Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:3893–3915

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10451-0

An assessment of the interplay between literacy

and digital Technology in Higher Education

Shahrokh Nikou & Milla Aavakare

Received: 9 October 2020 / Accepted: 21 January 2021/ Published online: 6 February 2021
# The Author(s) 2021

Abstract
Digital technologies fundamentally transform teaching and learning in higher
education environments, with the pace of technological change exacerbating the
challenge. Due to the current pandemic situation, higher education environments
are all now forced to move away from traditional teaching and learning structures
that are simply no longer adaptable to the challenges of rapidly changing educa-
tional environments. This research develops a conceptual model and employs
Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) using Partial least Squares (PLS) to exam-
ine the impact of information and digital literacy on 249 Finnish university staff
and students’ intention to use digital technologies. The findings show the complex
interrelationship between literacy skills and digital technologies among university
staff and students. The results illustrate that information literacy has a direct and
significant impact on intention to use; while, unlike our expectation, digital
literacy does not have a direct impact on the intention to use. However, its effect
is mediated through performance expectancy and effort expectancy. The authors
suggest that to understand the changes that are taking place in higher education
environment, more attention needs to be paid to redefining policies and strategies
in order to enhance individuals’ willingness to use digital technologies within
higher education environments.

Keywords Digital literacy; higher education; information literacy . Digital technology .

University staff and students . UTAUT

* Shahrokh Nikou
[email protected]

Milla Aavakare
[email protected]

Information Studies, Åbo Akademi University, Fänriksgatan 3B, 20500 Turku, Finland
Department of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
3894 Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:3893–3915

1 Introduction

Higher education environments, among others, are still struggling to come to terms
with digitalisation and trying to find optimal ways to maximise the benefits such as
higher student engagement levels, connecting traditional classroom to a virtual land-
scape and the enhancement of the student learning process (Gupta et al. 2020; Rabah
2015). The recent global crisis, and in particular the current pandemic situation, has
required a major reform in higher education (Skulmowski and Rey 2020). As such, in
response to these challenges, higher education institutions are now looking into
accelerating the process of digitalisation and the transition from on-campus teaching
to technology-enhanced learning—with an increasing focus on the move towards
online and distance learning. To respond to this emerging issue, transition in many
higher education institutions has already taken place although it was rushed and
unplanned and are currently looking at fine-tuning processes, assessing and making
improvements.
Digital technologies have become an integral part of daily activities in modern
education, and the use of such technologies (e.g. computer-mediated communication
(CMC) tools, subject-specific learning tools, interactive whiteboards, desktop or mobile
videoconferencing, mobile applications/computer software, gaming consoles, tablets
and smartphones (Desjardins and van Oostveen 2015; Major et al. 2018; van Oostveen
and Desjardins 2013), is now even expected within formal learning environments
(Lodge et al. 2019). Moreover, among other digital educational tools, learning man-
agement systems (LMSs) such as Moodle and Blackboard, while already in use (e.g.
Carvalho et al. 2011) have recently gained popularity as essential tools within the field
of education (Rachmadtullah et al. 2020). LMSs help to create, deploy, and maintain
fully digital forms of education and provide a meaningful e-learning experience for
users of such systems. Learning management systems (LMSs) provide many benefits
and advantages to teachers (e.g. by facilitating the tracking of learner progress and
performance) and to students (e.g. by integrating social learning experiences into
learning strategy) (Sarrab et al. 2013; Zheng et al. 2018) the effective and efficient
use of such technologies depends on prerequisite skills such as digital literacy and
information literacy (Avcı and Ergün 2019; Tang and Chaw 2016).
Moreover, other authors such as (Turnbull et al. 2019) stated that learning manage-
ment systems (LMSs) not only provide content to learners and enable to (i) disseminate
knowledge, (ii) assess the learner competency, (iii) record the learner attainment, but
also facilitate timely and accurate communication between learners and teachers and
provide support for online social communities. All in all, we argue that in the higher
education context, the development of a set of competencies that enables efficient and
effective use of digital technologies is critical requisite for students’ success and
lifelong learning.
While, in our information-based society, literacy skills have become survival skills
for economic development and community well-being (Desjardins 2001). Within
higher education literacy is considered an essential enabler for problem solving, critical
thinking, lifelong learning, and to function adequately for both veteran educators
(Pastore and Andrade 2019; Záhorec et al. 2019), and new generations of students
(Gullikson 2006; Leahy and Dolan 2010). Blau and Shamir-Inbal (2017, p. 781) found
that the use of ICT in their lessons and enhancing their pedagogical skills, their digital
Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:3893–3915 3895

