Cell Biol Educ 4(1): 58-96 2005
DOI: 10.1187/cbe.04-07-0046
© 2005 American Society for Cell Biology
Developing Information Fluency in Introductory Biology Students in the Context of an Investigative Laboratory
Gary J. Lindquester,
Romi L. Burks*, and
Carolyn R. Jaslow
Department of Biology, Rhodes College, 2000 North Parkway, Memphis, TN
38112
Submitted July 7, 2004;
Revised October 6, 2004;
Accepted October 11, 2004
 |
ABSTRACT
|
|---|
Students of biology must learn the scientific method for generating
information in the field. Concurrently, they should learn how information is
reported and accessed. We developed a progressive set of exercises for the
undergraduate introductory biology laboratory that combine these objectives.
Pre- and postassessments of approximately 100 students suggest that increases
occurred, some statistically significant, in the number of students using
various library-related resources, in the numbers and confidence level of
students using various technologies, and in the numbers and confidence levels
of students involved in various activities related to the scientific method.
Following this course, students should be better prepared for more advanced
and independent study.
Key Words: information fluency • information literacy • introductory biology laboratory • undergraduate • scientific method • pedagogy
|
INTRODUCTION
|
|---|
In recent years, introductory science laboratory courses at many colleges
and universities have evolved from being a series of exercises designed simply
to demonstrate scientific principles to being investigative experiments
designed to engage students in the scientific method
(National Research Council,
2002). Scientific educators advocate that student participation in
the scientific method (i.e., following the steps from observation to
hypothesis formulation to data analysis, conclusions, and presentation) at an
earlier stage of the academic career provides more effective teaching and
training of future scientists (Siebert and
McIntosh, 2001). However, while using hands-on experimentation
(laboratory research) to boost student interest and comprehension
(Biological Science Curriculum Study,
1993), professors face the additional challenge of teaching
students the information-gathering skills required of real-life
researchers.
Students must learn to seek previously published information (library
research), both to guide their hypothesis formulation and also to place their
own results in context. In years past, students would consult abstracts,
books, and journals within the physical confines of the library. With the
advent of digital citation databases and electronically published journals,
students are now likely to conduct much of their library research online.
However, because most lack formal training in the nature of scientific
information, many students possess insufficient skills to discriminate between
valid and invalid electronic sources. As Lyman
(2001) notes, "The
Internet is now used as an information resource of first resort, including Web
pages, Usenet, and electronic mail. The Web represents the end of authorship,
because the Web erases the distinction between writing and publishing, thereby
abandoning the quality control that makes printed information efficient, but
it is more democratic because it lets the reader be the judge"
(p. 30). Furthermore,
"Unofficial documents used to be a private matter—like photo
albums or letters that were occasionally archived and preserved in public
institutions. But the network includes everything, public and private, true
and false, good and bad" (p. 31).
With these statements, Lyman
(2001) attracts our attention
to a fundamental issue facing education. Previously, educators could direct
students to written literature with some faith in the process of careful and
informed peer review that preceded the publication. The scientific community
relies on such peer review to provide validity to its literature
(Bloom, 1999). However, now
educators must train students themselves to assess the validity of what they
encounter. What defines information as valid has not changed over the years,
but what defines publishable information has certainly changed with increased
use of the Internet. The official documents to which Lyman
(2001) alludes used to be the
only documents readily available. Now unofficial documents may appear official
to the indiscriminate viewer. With much less than 1% of new information
produced in 1999 being printed on paper
(Lyman, 2001) and knowing that
much of the vast amount of information published digitally is unofficial, we
see that the proverbial problem now facing students is finding the official
needle in the haystack. One might argue that proper search technique allows
one to find the needle, yet it is increasingly clear that search technique may
only limit the quest to one of many haystacks. Instead, knowledge of how
information is generated, reviewed, published, and referenced in a particular
field is necessary to serve as the magnet for the needle. Therefore, it must
be the goal of educators to provide students with this magnet early in their
undergraduate careers.
