Information Literacy Skills of

Engineering Students: A Survey

Azra Rafique

Khalid Mahmood

Introduction

• “To learn each and everything in a limited time frame of

degree course is not possible for students”. (Mahmood,

2013) Librarians can play very important role in improving

information literacy skills of users especially students for

their long life learning.

• The findings may be helpful for library professionals to

design an instructional program to improve students’ such

skills for better utilization of available printed and online

sources.

Objectives of study

To measure the perceived level of Information

Literacy Skills of the engineering students

To identify the relationship between selected personal

& academic variables and the level of information

literacy skills

MethodologyResearch Design

Quantitative research design was selected for study.

Method

• Survey method was used.

Population

All students of 15 engineering disciplines of UET’s

campuses of Lahore, Kala Shah Kaku, Faisalabad

and Rachna were population of this study.

Sample Size

Convenient representative sample of total 500

engineering students.

Data collection instruments

ACRL standards based questionnaire was developed

and used as instrument. The instrument was

consisted of six sections.

Continuation of Methodology

Data Collection

Questionnaire was self administered by the

researcher and 500 questionnaires were

distributed out of which 460 were returned back.

Thus responding rate was 92 per cent of the total.

Data analysis

The data were analyzed by using SPSS Version

20.

Reliability

The coefficient of internal reliability for this

scale, Cronbach’s Alpha, was .967 which

demonstrates that the scale was highly

dependable.

Personal Profile of Respondents Frequency Percent

GenderMale 364 79.1

Female 96 20.9

Age

18-20 125 27.2

21-25 301 65.4

26-30 24 5.2

31-35 4 .9

36-40 4 .9

41 or more years 2 .4

Social Background

Urban 329 71.5

Rural 131 28.5

Table # 1

Gender Male; 364

Gender Female; 96

Age 18-20 ; 125

Age 21-25 ; 301

Age 26-30 = 24

Age 31-35 =

4

Age 36-40 =

4

Age 41 or

more

years = 2

Social Background Urban ; 329

Social Background Rural 131

(Fig.1) Social Background, Gender and Age

Profile of Respondents Frequency Percent

Campus

Lahore 360 78.3

KSK 39 8.5

Faisalabad 27 5.9

Rachna 34 7.4

Home Internet Access

Yes 388 84.3

No 72 15.7

English Language Ability

Weak 7 1.5

Average 92 20.0

Good 289 62.8

Excellent 71 15.4

Not Answered 1 .2

Table # 2

Campus Lahore = 360

Campus KSK

=39

Campus Faisal-abad

=27Campus

Rachna = 34

Home Internet Access Yes = 388

Home In-ter-net Ac-cess No = 72

English

Language

Ability Weak = 7

English

Language

Ability Aver-age = 92

English Language Ability Good= 289

English Language Ability Excellent=71

Eng. Language Ability Not Answered = 1

N = 460

(Fig2) Campus, English Language Ability, Home Internet Access

Descriptive Statistics

Performance Indicators to: N Mean Std. Dev.

1.1- Define and articulate the need for

information455 3.85 .531

1.2- Identify a variety of types and formats of

potential sources for information440 3.73 .579

1.3- Has a working knowledge of the literature of

the field and how it is produced442 3.70 .656

1.4- Consider the costs and benefits of acquiring

the needed information443 3.62 .701

Valid N (listwise) 410 Avg. .62

Scale: 5=Excellent, 4=Good, 3=Average, 2=Weak, 1=Not at All

Concept Identification

Descriptive Statistics

Performance Indicators to: N MeanStd. Dev.

2.1- Select the most appropriate investigative

methods or information retrieval systems for

accessing the needed information

458 3.82 .734

2.2- Construct and implement effectively designed

search strategies448 3.53 .749

2.3- Retrieve information using a variety of

methods453 3.48 .871

2.4- Refine the search strategy if necessary 448 3.48 .889

2.5- Extract, record, transfer, and manage the

information and its sources454 3.57 .807

Valid N (listwise) 425 Avg. .81

Scale: 5=Excellent, 4=Good, 3=Average, 2=Weak, 1=Not at All

Search Strategy

Descriptive Statistics

Performance Indicator to: N Mean Std. Dev.

3.1- Summarize the main ideas to be extracted from the information gathered 452 3.92 .664

3.2- Select information by articulating and applying criteria for evaluating both the information and its sources 441 3.65 .674

3.3- Synthesize main ideas to construct new concepts 447 3.66 .846

3.4- Compare new knowledge with prior knowledge to determine the value added, contradictions, or other unique characteristics of the information

431 3.68 .642

3.5- Validate understanding and interpretation of the information through discourse with other individuals, small groups or teams, subject-area experts, and/or practitioners

448 3.90 .839

3.6- Determine whether the initial query should be revised 449 3.71 .8063.7- Evaluate the procured information and the entire process 459 3.71 1.051

Valid N (listwise) 383 Avg. .79

Evaluation of Needed Information

Scale: 5=Excellent, 4=Good, 3=Average, 2=Weak, 1=Not at All

Descriptive Statistics

Performance Indicator to: N Mean Std. Dev.

41- Understand many of the ethical, legal and socio-economic issues surrounding information and information technology

457 3.69 .731

4.2- Follow laws, regulations, institutional policies, and etiquette related to the access and use of information resources

440 3.65 .689

4.3- Acknowledge the use of information sources in communicating the product or performance

448 3.46 .946

4.4- Apply creativity in use of the information for a particular product or performance

457 3.62 1.047

4.5- Evaluate the final product or performance and revise the development process used as necessary

451 3.67 .833

4.6- Communicate the product or performance effectively to others 454 3.68 .755

Valid N (listwise) 413 Avg. .83

Ethical use and Dissemination of Information

Scale: 5=Excellent, 4=Good, 3=Average, 2=Weak, 1=Not at All

Descriptive StatisticsPerformance Indicator to: N Mean Std. Dev.

5.1- Recognize the value of ongoing assimilation and preservation of knowledge in the field

454 3.87 .696

5.2- Use a variety of methods and emerging technologies for keeping current in the field 453 3.54 .827

Valid N (listwise) 447 Avg. .76

Lifelong Learning

Scale: 5=Excellent, 4=Good, 3=Average, 2=Weak, 1=Not at All

Group StatisticsGender N Mean Std.

DeviationStd. Error

Mean

1- Concept IdentificationMale 326 3.73 .502 .028

Female 84 3.69 .552 .060

2- Search StrategyMale 338 3.56 .656 .036

Female 87 3.68 .597 .064

3- Evaluation of Needed

Information

Male 304 3.77 .566 .032

Female 79 3.78 .584 .066

4- Ethical Use and

Dissemination of Information

Male 321 3.65 .608 .034

Female 92 3.60 .676 .070

5- Lifelong LearningMale 347 3.69 .672 .036

Female 94 3.75 .583 .060

Independent Sample T Test – Gender

Descriptive of ANOVA for Degree ProgramsN Mean Std.

Deviation

Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Minimum

Maximum

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

1- Concept Identification

B.Sc. 368 3.70 .524 .027 3.65 3.76 1 5M.Sc. 36 3.88 .341 .057 3.77 4.00 3 5PhD 6 4.01 .404 .165 3.58 4.43 3 5Total 410 3.72 .512 .025 3.67 3.77 1 5

2- Search Strategy

B.Sc. 383 3.57 .660 .034 3.50 3.63 1 5M.Sc. 36 3.72 .472 .079 3.56 3.88 3 5PhD 6 3.89 .453 .185 3.42 4.37 3 5Total 425 3.59 .645 .031 3.52 3.65 1 5

3- Evaluation of Needed Information

B.Sc. 341 3.76 .581 .031 3.70 3.82 2 5M.Sc. 36 3.92 .457 .076 3.77 4.08 3 5PhD 6 3.95 .343 .140 3.58 4.31 4 5Total 383 3.78 .569 .029 3.72 3.83 2 5

4- Ethical Use and Dissemination of Information

B.Sc. 372 3.62 .636 .033 3.55 3.68 2 5M.Sc. 35 3.82 .462 .078 3.66 3.98 3 5PhD 6 3.73 .546 .223 3.16 4.30 3 5Total 413 3.64 .623 .031 3.58 3.70 2 5

5- Lifelong Learning

B.Sc. 398 3.69 .667 .033 3.63 3.76 1 5M.Sc. 37 3.80 .498 .082 3.63 3.97 3 5PhD 6 3.71 .611 .249 3.07 4.35 3 5Total 441 3.70 .654 .031 3.64 3.76 1 5

ANOVA for Degree Programs

Findings and discussion

• The engineering students were asked questions about 24 variables of

information literacy skills.

•All the students perceived their skills good according to means score

which remained between 3.92 and 3.46.

•The results revealed that there is no significant difference between

male and female in five major variables of information literacy skills.

•There is no significant difference seen between level of degrees that is

B.Sc., M.Sc. and PhD regarding information literacy skills.

Recommendations

1. More research on this subject for developing the information literacy

culture in Pakistan.

2. An effective instruction program should be designed.

3. Librarian should play an active role for developing such skills.

4. Librarian should try to coordinate with the faculty members for

designing and implementing an effective orientation or instruction

program.

5. An effective policy or framework should be designed at national level

for information literacy skills for all fields of life in Pakistan for

schools, colleges and universities students.

Conclusions

• The study shows that engineering students perceived their skills

overall good in all five variables of information literacy.

•Moreover, there is no significant difference regarding information

literacy skills between male and female students.

•Further, no significant difference was seen in information literacy

skills between levels of study like B.Sc., M.Sc. and PhD.

THANKs