Community Studio: Designing Experiential to Support Teaching, Research, and Practice Martin Wolske Graduate School of Library and , University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 501 E. Daniel St., Champaign, IL 61820 Email: [email protected] Colin Rhinesmith Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Email: [email protected] Beth Kumar University of Colorado Colorado Springs, Email: [email protected]

This paper introduces a model of experiential learning to support teaching, research, and practice in library and information science (LIS). The concept we call Community Informatics (CI) Studio uses studio-based learning (SBL) to support enculturation into the field of CI. The SBL approach, closely related to John Dewey’s inquiry-based learn- ing, is rooted in the apprenticeship model of learning in which students study with mas- ter designers or artists to develop their craft. Our paper begins with a review of literature to frame our research before introducing our analysis of the CI Studio course. Using the first three semesters of the course as case studies, the goal of the paper was to pres- ent three related investigations that emerged from our over-arching research question: How can the CI Studio be understood as a model of experiential learning to support LIS teaching, research, and practice? Keywords: community informatics, studio-based learning, experiential learning, com- munity engagement, popular education

Introduction 1999). In this paper, we argue that the CI Studio provides a novel research approach his paper introduces a model of expe- for examining LIS-led community en- Triential learning to support teaching, gagement by modeling actual learning en- research, and practice in library and infor- vironments where future LIS professionals mation science (LIS). The concept we call can develop meaningful CI projects. Community Informatics (CI) Studio uses The paper begins with a review of the studio-based learning (SBL) to support en- “community informatics” and “studio- culturation into the field of “Community based learning” literature to provide a Informatics” (Campbell & Eubanks, 2004; foundation for our research. We then brief- Gurstein, 2003; Keeble & Loader, 2001; ly consider the research sub-questions, Stoecker, 2005; Williams & Durrance, methodological approaches and findings 2009). The SBL approach is rooted in the from our three mini-case studies of the CI apprenticeship model of learning in which Studio course offered over three semesters. students study with master designers or The study presents and discusses three re- artists to learn their craft. This pedagogical lated investigations that emerged from our technique is closely related to John Dew- overarching research question: How can ey’s inquiry-based learning (Lackney, the CI Studio be understood as a model of J. of Education for Library and Information Science, Vol. 55, No. 2—(Spring) April 2014 166 ISSN: 0748-5786 © 2014 Association for Library and Information Science Education Community Informatics Studio: Designing Experiential Learning 167 experiential learning to support LIS teach- the impacts of CI projects fall into five key ing, research, and practice? The goal of areas,” including strong democracy, social the paper was to provide an instructional capital, individual empowerment, sense of model that can prepare future LIS-profes- community and economic development sionals to lead meaningful community and opportunities (pp. 78–79). Other scholars civic engagement projects. have argued that CI can help support com- This study is significant because federal munity organizing projects and social jus- agencies and foundations have recently tice goals. For instance, one area of study called for public libraries to address com- for CI, which served as a project focus for munity information needs by leading com- each of the case studies in this paper, looks munity engagement efforts. “The Promise at the ways community institutions such as of Libraries Transforming Communities” public libraries, community centers, social (Institute for Museum and Library Ser- service agencies and churches can utilize vices, 2012), IMLS & The MacArthur public computing centers (PCCs) and digi- Foundation’s “Learning Labs” (Institute tal media literacy workshops as interven- for Museum and Library Services, 2011), tions for addressing the “,” and The Knight Foundation’s (2009) “In- or the gap between the “information haves formation Needs of Communities in a De- and have-nots” (National Telecommuni- mocracy” are three recent examples rec- cations and Information Administration, ognizing the unique abilities that public, 1999, p. xiii). academic and school libraries offer to ad- Stoecker (2005) described CI as an ef- vance local community and civic engage- fort to use “technology to support commu- ment. In this paper, we argue that the CI nity development goals.” Stoecker (2013) Studio can provide LIS teachers, research- also explained that scholars often discuss ers and practitioners with a theoretical and within two con- methodological framework for advancing texts. The first perspective is defined as a LIS-led community engagement initiatives. top-down approach where elites determine the goals and manage the implementa- Theoretical Framework tion of information and technology (ICT) development projects We begin the paper by introducing the often in poor or underserved areas around CI and SBL literature as the foundation the world. The second perspective advo- upon which we