competence all impacts the general ICT integration into education. Furthermore, as
distance education has become a trend in modern teaching and learning, research on
intention to use digital technology once again has attracted the attention of several
scholars from different disciplines (e.g. Lazar et al. 2020; Liu et al. 2020). As such, not
only is it important to investigate the impact of digital and information literacy skills on
education but concurrently to pay equal attention to individuals’ intention to use digital
technology. In this paper, digital literacy refers to “the awareness, attitude and ability of
individuals to appropriately use digital tools and facilities to identify, access, manage,
integrate, evaluate, analyse and synthesise digital resources” (Martin 2006, p. 155).
Information literacy refers to “the understanding and set of abilities enabling individ-
uals to recognise when information is needed and have the capacity to locate, evaluate
and use effectively the needed information” (American Library Association (ALA)
2000). However, few studies have been conducted on these aspects. Within higher
education, these two aspects— (i) literacy skills and (ii) intention to use digital
technologies for teaching and learning purposes (e.g. Anthonysamy et al. 2020;
Jeffrey et al. 2011; Nikou et al. 2018)—have been extensively investigated, but seldom
together.
In addition, from a theoretical standpoint, different models have been used to assess
intention to use digital technology within higher education. For instance, Almaiah et al.
(2019), employed an integrated model of the unified theory of acceptance and use of
technology (UTAUT), to assess university students’ intention to use handheld devices
for learning (i.e. mobile learning or “m-learning”). To investigate literacy skills among
teachers, Georgina and Hosford (2009, p. 695), examined university staff’s perception
towards digital skills and found that empowering a university-wide professoriate to
enhance both their information literacy and technology literacy skills is the new goal in
higher education. Regarding students’ literacy skills, recent studies have indicated that
literacy skills play a vital role in students’ education and performance (e.g. Foo et al.
2014; Kanniainen et al. 2019). For example, Kanniainen et al. (2019), found that
literacy skills impact students’ online research and comprehension (ORC) performance.
To this end, the main objectives of this research were twofold: (1) based on the
existing theoretical models (e.g. Ng 2012; Venkatesh et al. 2003), it aimed to develop
an integrated conceptual model to assess the factors that influence Finnish university
staff and students’ intention to use digital technologies, and (2) through an empirical
research, it aimed to create new information and knowledge concerning the interplay
between literacy skills and intention to use digital technology. Primarily, this research
was conducted to answer the following question: “To what extent do the literacy skills
of university staff and students influence their intentions to use technology, and how
does effort expectancy and performance expectancy mediate these relationships”?
To assess the above-mentioned question, a series of hypotheses were proposed, and
data was collected via an online questionnaire completed by university staff (e.g.
professors and researchers) and students. The data was analysed through structural
equation modelling (SEM) using SmartPLS v.3.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: section two provides a literature
review; section three, based on the review results, describes a theory-based conceptual
model and puts forward several hypotheses. Section four describes the research
methodology followed by research results. Section six provides the discussion and
section seven offers a final conclusion.
3896 Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:3893–3915

2 Literacy competences

While there is no commonly accepted definition of literacy or what it means to be

literate (Keefe and Copeland 2011), the concept of literacy is traditionally thought of as
the ability to read and write. Literacy skills are fostered in the educational system; they
are intertwined with our everyday activities and can be utilised in measuring a
population’s level of education. However, alongside the development of our contem-
porary society, often referred to a knowledge-based economy, the concept of literacy
has evolved and gone past its traditional definition. For example, the concept of twenty-
first century digital skills, which includes abilities such as collaboration, communica-
tion, digital literacy, citizenship, problem solving, critical thinking, interpersonal capa-
bilities, creativity and productivity has extensively been discussed in the literature
(Dede 2010; Van Laar et al. 2017). Lewin and McNicol (2015) argued that twenty-
first century skills are essential individual competencies in our contemporary digital
workplace. Moreover, Shields and Chugh (2018) critically reviewed the concept of
twenty-first century skills and argued that there is a strong rationale for the teaching of
twenty-first century skills to students. The authors claimed that it cannot be assumed
that because learners in the twenty-first century use Information and Communications
Technology (ICT) in their education, they know how to use the technology effectively
and efficiently for performing different activities (p. 1105).
In the context of twenty-first century skills, forms of literacy such as information
literacy (e.g. Eisenberg 2008; Lloyd 2006), and digital literacy (e.g. Eshet-Alkalai
2004; Ng 2012), are now regarded as highly important in terms of achieving success
in higher education. In this paper, while we acknowledge the importance of twenty-first
century skills in the higher education context, we specifically focus on information and
digital literacy as the development of such abilities not only is critical requisite for
students’ success in online learning environments, but also the acquisition of these
skills is one of the necessary tools for facilitating lifelong learning (Ala-Mutka 2011).
Information and digital literacy skills provide an array of abilities—for example, to (i)
access and search for information efficiently and effectively using a variety of digital
tools, (ii) critically evaluate the reliability of sources for an academic context, (iii) filter,
manage, and organise information from a wide variety of sources, and (iv) understand
how to use digital tools for referencing to avoid plagiarism. Abilities in relation to
evaluation and effective use of information have always been a central component of
learning but recently have reached a new level of significance in the modern era as they
have morphed into a “survival skill” (Eshet-Alkalai 2004).
As defined by Eshet-Alkalai (2004), information literacy encompasses “the cogni-
tive skills that consumers use to evaluate information in an educated and effective
manner” (p. 101). An alternative definition by the American Library Association
(American Library Association (ALA) 2000), on the other hand, states that information
literacy encompasses abilities related to recognising when information is needed and
then being able to locate, evaluate, and use information effectively. Information literacy
has received scholarly attention regarding all levels of formal education, as studies have
been conducted on topics ranging from early childhood education to tertiary education
(e.g. Dunn 2002; Gross and Latham 2012; Heider 2009; von Loh and Henkel 2014).
Digital literacy, on the other hand, encompasses “the multiplicity of skills associated
with the use of digital technologies” (Ng 2012, p. 1066). The utilisation of digital
Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:3893–3915 3897

technologies may involve the employment of hardware and software for varying tasks
within a multitude of activities, an evident example being for teaching and learning
purposes. Colwell et al. (2013), stated that digital literacy skills are increasingly
important in developing informed citizens who can critically evaluate information
and ideas. Other authors such as Jacobs (2006), argued that digital literacy skills could
have implications for how younger generations are being prepared for participation in
today’s society. The concept of digital literacy has; however, caused ambiguity owing
to the wide usage within differing contexts (Eshet-Alkalai 2004). To combat this
notion, scholars have proposed frameworks aimed at clarifying the process. For
example, Ng (2012), considers the concept of digital literacy as the intersection of a
technical dimension, a cognitive dimension, and a socio-emotional dimension. In
addition to information literacy, digital literacy has also gained its share of scholarly
attention in relation to the educational setting (e.g. Lea and Jones 2011; Meyers et al.
2013).
To date, the concept of literacy has been explored as an area of research within the
context of a technology acceptance and in association with UTAUT model.
Mohammadyari and Singh (2015), have looked at digital literacy and the impact of
UTAUT constructs on intention to continue using IT as the proximal predictor of
performance. The authors hypothesised that digital literacy impacts performance
through performance expectancy and effort expectancy. The constructs of performance
expectancy and effort expectancy originate from the unified theory of acceptance and
use of technology (UTAUT) model developed by Venkatesh et al. (2003). The UTAUT
model was originally developed within an organisational context and a consumer
context in order to investigate use behaviour. Mohammadyari and Singh (2015), altered
some of the UTAUT constructs, resulting in a model that consisted of performance
expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, continuance intention to use IT, and
performance, in addition to digital literacy. The findings indicated that digital literacy
has a positive effect on performance expectancy and effort expectancy, whereas
performance expectancy affects continuance intention to use IT, which in turn affects
overall performance (Mohammadyari and Singh 2015). However, further research and
development on the topic are needed and that digital literacy requires an expanded
research focus from the perspective of information technology usage as an evolving
skill (Mohammadyari and Singh 2015).

