Correlatives of business students’ perceived information literacy self-efficacy in the digital information environment

Abstract

Self-efficacy toward information literacy is and has been demonstrated as an essential and fundamental key for academic performance and lifelong learning of students at all levels. This research reported the results of a cross-sectional survey carried out to investigate the correlatives of information literacy self-efficacy among business students at the University of Management and Technology, Lahore. The questionnaire contained an Information Literacy Self-Efficacy Scale, which along with sociodemographic and academic variables was utilized for collecting data from 350 students. The survey participants were recruited through a convenient sampling procedure due to accessibility issues and time limitations. The data were analyzed by applying both descriptive and inferential statistics using SPSS. The results revealed that the business students had high self-efficacy for basic information literacy skills and low self-efficacy for advanced-level information literacy skills. Age, study program, study stage, proficiency for computer, and English language appeared to be the correlatives of students’ information literacy self-efficacy. The pragmatic insights generated in this research might be used as a guide by university librarians, especially those who are engaged in information literacy instructions for designing a need-based and student-centered curriculum for information literacy instruction programs.

Keywords

Self-efficacy information literacy business students correlatives Pakistan

Introduction

Information literacy self-efficacy (ILSE) refers to the beliefs of people in their ability to successfully recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information (Kurbanoglu et al., 2006). Kuhlthau (1987) considered skills for information as an essential key to people’s socio-economic and political well-being in an ever-changing and increasingly complex information landscape. The high competence and confidence for information literacy (IL) are necessary in increasing and maximizing people’s contributions to a healthy, democratic, pluralistic society and maintaining a prosperous and sustainable socio-economic and political development. (McTavish, 2009). Previous research also indicated a significant correlation between self-efficacy and IL, inferring that the greater the sense of efficacy one has in oneself capabilities, the higher the persistence, resilience, and ability to tackle challenges in solving information problems in modern life (Adalier and Serin, 2012; Ata and Baran, 2011; Kiliç-Çakmak, 2010). Kurbanoglu et al. (2006) were convinced that “attaining of a high sense of self-efficacy beliefs is as important as possessing information literacy skills.”

In the academic context, ILSE has been associated with academic success (Bayram and Comek, 2009) and playing a significant role in students’ motivation levels (Pinto and Sales, 2010). ILSE appears to be related to students’ desire to learn innovative things for satisfaction and pleasure, and students with high self-efficacy beliefs are expected to be more proactive and willing to learn (Ross et al., 2016). Thus, self-efficacy for IL has an essential role in information problem-solving and the development of lifelong learning, especially in a complex and ever-changing digital information environment. Self-efficacy for IL is indispensable for students within a problem-based environment because they are required to be independent and self-regulated learners. The coaching of students can help them in the development of self-efficacy, motivation, performance (Carr and Johnson, 2013; Langendyk, 2006), and alleviation of information-related anxieties (Naveed and Anwar, 2019, 2020, 2021; Naveed et al., 2020). For the integration of IL skills properly and qualitatively, curriculum developers should have an “understanding of students’ ILSE, trying to evaluate and take into account how students feel, and analyzing the possible impact this may have on their self-confidence in learning” (De Meulemeester et al., 2018: 28). Understanding ILSE in students of different disciplines from varied institutions would generate pragmatic insights for designing not only information retrieval (IR) systems, but also for the curriculum of IL instructions.

Problem statement

An extensive review of research related to IL indicated the dearth of studies examining the self-efficacy of students for IL (Keshavarz et al., 2017; Kurbanoglu, 2003; Kurbanoglu et al., 2006; Naveed and Mahmood, 2019; Shim et al., 2009; Soroya et al., 2020). Several studies in Pakistan assessed IL skills of students who belonged to varied disciplines, for example, engineering, education, social sciences, arts, and humanities (e.g. Mahmood, 2013; Naveed and Sharif, 2015; Rafique and Mahmood, 2015; Shafique and Bhatti, 2017). Only a few studies assessed the self-efficacy of university students for IL. Of these studies, Soroya et al., (2020) identified the predictors of ILSE among medical students: using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) analysis.tudents as a unit of analysis to examine their self-efficacy for IL. There was a need to examine the IL self-efficacy of students from varied disciplines in the digital information landscape because the disciplinary-based approach was critical to advance in applied IL studies and claims for its training. The student of business sciences constitutes an important segment in universities, requiring the researchers’ attention. The present research was, therefore, aimed to investigate the correlatives of business students’ perceived IL self-efficacy at the University of Management and Technology (UMT), Lahore. It is hoped that the study would be a worthy contribution to the available literature on students’ IL skills in general and self-efficacy of business students for IL in particular, as only a few such studies have appeared so far. This study addressed specifically the following research objectives:

Research objective

To assess the perceived IL self-efficacy of business students at UMT, Lahore.

To examine the relationship of students’ perceived IL self-efficacy with their sociodemographic and academic variables such as age, gender, social background, study program, study stage, computer proficiency, English language proficiency, computer training received, and IL instruction received.

Research hypotheses

It was hypothesized that there was a significant association between IL self-efficacy and demographic variables of business students. The following null hypotheses were formulated for testing the significance statistically.

H_o1. There is no statistically significant difference in students’ perceived IL self-efficacy based on age.

H_o2. There is no statistically significant difference in students’ perceived IL self-efficacy based on gender.

H_o3. There is no statistically significant correlation between students’ perceived IL self-efficacy and their social background (i.e. urban, rural).

H_o4. There is no statistically significant relationship between students’ perceived IL self-efficacy and their program of study (i.e. BS, MS, MPhil, PhD).

H_o5.There is no statistically significant relationship between students’ perceived IL self-efficacy and their stage of study (i.e. course work, synopsis writing, and thesis writing).

H_o6. There is no statistically significant relationship between students’ perceived IL self-efficacy and their computer proficiency (i.e. low, moderate, and high.)

H_o7. There is no statistically significant relationship between students’ perceived IL self-efficacy and their English language proficiency.

H_o8. There is no statistically significant relationship between students’ perceived IL self-efficacy and the computer training received.

H_o9. There is no statistically significant relationship between students’ perceived IL self-efficacy and the IL instructions received.

