Understanding how students manage, control, and optimize their learning processes, particularly in the context of English writing, is crucial in the digital era. This is especially true when considering the influences of their confidence in locating, evaluating, and utilizing information. The present study explores the concept of information literacy self-efficacy by examining variations in perceived self-efficacy levels among Chinese English language learners at the tertiary level. The research further investigates how these varying levels influence students’ use of self-regulated learning (SRL) writing strategies in the foreign language (L2) contexts. The findings revealed that university students demonstrated lower self-efficacy in intermediate information literacy compared to basic and advanced levels. Additionally, basic and intermediate information literacy self-efficacy did not significantly predict the use of cognitive, metacognitive, environmental, and emotional regulation strategies. However, advanced information literacy self-efficacy significantly predicted the use of metacognitive, environmental, and emotional regulation strategies yet it failed to predict the use of cognitive strategies. These results underscore the complexity of the relationship between information literacy self-efficacy and SRL writing strategies, providing critical insights into pedagogical practices aimed at enhancing students’ information literacy and self-regulated abilities in English writing.
AharonyNGazitT (2019) Factors affecting students’ information literacy self-efficacy. Library Hi Tech37(2): 183–183.
2.
AiBKostogrizAWenD, et al. (2020) Student presentations as a means of teaching and learning English for specific purposes: An action research study. Teaching in Higher Education25(2): 223–237.
AtikuzzamanMAhmedSMZ (2023) Investigating the impact of demographic and academic variables on assessing students’ perceived information literacy self-efficacy. Journal of Academic Librarianship49(4): 102733.
5.
BaiBGuoW (2018) Influences of self-regulated learning strategy use on self-efficacy in primary school students’ English writing in Hong Kong. Reading and Writing Quarterly34(6): 523–536.
6.
BanduraA (1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Hoboken, NJ: Prentice Hall.
7.
BanduraA (1997) Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York, NY: Freeman.
8.
BanduraA (2001) Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology52(1): 1–26.
9.
BoekhorstAK (2003) Becoming information literate in the Netherlands. Library Review52(7): 298–309.
10.
ChenJZhangLJChenX (2022) L2 learners’ self-regulated learning strategies and self-efficacy for writing achievement: A latent profile analysis. Language Teaching Research1–22. DOI: 10.1177/13621688221134967.
11.
CohenJ (ed.) (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12.
CoxBEMcIntoshKReasonRD, et al. (2014) Working with missing data in higher education research: A primer and real-world example. Review of Higher Education37(3): 377–402.
13.
CrowSR (2007) Information literacy: What’s motivation go to do with it?Knowledge Quest35(4): 48–52.
14.
EkholmEZumbrunnSConklinS (2015) The relation of college student self-efficacy toward writing and writing self-regulation aptitude: Writing feedback perceptions as a mediating variable. Teaching in Higher Education20(2): 197–207.
15.
FergusonKSFergusonA (2005) The remote library and point-of-need user education: An Australian library perspective. Journal of Interlibrary Loan Document Delivery & Electronic Reserve15(3): 43–60.
16.
FerrisDR (2003) Response to Student Writing: Implications for Second Language Students. Milton Park: Routledge.
17.
FitzgeraldMA (2004) Making the leap from high school to college. Knowledge Quest32(4): 19.
18.
FlierlMBonemEMaybeeC, et al. (2018) Information literacy supporting student motivation and performance: Course-level analyses. Library & Information Science Research40(1): 30–37.
19.
FornellCLarckerDF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research18(1): 39–50.
20.
FosterAL (2006) Students fall short on ‘information literacy,’ educational testing service’s study finds. Chronicle of Higher Education53(10): A36.
21.
GallowayA (2005) Non-probability sampling. In: Kempf-LeonardK (ed.) Encylopedia of Social Measurement. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp.859–864.
22.
GolparvarSEKhafiA (2021) The role of L2 writing self-efficacy in integrated writing strategy use and performance. Assessing Writing47: 100504.
23.
GrossJJJohnOP (2003) Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology85(2): 348–362.
24.
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.
25.
