The aim of this research was to examine the factors that might correlate with variables that may explain teachers’ perceptions of their information literacy self-efficacy level. The study was conducted among 101 teachers during the 2018 academic year. It used the following questionnaires: information literacy self-efficacy level, being a digital newcomer/native, personality variables taken from the Big Five model, mastery of computer applications, personal characteristics, and participation in a digital program. Researchers used a quantitative methodology. Findings present a correlation between teachers’ perceptions of their information literacy self-efficacy level and openness to experience and neuroticism, teachers’ level of digital skills, and teachers’ participation in a digital program. We propose that the ministry of education should focus on developing pre-service teachers’ and teachers’ information literacy skills, thus enhancing their information literacy self-efficacy.
AdetoroNSimisayeAOyefugaAB (2010) Relationship between perceived self-efficacy and information literacy among library and information science undergraduates in a Nigerian University of Education. IFE Psychologia18(2): 172–191.
2.
AharonyNGazitT (2018) Students’ information literacy self-efficacy: An exploratory study. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science52: 224236.
3.
AharonyNGazitT (2019) Factors affecting students’ information literacy self-efficacy. Library Hi Tech37(2): 183–196.
4.
AharonyNGurH (2017) The relationships between personality, perceptual, cognitive and technological variables and students’ level of information literacy. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science51(2): 527–544.
5.
AharonyNShonfeldM (2015) ICT use: Educational technology and library and information science students’ perspectives—An exploratory study. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-skills and Lifelong Learning11: 191–207.
6.
AikenLSWestSG (1991) Testing and Interpreting Interactions in Multiple Regression. New York: SAGE.
Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) (2000) Information literacy competency standards for higher education. Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education. Available at: http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/informationliteracycompetency
BellardoT (1985) An investigation of online searcher traits and their relationship to search outcome. Journal of the American Society for Information Science36(4): 241–250.
12.
Ben-AmramS (2018) Implementing information literacy into israeli primary school teaching and learning processes: A case study [Hebrew]. PhD Thesis, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel.
13.
BennettSMatonKKervinL (2008) The “digital natives” debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology39(5): 775–786.
14.
BerkantH (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.
15.
BermaRFridmanY (2007) Self Efficacy of School Principals: Self Report Questionnaire. Jerusalem, Israel: Henrieta Sold. [Hebrew]
16.
BlauIShamir-InbalT (2017) Digital competences and long-term ICT integration in school culture: The perspective of elementary school leaders. Education and Information Technologies22(3): 769–787.
17.
BorgmanCL (1989) All users of information retrieval systems are not created equal: An exploration into individual differences. Information Processing and Management: An International Journal25(3): 237–251.
18.
CalvaniAFiniARanieriM, et al. (2012) Are young generations in secondary school digitally competent? A study on Italian teenagers. Computers & Education58(2): 797–807.
ÇoklarANYamanNDYurdakulIK (2017) Information literacy and digital nativity as determinants of online information search strategies. Computers in Human Behavior70: 1–9.
21.
DayanRMagen-NagarNNehemiaR (2013) The impact of teachers’ computer and information literacy on the continuous structuring of an online environment in the framework of the new ICT. In: Proceedings of the 8th CHAIS conference for the study of innovation and learning-technologies: Learning in the technological era (eds Eshet-AlkalaiYBlauICaspiA, et al.) Raanana, Israel, 1920 February, pp. 69–76. Raanana, Israel: The Open University of Israel. (in Hebrew)
22.
DemiralayRKaradenizS (2010) The effect of use of information and communication technologies on elementary student teachers’ perceived information literacy self-efficacy. Educational Sciences10(2): 841–851.
23.
DurodoluOO (2018) Information literacy, self-concept and metacognitive ability of teacher-librarians at the University of Zululand. Library Philosophy and Practice, February. Available at: https://search.proquest.com/docview/2007084737?accountid=14483
EshetY (2012) Thinking in the digital era: A revised model for digital literacy. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology9: 267–276.
27.
EtzionDLaskiS (1998) The Big Five Inventory (version 5a). Tel Aviv, Israel: Tel Aviv University. [Hebrew]
28.
FerdigREBaumgartnerEHartshorneR, et al. (eds) (2020) Teaching, technology, and teacher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: Stories from the field. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Available at: https://www.learntechlib.org/p/216903/
29.
FerrariA (2013) Digital Competence in Practice: An Analysis of Frameworks. Ispra: Joint Research Centre of the European Commission.
30.
GeçerAK (2012) An examination of studying approaches and information literacy self-efficacy perceptions of prospective teachers. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research49: 151–172.
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.
33.
HalderSRoyAChakrabortyP (2017) The influence of personality traits on information seeking behaviour of students. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science15(1): 41–53.
34.
HalversonRSmithA (2009) How new technologies have (and have not) changed teaching and learning in schools. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education26(2): 49–54.
35.
HegartyBPenmanMKellyO, et al. (2010) Digital information literacy: Supported development of capability in tertiary environments. Executive summary. Literacy, August. Available at: https://doi.org/10.28945/1532
36.
HeinströmJ (2003) Five personality dimensions and their influence on information behaviour. Information Research9(1): 1–24.
37.
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.
38.
HerringJE (2006) Critical investigation of students and teachers views of information literacy skills in school assignments. School Library Media Research. Available at: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ965631.pdf
39.
HoterEShonfeldMGanayimA (2009) Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in the service of multiculturalism. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning10(2). Available at: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/601
40.
HsiaoHLinYTuY (2010) Gender differences in computer experience and computer self-efficacy among high school teachers. In: The Asian conference on education 2010 (ACE2010) (eds JacksonSNakanoM), Osaka, Japan, 25 December, pp. 1380–1391. Tokyo, Japan: The International Academic Forum (IAFOR).
41.
HyldegårdJ (2009) Personality traits and group-based information behaviour: An exploratory study. Information Research14(2): 1–23.
42.
JohnOPSrivastavaS (1999) The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In. PervinLAJohnOP (eds) Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research (vol. 2). New York: Guilford Press, pp. 102-138.
43.
KimKSSinSCJTsaiTI (2014) Individual differences in social media use for information seeking. The Journal of Academic Librarianship40(2): 171–178.
44.
KirkağaçSÖzH (2017) The role of Big Five personality traits in predicting prospective EFL teachers’ academic achievement. Online Submission4(4): 317–328.
45.
KohnenAMSaulEW (2018) Information literacy in the Internet age: Making space for students’ intentional and incidental knowledge. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy61(6): 671–679.
46.
KongSCChanTWHuangR, et al. (2014) A review of e-Learning policy in school education in Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Beijing: Implications to future policy planning. Journal of Computers in Education1(23): 187–212.
47.
KorkutEAkkoyunluB (2008) Knowledge and computer literacy self-efficacies of foreign language teacher candidates. Hacettepe University the Journal of Education34: 178–188.
48.
KöseoğluY (2016) To what extent can the Big Five and learning styles predict academic achievement. Journal of Education and Practice7(30): 43–51.
49.
KurbanoğluSS (2003) Self-efficacy: A concept closely linked to information literacy and lifelong learning. Journal of Documentation59(6): 635–646.
50.
KurbanoğluSS (2010) Self-efficacy: An alternative approach to the evaluation of information literacy. In: Qualitative and quantitative methods in libraries, Crete, January, pp. 323–328. Singapore: World Scientific.
51.
KurbanoğluSSAkkoyunluBUmayA (2006) Developing the information literacy self-efficacy scale. Journal of Documentation62(6): 730–743.
52.
LavertyCReedB (2006) Inspired teachers: Providing a classroom context for information literacy theory and practice. In. CooperTCookD (eds) Teaching Information Literacy Skills to Education and Social Sciences Students and Practitioners: A Second Casebook of Applications. Chicago, IL: Association of College and Research Libraries, pp. 68–83.
53.
LuYPapagiannidisSAlamanosE (2018) Exploring the emotional antecedents and outcomes of technology acceptance. Computers in Human Behaviour90: 153–169.
54.
McCraeRRCostaPT (1988) Do parental influences matter? A reply to Halverson. Journal of Personality56(2): 445–449.
55.
McCraeRRCostaPT (1992) Discriminant validity of NEO-PIR Facet Scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement52(1): 229–237.
56.
MetterT (2009) Assessing critical skills. Library Media Connection27(5): 94.
57.
MichalakRRysavyMDT (2016) Information literacy in 2015: International graduate business students’ perceptions of information literacy skills compared to test-assessed skills. Journal of Business and Finance Librarianship21(2): 152–174.
MohammadyariSSinghH (2015) Understanding the effect of e-learning on individual performance: The role of digital literacy. Computers & Education82: 11–25.
61.
MunzelAMeyer-WaardenLGalanJP (2018) The social side of sustainability: Well-being as a driver and an outcome of social relationships and interactions on social networking sites. Technological Forecasting and Social Change130: 14–27.
62.
MurrayALJohnsonWMcGueM, et al. (2014) How are conscientiousness and cognitive ability related to one another? A re-examination of the intelligence compensation hypothesis. Personality and Individual Differences70: 17–22.
63.
PalfreyJGasserUSimunM, et al. (2009) Youth, creativity, and copyright in the digital age. International Journal of Learning and Media1(2): 79–97.
64.
PharesEJ (1991) Introduction to Personality. 3rd edn.New York: Harper Collins.
65.
PrenskyM (2001) Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon9(5): 1–6.
66.
ProbertE (2009) Information literacy skills: Teacher understandings and practice. Computers & Education53(1): 24–33.
67.
RomeroMGuitertMSangràA, et al. (2013) Do UOC students fit in the Net Generation profile? An approach to their habits in ICT use. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning14(3): 158.
68.
ŞahinHGöçerG (2013) İlköğretim Okullarında Görev Yapan Öğretmenlerin Bilgisayar Öz-Yeterliklerinin İncelenmesi. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (KEFAD) Cilt14(3): 131–146. [Turkish]
69.
SalgadoJFTáurizG (2014) The five-factor model, forced-choice personality inventories and performance: A comprehensive meta-analysis of academic and occupational validity studies. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology23(1): 3–30.
70.
SavolainenR (2014) Emotions as motivators for information seeking: A conceptual analysis. Library & Information Science Research36(1): 59–65.
71.
SchmidtTWolffC (2016) Personality and information behavior in web search. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology53(1): 1–6.
72.
Shalom-AserafE (2013) The relationship between a sense of self-empowerment and personality traits and the functioning of the school counselor: A case study. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel [Hebrew].
73.
ShannonCReillyJBatesJ (2019) Teachers and information literacy: Understandings and perceptions of the concept. Journal of Information Literacy13(2): 41–72.
74.
ShonfeldMAharoniNKritzN (2020) The impact of participating in a digital program on teachers’ perceptions of their information literacy. In Schmidt-CrawfordD (ed.) Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 981-984). Online: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
75.
ShonfeldMGoldsteinO (2014) ICT integration in teaching and teachers training by faculty members in Israeli Colleges of Education. In: SITE 2014: Proceedings of the 25th international conference of the society for information technology & teacher education. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322436491
76.
SloniowskiL (2016) Affective labor, resistance, and the academic librarian. Library Trends64(4): 645–666.
77.
SmithJK (2013) Secondary teachers and information literacy (IL): Teacher understanding and perceptions of IL in the classroom. Library & Information Science Research35(3): 216–222.
78.
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.
79.
StockhamMCollinsH (2012) Information literacy skills for preservice teachers: Do they transfer to K-12 classrooms?Education Libraries35(1): 59–72.
80.
TaşkınZDoğanGŞencanİ (2013) Analyzing the intellectual structure of world information literacy literature through citations and co-citations. In. KurbanoğluSGrassianEMizrachiD, et al. (eds) ECIL 2013: Worldwide Commonalities and Challenges in Information Literacy Research and Practice. Communications in Computer and Information Science (vol. 397). Cham: Springer, pp. 54-60.
81.
TavilZM (2014) The effect of self reflections through electronic journals (e-journals) on the self-efficacy of pre-service teachers. South African Journal of Education34(1): 1–20.
82.
TeoT (2010) Measuring the effect of gender on computer attitudes among pre-service teachers: A multiple indicators, multiple causes (MIMIC) modeling. Campus-Wide Information Systems27(4): 227–239.
83.
TeoT (2013) An initial development and validation of a Digital Natives Assessment Scale (DNAS). Computers & Education67: 51–57.
84.
TeoTKabakçıIYurdakulIK, et al. (2016) Exploring the digital natives among pre-service teachers in Turkey: A cross-cultural validation of the Digital Native Assessment Scale. Interactive Learning Environments24(6): 1231–1244.
85.
TopkayaEZ (2010) Pre-service English language teachers’ perceptions of computer self-efficacy and general self-efficacy. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology (TOJET)9(1): 143–156.
86.
Tschannen-MoranMBarrM (2004) Fostering student learning: The relationship of collective teacher efficacy and student achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools3(3): 189–209.
87.
UnderwoodJDM (2007) Rethinking the digital divide: Impacts on student-tutor relationships. European Journal of Education, Research, Development and Policy42(2): 213–222.
88.
VarmaKHusicFLinnMC (2008) Targeted support for using technology-enhanced science inquiry modules. Journal of Science Education and Technology17(4): 341–356.
89.
WagnerDKozmaR (2005) New Technologies for Literacy and Adult Education: A Global Perspective. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
90.
WangSKHsuHYCampbellT, et al. (2014) An investigation of middle school science teachers and students use of technology inside and outside of classrooms: Considering whether digital natives are more technology savvy than their teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development62(6): 637–662.
91.
WhiteDSLe CornuA (2017) Using “visitors and residents” to visualise digital practices. First Monday. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v22i8.7802
92.
WillettPHeinströmJSormunenE, et al. (2014) Spanning information behaviour across the stages of a learning task—Where do personality and approach to studying matter?Journal of Documentation70(6): 1–23.
93.
Yevelson-ShorsherABronsteinJ (2018) Three perspectives on information literacy in academia: Talking to librarians, faculty and students. College and Research Libraries79(4): 535–553.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