3 Theoretical background

The present research extends UTAUT by including digital literacy and information
literacy as key predictors of the intention to use digital technologies for teaching and
learning purposes. Digital literacy and information literacy are particularly relevant in
the context of higher education because they allow us to conceptualise the use of the
educational digital technologies as an evolving skill. Despite the accolades given to
UTAUT and UTAUT2 constructs for their predictive ability, and based on the context
of the study, constructs such as hedonic motivation, habit, and social influence have
been deliberately excluded from the model. For instance, use behaviour, which is the
outcome variable in the UTAUT models (Venkatesh et al. 2003; Venkatesh et al.
2012), was not selected for the present study because we did not investigate the actual
3898 Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:3893–3915

usage, but rather the intention to use. Hedonic motivation was excluded owing to the
fact that university staff and students are required to utilise digital technologies in their
work tasks; thus, assessing the pleasure derived from the use of technology was less
relevant in the context of the research at hand. The same reasoning was applied to habit,
as the usage of certain digital technologies is dictated by circumstances. The constructs
of social influence and facilitating conditions were excluded, as they are external
variables and thus not considered to occur within the realms of information literacy
and digital literacy. Finally, the construct of price value was excluded owing to this
research being carried out at some Finnish universities, meaning that staff and students
had free access to technologies on campus.
Figure 1 shows our research model. We adapted UTAUT by including digital
literacy (DL) and information literacy (IL) as additional predictors of university staff
and students’ intention to use digital technologies (INT) in addition to the two core
constructs of UTAUT, performance expectancy (PE) and effort expectancy (EE). The
following sections detail our reasons for these alterations in the model and explicate the
hypotheses in the model.

3.1 Information literacy

According to the American Library Association (ALA) (2000), information literacy is

defined as abilities related to recognising when information is needed and then being
able to locate, evaluate, and use information effectively. As noted by Johnston and
Webber (2003), IL emphasis on recognising an information need, evaluating what is
found, and using the information effectively. The relationship between IL and intention
to use digital technology has been investigated by, for example, Alateyah et al. (2013)
and Kong et al. (2019). Furthermore, previous studies by Nikou et al. (2018, 2019),
have indicated a significant relationship between IL and attitude towards the use of
digital technologies, and attitude in turn was found to have a significant effect on
intention to use. Within the context of the UTAUT framework, the influence of its
constructs on IL has received some scholarly attention (e.G. Ali and Gupta 2019).
In the present paper, we propose that a higher level of IL has a direct effect on
intention to use digital technology, but also positively affects the productivity of
university students and staff. In other words, a higher level of IL will influence staff

Fig. 1 Conceptual model

Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:3893–3915 3899

and students’ performance and effort expectations in relation to using digital technol-
ogy for teaching and learning purposes. Thus, these relationships may be represented
by the following hypotheses:

H1a: Information literacy has a positive effect on intention to use digital

technology
H1b: Information literacy has a positive effect on performance expectancy
H1c: Information literacy has a positive effect on effort expectancy

3.2 Digital literacy

In this paper, digital literacy (DL) is characterised as a mixture of technical, cognitive,

and socio-emotional factors associated with the utilisation of digital technologies (Ng
2012). A relationship between DL and intention to use has been investigated in the
research of, for example, Bayrakdaroğlu and Bayrakdaroğlu (2017). Moreover, previ-
ous research by Nikou et al. (2018) has indicated that a significant relationship exists
between certain components of DL (i.e. technical and social-emotional factors) and
attitude towards the use of digital technologies, and in turn towards intention to use
digital technologies. In the context of the UTAUT2 model, prior research by
Mohammadyari and Singh (2015), has indicated that DL is positively related to
performance expectancy and effort expectancy. Therefore, we propose that a higher
level of DL not only has a direct effect on intention to use digital technology but also
positively influences the productivity of university staff and students. In other words,
DL has a direct positive impact on staff and students’ performance and effort expec-
tations in relation to using digital technology for teaching and learning purposes. Thus,
these relationships may be represented by the following hypotheses:

H2a: Digital literacy has a positive effect on intention to use digital technologies
H2b: Digital literacy has a positive effect on performance expectancy
H3c: Digital literacy has a positive effect on effort expectancy

3.3 Performance expectancy

Performance expectancy (PE) refers to the extent to which using digital technologies
benefits university staff and students in performing their teaching and learning activ-
ities. The definition used in this research is an adaption of the PE construct used in the
UTAUT model (Venkatesh et al. 2003), whereby the construct has been used within an
organisational context and a consumer context. PE has received a varied level of
scholarly attention within the educational context (e.g. Abu-Al-Aish and Love 2013;
Chen 2011; Diep et al. 2016; Nassuora 2012). In terms of the effect of PE on intention,
previous research has indicated that PE can indeed be a significant predictor of
intention (e.g. Ghalandari 2012).
We propose that an individual with high levels of IL and DL skills may expect to put in
less effort while using digital technology for teaching and learning activities, and simulta-
neously expect to exhibit a better performance. The hypothesis concerning this construct
3900 Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:3893–3915

would indicate the existence of performance benefits achieved by its use (Chávez Herting
et al. 2020). Consequently, this relationship may be represented by the following hypothesis:

H3: Performance expectancy has a positive effect on intention to use digital

technology

3.4 Effort expectancy

Effort expectancy (EE) refers to the extent of ease associated with university staff and
students’ use of digital technology. The definition is likewise modified from its original
context in the UTAUT model (Venkatesh et al. 2003). The EE has also received its share
of scholarly attention within the educational context (e.g. Abu-Al-Aish and Love 2013;
Chen 2011; Nassuora 2012). In terms of the effect of EE on intention to use technology,
prior research (Ghalandari 2012; Lowenthal 2010), suggests that EE is a significant
predictor of intention. In university contexts, the adoption of digital technologies may
involve less time directed towards academic responsibilities such as teaching (research)
and learning (Liu et al. 2020). In other words, if the use of technology requires a greater
effort than non-use, one can speculate that use decreases accordingly. We theorise that
an individual with high levels of IL and DL skills may expect to put in less effort while
using digital technology for teaching and learning activities, and simultaneously expect
to have a higher degree of ease associated with their use of technology. Therefore, this
relationship may be represented by the following hypothesis:

H4: Effort expectancy has a positive effect on intention to use digital technology

3.5 Intention to use digital technology

Intention to use as an outcome variable has been used in seminal studies on technology
use (Ajzen 1985; Davis 1989; Fishbein and Ajzen 1975; Venkatesh et al. 2012). In the
research at hand, intention to use technology (INT) refers to university staff and
students’ intention to use digital technologies for teaching and learning purposes. In
this research, we aimed to investigate how intention to use digital technology can be
affected by information literacy and digital literacy while concurrently accounting for
performance expectancy and effort expectancy. Moreover, we also assessed whether
PE and EE mediate the relationships between DL and IL and intention to use.

4 Research methodology

The proposed conceptual model is assessed through partial least squares structural
equation modelling (PLS-SEM). This approach is appropriate for exploratory research
when seeking to develop theories (Hair et al. 2017). According to Hair et al. (2019)
PLS-SEM facilitates the opportunity to “estimate complex models with many con-
structs, indicator variables and structural paths without imposing distributional assump-
tions on the data” (p. 2).
Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:3893–3915 3901

4.1 Measures

To examine the path relationships among five constructs in the model, an online survey
was designed. Items for measuring performance expectancy, effort expectancy and
intention to use were borrowed from Venkatesh et al. (2003). Digital literacy and
information literacy were measured using items from Ng (2012) and Ahmad et al.
(2020) and Kurbanoglu et al. (2006). In total, 34 items and their contents were adapted
for the use of digital technologies for teaching and learning purposes.

4.2 Data collection

To attain the opinions and experiences of the research target group—university staff
and students—data was collected in June 2019 over the course of five weeks. The
questionnaire consisted of three sections: questions concerning the respondent back-
ground, conceptual model construct items, and an open-text field where respondents
could provide any additional insights regarding their experiences. The background
information questions addressed respondent gender, age, access to digital technologies,
frequency of use of digital technology, and self-reported proficiency level with digital
tools. In terms of the items used to measure the construct in the model, respondents
were advised to answer questions on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from one
(“Strongly disagree”) to seven (“Strongly agree”). Pilot testing and the respondent
debriefing were conducted with a small group of participants (university lecturers,
professors, and students) before distributing the questionnaire to assess reliability and
comprehension (Hess and Singer 1995). The questionnaire was then distributed
through various channels, including survey invitations through university staff and
students’ emails and university-related groups on social media sites. Additionally,
flyers were distributed at four campuses of three Finnish universities in Finland.

5 Data analysis

Over 500 invitations were sent to potential respondents and we received 257 responses.
After the removal of unengaged respondents and incomplete responses, 249 responses
were eligible for further analysis. In terms of the respondents’ current position within
the university, the majority—153 (61.4%)—reported to be students, 90 (36.1%) were
teaching and research staff, eight (3.2%) were administration staff, and 29 (11.6%)
employees had other duties at the university. The question assessing occupation within
the university consisted of a multiple-choice matrix, meaning that respondents who
identified both as staff and as administrative personnel did not have to choose between
the two roles.

5.1 Descriptive analysis

Of 249 respondents, 147 (59.0%) females and 99 (39.8%) males, the remaining three
(1.2%) identifying as “other”, 153 were students and 96 were university staff and
others. The majority of the respondents (58.6%) were aged 20–29 years. In terms of the
highest level of education 87 (34.9%) were reported to hold a bachelor’s degree, 57
3902 Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:3893–3915

(22.9%) a PhD, 53 (21.3%) a master’s degree, and 49 (19.7%) a high school diploma.
Table 1 shows the descriptive results regarding the access to digital devices. Respon-
dents were asked to rate their access (use) to smartphone, tablet, desktop PC, laptop and
wearable devices in their day-to-day activities, ranging from “I do not use” to “Several
times each day.” For example, almost all respondents reported that they use their
smartphones several times each day. The highest average use of digital devices was
smartphones (M = 4.94) and laptops (M = 4.31), while the least used digital devices
were wearable devices (M = 1.68) and tablets (M = 2.05). When we compared the
results between university staff and students, some interesting results emerged. For
instance, it was clear that as much as two-thirds of the university staff used tablets,
whereas 90 students indicated that they did not use tablets at all. Among students, 49
indicated that they do not use desktop PCs, whereas only 16 university staff reported
that they do not use PCs anymore.
Moreover, as shown in Table 2, we asked respondents to report the frequency of use
of digital technologies (software and applications) in their day-to-day activities, ranging
from “I do not use” to “Several times each day.” The results showed that the most
frequently used application was reported to be email (M = 4.77), followed by social
media (M = 4.57). When we compared staff and students’ frequency of use of software
(application), 129 students indicated that they use social media and 113 indicated that
they use email applications several times each day. The results for the university staff
showed that they all use email applications on daily basis and 62 reported that they use
social media applications several times each day.
Table 3 shows the descriptive results regarding the respondents’ proficiency with
digital technologies (software or applications). The respondents were asked to report
their level of proficiency with (word processor, spreadsheet, PPT slides, file sharing,
photo editing, website management tools, mobile calendar, email applications and
social media platforms) on a scale ranging from one (“Not proficient at all”) to seven
(“Very proficient”). The results show that the majority of the respondents were
confident that they had a high level of proficiency with such digital technologies
(software and applications). For example, the average proficiency rate regarding the
use of word processors was (M = 5.91), followed the use of social media (M = 5.52).
However, the highest proficiency rate concerned the use of email (M = 6.11). The