Literature review

Self-efficacy is a multi-dimensional cognitive construct that refers to a belief in one’s capability to perform a particular task successfully (Bandura, 1986, 1997; Cassidy and Eachus, 1998). The success of a task is not only depending on one’s possession of necessary skills, but it also requires one’s confidence to use these skills efficiently and effectively (Bandura, 1977). The attainment of high self-efficacy beliefs is as necessary as possessing certain skills to perform a particular task. Hence, besides the possession of IL skills, the students should also feel confident and competent in using these skills to perform a task at hand. The idea of ILSE as an integrated concept was devised by Kurbanoglu (2003). Research interest in the investigation of self-efficacy concerning IL has increased since it developed at the beginning of the 21st century.

Several studies are examining self-efficacy for IL in different contexts using students (e.g. Ataseven and Oguz, 2016; De Meulemeester, 2013; Kiliç-Çakmak, 2010; Kim, 2011), teachers (e.g., Adalier and Serin, 2012; Demiralay and Karadeniz, 2010; Ekşi, 2012; Tuncer and Balci, 2013; Zinn, 2013), and learners (Kiliç-Çakmak, 2010; Tang and Tseng, 2013) as unit of analysis. For instance, Kurbanoglu (2003) initially defined ILSE and explored it among students from the Information Management Department, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey. The results revealed that these students perceived themselves as efficacious in performing information problem-solving activities. There were no significant changes in students’ perceived ILSE levels through the years, such as first, second, third, and fourth. However, students’ perceived ILSE levels slightly increased from feeling sometimes efficacious to usually efficacious through the years. The results also indicated a positive correlation between students’ perceived IL self-efficacy and computer self-efficacy. A few years later, Kurbanoglu et al. (2006) developed an Information Literacy Self-Efficacy Scale (ILSES) comprising 28 items having seven dimensions, namely, defining an information need (1 item, α = .47), initiating the search strategy (3 items, α = .57), locating and accessing the resources (8 items, α = .56), assessing and comprehending information (5 items, α = .46), interpreting, synthesizing and using the information (2 items, α = .58), communicating information (7 items, α = .61), and evaluating the product and process (2 items, α = .43). ILSES was reported to be highly reliable and consistent because of its high value of Cronbach’s alpha (CA), that is, .91 for the overall scale. This scale has been widely used to measure IL self-efficacy since its development (Mahmood, 2017).

Shim et al. (2009) investigated the psychometric properties of Kurbanoglu’s ILSES using factor analysis in South Korea. This study used 40-item version of ILSES which was clustered into six factors. The factors derived based on this research significantly differed from the factors of the original study and reflected the heuristic nature of students’ information-seeking and use patterns, favoring Internet resources and instant gratification. There was a high degree of internal consistency for the statements included. The study by Keshavarz et al. investigated dimensions of ILSE among postgraduate students at Iranian universities. This study used a highly validated 28-item scale developed by Kurbanoglu et al. (2006). The results confirmed a four-dimensional model, such as Identifying (4 items, CA = .77), Locating (6 items, CA = .78), Accessing (5 items, CA = .84), and Using (11 items, CA = .77) information which was different from the six-dimensional model by the original authors. These postgraduate students felt a high degree of self-efficacy for different IL dimensions. From these four dimensions, using was the most, whereas locating was the least mentioned dimension. The ILSES in the Persian version was validated based on structural and overall goodness of fit for IL self-efficacy measurement. Recently, De Meulemeester et al. (2018) not only expanded the original ILSE of 8 items, but also developed and validated ILSES for medical students consisting of 35 items structured into five components, namely, evaluating and processing information (11 items), medical IL skills (10 items), searching and finding information (6 items), using the library (4 items), and bibliography (4 items).

A few studies examined the role of ILSE in learning and academic achievements. Of these few studies, Kim (2011) discovered a positive correlation between students’ ILSE and academic achievement which tends to sustain for a significant period. The study of De Meulemeester (2013) reported that the students’ IL skills did not change after the second year, while their self-efficacy in these skills increased as the level of education increased. Ataseven and Oguz (2016) reported a positive and medium-level relationship between students’ lifelong learning tendency and IL self-efficacy. These two concepts differed significantly based on students’ gender, field, foreign language level, the number of books they read in a month, research skills, and status of taking lessons in learning strategies and techniques.

The correlation between IL self-efficacy and learning strategies and motivational factors and employment was also taken into consideration by Kiliç-Çakmak (2010) and reported learning strategies and motivational factors such as metacognitive, effort management, elaboration, and critical thinking strategies, as well as control belief as the predictor of IL self-efficacy among e-learners, while Ross et al. (2013) explored the relationship between IL self-efficacy, academic motivation, and employment among students with and without paid employment. Results indicated the significance of motivation in self-efficacy for IL. The student’s engagement in paid employment did not seem to influence their perceived IL self-efficacy. However, the amount of time spent on study predicts their IL self-efficacy. Tang and Tseng (2013) also reported that distance learners with higher information-seeking self-efficacy as well as proficiency in information manipulation exhibited higher self-efficacy for online learning. The study of Bronstein and Tzivian (2013) examined the self-efficacy of library and information science (LIS) professionals for IR skills in Israel. Results indicated that these professionals had high levels of IR self-efficacy for all four self-efficacy information sources, namely, (a) past performance or mastery experiences; (b) vicarious observation of others’ experiences; (c) verbal or social feedback; and (d) affective states influenced the development self-efficacy beliefs. LIS professionals’ age, gender, and experience appeared to be the predictor of their IR self-efficacy. Similarly, Bronstein (2014) investigated the concept in LIS students and reported a high level of self-efficacy concerning their information-seeking behavior. There was a great impact of self-efficacy information sources on students’ construction of self-efficacy beliefs. Several sociodemographic variables such as age and degree of students also appeared as the correlative of their information-seeking self-efficacy beliefs. No significant mean differences were found in the self-efficacy beliefs of students based on their gender.

