ANATOMÍA PATOLÓGICA

In an attempt to address RQ, subject librarians were asked questions 2.4 – 2.7 of the instrument forming Appendix A. Responding to question 2.4 which sought subject librarians’ opinion on teaching method for information literacy delivery in comparison with literature, international standards and other universities in the SADC region, the subject librarians responses were:

FG4P1: Based on the fact that there is no curriculum it really doesn’t. We only teach what we think is

important like the basic searches as one of the ways of finding information.

FG2P2: It does not because it is not graded, we are just doing it

FG2P1: It should be practical, not theory because information literacy is all about practice

FG2P3: I don’t know what other universities are doing

FG3P3: Because our information literacy programme is not fully established as yet, we have not

benchmarked with any SADC university, we are doing it our own way. We are not even practicing the standards per say of the information literacy

FG1P2: We are doing it verbally and are also demonstrating, so I don’t know if it compares with any institutions.

62

There is no indication that the librarians refer to literature, international standards or even make an effort to compare with other institutions in the SADC Region when planning delivery of their training whether it is introduction to the library, user education or information literacy that they have alluded to.

In light of the above responses to question 2.4 of the instrument, it was clear during focus group discussion that librarians were not considering that students have different learning style. Although question 2.5 of Appendix A which inquired about strategies used to accommodate students with different learning styles was asked for confirmation, all subject librarians’ indicated that they merely deliver what they have planned unconscious of diversity. From these responses, one establishes that in the process of information literacy training, there are ‘pockets’ of accommodating students with different learning styles.

FG4P1: basically is verbal and seeing

FG4P2: we only demonstrate when it comes to doing.

FG2P1: We do them all because we include hands-on activities

FG2P2: We use the video and take them around the library, sometimes we take them in the internet café to do their practical

FG2P3: When I teach them, I let them use computers and hands on, then explain things verbally. FG3P3: We incorporate all of the learning styles because our classes are practical, some are visual and some portion of that we give instruction like take them around the library to show them what we have been teaching them then they do it practically.

FGP1P4: we use mixed methods, talking and demonstration.

Responding to question 2.6 of Appendix A about information resources and information technologies often used, subject librarians indicated that they use computers, library print and e-resources, books, journals to name a few. Testimonial statements:

FG4P1: we use both print and e-resources; we use print resources and computers FG2P2: we use internet…we use computers, projectors as well as print resources

63

FG2P3: we use computers, a projector, computers and books

FG1P4: We demonstrate how to access journal articles using a projector, we also make examples using

books and reference material, so I belief we are using both electronics and books.

Collaboration with faculties is one of predominant strategies in delivering information literacy in higher education institutions which constitute RQ3 of this study, answering question 2.7 on this matter, subject librarians’ statements were quite elaborate and they are presented in the subsequent paragraphs.

FG4P1: Lecturers just accompany students to session that’s all. But it is not all the lecturers who come

with students. ..We communicate with lecturers to bring the students during their slots, for example I am dealing with the 3rdYears, those who are starting their projects from the Faculty of Agriculture.

FG2P2: We normally liaise with faculties and tell them when we have new information sources so that

they can send students.

FG3P3: I don’t know if I can say lecturers are helping students with information literacy, but the subject

matter is we do it in collaboration with lecturers from various departments in different faculties. We do it with the 1st Years, the course we are taking through Communication Skills, and there are certain questions that they are asked during the exam that derive from information literacy sessions.

FG1P1: I don’t think the collaboration we are doing is enough because we don’t discuss with them what

we are doing or what they want us to emphasise on, it is like they just send students to the library. There was once a lecturer who gave students a quiz on reference sources. To me it was wonderful because students came back to seek explanation on what they did not understand. If we collaborate with lecturers to the extent that students get quizzed on what we taught them, I think our information literacy would have value.

FG1P3: We just teach students, lecturers don’t even need feedback of what we taught the students.

FG1P2: You know what, sometimes when these lectures want to do their private or individual stuff outside

the campus, they just bring students here unexpected, they are taking information literacy as a cover, and they are making us baby sitters.

FG1P4: But some accompany students to the information literacy session and sit throughout.

The statements above indicate that there is communication and collaboration by subject librarians with the lecturers; the only challenge is the degree of its efficiency in view of increasing students’ information literacy skills. One gathers mixed feelings among the

64

librarians, there is a positive view of lecturers who send students to the library for training; and there negative view that lecturers do this when they are lazy to teach students. There is an indication that the activity is not well planned and coordinated. There has to be a proper planning of the information literacy programme at NUL. From curriculum design, delivery and assessment; if delivery requires students to come to the library from different departments, this should be properly planned and delivered according to a well-known calendar of events that is designed to attain clearly defined learning outcomes.