Table 1 Access (use) to digital technology

Self-rating report Access to digital technologies (%)

Smartphone Tablet Desktop PC Laptop Wearable devices

I do not use .4 51.8 27.6 1.2 78.2

A few times a month or less .8 21.0 22.2 6.6 3.9
A few times a week 0 8.9 10.1 13.6 1.6
About once a day 1.2 7.4 5.4 17.5 3.9
Several times each day 97.7 10.9 34.6 61.1 12.5
Mean and Std. deviation 4.94 (.38) 2.05 (1.37) 2.97 (1.67) 4.31 (1.01) 1.68 (1.41)
Table 2 Frequency of software (application) use

Self-rating report Frequency of software (application) use (%)

Word processor Spreadsheet PPT Slides File sharing Photo editing Website management Mobile calendar Email application Social media

I do not use 0 7.8 2.7 1.9 35.0 63.4 11.3 0 3.1

A few times a month or less 12.1 31.5 51.4 26.1 42.0 27.2 15.2 .4 2.7
A few times a week 33.5 30.4 29.2 34.2 16.7 4.7 20.6 2.7 3.9
Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:3893–3915

About once a day 13.6 10.9 8.2 18.7 2.7 3.1 21.8 16.7 14.4
Several times each day 40.9 19.5 8.6 19.1 3.5 1.6 31.1 80.2 75.9
Mean & Std. deviation 4.83 (1.09) 3.03 2.68 (.98) 3.27 (1.10) 1.97 (.97) 1.52 3.46 (1.36) 4.77 (.51) 4.57 (.93)
(1.23) (.85)
3903
 3904

Table 3 Proficiency with digital technology

Self-rating report Proficiency with digital technology (%)

Word processor Spreadsheet PPT Slides File sharing Photo editing Website management Mobile calendar Email application Social media

1: Not proficient at all 0 3.1 .4 .8 21.4 41.2 4.3 .4 3.5

2: 0 8.9 .8 4.7 17.5 14.0 5.1 0 1.9
3: 1.2 17.5 5.4 7.0 17.9 16.3 7.4 0 4.7
4: 6.6 21.4 19.5 11.7 17.9 15.2 13.6 6.2 8.9
5: 24.1 20.6 30.0 24.9 11.7 5.8 19.1 15.6 20.6
6: 36.6 16.3 24.9 26.5 10.1 3.9 24.1 37.4 30.4
7: Very proficient 31.5 12.1 19.1 24.5 3.5 3.5 26.5 40.5 30.0
Mean & Std. deviation 5.91 (.95) 4.48 5.29 (1.21) 5.33 (1.44) 3.25 (1.76) 2.56 5.16 (1.69) 6.11 (.95) 5.52 (1.5)
(1.6) (1.7)
Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:3893–3915
Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:3893–3915 3905

Table 4 Descriptive statistics, convergent validity, and internal consistency and reliability of items

Constructs Item Factor loadings Mean Std Cronbach’s Alpha CR AVE

Digital literacy DL1 0.85 4.96 1.55 0.91 0.92 0.61

DL2 0.88 5.38 1.32
DL3 0.85 4.80 1.46
DL4 0.86 4.59 1.64
DL5 0.76 5.37 1.32
DL7 0.70 5.67 1.11
DL8 0.71 5.52 1.28
DL9 0.67 5.52 1.26
Effort expectancy EE1 0.94 5.58 1.30 0.95 0.96 0.86
EE2 0.92 5.44 1.25
EE3 0.92 5.46 1.27
EE4 0.94 5.35 1.33
Information literacy IL1 0.75 5.77 1.03 0.92 0.93 0.58
IL10 0.77 5.58 1.18
IL2 0.79 5.79 1.03
IL3 0.71 5.86 1.02
IL4 0.78 5.92 1.16
IL5 0.73 5.87 1.07
IL6 0.80 5.44 1.34
IL7 0.73 4.99 1.62
IL8 0.75 5.01 1.64
IL9 0.81 5.70 1.21
Intention to use digital technology Int_1 0.83 6.48 0.89 0.85 0.90 0.64
Int_2 0.90 6.49 0.85
Int_4 0.79 6.50 0.93
Int_5 0.83 6.60 0.81
Int_6 0.64 6.13 1.13
Performance expectancy PE1 0.85 6.49 0.86 0.85 0.90 0.69
PE2 0.88 6.20 1.05
PE3 0.85 6.23 0.99
PE4 0.75 5.56 1.31

Note: CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted

lowest proficiency rate concerned the use of website management tools (M = 2.56),
which was to be expected owing to the context of this research and the respondents’
positions at the time of the study. When we compared staff and students’ proficiency
levels regarding the use of digital technologies, 63 students indicated that they were
very proficient in the use of email applications, but only 53 indicated that they were
very proficient in the use of social media platforms. This finding was unexpected, as we
assumed that students of recent generations spend much of their time using different
social media platforms. Regarding the university staff’s proficiency with digital
3906 Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:3893–3915

Table 5 Discriminant validity according to the Fornell–Larcker criterion

Construct DL EE IL INT PE

Digital literacy 0.805

Effort expectancy 0.818 0.926
Information literacy 0.596 0.467 0.772
Intention to use digital technology 0.390 0.446 0.417 0.800
Performance expectancy 0.461 0.525 0.379 0.583 0.834

technologies, seven indicated that they were not proficient with social media at all,
while 40 indicated that they were very proficient.

