Learning about what is most important: incorporating values into the design of learning experiences

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to bring library practitioners and researchers together to develop two co-designed tools for helping library practitioners gain a more holistic understanding of families in underserved groups and identify their values with the goal of developing more relevant learning experiences for them. The co-designed tools were then tested with Master’s of Library and Information Science (MLIS) students at two universities, whose feedback yielded several valuable findings and informed revisions to the tools.

Design/methodology/approach

A participatory, design-based approach was used throughout the study, both with engaging library practitioners in the co-design of different tools and processes introduced in the Toolkit, and to help MLIS students and library practitioners test the tools and provide feedback on the tool revisions.

Findings

Students indicated that the tools helped them develop a deeper understanding of underserved groups and their values and gave the students the time and space to reflect on their understanding of the socio-cultural and value contexts of their communities and the values they hold.

Originality/value

This study can help libraries more effectively design strengths-based learning experiences that are meaningful and relevant to underserved groups and their values, particularly for children and families from underserved communities.

Citation

Campana, K., Kociubuk, J., Mills, J.E. and Martin, M.H. (2024), "Learning about what is most important: incorporating values into the design of learning experiences", Information and Learning Sciences, Vol. 125 No. 1/2, pp. 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-06-2023-0073

Introduction

Libraries have been well established as institutions that support learning for their communities (O’Beirne, 2010). While they are recognized as supporting learning for all ages (Campana, 2021; Lenstra et al., 2020; Hoffman et al., 2016), their programs and services for children and families are often particularly robust with offerings that promote literacy (Campana et al., 2016); science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) learning (Shtivelband et al., 2019); creativity (Nicholson, 2019); physical activity (Lenstra, 2017) and more. In addition, the library field has also placed an emphasis on the whole family as an important part of their children’s programs, education and resources. This practice of focusing on and supporting children’s broader families is known as family engagement and has been widely documented in the education field as an important aspect of promoting children’s learning (Weiss et al., 2006) that can lead to better school readiness and achievement outcomes (Henderson and Mapp, 2002). Because school achievement gaps often occur along socio-economic and racial lines (Hanushek et al., 2019), family engagement is particularly important for underserved communities and holds the potential to help decrease these gaps.

Research on family engagement in the library field has revealed that “libraries need to be actively and intentionally reaching out to disadvantaged families, empowering them to lead their children to successful educational pathways” (Lopez et al., 2016, p. 10). This focus on families from underserved groups in particular may be because schools often struggle to reach families from underserved communities with their family engagement efforts due to a variety of barriers (Halgunseth et al., 2009), even though those families could benefit from insight and guidance on supporting their children’s learning (Neuman and Celano, 2012).

In the past, libraries have also struggled with how to best reach and serve underserved groups as many underserved groups do not come into the library due to a variety of barriers (Campana et al., 2022) [1]. Libraries have the ability to make a powerful impact with underserved groups and increase equitable access within their broader community because of their free programs and services, particularly those that focus on learning or that fill other gaps in access for underserved groups. The library field has recognized this and embraced social justice as a key area (Jaeger et al., 2016), and many libraries have worked to support underserved groups experiencing information poverty (Shen, 2013) and close gaps in access to technology and other digital resources faced by these groups (Jaeger et al., 2012). In addition, libraries’ inclusion and equity efforts have been enhanced by engaging diverse community groups in conversation together (Holland et al., 2021) and by facilitating opportunities for underserved groups to lead or share in decision-making (Freudenberger and Hildreth, 2020b). However, many libraries continue to face challenges with implementing effective community-centered social justice work and engaging underserved groups.

Because the COVID-19 pandemic further exacerbated pre-existing inequalities faced by underserved groups (Wilson, 2020), it is crucial for overall community well-being that libraries and other partner organizations work to increase equitable access to their programs and services and deepen their engagement with underserved groups in their communities. To help libraries increase their engagement with underserved groups, there is a need for them to have a more thorough understanding of these groups, particularly around shared values. In the USA, because over 80% of the library workforce is white, many library staff are considered outsiders to traditionally underserved racial and ethnic groups (Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS], 2022) and may have not developed the trust and relationships needed to work with the different groups. Working toward a more comprehensive understanding of underserved groups could help libraries build stronger relationships with these groups, potentially leading to more effective engagement with their communities as a whole, while also helping libraries expand, enhance and potentially transform their social justice efforts. Project VOICE, an IMLS study, aims to address this need by co-designing, testing and refining a research-based process and tools that can be adopted into library practice to help libraries gain a better understanding of the underserved groups in their communities so they can develop more relevant and effective programs and services for these groups that center their values. This paper focuses on the creation and testing of two of these co-designed tools, which were intended to help library practitioners facilitate conversations with underserved groups, deepen their understanding of the groups and identify the groups’ values.

