The present research investigates how information literacy (IL) drives student engagement in Pakistan's higher-learning business institutions by examining its effect on student engagement. Data were collected via a survey-based questionnaire from 390 business students enrolled in thirteen Higher Education Commission (HEC) ranked business institutions, selected using non-proportional stratified sampling, and analyzed using SPSS-24. The analysis revealed high perceived information literacy and student engagement, encompassing academic, online, cognitive, social (with teachers peers), beyond-class, and affective engagement. Correlation analysis indicated a significant positive correlation between IL and student engagement, including their sub-dimensions. The results also demonstrated a significant positive effect of IL on overall student engagement. Theoretically, this study contributes to the literature by exploring the connection between IL and student engagement comprehensively. Practically, the findings highlight the importance of IL and offer insights for business educators, librarians, information professionals, and accrediting bodies in developing and integrating a need-based, credit IL course and time-to-time IL sessions across all levels of business education.
AbidNAkhtarM (2020) Relationship between academic engagement and academic achievement: An empirical evidence of secondary school students. Journal of Educational Research23(1): 48–61.
2.
AharonyNBronsteinJ (2014) Academic librarians’ perceptions on information literacy: The Israeli perspective. Portal: Libraries and the Academy14(1): 103–119.
3.
AharonyNGazitT (2019) Factors affecting students’ information literacy self-efficacy. Library Hi Tech37(2): 170–183.
4.
AharonyNGazitT (2020) Students’ information literacy self-efficacy: An exploratory study. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science52(1): 224–236.
5.
AlrashidiOPhanHPNguBH (2016) Academic engagement: An overview of its definitions, dimensions, and major conceptualisations. International Education Studies9(12): 41–52.
6.
AlshuaibiMSIAlshuaibiASIShamsudinFM, et al. (2018) Use of social media, student engagement, and academic performance of business students in Malaysia. International Journal of Educational Management32(4): 625–640.
7.
AndersonKMayFA (2010) Does the method of instruction matter? An experimental examination of information literacy instruction in the online, blended, and face-to-face classrooms. The Journal of Academic Librarianship36(6): 495–500.
8.
AppletonJJChristensonSLKimD, et al. (2006) Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the Student Engagement Instrument. Journal of School Psychology44(5): 427–445.
9.
ArchambaultIJanoszMMorizotJ, et al. (2009) Adolescent behavioral, affective, and cognitive engagement in school: Relationship to dropout. Journal of School Health79(9): 408–415.
10.
ArnoneMPSmallRVChaunceySA, et al. (2011) Curiosity, interest and engagement in technology-pervasive learning environments: A new research agenda. Educational Technology Research and Development59(2): 181–198.
11.
AsieduNKPlockeyFKordieGA (2020) Assessing the information literacy skills of education students in a multi-campus institution.Library Philosophy & Practice 4428. Library Philosophy & Practice (e-journal) Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/4428
12.
AvcıÜErgünE (2022) Online students’ LMS activities and their effect on engagement, information literacy and academic performance. Interactive Learning Environments30(1): 71–84.
13.
BajiFBigdeliZParsaA, et al. (2018) Developing information literacy skills of the 6th grade students using the Big 6 model. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science23(1): 1–15.
14.
BanduraA (1977) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review84(2): 191–215.
15.
BanduraAWaltersRH (1977) Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
16.
BartolTDolničarDPodgornikBB, et al. (2018) A comparative study of information literacy skill performance of students in agricultural sciences. The Journal of Academic Librarianship44(3): 374–382.
17.
BergdahlNNouriJForsU (2020) Disengagement, engagement and digital skills in technology-enhanced learning. Education and Information Technologies25: 957–983.
18.
BilalD (2005) Children's information seeking and the design of digital interfaces in the affective paradigm. Library Trends54(2): 197–208.
19.
BruceCS (2004) Information literacy as a catalyst for educational change: A background paper. In: Danaher and Patrick A (eds) Proceedings “Lifelong Learning: Whose responsibility and what is your contribution?”, the 3rd International Lifelong Learning Conference. Yeppoon, Queensland: Queensland University of Technology, 8–19.
20.