5.2 Measurement model results

To assess the research model, we assessed both the measurement model and structural
model. The measurement model’s reliability and validity were determined through the
examination of outer loadings, composite reliability (CR) and convergent validity as
presented by average variance extracted (AVE). According to Hair et al. (2011), the
values of the outer loadings, CR, and AVE should be above 0.70, 0.70, and 0.50,
respectively. The values obtained for part of the data analysis comply with recommen-
dations. However, a few items had low factor loadings and were eliminated from
further analysis. In addition, all the Cronbach’s alpha values were above the threshold
of 0.70 (see Table 4 for more information).

5.3 Discriminant validity

The discriminant validity was examined according to the Fornell and Larcker (1981)
criterion. As shown in Table 5, the discriminant validity was confirmed.
We additionally assessed the discriminant validity via the heterotrait-monotrait ratio
of correlations (HTMT). This alternative to the classical criterion can be applied to
measure discriminant validity by comparing formerly outlined threshold levels, such as
0.85 (Kline 2011) or 0.90 (Teo et al. 2008). As shown in Table 6, the results show that
the discriminant validity was confirmed.

Table 6 Discriminant validity according to the HTMT

Construct DL EE IL INT PE

Digital literacy
Effort expectancy 0.875
Information literacy 0.651 0.481
Intention to use digital technology 0.449 0.501 0.447
Performance expectancy 0.522 0.587 0.408 0.682
Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:3893–3915 3907

Fig. 2 Structural model results. Note: * p value <0.01; ** p value <0.005; *** p value <0.001

5.4 Structural model results

To test the hypotheses and assess the statistical significance of the path coefficients in
the research model, we used a structural equation modelling approach. PLS-SEM relies
on the SRMR (standardized root mean square residual) value for model testing, of
which the conservative recommended threshold is 0.08. In our data, the value for the
model fit is 0.07. The intention to use digital technology is explained by a variance of
40%. Both constructs of the UTAUT model—performance expectancy and effort
expectancy —can be explained by variances of 27% and 67%, respectively.

5.5 Hypothesis testing

Different alternative models were tested, and the model presented in Fig. 2 is the
optimal model and best fits the data. The SEM results revealed a direct significant
relationship between information literacy and intention to use digital technology (β =
0.21, t = 3.071, p < 0.001); thus, H1a was supported by the model. Additionally, the
SEM results revealed no direct significant relationships between information literacy
and effort expectancy as well as information literacy and effort expectancy. Thus, both
H2b and H2c were rejected by the model.
Furthermore, the SEM results revealed that the path relationship between digital
literacy and intention to use digital technology was not significant, thus rejecting
H2a in the model. Moreover, the SEM results revealed a direct significant relation-
ship between digital literacy and performance expectancy (β = 0.48, t = 6.678,
p < 0.001), thereby supporting H2b in the model. The SEM results revealed that
the relationship between digital literacy and effort expectancy was also significant
(β = 0.85, t = 18.191, p < 0.001); thus, H2c is supported by the model. Moreover,
the SEM results revealed a direct significant relationship between performance
expectancy and intention to use digital technology (β = 0.47, t = 8.591, p < 0.001),
thus providing theoretical support for H3 in the model. Finally, the SEM results
revealed a direct significant relationship between effort expectancy and intention to
use digital technology (β = 0.18, t = 2.024, p < 0.001); thus, H4 is supported by the
model.
We also performed multi-group analysis to examine if the path relationships were
different between students and staff. The MGA did not show any significant difference
between the two groups except for one path. Such that the relationship between effort
3908 Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:3893–3915

expectancy to intention to use digital technology was significant only for the students
(β = 0.28, t = 1.991, p < 0.05).

5.6 Mediation effect

To examine the mediation effects of effort expectancy and performance expectancy on

the paths between DL and IL to intention to use technology, we performed a mediation
test. The results showed that both EE and PE mediate the relationship between DL and
intention to use technology. This indicates that although we could not establish a direct
relationship in this path, the entire effect of DL to intention to use was fully mediated
through these two constructs. The paths between DL-EE-INT (β = 0.17, t = 2.116,
p < 0.05) and the path between DL- PE-INT (β = 0.17, t = 4.434, p < 0.001) were found
to be significant. Moreover, the mediation test results showed that the path between IL
and intention to use was only mediated through PE (β = 0.08, t = 2.090, p < 0.05) and
that EE did not mediate this path relationship.

6 Discussion

The use of digital technology for teaching and learning purposes seems to have become
a common practice in university context. The conceptual model presented in this paper
arises from (i) the need to highlight the importance of literacy skills in the context of
technology use among university staff and students, and (ii) the call by Mohammadyari
and Singh (2015), for further research on digital literacy. As a response to the said need
and call, the research model sought to assess the intention to use digital technologies
through a novel approach of combining technology adoption constructs with informa-
tion literacy and digital literacy constructs. It has been argued that the research on
literacy skills is a highly contemporary topic within higher education and a vital
component in students’ education and performance (e.g. Foo et al. 2014; Kanniainen
et al. 2019).
In this paper, we proposed that a higher level of IL would have a direct effect on
intention to use digital technology, as well as a positive impact on the productivity of
university students and staff. In other words, we stated that a higher level of IL would
influence the staff and students’ performance and effort expectations in relation to using
digital technology for teaching and learning purposes. Our findings confirmed two of
the three hypotheses, as positive relationships were identified between IL and intention
to use, as well as IL and performance expectancy. The relationship between IL and
intention to use expands upon the findings of Nikou et al. (2018, 2019) where a
relationship was found between IL and attitude towards the use of digital technologies,
as well as attitude and intention to use. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there is a
lack of studies to date confirming a relationship between IL and performance expec-
tancy hence, there is a lack of alignment between the findings of our research and prior
literature.
As with DL, we suggested that a higher level of DL would not only have a direct
effect on intention to use digital technology, but also a positive impact on the
productivity of university staff and students. In other words, we stated that DL would
have a direct positive impact on staff and students’ performance and effort expectations
Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:3893–3915 3909

