Printer Friendly

Pedagogy in library and information science programme in Nigeria.

Introduction

Higher education institutions that run programmes in various parts of the world are established to produce intellectuals that are capable to search, discover and use the knowledge acquired effectively in every sphere of life. Hence Nigerian University Commission (1999) puts it that education for library and information science (LIS) professionals is expected to equip librarians with relevant theoretical knowledge, practical skills and techniques to develop and enhance job performance. Given that the level of one's job performance contributes immensely to the national development and drought on this aspect of life spells doom to the development of the entire society. In view this, it is also expected that university education and its mode of learning need to equip students with appropriate skills, knowledge that will prepare students for entry into a world of employment which is characterized by greater uncertainty, values and attributes to thrive in (Henard & Roseveare, 2012). Library being a barn of Information and knowledge, the Information managers should be equipped properly from these programmes being offered for the possible challenges of the "time". This should be achieved when proper education and training is given to the students of Library and Information Science in order to contribute effectively in workplaces without fear. No wonder Ferguson et al. (2017) reported that employers and government frown when students do not emerge with skills that are necessary in contemporary workplace. However, the management of library schools and educational administrators have not actually done much in the area of instructional methods cum teaching method that will make this expectation a reality, rather students in most cases perform poorly in their workplaces because they come out half-baked or unskilled in their supposedly area of specializations. Thus an indication that probably the management of the library schools is insensitive to the paradigm shift in the library and information science profession and choose teaching methods not beneficial to students and employers. This insensitivity and lackadaisical attitude has probably made some of the instructors choose pedagogical approaches that best suit them to the detriment of the learners and the entire workforce. Based on this, Ferguson et al. (2017) document that students themselves were also unhappy when they discover that they wasted their time and money in formal education which did not earned them a well-paid and fulfilling job. This situation can sometimes spur up infraction at their workplace when they cannot perform as expected.

In South East Nigeria, it is uncertain the type of pedagogy or teaching method mostly adopted or preferred to by library and information science instructors (LISIs) in the library schools undergraduate programme. This study therefore sought to ascertain the most adopted pedagogy preferred by LISIs in LIS undergraduate programme of university based library schools in South East, Nigeria.

Specifically, this study was set to provide answer to the following research questions:

1. What are types and most preferred teaching method(s) adopted by library and information science instructors in Nigeria?

2. What are the reasons for the preference of the teaching method(s) by library and information science instructors in Nigeria?

3. What are the reasons why other teaching method(s) are not adopted by library and information science instructors?

Review of Literature

Teaching methods have important role to play in the ability of any student to display any form of skill in a working environment after graduation since one is expected to give out what has been acquired that is why pedagogy is seen by Bronack, Sanders, Cheney, Rield, Tashner and Matzen (2008) as set of skills, abilities and dispositions one employs when helping others learn. On the other hand Library and information science like any other profession, discipline/course of study/academic subject requires pedagogy that is commensurate to it. These skills often manifest itself as a collection of strategies, techniques, and styles. Both Gill (2017) and Wehrli and Nyquist (2003) opined that pedagogy encompasses contents (course/subject), skill and environment. Environment can be classroom, online, clinical setting etc. Banilower, Boyd, Pasley and Weiss (2006) described pedagogy as the methods by which teachers manage the instructional environment. It becomes very important for the educators to be properly equipped and be ahead of the students both in skills, strategies and techniques.

Consequently, there are many different types of teaching methods/pedagogies. The choice of anyone depends on the academic subject/curriculum, mission and vision of the institution, the environment for the teaching and the teaching skill of the lecturer. Tijani (2012) in the paper presented during the 2-day workshop on improved teaching methods in Nigeria Universities organized by Afe Babalola University (ABUAD) reported that choice of teaching style is based on philosophy deeply rooted in the vision and mission of the teacher's own institution. Henard and Roseveare (2012) added, a teaching method/pedagogy that will be environment friendly, meet students' profiles and demands, job markets requirements, reputation and history of the institution. Gill (2017) discussed 5 effective teaching methods for classroom (matching them with the subjects suited for each method) which include: authority/lecture method, demonstrator/coach, delegator/group, facilitator/activity and hybrid/blended method of teaching. Except facilitator and hybrid method, other teaching methods added by Wehrli and Nyquist (2003) that can be done in a classroom setting include: brainstorming, role play, self-awareness exercise/test, independent study, computer simulation and game.

