spectrum, the library community barely gets a look-in. It’s clearly a University resource, branded as such, hosted as such, named as such. The fact that it was created by us is an aside (by the time you’ve seen the final product this may be a blessing in disguise…). But the students don’t care who is responsible, and they don’t need to know. If it’s a university resource, it’ll have more weight, more authority. It might be easier to find, or easier to stumble across. It might be easier to get buy-in from admissions departments and other bits of the university if it isn’t a ‘library’ thing.

And again, where do you stand? How would you pitch it? Library or university? (or both?)

Thanks for reading (if you made it this far). And please let me know what you think. Comments below, or drop me an email. And invite me to visit!

Bye for now,

Helen M (EFL)

Image credits: all CC-0 from Pixabay, but thanks to the creators: StockSnaptrainer24, GregMontani

Successful funding bid

Within days of the launch of the Cambridge Information Literacy Network, the Project Team was positively gleeful to learn that we had been successful in a bid made to the University of Cambridge’s Teaching and Learning Innovation Fund.

The fund is designed to “assist with implementing innovative practice in any area of learning and teaching provision“, focusing on those adopting new approaches or initiatives to enhance teaching and learning.

The funding will be used to support the development of one of the strands of the project: the creation and implementation of a pre-arrival online resource for Masters’ students across all disciplines, focusing on skills and practices related to information literacy as well as some transferable academic skills such as time management. The funding will have an influence on the technologies chosen for this resource, as well as supporting the part-time secondment of Helen Murphy from the English Faculty Library to the project.

More information about this coming very soon…

Photo by Émile Perron on Unsplash (CC-0)

CILN is here!

The first official meeting of the Cambridge Information Literacy Network (CILN for short) took place in the first week of February. Over the next few months, more than ficropped-ciln4.jpgfty staff from across the entire Cambridge library community will be participating in a range of collaborative projects related to information literacy and, in particular, the new Cambridge Information Literacy Framework (more about that soon…)

These projects are wide-ranging and ambitious and include:

  • mapping learning outcomes to the framework
  • mapping student competencies
  • understanding induction and orientation in Cambridge libraries
  • professional skills
  • delivery of online teaching and tutorials
  • a forum bringing together library staff from across the country
  • the development of online resources related to information literacy and academic skills to support taught postgraduate and undergraduate transition to university and, particularly, to Cambridge

Follow us on Twitter for more updates, or better yet, get in touch with someone from the Project Team and get involved!