effect of digital literacy on the academic performance of ...

i

EFFECT OF DIGITAL LITERACY ON THE ACADEMIC

PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS AT HIGHER

EDUCATION LEVEL IN PAKISTAN

By

Qaisar Abbas

2013-GCUF-S07623

Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

In

EDUCATION

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

GOVT. COLLEGE UNIVERSITY, FAISALABAD

October, 2018

ii

DEDICATION

All my efforts are dedicated to the “dedication” of my parents and my family. It is

due to their perseverance which brings me at this stage, I was a wandering soul and

speckled one but it was their presences which provided me shade in scorching rays of life.

I was “nothing” but become, something only due to them.

iv

CERTIFICATE BY THE SUPERVISOR

It is certified that research work done on the topic of “Effect of Digital Literacy on the

Academic Performance of Students at Higher Education Level in Pakistan” is the original

work of researcher Mr. Qaisar Abbas, Registration No. 2013-GCUF-S07623. This

research study is carried out under my direct supervision. I supervised each step of

research work personally and gone through all material, data, results described in research

study and hereby certify it is reliable and correct. It is certified that thesis is in accordance

with the prescribed format. I recommend it to be processed for the evaluation by the

External Examiner for the award of degree.

Dr. Shafqat Hussain

Associate Professor/Chairman

Department of Education

Government College University,

Faisalabad.

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I say endless thanks to Almighty God, the most beneficent the most merciful, who

enabled and able me with courage and zeal to complete this tough work. I state warm

gratitude to my research supervisor Dr. Shafqat Hussain Associate Professor and

Chairman Department of Education GC University Faisalabad Pakistan for his continuous

support, motivation, encouragement, constant hard work and guidance during the

research. I am also highly thankful to other faculty members of Education Department

GC University Faisalabad who help me whenever I needed in my research. Countless

thanks to Dr. Shafqat Rasool Watoo Assistant Professor Department of Education GC

University Faisalabad for his continuous support, motivation and appreciation.

Thanks to my teachers, parents, brother, sisters, wife, and children Hussain

Mehdi, Hassan Mehdi, and Alyan Mehdi for their unconditional love and prays for my

success.

(Q.A)

vi

ABSTRACT

The world is rapidly transforming into the digital world and digital technologies have

been fixed permanently in most popular cultures. Every organization is striving to stand

in the online race. These technologies empower everyone to perform the best in their

field, especially in the field of education. Hence, the current study was intended to

investigate the effect of digital literacy on the academic performance of the students at the

higher education level in Pakistan. The aimed objectives were to discover the perceived

level of digital literacy of the students, relationship between digital literacy and academic

performance, communication skills, research skills, confidence level, barriers in learning

and practices of digital literacy, and to assess the significant difference in the perceptions

of students (gender-wise & university sector-wise) about digital literacy. The study was a

mixed-method followed by “QUAN-QUAL” approach. A researcher designed

questionnaire consisting of two parts (part 1 adapted and part 2 developed) and semi-

structured interview was used for data collection. The validity and reliability of the scales

were ensured through expert opinions, pilot testing and scale reliability test (α=0.83). The

population comprised of all the students of M.S/M.Phil and Ph.D studying at general

universities in Punjab, the province of Pakistan. A sample of 800 students was selected

randomly from 10 universities. The statistical tests like mean, sd, t-test and correlation

were used. The outcomes concluded that students had a higher level of perceptions in

three factors of digital literacy whereas students had a moderate level of perceptions in

two factors of digital literacy. Results of correlation revealed that digital literacy had

significant effect on communication skills (r=0.705), research skills (r=0.624) and

confidence (r=0.638) of the students and insignificant effect on students’ CGPA(r= 0-

.25). Moreover, an insignificant difference was noticed during comparison between

gender & university sector wise students’ perceptions about digital literacy factors.

Qualitative results also concluded that CGPA is solely linked with the syllabus of the

program of study and after completion of teachers’ assignments and other academic work,

CGPA could be improved and after following the directions and guidelines of teachers,

students could achieve higher CGPA in their coursework. The results of this study

recommended that public and private universities belonging to the general category

should plan various types of training, workshops, and seminars to enhance maximum

students’ interest in learning and practicing of digital technologies.

Keywords: Digital literacy, academic performance, higher education level

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sr.

No. Contents

Page

No.

Acknowledgement vi

Abstract vii

Table of Contents ix

List of Tables xiii

List of Figures xvi

List of Abbreviation xvii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Rationale of the Study 7

1.2 Statement of the Problem 8

1.3 Objectives of the Study 9

1.4 Research Questions 10

1.5 Significance of the Study 11

1.6 Delimitation of the Study 12

1.7 Operational Definitions 12

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 14

2.1 Philosophy of Traditional Literacy 14

2.2 Literacies of 21st Century 16

2.3 Concept of Visual Literacy 17

2.4 Concept of Technological Literacy 18

2.5 Concept of Computer Literacy 19

2.6 Concept of Information Literacy 19

2.7 Concept of Digital Literacies 21

2.8 Essential Elements of Digital Literacy 30

2.8.1 Concept of Cultural Element 30

2.8.2 Concept of Cognitive Element 31

2.8.3 Concept of Constructive Element 32

2.8.4 Concept of Communicative Element 31

2.8.5 Concept of Confident Element 32

2.8.6 Concept of Creative Element 33

2.8.7 Concept of Critical Element 33

viii

2.8.8 Concept of Civic Element 33

2.9 Digital Literacy Skills 34

2.9.1 Basic Skills 35

2.9.2 Intermediate Skills 35

2.9.3 Advanced Skills 36

2.10 Impact of Digital Literacy on Communication skills 37

2.11 Impact of Digital literacy on building confidence skills 38

2.12 Impact of Digital literacy in promoting research skills 39

2.13 Impact of Digital & e-Resources in Education 40

2.14 Digital Literacy known as skills of 21st century 42

2.15 Applications of Digital Literacy in Education 43

2.16 Applications of Digital Literacy in Society 45

2.17 Applications of Digital Literacy in Workforce 46

2.18 Digital Literacy and Digital Life 47

2.19 Digital literacy in America 47

2.20 Digital literacy in Europe 48

2.21 Digital literacy initiative in Pakistan 50

2.22 Previous Studies about Digital Literacy 53

CHAPTER 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS 56

3.1 Research Design 56

3.2 Population of the study 58

3.3 Sample of the study 58

3.3.1 Sampling Technique 59

3.4 Research Instruments 62

3.4.1 Development of Questionnaire for quantitative data 62

3.4.2 Development of Interview Schedule for Qualitative data 64

3.5 Validity of the Instruments 66

3.6 Pilot Testing 66

3.7 Reliability of the instrument 67

3.8 Data Collection procedures 67

3.9 Data Analysis 68

3.9.1 Analysis of Quantitative Data 68

3.9.2 Analysis of Qualitative Data 70

ix

CHAPTER 4 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 71

4.1 Demographic information of the students 71

4.2 Descriptive analysis of quantitative data (SQ) 76

4.3 Inferential analysis of quantitative data 85

4.4 Analysis of qualitative data 94

CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, FINDING, CONCLUSIONS,

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

99

5.1 Summary of the research study 99

5.2 Findings of Quantitative Data Analysis (SQ) 101

5.3 Findings of Qualitative Data Analysis (SI) 106

5.4 Conclusions of the study 109

5.5 Discussion 116

5.6 Recommendations of the study 117

References 119

Students’ Questionnaire (Annexure –A) 133

Students’ Interview Schedule (Annexure – B) 137

Authority Letter (Annexure – C) 139

List of Experts (Annexure – D) 140

x

LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Title Page

No.

3.1 Detailed explanation of mixed method design and step process 57

3.2 Detail of sampled Universities belongs to public sector 59

3.3 Detail of sampled Universities belongs to private sector 60

3.4 Faculty and department wise details of sample of each Public

University

60

3.5 Faculty and department wise details of sample of each Private

University

61

3.6 University wise details of sample 61

3.7 Factors, variables and items detail of Part I of questionnaire 63

3.8 Factors, variables and items detail of Part II of questionnaire 64

3.9 Factor wise reliability 67

3.10 Objective & research questions wise details of Quantitative Data

Analysis

69

4.1 Description of demographic variable 71

4.2 Means and SDs of students’ perceptions about their Level of

Digital Literacy towards understanding factor

76

4.3 Means and SDs of students’ responses about their Level of Digital

Literacy in Finding Information factor

77


Literacy in critically evaluating information, online interaction,

and online tools factor

78


Literacy in managing and communicating information factor

79


Literacy in collaboration and share of digital content factor

80

4.7 Means and SDs of students’ responses about effect of Digital

Literacy in communication skills factor

81


Literacy to research skills factor

82


Literacy on confidence factor

83

xi

4.10 Means and SDs of students’ responses about barriers in learning

Digital Literacy factor

84

4.11 Relationship between effects of digital literacy on academic

performance of the students

85

4.12 Relationship between effects of digital literacy on students’

communication skills

86

4.13 Relationship between effects of digital literacy on students research

skills

87

4.14 Relationship between effects of digital literacy on students’

confidence level

88

4.15 Comparison among male & female students regarding perceptions

of digital literacy

89


of effect of digital literacy on communication skills

89


of effect of digital literacy on research skills

90


of effect of digital literacy on confidence

90


of barriers towards learning and practices digital literacy

91

4.20 Comparison among public and private sector universities

regarding perceptions of digital literacy

91


regarding perceptions of effects of digital literacy on


92


regarding perceptions of effects of digital literacy on research

skills

92


regarding perceptions of effects of digital literacy on confidence

93


regarding perceptions of barriers towards learning and practices

digital literacy

93

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No. Title Page No.

2.1 Today’s New literacies 17

2.2 Mapping of digital literacies onto various contexts 24

2.3 Components of digital literacy 25

2.4 Model of eight elements of digital literacy 30

2.5 Digital Literacy Skills Model of ITU 36

xiii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

DL Digital Literacy

ICT Information and Communication Technology

OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

ITU International Telecommunication Unit

MoE Ministry of Education

ESRA Pakistan Education Reforms Assistance

NICT National Information Communication Technology

NEP National Education Policy

TV Television

ALA American Library Association

MS Microsoft

HEIs Higher Education Institutions

SQ Students’ Questionnaire

SI Students’ Interviews

AP Academic Performance.

VLE Virtual Learning Environment

ETS Educational Testing Services

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Today we are living in swiftly changing and enormously developing world where new

technologies emerge daily and make the life more complicated. This world is rapidly

transforming into digital world. In most popular cultures digital technologies have

become imbedded. Cell phones are broadly in practice by young people and adults. Many

people are using different websites for getting information about their selected area of

interest. Most of the TV programs, movies, and music are saved at many websites and

easily accessible on computers, MP3 devices as well as online. People communicate

instantly through electronic mail (E-mail) in the whole world. Online banking and

shopping have become more common. Governments too are progressively transferring

their services online or internet-based. Many social networking websites such as Web 2.0

technologies empower people to cooperate with each other through sharing and editing

online content (Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005; Prensky, 2001).

In spite of the fact that, we can’t and must not ignore the dissimilarities that still

present in accessing to digital technologies as well as the internet, it can be believed that

digital media is presently a dominant attribute of many persons’ lives, whatever their age

or status be in society. Most of the young people grow up in a culture in which digital

technologies and media perform an important role, so the abilities, knowledge and

understanding about digital literacy are becoming mandatory. These cultures of digital

technologies have an important characteristic in the dynamic of the generation of present

age particular in the lives of youngsters. This environment of digital technologies

developed a theory that population of this environment particularly students was naturally

better trained to navigating the fast and continual evolution of the digital technologies.

Students born after 1980 are known as Digital Natives, or the Net Generation and they

were assumed to have had the highest experience to digital technologies. Therefore,

students living in this environment would have broad abilities in using these technologies

(Oblinger and Oblinger, 2005; Prensky, 2001).

Additionally, Oblinger and Oblinger (2005) termed that the students of present

generation as “digitally literate” remained connected regularly to others, instant in nature,

pragmatic learners and socially centered creatures. Moreover, Prensky (2001) expressed

2

that educational system of this period was not shaped to educate the students of current

period.

Frand (2000), Prensky (2001) and Oblinger (2003) claimed that the students who

desire to receive information rapidly; and trust greatly in communication technology to

access information and to carry out professional and social collaborations, are known as

digital natives. However, students who are using related and selected technologies like

having knowledge and skill to send mail, ability to work with word processing tools and

social networking websites over the Internet cannot claim to have digital literacy skills

(Littlejohn, Margaryan, & Vojt, 2011).

Eshet-Alkalai (2004) pointed out that many authors described “Digital literacy”

but no one agreed on a particular definition of the term which looks to be indefinable. The

definition of digital literacy is much akin and related to the ideas of information literacy,

IT or computer literacy, as well as several collections of new literacies. People pronounce

the definition of digital literacy vaguely and this fails them to communicate adequately

and understand correctly.

Conferring to Bawden (2001) the first definition of this word “Digital Literacy”

was made in the anonymous book written by Gilster (1997). He explained it as the

particular aptitude to perceive and how to utilize information in numerous formats from

an extensive variety of sources when it is demonstrated using computers. The meanings

of digital literacy presented by Gilster are common and synonym to information literacy.

His description is additionally pivotal on interconnected computer sources and practice of

internet. Gilster made eleven efforts to reach the exact definition of digital literacy from

‘the ability to access interconnected computer resources and their usage’, (Gilster, 1997)

to it being fairly regarding understandings of other individuals and our extensive

capability to communicate them to confer problems and get support. Gilster’s idea was

quoted by various investigators, but Gilster’s claim is that digital literacy is about

‘mastering ideas, not computer operating’ (p.18). These interpretations of digital literacy

misinformed many readers as they thought that digital literacy is only about the technical

aspects.

Gilster (1997) highlights the idea that digital literacy is not only about computer

operating, but about the concepts that we master. Bewden (2001) also said in

straightforward way that the existing formation of the old-style concept of literacy is the

3

talent about reading, writing, and then contract with information through the technology

and setup of the time. Mackey and Jacobson (2013) proclaim that digital literacy is

related to reasoning. Martin and Madigan (2006) too emphasize digital literacy as to

discover a mixture of ideas of digital learning and how these ideas are empowered and

sustained in dissimilar populations.

Martin (2008) conveyed an extensive definition of “Digital Literacy”. He

associates “co-literacies”, like literacy of information and communication technology

(ICT), information literacies, media literacies and visual literacies which have extended

new and improved pertinence in the digital field. Martin further states digital literacy as to

be able to successful in experience with the digital tools that make probability of the

world of 21st era. Martin concentrated on the necessities for becoming skilled at using

electronic tools as essential to success in learning societies relating to digital literacy and

e-learning. He similarly resists that digital literacy comprises obtaining and usage of

knowledge, techniques, attitudes and individual qualities and includes the competency for

planning, executing and evaluating the digital activity too in solving various chores of

life, and the capability to show individual’s personal digital literacy growth. Fieldhouse

and Nicholas (2008) announced that digital literacy is comprised of some particular

digital reading and writing techniques through multiple media forms, containing: words,

texts, visual displays, and motion graphics, audio, video, and multimodal forms. In

addition, Spires and Bartlett (2012) divided digital literacy into three kinds: (a) searching

and consuming digital content, (b) creating digital content, and (c) communicating digital

content by technical abilities.

Subsequently, digital literacy is not only the technical abilities and practices of a

person about how to operate digital device correctly but it involves also a range of

cognitive skills that are used in completing jobs in digital environments, like as searching

through websites, decoding user interfaces, how to work with database, and the

procedures of talking in chat rooms. In this age of technology, digital literacy is

considered as a “survival skill”, a key that supports people to work instinctively in

execution of difficult digital jobs. However, great efforts have been implemented in

current years for explaining and conceptualizing the cognitive skills that people are

implementing in digital fields. This perception of digital literacy in existing digital age as

“what digital literacy is”, has opened another sociocultural horizon of discussion aimed at

4

comprehending about digital literacy as shorthand towards digital literacies (Street, 1984

p.1).

Scribner and Cole (1981) stated that literacy is comprised of some sets of societal

planned practices that make usage of a symbol system as well as technologies for

generating and distributing it. Literacy does not mean only understanding how to translate

or interpret a specific sort of writing but it involves application of this knowledge for

particular cause on particular grounds of usage. Street (1984) said as literacy is finest

defined as epitome of the social application and idea about reading and writing. Gee, Hull

and Lankshear (1996) indicated that literacy is a substance of social practices considering

the viewpoint of cultures.

Literacy is act of performing something with readings and readings are always

reading somewhat. If anybody is unable to understand from reading, then he did not read

it. Thus, readings are always reading somewhat with comprehending. Anything that

anybody study with comprehending is permanently a writing might be a funny book, a

digest, a novel, a poem, a lawful briefing, a mechanical handbook, a syllabus book in

Chemistry, an article of newspaper, an essay related to subjects about social science and

philosophies, some books about self-helping guidelines, some kind of recipes, and so

forth through many different kinds of texts. All of these various kinds of texts need to

some extent different background knowledge and to some extent different skills. If we

stretch out existing arguments as of old literacy to digital literacy it include considering

of “digital literacy” as shorthand for the innumerable societal practices and ideas of

fascinating in defining making mediated by writings that are produced, received,

distributed, exchanged etc., through digital systematization. Therefore, considering the

above citation we may include websites, blogs, computer games, instant message, and

social network pages available on internet, online forum of discussions about any hot

issue, internet memos, FAQs, online search results, and so on (Gee, Hull & Lankshear

,1996).

Eshet-Alkalai (2004) warned in Digital Literacy of the contradiction among those

who perceive digital literacy as primary apprehensive in technological abilities and those

who focus on perceptive and socio economic factors in digital surroundings. In the same

way, it is necessary to differentiate conceptual meanings and standardized operational

meanings of digital literacy (Lankshear & Knobel, 2006). Conceptual demarcations

5

present views of digital literacy contained as a common awareness. Earlier the examiner

Lanham (1995) defined old-fashioned literacy as “the abilities of individual about how to

read any text and how to write something” to know definitions “the abilities to know

information however presented” (p.198). He emphasized on the nature of digital

information and said that digital literacy involves being trained at decoding complicated

pictures and sounds, additionally the syntax elusiveness of words. Standardized

operational definitions of digital literacy means, by contrast, to “functionalize” what is

complicated in being digitally well-educated in connection of certain chores, attainment,

and exposition of abilities and boost these skills as standards for general approbation.

Adjacent to other researcher Martin (2006) also argues on digital literacies and

digital societies particularly focusing on the pure variety and complication of ideas of

digital literacies. He placed digital literacy toward website literacies of the digital and

included with computers literacies, information literacies, technical literacies, media

literacies, communication literacies, visual literacies, network literacies, e-literacies,

digital competency, and digital building. Buckingham (2010) too defined digital literacy

as literacy of webs, game literacy, and creating digital media in the circumstances of

emerging ideas of digital literacies in terms of what an adult needs to understand

regarding digital media. These pure varieties communicate as of digital literacy can be

taken as a basis for incorporating numerous supplementary literacies and collection of

skills without incorporating them all or considering as one literacy to rule them all.

However, it tells us that any effort to establish a parasol meaning or leading structure of

digital literacy will essentially include reconciliation of entitlements about various

perceptions of digital literacy, an accurate crowd of digital literacies (Martin, 2006).

The pronunciation of digital literacy by American Library Association (ALA)

Digital Literacy Taskforce (2011) is the person’s abilities about usage of ICTs to

discover, assess, make, and communicate obtained information, using intellectual and

technical talents. Furthermore, they pronounce that individuals should equip with some

advanced skills of digital literacy. An individual who holds variety of abilities such as

cognitive thinking, understanding about technical tools which are compulsory for locating

information, understanding information, evaluating it, creating in new shape, and

communicating digital information in a wide kinds of designs. A digital literate person is

he/she who holds various skills for operating various technological devices properly and

6

meritoriously for retrieving information, evaluating the quality of that information and

interpreting outcomes.

The notable work that was completed by Belshaw (2011) suggested the concept of

digital literacies comprising of eight necessary elements that become very popular which

are known as cultural, cognitive, constructive, communicative, confident, creative, critical

and civic literacy. The writer also pointed out that regardless of differences in the

components, these skill-focused interpretations, at numerous points, include content

evaluation and critical thinking. He further identified digital literacy as the capability of

reading, understanding and employing energetic non-related information as the base for

the notion of digital literacy. The common harmony between these investigators, as

Eshet-Alkalai (2004) indicates, appears to be that digital literacy goes beyond the mere

abilities to handle a device and incorporates a multiplicity of difficult cognitive, motor,

sociological, and emotional abilities compulsory for proper operations in digital

environments.

Hargittai (2005) discovered that digital literacy skill and students’ abilities for

using the Internet as a resource differs vividly, considering the gender, cultural

characteristics and socio-economic circumstances of the students. The evolution of

technological tools, especially digital technologies has provoked immediate and

revolutionary changes in the world we understand. Due to these changes students of

existing time think and process information tremendously different from their

antecedents.

The study done by Fairlie et al., (2010) discovered strong positive effects about

school graduation and other outcomes relevant to education field. It was also discovered

that computer literacy influences the results of the students as well as the performance in

other academic assignments. Earlier, another study titled effects of computers

accessibility and digital literacy on academic performance of the students, was discovered

by Amiri (2009) and concluded a positive influence of digital literacy with the students’

academic performance. The study also discovered some other positive influences of

digital literacy regarding students’ involvement in learning procedures. Likewise, the

investigation made by Lopez-Islas (2013) on deprived group of high school learner also

discovered strong relationship among digital literacy and academic performance of the

learners in an online learning program designed by the school. The research concluded

7

that improved environment and easy access towards digital literacy and information

communication technology has positive effects on performance of the students. It was

also discovered that through enhancing the practice of internet for social and amusement,

which in turn led to a higher practice of the various learning platform software and to well

digital and academic skills. These talents discovered positive effects on academic

performance of the learners.

Institutions of higher education such as universities are considered as the

dominant agents of development in the society. These institutions such as universities are

also considered for higher education that gives services for instructing and research and is

recognized for issuing various degrees such as bachelor, master, and doctorate. The main

goal of university is to help in the growth of the nation by providing the high and skillful

manpower which is compulsory for the development of the country. These goals can be

achieved through program of education, studying research and communal favoring (Okiy,

2003). This place university education at the upper rank of educational system as it is

outlined for accommodating, obtaining knowledge and making new discoveries (Anunobi

& Nwogwugwu, 2013). This study fill the gap in existing literature as it focused on

evaluating students’ perceived level of digital literacy and its relationship with their

academic performance at Higher education level in Pakistan.

1.1 Rationale of the Study

In this technological era, the daily life has become more complicated by emerging

technologies day by day. The world is rapidly transforming into the digital world and

digital technologies have been fixed permanently in most popular cultures. Every

organization is standing in the queue to become online first. Many people are using

different websites for searching as well as sharing information about their selected area of

interest. These technologies empower everyone to perform best in their field, especially in

the education field. This environment of digital technologies established a concept that

inhabitants of this environment, particularly students, are unable to combat with the

digital world without achieving proper skills of digital literacy. Digital literacy may

contribute to effective usage of various software and computer programs related to

education, such as Microsoft word, spreadsheet, power point, and some other statistical

software packages regarding completion of academic projects. Digital literacy is also

expected to serve a critical usage of the information present on the websites, decreasing

8

the chances of referencing untrustworthy sources. Commonly, at academic level it is clear

that digital literacy might enhance the skills of the students to use computers and online

resources in educational field in productive ways.

In the context of our country, Pakistan, digital technologies are still under

involving phase in most of the organization related to education. Hence, in this

technological era, students have to use various technological tools and resources for

learning during their higher studies. In this regard, digital literacy is an important feature

for students to achieve their goals of education in this modern world.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

As Pakistan is lacking behind in the digital literacy globally, hence there is earnest

need to peep into the situation and take maximum benefits of digital literacy because in

this era of innovation and technological advancement, digital literacy is recognized as the

new label for education. There is no choice for teachers and students to gain a level of

digital literacy to walk with the rising digital world. Governments as well as higher

education institutions (HEIs) are also striving hard to provide environments for online

learning to acquire some levels of digital literacy of the common people as well as the

university students. Most of the developed and developing countries are making all

efforts by figuring out an essential program about digital literacy for the preparation of

educators and the learners. Moreover, the perceptions of globalization, global-village,

information or knowledge culture, e-pedagogy, e-students and e-courses all are forming

and increasing stresses on the governments, HEIs, and academicians to take strong

initiatives aimed at digital literacy of the masses for the production of personnel for e-

Government, e-Commerce and e-Learning.

Moreover, digital literacy is particular skills that enable students to succeed in

manipulating the infrastructures of electronic environments with some devices which

empower students to compete the challenges of the 21st century. In educational sector

digital literacy has become a dominant empowering factor, as an outcome of various

tendencies. The most important thing which is noticed by researchers is the world

becoming e-pervaded. Electronic devices and facilities now support the practice of most

sectors of society and human activities. It does not mean that these devices are changing

the societies; Electronic facilities may only increase existing practice by making it

quicker and easier. Is it an additional question that the increasing influence of these

9

alterations will modify the nature of society? However, the fact that the world is e-

pervaded means the people who can comprehend and know how to use e-facilities

become considerably succeeded, in forms of educational achievement, employment

predictions and new features of life. Education, as well as other subdivisions, is speedily

implementing electronic means.

However, the advancement of electronic gadgets for education has run alongside,

and been to some extent fuelled by, a prototype shift in strategies about educating as well

as learning. Through shifting in the direction of student centered and with the models of

constructivist learning, electronic gadgets are considered as key pivotal in realizing

studying environments of online communication, and researching confidently.

Proficiency of the electronic gadgets consequently achieves the status of a claim for the

learner if he/she is to learn successfully. Keeping in view the above scenario it is

inevitable to adopt digital literacy techniques to equip the students at higher education

level with better performance. Hence, this study focused on influence of digital literacy

on the academic performance of students. The study also aimed at to investigate students’

practices and level of digital literacy and its relationship with their academic

performance, communication skills, research skills, confidence and barriers towards

learning digital literacy.

1.3 Objectives of the Study

In the light of above explanations of the digital literacy, following objectives were

designed to explore their answers:

1. To discover the perceived level of digital literacy of the students at higher

education level

2. To find out the perceived level of communication skills of the students at higher

education level

3. To probe the perceived level of research skills of the students at higher education

level

4. To explore the perceived level of confidence skills of the students at higher

education level

5. To investigate the effect of digital literacy on the academic performance of the

students at higher education level

10

6. To inspect the effect of digital literacy on the communication skills of the students

at higher education level

7. To probe the effect of digital literacy on the research skills of the students at

higher education level

8. To Probe the effect of digital literacy on the confidence level of the students at


9. To investigate the barriers in learning and practices of digital literacy at higher

education level

10. To compare the significant difference in the perceptions of students (gender-wise)

(public & private) about digital literacy, communication skills, research skills,

confidence and regarding barriers in learning and practices of digital literacy.

1.4 Research Questions

In the light of objectives, following research questions were formulated:

1. What is the perceived level of digital literacy of the students at higher education

level?

2. What is the perceived level of communication skills of the students at higher

education level?

3. What is the perceived level of research skills of the students at higher education

level?

4. What is the perceived level of confidence skills of the students at higher education

level?

5. What are the barriers in learning and practices of digital literacy at higher

education level?

6. Is there any significant relationship between the perceived level of digital literacy

and academic performance of the students?


and communication skills of the students?


and research skills of the students?


and the confidence skills of the students?

10. Are there any noteworthy changes between the opinions of male and female

scholar regarding digital literacy?

11

11. Are there any noteworthy changes between the views of male and female scholars

regarding communication skills?

12. Are there any noteworthy changes between the perceptions of male and female

scholars regarding research skills?

13. Are there any noteworthy changes between the judgments of male and female

scholars regarding confidence?

14. Are there any noteworthy changes between the views of male and female scholars

regarding barriers in learning and practices of digital literacy?

15. Are there any noteworthy changes between the opinions of students of public and

private sector universities regarding digital literacy, communication skills,

research skills, and confidence?

1.5 Significance of the Study

The existing research is noteworthy as digital literacy is documented as an

important tool of daily life in 21st century. Most of the professions required some level of

skills about digital literacy like how to work on computer and other technological tools,

how to proficiently navigate the internet and discover trustworthy information, how to use

technological tools for communication, and how to manage data. Students studying at the

institutions of higher education are labeled as the future leaders; therefore it is inevitable

that the future leaders must be digital literate so as to perform actively in the society as

well as for the development of the country. This critical analysis is important as it may

provide with a background of the types of skills that are required for digital literacy.

Additionally, the study is significant as it discovers the level of abilities of digital literacy

of the students at higher education level in Pakistan. This study is important for the

incorporation of digital literacy in teaching learning process. The study is significant

because it is backbone for discovering various elements towards digital literacy like

communication, research, confidence, barriers, and the performance of the scholars at

higher education level in Pakistan.

The main focus of this research is on investigating out how respondents perceive

digital literacy, awareness of students about the culture of digital technologies, how

students use cognitive domain to use technological tools, understanding of the students

how to be constructive in digital environment, how to use technological tools for

communication, students’ confidence during participation in online community, students’

skills for creation of new things by using online tools and environment, searching online

12

resources and differentiate reliable or un-reliable, and students’ awareness about their

responsibilities and rights in digital environment. Thus, the results of the study may be

helpful for the students, teachers, and institutions of higher education, policy makers, and

government to distinguish the gaps regarding integration of digital literacy in teaching-

learning process in this technological era.