Lecture method according to Gill (2017) is a teaching method that is teacher- centered, accommodates large number of students at a time and carried out in an auditorium setting. Wehrli and Nyquist (2003) describes it as didactic presentation of information. Some of its advantages include: effective in providing and clarifying both new and existing information to a large heterogeneous group in a short period of time, useful for covering underlying concepts, principles and systems. Since this method is teacher centered, it offers limited opportunities for assessment and feedback, can lead to learner overload and boredom etc. It was also suggested to mix this method with the more interactive techniques in the session to avoid exceeding attention spans of the learners (Wehrli & Nyquist, 2003). Phuritsabam (2008) study revealed that lecture method was the most preferred method, though other methods like practical work, project work, assignment, tutorial etc. were also highlighted.

Demonstration method like lecture method is teacher-centric. The teacher is the performer, the learner the observer. Whereas in the global scene, modern day teaching requires students to be at the focal point of the learning approach (Henard & Roseveare, 2012). No wonder, both Gill (2017) and Wehrli and Nyquist (2003) depict this method as not good enough for all the learners. It does not accommodate students individual needs in larger classroom and also inappropriate for the different learning rates of the participants.

Group method of teaching was categorized by Wehrli and Nyquist (2003) into case based small group discussion and large group discussion. This method, though it involves learner active participation, learner and teacher immediate feedback but can be frustrating for participants when they operate at significantly different levels of knowledge and skills. It increases potential for interpersonal conflict and time consuming. According to Gill (2003) this method was criticized by critics for teachers being seen as consultant.

Facilitator method involves a facilitator or helper or teacher promoting self- learning and helping the students develop critical thinking and retention of knowledge that leads to self-actualisation. This method trains students to ask questions and helps to develop skills to find answers through investigation. It challenges the teacher to interact with student towards discovery of things themselves (Gill, 2003).

Mclntosh (2011) in comparing five different teaching methods for information literacy (IL) was unable to conclude which of the following methods is the best: active learning (AL), computer assisted instruction (CAI), learner centered (LC), self-directed independent learning (SDIL) and traditional instruction (TI). The findings only showed that SDIL, TI and self-directed independent are all more effective than "no instruction (NI)."

Garrison and Kanuka (2004) described blended pedagogy as both simple and complex. Gill (2003) sees it as integrated approach to teaching that blends both the teachers' personality and interests with students' needs and curriculum-appropriate methods. Singh and Reeds (2001) sees it as an instructional delivery method where more than one delivery mode is adopted for optimizing learning outcomes. This method is tailored towards learners' needs and curriculum contents. Delialoglu and Yildirim (2007); Gerber, Grund and Grote (2008); Oh and Park (2009) all dealt on blended method, reporting its enormous advantages to the students, instructors and the institutions. Thus, blended pedagogy is a combination of varying teaching methods in which the teacher must possess the necessary skill for it to work efficiently.

Team teaching according to Chitra (2016) involves a group of teachers, working as a team and teaching. The team can range from 2 to 5 teachers teaching the same group of students at the same time, each teaching on his area of expertise. Students were actively involved both mentally and physically. It breaks the traditional lecture boredom. Hence, it is the most effective method of teaching. But, in spite of its enormous advantages incompatibility of the co-teachers often affects teaching and learning especially when the collaborating teachers have different teaching styles, behaviour management styles and ideas about class preparation. These differences as discovered by Mastropieri, Sruggs, Graetz, Norland, Gardizi and McDuffie (2005) bring erosion of effective collaboration and conflicts between or among co- teachers.

In an online environment, team teaching according to the findings of Kareen- Guscott (n.d.) in a research carried out at the University of the West Indies Open Campus (UWIOC) is the best teaching method for online courses. Another method of teaching that can take place in online environment according to Bronack et al. (2008) and Ferguson et al. (2017) is called 3D virtual immersive world a.k.a Presence Pedagogy (P2). There is no boundaries to learners' interaction meaning that student can interact from other instructors and peers from within and outside their courses or programme areas. This method fosters collaboration. In spite of this advantage, Sikora and Carroll (2002) reported that students tend to be less satisfied with this method when compared to traditional classes due to unfamiliarity with the use of technological tools.

Mammo (2007) reported that the adoption of varying teaching methods, improvement of space, teaching, research and ICT facilities, internalization of programmes and introduction of practicum are all required in LIS programme. But all these depend on the resources available to teach. It is expected that application of some of these ICT tools can make pedagogy practical oriented: e-resources; software; technologies etc. The use of ICT tools in teaching and learning is summed up by Tinio (2002) who views ICT tools as promoting and encouraging learners active participation, creativity and interaction which eliminates the artificial separation between the different disciplines and between theory and practice as is in the traditional method.