The Associated Colleges of the South
(http://www.colleges.org),
a consortium of 16 distinguished liberal arts institutions, defines
information fluency in the following way. "Using critical thinking
skills and appropriate technologies [the information-fluent individual],
integrates the abilities to collect the information necessary to consider a
problem or issue, to employ critical thinking skills in the evaluation and
analysis of the information and its sources, and to formulate logical
conclusions and present those conclusions in an appropriate and effective
way" (Associated Colleges of the
South, 2002).
The juxtaposition of information fluency and the scientific method has been
one goal of an introductory biology laboratory course at our institution for
several years. Our initial experience with fostering information fluency in
the context of laboratory research underscored the need for a more refined and
collaborative approach. Despite more careful guidance in assignments, incoming
students seemed less and less able to evaluate information sources critically.
We conjectured that while incoming students show a growing propensity to use
the Internet as their primary information resource, they are perhaps even less
familiar with the ways in which information is generated and reported in the
field of biology. Thus, we felt it critical to collaborate with information
services staff, librarians, and students to formulate the most effective
approaches for fostering information fluency among our students and ourselves.
Although our efforts were initially directed toward an introductory zoology
laboratory, we have adapted the approach to our new introductory course
focusing on molecular and cellular biology.
|
METHODS
|
|---|
Pedagogical Design
The introductory biology laboratory highlighted here occupies one semester,
with multiple sections of approximately 24 students meeting one afternoon per
week for 3 h. We sought to provide students with practice and understanding of
the scientific method. This included the ability to find and evaluate primary
(peer-reviewed) and secondary literature and use that information in
supporting hypotheses and conclusions, to conduct experiments and analyze
results, to present results and conclusions orally and in writing, and to
document and reference information appropriately. Instruction included a class
presentation by the campus library's electronic resources librarian; a written
description of the modes of reporting information in biology describing the
roles of primary literature, reviews, academic texts, and popular press; and a
worksheet illustrating important points of each. Students then used this
instruction to guide their library research and writing on a course-related
topic assigned by the professor. Throughout the semester, we provided students
with assignments, exercises, and hand-outs to lead them through individual
steps of these processes. Each assignment built on the previous ones and gave
the students progressively more autonomy. Finally, the semester's activities
culminated with independent laboratory research projects designed and
conducted by the students. Students reported their work in oral presentations
facilitated by PowerPoint. Project proposals, course syllabus, exercises, and
survey with results are available online
(Lindquester, 2002). The course
syllabus and exercises are also available in the following Appendices.
Appendix 1:
Syllabus
Appendix 2: Schedule of
Assignments
Appendix 3: Literature
Reference
Worksheet
Appendix 4: Information
Structure and Use in
Biology
Appendix 5: Citation
Guidelines
Appendix 6: Process
Diversity Paper
Instructions
Appendix 7: Development
Experiment Report
Guidelines
Appendix 8: Renal Function
Experiment Worksheet
Appendix 9: Behavior
Experiment Report Guidelines
Appendix 10: Proposal
Preparation Guidelines
Appendix 11: Scientific
Presentation
Guidelines
Appendix 12: Ecology
Experiment Worksheet
Assessment Survey
We designed the survey to evaluate the influence of the introductory
biology laboratory on the perceptions and abilities of students to gain
confidence regarding different technologies, information sources, and research
skills. Students answered whether or not they used a particular program,
skill, or resource (Table 1).
If affirmative, students then rated their level of confidence in the use of
that particular program, skill, or resource. Ratings ranged from 1 to 5, with
5 being the most confident. We used the same web-based survey at the beginning
and end of the course. Students knew that the course required completion of
the survey, and they received credit for completing the survey. However, all
responses were confidential; students were informed that instructors had no
way to correlate respondents and their responses.
