图书情报工作

图书情报工作 >

2023 , Vol. 67 >Issue 22: 104 - 113

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2023.22.011

情报研究

数字原住民自我感知的信息素养能力与实际能力的差异调查

  • 夏红玉 ,
  • 李玉海 ,
  • 彭婷 ,
  • 刘莉
展开
  • 1 华中师范大学信息管理学院 武汉 430079;
    2 中南财经政法大学图书馆 武汉 430073;
    3 湖北工业大学图书馆 武汉 430068
夏红玉,博士研究生,E-mail:xhy_jade@foxmail.com;李玉海,教授,博士生导师;彭婷,馆员;刘莉,副研究馆员。

收稿日期: 2023-03-28

  修回日期: 2023-07-26

  网络出版日期: 2023-12-16

基金资助

本文系国家社会科学基金重大项目“新时代我国文献信息资源保障体系重构研究”（项目编号：19ZDA345）研究成果之一。

收起

An Investigation of the Differences Between Digital Natives' Self-perceived Information Literacy Competency and Actual Ability

  • Xia Hongyu ,
  • Li Yuhai ,
  • Peng Ting ,
  • Liu Li
Expand
  • 1 School of Information Management, Central China Normal University, Wuhan 430079;
    2 Library of Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, Wuhan 430073;
    3 Library of Hubei University of Technology, Wuhan 430068

Received date: 2023-03-28

  Revised date: 2023-07-26

  Online published: 2023-12-16

Fold

摘要

[目的/意义] 多项心理学和社会学研究表明人们时常会高估自己在某些领域的能力，这将导致个体不会主动去学习和提高相关领域的知识和技能，不利于个体的发展。调查并分析当代大学生自我感知的信息素养能力与实际能力之间的差异，有助于了解学生在信息素养方面存在的认知误区和偏差，为信息素养教育的改革提供创新思路。[方法/过程] 采用信息素养标准化测试（Information Literacy Test，ILT）和信息素养自我效能感量表（Information Literacy Self-Efficacy Scale，ILSES）作为评估实际信息素养能力和自我感知信息素养能力的工具，调查武汉地区3所高校共1 028名大学一年级学生的信息素养自我效能感与实际信息能力。[结果/结论] 研究结果表明，73.15%大一学生的信息素养能力处于熟练以下水平，总体上大部分学生都高估了自己的信息素养能力，平均高估9.26%。随着信息素养自我效能感的提高，ILT测试成绩也在提高，两者之间的差异也随之增加。同时大一学生的信息素养能力存在邓宁—克鲁格效应：信息素养能力低的个体明显高估了自己的能力，而能力高的个体则低估了自己的能力。ILT测试得分≤50的群体的信息素养自我效能感平均得分为72.21，接近总体样本的平均值（72.38）； ILT-9和ILT-10 （ILT得分>80）的群体的信息素养自我效能感平均得分反而低于ILT-8 （70<ILT得分≤80）的群体。

关键词： 数字原住民; 信息素养; 自我效能; 自我估计; 大学生

本文引用格式

夏红玉 , 李玉海 , 彭婷 , 刘莉 . 数字原住民自我感知的信息素养能力与实际能力的差异调查[J]. 图书情报工作, 2023 , 67(22) : 104 -113 . DOI: 10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2023.22.011

Abstract

[Purpose/Significance] Numerous psychological and sociological studies have shown that individuals often overestimate their competencies in certain domains. This will lead to individuals not taking the initiative to learn and improve knowledge and skills in related fields, which is not conducive to the development of individuals. Investigating and analyzing the difference between contemporary college students' self-perceived information literacy competencies and their actual abilities can understand students' cognitive misunderstandings and biases in information literacy, and provide innovative ideas for the reform of information literacy education. [Method/Process] Information literacy standardized tests (ILT) and information literacy Self-efficacy Scale (ILSES) were used to assess students' actual information literacy competency and self-perceived ability. This paper investigates the difference between the self-perceived information literacy competency and the actual ability of 1 028 freshmen from three universities in Wuhan. [Result/Conclusion] The results show that 73.15% of the students' information literacy competency is below the proficient level. In general, most of the students overestimate their information literacy competency, with an average of 9.26%. With the improvement of information literacy self-efficacy, the ILT test scores also rose, and the gap between ILT and ILSES widened. Meanwhile, there is a Dunning-Kruger effect on the information literacy competency of freshmen:individuals with low information literacy competency obviously overestimate their abilities, while those with high information literacy competency underestimate their skills. The group with ILT test scores ≤ 50, with their average score of information literacy self-efficacy was 72.21, close to the average of the overall sample (72.38). The group with ILT-9 and ILT-10 (ILT scores >80), with their average score of information literacy self-efficacy is lower than the ILT-8 group (70<ILT score ≤ 80).

