You are here:

Developing Digital Information Literacy in Higher Education: Obstacles and Supports
ARTICLE

, Massey University, New Zealand ; , Otago Polytechnic, New Zealand ; , Manakau Institute of Technology, New Zealand ; , , , Otago University, New Zealand

JITE-Research Volume 10, Number 1, ISSN 1539-3585 Publisher: Informing Science Institute

Full Text

Abstract

The development of digital information literacy (DIL) has been slow in comparison to changes in information communication technologies, and this remains an issue for the higher education sector. Competency in such skills is essential to full participation in society and work. In addition, these skills are regarded as underpinning the ability to maintain life long learning. Evidence suggests that simple exposure to technology is not sufficient to promote adequate levels of literacy. Why has DIL development been so slow? How can we speed the process up? The purpose of this study was to identify obstacles and supports to fostering the development of DIL to staff and students in higher education. The literature identified a range of obstacles that hindered students’ ability to develop their technology related skills. The issue of access and the digital divide that has been of interest to those concerned with social equity continues to generate lively discussion. The students’ own beliefs and attitudes to learning new technology can also become barriers to the students’ learning progress when they experience low self-efficacy or anxiety about their ability to develop digital skills. Conversely, students who are over-confident regarding their technical proficiency can also be hindered in their ability to develop good digital information skills. Three broad strategies were inferred from the learning principles advocated nearly 80 years ago by Dewey as having the potential to support the development of digital information skills. The first of these was collaboration and sharing. While the benefits of collaboration were established decades ago, the advent of the Internet has made this a reality through online communities of practice. Dewey’s advocacy of experiential learning has been widely applied on the Internet in the form of bri-colage. Finally, personal relevance, the third of Dewey’s principles, is an inherent part of the Web 2. 0 tools that personalize online environments to the individual. Using a case study design, four higher education institutions ran 10 two-hour workshops in which participants were given autonomy over their learning and goals and were encouraged to collaborate and to engage in explorative trial-and-error learning. Results indicated that these conditions nurtured and empowered participants. In addition, obstacles such as low self-efficacy, low confidence, and negative attitudes to technology were substantially reduced. Participants developed new approaches to learning and experienced personal growth through reflective journals that documented their learning journey.

Citation

Jeffrey, L., Hegarty, B., Kelly, O., Penman, M., Coburn, D. & McDonald, J. (2011). Developing Digital Information Literacy in Higher Education: Obstacles and Supports. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 10(1), 383-413. Informing Science Institute. Retrieved August 7, 2024 from .

