1. Azra Rafique Khalid Mahmood

2. 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.Mahmood, 2013 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.

3. 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

4. Methodology Research 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.

5. 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

6. 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.

7. Reliability The coefficient of internal reliability for this scale, Cronbach’s Alpha, was.967 which demonstrates that the scale was highly dependable.

8. Personal Profile of RespondentsFrequencyPercent Gender Male 36479.1 Female 9620.9 Age 18-20 12527.2 21-25 30165.4 26-30 245.2 31-35 4.9 36-40 4.9 41 or more years 2.4 Social Background Urban 32971.5 Rural 13128.5 Table # 1

9. (Fig.1) Social Background, Gender and Age

10. Profile of Respondents FrequencyPercent Campus Lahore 36078.3 KSK 398.5 Faisalabad 275.9 Rachna 347.4 Home Internet Access Yes 38884.3 No 7215.7 English Language Ability Weak 71.5 Average 9220.0 Good 28962.8 Excellent 7115.4 Not Answered 1.2 Table # 2

11. N = 460 (Fig2) Campus, English Language Ability, Home Internet Access

12. Descriptive Statistics Performance Indicators to:NMeanStd. Dev. 1.1- Define and articulate the need for information 4553.85.531 1.2- Identify a variety of types and formats of potential sources for information 4403.73.579 1.3- Has a working knowledge of the literature of the field and how it is produced 4423.70.656 1.4- Consider the costs and benefits of acquiring the needed information 4433.62.701 Valid N (listwise)410 Avg..62 Scale: 5=Excellent, 4=Good, 3=Average, 2=Weak, 1=Not at All Concept Identification

13. Descriptive Statistics Performance Indicators to:NMean Std. Dev. 2.1- Select the most appropriate investigative methods or information retrieval systems for accessing the needed information 4583.82.734 2.2- Construct and implement effectively designed search strategies 4483.53.749 2.3- Retrieve information using a variety of methods 4533.48.871 2.4- Refine the search strategy if necessary4483.48.889 2.5- Extract, record, transfer, and manage the information and its sources 4543.57.807 Valid N (listwise) 425 Avg..81 Scale: 5=Excellent, 4=Good, 3=Average, 2=Weak, 1=Not at All Search Strategy

14. Descriptive Statistics Performance Indicator to:NMeanStd. Dev. 3.1- Summarize the main ideas to be extracted from the information gathered 4523.92.664 3.2- Select information by articulating and applying criteria for evaluating both the information and its sources 4413.65.674 3.3- Synthesize main ideas to construct new concepts4473.66.846 3.4- Compare new knowledge with prior knowledge to determine the value added, contradictions, or other unique characteristics of the information 4313.68.642 3.5- Validate understanding and interpretation of the information through discourse with other individuals, small groups or teams, subject-area experts, and/or practitioners 4483.90.839 3.6- Determine whether the initial query should be revised4493.71.806 3.7- Evaluate the procured information and the entire process4593.711.051 Valid N (listwise)383 Avg..79 Evaluation of Needed Information Scale: 5=Excellent, 4=Good, 3=Average, 2=Weak, 1=Not at All

15. Descriptive Statistics Performance Indicator to:NMeanStd. Dev. 41- Understand many of the ethical, legal and socio-economic issues surrounding information and information technology 4573.69.731 4.2- Follow laws, regulations, institutional policies, and etiquette related to the access and use of information resources 4403.65.689 4.3- Acknowledge the use of information sources in communicating the product or performance 4483.46.946 4.4- Apply creativity in use of the information for a particular product or performance 4573.621.047 4.5- Evaluate the final product or performance and revise the development process used as necessary 4513.67.833 4.6- Communicate the product or performance effectively to others4543.68.755 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

16. Descriptive Statistics Performance Indicator to:NMeanStd. Dev. 5.1- Recognize the value of ongoing assimilation and preservation of knowledge in the field 4543.87.696 5.2- Use a variety of methods and emerging technologies for keeping current in the field 4533.54.827 Valid N (listwise)447 Avg..76 Lifelong Learning Scale: 5=Excellent, 4=Good, 3=Average, 2=Weak, 1=Not at All

17. Group Statistics GenderNMeanStd. Deviation Std. Error Mean 1- Concept Identification Male3263.73.502.028 Female843.69.552.060 2- Search Strategy Male3383.56.656.036 Female873.68.597.064 3- Evaluation of Needed Information Male3043.77.566.032 Female793.78.584.066 4- Ethical Use and Dissemination of Information Male3213.65.608.034 Female923.60.676.070 5- Lifelong Learning Male3473.69.672.036 Female943.75.583.060 Independent Sample T Test – Gender

18. Descriptive of ANOVA for Degree Programs NMean Std. Deviatio n Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minim um Maxi mum Lower Bound Upper Bound 1- Concept Identification B.Sc.3683.70.524.0273.653.7615 M.Sc.363.88.341.0573.774.0035 PhD64.01.404.1653.584.4335 Total4103.72.512.0253.673.7715 2- Search Strategy B.Sc.3833.57.660.0343.503.6315 M.Sc.363.72.472.0793.563.8835 PhD63.89.453.1853.424.3735 Total4253.59.645.0313.523.6515 3- Evaluation of Needed Information B.Sc.3413.76.581.0313.703.8225 M.Sc.363.92.457.0763.774.0835 PhD63.95.343.1403.584.3145 Total3833.78.569.0293.723.8325 4- Ethical Use and Dissemination of Information B.Sc.3723.62.636.0333.553.6825 M.Sc.353.82.462.0783.663.9835 PhD63.73.546.2233.164.3035 Total4133.64.623.0313.583.7025 5- Lifelong Learning B.Sc.3983.69.667.0333.633.7615 M.Sc.373.80.498.0823.633.9735 PhD63.71.611.2493.074.3535 Total4413.70.654.0313.643.7615 ANOVA for Degree Programs

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. THANKs