“I don’t know, ask the chemists – I think it’s kind of a consensus among them” – Information practice in a problem-based beginner lab

1.1 Information literacy as a social practice

Information literacy has been theoretically framed as a social practice for almost 30 years (Hjørland & Albrechtsen, 1995; Rath, 2022). How information is acquired, shared, valued and transmitted to newcomers depends on the particular community and its participants (e.g., nurses, librarians, firefighters) (Lloyd, 2021). Despite extensive discussion of these developments in the scholarly literature (Cox, 2012; Head et al., 2013; Lloyd, 2010a; Todd, 2017; Tuominen et al., 2005), there is still a lack of understanding of how information literacy functions as a social practice in the context of chemistry education. However, exploring information literacy as a social practice could lead to a better understanding of laboratory learning.

Lloyd (2010a) draws on Schatzki’s site ontology (2002) to explain the theoretical framing of information literacy as information practice (Lloyd, 2010a). This framing views practice as the central feature of social life, where knowledge is situated locally and is the result of collective, embodied, and informed work within a specific space, such as a workplace, school, or chemistry laboratory (Ibid.). To make sense of information in a given context, one needs the experience of authentic practice (Lloyd, 2007). Therefore, Lloyd suggests that researchers should focus on the sociocultural affordances of practice as the unit of analysis for studying information literacy, rather than information skills. This is because these affordances lead to the development of information skills (Lloyd, 2010b), which is a widely acknowledged attribute in the literature (Association of College and Research Libraries, 2015; Hosier, 2019; Rath, 2022).

The framework of workplace-related information practice is particularly relevant to the chemistry laboratory, given the many similarities between laboratory practice and workplace practice: “In workplaces where there is an emphasis on practical and embodied understandings and more value placed on experiential knowledge and know-how, information literacy will reflect the informal nature of learning within site” (Lloyd, 2010a). Professional practice requires more than the application of theoretical knowledge, and involves “knowing-in-practice,” which is characterized by developing knowledge collectively and in an ongoing way in response to specific situations (Price et al., 2020). The literature also emphasizes the importance of social sharing of information between experienced and novice practitioners, which provides a useful theoretical frame for this study’s intent (Brown & Duguid, 1991; Wenger-Trayner, 2008). As beginners interact with community members, they decode the “sayings of practice” and eventually become equal members by establishing a shared understanding (Lloyd, 2010a).

Novice practitioners encounter both explicit and tacit knowledge in the chemistry laboratory. Explicit knowledge is expressed through codified rules, lab manuals, textbooks, and written and verbalized guidelines (Lloyd, 2010a). In contrast, tacit knowledge refers to knowledge that cannot be fully expressed by the subject, such as flexible processes of perceiving, evaluating, expecting, thinking, deciding, or acting (Porschen, 2008).

Kirschner (1992) argued that one central aim of laboratory practicals in education is to accumulate tacit knowledge through experiencing scientific phenomena. This involves obtaining an implicit, often indescribable, feeling for what is happening or what is supposed to happen, rather than explicit knowledge of how something works or why it works (Kirschner, 1992). Keen and Sevian (2022) also highlighted the importance of rules and routines in the laboratory, as they are how the community and participants implicitly and explicitly negotiate their beliefs about the structure, content, and process of learning chemistry " (Keen & Sevian, 2022) This work aims to explore how the experience of scientific phenomena and the experience of rules and routines contribute to the information practice of students in the laboratory. It highlights the importance of both explicit and tacit knowledge, as well as the embodied aspects of information practice, for effective learning.

The following research question guides the study:

How is information practice represented and developed in a problem-based beginner laboratory?

2.1 Setting and participants

This study was conducted in a problem-based learning lab at Goethe-University Frankfurt, Germany. Due to the focus of the study is the information practice of beginners, we chose the first lab session of two groups of non-major chemistry students for data collection.

The students participated in the problem-based lab course in line with a general inorganic chemistry module for non-majors. The participants’ names were substituted with pseudonyms to protect confidentiality. All the students majored in earth sciences, between 19 and 22 years old, and had a mandatory general inorganic chemistry module in their bachelor studies. They worked together in groups on the problems posed in the PBL laboratory concept for four weeks in August 2020, with lab sessions once every week for approximately 5 h. The division of the groups was left to the students. In total, 12 students participated in the laboratory course, resulting in three different groups. The two groups selected for this study were chosen because they were not taught by one of the authors. The third group, however, was instructed by one of the authors and it was therefore excluded from the analysis. The two groups consisting of seven students and their teaching assistants gave informed consent to have their first lab session audio recorded. Table 1 gives an overview of the participants.

In group A, Johannes and Arne were in the second semester when attending the lab course, while Jakob was in the sixth semester. All the students that participated in group B were in the second semester. This was the first chemistry lab practical for all students. The teaching assistant, Jana, had studied chemistry to become a teacher and had already completed her first state exam. The second teaching assistant, Carina, was a postgraduate chemistry major thus, both Jana and Carina had extensive laboratory experience, however, they did not have any previous laboratory teaching experience as TAs. Ben was an additional supervisor working for the institute who alternated between both groups and who had long-standing teaching experience in supervising different laboratory practicals.

On the one hand, the undergraduate students were all newcomers to the chemistry lab, while, on the other hand, according to their education and experience, Jana, Carina and Ben were considered experienced members of the chemistry community. Therefore, the sampling was deemed suitable for the current study in further comprehending the representation and development of an information practice as well as the role of tacit knowledge in the chemistry lab.

2.2 Lab activity

The lab activity focused on industrial lithium extraction from brine, providing an authentic problem for introductory chemistry students to address basic chemical concepts and laboratory techniques. The experiments involved classic detection reactions and current analytical methods, and students are instructed as if they were employees of an industrial company. Details about the problem-based laboratory concept, the problem design and implementation have already been published (Wellhöfer & Lühken, 2022b). The problems are small-step extensions of known material.

The study was set up around the first problem: “Analysis of an unknown salt mixture”. For the first problem, the students analyze an unknown salt mixture and determine which ions their sample included. The problem concerned a qualitative sample analysis that included a possible limited number of ions. It was designed as an introduction to the problem-based concept and is, thus, suitable for the current study in understanding the students’ first-time practical experiences in the laboratory.

2.3 Data collection and analysis

The data for this study stems from the audio recordings of the first lab session of groups A and B. Both lab sessions yielded around 4 h of group discourse and were transcribed verbatim. Initially, following the documentary method, the transcribed dialogs were thematically structured according to their relevance to the research question (Bohnsack et al., 2013). Subsequently, sections relevant to the information practice were identified.

Selected for the interpretation were certain text sections that had a particular narrative or interactive density (Bohnsack et al., 2013). These sections were identified by looking for linguistic patterns, such as the group’s interaction patterns, including the frequency of two-person exchanges, simultaneous speaking, and extended periods of silence. Additionally, sections were selected with a notably high number of questions asked. It can be assumed that these sections contained important aspects related to the participants own experiences as well their information practice (Kleemann et al., 2009). Based on these criteria, linguistically significant passages were identified and analyzed, seeking out thematically similar passages for comparison. The analysis was started with Group A’s transcript, identifying themes related to acidification, disposal, and safety, and then comparable themes in Group B’s transcript were identified. As this interactive density was predominantly found in the transcript of group A, this group yielded more passages which were selected for interpretation.

The interpretation of the identified sections involves two steps: formulating interpretation and reflective interpretation. The formulating interpretation is concerned with the immanent, literal meaning, which asks the question, “what?” It considers the literal content of what the study’s subjects expressed and is rephrased by the researcher. In the second step, the researcher provides reflective interpretations about the implicit knowledge of the study’s participants (Nohl, 2005). This marks the switch from “what” to “how.” In this study, the reflective interpretation was used to uncover the conjunctive knowledge of the group. It consisted of interpreting how the study participants dealt with situations and problems around the topics of acidification, safety, and disposal. The specific way of dealing with a problem is made visible by contrasting how, in other situations or groups, the course is set differently in the treatment of a comparable topic (Bohnsack, 2013). Orientation patterns are carved out by comparative analysis through different cases inside thematically similar topics (Ibid.). Tables that include the selected passages, formulating interpretation, and reflective interpretation for the named topics can be found in the Supporting information Table S1: Safety, Table S2: Disposal, Table S3: Acidification.

The authors first worked individually on the formulating interpretation and the reflective interpretation. Afterward, they gathered for several debriefing sessions to discuss the resulting tables and develop a shared analysis. The debriefing sessions and the collaborative work add credibility and dependability to the analysis (Hadi & José Closs, 2016; Shenton, 2004).

3.1 “So is it OK to tip it away after neutralization or what?” – reconstructing the materialization of information practice

The following section will draw on the topic of disposal to reconstruct how the information practice materializes. Practice is dependent on the situation and is required to adapt previously acquired knowledge to a variety of situations that are not anticipated by the students in advance through theoretical preparation. In the following example, Johannes asks about specific ways to dispose of pH paper.

Johannes: “These pH samples, do you have to dispose of them in a certain way?”

Jana: “Do you mean the acid solutions or what?”

Johannes: “No, I mean the paper samples.”

Jana: “The snippets?”

Johannes: “Yes.”

Jana: “You can-, you can do that in a way that you-. Do you have paper towels with you, or?”

Jakob: “There’s toilet paper up there.”

Jana: “Okay. Then you just take toilet paper like that, lay it out and then you can always let the pH strips dry. Okay. And then when they’re dry, you can just throw them in the solid waste trash can and that’s it.”

Johannes asks if there is a “certain way” to dispose of the pH paper scraps. He does not formulate an idea of how to dispose of the pH paper scraps and asks directly. Nevertheless, his formulation shows that he has already learned that there are certain ways of disposal, certain “doings of practice” (Lloyd, 2010a). While the students have prepared for the disposal of chemical and material waste, the procedure in practice, which Jana demonstrates to them by letting the pH strips dry “like that” on the toilet paper, is not something that they have prepared for theoretically. Jana provides instructions on how to dispose of the paper snippets without explaining why it is necessary to dry them and dispose of them in solid waste. This example again highlights the need for social information in practice. When learning in practice, there are situations in which the TA guides procedures that the students in the theoretical preparation would not have anticipated. Becoming an equal member and making self-sufficient decisions in the laboratory means learning the ways of practice that the other members of the practice legitimize.

This situation of pH sample disposal is exemplary for disposal practice in chemistry because, although one would like to think so, it is not always possible to deduce from theory how to handle disposal in practice situationally. Instead, disposal situations are handled by responding to the situation at hand and considering guiding principles, depending on the subject’s own socialization into the community of practice.

The following scenario further exemplifies the disposal in practice when Johannes asks Jana how he should dispose of the remains of silver nitrate in his pipette:

Johannes: “So I have a pipette here with silver nitrate.”

Jana: “The other way around.”

Johannes: “I see. Yes, I have … I assume that has to be disposed of in heavy metal, right?”

Jana: “Silver nitrate. Do you have anything else in there or what?”

Johannes: “There is no more liquid in it. But there are remnants of silver.”

Jana: “Just rinse it out. That’s-, well, it’s minimal only. You can rinse it once, there is no liquid left.”

Johannes has a suggestion for making a situational decision based on his theoretical knowledge of heavy metal disposal. He assesses the situation but still needs validation by an experienced member of the practice community. Jana tells Johannes how to “just rinse it out” and explains why (“there is no more liquid”). Johannes does not question her suggestion.

Keen and Sevian (2022) describes a similar situation in which the students experience epistemological struggles “when the lab procedure asked students to go against a lab norm,” e.g., throwing waste into the sink instead of in the chemical waste garbage can (Keen & Sevian, 2022). Again, this is an example of the student’s socialization into practice; they learn to handle these situations through social guidance and physically lived experiences.

In the further course of the session, the students proceed to discuss among themselves how they should proceed with the disposal:

Johannes: “Where do you keep the heavy metal stuff?”

Arne: “Here, with me.”

Johannes: “Should I throw it in there? Yes, right.”

Arne: “What if something emerges. *laughs* It will end up exploding, who knows.”

At this point, the students know about the disposal procedure in theory and from previous situations in the lab and linked conversations. During the lab session, Johannes’s knowledge about his waste belonging to heavy metal waste becomes repeatedly evident (see Table S2: Disposal). Nevertheless, he now looks to Arne for action-guiding social information who answers, “It will end up exploding, who knows,” meaning he does not actually know. Despite the remaining uncertainty, the students can act without their supervisor and dispose of their waste. Keen and Sevian (2022) described socioemotional struggles in their study of students’ struggles in a beginner lab and found that “often times, students moved forward as long as their emotional struggle was acknowledged” (Keen & Sevian, 2022). In our example, the social interaction was needed for reassurance and sharing the responsibility of making a decision. Even though the students did not ask the TA, they did ask each other. Thus, the students gain experience through action and negotiation, and eventually learn to make situational decisions independently.

These examples reveal different manifestations of the development of the students’ information practice. They develop from, initially, asking the supervisor directly without actionable suggestions to then asking for feedback on suggestions and to group discussions between peers resulting in action.

The results exemplify how information practice is represented and developed in a chemistry beginner laboratory and the different characteristics it can exhibit in experienced community members and complete novices who are entering a new community of practice. The following section will discuss the structure of action in a beginner lab with regard to the group-specific importance of general guidelines in the case of safety measures, looking at the instruction in more depth.

“Always go into the fume hood with sulfuric acid.” – Situational decisions and general guidelines for safety

The following section discusses the application of general guidelines to information practice exemplified by safety measures. The situational application of general guidelines can provide indications of the group-specific socialization in the laboratory environment. The cases of situational hazard assessments referring to guiding principles illustrate how information practice is both subjective and intersubjective (Lloyd, 2007). In the following example, Jakob and Jana discuss whether Jakob should use one drop of one molar sulfuric acid in the fume hood.

Jakob: “With 1 mol per liter sulfuric acid, I don’t have to go into fume hood, right? *laughs* Or even then?”

Jana: “Now, if you take a drop of-.”

Jakob: “One drop …”

Jana: “You could maybe take a fume hood once or something.”

Jakob: “Okay. That is, put the thing in the fume hood, then?”

Jana: “If something tips over there by accident, then you have the fume hood, then you’re safe. With sulfuric acid always go into the fume hood.”

Jakob: “Okay. Good.”

Jana: “Just take that over here in fume hood.”

Jakob finds the idea of going into the fume hood with one molar sulfuric acid amusing and absurd, therefore, he laughs and asks the question in a manner that shows he expected a “no” as an answer. However, even though Jakob feels competent to propose this situational assessment for the practice, he does not act independently. Here, Jakob’s participation in the practice community is documented; he applies and adapts his theoretical knowledge to practice, which, however, still needs corroboration (social guidance). Nevertheless, his formulation clarifies that he has assessed the application of safety measurements and is not “just” asking (Jakob: “With 1 mol per liter sulfuric acid, I don’t have to go into fume hood, right?”). In theory, Johannes knows to use the fume hood when working with sulfuric acid, but his knowledge becomes meaningful only when he learns to adapt it to practice, where one nuanced situation always differs from another (Elmborg, 2006; Reich et al., 2014). He needs social information, that is action-guiding from Jana.

Jana cautiously disagrees, suggesting that Jakob “could maybe take the fume hood or something.” Even though Jakob does not question the proposal, Jana explains: “If something tips over. Always go into the fume hood with sulfuric acid.” She refers to a guiding principle she knows to support her instruction. The initially cautious suggestion to go into the fume hood becomes a general statement. Jana’s formulation, “With sulfuric acid, always go into the fume hood,” suggests that she bases her instruction on a guiding principle that she, herself, learnt in practice. Jana’s guiding principle of to always use sulfuric acid in the fume hood is explained by her because the acid could tip over; the fact that other acids could also tip over and cause severe damage is not of consideration at this point. The guiding principle from Jana stands in contrast to Jakob’s initial situational hazard evaluation and idea for action. Jakob accepts the suggestion without questioning it.

Safety is of crucial importance in a chemistry laboratory. The use of guiding principles in a variety of situations highlights different characteristics of chemistry information practice. Considering safety, the supervisor might act out of their responsibility according to the motto “safety first” and refers to higher-order rules that they learnt in practice. The supervisor applies general conventions which correspond to a higher safety standard.

In the following example, the supervisor intervenes and advises Arne against using gloves. They contradict the student’s theoretical preparation and their subsequent safety concept.

Jana: “Why do you need gloves for this?”

Arne: “Because of barium hydroxide solution?”

Jana: “Well…”

Arne: “No, fuck it, I don’t care. I was just-.”

Jana: “You have to-, I wanted to ask again anyway, why, for what you need gloves, in general, when you-.”

Arne: “For acids in any case?”

Jana: “If you take the instructions very seriously. But a little bit of acid, in such a small amount, should also-. Just work concentrated. On your bases anyway, that you don’t spill anything, okay? If something should get on your hand, rinse off directly. And with sulfuric acid generally in the fume hood …. It’s very – okay.”

The conversation shows how Arne interprets Jana’s question and her answer “Well … ” as a rejection of the gloves he uses. His response to her rejection of the gloves, “No, fuck it, I don’t care,” depicts how keen he is to follow Jana’s suggestions, again, without an explanation. Jana’s instruction is a general rejection of gloves in this laboratory context. This is evident from the way she phrases the question, “What do you need gloves for in general,” and her subsequent comment, “Just work concentrated (…) If something should get on your hand, rinse off directly.” She is not just referring to this situation, but to a guiding principle about when or when not to use gloves. Although the dialog is only between her and Arne, she uses the German plural “you” and addresses all the students which emphasizes the generality of her statement. A similar situation occurred in the other lab where Ben also advised students not to use gloves (see Table S1: Safety). However, Ben explained that his suggestion was for safety reasons; the students might accidentally touch their faces or other vessels with dirty gloves. Jana makes no such explanation. An explanation was not a requirement for the students to accept these guiding principles.

Differences in the instruction by the TAs and subsequent differences in the meaningful use of learning situations have been reported in the literature (Huffmyer & Lemus, 2019; O’Neal et al., 2007). In this study, the difference in instruction by TAs was particularly evident in relation to “the sayings and doings of practice” (Lloyd, 2010a), and how they were sometimes passed on without explanation and unquestioned. The findings suggest that this may be related to the information practice in the laboratory. The way students accept all social information from the TA, with or without explanation, could indicate the socialization in this setting. Some of these students will become TAs, thus, the present TAs were once students. The sharing of these guiding principles could indicate how Jana herself learned about them when she was a newcomer in the laboratory practice.

In the case of both Ben and Jana, the students accepted their suggestion not to use gloves without question. The use of general guidelines contributes to the socialization of students in this community of practice and provides a specific framework. This framework allows situations and action decisions to be clustered (no gloves, always go into the fume hood with sulfuric acid). The unquestioned transmission of rules of conduct illustrates the socialization of members into the community of practice, their transmission, and the likely transmission by students in the future.

In the following section, the need for physical experience and the role of tacit information are considered in more detail.

3.2 “Acidified is usually,- a few drops are enough” – tacit knowledge and corporeal information exemplified by acidification

The topic “What does acidification actually mean?” runs through the lab session in this study. Based on the discourse around acidification, core aspects of information practice can be highlighted, described as “getting a feel for phenomena” (Kirschner, 1992). The examples around the topic of acidification show how tacit and nuanced aspects of information practice need physical experience (corporeal information) and social guidance for a practical understanding. While physical or psychomotor struggles are included in lab activity research, they are often depicted in isolation, e.g., relating to issues with tools or non-functioning equipment (DeKorver & Towns, 2015; Keen & Sevian, 2022). What is missing in the research literature is the connection between the corporeal information modality and other information modalities that contribute to learning; this is important because the corporeal information modality is a necessity for practical understanding.

The results are illustrated in a model, Figure 3, which describes the students’ development of tacit knowledge, referring to the concept of acidification for practice. Again, this model is not a representation of the complex information practice in this laboratory but a tool to display the central results concerning tacit information needs in this study.

Figure 3:

Illustration of students’ information practice in the case of tacit information needs, exemplified by acidification.

In this study, both textual and social information modalities alone did not lead to a practical understanding of the group-specific concept of acidification for novices. The students needed the physical experience (corporeal information) in different scenarios, classified through social instruction by an experienced member of the community of practice to give practical meaning to the concept of acidification, the “interweaving of cognitive and physical sources” that gives meaning to the knowledge (Lloyd, 2010a). The dotted lines in the model depict the necessity to repeat this process in different scenarios for the students to develop knowing-in-practice. The following section depicts how the model was derived from the data and discusses the results.

In the following example, students Johannes and Jakob begin by discussing the practical meaning of acidification:

Johannes: “Now the question, what does acidifying mean? So how much should I add to it?”

Jakob: “That’s why I just wrote acidify and not somehow a specification because I have no idea. Ask the chemists somehow-. I think that’s such a consensus among them that they all know what that means. And everybody else doesn’t know. And that’s why they always write acidified or acidifying.”

Johannes: “Yes, then I have to ask because I don’t know either.”

Jakob: “Yes, I don’t know either. Otherwise just measure the pH and add a little bit.”

Jakob reflects that there is group-specific knowledge (“consensus”) in the circle of “chemists” to which he has no access because he does not belong to it. He tells Johannes that if one belongs to that circle, then one knows it, and that there is no need to manifest that knowledge explicitly. During his research for the experimental procedure, he was not able to find anything explicit in writing on the subject of acidification. The textual information he found was not sufficient for him to make sense of the topic in practice.

Johannes does not know either about this topic, however, he shows no uncertainty about who he might ask. He has access to “chemists”, i.e., access to the circle of those in the know (Johannes: “Yes, then I have to ask because I don’t know either.”). Jakob also suggests a further possibility for action, how information can be obtained alternatively – without asking anyone – or how they could act without additional information (“Otherwise just measure the pH and add a little bit.”). This example documents the students’ information need in the form of a social resource when textual information is insufficient.

In the following situation, Jakob asks Jana, the supervisor, about the procedure of acidification:

Jana: “Well, in the lab practical it is very important that you simply try out a bit. There is no right or wrong here. Sure, you have your literature, you are well read, but-.”

Jakob: “Yes, but we are still a bit helpless, I think. What I’ve heard, in the literature, much is kind of already assumed. Basic things for chemists, for example: Acidify the solution. How much acid goes into it until it is acidified?”

Jana: “Acidified is usually-, a few drops are enough. Then you look with the pH paper.”

Jakob: “Diluted by what, how much? Sometimes it says 2 mol, sometimes it says 5 mol. Then it says it in percent.”

Jana: “You usually take a hydrochloric acid, a diluted one. You add a few drops, check whether it’s acidic or not, with the pH paper, and then it’s usually ok. Otherwise, it will say strongly acidic or something like that.”

Learning the ways of a community of practice takes place when people participate: “They learn not only about the actual performance of practice (e.g., the doing of practice), but they also engage with nuanced and tacit information (e.g., the saying of practice)” (Lloyd, 2010b). This excerpt shows how the newcomers to the practice question the “sayings of the practice.” Jakob is frustrated by the unclear textual instructions and changing formulations. New members with a fresh look can challenge circumstances that the long-time community members take for granted. This example illustrates the difficult process of the students’ experience with understanding “the saying of practice” and translating it into action.

The supervisor encourages the students to use “trial and error” methods independently of textual information. Nevertheless, they experience a need for information that they feel is fundamental to be able to act and, thus, they demand the information that is missing from the supervisor. They need access to the missing information through an experienced member of the chemistry laboratory practice who is privy to this kind of tacit knowledge, in this case, Jana. However, Jakob has previously suggested a possible course of action (“just add a little and measure the pH”) which is also offered repeatedly by the supervisor during the discourse (“Acidified is usually also-, a few drops are enough. Then you look with the pH paper”). Although Jakob has verbalized the same information as Jana, content-wise, he cannot act without further input, i.e., he cannot start experimenting in order to try something out. Although Jakob does not lack theoretical knowledge, he is still unable to take action.

Even though the content of the verbalized information on acidification is similar between the students and Jana, they have different practical experiences to give meaning to the information. The difference with these “basic things” is documented in the binary meaning of the word “basic”: The term “basic” carries the connotation of being both fundamental and necessary for taking action, as well as the connotation of being primary or easy. For the students, on the one hand, the basics are fundamental prerequisites for action which is why Jakob reacts to the suggestion for trial and error with “We are helpless.” They are at the beginning of their socialization in this community of practice. On the other hand, the supervisor’s basics are self-evident and straightforward, however, she cannot elaborate on her instruction rooted in tacit knowledge. This can be seen in the example when Jana attempts to explain acidification: Jana: “Acidified is usually-, a few drops are enough.” She cannot explicitly state what the concept of acidification is. Jakob responds with another request for her to clarify what acidification means, to make it explicit: Jakob: “Diluted by what, how much?” Jana, again, cannot clarify what acidification means, she can only explain how it “usually” goes and delimits acidified from “strongly acidic or something like that.”

During the lab practical the supervisor draws on memories of situations she has experienced that she cannot express clearly and looks for procedures to verbalize to the students. These procedures are, for example, expressed by Jana when she attempts to explain acidification. She does not give a clear, explicit answer but she thinks about how “it is usually done.” We interpret this as her drawing on her memory and how she “usually” experienced acidification. This can also be seen by her stating, “You usually take a hydrochloric acid, a diluted one. You add a few drops (…),” which clearly depends on the situation, but in her memory, this is how it usually happened. To explain a practical endeavor, she draws on her experience in practice.

The notion that Jana’s understanding of acidification is rooted in tacit knowledge becomes clearer when she provides a definition of what acidification means in the next example, and then repeatedly contradicts it in the latter course of action. Johannes asks her what “acidify” practically means:

Johannes: “Yes, I have another question.”

Jana: “Yes, sure.”

Johannes: “It says acidify. So I understand that I add an acid. But the question is how much. Because I can’t estimate that now.”

Jana: “Yes. Acidifying means that it should be in the acidic range, yes. pH value below seven. And then you just add a few drops and then you can check with the pH paper whether it is acidic or not and test it first.”

Jana clarifies that acidifying means “pH value below seven.” The next examples will show that this, however, is not what she considers acidified in practice. During the discourse around the acidification of a solution, Jana suggested that Jakob should test the pH value of his sample first because it might already be acidic and not need further acidification, which he did. He negotiates the results with her in the following example:

Jakob: “That is, I have about six to five now. So it’s acidified.”

Jana: “Exactly. I would still-a little bit because that’s really-, so that’s not so clear. That’s … even a little bit more-, yeah, it’s still very neutral. I would add a little bit more.”

Although the case that Jana proposed has occurred, she previously defined acidified – the solution is already in the acidic range – she is now dissatisfied with her previous definition of acidified. In her practical understanding, it is not acidified, “it’s still very neutral.” Jana has no explicit explanation for what acidified means, she just has a “feel” for the phenomenon (Kirschner, 1992). Ultimately, the students learn to acidify by experience and exclusion criteria, namely by practical examples classified by Jana as acidified or not acidified. The students attempt to acidify their samples by taking physical action and Jana classifies the experiences for the students.

This can also be seen when the contrary example occurs. The sample was supposed to be acidified but is now classified by Jana as “strongly acidic,” which Jana points out to the students could be a disturbing factor for the test.

Jana: “Okay. Is there anything in it maybe? Because it is in the strongly acidic range.”

Jakob: “What does strongly acidic mean?”

Jana: “Well, it said acidify.”

Johannes: “Yes, I have-, pH value one I have.”

When Jakob asks, “What does strongly acidic mean?” Jana answers with “Well, it said acidify,” thus avoiding the question that requires an explicit answer. Again, the students learn about acidification by experience (corporeal information) that is classified by Jana (social guidance). She contradicts her former definition of “Acidifying means that it should be in the acidic range, yes. pH value below seven.” What counts as acidified and what does not in practice clearly diverges from her theoretical explanation. There is “strongly acidic” and there is “too neutral,” both of which occur in the range of pH < 7. Jana has passed her tacit knowledge on by categorizing the students’ experiences. The students try “to acidify” and only then can she give them an estimation if they succeeded or not. To Jana, acidification is self-evident and intuitive. What is necessary for the students to learn about acidification is the physical experience of doing it, combined with the classification and guidance by Jana as an experienced member of the community of practice; the “entwining of cognitive and corporeal sources” that gives meaning to knowledge (Lloyd, 2010b).

These examples document how both the textual and social information modalities alone do not lead to a practical understanding of the group-specific concept of acidification for the beginner chemists (Ibid.). The students need the physical experience (corporeal information) classified through social guidance to give practical meaning to the concept of acidification. A common reference frame develops in a specific group through people engaging in practice together. Newcomers to a community of practice learn the sayings and doings of the practice and eventually become information-literate members who can act independently and decide situationally (Ibid.).

The acquired information, the sayings of practice, can have tacit aspects, as in the case of acidification, or clear and explicit aspects, as in the cases of disposal and safety. Both incidents require the physical experience of practice for the students to develop situational agency. However, in the case of acidification, the students need Jana to classify their findings in order to understand the concept of acidification for practice. In both cases, the students require experiencing multiple situations, which eventually leads to the shared conceptions between people belonging to the chemistry community of practice.

The following section will discuss ways to implement these insights into information practice for information literacy instruction.