brown.p65 Integrating Information Literacy into the Science Curriculum 111 111 Integrating Information Literacy into the Science Curriculum Cecelia Brown and Lee R. Krumholz Cecelia Brown is an Assistant Professor in the School of Library and Information Studies at the Univer- sity of Oklahoma; e-mail: cbrown@ou.edu. Lee R. Krumholz is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Botany and Microbiology and the Institute for Energy and the Environment at the University of Okla- homa; e-mail: krumholz@ou.edu. A science librarian and a microbiology professor collaborated to assess information-seeking, evaluating, and usage abilities before, during, and at the end of a senior-level geomicrobiology course. ACRL’s Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education was used as a guide in designing a survey and checklists to measure literacy levels. Following an initial survey of the students’ information literacy level, two instruction sessions were provided in the use of bibliographic finding tools available from the University of Oklahoma Libraries. During each subsequent class meeting, students presented, critiqued, and discussed a referred article. The cycle was repeated, and the survey was adminis- tered again at the end of the semester. The survey results indicated an 11 percent increase in information literacy, but no significant improve- ment in the students’ ability to present, critique, and discuss information. A model for incorporating information literacy into upper-level under- graduate science courses and an instrument for measuring information literacy are proposed. n 1989, the American Library Association’s (ALA) Presiden- tial Committee on Information Literacy defined information lit- eracy as a set of abilities requiring indi- viduals to locate, evaluate, and effectively use needed information.1 Information lit- eracy not only promotes success during an individual’s academic career, but it also helps him or her to subsequently be com- petitive in the world market and to be- come a lifelong learner. Achievement of information literacy has become even more challenging as society has grown increasingly dependent upon electronic communication and technologies. The 1989 ALA report gives a series of recom- mendations for fostering information lit- eracy and encourages further investiga- tion of methods for benchmarking infor- mation literacy abilities and progress. Moreover, several programs for enhanc- ing information literacy in both traditional and Web-based teaching environments have been published.2,3 Despite the impor- tance of monitoring the success of these programs, very few studies have ad- dressed how any improvements achieved in information literacy can be measured.4 One goal of this investigation was to de- vise an instrument for measuring informa- tion literacy using the Association of Col- lege and Research Libraries’ (ACRL) In- formation Literacy Competency Standards for 112 College & Research Libraries March 2002 Higher Education as a guide in combination with a survey previously used for the study of information literacy of physical science graduate students.5,6 Earlier studies have pointed to the im- portance of partnering academic librar- ians with faculty members to integrate information literacy programs into the general curriculum.7 A science librarian collaborated with a microbiology profes- sor to develop an instrument to test the effectiveness of including an information literacy component in the teaching of an upper-division geomicrobiology course. The course was considered ideal for inte- grating an information literacy program because it requires students to use infor- mation literacy skills to find, evaluate, and present information related to a re- ferred journal article. Consequently, a sec- ond goal of the research was to gather data to assist in the design of an informa- tion literacy program that could be easily and seamlessly incorporated into the cur- riculum of a range of upper-level life and physical science courses. Ultimately, uti- lization of such a program will advance the information literacy level of students who then will be able to find, evaluate, and use information for lifelong learning and problem-solving. TABLE 1 ACRL�s Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education Standard One The information literate student determines the nature and extent of the information needed. Standard Two The information literate student accesses needed information effectively and efficiently. Standard Three The information literate student evaluates information and its sources critically and incorporates selected information into his or her knowledge base and value system. Standard Four The information literate student, individually or as a member of a group, uses information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose. Standard Five The information literate student understands many of the economic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of information and accesses and uses information ethically and legally. Methodology ACRL’s Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education was used to design checklists to assess students’ in- formation-seeking, evaluating, and usage abilities before, during, and at the end of the geomicrobiology course.8 The five standards (shown in table 1) are further broken down into a series of performance indicators followed by several specific outcomes. For example, under Standard One, the first of four performance indica- tors states that the “information literate student defines and articulates the need for information.”9 Seven outcomes are then listed, including “Explores general information sources to increase familiar- ity with the topic” and “Identifies key concepts and terms that describe the in- formation need.”10 The