regarding the use of digital technology for teaching and learning purposes. The results
of our research confirmed two of the three relationships, as we identified positive
relationships between DL and performance expectancy, as well as DL and effort
expectancy. These findings align with the findings of previous studies, e.g.
Mohammadyari and Singh (2015).
Furthermore, we proposed that an individual with high levels of IL and DL skills
might expect to put in less effort while using digital technologies for teaching and
learning activities, and simultaneously expect to have a better performance. Subse-
quently, guided by the relationship within the UTAUT framework (Venkatesh et al.
2003), we hypothesised that performance expectancy would have a positive relation-
ship with intention to use digital technology. Our findings confirmed this hypothesis,
thus aligning the result with those of Ghalandari (2012) and Chávez Herting et al.
(2020). Additionally, we theorised that an individual with high levels of IL and DL
skills may expect to put in less effort while using digital technology for teaching and
learning activities, and simultaneously expect to have a higher degree of ease associated
with their use of technology. Subsequently, guided by the relationship within the
UTAUT framework (Venkatesh et al. 2003), we hypothesised that effort expectancy
would have a positive relationship with intention to use digital technology. The
findings of our research confirmed this hypothesis, which aligns with the results of
previous studies conducted by Ghalandari (2012) and Lowenthal (2010).
Moreover, the descriptive data analysis revealed some interesting aspects of the
sample. In terms of the sample as a whole, when asked about access to digital
technologies, the highest scoring variables when accounting for the mean were
smartphones and laptops. In terms of the frequency of software application use,
Microsoft Word processors and email services scored the highest. This was also the
case with proficiency of software application use, as email services and Microsoft word
processing services received the highest mean values. Clear differences were also
identified between university staff and students, such as the fact that the use of tablets
and desktop computers is more prominent among staff. In addition, another interesting
finding was the fact that within the student sample, the number of respondents who
considered themselves very proficient with email services was higher than the number
of students who considered themselves very proficient with social media applications.

7 Conclusion

By applying performance expectancy and effort expectancy from the UTAUT frame-
work (Venkatesh et al. 2003) accompanied by information literacy and digital literacy,
this research builds upon prior literature through the development of a new conceptual
model that aimed to explore university staff and students’ intention to use digital
technologies. The assessment of the developed model was then conducted using
PLS-SEM. The research conducted in this paper could be considered a response to
Silber-Varod et al. (2019), who stated that despite the importance of digital skills for
effective learning in educational settings, research literature in this domain is marginal.
The results of the current research provide support to earlier findings such as (Aavakare
and Nikou 2020; Lea and Jones 2011), indicating that there is a complex interrelation-
ship between literacies and technologies or (Nikou et al. 2020; Rosman et al. 2018),
3910 Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:3893–3915

who indicated that information literacy skills do not necessarily imply that students
employ the newly acquired skills for their own searches. Our findings are also
supported by earlier results of (Mercader 2020, p. 5144), who stated that training and
the level of digital skills are two factors that should be considered in the incorporation
of digital technologies in higher education. The results of this research have several
important implications both for curriculum design and for higher education policy.
Firstly, the results show that both expectations regarding effort and performance have
positive impacts on intention to use digital technology. These findings align with those
of prior literature (Ghalandari 2012; Lowenthal 2010), and in the research at hand, the
results reveal that university staff and students’ intention to use digital technologies for
teaching and learning purposes is impacted by their perceived expectations regarding
performance and effort.
Secondly, the results indicate that a direct significant relationship exists between
information literacy and the intention to use digital technology. This finding is aligned
with those of prior findings such as (Rosman et al. 2018, p. 97), showing that the
literacy skills are important for self-regulated learning since they allow individuals to
construct their knowledge. Meanwhile, no such relationship could be identified be-
tween digital literacy and intention to use, despite our initial expectation. The lack of a
significant relationship between digital literacy and intention to use could possibly be
explained through the context of the research as well as the nature of the respondents
participating in this research project. The sample consisted mainly of university
students (millennials often known as digital natives) and university staff. These groups
of people are assumed to be digitally literate individuals as they use, and have access to,
various digital tools and applications in their daily teaching and learning tasks. There-
fore, for them the use of digital technologies in their learning and teaching is a natural
behaviour. The SEM, however, indicate that the impact of digital literacy on intention
to use is mediated via performance expectancy and effort expectancy, thus establishing
partial mediations. Some authors such as (Colwell et al. 2013), argue that digital
literacy skills and capabilities are important for the students, as it seems locating and
evaluating information found on the Internet are most challenging for them and
teachers should have realistic expectations.
Thirdly, the findings of our research highlight specifically the importance of infor-
mation literacy in relation to university staff and students’ intention to use digital
technologies. This is consistent with prior research of Colwell et al. (2013), who
indicated that information literacy is important, as many students are reluctant to
critically evaluate information found at multiple sites. Thus, there exists a need to
emphasise the development of university staff and students’ literacy skills in order to
cope with the struggle within higher education environments mentioned by Gupta et al.
(2020)—that is, to find the optimal ways to truly reap the benefits of educational digital
technologies. Going beyond the promotion of digital tools within education, policy
makers need to account and advocate for the literacy skills which ultimately will help
with the acceptance of digital technologies within higher education institutes, as the
effective and efficient use of these technologies depends on prerequisite skills such as
digital literacy and information literacy (Avcı and Ergün 2019; Tang and Chaw 2016).
Concludingly, strategies should be developed to encourage the progression of the
dimensions of literacy that will facilitate the leap towards future educational technol-
ogies and expectations of future educational environments.
Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:3893–3915 3911

Fourthly, for educational environments, selection of the relevant digital technology

and harmonising it with the overall teaching and learning strategy is crucial for
universities in order to reap the full benefits of emerging technologies. In addition, it
is pivotal to understand the factors that influence university staff and students’ intention
to use digital technologies in their teaching and learning activities. The results of our
research indicated that those higher education environments that nurture their em-
ployees and students and focus on holistic development also indirectly improve their
core activities: teaching and learning.

