The 360° of Information Fluency Delivery to Freshman Engineering Students

For three years, engineering librarians from West Virginia University (WVU) have been teaching information fluency skills to 700-1000 freshman engineering students per year, using a specific information fluency cycle. The librarians’ responsibilities in the Fall 2013 course syllabus included teaching once in each section, providing a two-hour, in-library group sessions to accommodate almost 700 students, delivering an intellectual property BlackboardTM module for students to complete over a specific period of time, and requiring students to complete a Plagiarism Avoidance Tutorial with quiz. Some of these components are similar to those of past semesters. However, past collection of the data was difficult. Student participation and compliance were increased through greater buy-in by professors, moving the Plagiarism Avoidance Tutorial to the librarians’ control, librarians attending weekly faculty meetings, willingness of librarians to migrate a semester early to the new BlackboardTM with the engineering faculty, and a compressed schedule for the delivery of all information literacy parts (from eleven weeks to six). The increased student participation provides better indicators of learning and demonstrates areas for teaching improvement. Overall, the data have indicated the students’ understanding of the use of information and their beginning awareness of the importance of information tools for their success as engineers. Background The engineering librarians at WVU reach approximately 1,000 freshman engineering students each year through information fluency instruction provided within the Engineering 101 course taken by all engineering students. The sustainability of this program is rooted in important components: collaboration with faculty and collaboration with students through Problem Based Learning (PBL). PBL enters into all information learning encounters. In 2011 the engineering librarians worked jointly with the Statler College of Engineering and Mineral Resources Assistant Dean for Freshman Experience to develop information fluency content for the Engineering 101 curriculum. Using a PBL approach, the curriculum has evolved over the past three years and used a combination of venues, including in–person lectures, inlibrary assignments, and online learning modules. An overview of the current format of the information fluency cycle is presented in Appendix A. Despite changes, PBL has remained an important part of the teaching/learning environment. Collaboration has also been an important part in the development of the information literacy curriculum. Weekly meetings with faculty in the Fall 2013 semester allowed for increased dialog and feedback for the course. The discussions in these meetings have brought greater buy-in from the professors as well as requests for changes which have improved sessions as well as increased time stress on librarians. Additionally, greater buy-in from professors increased student participation in the information literacy opportunities provided them. Literature Review Information fluency is an important part of an engineering student’s education. Bracke and Critz 1 (2001) pointed out that “Information literacy instruction for these students should, P ge 24185.2 therefore, be specific, context-based, and highly relevant to their current information needs.” Information fluency instruction also helps prepare engineers for their professional life. Rodrigues 2 (2001) points out information literate engineers produce better reports, have a competitive advantage and find information more quickly. Nerz and Bullard 3 (2006) discuss the components of information literacy skills across the engineering curriculum including the complexity of resources, plagiarism and proper citation. In the freshman year students are briefly introduced to library resources and proper citation. The freshman engineering students were exposed to information literacy through various ways throughout their Engineering 101 class, “Engineering Problem Solving I.” Through the different learning opportunities the students were exposed to and learned the ALA/ACRL/STS standards 4 . The STS and ABET standards 5 played a major role in determining the material that was learned. In Table 1, Strife et al 6 , (2013) illustrated the type of outcomes that could be accomplished with ALA/ACRL/STS Standards. Table 1. Outcomes that can be accomplished with ALA/ACRL/STS standards. ALA/ACRL/STS Standard Outcome Standard 1. The information literate student determines the nature and extent of the information needed. Distinguishes different types of information. Standard 2. The information literate student accesses needed information effectively and efficiently Completes exercises using different information types: books, technical reports, articles and handbooks. Learns how to cite in MLA format. Familiarity with four source databases. Finds information in a handbook. Standard 3. The information literate student critically evaluates the procured information and its sources, and as a result, decides whether or not to modify the initial query and/or seek additional sources and whether to develop a new research process. Evaluates information using ABCD mnemonic. Standard 4. The information literate student understands the economic, ethical, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of information and its technologies and either as an individual or as a member of a group, uses information effectively, ethically, and legally to accomplish a specific purpose. Knows four types of intellectual property. Understands the difference between common knowledge and not so common knowledge. Understands plagiarism and how to avoid it. Incorporates citations in technical reports. Standard 5. The information literate student understands that information literacy is an ongoing process and an important component of lifelong learning and recognizes the need to keep current regarding new developments in his or her field. Recognizes the importance of using library information and the need to keep current with this ever changing and expanding field. P ge 24185.3 Although each learning opportunity emphasized different skills and employed different media, PBL was used in each session. Felder and Brent 7 (2003) discuss the lifelong learning component of the ABET standards as well as the importance of PBL. Detlor 8 (2012) writes that PBL or active learning type methods, “challenge students to actively engage with information and resources to solve problems and create knowledge.” Both Dochy 9 (2003) and Prince 10 (2004) stress the importance of PBL or Active Learning in engineering education. Prince and Felder 11 (2007) provide an overview of different aspects of inductive teaching and learning. Although Prince and Felder (2007) argue that PBL does not a have a “statistically significant effect on academic achievement as measured by exams,” this current analysis found a statistically significant change in scores in the preand post-tests. Methodology and Results During the three-year implementation, content delivery took several forms, from three one-hour in-class sessions to a mixed media format comprised of one one-hour in-class session, a twohour library experience, and an online module. The amount of time that the librarians have spent in instruction has also varied as demonstrated in Table 2 below. Table 2. Number of sections, contact hours, and enrollment for the ENGR 101, Engineering Problem-Solving I, course (Fall 2011-Spring 2014). Term # Sections In-Class Contact Hours # OCE Library (OCE) Contact Hours Total Teaching Hours Approximate Enrollment Fall 2011 18 3 0 0 54 700 Spring 2012 3 1 1 1 4 n/a Fall 2012 17 1 36 1 53 646 Spring 2013 8 1 15 1.5 30.5 313 Fall 2013 17 1 32 2 81 677 Spring 2014 9 1 15 2 39 333 Beginning in Fall 2012, librarians visited the classroom for a one hour session. An in-library workshop was carefully structured to focus the student responses. Controls included assigning relevant preselected and researched topics, stepping the students from simple to complex databases, creating and using a carefully structured worksheet, and using a carefully chosen handbook topic for the students to research. The designed workshop allowed the librarians to assist students better when encountering unanticipated technological problems such as the loss of the online catalog, and incompatibility of browsers with certain databases. Data were collected around the information fluency instruction cycle. The collected data to be analyzed included preand post-test scores, plagiarism test scores, and Intellectual Property module participation rates. The pre-test was administered at the beginning of the cycle and the post test at the end of the cycle (during week seven or eight). The comparison of these test scores yielded an indicator of the efficacy of the information fluency instruction. A plagiarism avoidance tutorial was administered followed by a test, and data were gathered from this test. Analysis of these test scores focus on the questions that demonstrated mastery or were answered P ge 24185.4 incorrectly most often. Students received credit for participation after sending plagiarism quiz results to the librarians, completing the in-session worksheet, and emailing of a full-text article related to their search assignment. A twenty question pre-test was administered before information fluency was introduced in class by librarians. This pre-test served as a baseline for the knowledge the students brought to the course. As shown in Appendix B, preand post-test questions included different areas of information fluency. At midterm, after the information fluency had been introduced to the students and they had participated in both an in-library workshop and an online intellectual property module, the students were given the post-test which was identical to the pre-test. Past student participation in the post-test was minimal. Th