There are some challenges that may hamper teaching methods and learning. They include: lack of physical equipment/infrastructure, inadequate knowledge, confidence and time etc., (Pelgrum, 2001) and (Balanskat, Blamire & Kefala, 2006). Others according to Rodden (2010) include: lack of training, age, extent of previous ICT experience, classroom management, teachers attitudes towards ICT, state of ICT infrastructure and organization of resources, lack of support and resources, financial constraints among others.

Other authors who reported on the problems affecting pedagogy include: Balarabe (2005); Amen (2007) and Kwache (2007) on inadequate facilities and manpower in ICT. Ogbomo and Ogbomo (2008) on power blackouts, high cost of connectivity, lack of ICTs skills, poor infrastructure, obsolete equipment and high cost of equipment etc. Obasi (2009) discovered not only poor power supply but inadequate accommodation for teaching and learning.

With all these varying teaching methods, challenges affecting them notwithstanding, library schools are expected to initiate teaching method that will produce skilled workforce that will meet the challenges of the 21st century. Teaching method that will meet the increasingly broadening scope of education, expectations of the students and the requirements of employers, both today and for future.

Scope of the Study

This study investigated all the States and Federal Universities based library schools undergraduate programme in South East Nigeria that have already graduated students as at the time the instrument of this study was distributed and collated. The states were Imo, Abia, Anambra and Enugu respectively. It covered the pedagogies adopted in the undergraduate library and information science programme.

Methodology

Descriptive survey design was adopted for the study. The population of this study comprised all the library educators drawn from the chosen five universities that offer library science at the undergraduate level in South East Nigeria. The total number of library educators in these universities is 138. The entire population was adopted because it was manageable. The study employed documentary evidence, closed and open-ended questionnaire to collate data. Research question 1 on types and most preferred method of teaching used documentary evidence and closed ended questionnaire which was on a four point rating scale of 4=very high to 1=Not At All whereas data for Research questions 2 and 3 was collated based on open ended questions. The instrument was administered by research assistants to 138 library educators by face-to-face contact. The research assistants retrieved the filled and completed questionnaire from the respondents after few days. Out of this number distributed, only 109 were duly filled and returned giving a response rate of (79%). The data collected were analysed using frequencies, percentages and mean.

Result

The respondents were asked to indicate the most preferred teaching method they adopt. The result of the findings in Table 1 shows that 100% of the respondents preferred lecture/traditional method of teaching to other teaching methods or pedagogy. Other teaching methods had low preferences by library and information science educators e.g. assignment and seminar methods had 19.3% responses each followed by independent and practical hands on practice methods with 17.4% each, blended method (16.6%) among others.

Put differently, the responses in Table 1 revealed that out of the fifteen teaching methods adopted in library and information science programmes only item 1(lecture method) according to the instructors responses had a high mean score of 3.98 which was above 2.5 mark on the 4 point Likert scale. All the other 14 items or teaching methods had low mean scores below 2.5. This showed that the most preferred method of teaching according to library and information science instructors in Nigeria and in the undergraduate programme is lecture method.

The respondents were asked to give as many reasons as possible for their preferences for any teaching method they adopt. Table 2 revealed that library and information science educators preferred lecture/traditional method of teaching to other methods based on the reasons of convenience because of class size (100%), time (100%) and by compulsion (73.4% and 91.7%). Some of the respondents gave reasons for combining any other teaching to lecture method while others did not give reasons. For instance, 21(19.3%) of lecturers who claimed they combined assignment method all gave reasons of using it to test student ability and to meet the mandate given to them by their institutions. Similarly, 21 (19.3%) respondents who claimed to combine seminar method with traditional method all gave reasons of using it to test ability of the students while 20 (18.4%) use it just to meet their institution's mandate. All the 19 respondents who combined hands- on- practice with lecture method gave reasons of making their lectures interactive and participatory by the students. All 16 (14.7%) of lecturers who add demonstration method to the lecture method do so for the purposes of making student to understand their lectures better while 14 (12.8%) do so when they want to make some explanations. All the 19 lecturers who adopted independent study gave reasons of allowing students to learn things by themselves and to have in-depth knowledge of the lectures while 18 of them gave reason of allowing student to study according to their pace.

Some of the lecturers who combined either of the following teaching methods: facilitator or group or role plying exercise or self-awareness service and or computer simulation method with lecture method did not give reasons. The numbers of the participants who did so were 3 each for facilitator, self-awareness and computer simulation; 6 for group and 2 respondents for role playing method among others.