suggest a model for cou- cates for a more participatory approach. pling these practices as a useful approach Scholars and activists informed by this for advancing LIS teaching, research and perspective argue that those most direct- practice with community members. ly impacted by ICT projects should or- ganize themselves and decide their own Community Informatics terms by which ICTs are used (or not) to advance shared community development Community Informatics examines goals. Stoecker (2005) described this sec- how people in geographic locations inter- ond perspective as a community organiz- act with information and communication ing approach to community development technology (Williams & Durrance, 2009) and argued that it can often be useful as and its application to enable and empower a way to get people involved in and ex- community processes (Gurstein, 2007). cited about CI projects. Bishop, Bruce, & Community Informatics researchers view Jeong (2009) further refine the concept “informatics” as the digitization of society, of participation through a “community particularly as people’s lives move online inquiry” approach to community engage- from physical to virtual spaces. O’Neil ment that recognize students and school as (2002) argued that “theories for measuring vital parts of the community and collec- 168 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE tive knowledge building as something per- iterative design process, as described by formed of, for and by communities as liv- Brocato (2009), relies heavily on desk cri- ing social organisms. As they explained, tiques and feedback from instructors and “Knowledge is found in the community as outside experts to provide students with well as the school and is constructed anew guidance and support. by all participants. In this way, the borders Studio-based learning reflects Dewey’s between school and community are not ac- approach in 1938 to experiential learning cepted as fixed, only to be crossed under (Lackney, 1999). For instance, Dewey special circumstances” (p. 22). emphasized the importance of helping Community informatics has also been students shape their purpose for a given described as “a sustainable approach to activity by constructing a plan based on community enrichment that integrates their impulses, past experiences and com- participatory design of information tech- munity knowledge to maximally shape the nology resources, popular education and current learning environment. In this way, asset-based development to enhance citi- teachers act more like “guides” to assist zen empowerment and quality of life” students in developing and implement- (Campbell & Eubanks, 2004). In her ing their design choices. Students and work developing “popular technology” instructors work together within a studio workshops with low-income women at space that serves as a model of profes- a YWCA in upstate New York, Eubanks sional practice, incorporating field visits (2007) detailed how participatory design, to inform work. Regular student reflec- popular education and participatory action tions also help students think more deeply research can provide “alternative articula- about the paths that lead them to their fi- tions of digital equity” and opportunities nal project designs. The community-based to develop “powerful strategies of resis- studio in particular provides an oppor- tance” in the information age (p. 1). We tunity for students to participate in real- believe the participatory perspectives de- world design projects through engagement scribed by Stoecker, Bishop et al. and Eu- with community partners (Lawson, et al., banks provide insightful examples of how 2011; National Endowment for the Arts, the lines between CI education, research 2002). Community-based studios not only and practice intersect and provide a way teach critical knowledge regarding how to forward for LIS professionals looking for be a professional, they also provide pre- new approaches to leading community en- professional students with confidence that gagement projects. they can accomplish outputs promised to a partner (Lawson, et al., 2011). Further, Studio-Based Learning when explicitly considered in course de- sign, community-based studios provide Studio-based learning is rooted in the opportunities to advance multicultural apprentice model of learning in which stu- learning (Lawson, et al., 2011). dents study with master designers or art- ists to develop their craft. It emphasizes Community Informatics Studio learning by doing, often through commu- Pedagogy nity-based design problems and is an inte- gral pedagogy in architecture, urban plan- In this section, we briefly introduce our ning and fine and applied arts. Lackney Community Informatics Studio Pedagogy (1999) described SBL as being focused and describe how it builds on previous on helping students learn to be a profes- studies of CI and SBL. The purpose is to sional using the apprenticeship model as construct the framework for viewing our opposed to learning the knowledge needed three mini-case studies that follow in the to be a professional through lectures. The next section. Community Informatics Studio: Designing Experiential Learning 169 Simpson et al.’s (2004) model of SBL research (Stoecker, 2013) and community in CI was described in their study of engagement (The Carnegie Foundation for community journalism platforms. They the Advancement of Teaching, 2013) as showed how the studio pedagogy helped applied in fine and applied arts through the to “move the classroom focus