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 1. Survey contents: The Web-based survey asked students whether they used the
following programs, performed the listed critical thinking skills, or
conducted these library activities
|
|
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 2. Results of Mann-Whitney U-tests investigating whether confidence
levels in program use significantly increased from the beginning to the end of
the semester
|
|
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 3. Results of Mann-Whitney U-tests investigating whether confidence
levels in skill use significantly increased from the beginning to the end of
the semester
|
|
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 4. Results of Mann-Whitney U-tests investigating whether confidence
levels in library activities significantly increased from the beginning to the
end of the semester
|
|
Statistical Analyses
We assembled the before and after responses in an Excel spreadsheet and
calculated the percentage of users for each program, skill, or resource in
addition to the mean confidence level for affirmative users only. We did not
include confidence levels reported by negative users. End usage for each
variable, percent change, and mean confidence levels before and after the
course comprised our results. For before and after comparisons, the survey
data did not fit a normal distribution in most cases and could not be
transformed successfully. Therefore, we used nonparametric statistics. To
evaluate the impact of the laboratory course statistically, we ran
Mann-Whitney U (MWU) tests on the before and after confidence
levels.
Comparisons between Skills or Activities
For questions that are directly related to each other, we compared
confidence levels before and after using a two-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA). Although the data did not meet a normal distribution and could not be
successfully transformed, we employed two-way ANOVAs for these analyses. We
lacked the software necessary to do nonparametric, multiway analysis. Although
nonparametric tests would be preferable, ANOVA is robust for the assumption of
a normal distribution (Zar,
1996). We give the significance term of the variable, which gives
information about whether the two or three variables significantly differ,
regardless of time. If three variables occurred, we performed a Tukey's
Multiple Comparison Test (MCT) to elucidate the specific differences between
variables. The significance term of the time-by-rating interaction specifies
if the confidence level significantly changed between variables over time. For
example, a twoway ANOVA could evaluate whether the confidence levels of
students differed in giving written versus oral reports before and after the
course. We performed all statistical analyses using SPSS version 10.1 and
created graphs in Excel.
Graphical Analyses
In addition to evaluating use of programs, skills and resources, the survey
asked students to evaluate the qualities of four information sources (i.e.,
textbook, review paper, Web site, or journal article). For these questions,
inferential statistics are not appropriate so we simply plotted the change in
response before and after the course or the evaluation breakdown. In this
case, a negative number denotes that fewer students reported that a particular
source best matched the question. In addition, we did test for a change in
confidence over time regarding assessing these four information sources using
MWU tests.
Independent Data
In addition to student self-reporting in the survey, throughout the
semester we tracked usage statistics for the three databases introduced to the
students at the beginning of the term and compared database usage to the same
months the previous year.
|
RESULTS
|
|---|
Nearly 100 students participated fully in both surveys (98 before and 95
after). Tables 2,
3,
4 provide the results of
statistical tests.
Programs
Nearly 100% of participants reported that they used word processing (Word),
spreadsheet (Excel), and presentation (PowerPoint) programs by the end of the
course. Fewer students used HTML programs (FrontPage) and a scanner. The use
of these programs also did not increase dramatically with the course. We found
generally high confidence in use of programs, and confidence significantly
increased with time, except in the use of scanners
(Figure 1;
Table 2). Confidence in
spreadsheet, presentation, and HTML programs ranked lower than with word
processing, e-mail, or use of the file server (i.e., an on-campus network).
Note that this course did not incorporate use or instruction in HTML or
scanning, although students did have access to a scanner and some may have
used it when preparing PowerPoint presentations.
View larger version (51K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 1. How students perceive their confidence in using different programs. Errors
represent standard error. Confidence in program use (* denotes
p < .05 from Mann-Whitney U-tests) significantly
increased for all programs except the ability to scan.
|
|
Skills
We witnessed relatively large increases (20%-60%) in the numbers of
students preparing proposals, conducting independent research, conducting
statistics, and presenting their work
(Table 3). Student confidence
levels also generally rose with each skill
(Figure 2), some statistically
significant (Table 3).
Significantly more students reported consulting with people about topics after
taking the course (MWU, p = .036). Nearly all students reported
gathering both print and Web-based information both before and after the
course (MWU, p > .05). After taking the course, 22.4% fewer
students stated that they begin a project 4 weeks early
(Table 3). Confidence levels
did not increase in proposal writing (MWU, p = .161), which may be
understandable given the rigorous critique of proposals by professors during
the course. However, we did find significant increases in students' confidence
levels regarding performing experiments, conducting statistics, giving written
and oral presentations, and coming up with original ideas
(Figure 2;
Table 3).