outcomes with the greatest relevance to the required tasks were used as the basis of assessment of the effectiveness of the literacy program used in this investigation. The study population consisted of eight undergraduate and four graduate students whose ages ranged from twenty to thirty-six years, with the average be- ing twenty-four. The students had been studying at the University of Oklahoma for an average of three and one-half years. Integrating Information Literacy into the Science Curriculum 113 Eight students’ native language was En- glish; one student originally spoke Ko- rean; another, Vietnamese; and another, Chinese. One student listed both English and Spanish as his native language. Af- ter graduation, two students aspire to at- tend medical school, four intend to pur- sue a Ph.D., two desire a career as a labo- ratory technician, and one wants to be a high school science teacher. One other student would like to study epidemiol- ogy at the master ’s level, and two stu- dents do not yet have any definite career plans. The students’ majors included mi- crobiology (seven undergraduates), geol- ogy (one undergraduate), environmental chemistry (three graduate students), and natural science (one graduate student). Two microbiology majors reported pur- suing a second major: one in biochemis- try and one in Spanish. Early in the semester, a questionnaire was distributed to assess the self-reported level of information literacy of the stu- dents enrolled in the class. The question- naire was adapted from one that had been used successfully in an earlier investiga- tion by the librarian.11 At the beginning of the term, the librarian provided de- tailed instruction on finding information to support the students’ class assignments on two occasions. The sessions were one- hour, hands-on library instruction classes in the use of bibliographic finding tools available from the University of Okla- homa Libraries. Instruction included use of the suite of databases available via OCLC’s First Search, as well as Chemical Abstract Service’s SciFinder Scholar and Carl UnCover. After the library instruction sessions were completed, each subsequent class consisted of a fifty-minute lecture by the microbiology professor followed by a pre- sentation of a referred journal article by one student. The assigned articles were pub- lished in the journals Science and Nature between 1982 and 1997 and are listed in table 2. The presenter also was instructed to perform a literature search to find two articles related to the one being presented. One article was required to be from a nonrefereed journal (popular) and another from a longer-format refereed journal. The presenter submitted a one-page discussion of the major differences between the con- tents and the conclusions of the three pa- pers. Another student delivered an oral critique of the article and prepared a one- page summary of their criticisms. To stimulate discussion, two other students then asked a question about the presented article. The students submitted written copies of their questions. The faculty mem- ber graded these written and oral literacy events to evaluate the students’ under- standing of the material in the articles. The librarian assessed their ability to locate, evaluate, and effectively use the informa- tion in the papers using checklists based on the ACRL standards.12 Students who demonstrated competence in an informa- tion literacy skill on the checklist were given a score of one; those who did not were given a score of zero. After every student had an opportu- nity to present a paper, the undergradu- ate students repeated the cycle and their later works were compared for differ- ences in their information-seeking, evalu- ating, and usage abilities. The graduate students submitted a formal paper rather than participating in the second round of presentations, critiques, and questions. At the end of the semester, the initial ques- tionnaire was administered again to monitor any changes in the students’ level of information literacy. Students’ t-tests were performed to determine whether their literacy scores significantly changed as a result of the course design.13 How often each student participated in each class session also was recorded. These data were collected to assess outcome “1a” from Standard One, which suggests that an information student “confers with in- Students were considered to have improved in a literacy outcome if the initial number of students with problems decreased from two or more to one or none by the end of the semester. 114 College & Research Libraries March 2002 TABLE 2 Articles Presented, Critiqued, and Questioned Ahmann, D., A.L. Roberts, L.R. Krumholz, and F.M.M. Morel. 1994. Microbe grows by reducing arsenic. Nature 371:750. Alldredge, A.L., and Y. Cohen. 1987. Can microscale chemical patches persist in the sea? Microelectrode study of marine snow, fecal pellets. Science 235:689�91. Canfield D.E., and D.J. Des Marais. 1991. Aerobic sulfate reduction in microbial mats. Science 251:1471�73. Devol, A.H. 1991. Direct measurement of nitrogen gas fluxes from continental shelf sediments. Nature 349:319�21. Jorgensen, B.B. 1990. A thiosulfate shunt in the sulfur cycle of marine sediments. Science 240: 152�54. Krumholz, L.R., J.P. McKinley, G.A. Ulrich, and J.M. Suflita. 1997. Confined subsur- face microbial communities in Cretaceous rock. Nature 386:64�66. Haridon, S L., A-L. Reysenbach, P. Glenat, D. Prieur, and C. Jeanthon. 1995. Hot subterranean biosphere in a continental oil reservoir. Nature 377:223�24. Lovley, D.R., M.J. Baedecker, D.J. Lonergan, I.M. Cozzarelli, E.J.P. Phillips, and D.I. Siegal. 1989. Oxidation of aromatic contaminants coupled to microbial iron reduction. Nature 339:297�300. Madsen, E.L., J.L. Sinclair, and W.C. Ghiorse. 