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. American Library Association. (2006). Presidential Committee on Information Literacy. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/publications/whitepapers/presidential.cfm Accessed June 20,
  2. Ashcroft, E.R. (1987). An evaluation of traditional staff development practices for implementing change in university teaching. Unpublished Ph D thesis. Ph D, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
  3. Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good, but relevance is excellent: Autonomy-enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviours predicting students’ engagement in schoolwork. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 261-278.
  4. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
  5. Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1986). Differential engagement of self-reactive mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems. Organisatinal Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 38(1), 92-113.
  6. Birkerts, S. (1995). The Gutenberyg elegies. New York: Ballantine.
  7. Bonk, C.J. (2009). The world is open: How Web technology is revolutionizing Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  8. Bozionelos, N. (2004). Socio-economic background and computer use: The role of computer anxiety and computer experience in their relationship. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 61(5), 725-746.
  9. Bransford, J.D., Sherwood, R.D., Hasselbring, T.S., Kinzer, C.K., & Williams, S.M. (1990). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help. In D. Nix & R.J. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 115-141). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
  10. Brown, J.S. (2000). Growing up digital: How the Web changes work, education and the ways people learn. Change (March/April), 10-20.
  11. Developing Digital Information LiteracyBryman, A., & Bell, E. (2007). Business research methods (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxforn University Press.
  12. Bundy, A. (2004). Australian and New Zealand information literacy framework: Principles, standards and practice (2nd ed.). Adelaide: ANZIIL. Retrieved May, 26, 2008, from http://www.anziil.org/resources/InfoLit2ndedition.pdf
  13. Cassidy, S., & Eachus, P. (2002). Developing the computer user self-efficacy (CUSE) scale: Investigating the relationship between computer self-efficacy, gender and experience with computers Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(2), 133-153.
  14. Castells, M. (2001). The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, business and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. The Centre for Literacy. (N.D.). What is literacy? Retrieved June 13 2010, from http://www.centreforliteracy.qc.ca/about/literacy Chen, M.-P., & Wang, L.-C. (2009). The effects of type of interactivity in experiential games-based learning. In M. Chang, R. Kuo, Kinshuk, G.-D. Chen& M. Hirose (Eds.), Learning by playing. Gamebased education system design and development. Proceedings of 4th International Conference on ELearning and Games, Edutainment (pp. 273-282). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
  15. Coglan, D., & Brannick, T. (2002). Doing action research in your own organisation. London: Sage Publications.
  16. Coleman, M., & Lumby, J. (2009). The significance of site-based practitioner researcher in educational management. In D. Middlewood, M. Coleman& J. Lumby (Eds.), Practitioner research in education: making a difference. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
  17. DeMontigny, F., Cloutier, L., Ouellet, N., Courville, F., & Rondeau, G. (2001). Teachers' perceptions of self-efficacy and beliefs regarding information and communications technology (ICT) Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 23022306),
  18. Duderstadt, J.J., & Womack, F.W. (2004). The future of the public university in America: Beyond the crossroads. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.
  19. Eshet-Alkalai, Y., & Chajut, E. (2010). You can teach old dogs new tricks: The factors that affect changes over time in digital literacy. Journal of Information Technology Education, 9, 173-181. Retrieved from http://www.jite.org/documents/Vol9/JITEv9p173-181Eshet802.pdf Eshet-Alkalai, Y., & Geri, N. (2007). Does the medium affect the message? The influence of text representation format on critical thinking. Human Systems Management, 26, 269-279.
  20. Gokhale, A.A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Technology Education, 7(1), 22-30.
  21. Grant, D.M., Malloy, A.D., & Murphy, M.C. (2009). A comparison of student perceptions of their computer skills to their actual abilities. Journal of Information Technology Education, 8, 141-159.
  22. Haney, W., Russell, M., Gulek, C., & Fierros, E. (1998). Drawing on education: Using student drawings to promote middle school improvement. Schools in the Middle, 7(3), 38-43.
  23. Harel-Caperton, I. (2003). Clickerati kids: Who are they? Retrieved 22 June, 2011, from http://www.mamamedia.com/areas/grownups/new/21_learning/main.html
  24. Hegarty, B. (2007). Three‐step reflective framework and template. Retrieved 22 February, 2011, from http://wikieducator.org/Hegarty_Reflective_Framework_and_Template
  25. Horsburgh, M., Lamdin, R., & Williamson, E. (2001). Multiprofessional learning: The attitudes of medical, nursing and pharmacy students to shared learning. Medical Education, 35(9), 876-883.
  26. Hsiao, H.-C. (2009). Reflective learning through playing digital games The Sims 2. In M. Chang, R. Kuo, Kinshuk, G.-D. Chen& M. Hirose (Eds.), Learning by playing. Game-based Education System Design and Development. Proceedings of 4th International Conference on E-Learning and Games, Edutainment (pp. 220-227). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
  27. Hunt, L.M., Eagle, L., & Thomas, M.J.W. (2002). Student resistance to ICT in education. Paper presented at the International Conference on Computers in Education, North Shore, New Zealand.
  28. Hunt, L.M., Eagle, L.C., & Kitchen, P.J. (2004). Marketing education and information technology: Matching needs or needing a better match? Journal of Marketing Education, 26(1), 75-88.
  29. Jacques, D. (1991). Learning in groups. London: Kogan Press.
  30. Janes, J. (2007, January). Why Johnny can't search. American Libraries, P.38.
  31. Jenson, J.D. (2004). It's the information age, so where is the information? Why our students can't find it and what we can do to help. College Teaching, 52(3), 107-112.
  32. Jones, A., Scanlon, E., & Blake, R. (2000). Conferencing in communities of learners: Examples from scoial history and science communication. Educational Technology& Society, 3(3), 215-226.
  33. Jones, Q., Rafaeli, S., & Ravid, G. (2004). Information overload and the message dynamics of online interaction spaces: A theoretical model and empirical exploration. Information Systems Research, 15(2), 194-210.
  34. Joo, Y.-J., Bong, M., & Choi, H.-J. (1998). Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning, academic self-efficacy, and internet self-efficacy in web-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(2), 5-17.
  35. Krause, K., Hartley, R.J., James, R., & McInnis, C. (2005). The first year experience in Australian universities: Findings from a decade of national studies. Canberra: Australian Department of Education, Science and Training.
  36. Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  37. Leu, D.J., Jr. (1996). Sarah's secret: Social aspects of literacy and learning in a digital information age. Reading Teacher, 50(2), 162.
  38. Littlejohn, A., Margaryan, A., & Vojt, G. (2010). Exploring students’ use of ICT and expectations of learning methods. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 8(1), 13-20.
  39. Manuel, K. (2002). Teaching information literacy to Generation Y. Journal of Library Administration, 36(1/2), 195.
  40. Marcum, J.W. (2002). Rethinking information literacy. The Library Quaterly, 72(1), 1-26.
  41. Margaryan, A., & Littlejohn, A. (2008). Repositories and communities at cross-purposes: Issues in sharing and reuse of digital learning resources. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(4), 333-347.
  42. Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., & Vojt, G. (2010). Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Computers and Education, 56(2), 429-440.
  43. Developing Digital Information LiteracyMerriam, S. (1998). Research methods in education and psychology. London: Sage Publications.
  44. Mertens, D. (1998). Research methods in education and psychology. London: Sage Publications.
  45. Metzger, M., Flanagin, A., & Zwarun, L. (2003). College student Web use, perceptions of information credibility, and verification behaviour. Computer Education(41), 271-290.
  46. Milbrath, Y.L., & Kinzie, M.B. (2000). Computer technology training for prospective teachers: Computer attitudes and perceived self-efficacy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 373-396.
  47. Ministry of Ecomonic Development. (2008). Digital Strategy 2.0 Retrieved from http://www.digitalstrategy.govt.nz/Digital-Strategy-2/ Moller, L., Huett, J., Holder, D., & Young, J. (2005). Examining the impact of learning communities on motivation. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6(2), 137-143.
  48. OECD. (2004). Educational policy analysis 2004. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  49. OECD. (2005). Learning a living: First results of the adult literacy and life skills survey. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  50. OECD. (2006). Are students ready for a technology-rich world? What PISA studies tell. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  51. Pajares, F., & Miller, M.D. (1994). Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical problem solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 193-203.
  52. Papert, S. (1998). Child power: Keys to the new learning of the digital century [lecture transcript]. Paper presented at the 11th Colin Cherry Memorial Lecture on Communication, Imperial College, London.
  53. Parappilly, M., Quinton, J.S., & Andersson, G.G. (2009). Enhancing the transition to university physics. Paper presented at the 32nd HERDSA Annual Conference: The Student Experience, Darwin.
  54. Park, Y., & Chen, J. (2007). Acceptance and adoption of the innovative use of smartphone. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 107(9), 1349-1365.
  55. Pedro, F. (2007). The new millenium learners: Challenging our views on digital technologies and learning. Digital Kompetanse, 4, 244-263.
  56. Phelps, R. (2002). Mapping the complexity of computer learning: Journeying beyond teaching for computer competency to facilitating computer. Ph D, Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW. Retrieved from Retrieved from http://works.bepress.com/renata_phelps/ Phelps, R., & Graham, A. (2008). Developing technology together: A whole-school metacognitive approach to ICT teacher professional development. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 24(4), 125-133.
  57. Piper, D.W., & Austin, D. (2004). The influence of self-efficacy on teacher’s practice of using computers in the classroom. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology& Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1365-1371), Chesapeake, VA.
  58. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants, Part II: Do they really think differently? On the Horizon, 9(6), 1-6. Accessed 7 September, 2005 from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/PrenskyDigitalNatives,DigitalImmigrants-Part2002.pdf
  59. Rauhofer, J. (2008). Privacy is dead, get over it! Information privacy and the dream of a risk-free society. Information& Communications Technology Law, 17(3), 185-197.
  60. Riel, M. (2007). Understanding action research. Pepperdine University. Retrieved 19 November, 2009, from http://cadres.pepperdine.edu/ccar/define.html
  61. Rosenthal, R.L. (2010). Older computer-literate women: Their motivations, obstacles, and paths to success. Educational Gerontology, 34(7), 610-626.
  62. Saljo, R. (2010). Digital tools and challenges to institutional traditions of learning: Technologies, social memory and the performative nature of learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 53-64.
  63. Skinner, E.A., & Belmont, M.J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behaviour and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 571-581.
  64. Snyder, I., Angus, L., & Sutherland-Smith, W. (2002). Building equitable literate futures: Home and school computer-mediated literacy practices and disadvantage. (Cover story). Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(3), 367-383.
  65. Stoll, C. (1995). Silicon snake oil: Second thoughts on the information highway. New York: Doubleday.
  66. Tobias, S. (1985). Test anxiety: Interference, defective skills, and cognitive capacity. Educational Psychologist, 20(3), 135-142.
  67. Tuckle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New York: Simon& Schuster.
  68. Twenge, J. (2009). Generation changes and their impact in the classroom: Teaching Generation Me. Medical Education, 43, 398-405.
  69. Wang, Y.-M., & Artero, M. (2005). Caught in the Web: University student use of Web resources Educational Media International, 42(1), 71-82.
  70. Wilson, B.G., Ludwig-Hardman, S., Thornam, C.L., & Dunlap, J.C. (2004). Bounded community: Designing and facilitating learning communities informal courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. Retrieved 14 July 2011, 5, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/204/286 Yi, Y., & Hwang, G.J. (2003). Predicting the use of web-based information systems: Self-efficacy, enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59(4), 431-449.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Links

Also Read

Related Collections