Some studies examined teachers’ IL self-efficacy because they extensively engage in learning, education, and research. Of these studies, Zinn (2013) examined the IL self-efficacy of 29 teachers who completed a pre- and post-course IL questionnaire. Results showed that intervention of the IL course has a positive effect on teachers’ skills. An inquiry by Ekşi (2012) reported that in-service training on information and communications technology (ICT) skills has positively influenced self-efficacy of foreign language instructors for information and computer literacy. It was discovered that information and computer literacy reinforce each other. No correlation was found between the self-efficacy of instructors and their sex and experience. Demiralay and Karadeniz’s (2010) study revealed that computer experience, skills, ICT usage frequency, and access to computers and the Internet significantly influence their perceived IL self-efficacy, while Tuncer and Balci’s positive relationship between computer self-efficacy and IL self-efficacy and these two concepts does not affect IL achievements. Adalier and Serin (2012) reported a positive correlation between teacher candidates’ social demographic characteristics and their IL self-efficacy. The study of Tuncer (2013) discovered a positive effect of computer self-efficacy on IL self-efficacy, which further has a positive impact on scientific research self-efficacy.

An extensive search for existing research resulted in a limited number of studies from Pakistan assessing IL of students from varied disciplines, such as engineering, education, social sciences, medical sciences, arts, and humanities (e.g. Mahmood, 2013; Naveed and Sharif, 2015; Rafique and Mahmood, 2015; Shafique and Bhatti, 2017; Soroya et al., 2020). Some studies assessed IL in the context of the workplace (e.g. Anwar, 1981; Naveed, 2021; Naveed and Rafique, 2018). There were only a few studies addressing self-efficacy of students for IL (Soroya et al., 2020). No other study appears to have been conducted examining self-efficacy for IL among business students in Pakistan. Besides, none of the studies from Pakistan selected business students as a unit of analysis.

Methods and procedures

A survey method using a questionnaire was deployed for investigating the correlatives of IL self-efficacy among business students. The questionnaire consisted of 28 statements of ILSES, developed by Kurbanoglu et al. (2006), and some sociodemographic and academic variables, such as gender, age, social background, a program of study, stage of the study, ICT proficiency, English language proficiency, computer training received, and IL instructions received. ILSES was a widely utilized instrument due to its higher reliability and consistency as the value of CA was .91 for the overall scale. Furthermore, this scale was of a reasonable length, highly reliable, and consistent for IL self-efficacy assessment (Keshavarz et al., 2017; Kurbanoglu et al. 2006; Mahmood, 2017; Shim et al., 2009).

The researchers purposively selected the UMT, Lahore as a research setting due to a reasonable number of business students (about 2000) enrolled in undergraduate, graduate, and postgraduate programs (Personal Communication with Admin Officer 2016). The survey participants were recruited through convenient sampling techniques due to accessibility issues and time limitations. The business students were unable to approach through the random process as the composite list of students was not available to the researcher due to the administrative policy of the university. The researchers personally visited the business students during the class timings for the administration of the questionnaire and data collection. The business students were oriented to the research topic, its needs and importance, and the value of their participation in the survey. Furthermore, these students were assured about the usage of data for research purposes and the confidentiality and anonymity of their responses. There was volunteer participation in the survey, and no incentives were paid to survey participants.

There were a total of 359 received questionnaires screened for completeness and accuracy of information. The screening process resulted in nine questionnaires with incomplete information, which were excluded from data analysis. The rest of the 350 questionnaires were coded and entered into Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). The frequencies, mean scores, and standard deviations were calculated for a description of the data. The relationship of the total mean score for the overall scale with sociodemographic and academic variables of business students was examined using inferential statistics such as Pearson’s correlation coefficient, t-test, and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).

Data analysis and results

Participants’ sociodemographic and academic profile

There were 210 (60%) males and 140 (40%) females in the study sample. A majority of these participants (n = 299, 85.4%) belong to the age bracket of 18–23 years, followed by those (n = 49, 14%) having an age bracket of 24–29 years. Only a few students belong to the age of more than 29 years. Two hundred seventy-one students had an urban background, whereas 79 had a rural background. These students belong to varied study programs such as undergraduate (n = 276, 79%), graduate (n = 49, 14%), and postgraduate (n = 25, 7%) from different stages of studies’ course work (n = 313, 89.3%), thesis writing (n = 27, 7.7%) and synopsis writing (n = 10, 3%).

As far as computer proficiency is concerned, a large majority of the sample (n = 203, 58%) was moderately proficient in utilizing information communication technologies, followed by those perceiving themselves as highly proficient (n = 135, 39%). Only 11 (3.2%) students had low levels of computer proficiency. The majority of the survey participants 212 (60.5%) reported themselves as good in English language proficiency, followed by those having moderate levels (n = 91, 26%) and excellent levels (n = 44, 12.5%) of English language proficiency. There were only a few students (n=3, 1%) who assessed themselves at low levels of their English language proficiency. There were 210 (60%) students who received training in the usage of the computer, whereas 140 (40%) students never received computer training. There were only 113 (32%) students out of 350 who received IL instructions incorporating library orientations and basic searching skills, and referencing.

IL self-efficacy of business students

The survey participants were asked to assess their self-perceived IL self-efficacy. The mean and standard deviation of the students’ responses for each dimension of IL self-efficacy are given in Table 1. The composite mean scores of these students for the overall ILSES as well as for each sub-dimension ranged from 4.36 to 4.82. It means that these students assessed themselves for seven dimensions from occasionally true to often true. However, the item-level analysis indicated that these students were confident and competent in basic IL skills such as searching and using both printed and electronic resources, evaluating the quality of web resources, interpreting graphical information, synthesizing, and criticizing the quality of gathered information as they assessed themselves as “usually true” with 16 information-related activities with a mean score 4.55 and above. Also, these respondents were less comfortable in advanced- level information skills as they assessed themselves “often true” in developing and limiting search strategies, referencing, managing citations, using the library catalog, and different types of libraries with a mean score of 3.64 and above.

Table 1.

Students’ perceived self-efficacy for each dimension of ILSES (n = 350).

Dimensions	Mean	SD
Defining an information need	4.82	1.554
Initiating the search strategy	4.47	1.097
Locating and accessing the resources	4.44	1.050
Assessing and comprehending information	4.68	1.109
Interpreting, synthesizing, and using the information	4.66	1.261
Communicating the information	4.36	1.177
Evaluating the product and process	4.68	1.412
ILSES	4.51	.9143

SD: standard deviation; IL: Information literacy; ILSES: Information Literacy Self-Efficacy Scale.