1991. In situ biodegradation: Microbio- logical patterns in a contaminated aquifer. Science 251:830�33. McMahon, P.B., and F.H. Chapelle. 1991. Microbial production of organic acids in aquitard sediments and its role in aquifer geochemistry. Nature 349:233�35. Oremland, R.S., and C.W. Culbertson. 1992. Importance of methane oxidizing bacteria in the methane budget as revealed by the use of a specific inhibitor. Nature 356:421�23. Paerl, H.W., and R.G. Carlton. 1988. Control of nitrogen fixation by oxygen depletion in surface associated microzones. Nature 332: 260�62. Parkes, R.J., B.A. Cragg, S.J. Bale, J.M. Getliff, and K. Goodman.  1994. Deep bacterial biosphere in pacific ocean sediments. Nature 371:410�13. Stetter, K.O. 1982. Ultrathin mycelia-forming organisms from submarine volcanic areas having an optimum growth temperature of 105oC. Nature 300:258�60. Stevens, T.O., and J.P. McKinley. 1995. Lithoautotrophic microbial ecosystems in deep basalt aquifers. Science 270:450�55. Vasconcelos, C., J.A. McKenzie, S. Bernasconi, D. Grujic, and A.J. Tien. 1995. Microbial mediation as a possible mechanism for natural dolomite formation at low temperatures. Nature 377:220�22. Integrating Information Literacy into the Science Curriculum 115 structors and participates in class discus- sions, peer workgroups, and electronic discussions to identify a research topic, or other information need.”14 In addition, qualitative comparisons were made be- tween the first and second presentations, critiques, questions, and surveys. The stu- dents were considered competent in a spe- cific literacy outcome if one or no students had difficulty with the outcome under scrutiny throughout the semester. Students were considered to have improved in a lit- eracy outcome if the initial number of stu- dents with problems decreased from two or more to one or none by the end of the semester. Finally, the class was considered to have continued problems if three or more students did not exhibit the specific outcome being examined at any time dur- ing the semester. Results Presentations Figure 1A illustrates student scores for the presentations. The scores were deter- mined according to the students’ ability to achieve specific outcomes designated by Standards Three and Four. (See table 1.) On the whole, the undergraduates fared better than the graduate students, but their scores did not improve from the first to the second presentation. In fact, the literacy scores declined significantly as indicated by a paired student’s t-test at the level of p < 0.1. Despite this lack of improvement, however, students were found to be con- sistently competent in several specific outcomes. With respect to Standard Three, the students were able to select the main ideas and data from the text and then to accurately restate the concepts in their own words. Competency also was exhibited in the students’ ability to ana- lyze the logic of the supporting argu- ments presented in the papers and to rec- ognize interrelationships among the con- cepts in the papers. Moreover, the stu- dents were able to combine the concepts into meaningful statements and to sup- port them using evidence from the pa- pers. With regard to Standard Four, the students proved to be proficient in using information effectively to accomplish their specific purpose because they deliv- ered well-organized and logical presen- tations that integrated new information with information previously learned from lectures or other papers. Improvement was shown in two spe- cific outcomes. In the second presentation, the students more uniformly identified and appropriately quoted material from the papers than they had in the first pre- sentation. Also, the second presentations were more polished and practiced than the first. However, problems continued throughout the semester, primarily with outcomes from Standard Three. In Stan- dard Three, information literacy is desig- nated as the ability to both evaluate infor- mation sources critically and incorporate selected information into one’s own knowledge base and value system. In par- ticular, students did not place the informa- tion in the papers within any context be- yond the geomicrobiology course. The in- vestigators added an outcome as an exten- sion of Standard Three to assess the stu- dents’ ability to answer questions intelli- gently, clearly, and concisely. It was found that the students were ill prepared to field the questions formulated by either their fellow students or the professor. Critiques For the critiques of the papers, outcomes from Standards Three and Four again were used to assess the students’ infor- mation literacy level. In addition, one outcome from Standard Five, the selec- tion and consistent use of an appropriate documentation style, was examined. The students’ critique scores remained con- stant throughout the semester as illus- trated by figure 1B. When critiquing a paper, students were able to recognize prejudice, manipulation, and deception. Similar to presenters, stu- dents doing a critique demonstrated the ability to recognize interrelationships among concepts and then combine them into constructive statements with support- ing evidence. Throughout the semester, 116 College & Research Libraries March 2002 those critiquing determined the probable accuracy of the data by questioning the source and whether to incorporate or re- ject the viewpoints stated in the papers. Also, from the outset, these students com- municated clearly in a style that was ap- propriate for their classroom audience. Improvement was observed in the stu- dents’ examination and comparison of in- formation from a variety of sources in or- der to evaluate the reliability, validity, accu- racy, authority, timeliness, and point of view presented in the papers. Also, the students integrated the new information from the papers with previously learned information to a greater extent in their second critiques than they had in the initial critiques. The only continued problem high- lighted by the critiques was the students’ failure to select and appropriately docu- 024681012141618 1- U G 4- U G 5- U G 6- U G 7- U G 9- U G 10 -U G 13 -U G 2- G 3- G 11 -G 12 -G Su b je ct S co re s P re se nt at io n 1 P re se nt at io n 2 p< 0. 