Respondents were asked to state reasons why they do not prefer some teaching methods. Findings in Table 3 showed that more than % of the lecturers do not adopt significantly 14 out of the 15 teaching methods itemized. The lecturers that do not adopt those methods other than lecture method gave reasons for not doing so. The major reasons they gave include: time constraints, inadequate resources (facilities and manpower) and management issues among others. For instance, the following number of lecturers gave time constraints as a reason for none use of role playing method 90(82.6%) out of 107 lecturers, 80 out of 94 lecturers on brainstorming method, 80 out of 93 on Demonstration method, 89 out of 103 on tutorial method, 103 on group method, 90 on independent study, 90 on hands on practice, 88 on seminar, 86 out of 88 on assignment method among others were constrained by inadequate time for not using these methods in teaching and learning.

The same way, the following number of lecturers: team work 109 (100%), computer simulation 106 (97.2%), tutorial 99 (90.8) out of 103, hands-on-practice 90 (82.6%), seminar method 87 (79.8%) out of 88 among others who do not apply these methods mentioned gave reasons of inadequate resources (manpower or facilities).

Another major reason is management issues, the number lecturers and the teaching methods affected include: group method (90.8%) on inability to manage the students when they are in groups and understanding rate as in demonstration method (74.3%) respectively.

Management issues is another major reasons why the following number of lecturers 88 and 87 out of 88; 90; 103 and 100; and 109 for: assignment method; independent study; group and team work methods respectively do not apply them in teaching alongside traditional lecture method of teaching and learning. These management issues comprised management of time for marking student scripts and workload as in assignment method, managing the number of students in a class as in independent study, managing complaints from students as in group method and personality threats from co-teachers as in team work methods of teaching and learning among others.

Discussion

In this contemporary society, there is a clarion call for librarians to exhibit their expertise in the labour market. That is why education for LIS professionals is expected to equip librarians with theoretical knowledge, practical skills and techniques that will enhance their job roles in the workplaces. It is also expected that the type of pedagogy used in the formal training of librarians will be such as to be capable of making librarians meet these expectations. The result of the findings of this study which is to find out the most preferred pedagogy adopted by LISIs in library and information science education were discussed under the following headings:

Types of pedagogy/teaching method adopted by LISIs in LIS undergraduate programme in Nigeria.

The ultimate aim of education is to produce intellectuals who will be productive in any sphere of life. The level of productivity in most cases is dependent on the training received during formal education. This study showed that upon all the different teaching methods used in library and information science education, the most preferred teaching method adopted by library and information science educators in South East Nigeria is lecture method. Use of other methods were too insignificant. Thus, the findings of this study was in line with the study conducted by Phuritsabam (2008) which also revealed that lecture method was the most preferred method even though ironically in today's world, lecture method is no more fashionable. Perhaps the area studied by this author may have similarities with area of this study too. The revelation of this study did not place students at the center of learning. Students want to participate actively in teaching and learning; they want to be self- confident; experts in their own area; they want to be at par with the -state- of -the- arts facilities, how to use and apply them in the workplaces. Some students want to be entrepreneurs/self-employed at the end of their programmes. On the other hand, employers require skill filled employees, employees who will be good team players and experts in their area. Therefore, both the demands of the students and employers today tended towards modern ways of doing things against the traditional ways. Hence, teaching students only with lecture method is no more in vogue, its juicy advantages as enumerated by Wehrli and Nyquist (2003) notwithstanding.

If lecture/traditional method is not combined with other teaching methods the implication will be that librarians will come out with inadequately prepared graduates who will be incapable of facing the dynamic job market in their profession. They cannot face stiff competition with others in the same information related field especially in the job market, thus making most of them unemployable.

The findings of this study only met one of the aims or expectations of the Nigerian University Commission (1999) of setting up library education which is to equip librarians with relevant theoretical knowledge. The practical and technical skills which were also expected to enhance the job performance of librarians were not to be met if traditional method still persists as this findings revealed. Again the finding is also not in line with the work of Henard and Roseveare (2012) who opined that University education ought to equip students with appropriate skills and knowledge that will help them match with any uncertainty that may erupt in the world of employment, which ordinarily only traditional method of teaching would not have done.

The reasons for the preference of lecture method to the other methods as the finding of this study showed, even though obsolete were also provided in the next section by the library and information science instructors themselves.

Reasons for the Preference of Teaching Methods by Library and Information Science Instructors.

From the findings of this study, the most preferred method of teaching is lecture/authority/traditional method. Findings showed that preference to lecture method is because of convenience sake and its' heterogeneous nature.