from the East St. Louis Action Research Project, or teacher to the learner and to create a more ESLARP (Lawson, et al., 2011; Sorensen active and engaging climate for the learn- and Lawson, 2012) and its integration into ers” (p. 256). CI Studio builds on this so- LIS through a 12-year collaboration with cial constructivist approach by drawing ESLARP (Wolske, 2012). Our engage- from pragmatist, progressive and popular ment with our students especially calls at- educational philosophies that begin with tention to the iterative aspects of the stu- Addams (1902) and Dewey (1938) and dio-design process and seeks to model the continue with works by Freire (1970), studio space as a key foundation of our CI Eubanks (2011) and Stoecker (2013). Studio pedagogy. Real-world cases arise These philosophies lead us to prioritize from ongoing conversations with com- the following CI values mentioned above munity partners as a natural part of the within our SBL classes: (1) developing a boundary-spanning role of the lead author. sustainable approach to community en- Specific partnerships are highlighted each richment, (2) approaching community en- semester to emphasize specific community gagement with an asset-based perspective, informatics themes. (3) embracing difference as a resource, Figure 1 is an adaptation from Bro- (4) teaching, researching and practicing cato’s (2009) SBL design path proposal, with community members, (5) focusing highlighting the role that readings, dis- on community-defined goals for build- cussion and community engagement play ing healthy communities. The CI Studio in our studio design process. The author builds upon perspectives of SBL, partici- described the “propose-critique-iterate” as patory action research/community based part of a pedagogical approach that asks

Figure 1. Community Informatics Studio Proposal Path. 170 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE students to develop their designs with in- all three case studies, the data were col- structors as guides using pin-ups, desk lected using qualitative methods, includ- critiques and formal juries (p. 142). We ing face-to-face interviews with students, closely model our CI Studio pedagogy on instructors and community members. We Brocato’s framework. hope the three studies can be considered On Day One of the semester, instructors together in order to respond to our study’s introduce the design problem or case, to overarching research question: How can students. The individual, team, communi- the CI Studio be understood as a model of ty and project-level learning outcomes are experiential learning to support LIS teach- listed in the course syllabus and revised ing, research and practice? as needed, based on a collaboratively de- veloped shared understanding of purpose Case Study I: [Re]Designing Public within the current learning environment.1 Computing Centers Early classes rely heavily on readings and discussion to ground students and prepare The case for the Summer 2010 CI Stu- them to work in field. Field visits with com- dio was informed by research surrounding munity partners and model sites inform PCCs as social centers serving a range of the studio designs. Instructors and outside important learning, collaboration, creative experts ask students to defend their design and civic functions (Baker, 2008; Becker choices at desk critiques during scheduled et al. 2010; Ceballos et al., 2006; Fuchs, sessions and informal conversations. At 1998; Gurstein, 2003; Viseu et al. 2006). the end of the semester, students present After in-class presentations to introduce their design projects to a juried panel of core frameworks and the design case, stu- instructors and invited guests as part of a dents from Library and Information Sci- final critique. ence, Architecture and Education used field trips to local and regional PCCs and Community Informatics Studio: collaborative spaces to research the inter- Three Mini-Case Studies section of community and technology. Stu- dents also performed a literature review of In this section, we introduce three se- environmental psychology and evidence- mesters of the CI Studio course. The based design to consider how principles course is an elective offered at the Gradu- previously applied to health, school and ate School of Library and Information Sci- work settings might be applied to PCCs. ence with enrollments between four and The students then worked collaboratively the cap of 15. It has attracted students from with the staff and students of a community departments outside the school, includ- center to create a design proposal for their ing Journalism and Education, who are PCC. The 4-week summer session did not particularly interested in the role of tech- allow time to implement the final design nology in supporting community engage- proposal, but several students volunteered ment. For each semester, we present the into the fall to help implement the redesign design case and the theoretical perspec- (Wolske et al., 2013a) tives guiding the student projects, along The research question directing the with the research sub-questions, method- evaluation of the semester was How does ological approaches, findings and recom- SBL compare to other forms of classroom mendations from the case evaluations. For learning? The mixed-methods research on the class pedagogy, conducted by Beth Kumar, third author on this paper, included 1Syllabi are available online: pre- & post-surveys of the students, class summer 2010 - http://go.illinois.edu/cistudio_su10; observations