1 0510152025 1- U G 4- U G 5- U G 6- U G 7- U G 9- U G 10 -U G 13 -U G 2- G 3- G 11 -G 12 -G Su bj ec t Sc or es C ri ti qu e 1 C ri ti qu e 2 N S 0510152025 1- U G 4- U G 5 -U G 6- U G 7- U G 9- U G 10 -U G 13 -U G 2- G 3- G 11 -G 12 -G Su bj ec t Sc or es S ur ve y 1 S ur ve y 2 p< 0. 1 N S 0123456789 1- U G 4- U G 5- U G 6- U G 7 -U G 9- U G 10 -U G 13 -U G 2 -G 3- G 11 -G 12 -G Su bj ec t Sc or es Q ue st io n 1 Q ue st io n 2 Q ue st io n 3 Q ue st io n 4 N S N S FIG UR E 1 Pr ese nta tio n, Cr itiq ue, Qu est ion , an d S urv ey Lit era cy Sco res A� Pre sen tat ion Sc ore s C� Qu est ion Sc ore s B� Cr itiq ue Sco res D� Su rve y S cor es Integrating Information Literacy into the Science Curriculum 117 ment the sources cited, in particular, the paper that was subject to critique. Questions The undergraduate students had four op- portunities to raise questions about the papers studied, and the graduate students had two. Similar to the presentations and critiques, the information literacy scores of the questions were assessed using out- comes from Standards Three and Four. Figure 1C shows that neither group of stu- dents showed a significant improvement in these scores as the semester progressed. As in the presentations and critiques, when questioning the information in the papers, the students were proficient at recogniz- ing the interrelationships among the pa- pers’ concepts and combining them into meaningful statements with supporting evidence. Unlike those presenting a paper, questioners were able to extend the papers’ initial hypotheses to a higher level of ex- traction. The students also consciously se- lected criteria from other sources to ques- tion the information given in the papers. Consistent with the competencies and im- provements observed in the presentations and critiques, the questions were well or- ganized and communicated clearly and logically in a fashion that supported the intended purposes of the class. Although the questioners exhibited these competencies, none of the outcomes assessed were found to improve and two problems persisted. The students ques- tioning the papers did not effectively reach conclusions based on the informa- tion in the papers nor did they consis- tently apply prior knowledge to the for- mulation of the questions asked. Surveys The literacy level of the undergraduate students as assessed by the self-reporting surveys improved by 11 percent over the semester. (See figure 1D.) On the other hand, the survey scores of the graduate students remained static. The competen- cies measured by the surveys arose from Standards One and Two, in addition to many of the outcomes previously as- sessed from Standards Three and Four. With respect to Standard One, the stu- dents were competent in determining the nature and extent of the information needed in so much as they defined or modified their requirements to achieve a manageable focus. The students also ef- fectively described criteria used to make informed decisions and choices about the information needed to support their course work and research projects. Standard Two focuses on accessing in- formation effectively, and the students did indicate developing a research plan to optimize their information-searching ac- tivities. The surveys showed that the stu- dents were competent in Standard Three’s outcomes of determining whether the ini- tial information need was satisfied or whether continued searching was re- quired. Also, with respect to Standard Three, the students indicated that they reviewed information retrieval sources and searched additional sources until their information need was satisfied. The survey responses showed im- provement over the semester in several outcomes from Standard Two, including the students’ understanding of the scope, content, and organization of the informa- tion retrieval systems available at the uni- versity. Moreover, by the end of the se- mester, the students showed improve- ment in their ability to assess the quan- tity, quality, and relevance of searching methods employed, as indicated by the wider variety of methods used. Lastly, from Standard Two, by the end of the se- mester more of the students had discov- ered methods for organizing information. Improvement in a Standard Three out- come was observed as a greater number of students indicated that they reviewed their search strategies and used additional Moreover, most of them did not optimize their searching efficiency by selecting the most appropriate technologies to extract the needed information or by using tools to help them manage their information. 