GuJZhangYLiuH (2014) Importance of social capital to student creativity within higher education in China. Thinking Skills and Creativity12: 14–25.
26.
HairJF JrBlackWCBabinBJ, et al. (eds) (2010) Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th edn.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
27.
Kiliç-çakmakE (2010) Learning strategies and motivational factors predicting information literacy self-efficacy of e-learners. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology26(2): 192–208. DOI: 10.14742/ajet.1090.
28.
KlineRB (2023) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
29.
KohnenAMSaulEW (2018) Information literacy in the internet age: Making space for students’ intentional and incidental knowledge. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy61(6): 671–679.
30.
KurbanogluSS (2003) Self-efficacy: A concept closely linked to information literacy and lifelong learning. Journal of Documentation59(6): 635–646.
31.
KurbanogluSS (2009) Self-efficacy: An alternative approach to the evaluation of information literacy. In: KatsirikouASkiadiasCH (eds) Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries Theory and Applications: Proceedings of the International Conference on QQML2009. Singapore: World Scientific, pp.323–328.
32.
KurbanogluSSAkkoyunluBUmayA (2006) Developing the information literacy self-efficacy scale. Journal of Documentation62(6): 730–743.
33.
LiuQ (2023) Information literacy and recent graduates: Motivation, self-efficacy, and perception of credit-based information literacy courses. Journal of Academic Librarianship49(3): 102682.
34.
LloydA (2005) Information literacy: Different contexts, different concepts, different truths?Journal of Librarianship and Information Science37(2): 82–88.
35.
MacArthurCA (2015) Instruction in evaluation and Revision. In: MacArthurCAGrahamSFitzgeraldJ (eds) Handbook of Writing Research. New York: Guilford Publications, pp.272–287.
36.
MaxwellSEDelanyHD (eds) (2004) Designing Experiments and Analyzing Data: A Model Comparison Perspective, 2nd edn.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
37.
PintoMFernández-PascualR (2019) How a cycle of information literacy assessment and instruction stimulates attitudes and motivations of LIS students: A competency-based case study. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science51(2): 370–386.
38.
PintrichPR (2004) A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review16(4): 385–407.
39.
PintrichPRde GrootEV (1990) Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Education & Psychology82(1): 33–40.
40.
PriceRBeckerKClarkL, et al. (2011) Embedding information literacy in a first-year business undergraduate course. Studies in Higher Education36(6): 705–718.
41.
RaoofiSMaroofiY (2017) Relationships among motivation (self-efficacy and task value), strategy use and performance in L2 writing. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies35(3): 299–310.
42.
RossMPerkinsHBodeyK (2013) Information literacy self-efficacy: The effect of juggling work and study. Library & Information Science Research35(4): 279–287.
43.
RossMPerkinsHBodeyK (2016) Academic motivation and information literacy self-efficacy: The importance of a simple desire to know. Library & Information Science Research38(1): 2–9.
44.
ShenBBaiB (2024) Chinese university students’ self-regulated writing strategy use and EFL writing performance: Influences of self-efficacy, gender, and major. Applied Linguistics Review15(1): 161–188.
45.
SinsPHMvan JoolingenWRSavelsberghER, et al. (2008) Motivation and performance within a collaborative computer-based modeling task: Relations between students’ achievement goal orientation, self-efficacy, cognitive processing, and achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology33(1): 58–77.
46.
SoriaKMFransenJNackerudS (2014) Stacks, serials, search engines, and students’ success: First-year undergraduate students’ library use, academic achievement, and retention. Journal of Academic Librarianship40(1): 84–91.
47.
TengLSZhangLJ (2016) A questionnaire-based validation of multidimensional models of self-regulated learning strategies. Modern Language Journal100(3): 674–701.
48.
TengLSZhangLJ (2020) Empowering learners in the second/foreign language classroom: Can self-regulated learning strategies-based writing instruction make a difference?Journal of Second Language Writing48: 100701.
49.
ZimmermanBJ (2000) Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In: BoekaertsMPintrichPRZeidnerM (eds) Handbook of Self-Regulation. Cambridge: Academic Press, pp.13–39.