both in the studio and in the summer 2011 - http://go.illinois.edu/cistudio_su11; fall 2012 - http://go.illinois.edu/cistudio_fa12 field, informal discussions with the student Community Informatics Studio: Designing Experiential Learning 171 groups, interviews with the instructor and Case Study II: Equipping Community teaching assistant and the formal written Media Newsrooms course evaluations. The evaluator found that the first few The case for the summer 2011 CI Studio sessions of the course consisted of back- responded to various calls, such as those ground lectures to ground the students on by the Knight Commission Report on the related ongoing CI-related projects as well Information Needs of Communities in a as on the CI studio pedagogy course objec- Democracy (2009) and Schaffer (2010), tives. However, the lecture format of the for informed communities and hyperlocal classroom soon switched to active studio news startups to develop informed, en- learning. The students became the appren- gaged and healthy communities. Wolske, tices, each group finding solutions to the the first author on this paper, had recently lab space at the community center by visit- received funding to lead the “Equipping ing existing labs and researching possible Citizen Journalists” project, which sought solutions. The instructor, in his role as the to bring together key ongoing and recent master, was on hand for the student’s deci- projects to address the disparity in effec- sion-making process, guiding them when tive use of technologies for information questions came up, but primarily letting gathering, reporting and information and them use trial and error to find a solu- news presentation existing in the local tion. The student teams worked as partners community. For this semester’s project, with the staff of the center and the course co-instructors Wolske, Brant Houston, instructor, jointly owning the project. The the University of Illinois College of Me- studio pedagogy removed the pressure and dia John S. and James L. Knight Founda- emphasis on tests and grades, instead shift- tion Chair in Investigative and Enterprise ing the focus and effort to the end result. Reporting, and Pam Dempsey, reporter Overall, it was found that students unknow- with CU-CitizenAccess, identified four ingly repeated Kolb’s (1984) cycle of expe- PCC pilot sites to serve as community riential learning (Figure 2) many times. media newsrooms. After several class ses- The 2010 CI Studio final project docu- sions reviewing related literature (Gill- ments, which have served to inform the mor, 2006; Howley, 2010; Lundby, 2009; design of numerous subsequent public The Knight Commission, 2009), students computing centers, are online at: http:// worked with pilot sites and profession- www.prairienet.org/op/labdesign/ als to adapt community media and citizen journalism programming to the current needs of residents. Grant funding also included funding for a researcher, Rhinesmith, the second author on this paper, to evaluate the ef- fectiveness of the CI Studio projects. The main research questions were: How im- portant is the goal of equipping a com- munity media newsroom to foster citizen journalism? And how successful was the project in achieving this goal? The re- search sample included students, instruc- tors and community partners (Rhinesmith et al., 2011). The findings indicated that the course Figure 2. Kolb’s Cycle of Experiential Learn- was successful in beginning to help equip ing. citizen journalists by providing residents 172 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE with the training needed to produce and workshop development. These works also distribute their own stories. University provided key theoretical concepts and and community were able to collaborate specific examples of participatory action through the CI Studio to work towards research that we used as a guide for our advancing community development goals approach to studio-based learning in com- using community media and citizen jour- munity informatics. nalism. However, limited time and re- The co-instructors, Wolske and Rhine- sources meant that the CI Studio course smith, along with students used SBL to had to be flexible in what, where and how model educational spaces working with the work was executed. By the end of the community members to design workshops summer semester, the instructors decided rooted in people’s everyday experiences that the goal for future semesters would with technology. Opportunities during the be to have students develop digital and full-length semester allowed for greater media literacy workshops with residents in-class participation by outside experts in low-income communities to develop including Virginia Eubanks and Diana the skills needed to improve the image Nucera of the Detroit Digital Justice Co- of their communities and to help promote alition.2 However, delays in the start of the their community development goals. Stu- funded project meant that not all students dents, instructors and community partners were able to work directly with communi- also agreed that the course was too short ty partners on workshop development dur- and recommended that future semesters ing the semester, although all were able to spend more time working with partners capitalize on their other community part- in the community. nerships to inform their work. Students The descriptions of the final projects used studio time during class to work on and lessons learned by the 2011 CI Studio their projects and to receive feedback from students are documented online at: http:// instructors and fellow students. In addi- www.prairienet.org/op/journalism/. tion, students wrote weekly reflections in an online course forum. These contribu- Case Study III: Creating Popular tions provided students with an opportuni- Technology Workshops ty to think about workshop design choices and to receive additional feedback from In reviewing student evaluations and instructors and peers. The four students’ findings from the previous two semesters, final workshop designs are presented in the authors decided that a 16-week semes- Table 1. ter CI Studio offering during Fall 2012 The findings reported in this third mini- would respond to students’ feedback by case study are drawn from recently com- providing new students with an opportu- pleted research published by Wolske et al. nity to engage more deeply with SBL to (2013b) that help us to consider the fol- develop meaningful community engage- lowing research question: How can studio- ment strategies. The grant-funded case for based learning—informed by perspectives Fall 2012 was to develop popular technol- from community informatics—prepare ogy (Eubanks, 2011) approaches to digital students to advance LIS-led community and media literacy workshops. The course engagement? considered frameworks of popular educa- Students used data from group critiques, tion, participatory design and participa- individual critiques, weekly journals and tory action research—the three legs of workshop dress rehearsals to analyze the Eubanks’ popular technology approach— use of SBL to advance LIS-led community through works such as Addams (1920), Dewey (1938), Freire (1970/1993), Rear- don (2000) and Stoecker (2013) to ground 2http://detroitdjc.org/ Community Informatics Studio: Designing Experiential Learning 173 engagement. In authoring their reflections Limitations of Research for the case study (Wolske et al., 2013b) students described how the desk critiques The case studies above highlighted the promoted a deeper understanding of theo- development of a SBL course to advance ries and popular education-style work- LIS teaching, research and practice. In this shops by identifying their misconceptions section, we share some of the challenges and by having the instructors encourage and overall limitations of this research workshop revisions. In addition, guest project. speakers also modeled for students how The case studies described above to plan and facilitate workshops. Students weren’t originally planned as part of a found that outside experts helped to con- larger study when the first case study was cretely connect theories to practices from developed. Therefore, the authors found a CI perspective. Students also discovered it challenging to consider three different that the class culture was an important as- semesters of the course—each with sepa- pect of the course. They reported that the rate research questions, theoretical frame- modeled studio space encouraged open works and methodologies—for this paper, and honest communication and feedback while attempting to design and respond from teachers and other students in the to a single overarching research question. class. The CI Studio also demonstrated In addition, the evaluation conducted for popular education in action and modeled each case study was led by different sets how students should facilitate their work- of researchers. The authors also discov- shops. ered the core research question over time. The 2012 CI Studio workshops outlines, It was not until the last semester (i.e. case which are freely available to be adapted study III) that the following research ques- and used by the public, are online at: http:// tion was articulated based on findings from www.prairienet.org/op/dmliteracy/. studies of the first two semesters:How can

Table 1. Community Informatics Studio Workshops. Student Workshop Title Description Jennie Archer Preserving Local History One Voice This workshop aims to raise teenagers’ at a Time: A Popular Technology awareness of their positions within their Workshop for Teens communities and to remind them that their voices and experiences matter. Emily Bayci Seniors Step Forward: Increasing This workshop was aimed towards senior Technology Awareness and Sharing it citizen African-American women. The goal with Your Peers was to help them learn that they are not alone in their quest to learn technology and to help them reach an understanding about why they feel it is necessary to learn technology. Ryne Leuzinger Uncovering Art in C-U: Forming This workshop seeks to bring together partnerships to share and promote members of a local arts community to artwork and address issues of concern engage in a discussion related to forming to artists in Champaign-Urbana new partnerships and addressing common obstacles. Lucas McKeever Queering the C-U Wiki Due to the nature of wiki sites, the goal of “Queering the C-U Wiki” was to equip LGBT members of the community with the skills required to ensure their past and present do not go undocumented. 