118 College & Research Libraries March 2002 concepts, as necessary, at the end of the semester than they had at the beginning. Throughout the semester, problems persisted in several specific outcomes of Standards One and Two. Standard One suggests that an information-literate in- dividual should explore general informa- tion sources such as encyclopedias, dic- tionaries, and handbooks at the outset of their information quest, but only one stu- dent carried this out. Also, from Standard One, students overall did not determine the local availability of information and decided to expand their information- seeking processes beyond local resources, if necessary. This was despite explanation at the beginning of the semester of the interlibrary loan and document delivery services available from the libraries. The majority of students elected to stop their quest for information when it could not be found locally rather than utilizing these resources. Moreover, the students did not define a timetable as indicated by Standard One but, instead, searched un- til they “ran out of time.” Although some progress was made in two Standard Two outcomes, students con- tinued to have difficulty in several out- comes, thereby compromising the effec- tiveness of their search. Specifically, they had difficulty selecting a controlled vo- cabulary specific to the field of geomicrobiology as well as to the informa- tion retrieval sources searched. They also were unable to identify key words, syn- onyms, and related terms that would help locate information. Further, the students did not take full advantage of the technolo- gies demonstrated to them for the retrieval of information because they did not re- trieve information in a variety of formats. Moreover, most of them did not optimize their searching efficiency by selecting the most appropriate technologies to extract the needed information or by using tools to help them manage their information. Course Grades, Total Literacy Scores, and Class Participation Originally, it was hypothesized that the students’ performance on the literacy events (presentation, critique, and ques- tions) as assessed by the professor and their frequency of classroom participation would mirror the sum of their scores from both the checklists and the surveys. How- ever, as illustrated by figure 2, this was not the case. The course grades on the lit- eracy events were out of forty for the un- dergraduate students and out of twenty for the graduate students. The under- graduates could achieve a maximum of 150 total points for their literacy score, compared to 104 points for the graduate students. There appeared to be little rela- tionship among the three variables for most of the students. A greater amount of variability was observed in the total lit- eracy scores whereas the course grades achieved on the literacy events were very similar across the group. The number of class participation events also varied, but not in concert with the literacy scores. A total of 283 class par- ticipation events were counted through- out the semester, and 54 percent of these occurred when a student acted as pre- senter, critiquer, or questioner. The stu- dents’ reluctance to participate did not re- flect their information abilities; the literacy scores were high even among those who rarely participated in class. The graduate students participated only forty-one times, or 14 percent of the total participation events counted. One undergraduate student accounted for 48 percent of the participation events noted. This student also achieved the highest grade on the literacy events and the highest information literacy score. He is exceptional not only in his enthusiasm and ability, but also because of his inti- mate knowledge of, and personal inter- est in, geomicrobiology. He worked in the professor’s lab as an undergraduate re- search assistant and has gone on to purse an advanced degree in microbiology at another institution. Discussion Incorporation of an information literacy component into a senior-level geomicro- biology course at the University of Okla- Integrating Information Literacy into the Science Curriculum 119 homa successfully enhanced the under- graduate students’ information literacy level based on the ACRL standards when assessed using a self-reporting survey.15 However, their information literacy level was not found to significantly improve when the assessment was based on their ability to present, critique, and discuss in- formation. The students entered the semes- ter with competency in several informa- tion literacy outcomes as designated by the ACRL standards, especially in their abil- ity to read a refereed journal article, extract the main ideas, and present the informa- tion gleaned in a logical fashion.16 Im- provement was seen in many outcomes as a result of the course design, in particular, those outcomes that emphasize the opti- mal utilization of local resources. The stu- dents increased their understanding of the available information retrieval tools and consequently used a wider variety in their quests for information. However, there was room for improvement in many areas despite the library instruction sessions and the information literacy–focused course design. Although the students reported a better understanding of the available in- formation retrieval systems, they did not appear to use this knowledge to enhance their information use. Although the students achieved high grades on the content of their presenta- tions, critiques, and questions, their checklist results showed that they were unable “think out of the box.” The stu- dents in the study did not fully answer the questions posed nor did they broaden their study beyond what the instructor required. Only the students questioning the papers extended the information to a higher level of abstraction, and only oc- casionally did this lead to the formula- tion of hypotheses different from those proposed in the paper being studied. This lack of desire to achieve a greater under- standing of the material was especially evident as the semester progressed, and the presentation scores declined signifi- cantly. The decline was perhaps the re- sult of the students becoming overbur- dened by course work or extracurricular activities. Indeed, the students were very time conscious. Most of them indicated on their surveys that they would stop search- FIGURE 2 Grades, Total Literacy Score, and Class Participation*^ 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 1-UG 4-UG 5-UG 6-UG 7-UG 9-UG 10-UG 13-UG 2-G 3-G 11-G 12-G Subject Sc or e Course Grade on Literacy Events Total Literacy Score Number of Class Participations *Undergraduates out of 