Key words： digital natives; information literacy; self-efficacy; self-estimates; collage students

参考文献

[1] NAGAM V M. Internet use, users, and cognition:on the cognitive relationships between Internet-based technology and Internet users[EB/OL].[2023-09-16]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01041-5.
[2] KAHN A S, MARTINEZ T M. Text and you might miss it? Snap and you might remember? Exploring ‘Google effects on memory’ and cognitive self-esteem in the context of Snapchat and text messaging[J]. Computers in human behavior, 2020, 104:106166.
[3] 钟秉林, 尚俊杰, 王建华, 等. ChatGPT对教育的挑战(笔谈)[J]. 重庆高教研究, 2023, 11(3):3-25. (ZHONG B L, SHANG J J, WANG J H, et al. ChatGPT's challenges to education (written talk)[J]. Chongqing higher education research, 2023, 11(3):3-25.)
[4] MACKEY T P, JACOBSON T. Reframing information literacy as a meta-literacy[J]. College & research libraries, 2011, 72(1):62-78.
[5] 于良芝, 王俊丽. 从普适技能到嵌入实践——国外信息素养理论与实践回顾[J]. 中国图书馆学报, 2020, 46(2):38-55. (YU L Z, WANG J L. From context-independent skills to embedded practice:a review of information literacy research and practice[J]. Journal of library science in China, 2020, 46(2):38-55.)
[6] HOCHSCHILD J, EINSTEIN K L. Do facts matter:information and misinformation in American politics[M]. Norman, OK:University of Oklahoma Press, 2015.
[7] SPISAK J R. Information literacy self-efficacy versus performance:secondary students[J]. Journal of librarianship and information science, 2023, 55(2):348-357.
[8] PRENSKY M. Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1[J]. On the horizon, 2001, 9(5):1-6.
[9] American Association of School Librarians (AASL). School librarians transform learning[EB/OL].[2023-09-16]. http://www.ala.org/aasl/sites/ala.org.aasl/files/content/aaslissues/advocacy/AASL_Infographic_FINAL.pdf.
[10] WINEBURG S, MCGREW S, BREAKSTONE J, et al. Evaluating information:the cornerstone of civic online reasoning. Stanford Digital Repository[DB/OL].[2023-09-16]. http://purl.stanford.edu/fv751yt5934.
[11] SVENSSON T, WILK J, GUSTAFSSON ÅMAN K. Information literacy skills and learning gaps-students' experiences and teachers' perceptions in interdisciplinary environmental science[J]. The journal of academic librarianship, 2022, 48(1):102465.
[12] DOLENC K, ŠORGO A. Information literacy capabilities of lower secondary school students in Slovenia[J]. The journal of educational research, 2020, 113(5):335-342.
[13] GROSS M, LATHAM D. What's skill got to do with it? Information literacy skills and self-views of ability among firstyear college students[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2012, 63(3):574-583.
[14] AESAERT K, VOOGT J, KUIPER E, et al. Accuracy and bias of ICT self-efficacy:an empirical study into students' over and underestimation of their ICT competences[J]. Computers in human behavior, 2017, 75:92-102.
[15] CLEARY T J. Monitoring trends and accuracy of selfefficacy beliefs during interventions:advantages and potential applications to school-based settings[J]. Psychology in the schools, 2009, 46(2):154-171.
[16] D'COUTO M, ROSENHAN S H. How students research:implications for the library and faculty[J]. Journal of library administration, 2015, 55(7):562-576.
[17] VARLEJS J, STEC E. Factors affecting students' information literacy as they transition from high school to college[J]. School library research, 2014, 17(12):1-23.
[18] TREMBACH S L, DENG L. Understanding millennial learning in academic libraries:learning styles, emerging technologies, and the efficacy of information literacy instruction[J]. College & undergraduate libraries, 2018, 25:297-315.
[19] LOH K K, KANAI R. How has the internet reshaped human cognition?[J]. The neuroscientist, 2016, 22(5):506-520.
[20] BORCHARDT R, SALCEDO T, BENTLEY M. Little intervention, big results:intentional integration of information literacy into an introductory-level biology lab course[J]. Journal of biological education, 2019, 53(4):450-462.
[21] 刘莉, 夏红玉, 张强. 实践范式角度的嵌入式信息素养教学效果评价[J]. 图书馆杂志, 2022, 41(8):93-99. (LIU L, XIA H Y, ZHANG Q. The learning outcome assessment of embedded information literacy education from the perspective of practice paradigm[J]. Library journal, 2022, 41(8):93-99.)
[23] KAVŠEK T, PEKLAJ C, ŽUGELJ U. Information literacy training evaluation:the case of first year psychology students[J]. The journal of academic librarianship, 2016, 42(4):293-299.
[24] SCHILLING K, APPLEGATE R. Best methods for evaluating educational impact:a comparison of the efficacy of commonly used measures of library instruction[J]. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 2012, 100(4):258-69.
[25] TRAN C Y, MILLER C, AVENI D. Baseline assessment:understanding WISE freshman students' information literacy skills in a one-shot library session[J]. Science and technology libraries, 2018, 37(3):302-321.
[26] 王宇, 吴瑾. 新时代信息素养教育的演进与创新——2018年全国高校信息素养教育研讨会综述[J]. 大学图书馆学报, 2018, 36(6):21-27. (WANG Y, WU J. The evolution and innovation of information literacy education in the new era:a summary of the 2018 national university information literacy education seminar[J]. Journal of academic libraries, 2018, 36(6):21-27.)
[27] 刘彩娥, 韩丽风. 基于学术话语体系建构的批判性信息素养教学设计[J]. 大学图书馆学报, 2022, 40(5):66-71. (LIU C E, HAN L F. The syllabus design of critical information literacy based on the academic discourse system construction[J]. Journal of academic libraries, 2022, 40(5):66-71.)
[28] 陈晓红, 高凡, 朱维凤, 等. 信息素养SPOC混合教学模式的设计与实现[J]. 图书情报工作, 2022, 66(9):74-81. (CHEN X H, GAO F, ZHU W F, et al. The construction and implementation of blended teaching mode of information retrieval based on concept SPOC[J]. Library and information service, 2022, 66(9):74-81.)
[29] BOUD D, FALCHIKOV N. Quantitative studies of student selfassessment in higher education:a critical analysis of findings[J]. Higher education, 1989, 18(5):529-549.
[30] BATARELO KOKIĆV I, NOVOSEL V. The ball is in your court:information literacy self-efficacy and information literacy competence relation[J]. Communications in computer and information science, 2014, 492:512-520.
[31] ROSMAN T, MAYER A K, KRAMPEN G. Combining selfassessments and achievement tests in information literacy assessment:empirical results and recommendations for practice[J]. Assessment & evaluation in higher education, 2015, 40(5):740-754.
[32] CLARK M. Imposed-inquiry information-seeking self-efficacy and performance of college students:a review of the literature[J]. The journal of academic librarianship, 2017, 43(5):417-422.
[33] BANDURA A. Self-efficacy:toward a unifying theory of behavior change[J]. Psychological review, 1977, 84:191-215.
[34] KURBANOGLU S, AKKOYUNLU B, UMAY A. Developing the information literacy self-efficacy scale[J]. Journal of documentation, 2006, 62(6):730-743.
[35] LEACH L. Optional self-assessment:some tensions and dilemmas[J]. Assessment &evaluation in higher education, 2012, 37(2):137-147.
[36] GRIFFIN T D, JEE B D, WILEY J. The effects of domain knowledge on meta comprehension accuracy[J]. Memory & cognition, 2009, 37:1001-1013.
[37] KRUGER J, DUNNING D. Unskilled and unaware of it:how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments[J]. Journal of personality and social psychology, 1999, 77(6):1121-1134.
[38] IVANITSKAYA L, O'BOYLE I, CASEY A M. Health information literacy and competencies of information age students:results from the interactive online research readiness self-assessment[J]. Journal of medical internet research, 2006, 8(2):e6.
[39] HINCHLIFFE L J, RAND A, COLLIER J. Predictable information literacy misconceptions of first-year college students[J]. Communications in informationliteracy, 2018, 12(1):4-18.
[40] DUNNING D. The Dunning-Kruger effect:on being ignorant of one's own ignorance-ScienceDirect[J]. Advances in experimental social psychology, 2011, 44:247-296.
[41] LANNING S, MALLEK J. Factors influencing information literacy competency of college students[J]. The journal of academic librarianship, 2017, 43(5):443-450.
[42] LATHAM D, GROSS M. Broken links:undergraduates look back on their experiences with information literacy in K-12 education[J]. School library media research, 2008, 11:1-17.
[43] PODGORNIK B,DOLNIČAR D,ŠORGO A, et al. Development, testing, and validation of an information literacy test (ILT) for higher education[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2016, 67(10):2420-2436.
[44] BARTOL T, DOLNIČAR D, PODGORNIK B, et al. A comparative study of information literacy skill performance of students in agricultural sciences[J]. The journal of academic librarianship, 2018, 44(3):374-382.
[45] PAJARES F, MILLER M D. Mathematics self-efficacy and mathematical problem solving:implications of using different forms of assessment[J]. The Journal of experimental education, 1997, 65(3):213-228.
[46] JANSEN R A, RAFFERTY A N, GRIFFITHS T L. A rational model of the Dunning-Kruger effect supports insensitivity to evidence in low performers[J]. Nature human behaviour, 2021, 2(5):756-763.
[47] SPISAK J. School librarian perceptions of the importance of information literacy[J]. School libraries worldwide, 2020, 26(1):151-163.
[48] FREUND P A, KASTEN N. How smart do you think you are? A meta-analysis on the validity of self-estimates of cognitive ability[J]. Psychological bulletin, 2012, 138(2):296-321.
[49] MAHMOOD K. Reliability and validity of self-efficacy scales assessing students' information literacy skills:a systematic review[J]. The electronic library, 2017, 35(5):1035-1051.
Options
文章导航

/

〈 〉