1.6 Delimitation of the Study

Keeping in view the time and resources the research study is delimited to only 10

general universities (05 public and 05 private & high ranked by HEC) located in the

province of the Punjab, Pakistan.

1.7 Operational Definitions

Digital Literacy:

Digital literacy is the person’s abilities about usage of information and

communication technology to discover, evaluate, create, and communicate information,

using cognitive and technical skills (American Library Association Digital Literacy

Taskforce, 2011).

Academic Performance:

Academic performance is defined as outcomes of education, and the level to

which a student has achieved his/her educational goals (Annie, Howard & Mildred,

1996).

Higher Education:

All Pakistani Universities imparting higher education to the students that are

recognized & accredited by Higher Education Commission of Pakistan.

Communication skills:

Communication skills in digital literacy are known as those skills that people use

during communicating their ideas through mobile telephones, social media, and some

computer software. It is probably to utilize spoken language to communicate some

conversations in real time, as if a user is face to face with another user in chat groups or

online forums (Crystal, 2006).

Research Skills:

13

Research skills in digital literacy are considered as the student’s ability to search,

locate, organize, evaluate and use information that is relevant to a particular subject

through electronic resources.

Confidence:

Confidence in digital literacy is considered as the student’s understanding about

digital environment of digital technologies, online interaction through social media

website and use of information and communication technologies for work, leisure,

learning and communication (JISC, 2009).

Barriers:

Barriers in digital literacy are referred as to those hindrances that students face

during learning and practice of digital technologies at higher educational level.

14

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter aimed at to review comprehensively the existing literature relevant to the

concept and origin of digital literacy and relationship between digital literacy and the

academic performance of the students. The main focus in existing literature is to fetch the

knowledge and background about the phenomena under study to create the researcher’s

own concept about digital literacy. Digital literacy is considered as life skill and nobody

can deny the importance of digital literacy in every aspect of life. Due to central role of

digital literacy in this thesis the present chapter will begin with a discussion of the most

important theories and key concepts of 21st century literacies. The chapter will also

consider the latest theory and key notion of digital literacy covering the maximum skills

of students towards digital literacy and will relate these theories and key concepts to the

performance of the students studying at higher education level in Pakistan.

2.1 Philosophy of Traditional Literacy

Traditional Literacy had been defined with numerous interpretations by many

philosophers in past. Literacy is the representation of some skills needed to perform

efficiently in knowledge society. The main function of literacy is to empower people to

communicate their issue to other people for getting their advice to remove these

problems. However, the most popular definition of traditional literacy was explained by

Moats (2000). According to him traditional literacy is considered as the ability of a

person to use written language or the ability of reading, writing, listening and speaking

are the characteristics of traditional literacy. In addition, Bawden (2008, p 220) stated the

simplest form of traditional literacy and announced that literacy involves the abilities

about usage of language in its written forms. According to him “A person is literate who

holds abilities of reading, writing and understanding his or her mother language and can

explain simple feelings in written form. Contrary to this definition UNESCO (2009, p71)

demarcated literacy for the global population as the “capability to classify, comprehend,

explain, generate, communicate, calculate and use written and printed substance related

by means of different contexts. Literacy includes a continuing of learning in empowering

people to accomplish their objectives, to improve their information and prospective, and

to join completely in their society and broader community”.

15

Conferring to the interpretations presented by United States National Literacy Act

in 1991, that literacy is a person’s capability about reading, writing and speaking in

English to discover answers of a problem at a level of skill essential to play role in a

society, to attain person’s aims and to grow person’s understanding and prospective. On

the other hand the interpretations proposed by Street (1984) about literacy are the ideas

related to reading, writing and all kinds of social practices. Many philosophers favored

this comprehensive explanation through which social contexts of literacy practices were

also appraised (Warschauer, 2010), stating that what is considered skillful reading and

writing varies with the historical, political and socio-cultural circumstances (Gee, 1996).

When the circumstance is considered, literacy becomes “having mastery over the process

by means of which culturally important information is coded” (De Castell & Luke, 1988,

p.159).

Professional judgments favor the idea of literacy on a continuum that contains the

capability to replicate letter combinations at one extreme and the capability to engage in

logical thinking, higher ordered cognitive skills and reasoning on the other (Clifford,

1984). Furthermore, Lankshear and Knobel (2008) claimed that literacy has numerous

changed explanations under varying social circumstances and that the nature of the

concept changes within the circumstances of textual work. On the other hand, investigator

Leu et al., (2004) declared that attaining an accurate meaning of literacy is impossible

because its definitions change regularly.

Most of the literature relevant to literacy of the last period focused on what is the

exact meaning of literacy and how to become literate in modern culture, referred to a

range of skills that connect to digital technologies. The said meanings frequently

endeavor to expand the traditional concept of literacy beyond its application to the

method of writing (Buckingham, 2006; Livingstone, 2004 & Warschauer, 2010). The

word media literacy in the beginning concerned with the ability of analyzing valued

works of literature and to communicate efficiently through good writing (Brown, 1998).

However, after the appearance of the computer, the internet and other digital

technologies, it became controversial whether the notion of media literacy could simply

be enlarged or that these media had divergent characteristics and usage opportunities

requiring further kinds of literacy. The skill to critically assess media content has

converted into a general capability to assess the validity and reliability of information

sources and has extended to cover the active involvement necessary for interactive digital

16

media. Likewise, the notion of digital literacy has examined a dynamic complement

towards reading, writing and understanding text in the existing century (Jenkins et al.,

2006).

Generally researchers agreed that traditional reading, writing and understanding

obtained from a long tradition of book and other print media are no longer sufficient. The

internet gives new text formats, purposes for reading and methods to interact with

information that can confuse and overwhelm persons who are only taught to extract

interpretations from conventional print texts (Coiro, 2003). Hereafter, old-fashioned

literacy perception is the ability of reading, writing and understanding texts, which also

outlined under the shadow terms fundamental or functional literacy. Most of the literature

about traditional literacy states that literacy practices involve reading and writing in print

formats, or in the print environment are referred to as traditional literacy skills and

practices (Kymes, 2005; Colwell, 2013; Afflerbach et al., 2014; Nauman & Salmeron,

2016), whereas engaging in literacy practices in electronic formats, or in the digital

environment, falls under the digital literacies category. Traditional or functional literacies

can be considered the primary dimensions of all literacies ideas (Frisch et al., 2012). So,

these foundations are the basic dimensions of digital literacies of 21st century.

2.2 Literacies of 21st Century

Advancements in technology are forming new possibilities, practices, demands

and hence new literacies. Various new literacies have developed with distinctive levels as

well as usages changing across different situations, depending on developing needs

(Belshaw, 2011; Churchill, 2009). New literacies of this era are collection of some

important abilities, which are required to create and communicate meanings, develop one-

self, and participate in a speedy changing society. As, the world is converting into digital

and everything is shifting online such as various kinds of online shopping stores, teaching

and learning platforms, online banking system, online selling and purchasing platforms

and much more. This innovative environment demands some particular skills to be

successful in every field of life as well as in the field of education. Similarly, another

famous researcher known as Martin (2008) described the literacies of 21st era after

modifying his earlier concept of literacies offered in 2006. These literacies such as

computer literacy or IT/ICT, technological literacy, information literacy, media literacy,

visual literacy, and communication literacy are considered the basis of digital literacy.

17

The following new literacies of this era are shown in figure (2.1).

Figure 2.1: Today’s new literacies (Churchill, 2009, Slide 5)

2.3 Concept of Visual Literacy

The idea of “visual literacy” was at first exhibited by John (1969) in which he

expressed that visual education alludes to a gathering of vision-skills of a man who can

create by review and in the meantime incorporating other tactile experience. The

development of these capacities is basic to ordinary a human-body. These capacities

enable an outwardly proficient individual to separate and clarify the unmistakable

activities, objects, images, common or counterfeit, that he experiences in his condition. A

man can appreciate the masterworks of visual correspondence and the capacity to

comprehend and discuss successfully with others through the act of these abilities

(Avgerinou & Ericson, 2002, p.281). This translation of visual literacy is firmly fixing to

those encompassing customary education as it notices clarifying images, correspondence,

and comprehension. Eddy (2013) further added that the people’s skills regarding

interpretation, negotiation and making meanings from the information offered in the form

of an image is known as visual literacy. It is based on the concept that images can be

“read” and that meaning can be through a process or reading. Riddle (2009) too stated

that continuous advancement in technologies at an exceptional ratio, the teachers are also

promoting the learning of visual literacies in this information age.

18

Language is considered as the primary element in print form, whereas pictorial

elements like as the physical situation or strategy format and pictures are less important or

helpful elements. In contemporary technological media, just the reverse is accurate. The

visual dominates; the verbal augment. However, the print form is still alive, and cannot be

removed from our culture. Mostly whatever we understand and learn; what we purchase

and trust, what we identify and wish, is determined through the powers of the human soul

by the photos which will increase in future (Dondis, 1974). Individual who adopted this

principle was cautious toward stress, the position of being able to both decodes and

encodes, generating and communicating through photographs. Additionally, the notion of

visual literacy also demarcated as it is the ability to understand photos, create photos

using various media, and communicate these photos efficiently to others. People having

these types of skills can be called visually literate and due to these abilities they can

produce and explain visual messages effectively (Considine, 1986).

2.4 Concept of Technological Literacy

The notion of ‘visual literacy’ remained popular by the ending of 1990, ultimately

being wrapped by umbrella terms with grouping of two or more literacies. Additionally

toward visual literacy since the 1970s ahead came the development of the term

“technology literacy”. It begins to pick up money as a developing mindfulness grabbed

hold of the potential risks to the situations of innovative advancement and also financial

feelings of dread in the western nations with respect to the opposition posted by

technologically more capable countries. Digital proficiency or computer expertise

remained a mixing of proficiency based concerns with a more academic methodology

prompting United States government encouraged delivery titled “Technology for All

Americans”. This separated it as “Technological education is the capability to utilize…

..the key arrangement of the time by guaranteeing that every single mechanical movement

is productive and fitting and writing data into new bits of knowledge” (Martin, 2008,

p.158). The understanding of technology education was advanced thinking about the

necessities of monetary and political concerns. Technological ability was diminished to

be placed “technology literate” implies knowing how to utilize a specific bit of

innovation. Consequently, Technological literacy is additionally expansive an idea as

almost all methods of communications are technologies. Discussions about and

supporters of technological ability had normally diminished by the consummation of

19

1980 and beginning 1990s. Subsequently, the computer literacy established with the start

of Personal Computers, known as meanings of computer literacy (Gurak, 2001).

2.5 Concept of Computer Literacy

The concept of computer literacy was developed by the start of 1980 after the

inclusion of computer in job related fields. It supports everyone in every field. It was a

struggle to give a job-linked feature to the use of computer and to explain how computer

is beneficial in every field of studying (Buckingham, 2008). In the same lines, Hunter

(1984, p.45) recognized computer literacy as “the ability and knowledge compulsory for

all citizens to survive and thrive in a culture that depends on technology”. In the same

lines Scher (1984, p.25) explains that “proper understandings about technology which

empower an individual to live and cope in modern world”. On the other hand Simonson et

al., (1987, p.232) declared computer literacy as “comprehension of computer features,

abilities and applications besides skills to implement this information in the skillful and

productive utilization of computer programs”.

Later, in the 1990s the term “computer literacy” lost its reliability with the

invention of Information and communication literacy (ICT) as mostly computer is

considered best for communication. The idea of “ICT literacy” became popular in the

1990 and various organizations adopted this technology. Researcher who thinks that it is

complete term of ICT literacy proposed a three-phase process to become literate in ICT.

The first term of ICT literacy is about the knowledge and skills regarding usage of

spreadsheets and word processing applications. The second ability of ICT literacy is how

to be engaged with communities available online such as sending emails and searching

through internet. The third and last ability of ICT literacy is how to be engaged in e-

learning through available system (Cook & Smith, 2004). Contrary to these explanations,

the ICT literacy Panel (2002) viewed ICT literacy as the usage of digital technologies,

communication tools and networks for accessing, managing, integrating, evaluating, and

creating information to perform in a knowledge culture is called ICT literacy.

2.6 Concept of Information Literacy

In the early 1970 the term “information literacy” was introduced and it suffered

various changes in its interpretations. Contrasting to technology literacy, computer

literacy and ICT literacy which is not at all limited by technologies became outdated.

Information literacy which is not dependent upon any one technology or group of

20

technologies, information literacy enthusiastically empower librarian (Martin, 2008), and

it also supports government as well (Fieldhouse & Nicholas, 2008). Certainly,

information literacy was explained as some habit of mind instead of skills. Actually,

information literacy is considered as a way of thinking in lieu of group of skills. It is a

grid of basic and intelligent abilities and precise inventive contemplations that desire the

student to extend comprehensively by means of the data condition. At the point when

maintained by way of a steady studying condition at course, program or institutional

level, information literacy can turn into a dispositional propensity “a propensity for the

brain” that looks for continuous change and self-control in the request, research, and

joining of information from different sources (Center for Intellectual Property in the

Digital Environment, 2005).

The term of “Information literacy” was increased through developing the concept

comprised of some stages explained by American Libraries Association in 1989. The

members of Association suggested that an information literate individual would be able to

identify when information is required. Information literate persons have the abilities to

discover, assess, and use required information meritoriously (Fieldhouse & Nicholas,

2008). Bawden (2008) stated that the following six-stages are necessary to become an

information literate person:

Stage I: Identifying a need for information

Stage II: Recognizing what type of information is required

Stage III: Finding the information

Stage IV: Evaluation of the information

Stage V: Organization of the information

Stage VI: Utilization of the information

Regardless of this, philosophers recommend information literacy as “overarching

mastery of lives in the 21st era” (Bruce, 1997) and organizations like Association of

Colleges and Research Libraries United States introduced some “performance indicators”

regarding the idea of information literacy suffered from a deficiency of evocative force

(Martin, 2008, p.159).

It is additionally aggressive in extension, other than far reaching in the application

and not sufficiently exact in detail to be valuable in a noteworthy way. Indeed, even a

move from looking at being “information literacy” to “information savvy” (Fieldhouse

21

and Nicholas, 2008, p.47) keeps running into hitches for the comparative causes.

Meanings of the idea of information literacy are excessively target and autonomous of the

student, notwithstanding when there are some key attributes to progress in the direction of

work.

2.7 Concept of Digital Literacies

The term digital literacy was based upon various former literacies like visual

literacy, technological literacy, computer literacy, ICT literacy and information literacy

when these literacies become ineffective. Many struggles were adopted to explore new

and unique term more applicable with digital communications and internet age. The idea

of digital literacy was taken from the book of Gilster (1997) on Digital Literacy. His

attempts at enlightening the idea about digital literacy is “the ability to access networked

computer resources and use them” to it being “partly about understanding of other

persons and our extended skills to contact them to argue issues and get help” (Gilster,

2007). Although, Gilster did not present the idea of digital literacy but the favorable title

of his book was criticized for interpreting various definitions of digital literacy with

Gilster’s individual writing style as a cause why it did not have an direct effect. However,

publication of Gilster did begin to have effect in the beginning of 21st century with other

referencing his common expression of idea as strength (Bawden, 2008). Meanwhile, the

initiation of digital literacy it collected popularity, criticism and also gone through many

stages of development by many authors who tried to explain digital literacy within their

perceptions.

Later on, Bawden (2008) identified the Gilster’s perception about digital literacy

in following lines:

1. Knowledge assembly, constructing some dependable information store from

diverse sources

2. Retrieving abilities and critical thinking for making informed judgment regarding

recovered information with caution about the validity and totality of internet

sources

3. Skills how to read and understand non-sequential and dynamic material

4. Knowledge about the value of customary gadgets in conjunction with networked

media

5. Knowledge of “people networks” as source of advice and help by filters and

agents to manage incoming information

22

6. Be relaxed with publication and communicating information and assessing it

(Bawden, 2008, p.20)

Similarly, Martin (2008) also extracted following five key element from the prior

research literature about digital literacies:

1. Digital literacy contains some skills to perform effective digital activities

engrained inside working places, studying, relaxation, and all other features of

daily life;

2. For individual, digital literacy will differ confirming to individual actual life

condition in addition be an continuing permanent procedure developing as the

individual’s life situation develops;

3. Digital literacy is broader as compare to ICT literacy, and digital literacy will

comprise components drawn from various allied digital literacies;

4. Digital literacy consisting of obtaining and using knowledge, methods, attitude

and own talents and will contain the capability for planning, executing and

evaluating digital movements within the solution of daily life responsibilities;

5. Digital literacy also contains the competency to understand one-self as a digitally

equipped individual and to reflect on individual’s own digital literacy

development.

Correspondingly, the under mentioned skills framework was presented by Eshet-

Alkalai and Amichai-Hamburger (2004):

1. Skills used for photo-visual (ability to read instructions from graphic

representation)

2. Skills for reproduction (ability to use digital reproduction for creating novel and

understandable material from earlier)

3. Skills for branching (building knowledge from non-linear, hyper-textual

navigation)

4. Information skill (ability how to evaluate the worth and authority of information)

5. Socio-emotional skills (knowledge about regulation that essential in cyberspace

and knowledge about how to apply these regulation when participate in online

forums.

Tornero (2004) agreed with the interpretation of digital literacy presented by

UNESCO (2002), similar to the definition of media literacy. He indicated four features

that involved in the process of digital literacy. According to him these features empower

23

people in using digital technologies to communication effectively and quickly. It also

enables people to become active member of online community in an online environment.

These features provide the basis of technology. These features are presented as under:

1. Operational (Capability to use computer and communication technology)

2. Semiotic (Skills regarding usage of languages that involved in the new multimedia

world)

3. Cultural (Ability how to be a good member of an environment of intellectuals in

an information society)

4. Civic (Awareness regarding rights, laws and duties relevant to new technological

environment)

Agreeing to the research carried out by JISC (2009a) in United Kingdom states

digital and new literacies as “Our comprehension of studying literacies involves the

variety of practice that supports operational learning in a digital era. The term learning

literacies states the stress among literacy as a general capacity for thinking,

communicating perceptions and intellectual work that universities have supported

conventionally, and the digital technologies and networks which are changing what it

means to work, think, learn and communicate” (p.2).

This interpretation of digital literacy is therefore, conceivably purposely unclear:

“the collection of practices that support effective studying in a digital era, the confidence

in addition critical usage of ICT for work, enjoyment, studying and communicating”. This

interpretation of digital literacy includes academic practices, information literacy, media

literacy and ICT skills, between others (JISC, 2009b, p.1). JISC’s (2009) digital literacies

development framework focuses on:

1. Personal & social context

2. Learning context

3. Community context

4. Workplace context

5. ICT & Media Marketplace

The diagram presented by JISC’s (2009c) about digital literacies development

framework displays from foundational to wider contexts. His framework is totally based

on the ICT skills that are required for every person in modern life. His framework of

digital literacy is consisted of the literacy practices based upon information and

communication technologies abilities: (Figure-2.2)

24

The digital literacies model of 21st century (Figure 2.2)

Figure-2.2 (JISC’s model of digital literacies)

The term ‘digital literacy’ has an absolutely long history which developed

gradually. Its first phase started by the ending of 1960s when customary explanations of

‘literacy’ lost somewhat essential from the progressively visual nature of the media

formed by society. John (1969) presented an unconfirmed meaning for perception he

stated “visual literacy”. “Visual literacy mentions to a cluster of vision-competencies

humankind can grow by looking and at the similar time having and adding additional

sensual capabilities. The growth of these abilities is a foundation towards normal human

studying. These competencies empower a visually literate individual to distinguish and

explain the visible movements, objects, symbols, natural or artificial, that he meets in his

environment. Individuals are able to communicate with others by using these creative

abilities and capable to understand and delight the masterworks of visual communication”

(John, mentioned in Avgerinou & Ericson, 1997, p.281). This explanation is closely

knotted to that adjacent customary literacy which refers to explaining symbols,

communication and understanding.

The word digital literacy was initially declared and broadly promoted in the

document of Gilster, who explained digital literacy by way of the “capability to

25

understanding and using information in multiple formats from a wide variety of sources

when it is presented through computers” (p.1). He also highlighted critical thinking

instead of technical competences as the fundamental skills. This notion of educated

judgment has been dominant to most understanding of digital literacy (Gillen & Barton,

2009). In the same way Payton and Hague (2010) also highlighted the importance of

critical commitment with technology as well as social awareness of elements affecting

how technology is used to transfer meaning. These authors also formed an interconnected

list of components of digital literacy as presented in the following diagram.

The components of digital literacy diagram (Figure 2.3)

Figure 2.3: (Components of digital literacy (Payton and Hague, 2010, p. 6)

Later on, Bawden (2008) initially stated digital literacy as the capability of

reading and understanding hyper-textual and multimedia writings and Belshaw (2012)

explain it as the developing notion of digital literacy has produced a crowd of definitions.

However, pluralism is a latest trend towards conceptualizing digital literacy. In a

remarkable work that was a result of his earlier study in 2011, Belshaw (2012) suggested

the concept of digital literacies, forming up of eight vital elements, namely, culture,

cognitive, constructive, communicative, confident, creative, critical, and civic literacy.

The researcher also pointed out that, despite variations in the components, these skills

26

centered definitions, at various points, centredon content assessment and critical thinking.

Likewise, the ability of reading, understanding, and manipulating dynamic non-sequential

information were indicated by Belshaw (2012) as the foundation for the concept of digital

literacy. The common accord between these investigators, as Eshet-Alkalai (2004) points

out, appears to be that digital literacy goes beyond the basic capability to operate a device

and encompasses a range of difficult cognitive, motor, sociological, and emotional skills

essential for effective functioning in digital environments.

Concerning the social features of digital literacy, Gilster’s (1997)

conceptualization also indicates that it is more than a skillset, but the related practice of

the skills in a person’s life. The interpretation of digital literacy as a survival skill, a life-

skill or a way of life and not primarily linked with formal education, has recently been

promoted (Eshet-Alkalai, 2004; European Commission, 2008; Martin & Grudziecki,

2006).Translating Gilster’s (1997) idea of digital literacy, Bawden (2008) points out that

the concept of digital literacy could be viewed as the capability to process information

utilizing the technological formats of the time. This might help as a sound reason for

Gilster’s (1997) general concept of digital literacy, without any lists of particular skills,

competencies or attitudes, being the one to which apparently most literature reviews have

mentioned and from which may definitions have been derived (Bawden, 2008).

On the other hand, Ranieri, Fini, and Calvani (2009) consider the digital literacy

as palpable and impalpable. They describe that digital literacy is having the ability to

search and viewing new technological situations in a way that should be flexible, for

evaluating, selecting and critically evaluating information or data, to utilize technological

potentials in order to represent and solve issues and generate shared and collaborative

knowledge, while developing knowledge of individual’s own personal responsibility and

the respect of reciprocal obligations/rights (p. 60-61). Digital Literacy is known as broad

concept which contains various literacies. The two most important literacies which are

based upon the umbrella term of digital literacy are information literacy and Web 2.0

literacy. The first information literacy demanded recognizing the necessity for

information, the skill to discover information, the ability of critical thinking to assess

information, and the efficiency and capability to utilize the information. The second

literacy is Web 2.0 which incorporates high levels of user interactivity and engagement,

intellectual rigor, collaboration and collective knowledge. The skills for Web 2.0 literacy

27

are, understanding and competency of using Web 2.0 tools and technologies and the skills

to frequently update content within. The tools of Web 2.0 comprise blogs, wikis,

podcasts, photo-sharing, RSS feeds, and social bookmarking. Persons who are literate in

Web 2.0 will be able to participate actively within the World Wide Web by making and

communicating digital information and artifacts using these tools (Anderson, 2007 &

O’Reilly, 2005). Ranieri, Fini, and Calvani (2009), Anderson, (2007), and O’Reilly’s,

(2005) interpretations of digital literacy contains both information and Web 2.0 literacies.

The advent of Web 2.0, as well as social media applications available online,

announces some other measurements of understanding author-ship, privacy and

plagiarism (Anderson, 2007) a combination of Information literacy, Technology Literacy,

creativity and ethics. The following table 1 reflects major sub-disciplines that cover the

field of digital literacy:

Table 2.1

Sub-disciplines of Digital Literacy

Sub-Disciplines Definition

Computer Literacy It deals with the knowledge and understanding about the

usage of computer in addition to application software for

practical determinations (Martin & Grudziecki, 2006).

Information Literacy Information literacy deals with searching online sources,

evaluating, combining the material, analyzing the

trustworthiness of sources, using and citing legally and

ethically, concentrating subjects and framing questions &

hypothesis for research in perfect, effective, and efficient

manner (Eisenberg, Lowe & Spitzer, in Meyer et al., 2010,

p.2)

Technology Literacy Technology deals with computer skills. It is the capability in

order to utilize computers and other technology to enhance

learning, production, and performance (United States

Department of Education, 1996).

Visual Literacy Visual literacy deals with the capability of reading,

interpreting, and understanding information offered in visual

images; the capability to turn all types of information into

28

pictures, graphics, or forms that assist communicate the

information; a collection of skills that empower people to

discriminate and interpret the visible action, objects or

symbols, natural or constructed, that they encounter in the

environment (Stokes, 2002).

Communication Literacy Communication literacy deals with the capability of

communicating efficiently as individually then work

collaboratively in groups, by publishing technologies (such as

word processor, database, spreadsheet, drawing tools…..), the

internet besides other electronic and telecommunication tools

(Winnepeg School Division, 2010)

Media Literacy Media literacy deals with a sequence of communication

competencies, comprising the capability accessing,

analyzing, evaluating and communicating information in a

diversity of forms consisting of print and non-print messages

(Alliance for a Media Literate America, 2010).

The most universal definition was established during developing a frame work

and gadgets for digital literacy improvement in European educational settings as part of

the results of the DigEuLit project as “digital literacy is the awareness, attitude and

capabilities of people to proper usage of digital gadgets and facilities of identifying,

accessing, managing, integrating, evaluating, analyzing and synthesizing resources

available online, constructing new knowledge, creating media expressions, and

communicating with others, in the perspective of specific life situations, in order to

enable constructive social action; and to reflect upon this process” (Martin & Grudziecki,

2006, p.255).

In developing thoughts of digital literacy, Gillen and Barton (2009) proposed

observing for continuities and commonalities instead of clear distinctions to demarcate

the various concepts, although it is important to observe other associated terms creating

confusion. Similarly, another recommendation proposed by Belshaw (2012) is to track the

definitions’ origins, purposes and context, where they have been formed and used.

Commonly, digital literacy has been interchangeably referred to as “e-literacy” invented

by Martin (2006, p.18) for instance “the awareness, skills, understandings, and reflective

29

evaluative methods that are essential for a person to work confidently in information-rich

and ICT-supported environments”. Aside from e-literacy, there are a number of other

literacies with different headings like as information literacy, media literacy, technology

literacy, and computer literacy. Fascinatingly, digital literacy is more extensive than such

terms and even subsumes some of them (Sharpe and Beetham, 2010; Martin and

Madigan, 2006). Equally, Belshaw (2012) states that digital literacy is an umbrella term

which is a general idea with no limitation to any specific forms of technology, henceforth,

it is adaptable and flexible to any changing times and concerns.

After summarizing the evidences, there are considerable overlaps between these

definitions of digital literacy using different terminologies (Gillen, & Barton, 2009). But

then, regardless of some continuing inconsistency, digital literacy appears to be the most

appropriate label to date, especially in an age when information comes mainly in this

form (Bawden, 2008). It can be regarded as a general structure for the integration

numerous other literacies, even though digital literacy does not need to encompass all of

them (Martin and Madigan, 2006). Additionally, an important fact is that digital literacy

is a quality varying from one person to another or even from one life phase to another of a

person. Therefore, while it might be possible to form lists of digital literacy components,

it is not sensible either to limit the concept to a fixed number of linear stages or to

propose one particular model of digital literacy for all persons. However, the researcher

agreed with the model of Belshaw (2012) that covers all important elements of digital

literacy required for everyone to become digitally literate to achieve the aims and

objectives of life’s goals.

Belshaw (2012) defined digital literacies into 8 fundamental and indispensable

elements that serve as a starting point known as:

1. Cultural elements

2. Cognitive elements

3. Constructive element

4. Communicative element

5. Confident element

6. Creative element

7. Critical element

8. Civic element

30

These elements provide the comprehensive understanding of digital literacy as it

involves the essential features necessary for digital literacy.

The model of elements of Digital Literacy (Figure 2.4)

Figure 2.4: (Belshaw’s (2012) model of eight elements of digital literacy)

2.8 Essential elements of Digital Literacy

The interpretation of digital literacy presented by Belshaw (2012) in his model of

eight essential elements of digital literacy is explained as under:

2.8.1 Concept of Cultural Element

According to this model the very first element of digital literacies is cultural

which is required for understanding the different digital contexts a person may experience

while online. For instance, a youngster may require knowing about school’s Virtual

Learning Environment (VLE) or studying platform is a different pragmatics domain to

games like World of Warcraft or social networks such as Facebook. In each of these

contexts are seen altered codes and procedures of operation, things that are accepted and

encouraged as well as those that are frowned upon and rejected.

As Hannon (2000) states that the literacy in a culture is repeatedly redefined as the

result of technological changes. Significant technological modifications would be

unequally circulated and progressively occurring not at the hardware layer but at the

software and web application layer. As devices become inexpensive and easier to utilize,

31

the obstacle to entry becomes minor to do with technology and affordability and more to

do with cultural and social elements. Digital literacy is not merely regarding technical

capability but about the difficulties, standards and habits of mind adjacent to technologies

utilize for a specific motive. This component is best attained by the use of involvement in

a range of digital environments. While, the circumstances are changing gradually, this

component is not helped by the banning and heavy-handed filtering policies put in place

by many educational organizations. In addition, given that educational organizations are

tasked with creating young individuals for an unknown future, they should expose them

to the widest range of pragmatics domains possible. In the same way to studying a new

language or else a musical instrument, this would enable and encourage them to study to

approach the wider world in a different manner. The main focus of cultural component of

digital literacy is all about looking for techniques to provide individuals additional

“lenses” by which to see the world.

2.8.2 Concept of Cognitive Element

The second important element of digital literacies stated in Belshaw’s model

(2012) is the cognitive element. It known as the backbone of traditional form of literacy

as similar the customary explanation, literacy is about “expanding the mind” a

psychological phenomenon in which a person interacts with an objectively defined form

of literacy. As Johnson describes, digital literacy does not mean “the capability to utilize a

set of technical tools; rather, it is the ability to use as set of cognitive tools” (Johnson,

2008, p.42). The psychological part of literacy is indeed part of the cognitive element, but

the mind-expansion comes through the co-creation and contextualization of digital

literacies, not through attempting to impose an “objective” definition. The method

through which cognitive component can be developed is to focus upon a variety of mental

models and lenses. In the same way to cultural element, we should encourage those in

whom we seek to develop digital literacies to see nuance where they previously seen only

dichotomy. Exposure to different ways of conceptualizing and interacting in digital

places assists to develop the cognitive component of digital literacies. It does not mean

the practice of using tools, but rather the habits of mind.

2.8.3 Concept of Constructive Element

The third important element of digital literacies described by Belshaw is

constructive element. This element is related to create anything brand new, as well as

using and remixing content from other sources to construct anything original. As Martin

32

(2008) states digital literacy is the understanding, attitude and capability of people to

properly practice of digital tools in order to enable constructive social action. Belshaw

describes that digital world is qualitatively different from the physical world. In digital

world the flawless copy can be made in a way that does not affect the original version by

new form of licensing like creative commons that allows publishers and individuals

sharing contents online to specify the conditions under which it may be used. So, this

element of digital literacies focuses about understanding how and for what purposes

content can be adopted, reused and remixed.

2.8.4 Concept of Communicative Element

The fourth noteworthy component of digital literacies is communicative element.

This element is narrowly allied to the constructive element (which is also affiliated to the

cultural element). This component of digital literacies is about understanding how

communications media works. It is fundamentally, the nuts and bolts of how to

communicate in digital networked environments. As with the cultural element digital

literacies, improving the communicative element involves practical application. It focuses

on developing a true understanding of the power of networks and networks of networks

that involve not only learning about them but being part of them. According to

Buckingham (2007) this component could be seen as “pivotal” element involving, as it

does, “a systematic awareness of how digital media are constructed and of the unique

“rhetorics” of interactive communication” (p.155).

2.8.5 Concept of Confident Element

The fifth element of digital literacies identified by Belshaw is concerned with

confident element. Confident element focuses on some sort of confidence founded on the

understanding that the digital environment can be more forgiving in regards to

experimentation than physical environments. For instance the ability to “undo” an action

allows people to approach situations in digital environments differently. It is often this

more cavalier tactic that can hold back those with mindset that (Prensky, 2001) would

stereotype as belonging to digital immigrants. In simple words it is the capability of

people who effectively capture the confident element of digital literacies understands that

such literacies are changeable. Similarly, Organization for Economic Cooperation and

Development (OECD, 2001) acknowledged the unique qualities of technology and digital

environment to stimulate confidence in problem-solving, a skill seen as important in the

33

information or knowledge society. Contemporary societies are progressively watching to

individuals who can confidently solve problems and manage their own learning through

their lives, the very qualities which ICT absolutely is able to promote.

2.8.6 Concept of Creative Element

The next sixth noteworthy element of digital literacies described by Belshaw is

creative element. It focuses around performing new things in new ways that focuses

utilizing technologies to do tasks and achieve things that were earlier either impossible or

out of reach of the average individual. Instead of using Microsoft PowerPoint as a

technological substitute for writing on a blackboard, for instance the creative component

of digital literacies encourages the re-conceptualization of what is possible using, for

example, a collaborative wiki-based platform. Creative element focuses on developing

creativity in those individuals looking for improving their digital literacies; they require to

be guided by those who have a different mindset than that which instructors have

traditionally been encouraged to demonstrate. According to Conlon and Simpson (2003)

the creative adoption of new technology involves educators who are ready to take risks…

a professional culture that is controlled by a prescriptive curriculum, routine practices and

a tight target-setting regime, is unlikely to be helpful.

2.8.7 Concept of Critical Element

The second last essential element of digital literacies outlined by Belshaw is

critical element. Critical element focuses on the trustworthiness of available online

information and various online resources. It also deals with how to use reasoning skills to

question, analyses, scrutinize and how to appraise digital content, tools and applications,

skills to examine online resources effectively, skills to distinguish credible sources form

less credible ones. Agreeing to Gurak (2001) that critical element of digital literacy is

based upon skills and attitude of an individual. All types of technologies, be it clay tablets

or real-time modification of a document stored online, foster approaches which eventually

become conventions and these conventions are often borne out of necessity and good

practice but may linger long after the literacy practices. This component of digital

literacies therefore comprises the reflection upon literacy practices in various semiotic

fields.

34

2.8.8 Concept of Civic Element

The last noteworthy element of digital literacies announced by Belshaw is known

as civic element. It refers to individuals having the knowledge and ability to use digital

environments to self-organize and to become a part of a movement bigger than them. It

focuses on understanding individual’s digital rights and responsibilities, participation in

social movement or democratic process online, and preparation of self as well as others to

participate fully in society. It also comprises the capability for the literacy practices

resulting from new technologies and tools to support the development of civil society. If

we define the latter as made up of the organizations and relationships, then the

significance of this component of digital literacies become clear. Therefore, the main

focus of civic element is the ability of individuals to utilize digital environments to

organize them into social movements.

2.9 Digital Literacy Skills

Obviously, digital literacy is considered as the basic ability of technological

capabilities and knowledge to the engagement in complex, non-linear, cognitive and

social activities that enable a person to live, learn, and work in a digital era (JISC, 2009);

and similarly indicated by Beckingham and Belshaw (2012), digital literacy requires

contextualization. In this regard, Newman (2009) formed an inclusive formula of digital

literacy with three key elements, knowledge of digital tools, critical thinking, and social

awareness. Later on, this author added a fourth component called “transformational

skills” which involves awareness of nonstop development of self and the ability to make a

difference in a changing world. Carrying a parallel opinion, Fraser (2009) suggests a

modification of Newman’s definition that describes digital literacy as the collection of

digital knowledge, critical thinking, and social engagement. This groundwork marks the

importance of real world practice and activity as central to socially situated digital

literacy (Fraser, 2009). And till now digital literacy is not just about supporting people to

understand and involve with the world, but about empowering them to challenge, design

and modify their worlds.

Conferring to the newest document of International Telecommunication Unit

(ITU, 2018) about digital skills toolkit, which highlights the hub of a digital revolution,

more persons are connected to the Internet as compares to past through digital devices

and services for work and for complete features of their life. Mobile broadband ensures

the participation of more people in developing nations in the digital economy. In this

35

period new technologies have also flourished such as artificial intelligence, big data,

block chain, cloud computing, Internet of things, machine learning, mobile applications,

nanotechnology and 3D printing between others. This innovation of technology changed

today lives of the people fundamentally modifying how we consume, produce and work.

This advancement in technology empowers us with great opportunity and important

challenge also. Considering this challenge, a large skill gap has occurred with 10 of

millions of new occupations opening up around the world for digital literate people but

there is huge shortage of skillful people to fill these positions. The data reported by

Chinese government shows that there is need of 7.5 million ICT experts, whereas Europe

reported 500 million jobs for ICT experts going un-filled by 2020. The report of ITU

(2018) suggested following level of digital skills to fill up the upcoming positions in the

world by 2020.

2.9.1 Basic Skills

According to ITU (2018) basic digital literacy skills empower people to perform

at a minimum level in society. These skills are known as foundational skills for

performing basic tasks such as understanding about hardware (for example how to use a

keyboard and operate touch-screen technology), software (for example word processing,

how to manage files on laptops, how to manage privacy settings on mobile phones), and

basic online operations (for example how to manage emails, searches, or how to complete

an online form). These basic skills improve people lives, enable them to interact with

others and access government, commercial and financial services available online.

2.9.2 Intermediate Skills

Intermediate skills of digital literacy enable people to use technologies in

meaningful and beneficial way. It includes the ability to evaluate technology critically or

create content. These skills are effectually job-ready skills which include skills required

to perform job related functions such as desktop publishing, digital graphic design and

digital marketing. For the most part, these skills are universal, meaning their mastery

prepares people for a wide range of digital work desired to participate as involved citizens

and productive employees. Though, such skills are not set in stone. Truly, one of the

features of intermediate skills is that they increase to account for changes in technology.

For instance, data skill features more importantly as the data revolution gains further

momentum, creating demands for skills required to produce, analyze, interpret, and

visualize large amounts of data (ITU, 2018).

36

2.9.3 Advanced Skills

Advanced digital literacy skills are those which are needed by experts in ICT

professions such as computer programming and networking managing. Internationally,

there will be millions of jobs requiring advanced digital skills in the upcoming years.

These skills comprise artificial intelligence (AI), big data, coding, cyber security, Internet

of Things (IOT), and mobile application development, with some economic forecasting, a

talent breach for employees with advanced digital skills and others, ranking ICT experts

between their quickest growing roles. Most of the employers reported that they were

unable to find employee with the requisite skills. Occupations demanding advanced

digital skills pay much more than occupations demanding basic digital skills or none at

all. These skills are usually acquired through advanced formal education such as

professional education in the field of ICT (ITU, 2018).

Digital Literacy Skills Model (Figure 2.5)

Figure 2.5: (Digital Literacy Skills Model of International Telecommunication Unit, 2018).

Vuorikari, Punie, Carretero, and Van den Brande (2016) reported the European

DigComp skills project. The main purpose of this project to improve people’s digital

competence, help policy makers to formulate policies that support digital competency

building, and strategy for education and training initiatives to develop digital competency

of particular target groups. It also gives common language on how to recognize and

explain the key areas of digital competency and thus offers a common reference at

European level.

37

2.10 Impact of Digital Literacy on Communication skills

As personal computers were developed in the late 1970s and cellular telephones

were introduced during the year of 1984, digital computer technology has become a

dominant aspect of daily life and is considered popular way of communications. In this

regard, many anxieties have arisen for many years that this trend may have an effect on

children verbal development (Subrahmanyam, Greenfield, Kraut, & Gross, 2002). These

studies consider that digital technologies may be influencing the communication skills of

children developed during childhood and adolescence. Crystal (2006) defined in his book

Language and the Internet, that communication as communicating through technology

occupies an exclusive middle ground among practicing spoken and written language for

communication. Electronic dialogue, such as that used in text messages, e-mails, and

Internet chat rooms often look like writing that reads as it if were being spoken. Some

investigators have titled this type of language “written speech” or “spoken writing”.

Ofcom (2008) states that nonverbal, such as facial expression and gestures in

spoken communication, also express a great deal of meaning. The tone and pattern of

speech, for example tempo, loudness, and tone of voice also deliver a great deal of

meaning. However, written sentences are carefully and briefly structured with

punctuation, which is commonly perfect as the vocabulary need to express the planned

meaning without reference to contextual nonverbal cues, although some orthographic

signs like capitalization and line and letter spacing, can be practiced. Communicating

with mobile telephones and some computer software, it is probable to utilize spoken

language to communicate some conversations in real time, as if a user is face to face with

another user. Though, it is presently more common to use written communication as the

primary means of computer-mediated communication. It was found evidently that

computer-mediated communications have encouraged new micro-communication

behavior (Walthr, 2007) and revised communication approaches (Greenfield &

Subrahmanyam, 2003). Crystal (2006) also confirmed that chat groups and online forums

improve languages.

A model presented by Spitzberg (2006), which measures “competency of

computer-mediated communication”, focuses on humanoid symbolic text-based

communication conducted through digitally-based technologies such as internet, cell

phones text, email and video-conferencing. This model has three elements: motivation,

38

knowledge and skills. Motivation focuses on stimulating components of competent

performance; knowledge focuses on cognitive components of the competence; and skill

focuses repeatable, goal-oriented behavioral strategies and routines that persons employ

in the service of their motivation and knowledge. Although, technology has decreased

human interactions, the utilization of computer technology for communication purpose

has in fact been observed to support social interaction, electronically facilitated

individuals. Children and young individuals are still communicating as much as ever

through their electronic devices. The whole influence on social interaction depends on

whether the social practices of computer supplement or substitute other sources of social

contact that young individual have (Subrahmanyam et al., 2000).

In a research conducted by Greenfield and Subrahmanyam (2003) concluded that

young chatting room users were found to acclimate to features of the chatting room

environment by emerging new communication approaches and creating new

communicating index. The findings of Adler (2013) also declared that many researches

recommend that digital communication improves relationship between people, as the

evidence consistently proved that more you communicate with persons using digital

devices, the more likely you are to communicate with those persons face to face too.

2.11 Impact of Digital literacy on building confidence skills

Students of this era have to connect with their classmates, their teachers, and their

university for exchanging information. Scholars may use various social networking tools,

for example Facebook, for communicating with classmates about their studies, but rarely

use this technology to interact with their teachers (Echo360, 2012). Students’ social

interaction through social media has strongly related to online learning enjoyment,

effectiveness of learning online, and the likelihood of taking other online classes

(Muilenburg & Berge, 2005). Online learning gives greater flexibility as compared to

face-to-face study. Online learning environment can demand more at scholars than

traditional contexts in terms of some ICT skills, and behaviours to achieve academic

goals. Students quickly learn through online resources that how much they depend on

teacher explanations of content and activities in face to face classroom (Howland &

Moore, 2002).

Researches about online learning indicate that online learning is a medium not

superior to traditional classroom (Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2009).

39

Online learning differs from face to face in terms of time spent in discussion, curriculum,

and pedagogy. The combination of these elements effects students’ opportunity for

collaboration and learning outcomes. Quality interaction between students, content, and

teachers can help “create a sense of social, cognitive and teaching presence, thereby

empowering students to participate in an engaging and cognitively enriched community

of inquiry” (Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, & Archer, 2001, p.3). This online education

setting includes much more than master of particular digital technologies. Students’

confidence increases by involving their self in online learning environment (Muilenberg

& Berge, 2005).

According to Belshaw (2012), the fifth important element of his digital literacy

model focuses on the confidence of the person’s understanding about digital environment.

Similarly, OECD (2001) announced the matchless affordances of technology and digital

environments to stimulate confidence in problem solving, an ability seen as important in

the information or knowledge society. Societies of this contemporary period are

increasingly viewing to the people whose have capabilities to discover solution of

problems confidently and managing their own learning throughout their lives, the very

qualities which ICT tremendously is able to promote. Therefore, students’ understanding

about the environments of digital technologies and usage of ICT for work, leisure,

learning and communicating can improve their academic performance (JISC, 2009).

2.12 Impact of Digital literacy in promoting research skills

In higher education, many challenges are reported by various authors regarding

students’ preparation. Scholars’ preparation might be more competitive in accordance

with the concrete knowledge society in which they are living. These trainings must be

designed to train students about evolving and entrenching strong thinking skills,

intellectual flexibility, creativity, analysis and the capability to replicate and create

knowledge. Various researchers agreed on the need to train students to enhance research

skills from their undergraduate studies (Hurtado, 2000; Lipman, 2001; Restrepo, 2003;

Tunnermann, 2003; Sayous, 2007; Garcia & Ladino, 2008). Furthermore, research as a

learning process has been considered as the outcome of a procedure and plan that could

have started to develop in the first academic year of the students, and not as the end of

their education. In this way, scholars from the postgraduate research start their training in

exploration at that moment and not form the undergraduate makes learners see the

40

investigating procedures more like a requirement to complete their studies than a pillar of

their education.

The study explored by Hunter, Laursen, and Seymour (2007) in four universities,

inquiring basic questions regarding towards the benefits of students’ participation in

undergraduate research projects revealed highly positive results. They concluded that

students who were thinking and working as scientist were 23%, desired to become a

scientist were 20%, trust to become personal-professional were 19%, confirmed career

plans were 16%, improved career 10%, improving skills like arguing and presenting

information, organize projects and work, understanding and written expressions 8%. The

most important result discovered in the study is that students want to become scientists

and also supported by half of the observations of teachers as well. Students’ also showed

positive behaviours as well as attitudes that are a researcher has, as interest and initiative,

less fearful of taking responsibility for research, willing to take risks, trust the ability to

research, and passion in contributing to science.

According to Pew Researcher Center report published in 2001 that teenagers who

were quick access to internet for online information for research purpose were found

94%, using internet as the major sources for the completion of their school projects were

found 71%, using websites developed by the school or class were discovered 58%,

downloaded a study guide were explored 34%, and teenagers who created a webpage for

school project were found 17% (Thomas, 2004).

2.13 Impact of Digital & e-Resources in Education

Digital or electronic resources like e-books, e-journals, e-articles, e-libraries,

newsgroups, e-mails and many others provide latest information to the students, and are

recognized due to their pliability in searching than their paper-based counterpart. Students

can access these resources remotely at anytime, anywhere (Salaam, 2008). These

electronic resources empower students of undergraduate and graduate for finding required

information relevant to their academic assignment which contributes in the completion of

their required degree with high rank.

Electronic resources were introduced in the middle of 1960s, after the

incorporation of machine readable catalogue which helped as a directive tool to

information resources. It followed by the utilization of OPAC and bibliographic

41

databases, which were later improved to the use of information on CD ROM database in

1980s (Hawthorne, 2008). The present electronic information innovations such as the

online database and web-based databases resources provide a broader and more

information with un-limited access in this period. Electronic serials, e-books and e-

magazines were also introduced during the same period. In the same way, additional

information available in electronic format such as e-journal, e-book and full-text

databases appeared in the 1990s. These electronic resources permitted users who had

internet access to search and retrieve information from any geographical area. Now end-

users are exposed to quantities of electronic resources which are more cost effective and

provide effective access to information which was earlier not accessible (Nisonger, 2003).

For university students to get the maximum benefits offered via using electronic

database resources, students required multiple skills which are referred to as digital

literacy capabilities. These capabilities will help them to obtain information literacy skill,

media literacy skill, and ICT literacy. These multiple capabilities will empower them by

connecting to e-library resources. Digital literacy skill is vigorous to increase students’

confidence in proper use of e-resources in the library. So, digital literacy skill is

compulsory for the acquisition of relevant and latest information for student’s task. Kari

(2004) expressed that capabilities needed to utilize proper electronic resources are higher

than the capabilities needed for exploring printed sources and that scholars need to be

expert in certain abilities to exploit and to utilize the emerging range of electronic

resources. Therefore, university students need digital literacy capabilities for speedy

retrieval of the exact information needed from available electronic recourses.

Okello-Obura and Magara (2008) declared that student’s skills in computer must

be improved for proper accessibility and utilization of electronic resources. Similarly,

Mutshewa (2008) suggested that student’s computer skills can be enhanced via practice

and frequent use of information retrieval system such as e-database resources. He further

pointed out that there is a need for well-planned development program that enables

students to be proficient in the use of information retrieval system. In the same line, the

investigator Oliver (1995) declared that computer end-users should have proper

guidelines and frequent use with electronic information system.

Deng (2010) conducted a study in Australia and found that users use electronic

resources for various purposes including: collecting data about a particular topic,

42

obtaining general information, attaining answers to particular questions, completing

coursework and projects, examining available work like literature, writing essays and

assisting decision making. He further announced that users use electronic resources for

each of the said purposes. The study reveals the reality that currently users are dependent

on the availability of electronic resources for completing many of their academic jobs.

Therefore, digital devices such as computer, laptop, cell phone, tablet and related

electronic database resources are playing a vital role in education. As Thanuskodi (2012)

confirmed that electronic recourses encourage efficacy in information dissemination for

research purpose in universities. Similarly, Shuling (2007) concluded in his study that

electronic resources have progressively become a key resource in every university.

2.14 Digital Literacy known as skills of 21st century

This is the era of innovation in which integration of various digital technologies in

every field is increasing day by day. Thus, the society of this era needs innovative skills

such as capabilities, abilities and studying tempers that have been recognized as being

necessary for success in 21st century society as workplaces by teachers, business leaders,

academics and governmental organizations. International agencies are also concentrating

on the abilities required for learners to be expert in preparation for success in a speedy

changing digital society. Some of these abilities are connected with deep learning, which

is based on mastering skills such as analytic reasoning, complex problem solving and

teamwork (Chris, 2009 and Stedman, 2015).

After the transformation of western economies from industrial-based to service-

based trades and vocations have smaller roles. However, particular difficult skills are

mastery of specific skill sets, by focusing on digital literacy are in progressively high

demands (Chris, 2009 & Stedman, 2015). Individual abilities which include interaction,

collaboration, and managing others are progressively significant. Particular skills that

empower people to be flexible and adaptable in different roles as well as in different

fields and have ability to be involved in handling information and managing individuals

more than manipulating equipment in any organization are in high demand (OCED,

2005). These skills are known, for instance, applied skills or soft skills, including

personal, interpersonal, or learning-based skills, such as life skills (problem-solving

attitudes), people skills, and social skills. These skills have been assembled into three

major areas (Trilling and Fadel, 2009).

43

1) Learning and innovation skills such as critical thinking, problem solving,

communication, collaboration, creativity and innovation.

2) Digital literacy skills such as information literacy, media literacy, information and

communication technology (ICT) literacy.

3) Career and life skills such as flexibility, adaptability, initiative, self-direction,

social and cross-cultural interaction, productivity and accountability.

Digital literacy demands particular skill sets that are naturally related to inter-

disciplinary. According to Warschauer and Matuchniak (2010) digital literacy has three

skill sets, or 21st century skills that people need to expert in order to be literate digitally.

These skills are: information, media and technology; learning and innovation skills; and

life and career skills. In pursuance of information, media and technology skills, individual

needs to achieve competency in formation literacy, media literacy and information

communication technologies. They further highlight that in learning and innovation skills,

individual must also be able to practice their creativity and innovation, critical thinking

and problem solving, and communication and collaboration skill. In order to be

competent in Life and Career Skills, individual must be able to practice flexibility and

adaptability, initiative and self-direction, social and cross-cultural skills, productivity and

accountability, leadership and responsibility.

Similarly, Aviram & Eshet-Alkalai (2006) focuses on five kinds of literacies

under the umbrella of digital literacy that people need to be expert in order to be digitally

literate. The first kind focuses the ability of reading and deducing information from

visuals (Photo-visual literacy), second kind deals with the ability of using digital

technology for creating some novel pieces of work or combining existing pieces of work

to create it your own (Reproduction literacy), third kind deals with the ability of

navigation in the non-linear medium of digital space (Branching literacy), fourth kind

focuses on the ability of exploring, locating, assessing as well as critically evaluating

information available on the web as well as in libraries (Information literacy), the last

kind deals with the ability to socializing and collaboration or consuming content being

present online for social and emotional aspects (Socio-emotional literacy).

2.15 Applications of Digital Literacy in Education

Digital literacy is considered as a vital technological gadget for educators, and

learners of 21st century. It has been confirmed through the study of Head and Eisenberg

44

(2009) that many institutions are struggling continuously to update their curriculum to

keep up with accelerating technological developments. These institutions included

computers in the classroom, used educational software to teach curriculum, and provided

course material to learners online. Scholars are often taught literacy skills regarding

verifying credible sources presented online, citing websites, and avoiding plagiarism in a

technological world. Most of the students used Google and Wikipedia for daily life

research which facilitates them about contemporary education.

Digital technologies have too impacted the way material is taught in the

classroom. Educators of this era are trying to enhance customary forms of learning with

digital literacy through different platforms. Many websites are supporting these efforts

such as Google Docs, Prezi, and Easybib. These services have supported the scholars

through teaching collaboration, permitting learners to use pre-made, creative presentation

templates, and assisting in generating citations in any given format. Moreover, teachers

have also turned to social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Edmodo, Instagram, and

Schoology to communicate and share ideas with each other. Digital technologies have

changed standards related to better classrooms and many institutions have designed their

classroom with installation of smart boards in addition to audience response system in

replacement of traditional chalkboards or whiteboards (Greenhow, Sonnevend, & Agur,

2016).

Mckee-Waddell (2015) stated that digital literate people can incorporate several

forms of communication technologies and research to construct a better understanding of

any topic. He called it a skill for digital composition. Digital writing is a new type of

digital composition being taught increasingly within universities. These skills also keep

teachers and students connected through modern teaching methods. It focuses on writing

pedagogy in digital form in technology environment. As a result, the process of using a

computer to write is not easy, it permits learners to search contemporary technologies and

study how different writing spaces affect the meaning such as audience and readability of

text. Teachers who favored digital writing argue that it is essential because digital

technology vitally changes how writing is produced, delivered and received (Hart-

Davidson, Cushman, Grabill, DeVoss & Porter, 2005). The objective related with

teaching digital writing is to enable learners to develop their skill to create some

pertinent, high quality product, instead of just a standard academic paper (Beers, Probst,

& Rief, 2007). McAdams and Berger (2001) states that digital writing focuses on the

45

usage of hypertext as contrasted to printed text. Hypertext invites readers to discover

information in a non-liner fashion. It consisted of traditional text and hyperlinks that send

readers to other texts. These links may refer to related terms or concepts; otherwise they

may empower readers to select the order in which they read. The process of digital

writing demands the composer to make unique decisions regarding linking and omission.

These decisions give rise to questions about the author’s responsibility to the text and to

objectivity.

Hinrichsen and Coombs (2014) states that in spite of various recommendations

that digital literacy empowers students, teachers, and pedagogy in 4 specific models of

engaging with digital mode. These four models are known such as text participating, code

breaking, text analyzing, and text using. These approaches empower all learners to

completely engage with the media. It also enhances individual to be able to relate the

digital text to their personal experiences. Furthermore, proper implementation of digital

literacy in education gives extensive advantages in designing digital curriculum. Internet

which is a big source of information and communication acknowledged internationally.

Consequently, incorporating technology into classroom in a meaningful way discovers

students to a range of literacy practices known as multi-literacies which expand their

outlook and broadens views of information and knowledge which is highly productive.

This approach embraces the constructivist theory of learning where learners draw from

their existing knowledge for the construction of new learning (Burner, 1978).

2.16 Applications of Digital Literacy in Society

In modern societies digital literacy is empowering individuals for communicating

their ideas via the use of various digital platforms. Digital literacy helps people through

social network services and Web 2.0 platform to stay in contact with others, pass t imely

information, and even buy and sell products and services. Digital literacy can also

empower people to escape from different online frauds for example photo manipulation,

e-mail frauds and phishing often can fool the digitally illiterate people (Longardner,

2015).

However, people who are practicing technology and internet to commit these

fraudulent acts possess the digital literacy skills to fool victims by understanding the

technical trends and consistencies. So, digital literacy skill is important for people to

consider one step forward when utilizing the digital world. After the advent of social

46

media, individuals who are digitally literate have now a major voice online (Diptiman &

Rudranil, 2009). These social networking sites such as Twitter, Instagram and Facebook,

as well as personal webs and blogs have enabled a new type of journalism that is

subjective and personal which represents a worldwide conversation that is connected

through its community of readers (Marlow, 2006). Many researchers indicated that

changes in the level of digital literacy hinge mainly on age and education level, whereas

the effect of gender is decreasing. Digital literacy levels in young people are high in its

operational dimension because young people speedily move through hypertext and have a

familiarity with various types of online resources. However, the skills to critically

evaluate content found online show a shortfall (Gui & Argentin, 2011).

2.17 Applications of Digital Literacy in Workforce

Digital literacy is considered vital element for the preparation of skilled workforce

(WIOA, 2014). Individuals having good digital literacy are more likely to be

economically secure, as various jobs demand a working knowledge of computers and

internet to perform basic tasks. Today, white-collar jobs are performed mostly on

computers and portable digital devices. Most of the organizations demands proof of

digital literacy for new recruiting or promoting their employees. Sometimes organization

will manage their assessment to employees or official certification will be required.

Similarly, blue-collar jobs also demand digital literacy skills due to incorporation of

technology in every field. Many producers and retailers are expected to collect and

analyze data regarding productivity and market trends to stay competitive and

construction staff mostly uses computers to enhance employee safety. Today, job

recruiters mostly recruit employees thorough employment websites. Their aim is to find

potential employees with some level of digital literacy skill. So, no one can deny the

significance of digital literacy in searching job. LinkedIn is one of the most famous

employment website in which professionals can communicate with others in their field,

search for potential employment opportunities, or put out feelers for jobs they may need

filled. People having innovative and proficient digital literacy empower them to complete

within the workforce. Socially, it has become essential to have a degree of digital literacy

on all job levels, as society has become a technology based one and will continue to be

such (Wynne & Cooper, 2007).

47

2.18 Digital Literacy and Digital Life

The opportunity offered by information and communication technologies

regarding 24/7 quickly access to available online information considering the individual

demands. After the beginning of mobility, digital tools become most important part of

individual’s lives. Digital tools also enhanced people’s three significant elements such as

speed, reality, and networking (Rivoltella, 2008). The report of International

Telecommunication Union confirms that 7 billion mobile users are present in the globe;

27% of users benefiting from 3G/4G mobile services. Similarly, the Apple reported that

50 billion applications were downloaded from the online resources in the last five years.

Several individuals access to desired information through websites like Google,

YouTube, and Wikipedia. Electronic mail (E-mail) is the popular tool between people for

sending and receiving messages. Online business, banking, and shopping are increasing

between people day by day. Social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and

Instagram are motivating individuals to collaborate via setting the content of

communication and sharing it between them. For instance it is generally noticed;

regardless of how old individuals are utilizing digital technologies in the digital age, have

turned into their basic need (Goodfellow, 2011).

In this information era, people working through digital tools have turned into

participative and active persons who collect, process, and create information (Sharkey &

Brandt, 2008). An individual having good skills of digital literacy uses technology

efficiently to make research, reach information sources, read-write and comment

effectively, make reasonable selections, and make correct decisions. Digital literacy

provides creativity and curiosity and empowers people to assess the information collected

through a critical way. By enhancing the skill to use digital resources, digital literacy

supports people feel themselves comparatively safe at technology use (Mcloughlin,

2011). On the other hand, presently many individuals need proper training of digital

literacy so that they can use and manage the numerous and loose information network

with the support of technology (FutureLab, 2010).

2.18 Digital literacy in America

Many surveys regarding digital literacy, usage of computers, smartphones and

usage of internet were stated in the National Broadband Plan (Federal Communications

Commission, 2010) and surveys discovering the digital nation by (U.S. Department of

48

Commerce, 2013), and data presented on the basis of many publication of the Pew

Research Center’s report about Internet & American Life Project (Zickuhr & Smith,

2012, 2013) indicated the positive increase towards digital literacy by the youth. These

investigations discover growing adoption and use of internet, computers, smartphones and

other devices across American societies. These investigations also reported that adoption

and use of many ICTs gap in traditionally vulnerable groups including Blacks, Hispanics,

immigrants, residents of low-income households and rural communities, the elderly, and

adults with disabilities. Research also showed increasing of digital inclusion with the

broader aims of removing social disadvantages and enhancing economic equity (Helsper,

2008).

The research conducted by Smith (2010) identified three major barriers to

adoption of digital technology such as absence of affordability, lack of perceived

relevance, and lack of basic digital literacy skills.

In United States of America inclusion of digital literacy has been demarcated in

many ways, the best definition proposed in Building Digitally Inclusive Communities

framework is the ability of people and groups to access and use information and

communication technology. Digital inclusion encompasses the speedy access to internet,

the availability of hardware and software, relevant content and services, and training for

the digital literacy skills essential for effective use of information and communication

technology (Jaeger et al., 2012). Horrigan (2014) that 29% of American adults have low

levels of digital readiness, 18% of adults who have advanced broadband access to

internet, and numerous adults are not digitally ready as are not connected to the internet.

These evidences showed that in America maximum struggles for inclusion of

digital technologies in all fields were organized to empower the society with required

level of digital literacy to complete the challenges of this digital era.

2.19 Digital literacy in Europe

Digital technologies enrich education and offer new learning opportunities. The

use of internet can open the learning experience to an extraordinary treasure of

information, and gives an extensive range of e-resources and tools applicable to any

domain of knowledge and educational sector. The wealth of information empowers all

users to interact with learning content in formal and non-formal educational settings

(European Commission, 2017).

49

Agreeing to the document of European Commission (2017), digital education

action plan was planned to empower people with following three priorities such as,

creating better usage of digital technology for teaching and learning, developing relevant

digital skills and capabilities for digital transformation, and improving educational sector

through better data analysis.

Studies indicated that students do not really know how to capitalize on

technologies. Scholars are required to achieve digital literacy skills as without any form

of formal guidance they are likely to remain un-informed and un-critical users of ICT

(Poore, 2012).

Additionally, Adams-Becker et al., (2017) also reported about digital literacy in

NMC Horizon Project Strategic. They stated that thinking about digital literacy in

education, the purpose is to not only empower curriculum, but also to apply tangible

experiences to prepare post-secondary students beyond the degree. Additionally, this

study complements the 2017 publication Digital Literacy in Higher Education, Part

second. The main aim of this project was to explore how higher education institutions are

creating authentic learning experiences and frameworks for digital literacy education.

This report states digital literacy learning from the postgraduate perspective, specifically

what is being learned, utilized, and applied in the workforce. The study also shares how

postgraduates use digital literacy skills, specifically universal literacy, creative literacy,

and literacy across discipline, and in the workplace. Most of the students stated exposure

to digital skills that required for interpreting, evaluating, planning, and exploring for

online information. Most undergraduate curriculum degrees required learners to organize

research finding and share for required course project. It was also identified that a number

of students use technology and digital environments to work collaboratively with peers to

manage complex problems, apply solutions, and generate ideas to reach their educational

goals. The study concluded that to meet the demands of industry in the future, institution

of higher education required to include digital development within their undergraduate

and postgraduate programs and consider further digital literacy training support.

Later on European Action Plan (2018) in partnership with member states,

stakeholders, and society agreed to digital education by the end of 2020. The action plan

worried their commitment to provide young people with the best digital education and

training. The European Action Plan was aligned with G-20 Digital Economy Ministerial

Declaration in 2017 which shows a global acknowledgment that all form of education and

50

lifelong learning may need to be adjusted to take advantages of new digital technologies.

The plan includes relevant polices objectives such as, supporting for high quality

education about digital technology, improving its relevance, developing European digital

skills and making them more visible, boosting innovation and digital competencies in all

education institutions, opening up education system.

The study completed by Eurostat (2015) in Europe concluded that nearly 80% of

young individuals use internet only for social activities. But use of technology for

education purpose by the people was very low. In primary and secondary school of EU

broadband connection was not available. Similarly the educators have no competence as

well as belief to utilize digital tool to support their teaching (European Commission,

2013).

2.20 Digital literacy initiative in Pakistan

In Pakistan planned struggles to incorporate ICT in teaching-learning process

appeared in National Education Policy 1998-2008 by including a Chapter on IT in

curriculum to train the students. The main focus of this chapter was to prepare students in

three aspects of ICT such as studying to learn and think with ICT; study about ICT and

prepare and train educators to help students in these adventures and empower the

educator for their new role as teaching with ICT. But this policy failed to achieve the set

goals related to ICT education due to lack of commitment and funds. Later on in 2003 a

global program named “Partners in Learning” (PIL) extended by Microsoft Corporation

global program to Pakistan in 2004 focused on following areas of ICT:

1) Preparing students for Digital World

2) Integration of ICT in Teaching-Learning program through MS technologies

3) Furnish students with Employable IT Skills

4) Establishing a chain of PC labs in schools and Teacher Training Institutes

Considering the global importance to ICT, the MoE developed a strong plan in

2006 to help ICT struggles in education and with the collaboration of ESRA and

Microsoft a national ICT (NICT) strategy was formed on the following below actions:

a) Practice of ICT in teacher training institutions to strength teaching quality

b) Practice of ICT to increase student learning

c) Developing complementary strategies to ICT in education

d) Making on best practices in present ICT programs

51

In the National Education Policy (2009) ICT education was given less importance

as chapter on ICT education was reduced to lip service and not focused on planning an

application plan described in National Education Policy 1998. Education policy 2009

states three points about ICT such as:

a) ICT shall be used creatively to support teachers and learners with a wide range of

skills and from varied socio-economic backgrounds

b) ICT shall be utilized to increase the quality of teaching and educational

management

c) ICT shall be used in Education to promote Ministry of Education’s National ICT

strategy for Education in Pakistan

The National Education Policy (2017) of Pakistan focuses on giving access to ICT

in schools; usage of ICT to reinforce quality of teaching; enhancement of student

learning; improve complementary methods to ICT in education; build on best practices in

current ICT programs; and develop the capacity of education departments. Policy also

stated that by integrating computer and other digital devices such as smart phones for

teaching and learning required preparing learners in early grades to be ready for the

digital revolution ongoing.

The current National Education Policy (2017) emphases on ICT education and

framed following goals:

1) These targets and objectives are based on the notion of non-traditional method to

incorporate ICT in teaching-learning process at the earliest

2) The policy will work for incorporation of ICT in school education along with a

shift from memorization pattern of school education to modern techniques of

learning by exploring, experimenting and innovation. This can be achieved by re-

establishing our lost connection with IT giants such as for example but not limited

to Microsoft, Intel, Open Sources and Linux. The main aim is to use their

curricula for their worldwide approved educational programs thus enabling our

high school students with employable certification of IT skills and knowledge.

3) The major aims of this policy will be to effort on but not restricted to the

following areas of concerns at each level of education:

52

a) In Elementary School

(i) To motivate students to study about ICT; to study about technology;

and to equip these school students with low cost rugged laptops

specially designed for learning.

(ii) To train teachers for their role as ICT teachers with learning aids

b) In Secondary School

(i) To empower students to obtain employable ICT skills.

(ii) To provide access to Pakistani students, the ICT courses designed by

global IT organizations with their partnership (Microsoft’s Education,

Mozilla Corps)

(iii) To equip schools with necessary ICT facilities

c) In Teacher Education

To train teachers for their new role in teaching with ICTs:

(i) To involve students in meaningful and relevant learning

(ii) Integration of ICT into the curricula and devise alternative ways of

assessment of student’s work

(iii) Enable students to build knowledge

(iv) To adapt a variety of students learning styles to cater for individual

learning difference; and

(v) Continuously expand and welcome further prospects for teacher

learning. Introducing ICTs in school involve that we desire to make

teachers to facilitate the process in that all teachers need to emphasize

content and pedagogy not the level of complexity with hardware and

technical skills

In view of aforementioned, the available literature recommends that some digital

literacy skills are necessary for finding, evaluating, organizing, crating, and

communicating information from available online resources and are connected to

scholars’ positive attitudes to technology and self-efficacy. However, proper digital

literacy skills that might be more strongly related to students’ academic performance and

those that Gui (2007) describes substantial information skills such as an ability to find

information using digital tools, ability to appraise information critically, and ability to

utilize it in a responsible way to advance in their follow of their personal and professional

goals. Likewise, these abilities might be linked to the capacity to utilize the full potential

53

of the quickly developing information and communication technologies, not only at the

existing time but in the future also.

2.21 Previous Studies about Digital Literacy

It is difficult task to measure actual level of digital literacy skills of the people.

Therefore, many studies about digital literacy beliefs on self-perceived measures of

digital skills. The study of DeTure (2004) about measuring the relationship among online

students’ field dependency, independency, online technology self-efficacy and their

academic performance revealed that students who were more field independent showed

higher level online technology self-efficacy. However, field dependency, independency

and technology self-efficacy ware not good predictors of students’ academic

performance.

In the same line Hargittai (2005) measured web-oriented digital literacy that work

as valid proxies for actual skill measurement through a self-developed survey. This

measure was acknowledged and updated by further recent study (Hargittai, 2009).

The investigation of Amiri (2009) on effects of computer accessibility and digital

literacy on students’ academic performance discovered a positive effect of digital literacy

on students’ academic performance. Likewise the study explored by Brown (2009) about

examining the relationship between digital literacy and students’ achievement. The study

was conducted in Texas elementary schools. The study concluded that a positive

relationship exists between digital literacy and students’ achievement. The study about

usage of computer and internet completed by Fairlie et al., (2010) discovered strong

positive effects about school graduation and other outcomes relevant to education field. It

was also discovered that computer literacy influences the results of the students as well as

the performance in other academic assignments.

The author Hargittai (2010) completed his study through a survey regarding

measuring the internet skills of college students and concluded that students with high

levels of internet skills engaged in more different types of using of the websites. He

further declared that study does not support the evidence that young students are

generally well-informed about the website, rather we detect systematic variation in online

know-how among a high wired group of young students based on user background.

54

Similarly, Kajee and Balfourv (2011) conducted a study on South African

university students about their digital literacy and found that students’ courses require

some sort of digital literacy but very few students had access to computer. Many students

had to pay others to type any work as students’ digital literacy was almost missing.

Likewise, the investigation made by Lopez-Islas (2013) on deprived group of high

school learner also discovered strong relationship among digital literacy and academic

performance of the learners in an online learning program designed by the school. The

study concluded that improved environment and easy access towards digital literacy

(ICT) has positive effects on academic performance. It was also discovered that through

increasing the practice of internet for social and amusement, which in turn led to a higher

practice of the various learning platform software and to better digital and academic

skills. These talents discovered positive effects on academic performance of the students.

The research study explored by Shopova (2014) titled “Digital literacy of students

and its improvement at University” concluded that most of the students such as 76%

showed good skills and ability to work with computers for accessing information,14%

showed very good skills, whereas 10% showed excellent skills. Students who showed

their ability and good skills to use computer tools for word processing were 40%, while

46% showed very good skills and 14% showed excellent skills. Most of the students

(76%) were able to create and format documents, to create tables, pictures and images,

while 14% had very good skills and 10% had excellent skills. Students who showed good

skills in creating presentations were 70%, whereas 12% admitted that they had very good

and 18% admitted that they had excellent skills.

The study further revealed that 56% students were ready to participate in training

courses that would give them greater opportunities to enhance their digital competence.

Majority of the respondents admitted that they had no skills required to take advantage of

the electronic library at the University. They did not know how to use its rich information

recourses. As 48% of the students indicated that they have difficulty with critical and

creative attitude towards information and its usage in an ethical and responsible way.

Most of the respondents did not know how to interpret the reference to a paper or journal,

how to explore databases effectively, or to assess the quality of different websites.

The study conducted by Matyjas (2015) about the amount of time children in

Europe spent on the computer and discovered that approximately 85% children use a

55

computer without the supervision of a teacher or parent. These results show that these

children have acquired some form of digital literacy.

Ozdamar-Keskin, Ozata, and Banar (2015) completed a study about examining

digital literacy competency of open and distance learners of university using a survey

method in Turkey. Their study revealed that open and distance learners of university trust

that they have problem solving and project working skills to cope with educational

difficulties. However, it was also concluded that learners had only primary capabilities of

digital literacy regarding usage of ICTs.

In summary, it has been verified that most of the above studies focused on

measuring the relationship among online students’ field dependency, web-oriented digital

literacy, effects of computer accessibility and digital literacy on students’ academic

performance, relationship between digital literacy and students’ achievement, computer

literacy influences students’ performance, measuring the internet skills of college

students, students level of digital literacy and students’ courses requirements, relationship

between digital literacy and academic performance of high school learner, Digital literacy

of students and its improvement at University, calculating amount of time of children

spent on the computer, and examining digital literacy competency of open and distance

learners of university. This current study extends literature in the form of measuring

students’ level of digital literacy, relationship between digital literacy and academic

performance (CGPA), communication skills, research skills, confidence skills and

barriers towards learning and practices of digital literacy at higher education level.

56

CHAPTER 3

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The intention of this chapter is to describe the methodology carried out to complete the

research study related to “Effect of digital literacy on the academic performance of the

students at HEIs in Pakistan”. According to Kothari (2004) the research methodologies

involved those procedures that applied in the field of knowledge which are analyzed

systematically as well as theoretically. The methodology is presented in the form of

research design of present study, population of the study, size of the sample, technique for

selecting the sample, development of an appropriate instrument for data collection,

procedures regarding collection and analysis of data.

3.1 Research Design

All researchers have to choose an appropriate research design to conduct the

study. Research design is known as the comprehensive strategy that researcher selects to

incorporate the various elements related with the study in a clear way to answer research

problem. Researcher also ensures that selected design addresses the objective of the

study. The research study is based on its particular research design adopted for it

(DeVaus, 2001), whereas Creswell (2008) states that investigator’s overall plot for

answering the research question or testing the research hypothesis is known as research

design.

The existing investigation aimed at exploring judgments of the students about

effect of digital literacy on their academic performance. Thus, the research design of the

current study is a mixed method type which is based on QUAN-QUAL method. Mixed

method research designs are those in which research applies more than one method or

data gathering and analysis procedure to answer the research questions. According to

Punch (2009), mixed method research study (QUAN-QUAL) is a kind of empirical study

that focuses on the collecting and analyzing of both quantitative and qualitative data.

Bryman (2007) explains that research related to quantitative approach explores the

relationship between and among variable and the numerical description of trends of data

so as to produce answer for the research question or hypothesis, whereas research related

to qualitative approach is a systematic, subjective approach that examines the peoples’

life experience and situations to give them meaning (Burns & Grove, 2000). Johnson and

Onwuegbuzie (2004), explains that research design which involves mixed method is a

57

kind of research in which investigator combines or mixes quantitative and qualitative

methods, approaches, and concepts.

In mixed method sequential explanatory design of QUAN-QUAL has two

different stages: quantitative followed by qualitative. Stage first involves gathering and

analysis of quantitative (numeric) data whereas stage two involves collection and analysis

of qualitative (text) data to help and interpret or elaborate on the basis of quantitative

results completed in first stage. The second stage is based on first stage and both stages

are connected in the intermediate stage in the research study (Creswell et al., 2003). The

foundation of this method is that the quantitative results provide understanding about the

research problem whereas qualitative data analysis refines and explains quantitative

results through discovering participants’ perceptions in more depth (Rossman & Wilson,

1985 & Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998).

Thus, this study adopted a mixed method research design followed by QUAN-

QUAL sequential explanatory model. In the light of the objectives of the study, at the first

phase the researcher collected quantitative data with the support of a standardized

questionnaire and analyzed. Later on, at the second phase qualitative data were collected

by conducting interviews with the students having high digital literacy skills but low

CGPA level and the students having low digital literacy skills but high CGPA level. The

logic for the adoption of this design in this research was that quantitative data were

obtained from a large sample of the students and qualitative data were collected to cover

the deficiencies of quantitative data. Both strategies allowed interpreting the research

questions to draw inferences and produce generalizations. The following table 3.1

describes the mixed method research design:

Table 3.1

Detailed explanation of mixed method design and step process

Quan → QUAL

Quan →

Data

Collection

Quan →

Data

Analysis

Quan →

Data

Interpretation

QUAL →

Data

Collection

QUAL →

Data

Analysis

QUAL →

Data

Interpretation

Interpretation

of Entire

Analysis

Table 3.1 describes that *Quan means quantitative, QUAL means qualitative, ‘→’ stands

for sequential, capital letters represent high weight/dominant/more priority, small letters

represent lower weight or less dominant.

58

3.2 Population of the Study

In the Punjab province of Pakistan there are sixty six (66) Universities of different

categories delivering higher education under the supervision of Higher Education

Commission of Pakistan, out of which 39 Universities belong to public sector and 27

belong to private sector. Around 34 public and private sector recognized & accredited

Universities belong to general category. The study is aimed at discovering effect of digital

literacy on the academic performance of the students at higher education level in

Pakistan. According to Burns (2000, p.83) “population is a whole group of people or

object or event that all have at least one characteristic in common”. Thus, the research

population of this study comprised of all the students of M.S/M.Phil & PhD degree

programs studying at 34 general categories public and private Universities (HEIs) located

in the Punjab, the Province of Pakistan.

3.3 Sample of the Study

A sample comprised of 800 students from 10 higher ranked general category

Universities (05 public & 05 private) was selected for the collection of data related to the

study.

3.3.1 Sampling Techniques

Multistage method of sampling was adopted for the selection of universities,

departments, and students. Details are as under:

1. At the first phase, the researcher selected 10 high ranked general category

Universities (05 public universities and 05 private universities) located in Punjab

Province by using the purposive sampling technique. The ranking list of each

university was got form the website of Higher Education Commission Islamabad,

Pakistan.

2. At the second phase, the researcher selected two faculties (01 belongs to basic

sciences & 01 belongs to social sciences) from each university by using simple

random sampling technique.

3. At the third phase after faculties’ selection, four departments (02 basic sciences &

02 social sciences) were selected from each university through simple random

sampling method. So, total 2 faculties and four departments (having Mphil & PhD

programs) were selected from sampled general category public & private

universes located in Punjab, Province of Pakistan.

59

4. At the last phase, the researcher selected 25 students from each Public sector

University belonging to general category doing research work (20 students of

M.S/M.Phil & 05 students of Ph.D) from concerned departments (having Mphil &

PhD programs) through simple random sampling technique. In this way, 100

students were selected from each sampled public general category university as a

sample of the study. From private sector universities belong to general category

(10 students of M.S/M.Phil & 5 students of Ph.D) from concerned departments

(basic science & social science & having Mphil & PhD programs) were selected

by using simple random sampling technique. In this way, 60 students were

selected from each private university belonging to general category. Thus, total

sample belonging to 10 high ranked public and private general category

universities were consisted of 800.

5. After analyzing quantitative data 20 students were also selected for interview (02

students from each sampled University).

Table 3.2

Detail of sampled Universities belongs to public sector & general category

Sr.

No.

University Name Category Sector HEC Ranking

Score

1 Quaid-e-Azam University,

Islamabad.

General Public 100

2 University of the Punjab,

Lahore

General Public 85.14

3 PMAS Arid Agriculture

University, Rawalpindi


4 Government College

University, Faisalabad

General PublicS 60.69

5 Bahauddin Zakariya

University, Multan


Table (3.2) states the Higher Education Commission (HEC) ranking of Pakistani public

sector Universities on the basis of Quality Assurance, Teaching Quality, and Research,

Finance and facilities and social integration/community development. According to

information of table (3.2) Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad has been placed at 100

Raking score, University of the Punjab, Lahore, has been placed at 85.14, PMAS Arid

60

Agriculture University, Rawalpindi has been placed at 63.53, Government College

University, Faisalabad has placed at 60.69, and Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan

has been placed at 59.35 .

Table 3.3

Detail of sampled Universities belonging to private sector & general category

Sr.

No.

University Name Category Sector HEC Ranking

Score

1 Lums, Lahore General Private 60.94

2 Riphah International

University, Islamabad

General Private 55.51

3 The University of

Faisalabad, Faisalabad


4 FC College Lahore General Private 50.85

5 University of Lahore,

Lahore


The information of table (3.3) states the Higher Education Commission (HEC) ranking of

Pakistani private sector Universities on the basis of Quality Assurance, Teaching Quality,

and Research, Finance and facilities and social integration/community development.

According to information of table (3.3) Lums, Lahore was placed at 60.94 ranking score,

Riphah International University, Islamabad was placed at 55.51, The University of

Faisalabad, Faisalabad was placed at 52.69, FC College Lahore was placed 50.85 and

University of Lahore, Lahore was placed at 47.97 ranking score by HEC Pakistan.

Table 3.4

Faculty and department wise details of sample of each Public University

Sr.

No.

Faculty Departments MS/MPhil

Students

PhD

Students

Total

1 Basic Sciences

Botany/zoology 40 10 50

Chemistry/Physics

2 Social Sciences Education/Isl/Arabic 40 10 50

Sociology/Economics

Total 80 20 100

Table 3.4 describes the faculty wise sample details of each public university. Students

selected from Basic Sciences faculty were 50 and students selected from Social Sciences

61

faculty were 50. In this way total students selected from each public sector general

category university were 100.

Table 3.5

Faculty and department wise details of sample of each Private University

Sr.

No.

Faculty Departments MS/MPhil

Students

PhD

Students

Total

1 Basics Sciences

Botany/zoology/

Chemistry/Physics

20 10 30

2 Social Sciences Education/Isl/Arabic 20 10 30

Sociology/Economics

Total 40 20 60

Table 3.5 describes the faculty wise sample details of each public university. Students

selected from Basic Sciences faculty were 30 and students selected from Social Sciences

faculty were 30. In this way total students selected from each private sector general

category university were 60.

Table 3.6

University wise details of sample

Sr.

No.

University Name Status MS/M Phil

Students PhD

Students

Total

1 Quaid-e-Azam University,

Islamabad.

Public 80 20 100

2 University of the Punjab, Lahore Public 80 20 100

3 PMAS Arid Agriculture University,

Rawalpindi

Public 80 20 100

4 Government College University,

Faisalabad

Public 80 20 100

5 Bahauddin Zakariya University,

Multan

Public 80 20 100

6 Lums, Lahore Private 40 20 60

7 Riphah International University,

Islamabad

Private 40 20 60

8 The University of Faisalabad,

Faisalabad

Private 40 20 60

9 FC College Lahore Private 40 20 60

62

10 University of Lahore, Lahore Private 40 20 60

Total 600 200 800

Table 3.6 describes the university wise sample details of each public & Private Sector

University belonging to general category. The table shows that total students selected

from MS/MPhil were 600 and from PhD were 200. In this way 800 students participated

in the research study.

3.4 Research Instruments

The researcher used following instruments to complete the study:

3.4.1 Development of Questionnaire for Quantitative Data

The present research study is mixed method in nature and QUAN-QUAL

sequential explanatory technique was used for data collection. To discover the effect of

digital literacy on the academic performance of the scholars, the researcher developed a

questionnaire after examining previous literature and other empirical studies related to the

current study. The questionnaire consisted of closed-ended questions developed for

quantitative data collection. Delport (2005) agreed that questioning through survey

method for collection of quantitative data is coherent owing to its likeness, better

consistency of replies, and uncomplicated processing. He further acknowledged that in

survey questionnaire closed-ended question gives researcher an important and tested

inclusiveness of the phenomenon, prompt and fair availability of the study results, simple

coding and statistical analysis.

The involved questionnaire consisted of 11 sections and two parts. Part 1 is

comprised of section: demographic information; section 2: usage of digital

device/resources; section 3: understanding and engaging in digital practices; section 4:

finding information; section 5; critically evaluating information, online interaction;

section 6: managing and communicating information; section 7: and collaborate and share

digital content. Questions included in sections 3 to section 7 are based on the digital &

information literacy framework of Open University (2012) & Dundee University UK self-

assessment of digital literacy skills. Necessary permission for using these questions in

current research was obtained.

The Sections 3 to 7 of the questionnaire comprises of 35 statements which

discover the level of digital literacy of the students. These 35 statements are based on

63

factors like understanding and engaging in digital practices (09 items), finding

information (08 items), critically evaluating information, online interaction (05 items),

managing and communicating information (07 items), and collaborate and share digital

content (06 items) (Appendix-A). Factors and item wise detail of part first of

questionnaire is given in the following table 3.7.

Table 3.7

Factors, variables and items detail of Part I of questionnaire

Factors of

DIGITAL

LITERACY

Variables Item Detail No of Items

Understanding and

engaging in digital

practices.

Academic

performance

1-9 09

Finding information. “ 10-17 08

Critically evaluating

information online

interaction.

“ 18-22 05

Managing and

communicating

information.

“ 23-29 07

Collaborate and

share digital content.

“ 30-35 06

Total Items 35

Table 3.7 shows details of factors and items included in part I of questionnaire.

Part second of the questionnaire is consisted of 4 sections (section 8 to section

11). This part of questionnaire comprises of 40 statements under four factors like section

8: digital literacy and communication skills (09 items); section 9: digital literacy and

research skills (12 items); section 10: digital literacy and confidence (09 items); section

11: barriers in learning & practices of digital literacy (10 items). Questions included in

these factors discover students’ level of communication skills, research skills, confidence

and barriers towards learning and practices of digital literacy (See Appendix-B). The said

questionnaire was totally created in the directions of objectives of the current research

64

study. Factors and item wise detail of part second of questionnaire are given in the

following table 3.7.

Table 3.8

Factors, variables and items detail of Part II of questionnaire

Factors Variables Item Detail No of Items

Digital literacy and


Communication

skills

36-44 09


research skills

Research skills 45-56 12


confidence

Confidence level 57-65 09

Barriers in learning

& practices of digital

literacy

Barriers 66-75 10

Total Items 40

Table 3.8 shows details of factors and items included in part II of questionnaire.

The researcher used the said questionnaire for quantitative data collection. After

the quantitative results, second instrument in the shape of interview was used for

qualitative data collection. This technique gives support to quantitative data for

comprehensive interpretations.

The research questionnaire comprised of five point scales (Likert scale), was

utilized as instrument to collect responses from the students. The questionnaire contained

the options of Completely Disagree (1), Disagree (2), Neutral (3), Agree (4), and

Completely Agree (5). These types of ordinal scales access levels of agreement &

disagreement.

3.4.2 Development of Interview Schedule for Qualitative data

As discussed earlier that the current study involves quantitative and qualitative method

under QUAN-QUAL approach, the second instrument according to the research design is

interview.

Rubin and Rubin (2005) states that in social sciences the researchers tend to

conduct interviews targeting to collect a comprehensive explanation of human behavior

65

and beliefs within the settings they are living. Moreover, with the collection of qualitative

data, this way of investigation pursues to discover individuals’ actions to their beliefs.

Dornyei (2000) augments that mostly this type of data are collected by examiner

through interview and questionnaire. But interview contrasted to questionnaire are very

dominant in producing narrative data that permits examiner to explore individual’s

interpretations in considerable depth. Similarly, Cohen et al., (2007) also stated that

interview method is a valued technique for discovering the construction and negotiations

of meanings in a situation which is in accordance with the nature. In the same lines Berg

(2007) also stated that interview empowers examinees to express in their own tongue and

speak their personal judgments and feelings. It shows the worth of questioning as it

figures a complete picture, evaluates words, and reports comprehensive opinions of

informers.

Researches revealed four types of interviews are common which are mostly used

by the researcher in social sciences. According to Berg (2007) first type is structured

interview, in which researcher asks fixed question that requires immediate answer like

‘yes’ or ‘no’. Open-ended (un-structured) interviews are placed at second type. In this

type a better flexibility and freedom is provided to interviewers and interviewees in the

form of development, executing and forming the interview contents and questions

(Gubrium and Holstein, 2002). Next type is known as semi-structured interviews which

are more adjustable style. It permits researcher to reach at depth by investigate and

expand the interviewee’s replies (Rubin & Rubin, 2005). The last type of interviews are

known as focus group questioning procedure in which participants are selected as they are

a purposive, though not representative, sampling of an exact population, this group being

focused on a provided topic (Barbour & Schostak, 2005).

Agreeing with Rubin & Rubin (2005), semi-structured interview technique for

collection of qualitative data was selected due to its flexibility. It this type researcher

recommends a checklist that covers all related research questions. The checklist enables

investigator for in-depth investigation and on the other hands it also enables interviewer

to conduct the interview within the restrictions followed by the objectives of the study

(Berg, 2007).

Consequently, the researcher opted semi-structured technique as it would permit

covering questions regarding to present study. After analyzing quantitative data and

66

observing their results, semi-structured interview based on standardized open-ended

interview questions was developed by the researcher to conduct the interviews of the

students (See Appendix-C for interview questions).

The sample for qualitative data collection comprised of the following students:

1. Students having high digital literacy level but achieved low CGPA score in the

last examination.

2. Students having low digital literacy level but achieved high CGPA score in the

last examination.

In this regard, ten students were randomly selected and involved in the study for

interview from sampled university. Harry, Sturges and Klinger (2005) debates that an

investigator accomplishes a more refined analysis of data with a small size of sample, and

reduces too much when striking a compromise between quality and quantity. So, I favour

the possibility and opportunity to study from a small sample of ten students not only, but

also convincing of primary importance.

The researcher adopted one-on-one interview strategy for collection of data from

the research participants. Individual interviews were considered best due to the faith that

participants would not be influenced by the opinions and views of their classmates and the

result would be a more valid account of their own experience.

3.5 Validity of the Instruments

Validity is a process in which the ability of the instrument and what it expects to

be measured is tested (Delport, 2005). Validity also confirms the degree of an instrument

that can measure the variables. The face validity and content validity of the questionnaire

were confirmed through obtaining expert opinion from five Professors of Social Sciences

(Education Department), two of the Computer Science Department, and one language

expert. Their suggestions were discussed with the supervisor and necessary amendments

were made in the questionnaire. Finally, the questionnaire was validated through expert

opinions and became ready for data collection from the respondents.

3.6 Pilot Testing

The pilot testing phase was carried out through validated questionnaire on 50

university students to obtain their responses for improvement and to reduce errors. In the

light of responses received through pilot testing, the instrument was slightly amended and

67

shaped to its present status. The respondents involved in pilot testing were not included in

the sample of the study.

3.7 Reliability of the Instruments

The researcher conducted pilot study on fifty students which were excluded from

the sample. After the pilot study, the process of confirming reliability of students’

questionnaire consisting of 75 items was done through applying scale reliability test and

Croanbach’s alpha coefficient was appeared as (α= 0.83) which was acceptable to use for

data collection for the present study. Reliability is a statistical test which is used to

confirm the consistency and stability of items included in the instrument (Cohen, Manion

& Morrison, 2011). Reliability of each factor of students’ questionnaire was also

computed which is reflected in given table no.3.8.

Table 3.9

Factor wise reliability

Factors Items Cronbach alpha value

Digital Literacy 35 0.83

Communication skills 09 0.86

Research skills 12 0.88

Confidence 09 0.79

Barriers 10 0.83

Total factors: 09 75 0.83 (Overall reliability)

The information presented in table (3.9) describes the factor wise reliability of the

research instrument used for data collection. The information shows that there were five

factors of the questionnaire distributed in the students for data collection. The factor of

digital literacy had 35 items with 0.83 alpha values, communication had 09 items with

0.86 alpha values, research skills had 12 items with 0.88 alpha values, confidence has 09

items with 0.79 alpha values, and barriers factor had 10 items with alpha value 0.83. The

overall alpha value of students’ questionnaire had 0.83 which is appropriate and

acceptable for using data collection.

3.8 Data Collection Procedures

Data were collected through two procedures, an online questionnaire developed

through Google form and personal visits of the researcher. Before starting data collection

68

the researcher obtained a consent letter from the supervisor and visited the sampled

universities for said purpose. The researcher presented consent letter to the Head of

Departments in each university. After getting permission from concerned authority the

researcher visited the classes and distributed questionnaire to the students for responses.

The researcher briefly explained the purpose of questionnaire and how to response on the

questionnaire. Some students of various universities asked for online version of the said

questionnaire for submitting their response due to their busy schedule in laboratories. The

researcher got their email address and sent the same questionnaire developed using

Google forms technique. In this way 117 out of 800 responses were received through this

method.

3.9 Data Analysis

After collection of quantitative data from the respondents, it was categorized and

entered into SPSS version-24 for analysis. All the information involved in the

questionnaire was coded and numbers were assigned to the answers reflected in all the

sections of the questionnaire. Quantitative data were analyzed followed by descriptive

statistics (percentages, frequency, mean, standard deviation) and inferential statistics (t-

test, and correlation) in phase I of chapter four. Similarly, on the basis of quantitative data

results, qualitative data were analyzed followed by thematic analysis in phase II of

chapter four.

3.9.1 Analysis of Quantitative Data

In first phase of chapter four, the process of quantitative data analysis is presented.

After cleaning the data, it was categorized and entered in to SPSS version 24. The

reliability of research instrument (students’ questionnaire) was also confirmed through

Croanbach’s alpha coefficient value before applying it for data collection. Percentages

and frequencies were used for organization and interpretation of study sample. Later on,

the descriptive statistics were used to discover the level of students’ digital literacy skills,

communication skills, research skills, confidence, and barriers in learning digital literacy.

T-test was applied to discover change between male and female students and public and

private sectors HEIs regarding attitude towards digital literacy, communication skills,

research skills, confidence and barriers towards learning digital literacy. Correlation test

was employed to explore relationship between digital literary and academic performance

of the students and multiple liner regression was carried out to predict the variables.

69

Following table 3.10 express the details of quantitative data analysis according to the

objectives of the study:

Table 3.10

Objective & research questions wise details of Quantitative Data Analysis

Sr. Objectives of the study Research

Question

Data

Analysis

1. To discover the perceived level of

digital literacy of the students

What is the perceived level of

digital literacy of the students at

higher education level?

i.Mean

ii.S.D

2. To find out the perceived level of

communication skills of the

students



students at higher education level?

i.Mean

ii.S.D

3. To probe the perceived level of

research skills of the students


research skills of the students at


i. Mean

ii. S.D

4. To explore the perceived level of

confidence skills of the students


confidence skills of the students at


i. Mean

ii. S.D

5. To investigate the effect of digital

literacy on the academic

performance of the students

Is there any significant

relationship between the perceived

level of digital literacy and

academic performance of the

students?

i. Pearson r

correlation

6. To inspect the effect of digital

literacy on the communication

skills of the students





students?

i. Pearson r

correlation

7. To probe the effect of digital

literacy on the research skills of

the students




research skills of the students?

i. Pearson r

correlation

8. To Probe the effect of digital

literacy on the confidence level of

the students



level of digital literacy and the

i. Pearson r

correlation

70

confidence skills of the students?

9. To investigate the barriers in

learning and practices of digital

literacy

What are the barriers in learning

and practices of digital literacy at


i.Mean

ii.S.D

10. To compare the significant

difference in the perceptions of

students (gender-wise) & (public

& private) about digital literacy,

communication skills, research

skills, confidence and regarding

barriers in learning and practices of

digital literacy

(i) Are there any noteworthy

changes between the opinions of

male and female scholar regarding

perceived level of digital literacy,

communication skills, research

skills, confidence skills and

barriers in learning and practices

of digital literacy?

(vi) Are there any noteworthy

changes between the opinions of

students of public and private

universities regarding perceived

digital literacy, communication

skills, research skills, and

confidence?

i. Independent

sample t-test

Table 3.10 demonstrates the data analysis techniques according to objectives and research

questions framed for the study.

3.9.2 Analysis of Qualitative Data

The qualitative data collected through semi-structured interviews of students was

analyzed through thematic analysis and presented in phase second of chapter four. The

reason for using thematic analysis is that it provides deep insight into the data and

provides answers to the research questions. According to Braun & Clarke (2006) thematic

analysis is consisted of six steps and this method is used for identifying, analyzing, and

reporting pattern themes within the qualitative data. These six steps include familiarizing

with the data, transcription of the data, searching and reviewing themes, defining themes,

naming and reporting themes. Later on, the raw data were emerged in codes by excluding

irrelevant data and then those codes merged in themes and each respondent was given

code such as R1, which means respondent fixed by number 1.

71

CHAPTER 4

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

This chapter reports the results after data analysis related to the topic “Effect of digital

literacy on the academic performance of the students at higher education level in

Pakistan”. Data analysis is presented in two phases. In first phase, analysis of quantitative

data is reflected which is based on descriptive and inferential statistics. In second phase,

analysis of qualitative data is presented which is based on thematic analysis. The analysis

of quantitative data is followed by qualitative data. These, mutual analyses provide

comprehensive facts about the students’ level of digital literacy and its effects on their

academic achievements. Results are presented in tables with brief description.

Phase I

4.1 Detail of demographic variable, usage of digital devices and resources

Table 4.1

Description of demographic variable

Characteristics Groups Frequency Percentage

Gender Male

Female

Total

389

411

800

49%

51%

100%

Area Urban

Rural

Total

582

218

800

73%

27%

100%

University Status Public

Private

Total

500

300

800

62.5%

37.5%

100%

Faculty Basic Sciences

Social Sciences

Total

400

400

800

50%

50%

100%

Program M.S/M.Phil

PhD

Total

600

200

800

75%

25%

100%

Job Status In-Service

Student

Total

219

581

800

27%

73%

100%

Age group in years 20-25

26-30

31-35

423

219

130

53%

27%

16%

72

Above 35

Total

28

800

4%

100%

Digital Device used

for searching online

material

Desktop comp:

Laptop:

Smart Phone:

Tablet:

Others:

Total:

60

576

152

12

-

800

7.5%

72%

19%

1.5%

-

100%

Internet Access At

University

Yes:

No:

Total:

651

149

800

81%

19%

100%

Daily usage of

Internet

01-02 hours:

03-04 hours:

05-06 hours:

Above 6 hours:

Total:

299

230

103

168

800

37%

29%

13%

21%

100%

Any Computer

Training

Certificate:

Diploma:

Degree:

Others:

Total:

220

181

18

381

800

27.5%

23%

2%

47.5%

100%

Internet Searching

Skills

Poor:

Acceptable:

Good:

Very Good:

Total:

96

249

295

160

800

12%

31%

37%

20%

100%

Digital Literacy

Skills

Poor:

Acceptable:

Good:

Very Good:

Total:

126

266

258

150

800

16%

33%

32%

19%

100%

Working with MS

office

Poor:

Acceptable:

Good:

Very Good:

Total:

116

292

228

164

800

14.5%

36.5%

28.5%

20.5%

100%

Learning through

online resources

Networking site:

Google Scholar:

Online resources:

232

373

195

800

29%

47%

24%

100%

ICT training during

course work

Yes:

No:

Total:

376

424

800

47%

53%

100%

Delivery of ICT

Training

Poor:

Acceptable:

120

139

32%

37%

73

Good:

Very Good:

Total:

71

46

376

19%

12%

100%

Table 4.1 demonstrates the detail of the demographic variable of the participants. The

data presented in the above table shows that participants belonging to male gender were

49% and female genders were 51%. In this way, participants belonging to the female

gender were higher as compared to males.

The data in the above table shows that participants belonging to urban areas were 73%

while rural areas were 27%. In this way, participants belonging to urban areas were

higher as compared to rural areas.

The figures in the above table show that participants belonging to public universities were

62.5% whereas private universities were 37.5%. In this way, participants belonging to

public universities were higher as compared to private universities.

The data presented in the above table show that participants belonging to basic sciences

were 50% and social science were 50%. It shows that participants belonging to both

faculties were equal in numbers.

The data presented in the table (4.1) expresses that participants belonging to MS/M.Phil

program were 75% and Ph.D program were 25%. It shows that participants belonging to

M.S/M.Phil program were higher in numbers as compared to P.h.D program.

The figures reflected in the table (4.1) illustrate that participants having a job was 27%

and Participants belonging to students' status were 73%. It shows that participants having

the status of students were in the majority as compared to participants having status of a

job.

The information reflected in the table (4.1) declares that participants having age group

20-25 years were 53%, 26-30 years 27%, 31-35 years 16%, and above 35 years 4%. It

shows that participants having 20-25 years of age group were in majority while having 35

years were in minority.

The information reflected in the table (4.1) show that participants using a desktop

computer were 7.5%, using laptops 72%, using smartphones 19%, and using tablets were

1.5%. It declares that participants using laptops were in majority while participants using

tablets were in minority.

74

The information of the table (4.1) show that participants’ response to accessibility of

Internet at University was 81% and participant response to no accessibility of internet at

University was 19%. It shows that the majority of the participants agreed that they had

easy accessibility of Internet at University.

The statistics of table (4.1) show that participants’ daily usage of the Internet. Participants

using daily internet for 01-02 hours were 37%, 03-04 hours were 29%, 05-06 hours were

13% and above 6 hours were 21%. It revealed that the majority of the participants use

internet for 01-02 hours for their studies.

The data of the table (4.1) shows that participants having computer certificate were

27.5%, having computer diploma were 23%, having computer degree were 2%, and

having other computer education were 47.5%. It revealed that the majority of the

participants had other education related to computer.

The information displayed in the table (4.1) shows that participants having poor internet

searching skills were 12%, having acceptable skills were 31%, having good skills were

37%, and having very good skills were 20%. It concluded that the majority of the

participants had good internet searching skills.

The statistics presented in the table (4.1) illustrates that participants having poor digital

literacy skills were 16%, having acceptable skills were 33%, having good skills were

32%, and having very good skills were 19%. It concluded that the majority of the

participants had acceptable digital literacy skills.

The data demonstrated in the table (4.1) shows that participants having poor working

skills with MS office were 14.5%, having acceptable skills were 36.5%, having good

skills were 28.5% and having very good skills were 20.5%. It concluded that the majority

of the participants had acceptable digital literacy skills.

The information exposed in the table (4.1) shows that participants’ learning through

networking site were 29%, learning through Google scholar were 47%, and learning

through online resources were 24%. It concluded that the majority of the participants

were using Google scholar for their learning.

The information presented in the table (4.1) announces that participants who got ICT

training during their course work were 47% and participants who did not get ICT training

75

during their course work were 53%. It established that the majority of the participants did

not receive ICT training during their course work.

The information displayed in the table (4.1) shows that participants who remarked poor

ICT training during their course work were 32%, acceptable were 37%, good were 19%

and very good were 46%. It established that the majority of the participants remarked

acceptable ICT training during their course work.

76

4.2 Descriptive analysis of quantitative data (SQ)

Descriptive analysis is followed by Mean and Standard Deviations (SDs) for

discovering how highly the students perceive digital literacy. In this regard the below

criteria is adopted to judge the students’ perceptions of digital literacy, communication

skills, research skills, confidence level and barriers towards learning and practices of

Digital Literacy.

Mean: Perceiving Degree:

Less than 1.8 -Very low

1.8 to 2.6 -Low

2.6 to 3.4 -Moderate

3.4 to 4.2 -High

4.2 and above -Very High

RQ: 1: What is the perceived level of digital literacy of the students at higher education

level?

Table 4.2

Means and SDs of students’ perceptions about their Level of Digital Literacy

towards understanding factor

Sr. Statements

Mea

n

SD

Per

ceiv

ing

deg

ree

Ran

k

1 I know what type of users I can expect to find online 3.39 0.99 Moderate 6

2 I know what happens to personal information which I

share online

3.56 0.99 High 4

3 I can choose the right tool to find, use or create

information

3.72 0.90 High 1

4 I know how to present my digital identity in a positive

way

3.59 0.97 High 2

5 I know how to locate a person online, e.g. an expert in

my chosen discipline

3.38 0.99 Moderate 7

6 I know how to verify the online contact details of a

person or organization


7 I know how to verify who owns information and

ideas I find online


8 I know how to check whether I can legally re-use

information I find online

3.40 1.03 High 5

77

9 I understand how to keep digital information secure,

e.g. creating and managing secure passwords or

online accounts

3.58 1.04 High 3

Total 3.47 0.99 High -

The data presented in table (4.2) illustrates the overall students’ perception about the level

of understanding of digital literacy was high with a total mean of 3.47 (SD=0.99). The

highest statement was number 3, “I can choose the right tool to find, use or create

information” with a mean of 3.72 (SD=0.90) and a high perceiving degree. The finding

exposed that the majority of the students had a high level of understanding of digital

literacy.

Table 4.3

Means and SDs of students’ responses about their Level of Digital Literacy in

Finding Information factor

Sr. Statements

Mea

n

SD

Per

ceiv

ing

deg

ree

Ran

k

10 I know what kind of information can be found on the

web

3.91 0.88 High 1

11 I know what kind of information can be found in an

online library

3.79 0.90 High 2

12 I can search for information systematically, using

advanced search options to limit and refine a search

3.70 0.93 High 5

13 I can identify and use key words commonly used in

my discipline to search for information online

3.74 0.97 High 4

14 I know when I need to change my search strategy if it

is not working effectively, and know when my search

is complete

3.67 0.99 High 6

15 I can use scanning/skimming techniques to quickly

access the key relevant information on a web page

3.45 0.99 High 8

16 I keep up-to-date with information from authoritative

people or organizations by subscribing to email alerts

3.45 1.03 High 7

17 I can use and engage with social networks, e.g.

Facebook, Twitter etc

3.74 1.04 High 3


78

The statistics presented in table (4.3) demonstrate the overall students’ perception about

the level of digital literacy in finding information was high with a total mean of 3.68

(SD=0.96). The highest statement was number 10, “I know what kind of information can

be found on the web” with a mean of 3.91 (SD=0.88) and a high perceiving degree. The

finding exposed that the majority of the students had a high level of digital literacy skills

regarding finding information.

Table 4.4


critically evaluating information, online interaction, and online tools factor

Sr. Statements

Mea

n

SD

Per

ceiv

ing

deg

ree

Ra

nk

18 I use information, for my studies, which comes from

different media, e.g. text, podcasts, videos, online

discussions

3.66 1.14 High 2

19 I can tell whether an online resource (e.g. web page,

blog, wiki, video, podcast, academic journal article) is

credible and trustworthy

3.50 1.00 High 4

20 I can tell whether a person I interact with online is

credible and trustworthy


21 I can keep a digital record of the relevant information

I find online using standard desktop tools

3.58 0.99 High 3

22 I use social networks to find information to support

my University studies

3.76 0.99 High 1


The figures appeared in the table (4.4) declare the overall students’ perception of the level

of digital literacy in critically evaluating information, online interaction, and online tools

factor was high with a total mean of 3.54 (SD=1.02). The highest statement was number

10 “I use social networks to find information to support my University studies” with a

mean of 3.76 (SD=0.99) and a high perceiving degree. The finding exposed that the

majority of the students had a high level of digital literacy skills in critically evaluating

information, online interaction, and online tools factor.

79

Table 4.5


managing and communicating information factor

Sr. Statements

Mea

n

SD

Per

ceiv

ing

deg

ree

Ra

nk

23 I regularly add comments to blogs, forums or web

pages


24 I know how to “tag” information I create online (or

information created by others) to allow others to

retrieve it quickly


25 I have updated or corrected information I have found

on online reference sources, e.g. Wikipedia


26 I understand “netiquettes” (manners for network) and

use appropriate social conventions for online

communication


27 I can create content in different media, e.g. video,

audio, webpages for people to read online


28 I can cite a reference to an online resource (e.g. in an

assignment) using the correct format

3.53 1.01 High 1

29 I can use other people’s work (found online) without

committing plagiarism


Total 3.17 1.07 Moderate -

The information reflected in the table (4.5) states the overall students’ perception about

level of digital literacy in managing and communicating information factor was moderate

with a total mean of 3.17 (SD=1.07). The highest statement was number 28, “I can cite a

reference to an online resource (e.g. in an assignment) using the correct format” with a

mean of 3.53 (SD=1.01) and a moderate perceiving degree. The findings declared that the

majority of the students had a moderate level of digital literacy skills in managing and

communicating information factor.

80

Table 4.6


collaboration and share of digital content factor

Sr. Statements

Mea

n

SD

Per

ceiv

ing

deg

ree

Ra

nk

30 I can create content online for different audiences

using the appropriate style or tone,(e.g. a web page or

blog entry for private use, a presentation for use by

my fellow students, an assessment for my course or a

webpage to be read by the general people)


31 I have interacted with others in an online setting

(forums, blogs, social networking sites, audio, video,

etc)


32 I can collaborate online safely and effectively with

others to create a shared document or presentation


33 I can use media-capture devices to record and edit a

podcast or video


34 I can use social bookmarking to organize and share

information

3.40 1.06 High 2

35 I can share files legally with others 3.56 0.97 High 1

Total 3.29 1.04 Moderate -

The data reflected in the table (4.6) shows the overall students’ perception about the level

of digital literacy in collaboration and share of a digital content factor was moderate with

a total mean of 3.29 (SD=1.04). The highest statement was number 35, “I can share files

legally with others” with a mean of 3.56 (SD=1.04) and a moderate perceiving degree.

The findings confirmed that the majority of the students had a moderate level of digital

literacy skills in collaboration and share of digital content factor.

81

RQ:2. What is the perceived level of communication skills of the students at higher

education level?

Table 4.7

Means and SDs of students’ responses about perceived level of communication

skills in using digital literacy

Sr. Statements

Mea

n

SD

Per

ceiv

ing

deg

ree

Ra

nk

36 I can identify the purpose of online tools for

communication

3.68 0.96 High 2

37 I can work with various online tools 3.64 0.91 High 4

38 I can communicate through group e-mails 3.65 1.00 High 3

39 I can easily transfer my work to online users of social

networking sites

3.59 0.96 High 6

40 I can make voice call, video call, and video

conferencing easily

3.63 1.04 High 5

41 I can create blog posting, photo blogging, video

blogging and video uploading


42 I can present my own research work in

National/International conferences

3.49 1.03 High 7

43 I am aware of communication rules during online

discussion

3.49 0.96 High 8

44 I know advantages & dis-advantages of social

networking sites

3.92 0.90 High 1


According to the statistical data presented in the table (4.7) shows the overall students’

perception about the level of digital literacy in communication skills factor was high with

a total mean of 3.59 (SD=0.98). The highest statement was number 44, “I know the

advantages & disadvantages of social networking sites” with a mean of 3.92 (SD=0.98)

and a high perceiving degree. The findings established that the majority of the students

had a high level of digital literacy skills in communication skills factor.

82

RQ.3. What is the perceived level of research skills of the students at higher education

level?

Table 4.8

Means and SDs of students’ responses about perceived level of research skills in

using digital literacy

Sr. Statements

By using digital technologies:

Mea

n

SD

Per

ceiv

ing

deg

ree

Ra

nk

45 I can perform electronic search for online resources. 3.60 1.02 High 5

46 I can create my work through various digital tools 3.61 0.93 High 4

47 My research finding and discussion in online

journals/articles has increased.

3.55 0.99 High 8

48 My skills for referencing others’ online work using

APA guideline have been increased.

3.47 0.93 High 12

49 I can manage literature review through digital tools. 3.84 2.79 High 2

50 I can design scale for quantitative & qualitative

research (e.g., Google forms).

3.49 0.98 High 11

51 I can prepare interview schedule to conduct a good

interview.

3.60 0.91 High 6

52 My understanding for basic data analysis and

interpretation techniques has been developed through

digital literacy.

3.53 0.86 High 10

53 I can select appropriate test according to nature of

data.

3.57 0.94 High 7

54 I can create my manuscript plagiarism free for

publication in a journal.

3.54 0.95 High 9

55 My academic writing skills have been improved. 3.83 0.78 High 3

56 I have clear understanding about ethical principles in

research.

3.84 0.89 High 1


The statistical information presented in the table (4.8) shows the overall students’

perception about the level of digital literacy to research skills factor was high with a total

mean of 3.62 (SD=1.08). The highest statement was number 56, “I have clear

understanding about ethical principles in research” with a mean of 3.84 (SD=0.89) and a

83

high perceiving degree. These findings proved that the majority of the students had a high

level of digital literacy skills in the research skills factor.

RQ: 4. What is the perceived level of confidence skills of the students at higher education

level?

Table 4.9

Means and SDs of students’ responses about perceived level of confidence skills in

using Digital Literacy

Sr. Statements

By using digital technologies:

Mea

n

SD

Per

ceiv

ing

deg

ree

Ra

nk

57 I can work with various software related to my

research

3.53 1.01 High 6

58 I am aware of data protection and privacy while

online.

3.49 0.97 High 8

59 Digital technologies have increased my confidence. 3.78 0.89 High 5

60 I can easily present my own work to my

fellows/seniors/teachers.

3.89 0.82 High 1

61 I can produce my research work enriched with

required academic skills.

3.89 0.81 High 2

62 I can reply the questions of audience about my

research work confidently.

3.82 0.87 High 4

63 My potential to solve my academic problems has

increased.

3.85 0.85 High 3

64 I feel myself an important member of online

community.

3.44 1.02 High 9

65 I can join confidently in online discussions, blogs, and

social network sites.

3.51 1.02 High 7

Toal 3.68 0.91 High -

The statistical information presented in table (4.9) shows the overall students’ perception

about effect digital literacy on confidence factor was high with a total mean of 3.68

(SD=0.91). The highest statement was number 60 “I can easily present my own work to

my fellows/seniors/teachers” with a mean of 3.89 (SD=0.82) and a high perceiving

degree. These findings proved that the majority of the students had high perceptions about

the effect of digital literacy on the confidence factor.

84

RQ: 6: What are the barriers in learning and practices of digital literacy at higher

education level?

Table 4.10

Means and SDs of students’ responses about barriers in learning Digital Literacy

factor

Sr. Statements

Barriers in learning digital literacy

Mea

n

SD

Per

ceiv

ing

deg

ree

Ra

nk

66 Lack of students’ interest 3.58 1.06 High 6

67 Lack of teachers’ interest 3.42 1.11 High 10

68 Lack of time to learn about digital technologies 3.50 1.14 High 9

69 Lack of teachers’ knowledge about digital

technologies

3.51 1.17 High 8

70 Lack of students’ knowledge about digital

technologies

3.65 1.07 High 5

71 Lack of teachers’ training about digital technologies 3.72 1.07 High 4

72 Insufficient internet facilities in University 3.54 1.14 High 7

73 Low speed Internet issues at University 3.86 1.09 High 1

74 The cost of internet connection/packages is too high 3.78 1.07 High 2

75 Lack of availability of digital devices at University 3.79 1.09 High 3


The statistical data presented in table (4.10) shows the overall students’ perception

towards barriers in learning Digital Literacy factor was high with a total mean of 3.63

(SD=1.10). The highest statement was number 73, “Low-speed Internet issues at

University” with a mean of 3.86 (SD=1.09) and a high perceiving degree. These findings

verified that the majority of the students had high perceptions about the above barriers in

learning the Digital Literacy factor.

85

Phase II

4.3 Inferential analysis of quantitative data

RQ: 6: Is there any significant relationship between the perceived level of digital literacy

and academic performance of the students?

Table 4.11

Relationship between digital literacy and academic performance of the students

Variables Digital_ Literacy CGPA_ Last_ Exam

Digital_ Literacy

Pearson Correlation 1 -.025

Sig. (2-tailed) .475

N= 800 800

CGPA_ Last_ Exam

Pearson Correlation -.025 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .475

N= 800 800

**.Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*.Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Pearson r (correlation) was used to explore the relationship between digital literacy and

academic performance of the university students.

Eight hundred students studying in institutions of higher education in Punjab province of

the Pakistan were surveyed to explore relationship between the perceived level of digital

literacy and academic performance of the students. In this case, the independent variable

was digital literacy and the dependent variable was students’ CGPA. The statistical

information presented in the table (4.11) revealed that there is a negative correlation

between digital literacy and academic performance (r= -.025). The result of P-value (.475,

P > 0.01 & 0.05 levels) also verified that there is a non-significant and negative

correlation between digital literacy and academic performance (CGPA). Results

concluded that digital literacy had no effect on students’ CGPA.

86


and communication skills of the students?

Table 4.12

Relationship between digital literacy and students’ communication skills

Variables Digital_ Literacy Communication Skills

Digital_

Literacy

Pearson Correlation 1 .705**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000*

N 800 800

Communication

Skills

Pearson Correlation .705** 1


N 800 800



Eight hundred university students were surveyed to explore the relationship between the

perceived levels of digital literacy and communication skills of the students. In this case,

the independent variable was digital literacy and the dependent variable was

communication skills. The statistical figures presented in the table (4.12) discovered that

there is a strong positive correlation between digital literacy and communication skills (r=

.705). The result of P-value (.000, P < 0.01 & 0.05 levels) also verified that there is a

statistically significant and strong positive correlation between digital literacy and

communication skills. Results discovered that digital literacy had a positive effect on

students’ communication skills.

87


and research skills of the students?

Table 4.13

Relationship between digital literacy and students’ research skills

Variables Digital_ Literacy Research_ Skills

Digital_ Literacy



N 800 800

Research_ Skills



N 800 800



Eight hundred students of general category universities located in Punjab province of

Pakistan were surveyed to explore relationship between the perceived level of digital

literacy and research skills of the students. In this case, the independent variable was

digital literacy and the dependent variable was research skills. The statistical facts

displayed in the table (4.13) exposed that there is a positive correlation between digital

literacy and research skills (r= .624). The result of P-value (.000, P < 0.01 & 0.05 levels)

also proved that there is a statistically significant and positive correlation between digital

literacy and research skills. Results revealed that digital literacy had a positive effect on

students’ research skills.

88


and the confidence skills of the students?

Table 4.14

Relationship between digital literacy and students’ confidence skills

variables Digital_ Literacy Confidence

Digital_ Literacy



N 800 800

Confidence



N 800 800

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Eight hundred students studying in public and private general category universities

located in Punjab province of Pakistan were surveyed to explore the perceived level of

digital literacy and confidence skills of the students. In this case, the independent variable

was digital literacy and the dependent variable was confidence. The statistical evidence

displayed in the table (4.14) reported that there is a positive correlation between digital

literacy and confidence (r= .638). The result of P-value (.000, P < 0.01 & 0.05 levels) also

evidenced that there is a statistically significant and positive correlation between digital

literacy and confidence. Results concluded that digital literacy had a positive effect on

students’ confidence skills.

89

RQ:10. Are there any noteworthy changes between the opinions of male and female

scholar regarding digital literacy?

Table 4.15

Comparison among male & female students regarding perceptions of digital

literacy

Gender N Mean SD Df t-value p-value

Male 389 3.5282 .61310 798 2.209 .027

Female 411 3.4225 .60879

An independent sample t-test was applied to discover significant changes between male

and female students’ views regarding digital literacy. The statistical data reflected in the

table (4.15) exposed an insignificant difference between the Male (Mean=3.5282,

SD=.61310) and Female (Mean=3.4225, SD=.60879), t (798) = 2.209. It is notable from

the p-value (p=.027>0.05 level) that there is an insignificant difference between the views

of male and female students. These results concluded that there is a statistically

insignificant difference between the perceptions of both genders regarding digital literacy.

Results concluded that both genders had the same perceptions about digital literacy.

RQ:11. Are there any noteworthy changes between the views of male and female scholars

regarding effect of digital literacy on communication skills?

Table 4.16

Comparison among male & female students regarding perceptions of effect of

digital literacy on their communication skills


Male 389 3.6992 .80876 798 2.342 .019

Female 411 3.5693 .65567

An independent sample t-test was applied to explore significant changes between male

and female students’ views regarding the effects of digital literacy on communication

skills. The data reflected in table (4.16) exposed an insignificant difference between Male

(Mean=3.6992, SD=.80876) and Female (Mean=3.5693, SD=.65567), t (798) = 2.342. It

is notable from the p-value (p=.019>0.05 level) that there is an insignificant difference

between the views of male and female students. These results proved that there is a

statistically insignificant difference between the views of both genders regarding the

effect of digital literacy on communication skills. Results concluded that both genders

had the same perceptions about the effect of digital literacy on communication skills.

90

RQ:12. Are there any noteworthy changes between the perceptions of male and female

scholars regarding effect of digital literacy on research skills?

Table 4.17

Comparison among male & female students’ views regarding effect of digital

literacy on research skills


Male 389 3.6702 .62575 798 .987 .324

Female 411 3.6187 .68240

An independent sample t-test was applied to see significant changes between male and

female students’ views regarding the effect of digital literacy on research skills. The data

reflected in table (4.17) exposed an insignificant difference between Male (Mean=3.6702,

SD=.62575) and Female (Mean=3.6187, SD=.68240), t (798) = .987. It is noticeable from

the p-value (p=.324>0.05 level) that there is an insignificant difference between the views

of male and female students. These results proved that there is a statistically insignificant

difference between the views of both genders regarding the effect of digital literacy on

research skills. Results exposed that both genders had the same views regarding the effect

of digital literacy on research skills.

RQ:13. Are there any noteworthy changes between the judgments of male and female

scholars regarding effect of digital literacy on confidence skills?

Table 4.18

Comparison among male & female students regarding perceptions of effect of

digital literacy on confidence skills


Male 389 3.7369 .70234 798 1.065 .273

Female 411 3.6797 .64569


and female students’ opinions regarding the effect of digital literacy on confidence skills.

The data reflected in the table (4.18) exposed an insignificant difference between Male

(Mean=3.7369, SD=.70234) and Female (Mean=3.6797, SD=.64569), t (798) = 1.065. It

is noticeable from the p-value (p=.273>0.05 level) that there is an insignificant difference

between the opinions of male and female students. These results concluded that there is a

statistically insignificant difference between the opinions of both genders regarding effect

91

of digital literacy on confidence skills. Results exposed that both genders had the same

perceptions about effect of digital literacy on confidence.

RQ:14. Are there any noteworthy changes between the views of male and female scholars

regarding barriers in learning and practices of digital literacy?

Table 4.19

Comparison among male & female students regarding perceptions of barriers

towards learning and practices digital literacy


Male 389 3.6213 .74049 798 -1.066 .287

Female 411 3.7072 1.13739


and female students’ opinions regarding barriers towards learning and practices of digital

literacy. The data reflected in the table (4.19) exposed an insignificant difference between

Male (Mean=3. 6213, SD=.74049) and Female (Mean=3. 7072, SD=1.13739), t (798) = -

1.066. It is noticeable from the p-value (p=.287>0.05 level) that there is an insignificant

difference between the opinions of male and female students. These results concluded

that there is a statistically insignificant difference between the opinions of both genders

regarding barriers towards learning and practices of digital literacy. Results exposed that

both genders had the same perceptions about barriers in learning and practices of digital

literacy.

Q.15: Are there any noteworthy changes between the opinions of students of public and

private sector universities regarding effect of digital literacy on communication skills,

research skills, and confidence skills?

Table 4.20

Comparison among public and private sector universities’ students regarding

perceptions of digital literacy

Sector N Mean SD Df t-value p-value

Private 300 3.4838 .60807 798 1.561 .119

Public 500 3.4138 .62314

An independent sample t-test was applied to discover noteworthy changes between Public

and Private Sector University students’ perceptions about digital literacy. The statistical

data reflected in table (4.20) exposed an insignificant difference between Private

(Mean=3.4838, SD=.60807) and Public (Mean=3.4138, SD=.62314), t (798) = 1.561. It is

notable from the p-value (p=.119>0.05 level) that there is an insignificant difference

92

between students’ perceptions of both sector universities. These results concluded that

students belonging to both sector universities have the same opinions about digital

literacy. Results declared that students of both sectors universities had the same views

about digital literacy.

Table 4.21

Comparison among public and private sector universities’ students regarding

perceptions of effects of digital literacy on communication skills


Private 300 3.6296 .70944 798 .946 .344

Public 500 3.5804 .71519

An independent sample t-test was executed to discover noteworthy changes between

Public and Private Sector University students’ views about the effect of digital literacy on

communication skills. The statistical data reflected in the table (4.21) exposed an

insignificant difference between Private (Mean=3.6296, SD=.70944) and Public

(Mean=3.5804, SD=.71519), t (798) = .946. It is notable from the p-value (p=.344>0.05

level) that there is an insignificant difference between the perceptions of public and

private sector universities. These results concluded that students belong to both sector

universities have the same opinions about the effects of digital literacy on communication

skills. Results declared that students of both sectors universities had the same attitude

about the effect of digital literacy on communication skills.

Table 4.22

Comparison among public and private sector universities students’ perceptions of

effects of digital literacy on research skills


Private 300 3.6377 .65868 798 .325 .745

Public 500 3.6219 .66689


Public and Private Sector University students’ perceptions regarding the effect of digital

literacy on research skills. The statistical data reflected in table (4.22) exposed an

insignificant difference between Public (Mean=3.6377, SD=.65868) and Private


level) that there is an insignificant difference between the students’ perceptions of public

and private sector universities. These results concluded that students of both sector

University have the same opinions about the effects of digital literacy on research skills.

93

Results declared that students of both sectors University had the same attitude toward the

effect of digital literacy on research skills.

Table 4.23


effects of digital literacy on confidence skills


Private 300 3.7113 .66915 798 .583 .560

Public 500 3.6830 .66018


Public and Private Sector University students’ perceptions regarding the effects of digital

literacy on confidence skills. The statistical data reflected in table (4.23) exposed an

insignificant difference between Private (Mean=3.7113, SD=.66915) and Public


level) that there is an insignificant difference between the students’ perceptions of public

and private sector universities. These results concluded that students of both sectors

universities have the same opinions about the effects of digital literacy on confidence

skills. Results declared that students belonging to both sectors universities had the same

attitude toward the effect of digital literacy on confidence skills.

Table 4.24


barriers towards learning and practices digital literacy


Private 300 3.6858 .96789 798 .426 .670

Public 500 3.6543 1.07878

An independent sample t-test was computed to discover noteworthy changes between

Public and Private Sector University students’ perception of the barriers towards learning

and practices of digital literacy. The statistical data reflected in the table (4.24) exposed

an insignificant difference between Private (Mean=3.6858, SD=.96789) and Public

(Mean=3.6543, SD=1.07878), t (798) = .426. It is notable from the p-value (p=.670>0.05

level) that there is an insignificant difference between the student’' perception of public

and private sector universities. These results concluded that there is a statistically

insignificant difference between public and private sectors universities students regarding

barriers towards learning and practices digital literacy. Results declared that students

belonging to both sectors universities had the same attitude toward barriers in learning

and practices of digital literacy.

94

4.4 Analysis of qualitative data (Students’ Interviews)

On the basis of quantitative data results 20 students (10 having low digital literacy

level and high CGPA and 10 having high digital literacy level and low CGPA) were

identified and interviewed for collection of qualitative data. The qualitative data was

analyzed through thematic analysis.

(A). Theme 1: Students’ awareness, and engaging in digital practices

Q.1. How do you perceive digital literacy?

Majority of the respondents stated that digital literacy is something about the

usage of computer, smartphone, and other technological devices while the minority of the

respondents explained digital literacy is the study of Information communication

technology (ICT). A minority of the respondents said that digital literacy is to search

properly on the internet in a short time and proper handling of MS Office Package.

Another respondent said that digital literacy is the skill to search, judge, and sharing

information and to develop technologies. Digital practices are the practical use of

technology. When technology is utilized to solve the problems, it can be said Digital

Practices. Digital literacy is actually an ability of information and technology and digital

practices its practical implementation into various fields of life. A Respondent said that

digital literacy and digital practices are various technological sources which we use to

understand deeply.

(B). Theme 2: Managing and communicating information

Q.2. How can you share your own work to website, blog, and online forum?

Most of respondents declared that they have abilities to share their own work to

others through social networking sites such as Facebook, Whatsapp, Twitter, and E-mail.

Most of the respondents do not know how to develop a website, write a blog and

participate in an online forum. Minority of the respondents told that through e-mail they

can communicate information to other people. A respondent also declared, “I am a

student and use a blog to share my academic articles like projects, assignments and

research work”. A respondent of M.Phil said, “I can make a channel on YouTube and can

share my content there which I can write related to some informative topic and can share

it easily on social networking sites”.

95

Q.3. How can you create content in audio, video and webpage for people using online

resources?

Most of the respondents answered that they could create audio, video files through

smartphones and could easily share with other people but they had no such skills to create

a webpage using online resources. Some respondents of PhD exposed during the

interview that they create contents from books, different literature, encyclopedia,

dictionaries, and newspaper, read interviews of different scholars and researchers and

research magazines. A respondent of M.Phil voiced “I can easily make a voice note or a

video clip using smartphone or laptop and then can share that content on social media

sites”.

(C). Theme 3: Digital Literacy and communication skills

Q.4. How can digital literacy improves your communication skills?

Majority of the respondents have exposed that they have sufficient skills regarding

using smartphone applications. Maximum of the respondents declared that through

everyday use of various websites, Facebook pages, Whatsapp groups, Youtube, they can

improve their communication skills. Respondents also told that studying good research

articles provides a good framework for reading, speech and motivates students for good

writing and communication. During the interview, it was also noticed that PhD

respondents agreed that Digital literacy is extremely helpful to improve their

communication skills. There are many ways to improve digital literacy through Facebook,

Twitter and Instagram, Messenger Whatsapp, YouTube, Email, Chat Rooms, etc. An

M.Phil respondent exposed that by using digital literacy skills, he gets the confidence to

communicate the things online with other people like on Facebook, Instagram, E-mail, or

on different websites which improves communication skills as well.

(D). Theme 4: Digital Literacy and research skills

Q.5. How can digital literacy improve your academic work and research skills?

Majority of the respondents answered that practicing and studying various books,

articles, journals, and online databases had improved their academic and research skills.

Some respondents also exposed that following teacher’s guidelines can improve students’

academic work and research skills. Some PhD respondents told that rich literature is

available online but due to a lack of technical skills, they are unable to improve their

research skills. A respondent said that by using Digital literacy, he can find out an

authentic and valid piece of work. It helps him to evaluate the different sources of

96

information. It reveals to him which type of technology is more effective in his work. He

can check and improve the quality of his work. It tells him trends in research. It provides

him exact facts and keeps him in touch with new information. It saves time. An M.Phil

respondent said that reading online articles and books can improve his research skills.

Respondent further voiced that sometime it is difficult to access the books related to your

research in the library, so digital literacy is the only way that we can use to search and

improve our academic work and research skills.

(E). Theme 5: Digital Literacy and confidence ability

Q.6. How can digital literacy improves your confidence in sharing your own work to

others?

Most of the respondents explained that practicing various online training through

computers and the internet, students can improve their confidence. Majority of the

respondents told that participating in various seminars and workshops students can

improve their confidence to share their own work with others. Some responded voiced

that Digital literacy gives a platform to present their thinking on different events on

national and international issues. It provides authentic and valid information to them.

Interaction with different ethnic social groups and different genders improves their

confidence level. They can not only talk but also see others live through video calls. A

student of M.Phil exposed “As we study a number of blogs of different people from

different cultures, and observe their opinion about any issue, so it gives the confidence to

share our work with other people as well”.

(F). Theme 6: Barrier in Learning Digital Literacy

Q.7. How can these barriers in digital literacy be removed, please suggest some

measures? (Lack of students’ interest, Lack of time to learn about digital tools,

insufficient internet facility, low speed internet, non-availability of digital devices inside

university and high cost of internet packages)

Majority of the respondents replied that teachers should motivate students to learn

digital literacy, ICT literacy and other software related to their studies. Respondents

suggested that the government should offer free high-speed internet facilities inside the

university as well as outside of the university to avail maximum benefits of online

resources for students. Respondents also suggested that various types of digital devices

should be installed inside the University for Practice. Respondents recommended that low

packages of the Internet should be introduced in the country to increase the level of

97

digital literacy. Minority of the respondents told that teachers should train students about

ICT skills during course work. Some M.Phil respondents also voiced that for Lack of

student's interest, there should be motivational lectures to arouse student’s interest on

which presenter tells them the scope of Digital Literacy. For lack of time to learn about

digital tools, the teacher should design his lesson plan on which he delivered his lecture

through it. For insufficient internet facility: Use Zong 3g/4g net packages. At the

university level, the Government should allocate the amount to purchase the necessary

digital devices. Easily available devices should be provided like IPods and Mobile phones

etc. It was also discovered through interviews that for improving students’ interest in

digital literacy, teachers should give guidance to the students. So, first teachers should

play their role in removing barriers at their part than universities should try to remove the

barriers regarding learning and practice of digital literacy.

(G). Theme 7: Promoting Digital Literacy

Q.8. What are your suggestions about promoting digital literacy at University Level?

Most of the respondents suggested that by introducing a comprehensive course

and regular training sessions regarding digital literacy can promote digital literacy level of

the students. Awareness should be created among different ethnic groups of the

community. 2) The higher authority of the university should arrange different workshops

and seminars on Digital Literacy. 3) Lectures on job courses should be arranged. 4) The

digital library gives students very easy online access. 5) Digital literacy should be the an

essential part of each educational program. An M.Phil student expressed that for

promoting digital literacy, availability and easy access to digital devices should be

provided inside the university. A fast and free Wifi in all the areas of University must be

provided to promote digital literacy.

(H). Theme 8: Academic Performance

Q.9. Do you believe that CGPA is due to digital literacy skills or any other factor?

Explain:

Majority of the respondents replied that CGPA is solely linked with the syllabus

of the program and by completing teacher’s assignments and through other academic

work CGPA can be improved. Most of the respondents said that by following teachers’

directions and guidelines students can achieve high CGPA in their course work. Most of

the respondents said that their high CGPA is due to regular study of departmental library

and handouts provided by the teachers. A respondent also voiced that digital literacy is

98

extremely helpful for both learners and teachers; it improves students’ intelligence and

teachers’ proficiency. In the end, CGPA may be improved. Most of the scholars declared

that low or high CGPA is only due to their teachers’ guidance, and given lectures, but

digital literacy can also play a positive role in improving a student’s own knowledge

about learning various innovative skills.

99

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

The main objective of the examiner in this chapter is to provide overall summary of the

study, findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the study. All findings,

conclusions, and recommendations are based on statistical results of the study regarding

effect of digital literacy on the academic performance of the students at institutions of

higher education in Pakistan.

5.1 Summary of the Research Study

Digital literacy is a particular skill that enables students to succeed in

manipulating the infrastructures of electronic environment and some devices which make

probable the world of the 21st century. Digital literacy empowers student to achieve their

academic and life goals. Thus, the current research was designed to examine the effect of

digital literacy on the academic performance of the students at higher education level in

Pakistan. The researcher adopted mixed method “QUAN-QUAL” approach for the study

followed by questionnaire and semi-structured interviews of students for data collection

related to the research objectives. These objectives were formed to complete the study:

1. To discover the perceived level of digital literacy of the students at higher

education level

2. To find out the perceived level of communication skills of the students at higher

education level

3. To probe the perceived level of research skills of the students at higher education

level

4. To explore the perceived level of confidence skills of the students at higher

education level

5. To investigate the effect of digital literacy on the academic performance of the

students at higher education level

6. To inspect the effect of digital literacy on the communication skills of the students

at higher education level

100

7. To probe the effect of digital literacy on the research skills of the students at


8. To Probe the effect of digital literacy on the confidence level of the students at


9. To investigate the barriers in learning and practices of digital literacy at higher

education level

10. To compare the significant difference in the perceptions of students (gender-wise)

(public & private) about digital literacy, communication skills, research skills,

confidence and regarding barriers in learning and practices of digital literacy

To achieve the above mentioned objectives a questionnaire and students’

interviews were conducted to collect quantitative and qualitative data from the

respondents. The research population of the current study comprised of all the students of

M.S/M.Phil & PhD studying at public and private general category institutions of higher

education in Punjab province of Pakistan. A sample consisting of 800 students was

selected by using multi stage sampling technique. Researcher developed a questionnaire

(Part I adapted and Part II developed) for data collection. The validity and reliability of

questionnaire confirmed as (α= 0.83). After collecting quantitative data a semi-structured

interview was conducted for the gathering of qualitative information on the basis of

quantitative outcome.

After collecting data from the participants it was analyzed with the support of

Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS-version 20) to discover relationship, mean

difference, and comparison between the variables. Thematic analysis was adopted for the

interpretations of qualitative data.

The outcomes of the current research study discovered that majority of the

students had a high level of understanding about digital literacy factor, high level of

digital literacy skills in finding information through the use of digital tools factor, high

level of digital literacy skills in critical evaluation of information, online interaction, and

online tools factor, moderate level of digital literacy skills in managing and

communicating information factor, moderate level of digital literacy skills in

collaboration and share of digital content factor, high level of opinions about the effect of

digital literacy on communication skills factor, the effect of digital literacy in research

skills factor, the effect of digital literacy on confidence factor, and high level of opinions

towards barriers in learning Digital Literacy factor.

101

The results also verified that there had a non-significant and negative correlation

between digital literacy and academic performance (CGPA), statistically significant and

positive correlation between digital literacy and communication skills, digital literacy and

research skills, digital literacy and confidence skills of the students. During comparison

among male & female students regarding perceptions of digital literacy and its effect on

communication skills, on research skills, on confidence and barriers towards learning and

practices digital literacy, there had insignificant difference among the opinions of scholars

belong to both genders.

5.2 Findings of Quantitative Data Analysis (SQ)

1. Table 4.1 demonstrates the detail of the demographic variable of the participants.

The data presented said table exposed that participants from male gender were

49% and from the female gender was 51%.

2. The data declared that participants from urban areas were 73% while rural areas

were 27 %.( Table 4.1).

3. The information reflected in table 4.1 revealed that participants from public

universities were 62.5% whereas private universities were 37.5%.

4. The data presented in table (4.1) discovered that participants from basic sciences

were 50% and participants from social science were 50%.

5. The data illustrated in the table (4.1) expressed that participants studying in

MS/M.Phil program was 75% and studying in Ph.D program was 25%.

6. The statistics of table (4.1) illustrated that participants having a job were 27% and

participant belongs to students’ status were 73%.

7. The information reflected in table (4.1) declared that participants from the age

group 20-25 years were 53%, 26-30 years were 27%, 31-35 years were 16%, and

above 35 years were 4%.

8. The information presented in the table (4.1) stated that participants using a

desktop computer were 7.5%, using laptops were 72%, using smartphone were

19%, and using a tablet was 1.5%.

9. The information illustrated in the table (4.1) revealed that participants responded

to the accessibility of Internet at University was 81% and participants responded

about not accessibility of the internet at University was 19%.

102

10. The statistics of table (4.1) confirmed the daily usage of the Internet by the

participants. Participants using daily internet 01-02 hours were 37%, 03-04 hours

were 29%, 05-06 hours were 13% and above 6 hours were 21%.

11. The data presented in the table (4.1) discovered that participants having computer

certificate were 27.5%, having a computer diploma was 23%, having a computer

degree were 2%, and having other computer education was 47.5%.

12. The data analysis discovered that participants having poor internet searching skills

were 12%, having acceptable skills were 31%, having good skills were 37%, and

having very good skills were 20%. (Table 4.1).

13. The statistics illustrated in the previous chapter exposed that participants having

poor digital literacy skills were 16%, having acceptable skills were 33%, having

good skills were 32%, and having very good skills were 19%. (Table 4.1).

14. The data demonstrated in the previous chapter exposed that participants having

poor working skills with MS office were 14.5%, having acceptable skills were

36.5%, having good skills were 28.5% and having very good skills were 20.5%.

(Table 4.1).

15. The information exposed the previous chapter stated that participants who used

learning through networking site were 29%, learning through Google scholar were

47%, and learning through online resources were 24%. (Table 4.1).

16. The information presented in the table (4.1) announced that participants who got

ICT training during their course works were 47% and participants who did not get

ICT training during their course work was 53%.

17. The analysis displayed in table (4.1) discovered that participants who remarked

poor ICT training during their course work were 32%, acceptable were 37%, good

were 19% and very good were 46%.

18. The analysis found that the overall students’ perceptions about the level of

understanding of digital literacy were high with a total mean of 3.47 (SD=0.99).

The highest statement was number 3 “I can choose the right tool to find, use or

create information” with a mean of 3.72 (SD=0.90) and a high perceiving degree.

(Table 4.2).

19. The study found that the overall students’ perceptions about the level of digital

literacy in finding information was high with a total mean of 3.68 (SD=0.96). The

highest statement was number 10, “I know what kind of information can be found

103

on the web” with a mean of 3.91 (SD=0.88) and a high perceiving degree. (Table

4.3).

20. The study discovered that the overall students’ perceptions about the level of

digital literacy in critically evaluating information, online interaction, and online

tools factor was high with a total mean of 3.54 (SD=1.02). The highest statement

was number 10, “I use social networks to find information to support my

University studies” with a mean of 3.76 (SD=0.99) and a high perceiving degree.

(Table 4.4).

21. The analysis found that the overall students’ perceptions about the level of digital

literacy in managing and communicating information factor was moderate with a

total mean of 3.17 (SD=1.07). The highest statement was number 28, “I can cite a

reference to an online resource (e.g. in an assignment) using the correct format”

with a mean of 3.53 (SD=1.01) and a moderate perceiving degree. (Table 4.5).

22. The examination discovered that the overall students’ perceptions about the level

of digital literacy in collaboration and share of a digital content factor was

moderate with a total mean of 3.29 (SD=1.04). The highest statement was number

35, “I can share files legally with others” with a mean of 3.56 (SD=1.04) and a

moderate perceiving degree. (Table 4.6).

23. The current research investigation exposed that the overall students’ perceptions

about the level of digital literacy in communication skills factor was high with a

total mean of 3.59 (SD=0.98). The highest statement was number 44, “I know

advantages & dis-advantages of social networking sites” with a mean of 3.92

(SD=0.98) and a high perceiving degree. (Table 4.7).

24. The research discovered that the overall students’ perceptions about the level of

digital literacy to research skills factor was high with a total mean of 3.62

(SD=1.08). The highest statement was number 56, “I have a clear understanding

about ethical principles in research” with a mean of 3.84 (SD=0.89) and a high

perceiving degree. (Table 4.8).

25. In the light of statistical information, this study found that the overall students’

perceptions about the effect of digital literacy on confidence factor were high with

a total mean of 3.68 (SD=0.91). The highest statement was number 60, “I can

easily present my own work to my fellows/seniors/teachers” with a mean of 3.89

(SD=0.82) and a high perceiving degree. (Table 4.9).

104

26. The statistical results of this study confirmed that the overall students’ perceptions

towards barriers in learning digital literacy factor were high with a total mean of

3.63 (SD=1.10). The highest statement was number 73, “Low-speed Internet

issues at University” with a mean of 3.86 (SD=1.09) and a high perceiving degree.

(Table 4.10).

27. On the basis of the statistical outcome, this study revealed that there had a

negative correlation between digital literacy and academic performance (r= -.025).

The result of P-value (.480, P > 0.01 & 0.05 levels) also verified that there has

non-significant and negative relationship between digital literacy and academic

performance (CGPA). (Table 4.11).

28. The statistical figures presented in table (4.12) discovered that there had a positive

correlation between digital literacy and communication skills (r= .705). The result

of P-value (.000, P < 0.01 & 0.05 levels) also verified that there had a statistically

noteworthy and a positive relationship between digital literacy and

communication skills.

29. The statistical facts displayed in the table (4.13) exposed that there had a positive

correlation between digital literacy and research skills (r= .624). The result of P-

value (.000, P < 0.01 & 0.05 levels) also proved that there had statistically

noteworthy and a positive relationship between digital literacy and research skills.

30. The statistical evidence displayed in the table (4.14) discovered a positive

correlation between digital literacy and confidence skills (r= .638). The result of

P-value (.000, P < 0.01 & 0.05 levels) also evidenced that there had statistically

noteworthy and a positive relationship between digital literacy and confidence

skills.

31. The study discovered an insignificant difference between the Male (Mean=3.5282,

SD=.61310) and Female (Mean=3.4225, SD=.60879), t (798) = 2.209. It was

notable from the p-value (p=.027>0.05 level) that results were insignificant. It

exposed an insignificant difference among the opinions of scholars belonging to

both genders regarding digital literacy. (Table 4.15).

32. According to the statistical results, this study found an insignificant difference

between Male (Mean=3.6992, SD=.80876) and Female (Mean=3.5693,

SD=.65567), t (798) = 2.342. It was notable from the p-value (p=.019>0.05 level)

that results were insignificant. It exposed an insignificant difference among the

105

opinions of scholars belonging to both genders regarding the effect of digital

literacy on communication skills. (Table 4.16).

33. In the light of the statistical outcomes, this study discovered an insignificant

difference between Male (Mean=3.6702, SD=.62575) and Female (Mean=3.6187,

SD=.68240), t (798) = .987. It was noticeable from the p-value (p=.324>0.05

level) that results were insignificant. It exposed an insignificant difference among

the opinions of scholars belonging to both genders regarding the effect of digital

literacy on research skills. (Table 4.17)

34. Considering the statistical results, this research exposed an insignificant difference

between Male (Mean=3.7369, SD=.70234) and Female (Mean=3.6797,

SD=.64569), t (798) = 1.065. It was obvious from the p-value (p=.273>0.05 level)

that results were insignificant. It exposed an insignificant difference among the

opinions of scholars belonging to both genders regarding the effect of digital

literacy on confidence skills. (Table 4.18)

35. On the basis of statistical analysis, this study found an insignificant difference

between Male (Mean=3. 6213, SD=.74049) and Female (Mean=3. 7072,

SD=1.13739), t (798) = -1.066. It was evident from the p-value (p=.287>0.05

level) that results were insignificant. It exposed an insignificant difference among

the opinions of scholars belonging to both genders regarding barriers in learning

and practices of digital literacy. (Table 4.19).

36. The statistical data reflected in table (4.21) exposed an insignificant difference

between the Private (Mean=3.6296, SD=.70944) and Public (Mean=3.5804,

SD=.71519), t (798) = .946. It was noteworthy from the p-value (p=.344>0.05

level) that there was an insignificant difference between the perceptions of

students of public and private sector universities about the effects of digital

literacy on communications skills.


between Public (Mean=3.6377, SD=.65868) and Private (Mean=3.6219,

SD=.66689), t (798) = .325. It was visible from the p-value (p=.745>0.05 level)

that there was an insignificant difference among the perceptions of students of

public and private sector universities about the effects of digital literacy on

research skills.


between Private (Mean=3.7113, SD=.66915) and Public (Mean=3.6830,

106

SD=.66018), t (798) = .583. It was notable from the p-value (p=.560>0.05 level)


public and private sector universities about the effects of digital literacy on

confidence skills.

39. The analysis reflected in table (4.24) discovered an insignificant difference

between Private (Mean=3.6858, SD=.96789) and Public (Mean=3.6543,

SD=1.07878), t (798) = .426. It was notable from the p-value (p=.670>0.05 level)


public and private sector universities about barriers in learning and practices

digital literacy.

5.3 Findings of Qualitative Data Analysis (Students’ Interviews)

1. The study found that majority of the respondents stated that digital literacy is

something about the usage of computer, smartphone, and other technological

devices while the minority of the respondents explained digital literacy is the

study of Information communication technology (ICT). Minority of the

respondents said that digital literacy is to search properly on the internet in a short

time and proper handling of MS Office Package. Another respondent said that

digital literacy is the skill to search, judge, and sharing information and to develop

technologies. Digital practices are the practical use of technology. When

technology is utilized to solve the problems, it can be said Digital Practices.

Digital literacy is actually an ability of information and technology and digital

practices its practical implementation into various fields of life. A Respondent

said that digital literacy and digital practices are various technological sources

which we use to understand deeply.

2. The study discovered that most of respondents declared that they have abilities to

share their own work to others through social networking sites such as Facebook,

Whatsapp, Twitter, and E-mail. Most of the respondents do not know how to

develop a website, write a blog and participate in an online forum. Minority of the

respondents told that through e-mail they can communicate information to other

people. A respondent also declared, “I am a student and use a blog to share my

academic articles like projects, assignments and research work”. A respondent of

M.Phil said, “I can make a channel on YouTube and can share my content there

107

which I can write related to some informative topic and can share it easily on

social networking sites”.

3. During interviews it was revealed that most of the respondents answered that they

could create audio, video files through smartphones and could easily share with

other people but they had no such skills to create a webpage using online

resources. Some respondents of PhD exposed during the interview that they create

contents from books, different literature, encyclopedia, dictionaries, and

newspaper, read interviews of different scholars and researchers and research

magazines. A respondent of M.Phil voiced “I can easily make a voice note or a

video clip using smartphone or laptop and then can share that content on social

media sites”.

4. The research study exposed that majority of the respondents had sufficient skills

regarding using smartphone applications. Maximum of the respondents declared

that through everyday use of various websites, Facebook pages, Whatsapp groups,

Youtube, they can improve their communication skills. Respondents also told that

studying good research articles provides a good framework for reading, speech

and motivates students for good writing and communication. During the

interview, it was also noticed that PhD respondents agreed that Digital literacy is

extremely helpful to improve their communication skills. There are many ways to

improve digital literacy through Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, Messenger

Whatsapp, YouTube, Email, Chat Rooms, etc. An M.Phil respondent exposed that

by using digital literacy skills, he gets the confidence to communicate the things

online with other people like on Facebook, Instagram, E-mail, or on different

websites which improves communication skills as well.

5. The current study discovered that majority of the respondents answered that

practicing and studying various books, articles, journals, and online databases had

improved their academic and research skills. Some respondents also exposed that

following teacher’s guidelines can improve students’ academic work and research

skills. Some PhD respondents told that rich literature is available online but due to

a lack of technical skills, they are unable to improve their research skills. A

respondent said that by using Digital literacy, he can find out an authentic and

valid piece of work. It helps him to evaluate the different sources of information.

It reveals to him which type of technology is more effective in his work. He can

check and improve the quality of his work. It tells him trends in research. It

108

provides him exact facts and keeps him in touch with new information. It saves

time. An M.Phil respondent said that reading online articles and books can

improve his research skills. Respondent further voiced that sometime it is difficult

to access the books related to your research in the library, so digital literacy is the

only way that we can use to search and improve our academic work and research

skills.

6. The current study disclosed that most of the respondents explained that practicing

various online training through computers and the internet, students can improve

their confidence skills. Majority of the respondents told that participating in

various seminars and workshops students can improve their confidence to share

their own work with others. Some responded voiced that Digital literacy gives a

platform to present their thinking on different events on national and international

issues. It provides authentic and valid information to them. Interaction with

different ethnic social groups and different genders improves their confidence

level. They can not only talk but also see others live through video calls. A student

of M.Phil exposed “As we study a number of blogs of different people from

different cultures, and observe their opinion about any issue, so it gives the

confidence to share our work with other people as well”.

7. The exploration exposed that majority of the respondents replied that teachers

should motivate students to learn digital literacy, ICT literacy and other software

related to their studies. Respondents suggested that the government should offer

free high-speed internet facilities inside the university as well as outside of the

university to avail maximum benefits of online resources for students.

Respondents also suggested that various types of digital devices should be

installed inside the University for Practice. Respondents recommended that low

packages of the Internet should be introduced in the country to increase the level

of digital literacy. Minority of the respondents told that teachers should train

students about ICT skills during course work. Some M.Phil respondents also

voiced that for Lack of student's interest, there should be motivational lectures to

arouse student’s interest on which presenter tells them the scope of Digital

Literacy. For lack of time to learn about digital tools, the teacher should design his

lesson plan on which he delivered his lecture through it. For insufficient internet

facility: Use Zong 3g/4g net packages. At the university level, the Government

should allocate the amount to purchase the necessary digital devices. Easily

109

available devices should be provided like IPods and Mobile phones etc. It was

also discovered through interviews that for improving students’ interest in digital

literacy, teachers should give guidance to the students. So, first teachers should

play their role in removing barriers at their part than universities should try to

remove the barriers regarding learning and practice of digital literacy.

8. The investigation discovered that most of the respondents suggested that by

introducing a comprehensive course and regular training sessions regarding digital

literacy can promote digital literacy level of the students. Awareness should be

created among different ethnic groups of the community. 2) The higher authority

of the university should arrange different workshops and seminars on Digital

Literacy. 3) Lectures on job courses should be arranged. 4) The digital library

gives students very easy online access. 5) Digital literacy should be the an

essential part of each educational program. An M.Phil student expressed that for

promoting digital literacy, availability and easy access to digital devices should be

provided inside the university. A fast and free Wifi in all the areas of University

must be provided to promote digital literacy.

9. The analysis found that majority of the respondents replied that CGPA is solely

linked with the syllabus of the program and by completing teacher’s assignments

and through other academic work CGPA can be improved. Most of the

respondents said that by following teachers’ directions and guidelines students can

achieve high CGPA in their course work. Most of the respondents said that their

high CGPA is due to regular study of departmental library and handouts provided

by the teachers. A respondent also voiced that digital literacy is extremely helpful

for both learners and teachers; it improves students’ intelligence and teachers’

proficiency. In the end, CGPA may be improved. Most of the scholars declared

that low or high CGPA is only due to their teachers’ guidance, and given lectures,

but digital literacy can also play a positive role in improving a student’s own

knowledge about learning various innovative skills.

5.5 Conclusions of the Research Study

1. The results of this study concluded that participants belonging to the female

gender were higher as compared to their counterparts. The outcome concluded

that participants belonging to urban areas were higher as compared to rural areas.

The results of this study revealed that participants belonging to public universities

110

were in the majority as compared to private universities. The results of the current

investigation acknowledged that participants belonging to both faculties were

equal in numbers. The outcomes discovered that participants belonging to each

category were equal in numbers. The outcomes exposed that participants of

M.S/M.Phil program was higher in numbers as compared to the P.h.D program.

The results of this investigation concluded that participants having the status of

students were in the majority as compared to participants having the status of a

job. The outcomes of this research proved that participants having 20-25 years of

the age group were in majority while having 35 years of age group was in

minority. The outcomes of this investigation concluded that participants using

laptops were in majority while participants using a tablet were in minority. The

outcomes revealed that the majority of the participants agreed that they had easy

accessibility to the Internet at University. The outcomes of current research

discovered that the majority of the participants were using 01-02 hours on the

internet for their studies. The outcomes proved that the majority of the participants

had other education related to computers. The results of existing research

concluded that the majority of the participants had good internet searching skills.

The outcomes exposed that the majority of the participants had acceptable digital

literacy skills. The outcomes revealed that the majority of the participants used

Google scholar for their learning. The results established that the majority of the

participants did not receive ICT training during their course work. The outcomes

established that majority of the participants remarked acceptable ICT training

during their course work. (Table 4.1).

2. The finding of this study established that a major part of the students had a high

level of understanding about digital literacy skills factor. (Table 4.2)

3. The finding of this investigation concluded that a major part of the students had a

high level of digital literacy skills regarding finding information factor. (Table

4.3).

4. The finding of this research exposed that mainstream of the students had a high

level of digital literacy skills towards a critical evaluation of information, online

communication, and online tools factor. (Table 4.4).

5. The findings of this study declared that the majority of the students had a

moderate level of digital literacy skills in managing and communicating

information factor. (Table 4.5).

111

6. The outcomes of this study confirmed that the majority of the students had a

moderate level of digital literacy skills in collaboration and share of digital content

factor. (Table 4.6).

7. The results of this research concluded that the majority of the students had a high

level of digital literacy skills in communication skills factor. (Table 4.7).

8. On the basis of data analysis of the study, it has been proved that the majority of

the students had a high level of digital literacy abilities in research skills factor.

(Table 4.8).

9. The findings of the study proved that the majority of the students had a high level

of perceptions about the effect of digital literacy on confidence skills factor.

(Table 4.9).

10. The findings of this investigation verified that the majority of the students had a

high level of perceptions about barriers in learning Digital Literacy factor. (Table

4.10).

11. According to the statistical information presented in the table (4.11), it was

concluded that there had a negative relationship between digital literacy and

academic performance (r= -0.025). Therefore, this study concluded that digital

literacy had no effect on students’ CGPA.

12. The statistical figures presented in the table (4.12) concluded that there had a

positive relationship between digital literacy and communication skills (r= 0.705).

Therefore, this investigation discovered that digital literacy had a positive effect

on students’ communication skills.

13. The statistical facts displayed in the table (4.13) discovered that there had a

positive relationship between digital literacy and research skills (r= 0.624).

Therefore, this research revealed that digital literacy had a positive effect on

students’ research skills.

14. The statistical evidences displayed in the table (4.14) reported that there had a

positive relationship among digital literacy and confidence skills (r= 0.638).

Therefore, this investigation concluded that digital literacy had a positive effect on

students’ confidence skills.

15. The results of this investigation concluded a statistically insignificant difference

between the perceptions of both genders regarding digital literacy. Hence, this

study concluded that both genders had the same perceptions regarding digital

literacy. (Table 4.15).

112

16. The findings concluded a statistically insignificant difference between the

perceptions of both genders regarding the effect of digital literacy on

communication skills. Thus, this investigation concluded that both genders had the

same perceptions. (Table. 4.16).

17. The study concluded a statistically insignificant difference between the

perceptions of both genders regarding the effect of digital literacy on research

skills. So, this study discovered that both genders had the same perceptions.

(Table 4.17).

18. The investigation concluded a statistically insignificant difference between the

opinions of both genders regarding the effect of digital literacy on confidence

skills. Thus, this investigation revealed that both genders had the same

perceptions. (Table 4.18).

19. The results concluded a statistically insignificant difference between the

perceptions of both genders regarding barriers in learning and practices of digital

literacy. Therefore, this study exposed that both genders had the same perceptions.

(4.19).

20. The results of this research concluded that students belonging to both sector

universities had the same opinions about the effects of digital literacy on

communications skills. (Table 4.20).

21. The outcomes of this study concluded that students belonging to both sector

universities had the same opinions about the effects of digital literacy on research

skills. (Table 4.21).

22. This investigation concluded that students belonging to both sector universities

had the same opinions about the effects of digital literacy on confidence skills.

(Table 4.22).

23. The research discovered that participants belonging to both sector universities’

had the same views about the effects of digital literacy on confidence skills.

(Table 4.23).

24. The outcome concluded that students belonging to both sector universities had the

same attitudes regarding barriers in learning and practices digital literacy. (Table

4.24).

25. Qualitative data concluded that majority of the respondents stated that digital

literacy is something about the usage of computer, smartphone, and other

technological devices while the minority of the respondents explained digital

113

literacy is the study of Information communication technology (ICT). A minority

of the respondents said that digital literacy is to search properly on the internet in

a short time and proper handling of MS Office Package. Another respondent said

that digital literacy is the skill to search, judge, and sharing information and to

develop technologies. Digital practices are the practical use of technology. When

technology is utilized to solve the problems, it can be said Digital Practices.

Digital literacy is actually an ability of information and technology and digital

practices its practical implementation into various fields of life. A Respondent

said that digital literacy and digital practices are various technological sources

which we use to understand deeply.

26. Qualitative data revealed that most of respondents declared that they have abilities

to share their own work to others through social networking sites such as

Facebook, Whatsapp, Twitter, and E-mail. Most of the respondents do not know

how to develop a website, write a blog and participate in an online forum.

Minority of the respondents told that through e-mail they can communicate

information to other people. A respondent also declared, “I am a student and use a

blog to share my academic articles like projects, assignments and research work”.

A respondent of M.Phil said, “I can make a channel on YouTube and can share

my content there which I can write related to some informative topic and can

share it easily on social networking sites”.

27. Qualitative data confirmed that most of the respondents answered that they could

create audio, video files through smartphones and could easily share with other

people but they had no such skills to create a webpage using online resources.

Some respondents of PhD exposed during the interview that they create contents

from books, different literature, encyclopedia, dictionaries, and newspaper, read

interviews of different scholars and researchers and research magazines. A

respondent of M.Phil voiced “I can easily make a voice note or a video clip using

smartphone or laptop and then can share that content on social media sites”.

28. Qualitative data acknowledged that majority of the respondents exposed that they

had sufficient skills regarding using smartphone applications. Maximum of the

respondents declared that through everyday use of various websites, Facebook

pages, Whatsapp groups, Youtube, they can improve their communication skills.

Respondents also told that studying good research articles provides a good

framework for reading, speech and motivates students for good writing and

114

communication. During the interview, it was also noticed that PhD respondents

agreed that Digital literacy is extremely helpful to improve their communication

skills. There are many ways to improve digital literacy through Facebook, Twitter

and Instagram, Messenger Whatsapp, YouTube, Email, Chat Rooms, etc. An

M.Phil respondent exposed that by using digital literacy skills, he gets the

confidence to communicate the things online with other people like on Facebook,

Instagram, E-mail, or on different websites which improves communication skills

as well.

29. Qualitative data exposed that majority of the respondents answered that practicing

and studying various books, articles, journals, and online databases had improved

their academic and research skills. Some respondents also exposed that following

teacher’s guidelines can improve students’ academic work and research skills.

Some PhD respondents told that rich literature is available online but due to a lack

of technical skills, they are unable to improve their research skills. A respondent

said that by using Digital literacy, he can find out an authentic and valid piece of

work. It helps him to evaluate the different sources of information. It reveals to

him which type of technology is more effective in his work. He can check and

improve the quality of his work. It tells him trends in research. It provides him

exact facts and keeps him in touch with new information. It saves time. An M.Phil

respondent said that reading online articles and books can improve his research

skills. Respondent further voiced that sometime it is difficult to access the books

related to your research in the library, so digital literacy is the only way that we

can use to search and improve our academic work and research skills.

30. Qualitative data announced that most of the respondents explained that practicing

various online training through computers and the internet, students can improve

their confidence. Majority of the respondents told that participating in various

seminars and workshops students can improve their confidence to share their own

work with others. Some responded voiced that Digital literacy gives a platform to

present their thinking on different events on national and international issues. It

provides authentic and valid information to them. Interaction with different ethnic

social groups and different genders improves their confidence level. They can not

only talk but also see others live through video calls. A student of M.Phil exposed

“As we study a number of blogs of different people from different cultures, and

115

observe their opinion about any issue, so it gives the confidence to share our work

with other people as well”.

31. Qualitative data concluded that majority of the respondents replied that teachers

should motivate students to learn digital literacy, ICT literacy and other software

related to their studies. Respondents suggested that the government should offer

free high-speed internet facilities inside the university as well as outside of the

university to avail maximum benefits of online resources for students.

Respondents also suggested that various types of digital devices should be

installed inside the University for Practice. Respondents recommended that low

packages of the Internet should be introduced in the country to increase the level

of digital literacy. Minority of the respondents told that teachers should train

students about ICT skills during course work. Some M.Phil respondents also

voiced that for Lack of student's interest, there should be motivational lectures to

arouse student’s interest on which presenter tells them the scope of Digital

Literacy. For lack of time to learn about digital tools, the teacher should design his

lesson plan on which he delivered his lecture through it. For insufficient internet

facility: Use Zong 3g/4g net packages. At the university level, the Government

should allocate the amount to purchase the necessary digital devices. Easily

available devices should be provided like IPods and Mobile phones etc. It was

also discovered through interviews that for improving students’ interest in digital

literacy, teachers should give guidance to the students. So, first teachers should

play their role in removing barriers at their part than universities should try to

remove the barriers regarding learning and practice of digital literacy.

32. Qualitative data declared that most of the respondents suggested that by

introducing a comprehensive course and regular training sessions regarding digital

literacy can promote digital literacy level of the students. Awareness should be

created among different ethnic groups of the community. 2) The higher authority

of the university should arrange different workshops and seminars on Digital

Literacy. 3) Lectures on job courses should be arranged. 4) The digital library

gives students very easy online access. 5) Digital literacy should be an essential

part of each educational program. An M.Phil student expressed that for promoting

digital literacy, availability and easy access to digital devices should be provided

inside the university. A fast and free Wi-Fi in all the areas of University must be

provided to promote digital literacy.

116

33. Qualitative data acknowledged that majority of the respondents replied that CGPA

is solely linked with the syllabus of the program and by completing teacher’s

assignments and through other academic work CGPA can be improved. Most of

the respondents said that by following teachers’ directions and guidelines students

can achieve high CGPA in their course work. Most of the respondents said that

their high CGPA is due to regular study of departmental library and handouts

provided by the teachers. A respondent also voiced that digital literacy is

extremely helpful for both learners and teachers; it improves students’ intelligence

and teachers’ proficiency. In the end, CGPA may be improved. Most of the

scholars declared that low or high CGPA is only due to their teachers’ guidance,

and given lectures, but digital literacy can also play a positive role in improving a

student’s own knowledge about learning various innovative skills.

5.6 Discussion

The main aim of this study was to discover the effect of digital literacy on the

academic performance of the students of higher education level in Pakistan. The designed

objectives were to explore effect of digital literacy on the academic performance,

communication skills, research skills, confidence skills of the students and barriers in

learning digital literacy at higher education level. A mixed method research approach was

used with the support of questionnaire for quantitative data and interviews for qualitative

data collection. Eight hundred respondents participated in the study. The study revealed

that majority of the students had a high level of digital literacy skills. This finding of our

study is in line with the finding of Shopova (2014) titled “Digital literacy of students and

its improvement at University” concluded that the most of the students such as 76%

showed good skills and ability to work with computers for accessing information.

On the basis of data analysis this study discovered a statistically insignificant

negative relationship between digital literacy and academic performance of the student

with CGPA but a strong positive relationship discovered among digital literacy and

communication skills, digital literacy and researcher skills, digital literacy and confidence

skills of the students. The findings made by Muilenberg and Berge (2005) regarding

digital technologies that increased students’ confidence by involving their self in online

learning environment also supported the results of this study. These findings are in line

with the findings of Amiri (2009) who concluded a positive effect of digital literacy on

117

students’ academic performance. The conclusion made by Fairlie et al., (2010) also

supported the findings of this study as he discovered strong positive effects about school

graduation and other outcomes relevant to education field. His study also discovered that

computer literacy influences the results of the students as well as the performance in other

academic assignments. The study of Brown (2009) is also in line with the conclusions of

this study as he discovered a positive relationship between digital literacy and students’

achievement.

On the basis of qualitative data it was concluded that high CGPA of the students

was due to regular studying departmental library and hangouts provided by their teachers.

Additionally, majority of the respondents replied that CGPA is solely linked with syllabus

of the program and by completing teacher’s assignments and other academic works

CGPA can be improved. Most of the respondents said that by following teachers’

directions and guidelines students can achieve high CGPA in their course work. The

results of our study are in line with the results of Lopez-Islas (2013) as he also concluded

that improved environment and easy access towards digital literacy (ICT) has positive

effects on academic performance of the student.

5.7 Recommendations

In the light of conclusions of the existing research study, the following

recommendations are suggested:-

1. As this study revealed that students had moderate level of digital literacy in

managing and communicating information factor, thus the management of general

category universities should plan to conduct various types of

training/workshop/seminars for students regarding improvement of digital literacy

skills in managing and communicating information factor.

2. This study discovered that students had moderate level of digital literacy in

collaboration and share of a digital content factor, thus concerned authorities

should plan various courses & trainings sessions to improve this factor.

3. The current research exposed that students’ opinion towards barriers in learning

digital literacy factor were high; therefore university management belonging to

general category should adopt necessary measure to decrease various barriers in

learning digital literacy inside the university.

118

4. The study proved that the majority of the participants did not receive ICT training

during their course work, so university authorities should start training regarding

information and communication technology during course work.

5. It is also recommended that government as well as public and private universities

belonging to general category should plan to develop maximum students and

teachers interest towards learning digital literacy skills.

6. The university management should provide sufficient facilities for learning digital

literacy, installation of various digital devices inside universities for students

practices, compulsory course about digital literacy for students before higher

studies, various trainings regarding digital technologies for teachers and students,

provision of sufficient un-interrupted internet facility with high speed and low

cost internet packages to improve the digital literacy of the teachers and students.

7. Considering the suggestions of the participants of the study, it is recommended

that a comprehensive course regarding digital literacy for increasing digital

literacy level of the students should be introduced in the universities belonging to

general category.

8. This is the era of information and communication technology, and without digital

literacy skills, our future generation will be unable to compete the world that is

shifting online day by day. Considering this situation of the globe, government

agencies and policy makers must start compulsory training about digital literacy in

all institutions related to education for students. Moreover, an online compulsory

course should also be designed by each university to increase the students’ skills

in digital literacy studying at higher education level.

9. This research study was completed in public and private universities belonging to

general category located in the province of Punjab, Pakistan. It is recommended

that same kind of studies should be explored at other category of universities of

Pakistan.

119

REFERENCES

Abgerinou, M, & Ericson, J. (2002). A Review of the concept of Visual Literacy. Wiley

Online Library: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8535.00035

Adams-Becker, S., Pasquini, L.A., and Zentner, A. (2017). Digital Literacy Impact Study:

An NMC Horizon Project Strategic Brief. Volume 3.5, Austin, Texas: The New

Media Consortium.

Adler, I. (2013). How our digital devices are affecting our personal relationships. WBUR.

Retrieved from http://www.wbur.org/2013/01/17/digital-lives-i

Afflerbach, P., Cho, B.-Y., Kim, J.-Y. (2014). Inaccuracy and reading in multiple text and

Internet/hyperlink environments. In D. N. Rapp and J. L. G. Braasch (Eds.),

Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from

cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 403-424). Cambridge, MA:

MIT Press.

ALA (America Library Association) Digital Literacy Taskforce (2011). Office of

information technology: Retrieved from

http://connect.ala.org/files/94226/what%20is%20digilit %20%282%29.pdf

Alliance for a Media Literate America (2010). Media Literacy - NAMLE - National

Association for Media Literacy Education - Advancing Media Literacy Education

in America. Retrieved from: http://www.amlainfo.org/home/media-literacy

American Association of School Librarians (AASL) (1989). ‘Standards for the 21st

Century Learner’http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/aasl/guidelinesandstandards/

learning standards/standards.cfm, accessed on 26 May 2018.

Amiri, S. (2009). The effects of information and communication technology on at risk

children of low economic status: Make It-Take It After-School Case Study,

International Journal of Education and Development using Information and

Communication Technology, 5(3), 141-147.

Anderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for

education. JISC Technology Standards Watch, February, 2007. Retrieved from:

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/ media/documents/techwatch/tsw0701b.pdf

Annie, W., Howard, W.S., & Mildred, M. (1996). “Achievement and Ability Tests-

Definition of the Domain”, Educational Measurement 2, University Press of

America, pp. 2–5, ISBN 978-0-7618-0385-0

Anunobi, C. V. & Nwogwugwu, N. O. (2013). What resources do Philosophers use for

research? Evidence from Postgraduate theses and Dissertations: Journal of

Nigerian Libraries. Vol 46, No 1 (15) June 2018

http://www.academia.edu/4993230/WHAT RESOURCES DO PHILOSOPHERS

USE FOR RESEARCH EVIDENCE FROM POSTGRADUATE THESES AND_

DISSERTATIONS? Auto=download

Avgerinou, M. & Ericson, J. (1997). “A review of the concept of Visual Literacy” British

Journal of Educational Technology 28(4) pp.280-291

Aviram, A., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2006). Towards a theory of digital literacy: Three

scenarios for the next steps. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning.

Retrieved

120

fromhttp://www.eurodl.org/index.php?p=archives&year=2006&halfyear=

1&abstract=223

Barbour, R. & Schostak, J. F. (2005). Interviewing and Focus Groups. In: B. Somekh &

C. Lewin, (eds.) Research Methods in the Social Sciences (pp. 41-48). London:

Sage

Bawden, D. (2001). Information and digital literacies; a review of concepts. Journal of

Documentation. Department of Information Science. City University London.

Bawden, D. (2001). Progress in documentation; Information and digital literacies: A

review of concepts. Journal of Documentation, 57(2), 218-259.

Bawden, D. (2008). Origins and concepts of digital literacy. Digital literacies: Concepts,

policies and practices, 17-32.

Beers, K., Probst, R., & Rief, L. (2007). Adolescent Literacy: Turning Promise into

Practice. UK: Heinemann Publishing. ISBN 9780325011288.

Belshaw, D.A.J. (2012). What is “digital literacy”? A Pragmatic investigation. Durham

thesis, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online:

http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/3446/

Berg, B. L. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. London:

Pearson.

Beckingham, S., & Belshaw, D. (2012). Connecting the digital dots: 21st century digital

literacies. Paper presented at the CITE Southampton Digital Litera Conference,

Southampton. http://www.slideshare.net/dajbelshaw/connectingthe- digital-dots-

withsue-beckingham-13325303

Braun, V. & Clarke V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative

Research in Psychology 3, pp.77-101.

Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (1989). Multi-method research: A synthesis of styles. Newbury

Park, NJ: Sage.

Brown, B. C. (2009). An examination of the relationship between digital literacy and

student achievement in Texas elementary schools (Doctoral dissertation, The

University of Oklahoma, United States). Retrieved from

https://pqdtopen.proquest.com/doc/ 304978655.html?FMT=AI

Brown, J.A. (1998). Media literacy perspectives. Journal of Commun., 48, 44–58.

Bruce, C.S. (1997). Seven Faces of Information Literacy Adelaide: Auslib Press

Bryman, A. (2007) Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research.

Journal of Mixed Method Research (1), 8-22

Buckingham, D. (2006). Digital Generations: Children, Young People, and New Media

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Buckingham, D. (2007). Beyond Technology: Children's Learning in the Age of Digita

Culture Cambridge: Malden

Buckingham, D. (2008). “Defining Digital Literacy: what do young people need to know

about digital media?” in C. Lankshear, & M. Knobel (2008) Digital Literacies:

Concepts, Policies and Practices New York: Peter Lang

Buckingham, D. (2010). Defining Digital Literacy. In: Bachmair, B. (ed.), Medienbildung

in neuen kulturraumen, pp. 59–71. VS Verlag fur Sozialwissenschaften,

Wiesbaden, Germany.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780325011288

https://www.researchgate.net/.../%20258173691_Digital_skills_of_internet_natives_Different

https://www.researchgate.net/.../%20258173691_Digital_skills_of_internet_natives_Different

https://pqdtopen.proquest.com/doc/

121

Burns, N., & Grove, S. (1999) Understanding Nursing Research. 2nd edition, WB

Saunders Company, Philadelphia.

Burns, R. B. (2000). Introduction to Research Methods (4th ed.). Frenchs Forest: Pearson

Education.

Center for Intellectual Property in the Digital Environment (2005) Colleges, Code, and

Copyright: The Impact of Digital Networks and Technological Controls on

Copyright and the Dissemination of Information in Higher Education Chicago:

Association of College & Research Libraries

Chris, D.(2009). Comparing Frameworks for 21st Century Skills, Harvard Graduate

School of Education. Retrieved from

http://sttechnology.pbworks.com/f/Dede_(2010)_

Comparing%20Frameworks%20for%2021st%20Century%20Skills.pdf

Churchill, D. (2009). New literacy in the Web 2.0 world. Paper presented at the

University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

http://www.slideshare.net/zvezdan/newliteracy- in-the-web-20-world

Clifford, G.J. (1984). Buch und lesen: historical perspectives on literacy and schooling.

Rev. Educ. Res., 54, 472–500.

Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2011) Research Methods in Education. 7th ed.

USA: Rutledge.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education. (6th ed.).

London: Routledge.

Coiro, J. (2003). Reading comprehension on the Internet: expanding our understanding of

reading comprehension to encompass new literacies. Read. Teach., 56, 458–464.

Colwell, J. (2013). Connecting old and new literacies in a transliterate world. Library

Media Connection, 32(1), 14-16.

Conlon, T. & Simpson, M. (2003). “Silicon Valley versus Silicon Glen: the impact of

computers upon teaching and learning: a comparative study” British Journal of

Educational Technology 34(2) pp.137-150

Considine, D.M. (1986) ‘Visual literacy and children’s books: an integrated approach’

School Library Journal September pp.38-42

Cook, J. & Smith, M. (2004) “Beyond formal learning: Informal community eLearning,”

Computers & Education 43(1-2) pp.35–47

Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M., & Hanson, W. (2003). Advanced

mixed methods research designs. In a Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.),

Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209–

240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Crystal, D. (2006). Language and the Internet. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University

Press.

Creswell, J. W. (2008). Research Design (3rd ed) Thousand Oaks C.A. Sage

De Castell, S. & Luke, A. (1988). Defining ‘literacy’ in North American Schools: Social

and Historical Conditions and Consequences. In Kingten, E.R., Kroll, B.M. and

Rose, M. (eds), Perspectives on Literacy, pp. 159–174. Southern Illinois

University Press, Carbondale, IL.

De Vaus, D. A (2001). Research Design in Social Research. London: SAGE.

122

Delport, C.L.S. (2005). Quantitative data-collection methods. In De Vos, A.S. (Ed.),

Strydom, H., Fouche, C.B & Delport, C.S.L 3rd ed. Research at grass roots for the

social sciences and human service professions. Pretoria: Van Schaik

Publishers.

Deng, H. (2010). Emerging patterns and trends in utilizing electronic resources in a

higher education environment: An empirical analysis. New Library World, 111

(3/4), p.87-103.

DeTure, M. (2004). Cognitive style and self-efficacy: Predicting student success in online

distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 18 (1), 21-38.

Diptiman, D., & Rudranil D.(2009). “Social networks using web 2.0”. IBM. Retrieved

from https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/ws-socialcollab/

Dondis, D.A. (1974). “A Primer of Visual Literacy” Cambridge, MT: MIT Press

Dornyei, Z. & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning.

In: C. J. Doughty and M.H. Long, (Eds), The Handbook of Second Language

Acquisition (pp. 589– 630). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Echo360. (2012). Blended Learning Technology: Connecting with the Online-All-the-

Time Student. Echo360. Retrieved from:

http://echo360.com/sites/all/themes/echo360/

files/Connecting_to_the_Online_All_the_Time_Student.pdf

Eddy, M., D. (2013). “The Shape of Knowledge: Children and the Visual Culture of

Literacy and Numeracy”. Science in Context. 26: 215-245.

doi:10.1017/s0269889713000045.

Eshet-Alkalai, Y. & Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (2004) “Experiments in Digital Literacy”

Cyber Psychology & Behavior 7(4) pp.421-429

Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2004). Digital literacy: A conceptual framework for survival skills in

the digital era. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(1), 93-

106.

Eshet-Alkalai, Y., & Chajut, E. (2009). Changes over time in digital literacy. Cyber

Psychology & Behavior, 12(6), 713-715.

European Action Plan (2018). Communication from the commission to the European

parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the

committee of the regions on the Digital Education Action Plan, retrieved from

https://ec.europa.eu/education/ sites/ education/files/digital-education-action-

plan.pdf.

European Commission (2008) Digital Literacy European Commission Working Paper

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/docs/digital_literacy/digital

_literacy_r eview.pdf, accessed 19 July 2018.

European Commission (2013): Survey of Schools: ICT in Education Benchmarking

Access, Use and Attitudes to Technology in Europe’s retrieved from

https://ec.europa.eu/ digital- single-market/en/news/survey-schools-ict-education

European Commission. (2017). Commission Staff Working Document, Accompanying

the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament,

the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier

123

the Regions A renewed EU agenda for higher education SWD(2017)264 retrieved

from https://ec.europa.eu/education/ sites/education/ files/he-swd-2017-165-pdf

Eurostat (2015). Being young in Europe today - digital world, retrieved from

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ statistics-explained/index.php/

Being_young_in_Europe_today_digital_world.

Fairlie, D., Beltran, D., Das, L, (2010), Home Computers and Educational Outcomes:

Evidence from the NLSY97 and CPS. Economic Inquiry, 48: 771–792.

Federal Communications Commission. (2010). Connecting America: The National

Broadplan Plan. Washington, DC: Author.

Federal Communications Commission. (2010). Connecting America: The National

Broadplan Plan. Washington, DC: Author.

Fieldhouse, M. & Nicholas, D. (2008) “Digital Literacy as Information Savvy: the road to

information literacy” (in C. Lankshear, M. Knobel (2008) (Digital Literacies:

Concepts, Policies and Practices).

Frand, J. (2000). The information-age mindset. International Journal of higher education,

vol. 35, no 2, pp. 14- 24.

Fraser, J. (2009) ‘The Digital Literacy Debate’ http://digilit.wetpaint.com, accessed 11

July 2018.

Frisch, A.L., Camerini, L., Diviani, N. & Schulz, P.J. (2012). Defining and measuring

health literacy: how can we profit from other literacy domains? Health. Promot.

Int., 27, 117–126.

FutureLab. (2010). Digital literacy across the curriculum handbook. Retrieved from

http://www.futurelab.org.uk/sites/default/files/Digital_Literacy_handbook _0.pdf

Garcia, G.A., & Ladino, Y. (2008). Desarrollo de competencias cientificas a traves de una

estrategia de enseñanza y aprendizaje por investigación. Studiositas, 3(3), 7-16.

Gee, J. P., Hull, G., & Lankshear, C. (1996). The new work order: Behind the language of

the new capitalism, Boulder, Co.: Westview

Gee, J.P. (1996) Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses 2nd ed.

London: Falmer Press

Gillen, J. & Barton, D. (2009) ‘Digital Literacies. A discussion document for TLRP-TEL’

Teaching and Learning Research Programme - Technology Enhanced Learning

workshop on digital literacies. Lancaster University 12-13 March 2009,

http://www.tlrp.org/tel/files/2009/02/digital-literacies-gillen-barton-2009.pdf,

accessed 29 July 2018

Gillen, J., & Barton, D. (2010). Digital literacies: A research briefing by the technology

enhanced learning phase of the teaching and learning research programme.

London: University of London.

Gilster, P. (1997). Digital literacy. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Goodfellow, R. (2011). Literacy, literacies, and the digital in higher education. Teaching

in Higher Education, 16(1), 131-144.

Greenfield, P., & Subrahmanyam, K. (2003). Online discourse in a teen chat room: New

codes and modes of coherence in a visual medium. Journal of Applied

Developmental Psychology, 24, 713–738.

http://digilit.wetpaint.com/

124

Greenhow, C., Sonnevend, J., & Agur, C. (2016). “Education and Social Media: Toward

a Digital Future”. MIT Press.

Gubrium, J. F. & Holstein, J. A. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of Interview Research:

Context and Method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gui, M. & Argentin, G. (2011). Digital skills of internet natives: Different forms of

digital literacy in a random sample of northern Italian high school students, New

Media & Society. Volume 13 Issue 6 http://nms.sagepub.com/content/13/6/963

Gui, M. (2007). Formal and substantial Internet information skills: The role of socio-

demographic differences on the possession of different components of digital

literacy. 12 (9), retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/25173891

_Digital_skils_of_internt.

Gurak, L.J. (2001) Cyber literacy: navigating the Internet with awareness New Haven:

Yale University Press.

Hannon, P. (2000) Reflecting on Literacy in Education London: Routledge Falmer

Hargittai, E. (2005). Survey measures of web-oriented digital literacy. Social Science

Computer Review, 23(3), 371-379.

Hargittai, E. (2009). An update on survey measures of web-oriented digital literacy.

Social Science Computer Review, 27, (1)130-137.

Hargittai, E. (2010). Digital natives? Variation in Internet skills and uses among members

of the “Net Generation.” Sociological Inquiry, 80, 92-113.

Harry, B., Sturges, K., & Klingner, J.K. (2005). Mapping the process: An exemplar of

process and challenge in grounded theory analysis. Educational Researcher, 34,

3-13

Hart-Davidson, B., Cushman, E., Grabill, J., DeVoss, D. & Porter, J. (2005). “Why teach

digital writing?”. Kairos. 10 (1).

Hawthorne, D. (2008). History of electronic resources. Emporial State University, USA.

Retrieved from: http://www.irma.international.org/view title/10025.

Head, A., & Eisenberg, M. (2009). How college students seek information in the digital

age. Retrieved from http://ctl.yale.edu/sites/default/files/basic-page-

supplementary-materials-

files/how_students_seek_information_in_the_digital_age.pdf

Helsper, E. J. (2008). Digital inclusion: An analysis of social disadvantage and the

information society. London: Department for Communities and Local

Government.

Hinrichsen, J. & Coombs, A. (2014). “The five resources of critical digital literacy: a

framework for curriculum integration”. Research in Learning

Technology 21 (0). doi:10.3402/rlt.v21.21334. ISSN 2156-7077

Horrigan, J. B. (2014). Digital readiness: Nearly one-third of Americans lack the skills to

use next-generation ‘Internet of things’ applications.

Smith, A. (2010). Home Broadband 2010. Pew Research Center’s Internet & American

Life Project 1615 L St., NW – Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20036

Howland, J. L., & Moore, J. L. (2002). Student Perceptions as Distance Learners in

Internet-Based Courses. Distance Education, 23(2), 183 - 195.

http://ctl.yale.edu/sites/default/files/basic-page-supplementary-materials-files/how_students_seek_information_in_the_digital_age.pdf

http://ctl.yale.edu/sites/default/files/basic-page-supplementary-materials-files/how_students_seek_information_in_the_digital_age.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier

125

Hunter, A., Laursen, S., & Seymour, E. (2007). Becoming a Scientist: the role of

undergraduate research in students’ cognitive, personal and professional

development. Science Education, 91, 36-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.20173

Hunter, J. (1984) ‘Make your students’ computer literate’ Business Education Forum 4

pp.45-50

Hurtado, J. (2000). Retosy alternativas en la formación de investigadores. Venezuela:

SYPAL.

Bruner, J. S. (1978). The role of dialogue in language acquisition. In A. Sinclair, R., J.

Jarvelle, and W. J.M. Levelt (eds.) The Child's Concept of Language. New York:

Springer-Verlag.

Institute of Museum and Library Services, University of Washington, & International

City/ County Management Association. (2012). Building Digital Communities: A

framework for action. Washington, DC: Institute of Museum and Library

Services.

International Literacy Panel, Educational Testing Service (ETS). (2002). Digital

transformation: A framework for ICT literacy. Princeton, NJ: Author. Retrieved

from

http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/Information_and_Communication_Technology_L

iteracy/ictreport.pdf

International Telecommunication Unit (2018). Digital Skills Toolkit. Switzerland:

Geneva Retrieved from www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Digital-Inclusion/Documents/

ITU%20Digital %20Skills%20Toolkit.pdf

Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robinson, A.J. and Weigel, M. (2006).

Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st

Century. The MacArthur Foundation, Chicago, IL.

JISC (2009a) Learning Literacies in a Digital Age

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/briefingpapers/2009/learningliteraciesbp.aspx,

accessed 29 May 2018.

JISC (2009b). Digital literacies Pilot materials http://cloudworks.ac.uk/cloud/view/4293,

accessed 15 May 2018.

JISC (2009c). Responding to Learners Pack retrieved from

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/programmerelated/2009/respondingtolearners.a

spx, accessed 15 May 2018.

JISC (2009d) Learning Literacies Development Framework

http://jiscdesignstudio.pbworks.com/w/file/40474958/Literacies%20development

%20framew ork.doc, accessed 23 May 2018.

John, L. D. (1969). “The Loom of Visual Literacy,” Audiovisual Instruction 14 (1969):

25.

Johnson, G.M. (2008) 'Functional Internet Literacy: required cognitive skills with

implications for instruction' in C. Lankshear, M. Knobel (2008c) Digital

Literacies: Concepts, Policies and Practices New York: Peter Lang

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed Methods Research: A research

paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher (33), 14-26.

http://cloudworks.ac.uk/cloud/view/4293

http://jiscdesignstudio.pbworks.com/w/file/40474958/Literacies%20development%20framew

http://jiscdesignstudio.pbworks.com/w/file/40474958/Literacies%20development%20framew

126

Jaeger, P.T., Carlo, J., Bertot, K. M.. Thompson, S. M. Katz & DeCoste, E. J. (2012)

Digital divides digital literacy, digital inclusion, and public libraries. Public

Library Quarterly 3(1)p.1-20 ISSN: 0161-6846 1541-1540

Jacobson, T.E & Mackey, T.P. (2013). Proposing a meta literacy model to redefine

information literacy, Communications in Information Literacy, 7(2), retrieved

from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1089056.pdf.

Kajee, L. & Balfour, R. (2011). “Students' access to digital literacy at a South African

university: Privilege and marginalization”. Southern African Linguistics &

Applied Language Studies. 29: 187. doi:10.2989/16073614.2011.633365

Kari, S.U. (2004). Use of Electronic Resources by Undergraduate Students at

Perpustakaan tun Abdul Razak 1. Retrieved from

http://www.Docstoc.Com/...Use-Of-Electronic Resources-by- Undergraduate.

Kothari, C.R. (2004). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. 2nd Edition, New

Age International Publishers, New Delhi.

Kymes, A. (2005). Teaching online comprehension strategies using think aloud. Journal

of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48(6), 492-500.

Lanham, R. (1995). Digital literacy. Scientific American, 273 (3). 160-161. Journal of

Social Science: DC

Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2008) 'Introduction' in C. Lankshear, M. Knobel (2008c)

Digital Literacies: Concepts, Policies and Practices New York: Peter Lang

Lankshear, C. and Knobel, M. (2004). ‘New’ Literacies: Research and Social Practice.

Opening plenary address presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Reading

Conference, San Antonio.

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2006). Digital literacy and digital literacies. Nordic

Journal of digital literacy, 1(1), 12-24.

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (Eds.). (2008). Digital literacies: Concepts, policies and

practices (Vol. 30). Peter Lang.

Leu D.J., Kinzer C.K., Coiro J.L. & Cammack, D.W. (2004). Toward a Theory of New

Literacies Emerging from the Internet and other Information and Communication

Technologies. In Rudell, R.B. and Unrau, N. (eds), Theoretical Models and

Processes of Reading, pp. 1568–1611. International Reading Association,

Newark, DE.

Lipman, M. (2001). Pensamiento Complejo y Educación. Madrid: Ediciones de la Torre.

Littlejohn, A., Margaryan, A., & Vojt, G. (2011). Exploring students’ use of ICT and

expectations of learning methods [Online]. Electronic Journal of E-Learning

(IJEL), 8(1). http:// www.ejel.org/Volume-8/v8-i1/v8-i1-art-2.htm.

Livingstone, S. (2004). Media literacy and the challenge of new information and

communication technologies. Commun. Rev., 7, 3–14.

Longardner, T. (2015). “US News”. The Growing Need for Technical and Digital

Literacy. Retrieved from https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/03/16/the-

growing-need-for-technical-and-digital-literacy.

http://www.docstoc.com/...Use-Of-Electronic

127

Lopez Islas, J.R. (2013). Digital literacy and academic success in online education for

underprivileged communities: the prep@net case, Ph.D. Dissertation, University

of Texas, Austin. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2152/20948

Marlow, C.(2006). “Audience, Structure, and Autority in the Weblog Community”. MIT

Media Laboratory. MIT Press.

Martin, A. & Madigan, D. (2006). Digital Literacies for Learning. London: Facet

Publishing

Martin, A. (2008) 'Digital Literacy and the ‘Digital Society’' in C. Lankshear, M. Knobel,

(2008c) Digital Literacies: Concepts, Policies and Practices New York: Peter

Lang

Martin, A., & Grudziecki, J. (2006). DigEuLit: concepts and tools for digital literacy

development. Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer

Sciences, 5(4), Retrieved from: ics.heacademy.ac.uk/ italics/vol5iss4/martin-

grudziecki.pdf

Sharpe, R., & Beetham, H. (2010) Understanding students' uses of technology for

learning: Towards creative appropriation. In: Rethinking learning for a digital

age: How learners are shaping their own experiences, Routledge. pp. 85-99

Matyjas, B (2015). “Mass Media and Children. Globality in Everyday Life”. Procedia -

Social And Behavioral Sciences. 174: 2898–2904.

doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.1026.

McAdams, M. & Berger, S. (2001). “Hypertext”. Journal of Electronic Publishing.

Mckee-Waddell, S. (2015). Digital Literacy: Bridging the Gap with Digital Writing

Tools. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 82(1), 26-31.

Muilenburg, L., & Berge, Z. (2005). Student Barriers to Online Learning: A Factor

Analytic Study. Distance Education - DISTANCE EDUC. 26. 29-48.

10.1080/01587910500081269.

McLoughlin, C. (2011). What ICT-related skills and capabilities should be considered

central to the definition of digital literacy? In T. Bastiaens and M. Ebner (Eds.),

Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and

Telecommunications 2011 (pp. 471-475). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of

evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online

learning studies. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education Office of

Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development Policy and Program Studies

Service.

Meyer, K., Hunt, S., Hopper, K. M., Thakkar, K., Tsoubakopoulos, V., & Van Hoose, K.,

(2010). Assessing Information Literacy Instruction in the Basic Communication

Course, Communication Teacher, 22:1, 22 – 34.

Moats, L. (2000). Speech to Print: Language Essentials for Teachers. Paul H. Brookes,

Baltimore.

Muilenburg, L. Y., & Berge, Z. L. (2005). Student Barriers to Online Learning: A factor

analytic study. Distance Education, 26(1), 29-48.

128

Mutshewa, A. (2008). Information Retrieval Systems, Strategies and Challenges for

African Information Searchers. In: Aina, L.O. Mutula, S.M and Tiamiyu, M.A

(eds.) information and Knowledge Management in the Digital Age Concepts,

Technologies and African Perspectives. Ibadan: Third World Information

Services, p. 426-451.

National Education Policy (2009). National Education Policy 2009. Ministry of Federal

Education and Professional Training, Government of Pakistan: Islamabad.

National Education Policy (2017). National Education Policy 2017-2025. Ministry of

Federal Education and Professional Training, Government of Pakistan: Islamabad.

Nauman, J. and Salmeron, L. (2016). Does navigation always predict performance?

Effects of navigation on digital reading are moderated by comprehension skills.

International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(1), 42-59.

Newman, T. (2009) ‘Consequences of a digital literacy review: from terminology to

action’ http://www.slideshare.net/TabethaNewman/digital-literacy-literature-

review-fromterminology- to-action, accessed on 18 May 2018.

Nisonger, T. E. (2003). Evaluation of library collections, access and electronic resources:

a literature guide and annotated bibliography (1st ed.). Libraries Unlimited, 1 (1),

230-271.

O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next

generation of software? Retrieved June 20, 2018, from

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-

20.html

Oblinger, D. (2003). Boomers, Gen-Xers and Millennials: Understanding the New

Students. Educause Review, 38(4), 37-47

Oblinger, D. G., and Oblinger, J. (2005). Educating the Net Generation. EDUCAUSE

Online book. Retrieved from: http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub7101.pdf

OCED (2005). The Definition and Selection Key Competencies. Retrieved form

http://www.oecd.org/pisa/35070367.pdf

OECD (2001). Learning to Change: ICT in Schools Paris: OECD

Ofcom. (2008). Report on UK children’s media literacy. Media literacy audit. Retrieved

from http://www.ofcom.org.uk/advice/media_literacy/medlitpub/medlitpubrss/

ml_childrens08.

Walther, J. (2007). Selective Self-presentation in Computer-mediated Communication:

Hyperpersonal Dimensions of Technology, Language, and Cognition. Computers

in Human Behavior. 23. 2538-2557. 10.1016/j.chb.2006.05.002.

Okello-Obura, C., & Magara, E. (2008).Electronic Information Access and

Utilization by Makerere University Students in Uganda. Evidence Based

Library and Information Practice, 3(3) Retrieved from

http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/ index.php/EBLIP/article/ view/935.

Okiy, R.B. (2003). Towards Improving The Relevance of Nigerian Academic Libraries

And Librarians In The Knowledge Age. The Academic Forum. Vol. 4 (3), 63-68

Oliver, R. (1995). Information Access and Retrieval from Electronic Information

Systems: What do our Students Need to Learn? Retrieved from

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/ download? doi=10.1.1...pdf

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/advice/media_literacy/medlitpub/medlitpubrss/

http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/%20index.php/

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/

129

Open University. (2012). Digital and information literacy framework. Milton

Keynes, UK: Open University. Retrieved from http://www.open.ac.uk/

libraryservices/pages/dilframework/ dilframework_view_by_skill.pdf.

Ozdamar-Keskin, N., Ozata, F.Z & Banar, K (2015) ‘Examining Digital Literacy

Competences and Learning Habits of Open and Distance

Learners’, CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOG, 6(1), pp. 74-90

Payton, S., & Hague, C. (2010). Digital literacy in practice: Case studies of primary and

secondary classrooms Retrieved from

http://www.futurelab.org.uk/sites/default/files/Digital_Literacy_case_studies.pdf

Poore, M. (2012). Digital literacy: Human flourishing and collective intelligence in a

knowledge society. Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 19, (2), 20-26

Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.

Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, part 2: Do they really think

differently? On the Horizon, 9(6), 6.

Punch, F.K. (2009). Introduction Research Methods in Education. London: Sage.

Ranieri, M., Fini, A., & Calvani, A. (2009). Assessing Digital Competence in Secondary

Education - Issues, Models and Instruments. (M. Leaning, Ed.) Issues in

Information and Media Literacy: Education, Practice and Pedagogy, Santa Rosa

California: Informing Science Press.

Restrepo, B. (2003). Investigacion formativa e investigacion productiva de conocimiento

en la universidad. Nomadas, 18, 195-202.

Rivoltella, P.C. (2008). From media education to digital literacy: A paradigm change? In

P.C. Rivoltella (Ed.), Digital literacy: Tools and methodologies for information

society (pp.217-230). Hershey, PA: IGI Publishing.

Rossman, G. B., & Wilson, B. L. (1985). Numbers and words: Combing quantitative and

qualitative methods in a single large-scale evaluation study. Evaluation Review, 9,

627-643.

Riddle, J. (2009). Engaging the Eye Generation: Visual Literacy Strategies for the K-5

Classroom. Stenhouse Publishers page 3. ISBN 978-1-57110-749-7

Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social

presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance

Education, 14(2).

Rowsell, J., & Walsh, M. (2011). Rethinking literacy education in new times:

multimodality, multiliteracies, & new literacies. Brock Education Journal, 21(1).

Rubin, H.J., & Rubin, I.S. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (2nd

ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Salaam, M. O. (2008). “Option for access to journals, print, CD-ROM, on-line in a

Nigerian Agricultural University library Samaru” Journal of Information Studies,

Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 24-27.

Sayous, N. (2007). La investigation cientifica y el aprendizaje social para la production de

conocimientos en la formación del ingeniero civil. Ingenieria, 11(2), 39-46.

Scher, R. (1984) ‘The computer backlash’ Electronic Learning 5 pp.23-27.

http://www.open.ac.uk/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number

130

Scribner, S. & Cole, M. (1981). The Psychology of Literacy, Cambridge: MA: Harvard

University Press.

Sharkey, J. & Brandt, D. S. (2008). Integrating technology literacy and information

literacy. In P. C. Rivoltella (Ed.), Digital literacy: Tools and methodologies for

information society (pp. 85-97). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Shopova, T. (2014). “Digital Literacy of Students and Its Improvement at the University”,

Journal on Efficiency and Responsibility in Education and Science, Vol. 7, No. 2,

pp. 26-32, online ISSN 1803-1617, printed ISSN 1803-1617, doi:

10.7160/eriesj.2014.070201.

Shuling, W. (2007). Investigating and analiysis of current use of electronic resources in

University Libraries. Emerald, 28(1/2), 72-88.

Sieberhagen, A., & Cloete, L. (2012). The Evaluation of a Digital Information Literacy

Program. South African Journal of Libraries and Information Science, 80(2).

Simonson, M.R., Maurer, M., Montag-torardi, M. & Whitaker, M. (1987) ‘Development

of a standardized test of computer literacy and computer anxiety index’ Journal of

Educational Computing Research 3(2) pp.231- 247

Spitzberg, B. H. (2006). Preliminary development of a model and measure of computer-

mediated communication (CMC) competency. Journal of Computer-Mediated

Communication, 11 (2), article 12.

http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue2/spitzberg.html

Spires, H., & Bartlett, M. (2012). Digital literacies and learning: Designing a path

forward. Friday Institute White Paper Series. NC State University.

Stedman, G.(2015). Preparing for the 21st Century: Soft Skills Matter, Huffington Post,

Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/stedman-graham/preparing-for-

the-21st-ce_b_6738538.html

Stokes, S. (2002). Visual Literacy in Teaching and Learning: A Literature Perspective,

Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education, Idaho State

University. Volume 1, No. 1, Spring 2002.

Street, B. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Subrahmanyam, K., Greenfield, P., Kraut, R., & Gross, E. (2002). The impact of

computer use on children’s activities and development. The Future of Children,

10(2), 123–144.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and

quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Thanuskodi, S. (2012). Use of E-resources by the students and researchers of faculty of

Arts, Annamalai University. .Int. J. Lib. Sci. 1(1), 1-7.

The Frontier Post (2018, July 18). Pakistan ranked low in digital literacy. Retrieved from

https://thefrontierpost.com/pakistan-ranked-low-in-digital-literacy/

Thomas, N.P. (2004). Information Literacy and Information Skills Instruction: Applying

Research to Practice in the School Library Media Center. 2nd .ed. London:

Libraries Unlimited.

Tornero, J.M.P. (2004) ‘Promoting Digital Literacy: Final Report - Understanding Digital

Literacy

131

http://ec.europa.eu/education/archive/elearning/doc/studies/dig_lit_en.pdf,

accessed 26 May 2018

Trilling, B. & Fadel, C.(2009) 21st Century Skills: Learning for Life in Our Times,

Jossey-Bass (publisher), ISBN 978-0-470-55362-6.

Tunnermann, C. (2003). La universidad latinoamericana ante los retos del siglo XXI.

México: Universidad Autonoma de Yucatán Merida.

U. S. Department of Commerce (2013). Exploring the digital nation: America’s emerging

online experience. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education. (1996). Getting America's students ready for the 21st

century: Meeting the technology literacy challenge. Retrieved from:

http://www2.ed.gov/ updates/PresEDPlan/part11.html

United States Department of Education (1996). Reimagining the Role of Technology in

Education. Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/files/2017/01/NETP17.pdf

Ulicsak, M. (2004).Digital literacy and the I-curriculum project.

UNESCO (2002). Learning Throughout Life: challenges for the twenty-first century

Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO. (2009). Literacy assessment and monitory program (LAMP). Retrieved June

28, 2018 from www.unesco.org/education/efa/global_co/.../WGEFA4_UIS.ppt –

France.

US Department of Labour (2006). Futurework - Trends and Challenges for work in the

21st century, US Department of Labor report, Chapter 4 retrieved from

www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/herman/reports/futurework/report/chapter4/

main.htm.

Vuorikari, R., Punie, Y., Carretero Gomez S., & Van den Brande, G. (2016). DigComp

2.0: The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens. Update Phase 1: The

Conceptual Reference Model. Luxembourg Publication Office of the European

Union. EUR 27948 EN. doi: 10. 2791/11517.

Walther, J. B. (2007). Selective self-presentation in computer-mediated communication:

Hyper personal dimensions of technology, language and cognition. Computers in

Human Behaviour, 23, 2538–2557.

Warschauer, M & Matuchniak, T. (2010). “New Technology and Digital Worlds:

Analyzing Evidence of Equity in Access, Use, and Outcomes”. Review of

Research in Education. 34: 179–225. doi:10.3102/0091732X09349791

Warschauer, M. (2010). A literacy approach to the digital divide. Las

mulialfabetizaciones en el espacio digital. Ediciones Aljibe, Malaga, Spain.

Winnepeg School Division (2010). Winnipeg School Division Technology Outcomes

Continuum Guide (K-S1). Retrieved from:

http://www.wsd1.org/techcont/communication_ literacy.htm.

WIOA (2014). IMLS press release: $2.2 Billion Reasons to Pay Attention to WIOA.

Retrieved from https://www.imls.gov/news-events/news-releases/22-billion-

reasons-pay-attention-wioa.

132

Wynne, M., & Cooper, L. (2007). Digital Inclusion Imperatives Offer Municipalities New

Social and Economic Opportunities. Retrieved from POWER UP: The Campaign

for Digital Inclusion.

Zickuhr, K., & Smith, A. (2012). Digital differences. Pew Internet and American Life

Project. Available at http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Digital-differences.aspx.

Zickuhr, K., & Smith, A. (2013). Home Broadband 2013. Pew Internet and American

Life Project. Available at http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/08/26/home-

broadband-2013/

http://www.digitalaccess.org/pdf/White_Paper.pdf

http://www.digitalaccess.org/pdf/White_Paper.pdf

139

Department of Education Government College University, Faisalabad.

Ref:___________ Dated: 21-05-2018.

Dear Faculty Member,

Greetings!

Subject:-Authority Letter

Mr. Qaisar Abbas Roll No. 301 student of PhD (Education) at this

University is conducting a PhD research on the topic “EFFECT OF DIGITAL

LITERACY ON THE ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS AT

HIGHER EDUCATION LEVEL IN PAKISTAN” under my supervision. In this

regard your kind cooperation regarding filling of attached questionnaire from the

students of MS/PhD is required. Kindly cooperate with him.

Regards,

140

LIST OF EXPERT PANEL

NAME OF THE EXPERT PANEL UNIVERSITY/DESIGNATION/

DEPARTMENT

Dr. Shafqat Hussain Associate Professor /Chairman


Government College University

Faisalabad.

Dr. Muhammad Sarwar Professor


University of Sargodha, Sargodha.

Dr. Muhammad Ramzan Chairman

Department of Computer science


Faisalabad.

Dr. Shafqat Rasool Watoo Assistant Professor



Faisalabad.

Dr. Muhammad Shabbir Ali Saleemi Assistant Professor


University of Education Campus

Faisalabad.

Dr. Muhammad Asif Iqbal Assistant Professor


University of Education Campus

Faisalabad.

Dr. Madam Shumaila Shahzad Assistant Professor



Faisalabad.

Mr. Saqib Muhammmad Saqib Senior Lecturer (English)

Chenab College Chiniot.

effect of digital literacy on the academic performance of ...

Documents

Transcript of effect of digital literacy on the academic performance of ...