40, graduates out of 20 ^Undergraduates out of 150, graduates out of 104 120 College & Research Libraries March 2002 ing for information when they “ran out of time” rather than when their informa- tion need was met. It is likely that time constraints also were responsible for the lack of use of interlibrary loan and docu- ment delivery services, even though these would have extended and enhanced their information retrieval success signifi- cantly. To relieve some of the students’ stress, future information literacy courses could incorporate a time management component to help students plan, imple- ment, and document their information searches. Students then may have more time to draw on past knowledge and to stretch their thinking beyond the infor- mation presented in the assigned papers. It also is possible that the students’ lack of motivation and inclination to achieve a greater understanding of the material was due to complacency with the grade achieved on their first assignments. In their research, Honora F. Nerz and Suzanne T. Weiner noted that grades are powerful motivators for engineering stu- dents who “become masters at being able to do the minimum amount of work for the maximum grade available.”17 Simi- larly, Barbara Valentine found that hu- manities and social science undergradu- ate students were so highly propelled by grades that they spent an enormous amount of energy trying to find out what the professor wanted rather than concen- trating on the course material.18 In this study, lack of motivation was accompanied by infrequent participation in classroom discussions. It was especially troublesome for the investigators to ob- serve the graduate students, who were expected to be the more mature, experi- enced, and confident members of the group, contribute only 14 percent of the total participation events recorded. Stu- dents participated primarily when they were involved in a literacy event (i.e., pre- senting, critiquing, or questioning). Oth- erwise, they relied on the questioners, the professor, and the one enthusiastic student to stimulate the discussion. Currently, the professor is using the same course design but is requiring all students to formulate and hand in a question every day. Two stu- dents are randomly selected to pose their questions to the class. The professor is find- ing that not only has individual class par- ticipation increased, but he is also gaining a better understanding of the students’ grasp of the concepts in the papers. More- over, the class size is larger this semester (twenty undergraduate and five graduate students), which may contribute to the in- creased class participation. Other methods to stimulate height- ened interest in the course material and to increase involvement in the classroom discussions would be to include breakout sessions inside or outside the class period, where students are required to formulate questions together and raise them as a group. Some students may perceive such a peer-centered environment to be less threatening and thus may participate to a greater extent than they do in the more public forum of the classroom.19 Another way to increase student involvement would be to set up one-on-one meetings with the instructor to discuss the paper or other topics of concern prior to the stu- dents’ presentations. Students also could meet individually with the librarian to discuss specific information-seeking que- ries.20 Commitment on the part of the in- structor and the librarian to individual- ized instruction may encourage the stu- dents to give more of themselves to the learning process. Also, building confi- dence in individualized fashions, outside the more public arena of the classroom, may allow students to feel more at ease and thus better able to participate in class. The surveys also indicated that several of the students were unwilling to improve their methods of information retrieval. Although their selection was broadened, the databases were searched with a lim- ited selection of terms despite detailed library instruction. Better use of the tools available and retrieval methods may be achieved by scattering the library instruc- tion sessions throughout the semester, in smaller doses when it may be more rel- evant to the students’ information needs, rather than at the beginning of the semes- Integrating Information Literacy into the Science Curriculum 121 ter. This could be used in conjunction with the current design by adding self-paced Web-based tutorials and/or by electroni- cally mounting Power Point slides or vid- eos of the initial presentations for the stu- dents to refer to when necessary. Another troubling discovery was the inconsistent—and frequently nonexist- ent—documentation of the sources used in the presentations, questions, and cri- tiques. The students cited neither the pa- per studied in their written assignments nor any additional sources read. Appar- ently, students do not find it necessary to cite the resources used. Thus, any further information literacy education should focus on the importance of correctly and thoroughly referencing material used in course work. Many studies have touted the impor- tance of the faculty–librarian partnership in ensuring the success of an information literacy program.21 Indeed, the partner- ship between professor and librarian was instrumental in effecting, implementing, and evaluating the design of the course. When evaluating the students, the pro- fessor found that they performed consis- tently well in all the literacy events and in the course as a whole whereas the li- brarian found greater variability in the their information literacy based on the ACRL standards.22 In fact, achievement on the literacy events bore little resemblance to the students’ ability to demonstrate specific literacy outcomes. Because it is apparent