Literature review

Libraries and learning experience design

Libraries have long been offering learning-focused experiences for children and families (Albright et al., 2009). Informal learning experiences can be thought of as “senses-on, minds-on, and hands-on engagement with people, spaces, situations, and objects” (Vergeront, 2014, para. 1). From storytimes to STEM and art programs, libraries offer programs that could be classified as informal learning experiences because their programs are often hands-on, playful and engaging, while still supporting learning for those who participate (Campana, 2021; Lopez et al., 2019). More recently, libraries have begun to acknowledge the presence of, and incorporate the design process in, the development of the programs or learning experiences they offer for their communities (Lee et al., 2017; Mills et al., 2016), situating their design and development efforts in the emerging field of learning experience design (LXD). LXD is viewed as the “practice of designing learning as a human-centered experience that leads to a desired goal” (Chang and Kuwata, 2020, ch. 7). The goal of LXD is to take the focus off instruction and the related resources and tools and place it on the learner and their experience (Chang and Kuwata, 2020; Wilson, 2005). In LXD, a learner-centered focus is used to create an educational experience that is ideally “deep, meaningful, and memorable” (Wilson, 2005, p. 15).

In his model of the practices of instructional design, Wilson (2005) identifies two practices that are commonly accepted and used by designers: the individual – considering the individual learner and the outside connection – considering the social, cultural and resource contexts of the learner. However, for a more effective design of learning experiences, he also calls for two additional practices to be adopted: the aesthetic – considering the design of the immediate learning experience, and the value context – which accounts for the values and political environment of the learner, to help design learning experiences that are more relevant and meaningful for the intended users. Many libraries tend to consider some of these aspects, particularly the individual learners and the design of the learning experience (Mills, 2021), even bringing together community members to engage in dialogue and work toward equity-related outcomes for library service (Holland et al., 2021). However, it is possible that some libraries are continuing to work from their own understanding of the learners’ values and their socio-cultural contexts instead of trying to gather this information from the learners themselves through a collaborative process. Furthermore, while libraries have continued to increase their focus on community engagement and community-led programming efforts (Freudenberger and Hildreth, 2020a; Williment and Jones-Grant, 2012), an awareness of and emphasis on values specifically – those of both the learner and the library – have not yet widely been adopted into the design of learning experiences in libraries for children and families from underserved communities. Because of this, there is a continued need to help libraries acquire a more authentic understanding and identify the values of the different groups in their communities, directly from the groups themselves, to better guide the design of the learning experiences libraries offer.

Value sensitive design

One approach that advocates for the consideration of values is value sensitive design (VSD) (Friedman et al., 2002). VSD highlights the need for human values to be considered and included throughout the design process (Friedman et al., 2002). In the approach, values are characterized as “what [are] important to people in their lives” (Friedman et al., 2006, p. 70); and the approach has mostly been used to explore values related to justice; welfare; and human rights, well-being and dignity (Friedman et al., 2017). Even though VSD has typically been used in the technology design process (Winkler and Spiekermann, 2021), given the inclusion of values in Wilson’s (2005) instructional design practices, there is an opportunity for it to be expanded and incorporated into the design process in other fields. The approach of VSD was used in the study to provide an understanding of how values can be incorporated into the design of learning experiences.

Participatory-deliberative, values-sensitive approach

In order for libraries to incorporate the values of families from underserved groups into the design of learning experiences, they need to be able to identify the values those families hold. To identify values, Cenci and Cawthorne (2020) propose using participatory-deliberative strategies with VSD, in alignment with Sen’s (1992) capability approach – a social-justice framework used in the Project VOICE study that emphasizes the importance of considering underserved groups’ capabilities rather than resources. Participatory-deliberative strategies engage stakeholders/community members directly through rich conversation, discussion and deliberation to surface and mediate shared values with the stakeholders/community members themselves. Using participatory-deliberative methods to surface and center the values, aspirations and interests of a variety of stakeholders in design efforts should lead to relevant, meaningful, responsive and socially justified services and resources for the vested stakeholders (Cenci and Cawthorne, 2020). Additionally, using a participatory process to surface the values of underserved communities is beneficial as it allows all involved stakeholder groups to have a voice, along with offering opportunities for relationship and trust building (Center for Community Health and Development, 2023). This approach of using participatory strategies to center stakeholder values in design is also supported by Shilton and Anderson (2017, p. 73), who take a positive view of this approach, referring to it as an “empowering and democratic” method for identifying and centering values. A participatory-deliberative, values-sensitive approach was adopted in the project and infused throughout the process of helping libraries work with underserved groups to uncover and center their values in the design of learning experiences for them.