BuchananSHarlanMBruceC, et al. (2016) Inquiry based learning models, information literacy, and student engagement: A literature review. School Libraries Worldwide22(2): 23–39.
21.
ChanchinmawiaFVermaMK (2018) Assessment of information literacy skills among research scholars of Mizoram University: A study. Assessment8(1): 389–399.
22.
ChenP-SDLambertADGuidryKR (2010) Engaging online learners: The impact of Web-based learning technology on college student engagement. Computers & Education54(4): 1222–1232.
23.
CohenJ (1992) Quantitative methods in psychology: A power primer. Psychological Bulletin112(1): 155–159.
24.
ConleyTMGilEL (2011) Information literacy for undergraduate business students: Examining value, relevancy, and implications for the new century. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship16(3): 213–228.
25.
CopeJ (2010) Information literacy and social power. In: Critical Library Instruction: Theories and Methods. New York: Publications and Research, 13–27.
26.
CreswellJW (2012) Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Boston: Pearson. Available at: https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=4PywcQAACAAJ.
27.
CribbGHoltI (2012) Student engagement and library use: An examination of attitudes towards use of libraries and information amongst undergraduate students at a Turkish University library. In: 33rd Annual IATUL Conference 2012. Singapore: Research Collection Library, 1–27. Available at: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/library_research/16.
28.
De MeulemeesterA (2013) The “information literacy self-efficacy scale” and the medical curriculum at Ghent University. In: Worldwide Commonalities and Challenges in Information Literacy Research and Practice: European Conference on Information Literacy, ECIL 2013 Istanbul, Turkey, October 22–25, 2013 Revised Selected Papers 1. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 465–470.
29.
DetlorBBookerLSerenkoA, et al. (2012) Student perceptions of information literacy instruction: The importance of active learning. Education for Information29(2): 147–161.
EspositoGMarôcoJPasseggiaR, et al. (2022) The Italian validation of the university student engagement inventory. European Journal of Higher Education12(1): 35–55.
32.
FengLHeLDingJ (2023) The association between perceived teacher support, students’ ICT self-efficacy, and online English academic engagement in the blended learning context. Sustainability15(8): 6839.
33.
FinnJDZimmerKS (2012) Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In: Handbook of Research on Student Engagement. New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, 97–131.
34.
FishLASnodgrassCR (2015) Business student perceptions of online versus face-to-face education: Student characteristics. Business Education Innovation Journal7(2): 83–96.
35.
FoelskeM (2014) Digital storytelling: the impact on student engagement, motivation and academic learning. Graduate Research Papers: 167. Available at: https://scholarworks.uni.edu/grp/167
36.
FornellCLarckerDF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research18(1): 39–50.
37.
FredricksJABlumenfeldPCParisAH (2004) School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research74(1): 59–109.
38.
GeeJP (2012) Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. New York: Routledge.
39.
GibsonC (2006) Student engagement and information literacy. USA: Association of College & Research Libraries.
40.
GistMEMitchellTR (1992) Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review17(2): 183–211.
41.
Gratch-LindauerB (2007) Information literacy-related student behaviors: Results from the NSSE items. College & Research Libraries News68(7): 432–441.
42.
Gratch-LindauerB (2008) College student engagement surveys: Implications for information literacy. New Directions for Teaching and Learning2008(114): 101–114.
43.
GuoYRGohDH-LLuytB (2014) Using affective embodied agents in information literacy education. In: IEEE/ACM Joint Conference on Digital Libraries. London, UK: IEEE, 389–398.
44.
HairJFRisherJJSarstedtM, et al. (2019) When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review31(1): 2–24.
45.
HeidariEMehrvarzMMarzooghiR, et al. (2021) The role of digital informal learning in the relationship between students’ digital competence and academic engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning37(4): 1154–1166.
46.
HuSKuhGD (2002) Being (dis) engaged in educationally purposeful activities: The influences of student and institutional characteristics. Research in Higher Education43: 555–575.
47.
HussainBALiSAlsanadA (2022) Assessment of information literacy abilities: A case study of Pakistan. Sustainability14(7): 1–20.
48.
IqbalJQureshiNAsgharMZ (2021) Psychometric properties analysis of student classroom engagement scale in the academia of Pakistan. PalArch's Journal of Archaeology of Egypt/Egyptology18(5): 355–370.
49.
IrfanNRafiqMArifM (2024) Information competency assessment of undergraduates: A Pakistani perspective. IFLA Journal50(2): 354–364.
50.
KaraM (2022) Revisiting online learner engagement: Exploring the role of learner characteristics in an emergency period. Journal of Research on Technology in Education54(sup1): S236–S252.
51.
KeeneJColvinJSissonsJ (2010) Mapping student information literacy activity against Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive skills. Journal of Information Literacy4(1): 6–20.
52.
KoulR (1999) An analysis of the reliability and validity of personal internet teaching efficacy beliefs scale. The Electronic Journal for Research in Science & Mathematics Education4(1). Available at: https://ejrsme.icrsme.com/article/view/7621
53.
KressG (2003) Literacy in the new media age. Routledge.
54.
KuhGDGonyeaRM (2003) The role of the academic library in promoting student engagement in learning. College & Research Libraries64(4): 256–282.
55.
KuhGDGonyeaRM (2015) The role of the academic library in promoting student engagement in learning. College & Research Libraries76(3): 359–385.
56.
LiHZhuSWuD, et al. (2023) Impact of information literacy, self-directed learning skills, and academic emotions on high school students’ online learning engagement: A structural equation modeling analysis. Education and Information Technologies28(10): 13485–13504.
57.
LooJLEiflerDSmithE, et al. (2016) Flipped instruction for information literacy: Five instructional cases of academic librarians. The Journal of Academic Librarianship42(3): 273–280.
58.
MackeyTPJacobsonTE (2005) Information literacy: A collaborative endeavor. College Teaching53(4): 140–144.
59.
MackeyTPJacobsonTE (2011) Reframing information literacy as a metaliteracy. College & Research Libraries72(1): 62–78.
60.
Malanga MrDF (2017) Assessing information literacy skills: a survey of undergraduate education students at the University of Livingstonia in Malawi. Library Philosophy and Practice: 1806. Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1806
61.
MalenfantKJBrownK (2017) Creating sustainable assessment through collaboration: A national program reveals effective practices. Occasional Paper: 31. Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED590515.pdf
62.
MarkAEBoruff-JonesPD (2003) Information literacy and student engagement: What the national survey of student engagement reveals about your campus. College & Research Libraries64(6): 480–493.
63.
MartinJBirksJHuntF (2010) Designing for users: Online information literacy in the Middle East. portal: Libraries and the Academy10(1): 57–73.
64.
MathewsTLEmersonMRMooreTA, et al. (2019) Systematic review: Feasibility, reliability, and validity of maternal/caregiver attachment and bonding screening tools for clinical use. Journal of Pediatric Health Care33(6): 663–674.
65.
MattesonML (2014) The whole student: Cognition, emotion, and information literacy. College & Research Libraries75(6): 862–877.
McTavishM (2009) ‘I get my facts from the internet’: A case study of the teaching and learning of information literacy in in-school and out-of-school contexts. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy9(1): 3–28.
68.
MichalakRRysavyMD (2016) Information literacy in 2015: International graduate business students’ perceptions of information literacy skills compared to test-assessed skills. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship21(2): 152–174.
69.
MiliszewskaIHorwoodKJ (2004) Engagement theory: A framework for supporting cultural differences in transnational education. Proceedings of the 27th Annual Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia, Miri, Sarawak, 223–233. Available at: http://www.herdsa.org.au/wpcontent/uploads/conference/2004/PDF/P016-jt.pdf
70.
MondscheinH (2007) Problem-based learning as a method for teaching information literacy to first-year students. California Lutheran University.
71.
Moreno-MorillaCGuzmán-SimónFGarcía-JiménezE (2021) Digital and information literacy inside and outside Spanish primary education schools. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction28: 100455.
72.
MughariSNaveedMARafiqueGM (2023) Effect of information literacy on academic performance of business students in Pakistan. Libri73(4): 355–368.
73.
NakayamaMYamamotoHSantiagoR (2008) Impact of information literacy and learner characteristics on learning behavior of Japanese students in online courses. International Journal of Case Method Research & Application20(4): 403–415.
74.
NaveedMAIqbalJAsgharMZ, et al. (2023a) How information literacy influences creative skills among medical students? The mediating role of lifelong learning. Medical Education Online28(1): 2176734.
75.
NaveedMAIqbalJAsgharMZ, et al. (2023b) How information literacy influences creative skills among medical students? The mediating role of lifelong learning. Medical Education Online28(1): 2176734.
76.
NaveedMAMahmoodM (2019) Information literacy self-efficacy of business students in Pakistan. Libri69(4): 303–314.
77.
NaveedMAMahmoodM (2021) Correlatives of business students’ perceived information literacy self-efficacy in the digital information environment. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science54(2): 1–18.
78.
NaveedMAMahmoodM (2022) Correlatives of business students’ perceived information literacy self-efficacy in the digital information environment. Journal of Librarianship & Information Science54(2): 294–305.
ParsonsJTaylorL (2011) Improving student engagement. Current Issues in Education14(1): 1–33.
81.
PriorDDMazanovJMeacheamD, et al. (2016) Attitude, digital literacy and self-efficacy: Flow-on effects for online learning behavior. The Internet and Higher Education29: 91–97.
82.
RafiqMAliSKhanMT (2020) Information literacy instructions in university libraries of Lahore, Pakistan: Practices and methods. Library Philosophy and Practice4511: 1–24.
83.
ReeceGJ (2005) Critical thinking and cognitive transfer: Implications for the development of online information literacy tutorials. Research Strategies20(4): 482–493.
84.
RobinsonCCHullingerH (2008) New benchmarks in higher education: Student engagement in online learning. Journal of Education for Business84(2): 101–109.
85.
SaadiaHNaveedMA (2024) Effect of information literacy on lifelong learning, creativity, and work performance among journalists. Online Information Review48(2): 257–276.
86.
SafdarMIdreesH (2021) Assessing undergraduate and post graduate students’ information literacy skills: Scenario and requirements in Pakistan. Library Philosophy and Practice4875: 1A–33.
87.
SallehMIHalimAFYaacobRAR, et al. (2011) Measuring the effect of information literacy on the undergraduates’ academic performance in higher education. International Conference on Social Science and Humanity5(2): 506–510.
88.
SattarTUllahMIAhmadS, et al. (2019) An integrated web model study of behavioral, emotional and cognitive engagement factors affecting the academic performance of high school students through their multidimensional engagement in learning milieu: A study of South Punjab, Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences (PJSS)39(4): 1711–1724.
89.
SchwederS (2020) Mastery goals, positive emotions and learning behavior in self-directed vs. teacher-directed learning. European Journal of Psychology of Education35(1): 205–223.
90.
SezerB (2020) Implementing an information literacy course: Impact on undergraduate medical students’ abilities and attitudes. The Journal of Academic Librarianship46(6): 102248.
91.
ShahSHShahNUJbeenA (2024) Exploration of LIS professionals efforts in Pakistan towards the improvements of technological competencies in 21st century. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication73(4/5): 596–613.
92.
SmithJKGivenLMJulienH, et al. (2013) Information literacy proficiency: Assessing the gap in high school students’ readiness for undergraduate academic work. Library & Information Science Research35(2): 88–96.
93.
SoroyaSHIqbalMMYSoroyaMS, et al. (2020) Predictors of information literacy self-efficacy among medical students: PLS-SEM analysis. Library Hi Tech39(2): 670–689.
94.
TewellE (2015) A decade of critical information literacy: A review of the literature. Communications in Information Literacy9(1): 24–43.
95.
WalshA (2014) The potential for using gamification in academic libraries in order to increase student engagement and achievement. Nordic Journal of Information Literacy in Higher Education6(1): 39–51.
ZhocKCChenG (2016) Reliability and validity evidence for the Self-Directed Learning Scale (SDLS). Learning and Individual Differences49: 245–250.
98.
ZhocKCKingRBChungTS, et al. (2020) Emotionally intelligent students are more engaged and successful: Examining the role of emotional intelligence in higher education. European Journal of Psychology of Education35(4): 839–863.
99.
ZhocKCWebsterBJKingRB, et al. (2019) Higher education student engagement scale (HESES): Development and psychometric evidence. Research in Higher Education60(2): 219–244.