Environmental factor also played a role. This is obvious on the reasons why other methods were not used. For instance, there is no enabling environment to use hands-on-practice method because instructional tools are either not provided/ inadequate or to use group method because accommodation and manpower are inadequate etc. In this modern time, both students and employers demands have changed. But, ironically in this study, the number of lecturers who were able to add any other method to lecture method were so insignificant to make any impact in

LIS programme. The reasons behind preference of lecture method this is explained in the next section of this study.

Reasons why Teaching Methods are not Preferred/adopted by Library and Information Science Instructors.

From the result of the findings, it can be deduced that the reasons given by library and information science instructors (LISI) that handicapped none preference of other teaching methods other than lecture method, are mainly institutional. There is no enabling environment provided by management of library school for the use of modern teaching methods hence over reliance on lecture method, which is teacher centered.

According to the LISIs, the time allocated in the School Time-table did not allow them the opportunity to use teaching methods that are both interactive and participatory. Hence, the number of lecturers who attempted to combine other methods with the traditional method were too insignificant to be impactful on LIS education, library users, LIS students or employers.

Again, the management was unable to provide enough facilities that will enable practice of other teaching methods like hands-on-practice, blended method, seminar etc. Manpower problems is not left out. For instance, team work/collaborative method, group method require more than one lecturer to handle. Inadequate provision of facilities, inadequate manpower and time-table issues are all institutional problems, which can be solved by the library school management.

In other words this study revealed that majority of library and information instructors' inability to apply different teaching styles is because of challenges facing library and information science undergraduate education in Nigeria. Their reasons corroborate with the study of the following authors: Balarabe (2005); Amen (2007); Ogbomo and Ogbomo (2008) and Rodden (2010) respectively whose results of their findings admitted that there are challenges facing library school programmes in Nigeria.

Another major reason is caused by the lecturers themselves. Majority of which testified that they were unable to use other methods like demonstration, group method or team work method because they would not be able to: manage different understanding rates of student as is the case of using demonstration method, unable to manage complaints from the students as in group method and the personalities threats from the co-teachers which characterizes teamwork method.

The findings of this study revealed that library and information science instructors knew that the teaching method they adopted is not the best for the profession and that is why they were able to give challenges that made them not to combine other methods significantly in their teaching. The modern day library and information science profession is required to produce graduates that will be employable, graduate that will have self-confidence, skillful in their area, have entrepreneurial skill etc. If library and information science did not rise up from slumber by changing the traditional teaching to modern teachings, the future of the LIS students will be at stake. Unemployment opportunities for the LIS graduate will be widened, market for the LIS professionals will be flooded with half-baked librarians and competition with their counterparts in other information related areas will be lean. Above all, it will affect student enrollment in the LIS programme. The prestige of the library school profession as well as University offering the programme will be jeopardized.

Recommendations

Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations are proffered:

> Library school management should chose a teaching method that will benefit students in a way that better prepare them for the workplace. A method that will be more interactive, up-to-date and more diverse than the lecture method. The combined methods should cut across lecture method, hands-on-practice, team work/collaboration, assignment and demonstration methods so as to accommodate different learning rates of the participants.

> LISIs should also update their knowledge to be able to cope with/manage/apply modern teaching methods. A knowledge or skills that will enable them manage personality threats of co-teachers, complaints and different understanding rates of students.

> Library school management should adjust and expand their timetable in a way that will accommodate different teaching methods and provide adequate resources (manpower and facilities). Enabling environment for teaching and learning is to be provided.

Conclusion

From the foregoing, it is obvious that overwhelming majority of library and information science instructors preferred lecture/traditional method of teaching in the undergraduate LIS programme in Southeast Nigeria. Based on the reasons given for not adopting other methods except lecture method, it is advisable that LIS school management should provide an enabling environment that will meet the demands of both the students who should be at the center of learning and the employers who are going to employ them after School.

Owing to workplace demands, student demands, job market requirements and the many uses to which information is used, adopting mainly traditional method of teaching will no longer bring out the skill expected of librarians if they continued to be taught with traditional method. Therefore, members of Nigerian Library Association should therefore liaise with the educational regulatory body (NUC) to initiate change in the teaching methods used in undergraduate LIS programmes. More also there is need to integrate lecture method with other more interactive, participatory and innovative method that will be learner-centric since no one teaching method is the best. Provision of adequate resources to make this method realistic is imperative so as to enable student acquire the necessary skills that will make them fit easily in their workplaces for the proper development of the entire society.

Please Note: Illustration(s) are not available due to copyrigh

References

Amen, K. (2007). Issues of quality assurance (QA) in LIS higher education in Pakistan. World library and information congress: Paper presented at the 73rd IFLA General Conference and Council Durban South Africa, Aug 19-23. Retrieved on August 17, 2009 from: http://www.ifla.org/iv/ifla 73/index.htm.

Balanskat, A., Blamire, R. & Kefala, S. (2006). A review of studies of ICT impact on schools in Europe. European Schoolnet: European communities.

Balarabe, A. A. (2005). The curriculum for library education and training in Nigeria and the challenges of information and communication technology (ICT). Nigerian Library Link, A Journal of Library and Information Science: A Bi-Annual of Publication of Enugu State University of Science and Technology Library, Enugu, 3 (1&2), 1-11.

Banilower, E. R., Boyd, S. E., Pasley, J. D. & Weiss, I. R. (2006). Lessons from a decade of mathematics and science reform: A capstone report for the local systemic change through teacher enhancement initiative. P1-90. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc. Available: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED518421.pdf [accessed August 4, 2017]

Bronack, S., Sanders, R., Cheney, A., Riedl, R., Tashner, J. & Matzen, N. (2008). Presence Pedagogy: Teaching and learning in 3D virtual world. International Journal of Teaching Learning in Higher Education, 20(1), 59-69. Available: http:www.isetl.org/ijtlhe. [Accessed on 2 August 2017].

Chitra, R. (2016). Team teaching method: Advantages and disadvantages. WiseStep.

Delialioglu, O. & Yildirim, Z. (2007). Students' perceptions on effective dimensions of interactive learning in blended learning environment. Educational Technology and Society, 10(2), 133-146.

Ferguson, R., Barzilai, S., Ben-zvi, D., Chinn, C.A., Herodotou, C., Hod, Y., Kali, Y., Kukulska-Hulme, A., Kupermintz, H., McAndrew, P., Rienties, B., Sagy, O., Scanlon, E., Sharples, M., Weller, M. & Whitelock, D. (2017). Innovating pedagogy 2017: Open University Innovation Report 6. Milton Keynes: The Open University, UK. http://oro.open.ac.uk/52761/1/52761.pdf accessed 11/01/18 [Accessed 12th January, 2018].

Garrison, D. R. & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7(2004), 95-105.

Gerber, M., Grund, S. & Grote, G. (2008). Distribute collaboration activities in blended learning Scenario and the effects on learning performance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 232-244.

Gill, E. (2017). What is your teaching style? 5 effective teaching methods for your classroom. Teaching Strategies. Concordia University.

Henard, F. and Roseveare, D. (2012). Fostering quality teaching in higher education: policies and practices. IMHE (Institutional Management in Higher Education). Available @ https://www.oecd.org/edu/imhe/QT%20policies%20and%20practices.pdf. [Accessed Jan 13, 2018.].

Kareen- Guscott, M. A. (n.d). Best practice explored-Team teaching approach in one online course (A case study). The University of the West Indies Open Campus.

Kwache, P. Z. (2007). The imperatives of information and communication technology for teachers in Nigeria higher education. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 3(4), 359-399.

Mammo, W. (2007). Demise, renaissance or existence of LIS education in Ethiopia: curriculum, employers' expectations and professionals' dreams. Elsevier. The International & Library Review, 39(2), 145-157.

Mastropieri, M.A, Scruggs, T.E, Graetz, J, Norland, J. Gardizi, W & McDuffie, K. (2005). Case studies in co-teaching in the content areas: Successes, failures, and challenges, Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(5), 260-270.

Mclntosh, J. (2011). Library and information science: parameters and perspective. Chp. Effectiveness of different teaching methods. Apple Academic Press Inc. https://booksgoogle.com.ng/books?d=butMBgAAQBAJ&PG=pa226&dq=best+tea

Nigeria National Universities Commission (1999). Approved minimum academic standard in library and information science for all Nigerian universities. Abuja: NUC.

Oh, E. & Park, S. (2009). How are universities involved in blended instruction? Educational Technology and Society, 12 (13), 327-342.

Obasi, V. A. (2009). Curriculum design and strategy. Owerri: Bond Computers

Ogbomo, M. O. & Ogbomo, E. F. (2008). Importance of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in making a healthy information society: a case study of Ethiope East Local Government Area of Delta State, Nigeria. Library Philosophy and Practice. Retrieved on October 12, 2010 from: http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~mbolin/ogbomo2.htm.

Pelgrum, W. J. (2001). Obstacles to the integration of ICT in education: Results from a worldwide educational assessment. Computers and Education, 37 (2), 163-178.

Phuritsabam, B. (2008). Library and information science education in Indian universities. Ph.D. Thesis submitted to Manipur University in partial fulfilment for the award of Degree of Philosophy in library and information science.

Rodden, N. B. (2010). An investigation into the barriers associated with ICT use in the Youth classroom: a case study of a center for education in the North West. An unpublished Thesis submitted to the University of Limerick. MA Digital media Development for Education, University of Limerick.

Sikora, A. C. & Carroll, C. D. (2002). Postsecondary education descriptive analysis reports (NCES 2003-154). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, D.C: US. Government Printing Office.

Singh, H. & Reed, C. (2001). A white paper: Achieving success with blended learning, Centra software. Retrieved from: http://www.centra.com/download/whitepaper/blendedlearning.pdf [Accessed January 13, 2018].

Tijani, H. (2012) "Teaching pedagogy and methodology across disciplines" In the Report on the 2- day workshop on improved teaching methods in Nigeria Universities. Organised by Afe Babalola University (ABUD), Ado-Ekiti on Friday 6th and Sat 7th Jan, 2012.

Tinio, L. L. (2002). ICT in education: UN development programme. Retrieved on July 10, 2010 from http:www.eprmers.org.

Wehrli, G. & Nyquist, J. G. (2003). Creating an educational curriculum for learners at any level. AABB CONFERENCE. Teachers Educational Development.

Francisca Chinyeaka Mbagwu

Federal University of Technology, Owerri, Imo State, franciscambagwu@gmail.com

Ifenyinwa Blessing Okoye

Federal University of Technology, Owerri, Imo State, Nigeria, ifykam@yahoo.com

Augustine I. Anyanwu

Federal University of Technology, Owerri, Imo State, Nigeria,

anyaaustine@yahoo.com

Francisca Chinyeaka Mbagwu Federal University of Technology, Owerri, Imo State, franciscambagwu@gmail.com

Ifenyinwa Blessing Okoye Federal University of Technology, Owerri, Imo State, Nigeria, ifykam@yahoo.com

Augustine I. Anyanwu Federal University of Technology, Owerri, Imo State, Nigeria, anyaaustine@yahoo.com
Table 1: Types and Most Preferred Teaching Method Adopted by Library
and Information Science Instructors or Educators in LIS Undergraduate
Programme in Nigeria.

s/n   Teaching methods     N     VH     Highly   Lowly   NA%    X
                                 (4)    (3)      (2)     (1)

1     Lecture method       109   97.3   2.8      --      --     3.98
2     Blended/hybrid       109   --     8.3      8.3     83.5   1.25
3     Facilitator/         109   --     --       1.8     98.2   1.02
      activity
4     Group                109   --     --       5.5     94.5   1.06
5     Brainstorming        109   --     --       13.8    86.2   1.14
6     Role playing         109   --     --       1.8     98.2   1.02
7     Self-awareness       109   --     --       1.8     98.2   1.02
      exercise
8     Independent study    109   --     4.6      12.8    82.7   1.22
9     Team/collaboration   109   --     --       --      100    1.00
      among
      lecturers/students
10    Demonstration        109   0.92   11       2.8     85.3   1.28
11    Computer             109   --     --       2.8     97.2   1.03
      simulation
12    Tutorials            109   --     --       5.5     94.5   1.06
13    Assignment           109   --     18.4     0.92    80.7   1.38
14    Hands on practice    109   --     4.6      12.8    82.7   1.22
15    Seminar              109   1.8    16.5     0.92    80.7   1.39
      Overall Mean

Keys: VH = very highly, H = highly, L = lowly, NA = not at all

Table 2: Reasons for the Preference of Teaching Methods by Library and
Information Science Instructors (LISIs)

s/n   Teaching                 N     Total No.    Total     %
      Methods                        of           Res-      Response
      and                            Respondts    ponses    on each
      Reasons                        Preference   to each   Reason
                                     on each      Reason

1     Lecture method:          109   109
        (a) It is the most                        109       100
        convenient method
        because of class
        size
        (b) It saves time                         109       100
        (c) I have no other                       80        73.4
        option than to use
        it
        (d) I am constrained                      100       91.7
        by lack of resources
        /facilities to use
        other methods
2     Blended/hybrid method:   109   18
        (a) I sparingly add                       16        14.7
        it to lecture method
        to make some
        clarification to
        students
3     Facilitator              109   3            Nil       Nil

4     Group                    109   6            Nil       -
5     Brainstorming:           109   15
        To test ability of                        6         5.5
        the students
6     Role playing             109   2            nil       Nil
7     Self- awareness          109   3            Nil       Nil
8     Independent study:       109   19
        (a) I want the                            19        17.4
        student to have
        in-depth knowledge
        of the lecture
        (b) It allows the                         18        16.5
        student to study
        according to their
        pace
        (c) It allows                             19        17.4
        students to learn
        things themselves
9     Team/collaboration       109   None         -         -
      among lecturers/
      students
10    Demonstration method:    109   16
        (a) I sparingly add                       14        12.8
        it to lecture method
        to make some
        explanations.
        (b) To make the                           16        14.7
        student understand
        my lecture better
11    Computer simulation      109   3            Nil       Nil
12    Tutorials:               109   6            3
        (a) For more
        understanding of the
        lecture
13    Assignment Method:       109   21
        (a) I want to use it
        to test students                          21        19.3
        understanding of my
        lecture
        (b) I am mandated to                      21        19.3
        use it by my
        institution
14    Hands-on-practice:       109   19
        (a) I use to make my                      19        17.4
        lecture more
        interactive
        (b) It allows active                      19        17.4
        participation by the
        students
15    Seminar Method:          109   21
        (a) I use it to test                      21        19.3
        student ability
        (b) I use it to meet                      20        18.4
        the mandate of my
        institution

Table 3: The Reasons Why Some Teaching Methods are not Adopted By
LISIs
      Teaching                 N     Total No.   No. of      %
s/n   Methods                        of          Responses   Response
      and                            Respondts   on each     on each
      Reasons                        on each     Reason      Reason
                                     method

1     Lecture method           109   --          --          --
2     Blended/hybrid method:   109   91
        (a) My institution                       90          82.6
        does not encourage
        usage
        (b) Time constraint                      91          83.5
        (c) Inadequate                           91          83.5
        facilities
3     Facilitator:             109   107
        (a) There is no                          50          45.9
        encouragement from
        my institution to
        use it
4     Group method:            109   103
        (a) It is time                           103         94.5
        consuming
        (b) There is                             100         91.7
        inadequate
        accommodation
        (c) Cannot contend                       103         94.5
        with too much
        complaints from the
        students
        (d) Inadequate
        manpower to control
        the groups
                                                 100         91.7
5     Brainstorming: It is     109   94          80          73.4
      time consuming
6     Role playing:            109   107
        (b) The method is                        80          73.4
        not common in
        Library and
        information

        education
        (c) Inadequate time                      90          82.6
7     Self-awareness           109   107
      exercise:
        Unfamiliarity with                       76          66.1
        the method
8     Independent study:       109   90
        (a) Inadequate time                      90          82.6
        (b) Not convenient                       90          82.6
        because of class
        size
9     Team method:             109   109
        (a) My Institution                       108         99.1
        does not encourage
        its usage
        (b) Inadequate                           109         100
        manpower
        (c) I don't want to                      100         91.7
        be involved because
        of personality
        threats
10    Demonstration method:    109   93
        (a) Time allocated                       80          73.4
        on the time-table is
        in adequate
        (b) Understanding                        81          74.3
        rates of students is
        different so I
        rarely use it
11    Computer simulation:     109   106
        (a) Unfamiliarity                        106         97.2
        with the method.
        (b) There is no                          106         97.2
        provision of
        facilities
12    Tutorial                 109   103
        (a) Inadequate                           99          90.8
        manpower
        (b) Time consuming                       89          81.7
13    Assignment Method:       109   88
        (a) Afraid of the                        88          80.7
        number of scripts
        to mark
        (b) My Workload is                       87          79.8
        too much so I don't
        use it
        (c) Constrained by                       86          78.9
        lack of time
14    Hands-on-practice:       109   90
        (a) Facilities are                       90          82.6
        not provided by the
        institution as a
        result of inadequate
        funding
        (b) I am not                             80          73.4
        motivated to use
        this method
        (c) Internet                             90          82.6
        facilities are not
        provided
        (d) Power is always                      89          81.7
        epileptic
        (e) There is no                          90          82.6
        provision of time
        for practical on the
        time-table
15    Seminar Method:          109   88
        (a) Inadequate                           87          79.8
        facility
        (b) Time consuming                       88          80.7
COPYRIGHT 2018 University of Idaho Library
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2018 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Mbagwu, Francisca Chinyeaka; Okoye, Ifenyinwa Blessing; Anyanwu, Augustine I.
Publication:Library Philosophy and Practice
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:6NIGR
Date:Mar 1, 2018
Words:6707
Previous Article:Measuring Co-authorship Pattern in Research Output of Chromosome Anomalies.
Next Article:Perceptions of Leadership and Skills Development in Academic Libraries.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters