Information and Technology Literacy Among Female and Male Pre-Service Teachers: The Mediating Role of Media Literacy

Abstract

This study aimed to examine the mediating role of media literacy in the relationship between information literacy and technology literacy and to investigate gender-based differences in this mediating effect. A cross-sectional correlational research design was employed, involving 390 prospective teachers (77.4% female, 22.6% male). The data were analyzed using structural equation modeling. The results indicated a significant correlation between information literacy, technology literacy, and media literacy, as well as a positive mediating role of media literacy between information literacy and technology literacy. However, it was revealed that the mediating role of media literacy in the relationship between information and technology literacy was similar in female and male groups. The results indicated that information-literate individuals tended to assess media content with a more conscious and critical perspective, and the skills they acquired in this process are related to their ability to use technology. The study’s findings were discussed and interpreted in detail in light of the relevant literature.

Keywords

information literacy technology literacy media literacy pre-service teachers 21st century skills mediating role

Introduction

At no other point in human history has change occurred as rapidly and profoundly as it does today. The demands of the 21st century differ markedly from those of the 20th century, primarily driven by the accelerated advancements in information and communication technologies (Dede, 2010). The advancement of digital technologies has played a crucial role in transforming society from an industrial-based model to one focused on information and knowledge (Voogt, 2008). The information age has made it essential for educators, students, and citizens to possess various literacy skills to leverage the potential of innovative technologies and actively participate in economic, social, and cultural life. Historically, literacy referred to the ability to read, write, and perform basic arithmetic. However, the modern concept of “21st-century literacy” encompasses a range of skills, including communication, proficiency in using contemporary information and communication technologies, deep understanding of natural and social phenomena, problem-solving, informed decision-making, teamwork, and lifelong learning abilities (Špiranec & Banek-Zorica, 2008).

Numerous experts and organizations from diverse disciplines have defined and categorized the key skills necessary for individuals to navigate modern challenges and attain success in the 21st century (Geisinger, 2016). The critical importance of 21st-century skills is a recurring theme across various frameworks. This necessity is driven primarily by societal transformations, particularly the swift technological advancements and their profound influence on how we live, work, and learn. Among the most prominent and widely recognized frameworks addressing these skills is the P21 Framework (Chamba & Chikusvura, 2024). To support educators in embedding skills within core academic instruction, the Partnership created a comprehensive vision called “the Framework for 21st Century Learning.” This framework outlines the crucial blend of knowledge, skills, and competencies that pupils need to develop for both their professional and personal lives, combining content knowledge with critical skills, expertise, and various literacies (P21, 2019). These competencies are organized into three primary categories: “learning and innovation skills,”“information, media, and technology skills,” and “life and career skills” (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

The 21st century skills (Trilling & Fadel, 2009).

Trilling and Fadel (2009) conceptualized information, media, and technology skills as digital literacy skills, emphasizing that these skills are the elements that most reflect the characteristics of the 21st century in the proposed framework. The 21st century presents individuals with a media and technology-centered environment offering them abundant access to information (Moto et al., 2018). For this reason, to be successful in the 21st century, individuals are expected to effectively develop and use information literacy, media literacy, and technological competencies (P21, 2019).

Information literacy refers to the ability to determine the need for information and the competence to search for, evaluate, and apply relevant data to resolve a particular issue or answer a specific question (Ferguson, 2001). This literacy forms the basis of lifelong learning and is an indispensable competence in all educational settings and levels. There are five basic components of information literacy (Catts & Lau, 2008): “Recognise information needs,”“Locate and evaluate the quality of information,”“Store and retrieve information,”“Make effective and ethical use of information,” and “Communicate knowledge.” Several academicians point out that in an increasingly complex digital environment, users are presented with comprehensive, unfiltered content in various formats, which significantly challenges their ability to assess the reliability and trustworthiness of information (De Paor & Heravi; 2020; Eshet-Alkalai, 2004). The ability to systematically access, critically evaluate, and use information effectively serves as a fundamental prerequisite for meaningful participation in contemporary information society (Adeleke & Emeahara, 2016).

Information is now accessible in vast quantities and diverse forms. The only effective way to manage these vast quantities of information is by utilizing additional digital tools (Koltay, 2011). The advancement of digital technology plays a crucial role in integrating media literacy with information literacy. The shift in information sources has made it essential for information-literate individuals also to possess media literacy skills. Media literacy shares a clear connection with information literacy, as the information obtained from various media sources frequently intersects with and enhances that derived from more formal library resources (Bawden, 2001). From a media literacy standpoint, individuals navigating the vast flow of information in the digital era are increasingly recognizing the importance of employing information literacy skills to locate, assess, and effectively structure information.

Media literacy encompasses the competencies needed to interpret, evaluate, and produce media content (Martens, 2010). While a range of definitions has been proposed to express the multifaceted nature of media literacy, one of the most frequently referenced is the description offered by Aufderheide (1993) during “the National Leadership Conference on Media Literacy,” where it was characterized as “the ability to access, analyze, evaluate and create media in a variety of forms” (Aufderheide, 1993; Erdem et al., 2023; Livingstone, 2004). Livingstone et al. (2005) further conceptualize media literacy through three central dimensions: (1) the ability to access media and its content, (2) the capacity for critical analysis and understanding of media operations, and (3) creative, communicative, and production-related competencies. It involves developing analytical skills to deconstruct media messages, producing and disseminating media content, and participating thoughtfully in public discourse (Hobbs et al., 2013; Mihailidis & Viotty, 2017).

Within the Information, Media, and Technology Skills defined in the P21 Framework, technology literacy stands out as a core element, emphasizing individuals’ capacity to competently utilize, comprehend, and assess technology across diverse settings. To be successful in today’s education and workforce environments, individuals cannot rely solely on their information or media literacy skills. They need to connect these skills with technology literacy (Sharkey & Brandt, 2008, p. 86). It is widely acknowledged that the majority of students in contemporary society have grown up immersed in a technology-rich environment, constantly surrounded by such devices as computers, video games, and mobile phones, which are regarded as indispensable parts of their daily lives (Judson, 2010). However, according to Judson (2010), technology literacy goes beyond merely using technological tools; it fundamentally involves the ability to leverage these tools for problem-solving, information analysis, and modeling complex concepts. A technologically literate person should possess the ability to utilize, oversee, and comprehend technological concepts and systems and be capable of designing, developing, managing, implementing, and evaluating technological systems and processes (Shackelford et al., 2004).

Education in the 21st century has been significantly shaped by advancements in technology and the effects of globalization (Drake & Reid, 2018). Continuous advancements in educational technology create growing expectations for teachers, requiring them to make daily decisions about the appropriate use, timing, and placement of technology in their classrooms (Hasse, 2017). Therefore, educators play a crucial role as foundational elements in achieving digital integration. Effectively integrating technology into educational environments is intricately linked to their ability to adapt to the fast-paced evolution of relevant digital tools and platforms (Çoklar & Kabakçı Yurdakul, 2017). Some international organizations emphasize that the shift toward a knowledge-based society necessitates significant transformations in educational systems (OECD, 2004). As society undergoes increasing digitalization and globalization, the expectation for teachers to possess 21st-century competencies has intensified, highlighting the necessity for educational and instructional uses of technology. Achieving a vision of 21st-century knowledge and skills for all learners requires a dedicated effort to develop and strengthen educators’ essential competencies, fostering effective learning outcomes. Given that information, media, and technology skills are consistently identified as critical competencies in numerous studies (Catts & Lau, 2008; Cordell, 2013; Dinçer, 2018; Gündüzalp, 2021; Jang et al., 2020), examining the relationships among these skills is of significant importance.

Numerous studies indicate that there is a positive correlation between information, media, and technology literacies. Lau (2013) suggests that media literacy and information literacy are closely related and often complementary, as both seek to cultivate similar information-processing and evaluative skills in individuals. Each term places a distinct focus on particular informational frameworks and media channels, highlighting different priorities within their respective scopes. Similarly, based on an online survey conducted with 363 distance education students, Van de Vord (2010) found a positive association between information and media literacy and concluded that each may enhance the other, and both literacies are essential for achieving success in the 21st century. Güven (2014) conducted a study with pre-service teachers, revealing a significant relationship between media literacy and information literacy levels, concluding that as media literacy increased, information literacy levels also rose. Hobbs and Frost (2003) integrated critical media literacy into a high school English curriculum and found that students in the program outperformed the control group in identifying key elements of media messages and demonstrated stronger critical thinking skills, particularly in recognizing missing information and the interplay between information, entertainment, and economics. These findings suggest that media literacy instruction can effectively enhance information literacy skills.

According to Zhu et al. (2021), university students’ information literacy significantly predicts both their social media competence and their technical proficiency in using social media platforms. A study by Demiralay and Karadeniz (2010) indicated that pre-service teachers who have long-term, advanced experience using ICT and access it from various locations report higher levels of perceived information literacy self-efficacy. Ugwulebo and Okuonghae (2021) conducted research in Nigeria and confirmed that the successful use of electronic information resources largely depends on the information literacy skills of the user. Motivated by the worries regarding the possible unreliability of online information and individuals’ capacity to assess it effectively, Metzger et al. (2003) examined college students’ use of web-based information, their judgments of information credibility, and their methods of verifying content online. Findings from their study indicate that college students depend extensively on the Internet for both academic and general information without verifying the information. Aharony and Bronstein (2014) indicated that academic librarians consider information literacy to be connected with computer literacy and view technology as an essential means for facilitating information literacy. Similarly, in another study, students who indicated a high level of computer proficiency also rated their Internet search skills more positively and demonstrated a higher level of information literacy (Aharony & Gur, 2017). Adeleke and Emeahara (2016) found a significant positive correlation between information literacy skills and the use of electronic information sources.

While the interconnections among these literacies have been conceptually discussed (Kivunja, 2015; P21, 2019) or empirically supported (Adeleke & Emeahara, 2016; Aharony & Bronstein, 2014; Aharony & Gur, 2017; Van de Vord, 2010), no empirical evidence has been found testing the mediating role of media literacy between information and technology literacy. Methodologically, most empirical studies have relied on correlational analyses that examine pairwise relationships among literacies, without testing possible mediation effects. Understanding this mediating mechanism is crucial, as media literacy can function as a pivotal skill that allows pre-service teachers to apply information-handling abilities effectively within technological contexts. Clarifying this relationship may inform the development of more cohesive and integrated teacher education programs.

A review of the literature available also reveals that the data on the effect of gender on these three literacies is not consistent. While some studies suggest that girls exhibit higher levels of information, technology, and media literacy compared to boys (Hohlfeld et al., 2013; Michalak et al., 2017; Ritzhaupt et al., 2013), others indicate that boys perform better than girls in these areas (Arsenijević & Andevski, 2016; Biokuromoye Fyneman, 2009; Hakkarainen et al., 2000; Houtz & Gupta, 2001; Liu & Sun, 2012; Zhong, 2011). There are also many studies showing no gender differences (Erişti & Erdem, 2018; Hatlevik & Christophersen, 2013; Noordin, 2024). Considering these mixed results, examining gender as a moderator helps to identify whether gender influences the relationships among the core constructs and provides a deeper understanding of literacy interactions among pre-service teachers. Thus, this study aims to examine the mediating role of media literacy in the relationship between information literacy and technology literacy while also exploring the potential gender differences in these mediation effects. The research hypotheses are presented as follows.

H1: Media literacy mediates the relationship between information and technology literacy.

H2: The mediating effect of media literacy on the link between information literacy and technology literacy varies by gender.

Method

Research Design

A cross-sectional correlational design was used, and structural equation modeling (SEM) was applied to test the hypothesized mediation model. In a cross-sectional study, researchers simultaneously assess both the variables and outcomes of participants, providing a “snapshot” of their characteristics at a single point in time (Cohen et al., 2017).

Participants

The study involved 390 pre-service teachers selected through a convenience sampling approach; 302 (77.4%) were female, and 88 (22.6%) were male. All pre-service teachers at the same class level in the faculty were included in the study. The gender imbalance among the participants reflects the actual situation in the Faculty of Education; that is, the number of female students in the Faculty of Education exceeds that of male students. According to Muthén and Muthén (2002), structural equation modeling studies that involve model construction require a sample size of at least 250 participants. While students from all available programs in the Faculty of Education were included, the majority of participants were from the English Language Education program (16.9%). Most of the pre-service teachers reported using the Internet for 4 hr (27.4%) or 5 hr (23.6%) daily, and 286 of them (73.3%) owned a personal computer (Table 1).

Table 1.

The Descriptive Statistics of the Sample.

Variables	n	%	Variables	n	%
Gender			Computer ownership
Female	302	77.4	Yes	286	73.3
Male	88	22.6	No	103	26.4
Department			Missing	1	0.3
Foreign language education	66	16.9	Duration of internet use
Mathematics education	54	13.8	1 hr	1	0.3
Turkish language teaching	48	12.3	2 hr	13	3.3
Guidance and counseling	57	14.6	3 hr	70	17.9
Preschool education	42	10.8	4 hr	107	27.4
Social studies teaching	38	9.7	5 hr	92	23.6
Science education	37	9.5	6 hr	77	19.7
Primary school teaching	48	12.3	7 hr and over	30	7.7
Total	390	100		390	100

Data Collection Tools

Information Literacy Scale

The “Information Literacy Scale” was developed by Kalaycı (2023) as a subcomponent of the “21st Century Digital Literacy Skills Scale.” It was designed in the form of a five-point Likert scale. The scale consists of 12 items, such as “I know where and how to access a source of information.” It includes two sub-dimensions: “Using Information and Legal Elements” with seven items and “Accessing Information and Sharing Information” with five items. The reliability coefficients were calculated as 0.77 for the first factor and 0.74 for the second factor. The overall reliability coefficient of the entire scale was found to be 0.84. As a result of the confirmatory factor analysis, it was found that there was sufficient evidence for validity and that the level of fit was quite good and acceptable (RMR = 0.03, χ²/df = 2.61, AGFI = 0.93, GFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.06, CFI = 0.94, NFI = 0.91, IFI = 0.94). Based on these results, it can be stated that the Information Literacy Scale has an adequately high level of construct validity and confirms its two-factor structure.

Media Literacy Scale

The “Media Literacy Scale,” developed by Kalaycı (2023) as a subcomponent of the “21st Century Digital Literacy Skills Scale,” was constructed using a five-point Likert scale. The scale consists of 16 items, such as “I take the necessary precautions to protect personal data when using media tools.” There are six items in the “Awareness and Paying Attention” sub-dimension, seven items in the “Having Knowledge” sub-dimension, and three items in the “Ability to Use Media Tools” sub-dimension. The reliability coefficients of the scale are 0.83 for the first factor, 0.80 for the second factor, and 0.63 for the third factor. The total reliability coefficient of the entire scale was calculated to be 0.89. As a result of the confirmatory factor analysis, it was found that there was sufficient evidence for validity and that the level of fit was quite good and acceptable (RMR = 0.03, χ²/df = 2.22, AGFI = 0.91, GFI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.05, CFI = 0.95, NFI = 0.91, IFI = 0.94). Based on these results, it can be stated that the Media Literacy Scale has an adequately high level of construct validity and confirms its three-factor structure.

Technology Literacy Scale

The “Technology Literacy Scale,” developed by Kalaycı (2023) as a subcomponent of the “21st Century Digital Literacy Skills Scale,” was prepared in a five-point Likert-type format. The scale consists of 14 items, such as “I can classify technological tools according to their intended use.” There are seven items in the “Ability to Comprehend Technology” sub-dimension, four items in the “Ability to Use Technology” sub-dimension, and three items in the “Paying Attention” sub-dimension. The reliability coefficients of the scale are 0.86 for the first factor, 0.79 for the second factor, and 0.70 for the third factor. The total reliability coefficient of the entire scale was calculated to be 0.90. As a result of the confirmatory factor analysis, it was found that there was sufficient evidence for validity and that the level of fit was quite good and acceptable (RMR = 0.03, χ²/df = 2.22, AGFI = 0.91, GFI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.05, CFI = 0.95, NFI = 0.91, IFI = 0.94). Based on these results, it can be stated that the Media Literacy Scale has an adequately high level of construct validity and confirms its three-factor structure (Supplemental Material).

Procedure

The research data were collected face-to-face from pre-service teachers in a classroom setting, and participation was entirely voluntary. All participants were informed of the study’s details before participating and provided written consent before data collection. No rewards or payments were offered to the participants in this study.

Data Analysis

Microsoft Excel 2019 was used for organizing the data, while IBM SPSS 26.0 (IBM Corp., 2019) was employed for preliminary analyses, and AMOS 24.0 (IBM Corp., 2016) was used for data analysis. Descriptive statistics were utilized to examine the characteristics of the variables, while Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was applied to evaluate the proposed research hypotheses.

The SEM analysis followed the following steps, as outlined by Kline (2011): (1) model specification, (2) model identification, (3) parameter estimation, and (4) model testing and evaluation. The mediating role of media literacy was examined using the method proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986). According to their framework, three conditions must be satisfied to establish mediation. The independent variable should significantly influence the mediator (path a), the mediator must have a significant effect on the dependent variable (path b), and the independent variable must also significantly predict the dependent variable (path c). Once these conditions are fulfilled, a regression analysis including both the independent and mediating variables should show a reduced or non-significant effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable, demonstrating mediation.

The mediating role of media literacy in the relationship between information literacy and technology literacy (H1) was examined using SEM mediation analysis. The Bootstrap technique was employed to evaluate the mediation model, and a bootstrapped sample of 1,000 was generated through random resampling from the dataset. A 95% confidence interval was calculated for the indirect effect. To investigate gender differences hypothesized in H2, multi-group Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was employed to assess whether the mediating role of media literacy in the link between information literacy and technology literacy varied across gender groups.

Results

Preliminary Analysis

Following the examination of missing and outlier data, data from 38 participants were excluded from the dataset. Subsequently, correlation coefficients and descriptive statistics for the variables were calculated and reported in Table 2. The obtained correlation coefficients were interpreted based on Büyüköztürk’s (2012) criteria, where correlation coefficients with absolute values ranging from 0.70 to 1.00 are considered strong, those between 0.30 and 0.70 are viewed as moderate, and values between 0.00 and 0.30 are interpreted as indicating a weak relationship.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis.

Variables	1. Media literacy	2. Information literacy	3. Technology literacy
1. Media literacy	—
2. Information literacy	0.502**	—
3. Technology literacy	0.580**	0.511**	—
M	60.29	47.45	57.48
SD	5.544	4.211	5.623
Skewness	0.299	0.419	−0.094
Kurtosis	0.025	−0.086	−0.557

Note. n = 390.

p < .01.

Table 2 shows that there are statistically significant (p < .001) moderate positive correlations between media literacy and information literacy (r = .502), media literacy and technology literacy (r = .580), and information literacy and technology literacy (r = .511). Based on the skewness and kurtosis values presented in Table 2, it can be concluded that the variables exhibit a normal distribution.

Structural Model and Hypotheses Testing

In this study, the theory-based model was specified, as shown in Figure 1. Since the model’s degrees of freedom (df) equal zero, it is a fully saturated model. Although parameter estimation can be performed for a fully saturated model in SEM, fit indices are not examined because df = 0 (Chi-square = 0.000, CFI = 1.000, RMSEA = 0.515, 90% CI [0.467, 0.564]).

According to Figure 2, the direct effect of pre-service teachers’ information literacy on their technology literacy is positive (β = .511, p < .001). After including media literacy as a mediating variable in the model, this effect decreases but remains statistically significant (β = .294, p < .001). This indicates that media literacy acts as a partial mediator. The 95% confidence interval for this coefficient ([0.175, 0.262]) further supports its significance. In summary, the standardized direct effect coefficient of information literacy on technology literacy is 0.294, the indirect effect coefficient is 0.217, resulting in a total effect coefficient of 0.511.

Figure 2.

The standardized result of the mediation model.

Additionally, as shown in Figure 2, pre-service teachers’ information literacy has a positive effect on their media literacy (β = .502, p < .001), and media literacy has a positive effect on technology literacy (β = .433, p < .001). In other words, both the direct and indirect effects of information literacy on technology literacy are statistically significant. Finally, considering that standardized path coefficients also represent the strength of the relationships between variables, there is a moderate positive relationship between information literacy and both media literacy and technology literacy.

Multi-Group Analysis of Structural Models and Hypotheses Testing

To address Hypothesis 2, a multi-group SEM analysis was conducted, and the results are reported in Table 3. Initially, a baseline model (Model 1) was established by freely estimating all parameters across the female and male groups. Since this model is fully saturated, fit indices were not calculated (see Table 3). Subsequently, a more restrictive model (Model 2), which imposed equality constraints on the path coefficients between the female and male groups, was examined. A comparison between Model 2 and Model 1 revealed no significant difference between the groups (p = .914). In other words, the mediating role of media literacy in the relationship between information literacy and technology literacy is similar across both female and male groups.

Table 3.

Multi-Group Analysis: Testing for Path Coefficients Invariance Across Genders.

Chi-square	df	RMSEA (90%CI)	CFI	TLI	$Δ χ^{2}$ / $Δ df$	p
Model 1: Baseline model
0.000	0	—	1.000	—	—	—
Model 2: Information → Media → Technology paths constrained to be equal across gender
0.521	3	0.000 (0.000–0.032)	1.000	1.016	0.174	.914

Standardized path coefficients for the male and female groups are reported in Table 4. Examination of Table 4 indicates that the path coefficients are similar across both groups. The similarity in the mediating effect of media literacy in both groups accounts for the resemblance in the path coefficients.

Table 4.

Path Coefficient Estimation Across Gender (Standardized).

Path	Female	Male
Information → Media	.516**	.515**
Media → Technology	.413**	.467**
Information → Technology (Direct)	.290**	.322**
Information → Media → Technology (Indirect)	.214**	.240*

p < .05. **p < .001.

Discussion

This study employed Structural Equation Modeling to investigate the relationships among information literacy, media literacy, and technology literacy in a sample of pre-service teachers in Türkiye, with a specific focus on gender-based variations. In light of the relevant literature, the study proposed that media literacy may act as a mediating variable linking information literacy to technology literacy. The results indicated that media literacy significantly mediated the correlation between information literacy and technology literacy; however, this mediating effect did not differ across genders.

First, the findings revealed that there is a significant relationship between information literacy and technology literacy. At the initial state of the model, the direct impact of information literacy on technology literacy was positive and low (β = .511, p < .001), which may be interpreted as indicating that the ability to find, analyze, and use information increased competence in using digital devices. Including media literacy in the model as a mediator variable decreased this direct effect (β = .294, p < .001) but caused no change in its significance. Thus, it was empirically supported that media literacy had a partial mediator role in the relationship between information and technology literacy.

These findings indicated that media literacy served as a bridge to enhance individuals’ skills in utilizing technological devices. In other words, the results showed that the individuals’ information literacy enabled them to assess media content critically, which in turn positively affected their ability to use technology. Similarly, Van de Vord (2010) emphasizes that individuals with high information literacy can evaluate information presented in digital environments more critically and analyze media content more effectively. These findings also coincide with numerous studies in the literature. For example, UNESCO’s “Media and Information Literacy Curriculum and Competency Framework” unifies the traditionally separate domains of media literacy, information literacy, and digital literacy into a cohesive concept known as media and information literacy (Grizzle et al., 2021), which supports the belief that these literacies are indispensable to facilitate one another. According to Nikou et al. (2022), information literacy has a positive influence on the perceived ease of technology use, and individuals with higher proficiency in this literacy are more inclined to perceive technological tools as more user-friendly and accessible.

The relationship between information and media literacy is supported in several studies in the literature (Güven, 2014; Hobbs & Frost,2003; Lau, 2013; Van de Vord, 2010; Zhu et al., 2021). There are also studies showing a relationship between information and technology literacies. Adeleke and Emeahara (2016) found a significant relationship between the level of information literacy and the effectiveness of using digital information resources, emphasizing the critical importance of information literacy in developing users’ skills to utilize electronic tools and digital platforms effectively. The study by Demiralay and Karadeniz (2010) also revealed that pre-service teachers’ perceived self-efficacy in information literacy is shaped by various factors, including their previous experience with computers, digital proficiency levels, frequency of computer and internet use, and access to technological resources. Pre-service teachers who have long-term and advanced levels of ICT use and who can access ICT from various places are seen to have more positive perceptions of their information literacy self-efficacy. Katz (2007) argues that it is essential for students to develop information literacy and use this proficiency on digital platforms. Some studies have also shown that information literacy skills significantly increase individuals’ skills to use media resources more effectively (Amusan & Lawal, 2020; Odede & Zawedde, 2018; Toyo, 2017). Although accessing and using digital platforms may seem straightforward, a solid foundation in information literacy is necessary to use them effectively (Durodolu & Mojapelo, 2020). It is more likely for information-literate individuals to develop technological skills over time, or technological skills can lead to an increase in students’ level of information literacy, as suggested by Aharony and Gur (2017).

As for the second hypothesis, it was not supported by the findings. Although the current study confirmed that media literacy played a significant mediating role in the relationship between information literacy and technology literacy, it did not differ by gender. The findings showed that the mediating effect of media literacy on the relationship between information and technology literacy was similar for both female and male participants. Although minor differences were noted in the path coefficients between genders, the overall model was valid for both groups. This result may be attributed to the comparable levels of information literacy (Noordin, 2024; Omosebi & Omosebi, 2020; Xu & Shen, 2021), media literacy (Erişti & Erdem, 2018; Som & Kurt, 2012; Zhang & Zhu, 2016) and technology literacy (Hatlevik & Christophersen, 2013; Lee et al., 2015; Liang et al., 2021) reported for both genders, suggesting that gender has a minimal influence on the levels of these literacies.

Conclusion

This study contributed to the relevant literature by examining the relationships between information literacy, media literacy, and technology literacy in the context of pre-service teachers in Türkiye. The findings obtained using Structural Equation Modeling showed that media literacy had a mediating role in the relationship between information and technology literacies; which reiterates the fact that media literacy plays a significant role in the promotion of them. Contrary to the hypothesis assumed in the study, gender did not affect either the direct or indirect relationship between information and technology literacy. These findings suggest that there is a need for training programs that aim to increase pre-service teachers’ media literacy. The results emphasized the importance of strengthening media literacy as a way to develop the technology-related skills of prospective teachers who will educate future generations.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Although the study provides valuable insight into the relationships between information, media, and technology literacy, it has its own limitations. First, the participants in this study are students enrolled in the education faculty of a specific university. This situation constitutes an obstacle to generalizing the findings to diverse groups and educational environments. The findings of this study can be expanded by repeating the research with varying groups of samples. Second, in this study, female pre-service teachers were much more represented than male candidates. Therefore, this unequal distribution should be taken into account when examining the effects of gender on the mediating role among the variables. In the future, the mediation relationships among the same variables can be replicated with an equal or nearly equal number of female and male participants. In this study, self-report measurement tools were used to determine the participants’ own perceptions of the literacy levels examined. For this reason, the answers obtained may not accurately reflect the participants’ actual literacy levels due to factors such as exaggeration or the desire to present oneself positively. Future research could employ various data collection methods, including observation and interview. Another limitation is that only the mediating role of media literacy was emphasized. However, apart from media literacy, there may be other potential factors that may play a mediating role between information literacy and technology literacy. It would be wise to investigate other mediating factors between information and technology literacies in the future.

Finally, only the moderating role of gender among the demographic variables was examined, and other characteristics were not considered. Since demographic variables such as age, academic background, or socioeconomic status have the potential to influence the relationships between the literacy areas examined, future studies can incorporate these variables into their analyses to gain a more comprehensive understanding. Despite the above-mentioned limitations, this study is the first to investigate the relationships between information and technology literacy as well as media literacy among female and male pre-service teachers across Europe.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-sgo-10.1177_21582440251414733 – Supplemental material for Information and Technology Literacy Among Female and Male Pre-Service Teachers

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-sgo-10.1177_21582440251414733 for Information and Technology Literacy Among Female and Male Pre-Service Teachers by Gülnur Candan Hamurcu in SAGE Open

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the Proofreading & Editing Office of the Dean for Research at Erciyes University for copyediting and proofreading service for this manuscript.

ORCID iD

Gülnur Candan Hamurcu

Ethical Considerations

During the research procedure, ethical approval for the study was first obtained from the Ethics Committee for Social and Human Sciences at Erciyes University (Application No: 033). The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards outlined in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its subsequent revisions.

Consent to Participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Author Contributions

The author, is solely responsible for the conception, design, execution, and analysis of this research, as well as the preparation of the resulting manuscript.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be available on request.*

Pre-Registration Statement

This study was not pre-registered.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Adeleke

D. S.

Emeahara

E. N.

(2016). Relationship between information literacy and use of electronic information resources by postgraduate students of the University of Ibadan. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal), 1381. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1381

Aharony

Bronstein

(2014). Academic librarians’ perceptions on information literacy: The Israeli perspective. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 14(1), 103–119. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2013.0040

Aharony

Gur

(2017). The relationships between personality, perceptual, cognitive, and technological variables and students’ level of information literacy. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 51(1), 96–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000617742450

Amusan

Lawal

O. W.

(2020). Information literacy skills and media resource utilization among secondary school students in Lagos State, Nigeria. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal), 4109. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/4109

Arsenijević

Andevski

(2016). New media literacy within the context of socio-demographic characteristics. Procedia Technology, 22, 1142–1151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2016.01.161

Aufderheide

(1993). Media literacy: A report of the national leadership conference on media literacy. Aspen Institute.

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173

Bawden

(2001). Information and digital literacies: A review of concepts. Journal of Documentation, 57(2), 218–259. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000007083

Biokuromoye Fyneman

E. E.

(2009). Information literacy among undergraduate students in Niger Delta University. The Electronic Library, 27(4), 659–675. https://doi.org/10.1108/02640470910979606

10.

Büyüköztürk

Ş.

(2012). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Pegem

11.

Catts

Lau

(2008). Towards information literacy indicators: Conceptual framework paper. UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001587/158723e.pdf

12.

Chamba

L. T.

Chikusvura

(2024). Future-proofing quality education using integrated assessment systems. Quality Education for All, 1(1), 240–255. https://doi.org/10.1108/QEA-11-2023-0014

13.

Cohen

Manion

Morrison

(2017). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Taylor & Francis Group

14.

Çoklar

A. N.

Kabakçı Yurdakul

İ.

(2017). Technology integration experiences of teachers. Discourse and Communication for Sustainable Education, 8(1), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1515/dcse-2017-0002

15.

Cordell

R. M.

(2013). Information literacy and digital literacy: Competing or complementary? Communications in Information Literacy, 7(2), 177–183. https://doi.org/10.15760/comminfolit.2013.7.2.150

16.

Dede

(2010). Comparing frameworks for 21st-century skills. In Bellanca

J. A.

Brandt

(Eds.), 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn (Vol. 20, pp. 51–76). Solution Tree Press.

17.

Demiralay

Karadeniz

(2010). The effect of use of information and communication technologies on elementary student teachers’ perceived information literacy self-efficacy. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 10(2), 841–851.

18.

De Paor

Heravi

(2020). Information literacy and fake news: How the field of librarianship can help combat the epidemic of fake news. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 46(5), 102218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102218

19.

Dinçer

(2018). Are pre-service teachers really literate enough to integrate technology in their classroom practice? Determining the technology literacy level of pre-service teachers. Education and Information Technologies, 23(6), 2699–2718. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9737-z

20.

Drake

S. M.

Reid

J. L.

(2018). Integrated curriculum is an effective way to teach 21st-century capabilities. Asia Pacific Journal of Educational Research, 1(1), 31–50. https://doi.org/10.30777/APJER.2018.1.1.03

21.

Durodolu

O. O.

Mojapelo

S. M.

(2020). Contextualisation of the information literacy environment in the South African education sector. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 18(1), 57–68, https://doi.org/10.34190/EJEL.20.18.1.005

22.

Erdem

Oruç

Atar

Bağcı

(2023). The mediating effect of digital literacy in the relationship between media literacy and digital citizenship. Education and Information Technologies, 28(5), 4875–4891. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11354-4

23.

Erişti

Erdem

(2018). Öğretmen adaylarının medya okuryazarlığı beceri düzeyleri ile eleştirel düşünme eğilimleri arasındaki ilişki. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 17(67), 1234–1251. https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.395275

24.

Eshet-Alkalai

(2004). Digital literacy: A conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital era. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13, 93–106.

25.

Ferguson

(2001). Information literacy: A primer for teachers, librarians, and other informed people. http://www.bibliotech.us/pdfs/InfoLit.pdf

26.

Geisinger

K. F.

(2016). 21st century skills: What are they and how do we assess them? Applied Measurement in Education, 29(4), 245–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2016.1209207

27.

Grizzle

Wilson

Tuazon

Cheung

C. K.

Lau

Fischer

Gordon

Akyempong

Singh

Carr

P. R.

Stewart

K. N.

Tayie

Suraj

Jaakkola

Thésée

Gulston

(2021). Media and information literate citizens: Think critically, click wisely! All Works, Article 4562. https://zuscholars.zu.ac.ae/works/4562

28.

Gündüzalp

(2021). 21st century skills for sustainable education: Prediction level of teachers’ information literacy skills on their digital literacy skills. Discourse and Communication for Sustainable Education, 12(1), 85–101. https://doi.org/10.2478/dcse-2021-0007

29.

Güven

İ.

(2014). Fen ve teknoloji öğretmen adaylarının bilgi okuryazarlığı ve medya okuryazarlığı düzeylerinin incelenmesi. Turkish Studies – International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 9(2), 787–800. https://doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.6395

30.

Hakkarainen

Ilomäki

Lipponen

Muukkonen

(2000). Students’ skills and practices of using ICT: Results of a national assessment in Finland. Computers & Education, 34(2), 103–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(00)00007-5

31.

Hasse

(2017). Technological literacy for teachers. Oxford Review of Education, 43(3), 365–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2017.1305057

32.

Hatlevik

O. E.

Christophersen

K. A.

(2013). Digital competence at the beginning of upper secondary school: Identifying factors explaining digital inclusion. Computers & Education, 63, 240–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.015

33.

Hobbs

Donnelly

Friesem

Moen

(2013). Learning to engage: How positive attitudes about the news, media literacy, and video production contribute to adolescent civic engagement. Educational Media International, 50(4), 231–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2013.862364

34.

Hobbs

Frost

(2003). Measuring the acquisition of media-literacy skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 38, 330–355.

35.

Hohlfeld

T. N.

Ritzhaupt

A. D.

Barron

A. E.

(2013). Are gender differences in perceived and demonstrated technology literacy significant? It depends on the model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(4), 639–663. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-9304-7

36.

Houtz

L. E.

Gupta

U. G.

(2001). Nebraska high school students’ computer skills and attitudes. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(3), 316–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/08886504.2001.10782317

37.

IBM Corp. (2016). Amos, Version 24.0 [Computer Program]. IBM Corp., Armonk, NY.

38.

IBM Corp. (2019). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 26.0 [Computer Program]. IBM Corp., Armonk, NY.

39.

Jang

Aavakare

Kim

Nikou

(2020, June 14–17). The effects of digital literacy and information literacy on the intention to use digital technologies for learning: A comparative study in Korea and Finland [Conference presentation]. ITS Online Event, International Telecommunications Society (ITS), Calgary.

40.

Judson

(2010). Improving technology literacy: Does it open doors to traditional content? Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(3), 271–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9135-8

41.

Kalaycı

(2023). Development of the 21st century digital literacy skills scale, validity and reliability study [Master’s thesis, Tokat Gaziosmanpaşa University, Institute of Graduate Studies, Department of Educational Sciences, Computer and Instructional Technologies Education Program]. Tokat Gaziosmanpaşa University.

42.

Katz

I. R.

(2007). Testing information literacy in digital environments: ETS’s iSkills assessment. Information Technology and Libraries, 26(3), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v26i3.3271

43.

Kivunja

(2015). Unpacking the information, media, and technology skills domain of the new learning paradigm. International Journal of Higher Education, 4(1), 166–181. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v4n1p166

44.

Kline

R. B.

(2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Guilford Press

45.

Koltay

(2011). The media and the literacies: Media literacy, information literacy, digital literacy. Media, Culture & Society, 33(2), 211–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443710393382

46.

Lau

(2013). Conceptual relationship of information literacy and media literacy in knowledge societies (76 pp.). UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000224655

47.

Lee

Kim

Lee

(2015). Analysis of elementary students’ ICT literacy and their self-evaluation according to their residential environments. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 8(1), 81–88. https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2015/v8iS1/57595

48.

Liang

de la Torre

Law

(2021). Do background characteristics matter in children’s mastery of digital literacy? A cognitive diagnosis model analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 122, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106850

49.

Liu

T. T.

Sun

H. B.

(2012). Gender differences in information literacy among science and engineering undergraduates. International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science, 4(2), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.5815/ijmecs.2012.02.04

50.

Livingstone

(2004). Media literacy and the challenge of new information and communication technologies. The Communication Review, 7(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714420490280152

51.

Livingstone

Van Couvering

E. J.

Thumim

(2005). Adult media literacy: A review of the literature. Ofcom.

52.

Martens

(2010). Evaluating media literacy education: Concepts, theories and future directions. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 2(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.23860/jmle-2-1-1

53.

Metzger

M. J.

Flanagin

A. J.

Zwarun

(2003). College student web use, perceptions of information credibility, and verification behavior. Computers & Education, 41(3), 271–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(03)00049-6

54.

Michalak

Rysavy

M. D.

Wessel

(2017). Students’ perceptions of their information literacy skills: The confidence gap between male and female international graduate students. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 43(2), 100–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2017.02.003

55.

Mihailidis

Viotty

(2017). Spreadable spectacle in digital culture: Civic expression, fake news, and the role of media literacies in “post-fact” society. American Behavioral Scientist, 61(4), 441–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764217701217

56.

Moto

Ratanaolarn

Tuntiwongwanich

Pimdee

(2018). A Thai junior high school students’ 21st century information literacy, media literacy, and ICT literacy skills factor analysis. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 13(9), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v13i09.8355

57.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(2002). How to use a Monte Carlo study to decide on sample size and determine power. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(4), 599–620. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0904_8

58.

Nikou

De Reuver

Mahboob Kanafi

(2022). Workplace literacy skills—How information and digital literacy affect adoption of digital technology. Journal of Documentation, 78(7), 371–391. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-12-2021-0241

59.

Noordin

N. H.

(2024). Assessing information literacy levels among underprivileged communities. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 16(2), 85–97. https://doi.org/10.23860/JMLE-2024-16-2-7

60.

Odede

I. R.

Zawedde

N. S.

(2018). Information literacy skills in using electronic information resources. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal), 1947. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1947

61.

OECD. (2004). OECD observer (Vol. 2004, Issue 1). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/observer-v2004-1-en

62.

Omosebi

P. A.

Omosebi

F. E.

(2020). Information literacy skills and the use of e-library resources among undergraduates in South-West Nigeria. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal), 4336. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/4336

63.

P21. (2019). P21 framework definitions. Retrieved April 17, 2025, from https://static.battelleforkids.org/documents/p21/P21EarlyChildhoodFramework.pdf

64.

Ritzhaupt

A. D.

Liu

Dawson

Barron

A. E.

(2013). Differences in student information and communication technology literacy based on socio-economic status, ethnicity, and gender: Evidence of a digital divide in Florida schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45, 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2013.10782607

65.

Shackelford

R. L.

Brown

Warner

S. A.

(2004). Using concepts and theoretical models to support the standards for technological literacy. Technology Teacher, 63(5), 7–22.

66.

Sharkey

Brandt

D. S.

(2008). Integrating technology literacy and information literacy. In Rivoltella

P. C.

(Ed.), Digital literacy: Tools and methodologies for information society (pp. 85–98). IGI Publishing.

67.

Som

Kurt

A. A.

(2012). Bilgisayar ve öğretim teknolojileri eğitimi bölümüöğrencilerinin medya okuryazarlık düzeyleri. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International (AJESI), 2(1), 104–119.

68.

Špiranec

Banek-Zorica

(2008). Informacijska pismenost-Teorijski okviri i polazišta, Zavod za informacijske studije. Zagreb

69.

Toyo

(2017). Undergraduates’ information literacy skills and the use of electronic resources in Delta State University, Abraka, Nigeria. International Journal of Education and Evaluation, 3(1), 27–36.

70.

Trilling

Fadel

(2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. Jossey-Bass.

71.

Ugwulebo

Okuonghae

(2021). Information literacy skills and utilisation of electronic information resources by postgraduate students in Nigeria. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal), 6265. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/6265/

72.

Van de Vord

(2010). Distance students and online research: Promoting information literacy through media literacy. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(3), 170–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.03.001

73.

Voogt

(2008). IT and curriculum processes: Dilemmas and challenges. In Voogt

Knezek

(Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 115–132). Springer.

74.

Shen

Z.-Y.

(2021). How learning style and social media behaviour influence undergraduates’ information literacy level in China [Conference session]. 2021 IEEE 24th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD), pp. 485–492. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/CSCWD49262.2021.9437720

75.

Zhang

Zhu

(2016). A study of digital media literacy of the 5th and 6th grade primary students in Beijing. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(4), 579–592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-016-0285-2

76.

Zhong

Z. J.

(2011). From access to usage: The divide of self-reported digital skills among adolescents. Computers & Education, 56(3), 736–746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.011

77.

Zhu

Yang

H. H.

Chen

(2021). Investigating the relationship between information literacy and social media competence among university students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(7), 1425–1449. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633121997360

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.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB