In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic required schools around the world to transition to online learning. This sudden change forced students who never experienced online learning to study a full curriculum with this method and rely on unfamiliar technology. The study uses the context of online learning during the pandemic as a case study to explore the implications of crisis times (e.g. natural disasters, environmental or public health crises) for digital literacy (DL) among students. Findings reveal that parental support was a crucial factor during a pandemic crisis. The more parental support students receive, the higher their digital literacy, their self-efficacy, their attitude toward technology, and their perceived achievements. Previous findings indicated that during routine students with high digital literacy reported positive attitudes toward using technology in education, compared to those with low digital literacy. However, our findings found that students with more positive attitudes toward technology reported higher digital literacy.
Adam-TurnerN (2017) Digital Literacy adoption with academic technology: Namely digital information literacy to enhance student learning outcomes. PhD Thesis, Old Dominion University, USA.
2.
Aguilera-HermidaP (2020) College students’ use and acceptance of emergency online learning due to COVID-19. International Journal of Educational Research1: 100011–100018.
3.
AharonyNGazitT (2019) Factors affecting students’ information literacy self-efficacy. Library Hi Tech37(2): 183–196.
4.
AhmedSRasheedT (2020) Relationship between personality traits and digital literacy skills: A study of university librarians. Digital Library Perspectives36(2): 191–206.
5.
AliW (2020) Online and remote learning in higher education institutes: A necessity in light of COVID-19 Pandemic. Higher Education Studies10(3): 16–25.
Ansong-GyimahK (2020) Students' perceptions and continuous intention to use E-learning systems: The case of Google Classroom. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning15(11): 236–244.
8.
BanduraA (1982) Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist37(2): 122–147.
9.
BarberBKStolzHEOlsenJA, et al (2005) Parental support, psychological control, and behavioral control: Assessing relevance across time, culture, and method. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development70(4): 1–137.
10.
BaternaHBMinaTDGRogayanDV (2020) Digital Literacy of STEM senior high school students: Basis for enhancement program. International Journal of Technology in Education3(2): 105–117.
11.
BaytiyehH (2019) Why school resilience should be critical for the post-earthquake recovery of communities in divided societies. Education and Urban Society51(5): 693–711.
12.
BennettSMatonKKervinL (2008) The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology39(5): 775–786.
13.
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.
BoonlertW (2016) Online learning adoption: Effects of neuroticism, openness to experience, and perceived values. Interactive Technology and Smart Education13: 229–243.
ChoeD (2020) Parents’ and adolescents’ perceptions of parental support as predictors of adolescents’ academic achievement and self-regulated learning. Children and Youth Services Review116: 1–9.
18.
CohenJCohenPWestSG, et al (2003) Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd edn.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
19.
DevarajSEasleyRFCrantJM (2008) How does personality matter? Relating the five-factor model to technology acceptance and use. Information Systems Research19(1): 93–105.
20.
EgerL (2020) Expectations of business university students regarding their further professional development and lifelong learning. In: Divai 2020: The 13th international scientific conference on distance learning in applied informatics, Štúrovo, Slovakia, 21–23 September 2020, pp.295–304. Slovakia: Conference Proceedings.
21.
Eshet-AlkalaiY (2004) Digital Literacy: A conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital era. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia13(1): 93–106.
22.
Eshet-AlkalaiY (2012) Thinking in the digital era: A revised model for Digital Literacy. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology9: 267–276.
23.
Eshet-AlkalaiYChajutE (2010) You can teach old dogs new tricks: The factors that affect changes over time in digital literacy. Journal of Information Technology Education9: 173–181.
24.
EtzionDLaskiS (1998) The “Big Five” Inventory. Tel Aviv: Tel-Aviv University, Faculty of Management, The Institute of Business Research.
GaoHOuYZhangZ, et al (2021) The relationship between family support and e-learning engagement in college students: The mediating role of e-learning normative consciousness and behaviors and self-efficacy. Frontiers in Psychology12: 1–9.
27.
GibbonsS (2007) Redefining the roles of information professionals in higher education to engage the net generation. In: Paper presented at EDUCAUSE Australia.
28.
GrncharovskaSOsmaniFStankovskaG, et al (2016) The impact of the student's gender and high school type on the level of digital competency development for lifelong learning. Journal of Education and Practice7(24): 108–114.
29.
HohlfeldTNRitzhauptADBarronAE (2013) Are gender differences in perceived and demonstrated technology literacy significant? It depends on the model. Educational Technology Research and Development61(4): 639–663.
30.
IllésZHeizlernéVBPšenákováI, et al (2016) Concept of supporting University Education by using students' devices. In: Divai 2016: The 11th International Scientific Conference on Distance Learning in Applied Informatics, Štúrovo, Slovakia, 2–4 May 2016, pp.149–158. Slovakia: Conference Proceedings.
31.
JacksonJDYiMYParkJS (2013) An empirical test of three mediation models for the relationship between personal innovativeness and user acceptance of technology. Information Management50(4): 154–161.
32.
JanS (2018) Investigating the relationship between students’ Digital Literacy and their attitude towards using ICT. International Journal of Educational Technology5(2): 26–34.
33.
JinKYReichertFCagasanLP, et al (2020) Measuring Digital Literacy across three age cohorts: Exploring test dimensionality and performance differences. Computers & Education157: 1–16.
34.
JonesVJoJMartinP (2007) Future schools and how technology can be used to support Millennial and Generation-Z students. Ubiquitous Information Technology, pp.886–891.
35.
KaragulBMeralSCansuA (2021) Investigating students’ Digital Literacy levels during online education due to COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainability13(21): 1–11.
36.
KickulGKickulJ (2006) Closing the gap: Impact of student proactivity and learning goad orientation on e-learning outcomes. International Journal on Learning5(3): 361–372.
37.
KimKSSinSCJTsaiTI (2014) Individual differences in social media use for information seeking. Journal of Academic Librarianship40(2): 171–178.
38.
KnezekG (1997) The Computer Attitude Questionnaire (CAQ). The Computer Attitude Questionnaire – CAQ 5.22. Denton, TX: Texas Center for Educational Technology.
39.
KurbanoğluS (2003) Self-efficacy: A concept closely linked to information literacy and lifelong learning. Journal of Documentation59(6): 635–646.
40.
LiYRanieriM (2010) Are ‘digital natives’ really digitally competent?—A study on Chinese teenagers. British Journal of Educational Technology41(6): 1029–1042.
41.
MalliariAKorobiliSTogiaA (2012) IT self-efficacy and computer competence of LIS students. Electronic Library30: 608–622.
42.
MamoloLA (2022) Online learning and students' Mathematics motivation, self-efficacy, and anxiety in the 'New Normal. Education Research International2022: 1–10.
43.
MattesonMLAndersonLBoydenC (2016) Soft skills": A phrase in search of meaning. portal Libraries and the Academy16(1): 71–88.
44.
McCraeRRCostaPT (1988) Do parental influences matter? A reply to Halverson. Journal of Personality56(2): 445–449.
45.
McCraeRRJohnOP (1992) An introduction to the Five-Factor Model and its applications. Journal of Personality60(2): 175–215.
46.
MietuleILitavnieceLLonskaJ, et al (2021) Digital competencies’ assessment and challenges of academic staff: The case of Latvia. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues8(4): 85–102.
47.
NgW (2012) Empowering Scientific Literacy Through Digital Literacy and Multiliteracies. New York: Nova Science Publishers.
48.
NodzyńskaMBílekMBaprowskaA (2020) ICT supported time management as an important competence for learning and life. In: Divai 2020: The 13th international scientific conference on distance learning in applied informatics, Štúrovo, Slovakia, 21–23September, pp.161–169. Slovakia: Conference Proceedings.
PavlovichE (2021) Developing DL in digital natives: A quantitative study of DL and Niswonger online students. PhD Thesis, East Tennessee State University, USA.
52.
PersadaSIvanovskiJMirajaB, et al (2020) Investigating Generation Z's intention to use learners' generated content for learning activity: A theory of planned behavior approach. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET)15(4): 179–194.
Pilav-VelićAČerneMTrkmanP, et al (2021) Digital or innovative: Understanding “Digital Literacy – practice – innovative work behavior” chain. South East European Journal of Economics and Business16(1): 107–119.
55.
PoratEBlauIBarakA (2018) Measuring digital literacies: Junior high-school students' perceived competencies versus actual performance. Computers & Education126: 23–36.
56.
PrenskyM (2001) Digital natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1. Horizon: A Magazine of the Arts9(5): 1–6.
57.
PriorDDMazanovJMeacheamD, et al. (2016) Attitude, digital literacy and self-efficacy: Flow-on effect for online learning behavior. Internet and Higher Education29: 91–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.01.001
58.
RadovanM (2011) The relation between distance students' motivation, their use of learning strategies, and academic success. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology10(1): 216–222.
59.
RazaMYKhanANKhanNA, et al (2020) Dark side of social media and academic performance of public sector schools students: Role of parental school support. Journal of Public Affairs20(3): 1–11.
60.
ReddyPChaudharyKSharmaB, et al (2021) The two perfect scorers for technology acceptance. Education and Information Technologies26(2): 1505–1526.
61.
ReddyPSharmaBChaudharyK (2022) Digital literacy: A review in the South Pacific. Journal of Computing in Higher Education34(1): 83–108.
62.
RhemaAMiliszewskaI (2014) Analysis of student attitudes towards e-learning: The case of engineering students in Libya. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology11: 169–190.
63.
Rodríguez-de-DiosIIgartuaJJ (2016) Skills of digital literacy to address the risks of interactive communication. Journal of Information Technology Research9(1): 54–64.
64.
RomeroMGuitertMSangràA, et al (2013) Do UOC students fit in the Net Generation profile? An approach to their habits in ICT use. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning14(3): 158–181.
65.
Ross-HainL (2020) Transitions in tumultuous times: Teachers’ experiences with distance learning amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. PhD Thesis, University of North Dakota, USA.
66.
SageKJacksonSFoxE, et al (2021) The virtual COVID-19 classroom: Surveying outcomes, individual differences, and technology use in college students. Smart Learning Environments8(1): 27.
67.
Samuel-AzranTHayatTAmichai-HamburgerY (2021) Digitally literate introverts have more fun: Zoom eLearning in Israel during the Coronavirus Pandemic. In: Proceedings of the 16th Chais conference for the study of innovation and learning technologies: Learning in the digital era, Ra'anana Israel, 16February, pp.18–27. Israel: The Open University of Israel.
68.
SchwarzerRJerusalemM (1995) General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE). APA PsycTests.
69.
SeginerR (1991) Student’s Perception of His Academic Parental Support Questionnaire. Israel, Jerusalem: Henrietta Szold Institute, The National Institute for Research in the Behavioral Sciences.
70.
ShonfeldMAharonyNNadel-KritzN (2022) Teachers' perceived information literacy self-efficacy. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science54(3): 494–507.
71.
SimonsJLeverettSBeaumontK (2020) Success of distance learning graduates and the role of intrinsic motivation. Open Learning: The Journal of Open Distance and e-Learning35(3): 277–293.
72.
SinghVThurmanA (2019) How many ways can we define online learning? A systematic literature review of definitions of Online Learning (1988-2018). American Journal of Distance Education33(4): 289–306.
73.
SonCHegdeSSmithA, et al (2020) Effects of COVID-19 on college students’ mental health in the United States: Interview survey study. Journal of Medical Internet Research22(9): e21279.
74.
SpiegelJ (2021) Prensky revisited: Is the term “Digital Native” still applicable to today's learner?English Leadership Quarterly44(2): 12–15.
75.
TarabehE (2018) Social competence, self-image and the contribution of socio-emotional support among Arab (junior and high school) adolescents with reading disabilities. PhD Thesis, University of Haifa, Israel.
76.
TsaiVKhanNMShiJ, et al (2017) Evaluation of unintended social and economic consequences of an unplanned school closure in rural Illinois. Journal of School Health87(7): 546–553.
77.
UnderwoodJDM (2007) Rethinking the digital divide: Impacts on student-tutor relationships. European Journal of Education, Research, Development and Policy42(2): 213–222.
78.
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.
79.
YongSTGatesP (2014) Born digital: Are They really digital natives?International Journal of e-Education e-Business e-Management and e-Learning4(2): 102–105.
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.