Using a participatory-deliberative, values-sensitive approach could be particularly beneficial when libraries are designing learning experiences for underserved groups. Furthermore, understanding and incorporating the underserved group’s values and socio-cultural contexts into the design of the learning experiences for them could help to enhance the relevance of these learning experiences and increase the group’s engagement with them (Simon, 2016). Focusing on an underserved group’s values when designing learning experiences for them could also help libraries use a strengths-based approach in their work with the group. Previously, libraries have focused on the needs of different community groups (Scott, 2011), which can reinforce a deficit-based approach by highlighting the group’s weaknesses or what they lack or are missing (Dinishak, 2016). However, some libraries have begun to use asset mapping to shift away from a needs-based approach, and instead focus on community assets, which aligns with a strengths-based approach (Williment and Jones-Grant, 2012). A strengths-based approach “starts with what is working, what makes people feel well and what people care about” by concentrating on the positive aspects of their lives, including the skills, knowledge and capabilities they possess (Caiels et al., 2021, p. 403). While using asset mapping and focusing on community assets helps libraries begin to adopt a strengths-based approach (Williment and Jones-Grant, 2012), expanding to emphasize the group’s values, or what the group considers important in their lives, could help libraries deepen their strengths-based approach, potentially leading to learning experiences that are more relevant and meaningful for the underserved group.

The project

The design-based investigation detailed here endeavored to equip libraries with co-designed tools and a participatory process they can use with underserved groups to gain a comprehensive understanding of them and their socio-cultural context and identify their values [2]. The development of the co-designed tools and process for identifying underserved groups’ values has been completed as part of a larger IMLS-funded grant, Project VOICE, that is creating a Toolkit to help library practitioners design community-centered, value sensitive outreach learning experiences for young children and their families from underserved communities. The Toolkit and its contents place a focus on social justice, particularly the concepts of equity, engagement and empowerment, and the underserved group’s values as ways to truly center underserved groups in the LXD and production. Two of the co-designed tools in the Toolkit – the Community Exploration Tool (CET) and the Value Tree – are meant to help library practitioners gain a more holistic understanding of underserved groups and identify the groups’ values in partnership with members of each group. The investigation detailed in this paper focuses on the development and testing of these two co-designed tools and the process for using them. This investigation was guided by the following research questions:

RQ1.

How might the CET help facilitate conversations with an underserved community group and associated community partners?

RQ2.

How might the CET help surface a holistic understanding of the community group?

RQ3.

How might the CET and Value Tree facilitate the process of identifying the values of the community group?

Methodology

While a participatory-deliberative approach was adopted in the project for libraries to use with the underserved groups in their communities, co-design methods were used to engage library practitioners in working with the research team to develop the different tools and processes introduced in the Toolkit. A design-based research approach was used in this study because of the project’s goal of “creating tangible design[s] that works in complex social settings,” which for this project was creating tools and processes to help libraries design more relevant learning experiences for children and families from underserved communities (Barab and Squire, 2004, p. 5). Co-design involving the research team and library practitioners was used to develop the tools and processes because the library practitioners could provide valuable, crucial insight into what might work, along with what was needed, in their daily responsibilities and in their communities. The co-design process in the study allowed for participants to share experiences–both positive and challenging; to discuss and negotiate effective practices, including what is missing in current practice; to build a shared understanding around library experiences for children and families in underserved groups; and to participate in the design of tools and processes to support the design of these experiences (Steen, 2013).

Twenty library practitioners participated in the co-design process, representing a mixture of large, medium and small libraries. All twenty library practitioner participants were from the USA, with a larger percentage from the West and Midwest (35% and 30%, respectively), 15% from the Northeast, 15% from the Southeast and 5% from the Southwest. The only criteria for the library practitioners to participate was that they had to be offering programs and services, or learning experiences, out in community locations for children and families in underserved communities. The research team wanted to be inclusive of the diversity that exists in all communities, so the library practitioner participants were asked to identify the groups they considered underserved in their community. The different groups identified by the library participants as underserved aligned with those identified in previous research (Campana et al., 2022).

Because the project occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, the design-based approach included virtual training sessions, virtual co-design workshops and virtual testing focus groups and interviews completed with the library practitioner participants. To prepare for the virtual design workshops, the library practitioners participated in three virtual training sessions, led by the research team, on outcomes-based assessment, social justice and value sensitive and participatory design. Then they participated in virtual design workshops where they helped to co-design the tools and processes included in the Toolkit. After which, the research team took the data, designs and artifacts from the design workshops and used them to create the Toolkit. Once the Toolkit was created, the library practitioners were asked to test the Toolkit in their work with young children and families from underserved communities and share their feedback with the research team through focus groups and interviews. In addition to testing with the original twenty participants, the research team also tested aspects of the Toolkit with MLIS students and other practitioners.

Development of the tools

Both the CET and the Value Tree were designed, tested and refined using an iterative process. The iterative process began during planning for the design workshops and continued through the workshops and testing and refinement.

Phase 1 data collection and analysis: designing the tools.

Because the design workshops were conducted virtually, and the participants had limited experience with design methods, the research team provided some initial rough designs for both tools to provoke conversation and idea generation. In addition, it was important for participants to have a foundational understanding of an underserved group in their community to be able to approach the design activities with the group in mind. To help with this, an initial empathy map tool was given to the participants, and they were asked to complete it with members of the underserved group prior to the workshop (Figure 1). During the workshop, participants were asked to share about their process of using the empathy map and what they learned about the underserved group. After discussing the empathy map, the participants were asked to consider and talk about the different community values that they saw emerging from their empathy maps. They were given a fishbone diagram to outline the broad values and smaller components of those values (Figure 2). Then they were asked to discuss their thoughts about the design of both tools and ideas for redesigning and revising the tools.

These workshop conversations were recorded, and the transcripts were analyzed to identify benefits and challenges with using the tools as well as ideas for redesigning and revising them. The research team used this data to revise and expand the empathy map (Figure 3). Some sections were renamed, and additional sections were added, which led to the deletion of one of the Other sections. Formal instructions were developed and added (not pictured). A second page was also added to provide room for additional notes, community demographic information and other organizations that are working with the group. In addition, the empathy map was renamed the community exploration tool to better reflect the goal of the tool. The data from the workshops were also used to make initial revisions to the fishbone diagram. The revised diagram was called the Value Wheel (Figure 4) and contained a circle in the middle for a broad value, surrounded by smaller circles for different components of the broad value.

Phase 2 data collection and analysis: testing the tools.

After the initial revisions to the CET and Value Wheel, a second round of testing was initiated. The original research participants were given several weeks to use the Toolkit, including the CET and the Value Wheel, in their outreach work with underserved groups. They were asked to take notes and share their thoughts about the tools and the Toolkit in focus groups and interviews with the research team. Because the participants had helped to co-design the tools, had already tested them once and were tasked with testing the entire Toolkit, the focus groups prioritized understanding the participants’ feedback on revisions and additions to the tools and the Toolkit, rather than the impact of the tools on their work.

To better understand the impact of the CET and Value Wheel, and gather additional data on suggested revisions, testing was also completed with a graduate course in two separate Library and Information Science programs. To do this, an assignment was included in the two courses where students were asked to interview and complete the CET with a member of an underserved group or a community partner who works with the group. Students conversed with the partner or community member either virtually or in-person. Reported conversation length ranged from 30 minutes up to 2 hours, although most had an average length of 1 hour. Approaches varied between students, with most filling out the tool during the conversation and a few transcribing their notes or recordings onto the tool afterwards. Following directions from the CET, most of the students reported that they underwent some amount of prep work before talking with the partner or community member, primarily around seeking out publicly available information about the underserved group.

After filling out the CET, the students were prompted to use what they learned from it to complete the Value Wheel. Once they had completed both tools, students were then asked to complete a structured reflection on the process of using the tools. The reflection included questions on any benefits and challenges with using the tools, ideas for revisions to the tools, what they learned from the interview process and the tools and more. To complete the assignment, the students had to submit their completed CET, Value Wheel and reflection. Thirty-six students, across both classes, completed the assignment, but the submissions were only included in the study data-set if both the student and their interviewee consented. As a result, assignment submissions from twenty-six students were included in the study data set, with each submission consisting of a completed CET, Value Wheel and reflection.

The testing data from both the study participants and the MLIS students were used to revise and expand the tools in a number of different ways (see Final Tools section). However, only the student testing data were used to answer the research questions detailed in this paper. This choice was made for a variety of reasons. First, the study’s library practitioner participants were involved in co-designing the tools, so the research team wanted to test with a group who would be using the tools for the first time. Second, MLIS students were chosen specifically because structuring the testing as an assignment allowed the students more time to experiment with and reflect on the tools. In addition, the structure of the reflection allowed the research team to more deeply understand each student’s experience with and impact from the interview process and the tools themselves. Finally, because many of the students in the two MLIS programs are practicing library practitioners, their feedback was considered equivalent to a full-time library practitioner who might not be in school.

Final tools

Following the second round of testing, final versions of the tools were created. Based on testing participant feedback on the CET, two additional pages were added to the instructions: a page of recommendations for the community interviews and a page of interview/conversation starters and terminology definitions. These instructions and conversation starters were added to emphasize the importance of using the participatory-deliberative approach with these tools. As a part of this, users are encouraged to engage in thoughtful and comprehensive conversations with as many members of the underserved group as possible, along with a variety of community organizations who work with the group. A few feedback-based changes were also made to the actual tool: a place was added where they could note who they interviewed; an additional category was introduced; some categories were renamed and/or consolidated; and a second Other section was re-introduced (Figures 5, 6 and 7).

The Value Wheel diagram also went through revisions. Most of the feedback related to the Value Wheel indicated a need for a more robust activity that would help to scaffold the process of identifying values. As a result, two additional steps were added to the tool: one that provides prompts to help the user reflect on the data they collected in the CET, and a second that asks the user to identify common themes and potential values that emerge in their reflection on the CET data. Some changes were also made to the instructions and the Value Wheel diagram, which led to it being renamed as the Value Tree. The instructions were revised to strengthen the participatory-deliberative approach through: encouraging member checking; having members of the underserved group/community partners complete their own Value Trees; and engaging in rich discussions with members of the underserved group/community partners to arrive at a final set of values. The diagram was revised to have the community group listed in the center, with places for four broad values branching off of the center, instead of having one broad value at the center of the diagram, because the testing participants mentioned wanting the capability to identify multiple values. Three additional circles were added off each broad value circle to allow them to still identify components of the broader values (Figures 8 and 9).

Potential limitations of the tools

While these tools are meant to help bridge some of the differences in representation in the library field and the communities that libraries serve, there are inherent limitations to both the tools and their usage. During testing, several students expressed concerns about the limitations of talking to a community partner who is not a member of the identified underserved group and thereby allowing them to speak for the group. Some also shared hesitations around the limitations of only talking to a few individuals in the group and how it could lead to a potential oversimplification or misrepresentation of underserved group members’ experiences. Other sources highlighted the challenge of library practitioners being capable of selecting individuals who might be truly considered an authentic representative of the underserved group.

As a result, the tools underwent revisions to address these limitations. First, the CET instructions were revised to encourage users to use the tool with as many members of an underserved group as possible as well as with staff from a variety of community partner organizations to gain a more holistic understanding of the group. The following disclaimer was also added: We encourage you to keep in mind that while group members may share aspects of their identity, other types of diversity may exist in the group. Because of this, you will want to be careful to not simplify and/or generalize group members’ experiences.

Aspects of the broader process, in which the tools play a role, also help to deal with some of these challenges. Throughout the multi-step, multi-tool process, library practitioners are asked to explore who is underserved in their community and reach out to both members of the groups and community organizations who work with them to gain a robust, holistic understanding of the group. To do this, they are encouraged to listen openly, practice cultural humility and work closely to build relationships with members of the group. The goal is for library practitioners to follow the idea of “nothing about us without us” when working with underserved groups. Because these tools and their process require a close partnership with the underserved group, library practitioners are encouraged to do regular instances of member checking, to ensure the validity and authenticity of their interpretations and determinations.

Results

Overall, results from the student reflections indicate that the near-finalized CET tool and Value Wheel (later renamed Value Tree) activities were effective for the majority of students in helping to facilitate conversations with underserved groups and community partners, surfacing a holistic understanding of underserved groups and identifying community values. Findings from the student data set are shared below in alignment with the study’s research questions.

RQ1: How might the Community Exploration Tool help facilitate conversations with underserved group and associated community partners?

All 26 students had at least one reflection response that indicated the CET helped facilitate conversations with underserved groups and community partners to some degree. Within these responses, three primary reasons were cited concerning how the tool worked to facilitate conversation:

1. the focus on open-ended and flexible questions (n = 15 students);

2. centering the community’s voice (n = 17 students); and/or

3. providing a framework to talk about important or difficult issues (n = 20 students).

While the finalized version of the CET included a few conversation starters, students were encouraged to converse with community partners or members of the underserved group without much structure. This lack of prescriptive questions or specific prompts was often described as an asset when students talked about how the tool helped facilitate conversation across underserved groups and with a variety of community partners. One student wrote that this flexibility functioned as “a good roadmap for having compelling and genuine conversations about community,” and another noted that it supported “open and free-flowing talk,” which they reported was preferential to “handing my contact a worksheet.” Indeed, multiple students described the tool as facilitating such a rich conversation that they struggled to fit all of the details of their conversations that they wanted to capture into the space provided on the page. A few of the students expressed some uncertainty around what to ask specifically; however, most of those students noted that they were able to overcome this once engaged in conversation, such as this student who shared:

I was nervous at first that I was being vague in my questions […] but I found that it really sparked some great ideas in [the community partner] and we ended up having a larger conversation around how the community is underserved.

The majority of students mentioned that the CET helped them better center the community’s voice within the conversations they were having with either the community partner or underserved group member. This was often talked about in terms of how the tool helped make space for the interviewee to lead the conversation. This approach tended to be received positively, with what one student described as “excitement and gratitude [on the part of the community member/partner] over being asked [about what was important to them].” The flexible nature of the tool contributed to this, as illustrated in this student’s recount of the interview:

[m]ostly, I let her speak about what she felt was important […] I felt the best way to get genuine information and information I didn’t even know I would want was to let her guide the conversation as much as possible.

Finally, one of the most prominent ways students said the tool helped facilitate conversation was providing a framework to use to broach topics they often felt nervous or unsure about in community conversation. Some shared that “it can feel overwhelming to begin reaching out to underserved community groups” or that they “may not have been brave enough” to talk about these concepts with underserved group members; however, most indicated value in having these conversations and that the tool helped support them in doing so.

RQ2: How might the Community Exploration Tool help surface holistic understanding of this community group?

Across the participants, 25 students responded that using the tool helped them garner a more holistic understanding of the underserved community group. This was done primarily by illuminating and addressing gaps in knowledge about the underserved group (n = 24 students) and helping them adopt a strengths-based perspective of the community (n = 15 students). Others indicated that the CET helped with building this understanding by stressing the intersectionality and diversity present within communities (n = 7 students) and the need to be present within communities to better understand them. Most students reported that using the tool highlighted and filled in gaps in their own knowledge about the underserved group. They heavily emphasized that what they learned about the group in their responses went beyond the background statistics and demographic data they had previously collected from passive sources. As one student shared:

[…] online research can give you a lot of information […] but in order to narrow information down to a local community population, I find it is helpful to have conversations with those actually serving that population.

Sometimes these responses talked very specifically about aspects of the community that the students uncovered, such as “what a conservative small-town values,” “how invested [parents] are in their child’s education” or “struggles that come with learning disabilities.”

Other times students shared generally about self-identifying and filling gaps in understanding during use of the CET. For example, one student shared that:

[…] even though I used to work with this community, there is a lot I did not know about it and I would not have found this information without participating in these conversations.

Others talked about gaining “insight into others’ experiences,” having “a really eye-opening experience,” learning “that there is much I do not know” and “being more mindful of my assumptions about a community.” Often intertwined with this were direct and indirect remarks of students indicating that using this tool helped them take a strengths-based approach to understanding the underserved group by focusing on the strengths of the community rather than deficits. This helped the students to develop a more holistic understanding of the underserved group. One student said: “the tool focuses on what the community is already doing well and […] how we might support their good work.” Many students who mentioned the tool’s strengths-based approach coupled this with positive statements about appreciation, enjoyment or importance of taking this approach when learning about an underserved community group.

RQ3: How might the Community Exploration Tool and Value Tree facilitate process of identifying the values of community group?

Within the student reflections, 22 students responded that the CET and Value Wheel helped to facilitate the process of identifying community values. This facilitation was accomplished by:

• enabling students to see patterns and recurring themes across the responses and conversations from the community partner or community members around the CET (n = 19 students); and/or

• causing them to reflect more deeply on their understandings of what the library, community and themselves see as important, particularly in relation to each other (n = 13 students).

While a minority of the students directly asked about community values in their conversations with underserved group members or community partners, the majority of students did not indicate they did so. However, multiple students (n = 10) mentioned that they wanted to engage in member checking with the community or felt that there was benefit in doing so once they had identified values using the tools.

Among the students who mentioned that the tools helped them see patterns they were able to extrapolate to values, almost all indicated that the value-related themes were able to be clearly seen by examining their completed CET. Statements such as “it was like all the dots started connecting and I was ready to go,” “it was easy to pick the main value of the community,” “it felt natural to identify values from what I learned,” and “it was fairly obvious [what the value was]” were common. Most connected this ease to the depth and richness of conversation they had previously engaged in with their interviewee, with one noting that:

I think the exploration tool was vital to understanding the values, because without it I honestly think I could not have filled out the value wheel as specific[sic] as I did.

While a few expressed uncertainty around whether they filled out the Value Wheel correctly, or mentioned that the process had some degree of difficulty for them, this was frequently countered by a student then saying that they were pleased with the values they identified at the end. For example, one student shared that “identifying values was so hard for me” but later mentioned that:

I really loved the values I was able to pull out from the interview […] I was able to see how much they allowed me to be [a part] of their community/family while filling out the tool.

Most students felt that, in the process of using these tools to identify values, they were reflecting more deeply on their own values and understandings of the relationship between the library and the community. This came up particularly often in conjunction with how they might adjust library service to better align with the community, as in this student who said:

[…] it was great too to see where I felt my ideas and their ideas overlapped and it got me thinking of how I could use those overlaps to better serve the community as a librarian.

Discussion

The findings from the students’ reflections revealed that the tools and the process of completing them with members of underserved groups and/or community partners helped them to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the underserved group and identify different values held by the groups. This better, more comprehensive understanding of the groups that make up the community as well as the community as a whole should positively impact different aspects of library efforts and services, including the development of community data-driven services, more effective social justice efforts and more meaningful and relevant learning experiences.

Community data-driven services

The tools and process help to fill a gap by enabling libraries to collect community data in a more systematic manner (Campana et al., 2019) and builds upon previous work around community engagement and community-led efforts (Holland et al., 2021; Freudenberger and Hildreth, 2020a; Williment and Jones-Grant, 2012). This more systematic data collection can lead to the data being more useful and actionable in a library’s work and the development of community data-driven services that are rooted in shared values. The student reflections hinted at this by detailing how they might use the information from the CET and Value Tree to develop learning experiences and other services for the group they were focusing on. Having an authentic, holistic understanding of the various groups in their communities and the different layers of their experiences, and using this understanding to develop multi-faceted, community-centered and data-driven experiences and services, can further situate libraries as vibrant and crucial hubs in their communities. In addition, continuing work to help move libraries beyond a one-dimensional focus on community needs to a multi-dimensional approach – one that includes strength, capabilities, traditions, culture and values, as well as needs – should contribute to helping the library expand and further embed their role and connections within their community.

Social justice efforts

Given that a majority of the library field in the USA is an outsider to different underserved racial and ethnic groups (BLS, 2022), it is important for libraries to have a more comprehensive understanding of the different underserved groups, including their strengths, aspirations, culture/traditions and more. Additionally, social justice scholars such as Cooke et al. (2016) have suggested a continued need for practitioners who are able to empathetically and effectively communicate with diverse groups of people. Indeed, while student identities did not always intersect with the underserved community they focused on, reflexive statements showed indication that students were engaging in reflexive practices specifically around correcting internal bias and gaps in knowledge toward the group (Kociubuk et al., 2023). Building these better understandings of underserved groups, and increasing the ability to engage in conversation, can help library practitioners and libraries adopt a strengths-based lens when working with underserved groups (Gardner and Toope, 2011), which could contribute to their social justice efforts being more effective (Hailes et al., 2021). In addition, when libraries understand how to collaboratively identify the different values of underserved groups, they may be able to look beyond just the characteristics of the group to see what is important to them and what they value, thereby enhancing libraries’ social justice efforts. Furthermore, being able to identify the possible value tensions that exist between the values of the library and the underserved group could help library practitioners to better navigate and negotiate these value tensions as they advocate for and design the learning experience with the underserved group.

Designing learning experiences

The findings also revealed that, by helping library practitioners better understand the groups they are designing for, the tools and their accompanying processes should help libraries be able to design learning experiences that are more relevant and meaningful for underserved groups. The data from the students’ reflections revealed that the tools and processes could help libraries collect more authentic, comprehensive data about underserved groups that align with three of Wilson’s (2005) instructional design practices: the individual, the outside connection and the value context. The CET helped the students better understand members of the underserved group and the context of their lives, which helps contribute to the practice of considering the individual and their outside connection more fully in the design of learning experiences (Wilson, 2005). The effectiveness of the CET, Value Tree and the accompanying process in helping the students identify values of the underserved group should also be beneficial for library practitioners when designing learning experiences as it will enable them to be more informed about the group’s values, or the value context (Wilson, 2005), and be better able to incorporate those values into the learning experience. This is important because learning experiences in informal learning environments are often self-motivated (Diamond et al., 2009), so families are more likely to participate and be highly engaged if they view it as something that is important and relevant for their lives (Blue, 2022). Furthermore, because library values are not always in alignment with the values of underserved groups, library practitioners need to be able to consider the full value context of the learning experience, including the values of all stakeholders involved (i.e. underserved group, library practitioners, library, community partners, etc.). Having an awareness of and being able to consider the full value context allows the library practitioner designing the experience to work with the different stakeholders to negotiate the value tensions (Miller et al., 2007) that exist within all of the stakeholders’ values to arrive at a design that is achievable yet meaningful for all involved.

Limitations with the Findings

As the reflection data set used for this paper was generated by MLIS students, there are a few limitations to be considered. While most students were concurrently working in library spaces, not all were practicing library practitioners or had previous experience working in a library. Additionally, it is possible that some of the uncertainty within responses, or the responses themselves, may have been related to the fact that this was a graded assignment for students. As one student wrote:

I recognize there is no “correct” way to use this tool, and my uncertainty probably comes from the fact that this was a class project that I was being graded on. Professionals doing this […] might not need as much guidance as I felt I did.

Finally, in light of the difficulties in connecting with underserved groups within the constraints of a college semester/quarter and assignment, students were encouraged to speak with either an underserved group member or a community partner. Students pointed out that there were inherent limitations and potentially problematic power dynamics in having a community partner speak for a group of which they themselves were not representative. Future work might examine this in more depth.

Conclusion

Findings from this paper indicate that the use of the CET and Value Tree may be helpful in gaining a deeper understanding of underserved community groups, their socio-cultural contexts and their values, which can then be used to design learning experiences more effectively through a strengths-based approach, particularly for children and families that are underserved. Knowing that libraries often struggle with how to best develop and support community data-driven services and social justice efforts for a variety of reasons, using tools like the CET and Value Tree, which were co-designed with library practitioners and community members, might be helpful in moving research into practice to make positive changes in and with communities [3]. Future research efforts might further investigate the ways in which these tools can be used by public libraries and other community organizations in co-designing value sensitive learning experiences for and with children and families that are underserved. Additional investigations could also explore how children and families in underserved communities might participate in further refining and iterating on these tools as a way to further incorporate and uplift their voices in the LXD process.

Figures

Figure 1.

Initial design of community-focused empathy map

Figure 2.

Initial design of fishbone diagram

Figure 3.

Initial draft of co-designed CET

Figure 4.

Initial draft of co-designed value wheel

Figure 5.

Final CET, pages 1 and 2^a

Figure 6.

Final CET, page 3

Figure 7.

Final CET, pages 4 and 5

Figure 8.

Final value tree tool, pages 1 and 2^a

Figure 9.

Final value tree tool, pages 3 and 4

Notes

1. While definitions of what groups are underserved can differ, previous research, which served as the foundation for Project VOICE, found that libraries’ classification of underserved groups is very diverse across the USA, ranging from those with low socioeconomic status and marginalized communities to those with special needs (Campana et al., 2022).

2. It is important to note that the two tools and their accompanying process are only two pieces of a larger participatory process that is meant to help library practitioners begin to work in partnership with children and families from underserved groups to design learning experiences that align with their goals, wishes, and values.

3. Starting Fall 2023, the CET and Value Tree tools will be made publicly available through OCLC Webjunction’s platform as part of a larger, research-informed course to help library practitioners design community-centered, value-sensitive outreach learning experiences for young children and their families from underserved communities.