Conceptualization and Practice of Information Literacy Pedagogy at Universities in Kenya
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective – The aim of this study is to examine the conceptualization and pedagogical approaches being used in Kenyan universities to teach and learn information literacy to determine if they are effective in addressing the information needs of the 21st century. The findings of this study will act as a guide to educational stakeholders in the design, review, and implementation of the information literacy curriculum. The findings will also create awareness among librarians of the diverse concepts in information literacy and hopefully inform their practice when delivering information literacy instruction. Additionally, future researchers can leverage the insights garnered from this study to advance their own works, thereby contributing to the ongoing growth of knowledge in this field. Methods – This study employed descriptive research design to collect qualitative data from the webpages of seven universities that were purposively selected: three being private universities and four were public universities. The seven academic libraries had an active online presence and adequate documentation of information literacy. The data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results – The research findings show a lack of consistency in the conceptualization of information literacy. In addition, the findings demonstrate a link between information literacy conceptualization and practice. Many of the online tutorials and information literacy documentations failed to address all the aspects of information literacy. Conclusion – In order to effectively address 21st century information needs, academic libraries should reevaluate their conceptualization of information literacy. This should be followed by a comprehensive evaluation of their information literacy instruction to ensure they cover all aspects of information literacy. It is essential for these libraries to provide information literacy instruction to students throughout their academic journey rather than just focusing on first-year students. Moreover, structured assessments of students should be implemented to gain feedback on the effectiveness of these instruction programs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".