View larger version (67K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 2. How students perceive their confidence in performing different skills.
Errors represent standard error. An * denotes a significant
increase in confidence in skill performance (p < .05 from
Mann-Whitney U-tests).
|
|
Library Resources
We found the greatest increase in the number of students reporting their
use of a scientific search engine (64.2%
Table 3). Less than 80% of our
students used online databases or the online catalogue of an off-campus, local
university library. In addition, only 49% of students requested help from a
campus reference librarian (Table
4). A significant increase (19.3%) in the number of students using
the campus online catalogue led to nearly 100% end usage (MWU, p =
.041). Trends indicate that more students reported consulting hard copies of
books and journals, in addition to online journals, after taking the course
(Table 4), although changes in
confidence levels of these activities did not meet the criteria for
statistical significance (Figure
3). Only 16.3% of our students used interlibrary loan, and
participation in the course did not dramatically increase use of this resource
(only 3.5%), possibly due to the relatively short time frame of each
assignment. Confidence ratings for most library skills did not significantly
differ with time (Figure 3),
although two approached significance (MWU, p = .062 and .066 for
asking a reference librarian and using hard copies of periodicals,
respectively; Table 4).
View larger version (76K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 3. How students perceive their confidence in performing different library
activities. Errors represent standard error. An * denotes a
significant increase in confidence in skill performance (p < .05
from Mann-Whitney U-tests). A denotes confidence values that neared
significance (i.e., a p value > .05 but < than .10).
|
|
As an assessment of usage of library resources independent of student
self-reporting, we tracked database usage during the semester of the course
and compared usage levels with the same months the previous year when no
specific library instruction had been given to introductory biology students.
Table 5 indicates a large
increase in usage of the databases that were recommended for student use for
this course. The large increases occurred in the first month when a worksheet
specifically required database usage. Furthermore, high usage levels persisted
throughout the semester, suggesting that students continued to use the
databases for research in later assignments.
View larger version (40K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 4. Students' confidence levels in work started 4, 2, or 1 week before the
deadline. Open bars represent ratings before the course and shaded bars
indicate responses following the course. Errors are 1 SE.
|
|
View larger version (45K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 5. Confidence levels reported by students regarding using Web search engines.
Open bars represent ratings before the course and shaded bars indicate
responses following the course. Errors are 1 SE.
|
|
View larger version (44K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 6. Students' confidence in using different hard copy sources. Open bars
represent ratings before the course and shaded bars indicate responses
following the course. Errors are 1 SE.
|
|
Comparison of Skills or Activities
Confidence in work increased with the amount of preparation time
(Figure 4; two-way ANOVA, prep
time, F2, 439 = 3.533, p = .03) and from the
beginning to the end of the semester (time, F1, 439 =
9.427, p = .002). However, we did not find a significant interaction
(prep time by time, F2, 439 = .30, p = .741).
Similarly, students showed a higher confidence level in using general versus
scientific search engines (Figure
5; two-way ANOVA, search engine, F1, 312 =
65.565, p = .001) and confidence in use of both search engines
increased over time (time, F1, 312 = 3.987, p =
.047), resulting in a nonsignificant interaction (search engine by time,
F1, 312 = .256, p = .613). Although not provided
as a graph, we also found a statistical difference in confidence levels
between using the campus library's online catalogue versus a catalogue from an
off-campus, local university library (two-way ANOVA, library,
F1, 267 = 4.446, p = .036; time,
F1, 267 = 4.229, p = .041). However, confidence
levels in the use of information from print sources versus Web sources did not
differ (two-way ANOVA, source, F1, 371 = .745, p
= .389; time, F1, 371 = 3.307, p = .70).
Statistics from either of these skills (library or print source) did not
result in significant interactions.
In terms of print sources, students showed the highest confidence in their
use of hard copy books compared with journals and periodicals
(Figure 6; two-way ANOVA,
source, F2, 375 = 17.174, p < .001), and this
did not differ significantly with time (time, F1, 375 =
2.854, p = .092) or with a time by source interaction (time by
source, F2, 375 = .588, p = .556). Confidence use
did not differ significantly between hard copy journals and periodicals
(Tukey's MCT, p = .967). Student confidence in giving reports
significantly increased (two-way ANOVA, time, F1, 225 =
23.401, p < .001), regardless of report type (F1,
225 = .653, p = .420). Because of statistical constraints, we
could not test confidence levels between using hard-bound versus online
journals or reading abstracts versus full-text of journals online.
Source Evaluation
After taking the biology course, 19.5% more students thought journal
articles provided the most detailed information (74.7%;
Figure 7a) and rated their
opinion with significantly higher confidence
(Figure 7b; MWU, p
< .001). Textbooks lost recognition (-22.8%) as source of the most detailed
information (Figure 7a) but
gained as the source of the best overview (18.5%), although not significantly
(Figure 7c; p = .362).
By the end of the course, students generally thought that review papers
(43.3%) and journals (51.6%) equally published the results of research
reviewed by scholars in the field (Figure
8a) and confidence in this opinion also increased significantly
(Figure 8b; MWU, p
< .001). Before the course, mixed responses occurred regarding the source
that could cite the largest number of scientific studies reporting common
themes. By the end (Figure 8c),
students increased their confidence (Figure
8d; MWU, p < .001) in identifying review articles
(60%) as the best source for citation, followed by journal articles
(27.4%).
View larger version (99K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 7. Change in student opinion (panels a, c, e, g) and confidence levels (b, d,
f, h) regarding the accuracy and information content of four sources (review
article, textbook, Web site, or journal article). See
Table 1 for complete
descriptions of questions. Panels a, c, e, and g report change in opinion as a
percentage. Significant results are reported with p values from
Mann-Whitney U-tests of confidence levels before and after the
course. Error = SE.
|
|
View larger version (80K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 8. Student opinion (panels a, c, e) and change in confidence levels (b, d, f)
regarding the accuracy and information content of four sources (review
article, textbook, Web site, or journal article). See
Table 1 for complete
descriptions of questions. Panels a, c, and e show pie graphs to indicate
which sources students reported best fit the category during the survey
conducted at the end of the course. Significant results are reported with
p values from Mann-Whitney U-tests of confidence levels
before and after the course. Error = SE.
|
|
Students also possessed mixed opinions regarding which source provided the
most bias. However, by the end of the course, most students
(Figure 8e; 73.7%, a 21.6%
increase) agreed with higher confidence
(Figure 8f; MWU, p =
.035) that Web sites are most likely to have the greatest bias. Most students
also suggested Web sites as the most likely source of inaccurate information
(81% and 74%, before and after, respectively). Interestingly, in the second
survey, more students (10.6%) thought journal articles could provide
inaccurate information (Figure
7e), although this did not prove to be a significant increase
(Figure 7f). In contrast,
students increased their opinion that journal articles would be the least
likely to be inaccurate (12.9%). With this increase, the likelihood that
textbooks served as the sources least likely to be inaccurate declined (31%;
Figure 7g). Confidence levels
for the assessment of most and least likely inaccurate did not differ
significantly (Fig. 7f and
h).
DISCUSSION
The similarities in the steps of the scientific method and the Associated
Colleges of the South's definition of information fluency are readily apparent
(Associated Colleges of the South,
2002). In fact, to train students fully in the scientific method,
we must necessarily train them to be information fluent. By addressing both
goals in a concerted fashion, we ensure that our students know how to use the
most current tools to access information, evaluate the information in ways
appropriate to the discipline and the problem they wish to address, use the
information to inform their scientific study, carry out and analyze their
study, and ultimately add to the body of information with new results
presented in a relevant forum. Thus, information fluency is requisite to
proficiency with the scientific method.
The exercises developed for this course introduced students in a
progressive, increasingly complex manner to the principles and practices of
information fluency. They began with basic introduction to library resources
and led to use of such skills and resources in the development,
implementation, and presentation of an independent research project. Our
survey results indicate that following the course, increases occurred, some
statistically significant, in the number of students using various
library-related resources, in the numbers and confidence levels of students
using various technologies, and in the numbers and confidence levels of
students involved in various activities related to the scientific method. We
must caution that the survey method of assessment used here is limited in that
it only represents student opinion of progress in the course. Anecdotal
evidence of student performance reported by the teaching faculty supports the
survey results; however, we did not perform an independent, systematic
analysis of student improvement in this study. Nevertheless, we anticipate
that with the foundation gained in this introductory course, students will
build on their skill and confidence in upper-level biology courses as well as
other disciplines.
Although these exercises were developed initially for an introductory
course in zoology, the lessons learned can be applied to any introductory
level biology course. The essential elements are that students are instructed
in both the scientific method and in the proper use of library resources to
support scientific research. The instruction should include series of
exercises ranging progressively from simple worksheet and essay assignments
that require library research and citation to independent laboratory projects
leading to oral, poster, written presentation, or a combination of these. In
fact, our current introductory cell biology laboratory includes three such
projects, each with a different presentation format
(Biology I, 2003).
|
CONCLUSION
|
|---|
In general, students reported an increase from the beginning to the end of
the semester in information fluency as measured by confidence in computer
technology, critical thinking skills, and library activities. However, this
study still points to the need to train our students to evaluate scientific
resources critically. As more and more information pours on to the Internet
daily, it becomes harder and harder to distinguish "good" science
from "bad." Until guidelines are established for peer review of
scientific content of Web sites, educators must design laboratory exercises
that train and test students' ability to process information.
Despite increases in the students' confidence with regard to information
fluency, we could still identify several areas in which students still need to
increase their level of confidence: execution and analysis of experiments, use
of online resources, and familiarity with interlibrary loan. Library skills
overall seemed to show lower confidence ratings. In addition, student opinion
varied as to the accuracy, potential bias, and content of different
information sources. These results further emphasize the need for academic
departments to work with library staff in hopes of increasing the information
fluency of students. Collectively, our efforts as educators can have profound
impact on our students' ability to navigate the world of scientific
information now available to us on the Internet.
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
|
|---|
The authors appreciate the advice and participation of the other professors
in the introductory biology laboratory (Tony Becker, Jay Blundon, Alan Jaslow,
David Kesler), and of Allison Gratzer (Rhodes Class of 2002), Darlene Brooks
(Electronic Resources Librarian), and Robert Johnson (Dean of Information
Services). A grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation to the Associated
Colleges of the South provided support for this work.
|
FOOTNOTES
|
|---|
Monitoring Editor: Erin Dolan
* Present address: Department of Biology, Southwestern University,
Georgetown, TX 78626. 
Address correspondence to: Gary J. Lindquester
(glindquester{at}rhodes.edu).
|
REFERENCES
|
|---|
Associated Colleges of the South. (2002). ACS IF definition.
http://www.colleges.org/~if/if_definition.html
(accessed 22 January 2003).Bloom, F.E. (1999). The importance of reviewers.Science
283,789
.[CrossRef][Medline]
Biology I. (2003). Biology 131 laboratory syllabus.
http://www.rhodes.edu/biology/biologyi/10130labsyl.html
(accessed 2 July 2004).
Biological Science Curriculum Study. (1993).Developing Biological Literacy: A Guide to Developing Secondary and
Post Secondary Biology Curriculum
, Dubuque, IA:
Kendall/Hunt.
Lindquester, G. (2002). Rhodes Biology Information Fluency Project.
http://www.rhodes.edu/biology/glindquester/infoflu/index.html
(accessed 2 July 2004).
Lyman, P. (2001). Information literacy. Liberal
Educ., 87,28
-37.
National Research Council. (2002). BIO2010:
Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists,
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Siebert, E.D., and McIntosh, W.J. (2001).College Pathways to the Science Education Standards
, Arlington,
VA: National Science Teachers Association.
Zar, J.H. (1996). Biostatistical
analysis, 3rd ed., New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
