The Internet is students’ primary source of information, and the question that arises is whether students know how to evaluate the information they find on the Web. The present research aimed to explore whether openness to experience, curiosity, learning strategies, technological skills, and self-efficacy in computer use are associated with undergraduate students’ information literacy level. The research was conducted in Israel during the first semester of the 2014 academic year and included 180 first-year university students. Seven questionnaires were used to gather data on personal details, information literacy, computer mastery, curiosity, and openness to experience, self-efficacy in computer use, and learning strategies. Results confirm that the personality characteristics of openness to experience and curiosity, as well as cognitive variables such as deep learning strategies, the perceptual variable of self-efficacy in computer use, and computer mastery affect students’ level of information literacy.
AdelekeDSEmeaharaEN (2016) Relationship between information literacy and use of electronic information resources by postgraduate students of the university of Ibadan. Library Philosophy and Practice. Available at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1381/ (accessed 2 August 2016).
4.
AharonyN (2002) The correlation between the pupil’s cognitive style (field dependence and independence) and the learning approaches: Deep and surface and its effect on English achievement in an internet environment and on school satisfaction. PhD Dissertation, Bar-Ilan University, Israel.
5.
AharonyN (2010) IL in the professional literature: An exploratory analysis. Aslib Proceedings62(3): 261–282.
6.
AharonyN (2014) Library and information Science students’ perception of m-learning. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science46(1): 48–61.
7.
AharonyNBronsteinJ (2014) Academic librarians’ perceptions on information literacy: The Israeli perspective. portal: Libraries and the Academy14(1): 103–119.
8.
AharonyNShonfeldM (2015) ICT use: Educational technology and Library and Information Science students’ perspectives: An exploratory study. Interdisciplinary Journal of e-Skills and Life Long Learning11: 191–207. Avail-able at: http://www.ijello.org/Volume11/IJELLv11p191–207Aharony1970.pdf (accessed 2 August 2016).
Ala-MutkaK (2011) Mapping Digital Competence: Towards a Conceptual Understanding. Available at: http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC67075_TN.pdf (accessed 7 December 2013)
11.
ArnoneMPSmallRVChaunceySAet al. (2011) Curiosity, interest and engagement in technology-pervasive learning environments: A new research agenda. Educational Technology Research and Development59(2): 181–198.
12.
AşkarPUmayA (2001) Perceived computer self-efficacy of the students in the elementary mathematics teaching programme. Hacettepe University Journal of Education21: 1–8.
13.
BanduraA (1997) Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman.
14.
BawdenD (2001) Information and digital literacies: A review of concepts. Journal of Documentation57(2): 218–259.
15.
BeilePMBooteDN (2004) Does the medium matter? A comparison of a web-based tutorial with face-to-face library instruction on education students’ self-efficacy levels and learning outcomes. Research Strategies20(1): 57–68.
16.
Beile-O’NeilPM (2005) Development and validation of the Beile test of IL for education (B-TILED). PhD Dissertation, University of Central Florida, USA.
17.
BerkantHG (2016) Faculty of education students’ computer self-efficacy beliefs and their attitudes towards computers and implementing computer supported education. European Journal of Contemporary Education15(1): 123–135.
18.
BiggsJBMoorePJ (1993) Process of Learning. 3rd edn.New York: Prentice Hall.
19.
CattsRLauJ (2008) Towards Information Literacy Indicators. Paris: UNESCO.
20.
CostaPTMcCraeRR (1992) Revised NEO Personality Inventory: NEO PI-R and NEO Five-Factor Inventory. NEO-FFI Professional Manual, Psychological Assessment Resources. Odessa, FL.
21.
DeRueDSAshfordSJMyersCG (2012) Learning agility: In search of conceptual clarity and theoretical grounding. Industrial and Organizational Psychology5(3): 258–279.
22.
DetlorBBookerLSerenkoAet al. (2012) Student perceptions of information literacy instruction: The importance of active learning. Education for Information29(2): 147–161.
23.
EhrenbergAJuckesSWhiteKMet al. (2008) Personality and self-esteem as predictors of young people’s technology use. Cyber Psychology & Behavior11(6): 739–741.
24.
EngelS (2013) The case for curiosity. Educational Leadership70(5): 36–40.
25.
Eshet-AlkalaiY (2004) Digital literacy: A conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital era. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia13(1): 93–106.
26.
FloydKSHarringtonSJSantiagoJ (2009) The effect of engagement and perceived course value on deep and surface learning strategies. Informing Science12: 181–190.
27.
FordW (2015) Student inquiry and critical thinking. Unpublished research paper, Northwest Missouri State University, USA.
28.
GolbeckJRoblesCTurnerK (2011) Predicting personality with social media. In: Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 7–12 May 2011, pp. 253–262.
29.
GrossMLathamD (2012) What’s skill got to do with it? Information literacy skills and self-views of ability among first-year college students. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology63(3): 574–583.
30.
GurpinarEKulacETetikCet al. (2013) Do learning approaches of medical students affect their satisfaction with problem-based learning?Advances in Physiology Education37(1): 85–88.
31.
HalderSRoyAChakrabortyPK (2010) The influence of personality traits on information seeking behaviour of students. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science15(1): 41–53.
HeinströmJ (2003) Five personality dimensions and their influence on information behaviour. Available at: http://InformationR.net/ir/9–1/paper165.html (accessed 8 November 2013)
34.
HeinströmJ (2005) Fast surfing, broad scanning and deep diving: The influence of personality and study approach on students’ information-seeking behavior. Journal of Documentation61(2): 228–247.
35.
HeinströmJ (2010) From Fear to Flow: Personality and Information Interaction. Oxford: Chandos.
36.
HeinströmJ (2014) The emotional valence of information experience: Relation to personality and approach to studying. In: BruceCet al. (eds) Information Experience: Approaches to Theory and Practice. Bingley: Emerald, pp. 275–293.
37.
HensleyRArpLWoodardBS (2004) Curiosity and creativity as attributes of information literacy. Reference & User Services Quarterly44(1): 31–36.
38.
ITEA (2000) Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology. Available at: https://www.iteea.org/42511.aspx (accessed 7 December 2013)
39.
JohnOPSrivastavaS (1999) The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In: JohnOPPervinLA (eds.) Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research. New York: Guilford, pp. 102–138.
40.
Kilic-CakmakE (2010) Learning strategies and motivational factors predicting information literacy self-efficacy of e-learners. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology26(2): 192–208.
41.
KomarrajuMKarauSJSchmeckRRet al. (2011) The Big Five personality traits, learning styles, and academic achievement. Personality and Individual Differences51(4): 472–477.
42.
KomarrajuMNadlerD (2013) Self-efficacy and academic achievement: Why do implicit beliefs, goals, and effort regulation matter?Learning and Individual Differences25: 67–72.
43.
KurbanogluSS (2003) Self-efficacy: A concept closely linked to information literacy and lifelong learning. Journal of Documentation59(6): 635–646.
44.
KurbanogluSSAkkoyunluBUmayA (2006) Developing the information literacy self-efficacy scale. Journal of Documentation62(6): 730–743.
45.
KwonNSongH (2011) Personality traits, gender, and information competency among college students. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science16(1): 87–107.
46.
LakeWBoydW (2015) Age, maturity and gender, and the propensity towards surface and deep learning approaches amongst university students. Creative Education6(22): 2361–2371.
47.
LitmanJ (2005) Curiosity and the pleasures of learning: Wanting and liking new information. Cognition & Emotion19(6): 793–814.
48.
LizzioAWilsonKSimonsR (2002) University students’ perceptions of the learning environment and academic outcomes: Implications for theory and practice. Studies in Higher Education27(1): 27–52.
49.
LoewensteinG (1994) The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin116(1): 75–98.
50.
MartonFSäljöR (1976) On qualitative differences in learning: 1. Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology46(1): 4–11.
51.
MartonFSäljöR (1984) Approaches to learning. In: MartonFHounsellDEntwistleN (eds) The Experience of Learning. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, pp. 36–55.
MetzgerMJFlanaginAJZwarunL (2003) College student web use, perceptions of information credibility, and verification behavior. Computers & Education41(3): 271–290.
SamHKOthmanAEANordinZS (2005) Computer self-efficacy, computer anxiety, and attitudes toward the Internet: A study among undergraduates in UNIMAS. Educational Technology & Society8(4): 205–219.
56.
SaundersL (2012) Faculty perspectives on information literacy as a student learning outcome. Journal of Academic Librarianship38(4): 226–236.
57.
SaundersLKurbanogluSBoustanyJet al. (2015) Information behaviors and information literacy skills of LIS students. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science56(1): 80–99.
58.
ShopovaT (2014) Digital literacy of students and its improvement at the university. Journal on Efficiency and Responsibility in Education and Science7(2): 26–32.
59.
SmithJKGivenLMJulienHet al. (2013) Information literacy proficiency: Assessing the gap in high school students’ readiness for undergraduate academic work. Library & Information Science Research35(2): 88–96.
60.
SnavelyLCooperN (1997) The information literacy debate. Journal of Academic Librarianship23(1): 9–14.
61.
SpielbergerCDJacobsGCraneRet al. (1979) Preliminary Manual for the State-Trait Personality Inventory (STPI). Unpublished manual, University of South Florida, USA.
62.
StokesPUrquhartC (2011) Profiling information behaviour of nursing students: Part 1: Quantitative findings. Journal of Documentation67(6): 908–932.
63.
TaylorADalalHA (2017) Gender and information literacy: Evaluation of gender differences in a student survey of information sources. College & Research Libraries78(1). DOI: 10.5860/crl.78.1.16570
64.
WaldmanM (2003) Freshmen’s use of library electronic resources and self-efficacy. Information Research8(2). Available at: http://www.informationr.net/ir/8–2/paper150.html (accessed 7 December 2013).
65.
WanN (2012) Can we teach digital natives digital literacy?Computers & Education59 (3): 1065–78.
66.
WeilerA (2005) Information-seeking behavior in Generation Y students: Motivation, critical thinking, and learning theory. Journal of Academic Librarianship31(1): 46–53.
67.
ZeidnerM.Ben-ZurH (1989) The Hebrew adaptation of the State-Trait Personality Inventory (STPI/HB). In: SchwarzerRVan Der PloegHSpielbergerCD (eds.) Advances in Test Anxiety Research. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitliner, pp. 253–262.