that the students are capable of producing a good product, despite vari- ability in information literacy compe- tency, the specific outcomes the librarian was looking for might be unrealistic. Since this study was conducted, the ACRL Instruction Section (IS) has developed a set of more practical objectives.23 Use of the IS objectives may have resulted in closer correlation between the instructor’s grades on the literacy events and the lit- eracy scores calculated by the librarian. Conclusions This investigation presents a design for incorporating information literacy into a senior-level science course. The students reported themselves to have enhanced information-seeking abilities as a result of the course design in which library in- struction is paired with critical analysis of the research literature. However, this perceived enhancement was not reflected in a significantly improved ability to use information. Future research to optimize both the retrieval and use of information should include instruction in time man- agement and documentation of sources consulted. Information education should include explicit details about the accessi- bility of external resources as well as the nuances of key word and subject search- ing. Greater strides in information literacy development also may be achieved by restructuring the timing of the library in- struction so that the sessions are shorter, more frequent, and scattered throughout the semester. Moreover, materials should be available on the Web to support the li- brary instruction sessions. Individual ses- sions with the instructor and the librar- ian are recommended to boost the students’ confidence in their grasp of the material and information-seeking skills. Further, group sessions would provide students with the opportunity to formu- late questions in a less threatening, peer- centered environment. The study also suggests an instrument for measuring information literacy based on several of the specific outcomes from ACRL’s Information Literacy Competency Standards.24 ACRL’s more recently devel- oped literacy objectives are more practi- cal in nature than those used and thus are likely to prove useful in improving the instrument employed.25 Also, a Lickert, rather than a binary, scale should be used to better discern the subtle differences among the students. Finally, testing the design with a larger class size or with sev- eral science classes would be helpful in illuminating the influence of library in- struction on the information literacy of science students. This type of research promoting infor- mation literacy is critical to foster the lit- eracy level of students who, ultimately, will 122 College & Research Libraries March 2002 Notes 1. American Library Association, Presidential Committee on Information Literacy, Final Re- port (Chicago: ALA, 1989), 1. 2. Chris Atton, “Using Critical Thinking as a Basis for Library User Education,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 20 (Nov. 1994): 310–13; Patricia Senn Brevick and Dan L. Jones, “Informa- tion Literacy: Liberal Education for the Information Age,” Liberal Education 79 (winter 1991): 24– 29; Christine Bruce, “Information Literacy Programs and Research: An International Review,” Australian Library Journal 49 (Aug. 2000): 209–18; Christine Susan Bruce, “Information Literacy: A Framework for Higher Education,” Australian Library Journal 44 (Aug. 1995): 158–70; Susan Carol Curzon, “Developing a Program of Information Literacy: How California State University Did It,” College & Research Libraries News 61 (June 2000): 483–86; Zorana Ercegovac, “Information Literacy: Teaching Now for Year 2000,” Reference Services Review 26 (fall/winter 1998): 139–60; Katherine Furlong and Franklin D. Roberts, “If You Teach It, Will They Learn? Information Lit- eracy and Reference Services in a College Library,” Computers in Libraries 18 (May 1998): 22–25; Tina Evans Greenwood and Jeffrey Frisbie, “Library Instruction That’s Out of This World! Infor- mation Literacy at Fort Lewis College,” Reference Services Review 26 (fall/winter 1998): 45–50; Loanne Snavely and Natasha Cooper, “Competing Agendas in Higher Education: Finding a Place for Information Literacy,” Reference & User Services Quarterly 37 (fall 1997): 53–62; Laura A. Sullivan and Nancy F. Campbell, “Strengthening the Foundation for Information Literacy in an Academic Library,” Reference Librarian 33 (1991): 183–89; Sheila Webber and Bill Johnson, “Conceptions of Information Literacy: New Perspectives and Implications,” Journal of Information Science 26 (2000): 381–96; Richard Hume Werking, “A Critical Look at Possibilities for and Obstacles to Library Use,” RQ 31 (winter 1991): 162–66; Herbert S. White, “Bibliographic Instruction, Information Literacy, and Information Empowerment,” Library Journal 117 (Jan. 1992): 78–79; Terrence E. Young, “The Big Three Information Literacy Models,” Knowledge Quest 27 (Jan.–Feb. 1999): 32–35. 3. Mark Jacobs, “Speakeasy Studio and Café: Information Literacy, Web-based Library In- struction, and Technology,” Information Technology and Libraries 20 (June 2001): 66–71; Kimberly B. Kelley, Gloria J. Orr, Janice Houck, and Claudine SchWeber, “Library Instruction for the Next Millennium: Two Web-based Courses to Teach Distance Students Information Literacy,” Journal of Library Administration 32 (2001): 281–94; Kate Manuel, “Teaching an Online Information Lit- eracy Course,” Reference Services Review 29 (2001): 219–28; Paul Nieuwenhuysen, “Information Literacy Courses for University Students: Some Experiments and Some Experience,” Campus- Wide Information Systems 17 (2000): 167–73; Pierina Parise, “Information Power Goes Online: Teach- ing Information Literacy to Distance Learners,” Reference Services Review 26 (fall/winter 1998): 51–60; Gay Tierney, “Information Literacy Skills for Distance Education Students,” Access 13 (Aug. 1999): 36–38. 