Scale: 7 = almost always true, 6 = usually true, 5 = often true, 4 = occasionally true, 3 = sometimes but infrequently true, 2 = usually not true, 1 = almost never true.

Relationship or significance testing

Age and IL self-efficacy

Table 2 indicated a statistically significant, positive, and strong correlation between age and IL self-efficacy of business students for overall scale and all its sub-dimensions, which meant that the IL self-efficacy of students increased as their age increased. Thus, the null hypothesis H_o1 is rejected.

Table 2.

Correlation of respondents’ age and IL self-efficacy.

Dimensions	Pearson’s correlation	p value
Defining an information need	.174**	.001
Initiating the search strategy	.193**	.000
Locating and accessing the resources	.172**	.001
Assessing and comprehending information	.218**	.000
Interpreting, synthesizing, and using the information	.152**	.004
Communicating the information	.233**	.000
Evaluating the product and process	.181**	.001
ILSES	.249**	.000

ILSES: information literacy self-efficacy scale.

p < .01.

Gender and IL self-efficacy

The result of an independent sample t-test in Table 3 indicated no correlation in mean scores of students’ IL self-efficacy based on gender as p values for the overall ILSES and all its sub-scales are greater than the alpha values (p > .05). Thus, the null hypothesis H_o2 is accepted.

Table 3.

Relationship between respondents’ gender and IL self-efficacy.

Dimensions	Male		Female		p value
Dimensions	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	p value
Defining an information need	4.94	1.34	4.36	1.81	.081
Initiating the search strategy	4.56	1.07	4.33	1.11	.054
Locating and accessing the resources	4.42	.95	4.47	1.18	.658
Assessing and comprehending information	4.74	1.02	4.60	1.23	.244
Interpreting, synthesizing, and using the information	4.77	1.22	4.49	1.31	.053
Communicating the information	4.36	1.17	4.37	1.19	.918
Evaluating the product and process	4.74	1.41	4.59	1.41	.359
ILSES	4.54	.842	4.46	1.01	.466

SD: standard deviation; IL: information literacy; ILSES: Information Literacy Self-Efficacy Scale.

Social background and IL self-efficacy

Table 4 shows no relationship between IL self-efficacy of students and their social background (p > .05) based on the results of an independent sample t-test which was used to compare the mean differences in the index of overall ILSES as well as its sub-scales based on the social background of students (i.e. urban = 271; rural = 79). Hence, the null hypothesis H_o3 is also accepted.

Table 4.

Relationship between respondents’ social background and IL self-efficacy.

Dimensions	Urban		Rural		p value
Dimensions	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	p value
Defining an information need	4.78	1.59	4.94	1.40	.438
Initiating the search strategy	4.43	1.11	4.58	1.04	.302
Locating and accessing the resources	4.38	1.05	4.62	1.02	.075
Assessing and comprehending information	4.67	1.18	4.73	1.08	.702
Interpreting, synthesizing, and using the information	4.63	1.25	4.75	1.30	.449
Communicating the information	4.32	1.18	4.47	1.16	.337
Evaluating the product and process	4.64	1.37	4.82	1.56	.313
ILSES	4.48	.923	4.63	.877	.180

SD: standard deviation; ILSES: Information Literacy Self-Efficacy Scale; IL: information literacy.

Study program and IL self-efficacy

One-way ANOVA was carried out to investigate the relationship between respondents’ program of study and their IL self-efficacy. Table 5 indicated a statistically significant relationship between respondents’ age and IL self-efficacy for the overall scale as well as all its sub-dimensions except for the dimension of “Initiating the search strategy” as the p value was greater than the alpha value (p > .05). Also, the post hoc analysis indicated that the students from postgraduate programs had higher IL self-efficacy compared with those who were enrolled in graduate and undergraduate programs as the mean scores of postgraduate students were higher than the other programs for overall scale as well as for all its sub-dimensions. Thus, the null hypothesis H_o4 is rejected.

Table 5.

Relationship between respondents’ program of study and IL self-efficacy.

Dimensions	Program of study			F-statistics	p value
Dimensions	A	B	C	F-statistics	p value
Defining an information need	4.70	5.14	5.44	3.90	.021*
Initiating the search strategy	4.42	4.52	4.89	2.26	.106
Locating and accessing the resources	4.62	4.76	5.23	4.19	.016*
Assessing and comprehending information	4.36	4.65	4.90	3.68	.026*
Interpreting, synthesizing, and using the information	4.59	4.69	5.30	3.66	.027*
Communicating the information	4.21	4.43	5.27	8.88	.000**
Evaluating the product and process	4.52	4.61	5.44	4.11	.017**
ILSES	4.43	4.61	5.14	7.29	.001**

ILSES: information literacy self-efficacy scale; IL: information literacy; A: undergraduate; B: graduate; C: postgraduate.

p < .05; **p < .01.

Study stage and IL self-efficacy

One-way ANOVA results in Table 6 revealed a statistically significant relationship between the stage of study and IL self-efficacy of business students for overall ILSES and for the sub-dimensions of “Defining an information need” (F = 5.958, p = .003 < .01) and “Communicating the information” (F = 6.749, p = .001 < .01). Also, the post hoc analysis indicated that the students from the stage of thesis writing were more competent and confident for IL compared to those who were at the stage of course work and synopsis writing Hence, the null hypothesis H_o5 is also rejected.

Table 6.

Relationship between respondents’ stage of study and IL self-efficacy.

Dimensions	Stage of study			F-statistics	p value
Dimensions	A	B	C	F-statistics	p value
Defining an information need	4.76	4.20	5.74	5.958	.003**
Initiating the search strategy	4.43	4.63	4.84	1.875	.155
Locating and accessing the resources	4.41	4.42	4.70	.968	.381
Assessing and comprehending information	4.68	4.10	4.85	1.707	.183
Interpreting, synthesizing, and using the information	4.63	4.35	5.03	1.572	.209
Communicating the information	4.30	4.25	5.15	6.749	.001**
Evaluating the product and process	4.68	4.55	4.64	.054	.947
ILSES	4.48	4.34	4.91	2.979	.049*

ILSES: Information Literacy Self-Efficacy Scale; A: undergraduate; B: graduate; C: postgraduate.

p < .05; **p < .01.

Computer proficiency and IL self-efficacy

Table 7 indicated a statistically significant relationship between respondents’ computer proficiency and IL self-efficacy of business students for overall scale as well as for all its sub-dimensions. Moreover, the post hoc analysis revealed that the students who had high computer proficiency also had high levels of IL self-efficacy compared to those who had moderate or low levels of computer proficiency. Thus, the null hypothesis H_o6 is also rejected.

Table 7.

Relationship between respondents’ computer proficiency and IL self-efficacy.

Dimensions	Computer proficiency			F-statistics	p value
Dimensions	High	Moderate	Low	F-statistics	p value
Defining an information need	5.19	4.63	3.64	8.97	.000**
Initiating the search strategy	4.72	4.31	4.24	6.07	.003**
Locating and accessing the resources	4.63	4.32	4.23	3.98	.020*
Assessing and comprehending information	5.06	4.46	4.18	13.92	.000**
Interpreting, synthesizing, and using the information	4.98	4.49	3.73	9.51	.000**
Communicating the information	4.67	4.17	3.97	8.17	.000**
Evaluating the product and process	5.09	4.47	3.50	12.65	.000**
ILSES	4.81	4.34	4.05	12.747	.000**

ILSES: Information Literacy Self-Efficacy Scale; IL: information literacy.

p < .01; **p < .01.

English language proficiency and IL self-efficacy

Table 8 showed a statistically significant relationship between IL self-efficacy and English language proficiency based on the overall ILSES (F = 3.478, p = .016 < .05) and for the dimensions of “Interpreting, synthesizing, and using the information” (F = 3.478, p = .035 < .05), “Communicating the information” (F = 2.907, p = .000 < .01), and “Evaluating the product and process” (F = 5.477, p = .001 < .01). Furthermore, the post hoc analysis indicated that students having excellent English language proficiency were more competent and confident concerning these dimensions of IL compared to those who had lower levels of English language proficiency. Hence, the null hypothesis H_o7 is also rejected.

Table 8.

Relationship between respondents’ English language proficiency and IL self-efficacy.

Dimensions	English proficiency				F-statistics	p value
Dimensions	A	B	C	D	F-statistics	p value
Defining an information need	4.80	4.93	4.59	3.67	1.588	.192
Initiating the search strategy	4.60	4.51	4.31	4.11	.943	.420
Locating and accessing the resources	4.51	4.46	4.38	3.25	1.484	.219
Assessing and comprehending information	4.64	4.74	4.59	4.40	.491	.689
Interpreting, synthesizing, and using the information	4.53	4.75	4.56	2.83	2.907	.035*
Communicating the information	4.40	4.31	4.20	1.76	6.192	.000**
Evaluating the product and process	4.64	4.44	4.41	2.17	5.477	.001**
ILSES	4.53	4.48	4.38	3.08	3.478	.016*

ILSES: Information Literacy Self-Efficacy Scale; A: undergraduate; B: graduate; C: postgraduate.

p < .05; **p < .01.

Computer training received and IL self-efficacy

The results of an independent sample t-test in Table 9 were utilized to compare the mean differences in the index of IL self-efficacy of business students based on those who received computer training (n = 172) and those who did not receive it (n = 178). These results indicated an insignificant relationship between IL self-efficacy of students based on computer training received for the overall ILSES as well as for all its sub-dimensions (p > .05). These results accepted the null hypothesis H_o8 proposed in this study.

Table 9.

Relationship between respondents’ computer training received and IL self-efficacy.

Dimensions	Yes		No		p value
Dimensions	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	p value
Defining an information need	4.71	1.62	4.92	1.49	.202
Initiating the search strategy	4.42	1.16	4.51	1.04	.470
Locating and accessing the resources	4.42	1.07	4.46	1.03	.761
Assessing and comprehending information	4.64	1.16	4.73	1.06	.433
Interpreting, synthesizing, and using the information	4.57	1.38	4.75	1.13	.181
Communicating the information	4.36	1.22	4.37	1.14	.932
Evaluating the product and process	4.57	1.49	4.79	1.34	.157
ILSES	4.48	.995	4.55	.829	.450

SD: standard deviation; ILSES: Information Literacy Self-Efficacy Scale; IL: information literacy.

IL instructions received and IL self-efficacy

The results of an independent-samples t-test indicated no relationship between IL self-efficacy of students and IL instruction received for the overall ILSES as well as for all its sub-dimensions (Table 10). These results were not surprising because the IL instructions being provided at the research setting covered only basic levels of IL, such as library orientations, online searching skills, and citation management using computer software. These results accepted the null hypothesis H_o9 proposed in this study.

Table 10.

Relationship between respondents’ IL instructions received and IL self-efficacy.

Dimensions	Yes		No		p value
Dimensions	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	p value
Defining an information need	4.59	1.77	4.94	1.43	.068
Initiating the search strategy	4.41	1.18	4.49	1.06	.507
Locating and accessing the resources	4.56	1.07	4.38	1.04	.123
Assessing and comprehending information	4.67	1.19	4.72	1.07	.406
Interpreting, synthesizing, and using the information	4.56	1.43	4.69	1.17	.345
Communicating the information	4.35	1.21	4.37	1.17	.880
Evaluating the product and process	4.55	1.52	4.75	1.35	.234
ILSES	4.50	.100	4.52	.872	.881

SD: standard deviation; ILSES: Information Literacy Self-Efficacy Scale; IL: information literacy.

Discussion

There was low self-efficacy of business students for advanced-level IL skills which could be enhanced through need-based IL instructions by the staff of the library and quality enhancement cells. These results were not surprising because most of the Pakistani academic institutions usually do not make arrangements in the curriculum to impart IL instructions. There was no proper arrangement to incorporate IL as a credited course in the curriculum of different programs. Only a few institutions have incorporated IL in the curriculum. Furthermore, the library staff of some universities especially in the private sector usually offer IL instruction through seminars and workshops in the universities which were, to a large extent, in an infancy stage. Library orientation is the most popular form of such instructions incorporating some searching techniques along with citation management being offered by university libraries in Pakistan (Anwar and Naveed, 2019; Hamid and Ahmad, 2016; Kousar and Mahmood, 2015; Ullah and Ameen, 2014). These results also need to be interpreted considering the theory of Dunning–Kruger effect as it was evident that low performers usually overestimate their IL skills than their actual skills (Mahmood, 2016). These findings were in line with those of Mahmood (2013) who also reported similar results. In addition, these findings echo those of Naveed (2017) and Naveed and Ameen (2016a, 2016b, 2016c, 2017) who also reported feelings of discomfort among university students while seeking information. These results were also supported by the study of Khan et al. (2021) who discovered the prevalence of information-seeking anxiety among business students at mild to moderate levels.

Results indicated significant mean differences in IL self-efficacy scores of business students based on their age, which meant that IL self-efficacy of business students increased as their ages increased. This finding was quite logical because students’ competence and confidence concerning IL can increase as their life experiences. This result echoes those of Bronstein (2014), Bronstein and Tzivian (2013), Naveed (2017), and Naveed and Ameen (2016a, 2016b, 2017) who reported age as the predictor of efficacy levels for IL skills. It has appeared that students’ gender and social background do not have any impact on their IL self-efficacy. These findings were in line with the results of Bronstein (2014), Hargittai (2002), Mahmood (2013), Rehman and Mohammad (2001), and Whitmire (2001) who also reported the same results. However, this finding contradicts the results of Kwon and Song (2011), Naveed and Ameen (2017), Punter et al. (2017), and Taylor and Dalal (2017) who reported that females appeared to be more discerning than males in IL skills. In addition, the studies of Baro and Fyneman (2009), Ting-ting and Sun (2012), and Tella and Mutula (2008) discovered males ahead of females in their perceived IL skills.

The analysis also indicated the significant mean differences in students’ IL self-efficacy scores based on their program and stage of the study. It meant that the IL self-efficacy of business students increased as their level of the study program (e.g. undergraduate, graduate, and postgraduate) and stage of study (e.g. course work, synopsis writing, and thesis writing) moved upward. These results were anticipated and quite logical; as students’ program of study moves toward the upper level, their confidence and competencies with regard to IL skills also improve with time. This finding is in line with the results of Bronstein (2014) and Mahmood (2013) who also reported that IL self-efficacy increases as the levels of study programs increase. Similarly, when students’ involvement in research activities requires extensive interaction with information activities. The increased frequency of students with information activities develops their confidence and competencies with regard to IL with time. This finding is contrary to those of Naveed (2017) and Naveed and Ameen (2016a, 2016b, 2017), reporting that students feel less comfortable and experience higher levels of information anxieties in synopsis and thesis writing stages compared to course work stage.

Computer proficiency also appeared as the correlates of ILSE because the self-efficacy of business students for IL increased as their computer proficiency increased. This correlation was anticipated because computer literacy is considered a prerequisite for IL. Also, the academic institutions in Pakistan had made arrangements in the curriculum of undergraduate and graduate programs through an independent 3-credit-hour course of ICTs or computer applications to impart computer education to newly enrolled university students. There is also provision for school and college students to opt for a computer-related course as an elective subject either at matriculation or intermediate levels. This finding appears to be the result of policies of the Higher Education Commission who made education with regard to information communication technology compulsory in public and private sector universities of Pakistan. This result confirms the finding of Kurbanoglu (2003) who also discovered that students’ computer self-efficacy has a positive effect on their perceived ILSE. The study of Ekşi (2012) also reported information and computer literacy reinforce each other. In addition, the study of Demiralay and Karadeniz (2010) also discovered that elementary student teachers’ perceived ILSE is affected by ICT usage proficiency. In addition, the self-efficacy of business students for IL increased as their English language proficiency increased. Since English language proficiency is also considered as a prerequisite for IL, such a relationship was also to be expected. This finding confirms that of Mahmood (2013) also explored that students with more English language proficiency have more confidence in their IL skills. However, this finding is contrary to that of Rehman and Mohammad (2001) who reported no statistically significant correlation between students’ perceived IL and English proficiency levels.

The reception of training for the computer does have a positive effect on IL because computer literacy is considered essential for IL (Demiralay and Karadeniz, 2010; Johnson and Eisenberg, 1996; Kurbanoglu, 2003). However, the result of this research revealed no relationship between IL self-efficacy and computer training received. Perhaps, the weakness of computer training programs may be the key reason for such a result. Also, most of these participants (n = 203, 58%) assessed themselves as moderately proficient in using computers. This finding contradicts that of Ekşi (2012) who reported that in-service training of skills positively influenced self-efficacy of foreign language instructors for information and computer literacy. Surprisingly, the results also indicated that the reception of IL instructions did not have any effect on the IL self-efficacy of business students as there were a reasonably good number of respondents (n = 113, 32%) who received IL instruction while studying at the university. The reason behind such finding might be due to the impartation of basic level IL instructions to the students enrolled at universities in Pakistan as IL instructions programs being offered are in the embryonic stage (Anwar and Naveed, 2019; Hamid and Ahmad, 2016; Kousar and Mahmood, 2015; Ullah and Ameen, 2014). Another possible reason for low self-efficacy might be due to less involvement of business students in information-related tasks. This result disagrees with that of Zinn (2013) who reported that the intervention of the IL course has a positive effect on teachers’ self-efficacy for IL skills.

Conclusion

Low self-efficacy beliefs of business students toward advanced and specialized IL skills not only might have quite serious implications to their academic achievements, but also might affect their workplace performance. The high self-efficacy beliefs for IL are necessary to increase and maximize people’s contributions in prosperous and sustainable socio-economic and political development in an increasingly complex information landscape. Therefore, an effective, efficient, and specialized IL instruction program is needed for not only business students of all levels but also for students of varied disciplines in Pakistan. The Higher Education Commission, academic institutions, and information specialists should collaborate to develop IL instruction programs for both existing and potential users of information. The pragmatic insights generated in this research may be used as a guide in developing useful directions for a need-based IL curriculum. In addition, these results may also be helpful for information professionals working at business schools of other academic institutions not only in Pakistan but also in other developing countries of Africa and Asia for developing an effective IL instruction program. These results are also helpful for reference and research librarians in designing need-based and student-centered information and research services. There were certain limitations to this study. First, this study adopted 28-item ILSES developed by Kurbanoglu et al. (2006) along with certain socio-academic variables. There might be other dimensions of self-efficacy for IL that this study could not cover due to the limitation of this scale. Second, this research did not claim to be the voice of all Pakistani business students as it was conducted only at a single private sector university in Lahore. It should also be noted that the recruitment of survey participants through a convenient sampling process might make the sample not truly representative, which needs to be considered before generalization of results.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Muhammad Asif Naveed

Author biographies

Muhammad Asif Naveed is currently working at Department of Information Management, University of Sargodha, Sargodha. He has completed his PhD from the University of the Punjab in 2016. He has also been recognized as an Approve Research Supervisor by HEC of Pakistan. He obtained first position in MLIS, MPhil LIS and MS Public Policy. He has published more than 50 research papers in national and international journals, one book chapter, one magazine article and two books. His research interests include: information behaviour; information literacy; information anxiety; information sociology; and information policy.

Madiha Mahmood is an information officer at the Information Services Department, Ripha International University, Islamabad. She has completed her Masters of Philosophy in Information Management from the Department of Information Management, University of the Punjab, Lahore. Her research interest include: information literacy; information behaviour.

References

Adalier

Serin

(2012) Teacher candidates’ information literacy self-efficacy. Online Journal of Science and Technology 2(2): 71–78.

Anwar

(1981) Education of the user of information. International Library Review 13(4): 365–383.

Anwar

Naveed

(2019) Development in information literacy in Pakistan: Background and research. Pakistan Library & Information Science Journal 50(2): 7–20.

Ata

Baran

(2011) Investigation of undergraduate students’ information literacy self–efficacy according to foreign language level, gender, computer ownership and the internet connection duration. In: Paper presented at the 5th International Computer & Instructional Technologies Symposium. Elazığ: Fırat University, pp. 22–24.

Ataseven

Oguz

(2016) Relationship between the lifelong learning tendency and information literacy self-efficacy of students. Anthropologist 24(1): 28–34.

Bandura

(1977) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behaviour change. Psychological Review 84(2): 191–215.

Bandura

(1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura

(1997) Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.

Baro

Fyneman

(2009) Information literacy among undergraduate students in Niger Delta University. The Electronic Library 27(4): 659–675.

10.

Bayram

Comek

(2009) Examining the relations between science attitudes, logical thinking ability, information literacy and academic achievement through internet assisted chemistry education. In: Paper presented at the World Conference on Educational Sciences—New Trends and Issues in Educational Sciences. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

11.

Bronstein

(2014) The role of perceived self-efficacy in the information seeking behavior of library and information science students. Journal of Academic Librarianship 40(2): 101–106.

12.

Bronstein

Tzivian

(2013) Perceived self-efficacy of library and information science professionals regarding their information retrieval skills. Library & Information Science Research 35(2): 151–158.

13.

Carr

Johnson

(2013) Does self-reflection and insight correlate with academic performance in medical students? BMC Medical Education 13(1): 113–119.

14.

Cassidy

Eachus

(1998) Developing the Computer Self-efficacy (CSE) Scale: Investigating the relationship between CSE, gender and experience with computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research 26(2): 133–153.

15.

De Meulemeester

(2013) The information literacy self-efficacy scale and the medical curriculum at Ghent university. In: Paper presented at the European Conference on Information Literacy. Cham: Springer, pp. 465–470.

16.

De Meulemeester

Buysse

Peleman

(2018) Development and validation of an information literacy self-efficacy scale for medical students. Journal of Information Literacy 12(1): 27–47.

17.

Demiralay

Karadeniz

(2010) The effect of use of information and communication technologies on elementary student teachers’ perceived information literacy self-efficacy. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice 10(2): 841–851.

18.

Ekşi

(2012) Foreign language instructors’ computer and information literacy perceived self-efficacy: A School of Foreign Languages case. ELT Research Journal 1(2). Available at: www.mulkiyedergi.org/eltrj/article/view/1063000002 (accessed 22 January 2016).

19.

Hamid

Ahmad

(2016) User education programs in university libraries: A survey. Pakistan Library & Information Science Journal 47(1): 72–78.

20.

Hargittai

(2002) Second-level digital divide: Differences in people’s online skills. First Monday 7(4). Available at: http://firstmonday.org/article/view/942/864 (accessed 25 July 2018).

21.

Johnson

Eisenberg

(1996) Computer literacy and information literacy: A natural combination. Emergency Librarian 23(5): 12–16.

22.

Keshavarz

Givi

MRE

Vafaeian

, et al. (2017) Information literacy self-efficacy dimensions of post graduate students: Validating a Persian version scale. Libri 67(1): 75–86.

23.

Khan

Anwar

Naveed

(2021) Prevalence and levels of information seeking anxiety among business students. Library Philosophy and Practice 4622. Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/4622 (accessed 21 January 2021).

24.

Kiliç-Çakmak

(2010) Learning strategies and motivational factors predicting information literacy self-efficacy of e-learners. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 26(2): 192–208.

25.

Kim

(2011) A study on the relationship between the self-efficacy on the information literacy and the level of academic achievement. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management 28: 331–346.

26.

Kousar

Mahmood

(2015) Perceptions of faculty about information literacy skills of postgraduate engineering students. International Information & Library Review 47(1–2): 52–57.

27.

Kuhlthau

(1987) Information Skills for an Information Society: A Review of Research. an ERIC Information Analysis Product. Syracuse, NY: Information Resources Publications, Syracuse University.

28.

Kurbanoglu

(2003) Self-efficacy: A concept closely linked to information literacy and lifelong learning. Journal of Documentation 59(6): 635–646.

29.

Kurbanoglu

Akkoyunlu

Umay

(2006) Developing the information literacy self-efficacy scale. Journal of Documentation 62(6): 730–743.

30.

Kwon

Song

(2011) Personality traits, gender, and information competency among college students. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science 16(1): 87–107.

31.

Langendyk

(2006) Not knowing that they do not know: Self-assessment accuracy of third year medical students. Medical Education 40(2): 173–179.

32.

McTavish

(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 Literacy 9(1): 3–28.

33.

Mahmood

(2013) Relationship between students’ perceived information literacy skills with personal and academic variables. Libri 63(3): 232–239.

34.

Mahmood

(2016) Do people overestimate their information literacy skills? A systematic review of empirical evidence on the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Communications in Information Literacy 10(2): 199–213.

35.

Mahmood

(2017) Reliability and validity of self-efficacy scales assessing students’ information literacy skills: A systematic review. The Electronic Library 35(5): 1035–1051.

36.

Naveed

(2017) Information seeking anxiety: Background, research, and implications. International Information & Library Review 49(4): 266–273.

37.

Naveed

(2021) Information literacy self-efficacy of scientists. Information Research 26(2). Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348564197_Information_literacy_self-efficacy_of_scientists

38.

Naveed

Ameen

(2016a) Information seeking anxiety among postgraduate students of university. Journal of Behavioural Science 26(1): 142–154.

39.

Naveed

Ameen

(2016b) Measuring levels of students’ anxiety in information seeking tasks. Pakistan Journal of Information Management & Libraries 17(1): 56–68.

40.

Naveed

Ameen

(2016c) A mixed-method invesitgaion of information seeking anxiety in Pakistani reseach students. Pakistan Library & Information Sceince Journal 47(2): 24–33.

41.

Naveed

Ameen

(2017) Determining the prevalence and correlates of information seeking anxiety among postgraduates in Pakistan. Libri 67(3): 205–214.

42.

Naveed

Anwar

(2019) Modeling information anxiety. Library Philosophy and Practice 4622. Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/2758 (accessed 21 January 2021).

43.

Naveed

Anwar

(2020) Towards information anxiety and beyond. Webology 17(1): 65–80. Available at: https://www.webology.org/2020/v17n1/a208.pdf (accessed 21 January 2021).

44.

Naveed

Anwar

(2021) Evidence on psychometric properties of scales assessing information related anxieties: A systematic review. Library Philosophy and Practice 4470. Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/4470 (accessed 21 January 2021).

45.

Naveed

Mahmood

(2019) Information literacy self-efficacy of business students in Pakistan. Libri 69(4): 303–314.

46.

Naveed

Rafique

(2018) Information literacy in the workplace: A case of scientists from Pakistan. Libri 68(3): 247–257.

47.

Naveed

Jan

Anwar

(2020) Reliability and validity of scales assessing anxiety associated with information related tasks: A systematic review. Library Philosophy and Practice 4344. Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/4344 (accessed 21 January 2021).

48.

Naveed

Sharif

(2015) Assessing the needs and measuring the impact of the information literacy sessions at the Aga Khan University’s Institute for Educational Development, Pakistan. Asian Review of Social Sciences 4(1): 20–29.

49.

Pinto

Sales

(2010) Insights into translation students’ information literacy using the ILHUMASS survey. Journal of Information Science 36(5): 618–630.

50.

Punter

Meelissen

Glas

(2017) Gender differences in computer and information literacy: An exploration of the performances of girls and boys in ICILS 2013. European Educational Research Journal 16(6): 762–780.

51.

Rafique

Mahmood

(2015) Information literacy skills of engineering students: A survey. Pakistan Library & Information Science Journal 46(4): 34–41.

52.

Rehman

Mohammad

(2001) Relationship of library skills with selected personal and academic variables: A study of the undergraduate students of Kuwait University. International Information & Library Review 34(1): 1–20.

53.

Ross

Perkins

Bodey

(2013) Information literacy self-efficacy: The effect of juggling work and study. Library & Information Science Research 35(4): 279–287.

54.

Ross

Perkins

Bodey

(2016) Academic motivation and information literacy self- efficacy: The importance of a simple desire to know. Library & Information Science Research 38(1): 2–9.

55.

Shafique

Bhatti

(2017) Assessing Information Literacy Skills of Students in The Islamia University of Bahawalpur. Pakistan Library & Information Science Journal 48(1): 59–70.

56.

Shim

Ahn

Kim

, et al. (2009) Exploring the dimensions of self efficacy scale for information literacy. Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science 43(4): 307–326.

57.

Soroya

Iqbal

MMY

Soroya

, et al. (2020) Predictors of information literacy self-efficacy among medical students: PLS-SEM analysis. Library Hi Tech. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-07-2020-0172 (accessed 21 January 2021).

58.

Tang

Tseng

(2013) Distance learners’ self-efficacy and information literacy skills. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 39(6): 517–521.

59.

Taylor

Dalal

(2017) Gender and information literacy: Evaluation of gender differences in a student survey of information sources. College & Research Libraries 78(1): 90–113.

60.

Tella

Mutula

(2008) Gender differences in computer literacy among undergraduate students at the University of Botswana: Implications for library use. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science 13(1): 59–76.

61.

Ting-ting

LIU

Sun

(2012) Gender differences on information literacy of science and engineering undergraduates. International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science 4(2): 23–30.

62.

Tuncer

(2013) An Analysis on the effect of computer self-efficacy over scientific research self-efficacy and information literacy self-efficacy. Educational Research and Reviews 8(1): 33–40.

63.

Tuncer

Balci

(2013) The research of the effect of computer and information literacy self-efficacy on the achievement of information literacy. Journal of Studies in Education 3(4). Available at: www.macrothink.org.journal.index.php.jse.article.view.4212.3620 (accessed 22 January 2016).

64.

Ullah

Ameen

(2014) Current status of information literacy instruction practices in medical libraries of Pakistan. Journal of the Medical Library Association 102(4): 281–287.

65.

Whitmire

(2001) Factors influencing undergraduates’ self-reported satisfaction with their information literacy skills. Portal: Libraries and the Academy 1(4): 409–420.

66.

Zinn

(2013) The information literacy self-efficacy of disadvantaged teachers in South Africa. In: European Conference on Information Literacy. Cham: Springer, pp. 212–218.