174 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE studio-based learning informed by com- are quite the opposite. It’s a lot of feeding munity informatics perspectives prepare you facts and figures and processes and students to advance LIS-led community assignments that require regurgitation of engagement? those things, which is like a very tradi- Additional challenges to both the course tional way of teaching. But I think [instruc- offerings and this study included the lim- tor’s] was the most experiential of any ap- its of our university, as an institutional proach that I had while I was here. I mean system, to support, particularly through you learn way too much from it—which is funding, this type of community-based almost a problem [laughing]. research. Lastly, because the CI Studio is meant to model the actual environment Indeed, students from Fall 2012 recom- where future LIS professionals might find mended that clear opportunities be pro- themselves designing community engage- vided to allow students to continue the ment projects, the lines between teaching, experiential learning of their studio work research and practice often blurred, which through a second iteration of the course, a created challenges for researchers interest- practicum, or an independent study. (Wol- ed in developing evaluative frameworks ske et al., 2013b) for this study. Further, the experiential learning pro- vided a valuable way to engage in research Discussion on current topics in LIS through the design problem. For instance, a Summer 2010 The findings represent a progression in student remarked: “I couldn’t imagine research related to our guiding question: taking a CI class that wasn’t in the studio How can the CI Studio be understood as a format. How would you learn anything? model of experiential learning to support This one class has shaped my entire out- LIS teaching, research and practice? We look on CI. CI requires hands-on experi- consider three key findings that emerged ence, with trial and error and lots and lots across the case studies: (1) the value of the of brainstorming; the studio format is ideal experiential learning opportunity; (2) the for these activities.” Students from the first benefit of the iterative design process; and and third offerings of the class have gone (3) the importance of CI Studio Values for on to co-author works based on their par- informing future LIS-led community en- ticipation in the studio course (Wolske et gagement. al., 2013a, b)

Experiential Learning Iterative Design

The CI Studio pedagogy resonated with As pointed out in the last quote, the it- students because of its grounding in ex- erative aspect of the studio design process periential learning. As one Summer 2010 combining trial and error with brainstorm- student mentioned: “I would love to take ing was an important part of the studio. In- another studio course because it gave the deed, in response to the delayed start of for- opportunity to not only learn from real mal critiques until mid-semester because world observations but it also gave me the of extenuating circumstances, students opportunity to apply the concepts to real from the Fall 2011 course recommended world situations.” A Summer 2011 student desk critiques start earlier in the semes- emphasized the importance of the experi- ter (Wolske et al., 2013b). In the evalua- ential learning aspect of the course more tion of the Summer 2010 course, Kumar, strongly: the third author on the paper, found the iterative aspect as applied in the CI Stu- Most classes here are not like that. They dio reflected Kolb’s (1984) experiential Community Informatics Studio: Designing Experiential Learning 175 learning cycle. The role of the instructor that emphasized an asset-based approach as guide during the formal and informal with community members. It centered desk critiques was central, as described on community-defined goals for build- by a Summer 2010 student: “making sure ing healthy communities as implemented we were doing something in the right through the programs of the social service general direction, but letting us wander agency that served as host to the rede- otherwise. Devil’s Advocate may not be signed computing center. The result was a the right term, but he served as a voice of transformed physical space that challenge, testing our ideas and showing re-shaped social expectations from the us possibilities we might have otherwise space, revitalized administrators and staff ignored.” By the third case study, the in- members in pursuing more sophisticated corporation into the CI Studio pedagogy programming, improved the mood of the of Dewey’s (1938) framing of instructor users and resulted in better maintenance of as guide, along with the importance of computers through more immediate report- purpose and past experience to shape the ing of problems and collaborative problem current learning environment, served as solving. (Wolske et al., 2012) a model for students’ own project work developing alternative models for digital In their online project documenta- media literacy workshops. tion of citizen journalism workshops,3 students from Summer 2011 reported as CI Studio Values key take-away lessons the importance of actively planning curricula with collabo- Our framing of CI draws heavily from rators and fostering empowerment and the work of Bishop et al. (2010), Eubanks agency in community using participatory (2011) and Stoecker (2005/2013). These principles to explore technologies, inter- in turn build upon the philosophies of Ad- ests and content creation. In an interview dams (1908), Dewey (1938) and Freire following the semester, a Summer 2011 (1970) among others. From these philoso- instructor stated, “I learned a whole lot phies we have prioritized the following, from this. I had a lot of personal growth, what we call, CI Studio Values within our you know when you’re dealing with the SBL classes: (1) developing a sustainable community, community media and just approach to community enrichment; (2) listening to their conversations.” The approaching community engagement with workshops developed by Fall 2011 CI an asset-based perspective; (3) embracing Studio students reshaped digital media difference as a resource; (4) teaching, re- literacy workshops based on their under- searching and practicing with community standings of these theoretical frameworks members; (5) focusing on community- (Wolske et al., 2013b)4. Research is on- defined goals for building healthy com- going to assess the community impact of munities. As federal agencies and foun- the Fall 2011 studio. Assessing the full im- dations call for public libraries to address pact on LIS-led community engagement community information needs by leading of the CI Studio approach outlined above “community engagement” efforts (Insti- will require a longitudinal study follow- tute of Museum and Library Services, ing students as they progress through their 2011/2012; Knight Commission, 2009) professional careers. we argue that the CI Studio can provide LIS teachers, researchers and practitioners with a framework for advancing LIS-led community engagement initiatives. 3http://www.prairienet.org/op/journalism/workshop-structure-and- Students in the Summer 2010 CI Studio strategies/ 4See fall 2012 workshop justifications at: http://www.prairienet. used participatory, evidence-based design org/op/dmliteracy/ 176 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE

Conclusion in part, funded student projects during the second and third case studies. In this paper, we introduced a model of experiential learning to support teaching, References research and practice in LIS. The authors attempted to show through the research Addams, J. (1902). Democracy and social ethics. how the CI Studio can be an effective peda- New York, NY: Macmillan Co. Baker, L. (2008). Learning infused libraries: Honest gogical approach to using SBL to help fu- talk about what it really takes to create a learn- ture LIS professionals design meaningful ing commons. LOEX 2008. Retrieved from http:// LIS-led community engagement projects. www.slideshare.net/bakerl/learning-­infused­ The paper wove pragmatic and progressive libraries­-honest­-talk­-about-­what-­it­-really-­takes­to­ epistemological traditions together into a -create-a­ ­-learning-commons­ framework through which to view what we Bishop, A., Bruce, C., & Jeong, S. (2009). Beyond service learning. In L. Roy, K. Jensen and A. H. believe is a unique approach to CI. Three Meyers (Eds.), Service learning: Linking library mini-case studies of the CI Studio course education and practice. Chicago, IL: American were presented, along with the guiding Library Association. theoretical frameworks, research ques- Becker, S., Crandall, M. D., Fisher, K. E., Kinney, tions, methodological approaches, findings B., Landry, C., & Rocha, A. (2010). Opportunity for all: How the american public benefits from for each semester. The goal of this educa- internet access at U.S. libraries (IMLS­2010­ tional research project sought to respond to RES­01). Washington, DC: Institute of Museum the paper’s overarching research question: and Library Services. How can the CI Studio be understood as a Brocato, K. (2009). Studio based learning: Pro- model of experiential learning to support posing, critiquing, iterating our way to person- LIS teaching, research and practice? centeredness for better classroom management. Theory Into Practice, 48, 138–146. The study found that the CI Studio pro- Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teach- vided a unique opportunity to prepare fu- ing. (2013). Retrieved from http://classi?cations. ture LIS-professionals to lead meaningful carnegiefoundation.org/descriptions/communi- community engagement projects by ad- ty_engagement.php. vancing student’s skills to bring theory and Ceballos, F., Chittoor, J. P., Ehrlich, P., Surman, praxis into dialectic. In particular the au- M., & Carvin, A. (2006). From the ground up: the evolution of the telecentre movement. Ottawa, thors found that key values from CI litera- ON: Telecenter.org / IDRC. Retrieved from http:// ture played a key role in shaping students’ idl­bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/handle/123456789/27550 experiences and their thinking about design Campbell, N. D., & Eubanks, V. (2004). Community choices that encourage ways to engage informatics as a pathway to social change. Re- with, rather than for, communities. trieved from http://www.brillomag.net/COPC/CI/ Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: The Macmillan company. Acknowledgments Eubanks, V. (2007). Trapped in the digital divide: The distributive paradigm in community infor- The authors would like to gratefully matics. The Journal of Community Informatics, acknowledge the financial support of the 3(2). Retrieved from http://ci-journal.net/index. Illinois Informatics Institute through an php/ciej/article/view/293/353 ICUBED award to develop the first itera- Eubanks, V. (2011). Digital dead end: Fighting for social justice in the information age. Cambridge, tion of the course and the work of graduate MA: The MIT Press. assistant Fiona Griswold who was support- Freire, P. (1970/1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. ed by the grant. We would also like to ac- New York, NY, USA: Continuum. knowledge financial support by the Univer- Fuchs, R. P. (1998). Little engines that did: Case sity of Illinois Office of Public Engagement histories from the global telecentre movement. and the Illinois Department of Commerce Ottawa, ON: Telecenter.org / IDRC. Retrieved from http://www.idrc.ca/fr/ev-10630-201-1-DO_ and Economic Opportunity “Eliminate the TOPIC.html. Digital Divide” program for awards that, Gillmor, D. (2006). We the media: Grassroots jour- Community Informatics Studio: Designing Experiential Learning 177

nalism by the people, for the people. Sebastopol, nership: The East St. Louis action research proj- CA: O’Reilly. ect. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development Gurstein, M. (2003). Effective use: A community in- and Research, 5(1), 59–74. formatics strategy beyond the digital divide. First Rhinesmith, C., Wolske, M., & Kehoe, A. (2011). Monday, 8(12). Retrieved from http://firstmon- Measuring the impact of citizen journalism: A day.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1107/1027 study of community newsrooms in North Cham- paign and East St. Louis, Illinois. CIRN Commu- Howley, K. (2010). Understanding community me- nity Informatics Conference 2011, 9–11 Novem- dia. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ber 2011, Monash Centre, Prato, Italy. Retrieved Institute of Museum and Library Services. (2012). from http://ccnr.infotech.monash.edu/conferenc- IMLS awards ala grant to advance library-led es-workshops/prato2011bestpaper.html community engagement. Retrieved from http:// Schaffer, J. (2010). New voices: What works: Les- www.imls.gov/imls_awards_ala_grant_to_ad- sons from funding five years of community news vance_library- led_community_engagement.aspx startups. J-Lab: The Institute for Interactive Institute of Museum and Library Services. (2011). Journalism. Retrieved from http://www.j-lab. Learning labs in libraries and museums. Re- org/publications/new-voices-what-works/ trieved from http://www.knightcomm.org/read- Simpson, M., Burmesiter, J., & Docherty, M. the-report-and-comment/ (2004). E-news: Community interaction through Keeble, L., & Loader, B. (Eds.) (2001). Community journalism. In S. Marshall, W. Taylor & X. Yu informatics: shaping computer mediated social Using community informatics to transform re- relations. London: Routledge. gions. Hershey, PA: Idea Publishing Group. Knight Commission on the Information Needs of Sorenson, J., & Lawson, L. (2012). Evolution in Communities in a Democracy (2009). Informing partnership: Lessons from the East St. Louis ac- communities: Sustaining democracy in the digi- tion research project. Action Research, 10(2), pp. tal age. Retrieved from http://www.knightcomm. 150–169. org/read-the-report- and-comment/ Stoecker, R. (2005). Is community informatics good Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experi- for community? Journal of Community Informat- ence as the source of learning and development. ics, 1(3). Retrieved from http://www.ci-journal. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. net/index.php/ciej/article/view/183/129 Lackney, J. A. (1999). A history of the studio-based Stoecker, R. (2013). Research methods for commu- learning model. Retrieved online from http:// nity change: A project-based approach. Thou- www.edi.msstate.edu/work/pdf/history_studio_ sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. based_learning.pdf Viseu, A., Clement, A., Aspinall, J., & Kennedy, T. Lawson, L., Spanierman, L., Poteat, V., & Beer, A. L. M. (2006). The interplay of public and private (2011). Best place for best practice? The chal- spaces in internet access. Information, Communi- lenge of multicultural learning in a community- cation & Society, 9(5), 633–656. based design studio. In H. Neville, M. Huntt & Williams, K., &. Durrance, J. C. (2009). Commu- J. Chapa (Eds.), Implementing diversity: Contem- nity informatics. In M. Bates & M. M. Maack porary challenges and best practices at predomi- (Eds.), Encyclopedia of library and information nantly white universities (pp. 205–224). Urbana: sciences (3rd ed.) (pp. 1202–1208). New York, Center for Democracy in a Multiracial Society. NY: Taylor and Francis. Lundby, K. (Ed.) (2009). Digital storytelling, medi- Wolske (2012). A 12-year journey from traditional atized stories: Self-representations in new media. service learning to community inquiry. Prato New York, NY: Peter Lang. CIRN Community Informatics Conference 2012, National Endowment for the Arts. (2002). Univer- 6–9 November 2012, Monash Centre, Prato, Italy. sity-community design partnerships. New York, Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2142/35070 NY: Princeton University Press. Wolske, M., Gibbs, D., Kehoe, A., Jones, V., & National Telecommunications and Information Irish, S. (2013). Outcome of applying evidence- Administration US Department of Commerce based design to public computing centers: A pre- (1999). Falling through the net: Defining the liminary study. The Journal of Community Infor- digital divide. Washington, DC: NTIA. matics, 9(1). Retrieved from http://ci-journal.net/ O’Neil, D. (2002). Assessing community informat- index.php/ciej/article/view/811 ics: A review of methodological approaches for Wolske, M., Rhinesmith, C., Archer, J., Bayci, E., evaluating community networks and community Leuzinger, R., & McKeever, L. (2013b). Com- technology centers. Internet Research, 12(1), munity informatics studio: A model of informa- 76–102. tion scholarship in action. iConference 2013 Pro- Reardon, K. (2000). An experiential approach to ceedings (pp. 916–918). Retrieved from https:// creating an effective community-university part- ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/42567