4. Cecelia M. Brown, “Information Literacy of Physical Science Graduate Students in the Information Age,” College & Research Libraries 60 (spring 1999): 426–38; Patricia Iannuzzi, “We Are Teaching, But Are They Learning: Accountability, Productivity, and Assessment,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 25 (July 1999): 304-5; Karin de Jager and Mary Nassimbeni, “Roadmaps for the Highway: The Evaluation of an Information Literacy Training Programme for South Afri- can Students,” Education for Information 16 (1998): 131–43; Patricia Davitt Maughan, “Assessing Information Literacy among Undergraduates: A Discussion of the Literature and the University of California-Berkeley Assessment Experience,” College & Research Libraries 62 (Jan. 2001): 71–85. 5. Association of College & Research Libraries, Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education (Chicago: ACRL, 2000). Available online from http://www.ala.org/acrl/ ilcomstan.html. 6. Brown, “Information Literacy of Physical Science Graduate Students,” 426–38. 7. Donna Amstutz and Donna Whitson, “University Faculty and Information Literacy: Who Teaches the Students?” Research Strategies 15 (winter 1997): 18–25; Katherine Beaty Chiste, An- drea Glover, and Glenna Westwood, “Infiltration and Entrenchment: Capturing and Securing Information Literacy Territory in Academe,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 26 (May 2000): 202– 8; Christine Bruce, “Faculty–Librarian Partnerships in Australian Higher Education: Critical Di- mensions,” Reference Services Review 29 (2001): 106–15; Nancy Dennis, “Using Inquiry Methods to Foster Information Literacy Partnerships,” Reference Services Review 29 (2001): 122–31; Elizabeth A. Dupuis, “The Information Literacy Challenge: Addressing the Changing Needs of Our Stu- dents through Our Programs,” Internet Reference Services Quarterly 2 (1997): 93–111; Violet Harada and Ann Tepe, “Pathways to Knowledge,” Teacher Librarian 26 (Nov.–Dec. 1998): 9–15; Carla become critical thinkers and lifelong learn- ers and thereby well equipped to succeed in the work force and contribute positively to society. Integrating Information Literacy into the Science Curriculum 123 Higgins and Mary Jane Cedar Face, “Integrating Information Literacy Skills into the University Colloquium: Innovation at Southern Oregon University,” Reference Services Review 26 (fall/win- ter 1998): 17–32; Patricia Iannuzzi, “Faculty Development and Information Literacy: Establishing Campus Partnerships,” Reference Services Review 26 (fall/winter 1998): 97–116; Denise Isbell and Carol Hammond, “Information Literacy Competencies,” College & Research Library News 6 (June 1993): 325–27; Gloria J. Leckie and Anne Fullerton, “Information Literacy in Science and Engi- neering Undergraduate Education: Faculty Attitudes and Pedagogical Practices,” College & Re- search Libraries 60 (Jan. 1990): 9–29; J. Edmund Maynard, “A Case Study of Faculty Attitudes toward Library Instruction: The Citadel Experience,” Reference Services Review 18 (summer 1990): 67–76; Lawrence J. McCrank, “Academic Programs for Information Literacy: Theory and Struc- ture,” RQ 31 (summer 1992): 485–97; Honora F. Nerz and Suzanne T. Weiner, “Information Com- petencies: A Strategic Approach,” 2001 ASEE Conference Proceedings (Washington, D.C.: Ameri- can Society of Engineering Education, 2001), available online from http://www.asee.org/con- ferences/annual2001/bestpapers.cfm; Glenn Ellen Starr and Paul Gaskill, “The Community Study Assignment for Leisure Studies: Integrating Information Literacy, Leisure Theory, and Critical Thinking,” Research Strategies 15 (1997): 205–16. 8. ACRL, Information Literacy Competency Standards. 9. Ibid., 9. 10. Ibid. 11. Brown, “Information Literacy of Physical Science Graduate Students.” 12. ACRL, Information Literacy Competency Standards. 13. Robert M. Losee Jr. and Karen A. Worley, Research and Evaluation for Information Profession- als (San Diego, Calif.: Academic Pr., 1993), 183–86. 14. ACRL, Information Literacy Competency Standards, 8. 15. ACRL, Information Literacy Competency Standards. 16. Ibid. 17. Nerz and Weiner, “Information Competencies.” 18. Barbara Valentine, “The Legitimate Effort in Research Papers: Student Commitment ver- sus Faculty Expectations,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 27 (Mar. 2001): 107–15. 19. Atton, “Using Critical Thinking as a Basis for Library User Education.” 20. Valentine, “The Legitimate Effort in Research Papers.” 21. Amstutz and Whitson, “University Faculty and Information Literacy”; Beaty Chiste, Glover, and Westwood, “Infiltration and Entrenchment”; Bruce, “Faculty–Librarian Partnerships in Aus- tralian Higher Education”; Dennis, “Using Inquiry Methods to Foster Information Literacy Part- nerships”; Dupuis, “The Information Literacy Challenge”; Harada and Tepe, “Pathways to Knowl- edge”; Higgins and Face, “Integrating Information Literacy Skills into the University Colloquium”; Iannuzzi, “Faculty Development and Information Literacy”; Isbell and Hammond, “Information Literacy Competencies”; Leckie and Fullerton, “Information Literacy in Science and Engineer- ing Undergraduate Education”; Maynard, “A Case Study of Faculty Attitudes toward Library Instruction”; McCrank, “Academic Programs for Information Literacy”; Nerz and Weiner, “In- formation Competencies”; Starr and Gaskill, “The Community Study Assignment for Leisure Studies.” 22. ACRL, Information Literacy Competency Standards. 23. ACRL Instruction Section, “Objectives for Information Literacy: A Model Statement for Academic Librarians,” College & Research Libraries News 62 (Apr. 2001): 416–28. 24. ACRL, Information Literacy Competency Standards. 25. ACRL Instruction Section, “Objectives for Information Literacy.”