7.1 Limitations and future work

As the data for this research was gathered via a self-completion survey, it is necessary
to consider the limitation brought up by the inability to oversee respondent quality.
Owing to the closed-ended survey questions, respondent answers were naturally
limited. Further research could assess this limitation by incorporating qualitative
approaches and expand the research in ways that allow for more open-ended answers
(semi-structured interviews). In addition, further research on the topic should be
conducted within other university settings, as the research at hand comprised of four
campuses of three Finnish universities; therefore, generalising the findings is difficult.
Thus, the knowledge on the subject matter could be expanded culturally and even
comparatively between different types of university settings. Finally, the presented
conceptual model could be elaborated upon through the inclusion of other constructs,
such as computer self-efficacy.

Code availability Not available.

Authors’ contributions All authors have equally contributed to the manuscript.

Funding Open Access funding provided by Abo Akademi University (ABO).

Data availability Available per request.

Declarations

Conflicts of interest/competing interests We have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which
permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and
indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the
article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory
regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
3912 Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:3893–3915

References

Aavakare, M., & Nikou, S. (2020). Challenging the concept of digital Nativeness–through the assessment of
information literacy and digital literacy. In international conference on well-being in the information
society (pp. 211–225). Cham: Springer.
Abu-Al-Aish, A., & Love, S. (2013). Factors influencing students’ acceptance of m-learning: An investigation
in higher education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(5), 82–
107.
Ahmad, F., Widén, G., & Huvila, I. (2020). The impact of workplace information literacy on organizational
innovation: An empirical study. International Journal of Information Management, 51. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.102041.
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behaviour. In action control (pp. 11–39).
Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Ala-Mutka, K. (2011). Mapping digital competence: Towards a conceptual understanding European
Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Seville, 1-60.
Retrieved from: ftp://s-jrcsvqpx102p.jrc.es/pub/EURdoc/JRC67075_TN.pdf. Accessed 06 Feb 2021
Alateyah, S., Crowder, R. M., & Wills, G. B. (2013). Factors affecting the citizen’s intention to adopt e-
government in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Social, Human Science and Engineering, 7(9), 80–
85.
Ali, R., & Gupta, S. (2019). Investigating information literacy in business majors. In proceedings of the 2019
AIS SIGED international conference on information systems education and research. Available at: https://
aisel.aisnet.org/siged2019/2, accessed 09.09.2020.
Almaiah, M. A., Alamri, M. M., & Al-Rahmi, W. (2019). Applying the UTAUT model to explain the
students’ acceptance of Mobile learning system in higher education. IEEE Access, 7, 174673–174686.
American Library Association (ALA). (2000). Information literacy competency standards for higher educa-
tion. http://www.ala.org/acrl/ilstandardlo.html.
Anthonysamy, L., Koo, A. C., & Hew, S. H. (2020). Self-regulated learning strategies in higher education:
Fostering digital literacy for sustainable lifelong learning. Education and Information Technology, 25,
2393–2414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10201-8.
Avcı, Ü., & Ergün, E. (2019). Online students’ LMS activities and their effect on engagement, information
literacy and academic performance. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10494820.2019.1636088.
Bayrakdaroğlu, A., & Bayrakdaroğlu, F. (2017). A comparative analysis regarding the effects of financial
literacy and digital literacy on internet entrepreneurship intention. Journal of Entrepreneurship and
Development, 12(2), 27–38.
Blau, I., & Shamir-Inbal, T. (2017). Digital competences and long-term ICT integration in school culture: The
perspective of elementary school leaders. Education and Information Technologies, 22(3), 769–787.
Carvalho, A., Areal, N., & Silva, J. (2011). Students’ perceptions of blackboard and Moodle in a Portuguese
university. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 824–841.
Chávez Herting, D., Cladellas Pros, R., & Castelló Tarrida, A. (2020). Habit and social influence as
determinants of PowerPoint use in higher education: A study from a technology acceptance approach.
Interactive Learning Environments, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1799021.
Chen, J. L. (2011). The effects of education compatibility and technological expectancy on e-learning
acceptance. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1501–1511.
Colwell, J., Hunt-Barron, S., & Reinking, D. (2013). Obstacles to developing digital literacy on the internet in
middle school science instruction. Journal of Literacy Research, 45(3), 295–324.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
Dede, C. (2010). Comparing frameworks for 21st century skills. In J. Bellanca & R. Brandt (Eds.), 21st century
skills (pp. 51–76). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Desjardins, R. (2001). The effects of learning on economic and social well-being: A comparative analysis.
Peabody Journal of Education, 76(3–4), 222–246.
Desjardins, F., & Van Oostveen, R. (2015). Faculty and student use of digital technology in a ‘laptop’
university. In S. Carliner, C. Fulford, & N. Ostashewski (Eds.), EdMedia: World Conference on
Educational Media and Technology 2015 (pp. 990–996). Montreal: Association for the Advancement
of Computing in Education (AACE).
Diep, N. A., Cocquyt, C., Zhu, C., & Vanwing, T. (2016). Predicting adult learners’ online participation:
Effects of altruism, performance expectancy, and social capital. Computers & Education, 101, 84–101.
Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:3893–3915 3913

Dunn, K. (2002). Assessing information literacy skills in the California State University: A progress report.
The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28(1–2), 26–35.
Eisenberg, M. B. (2008). Information literacy: Essential skills for the information age. DESIDOC journal of
library & information technology, 28(2), 39–47.
Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2004). Digital literacy: A conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital era. Journal
of educational multimedia and hypermedia, 13(1), 93–106.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behaviour: An introduction to theory and
research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Foo, S., Majid, S., Azura Mokhtar, I., Zhang, X., Chang, Y.-K., Luyt, B., & Theng, Y. L. (2014). Information
literacy skills of secondary school students in Singapore. Aslib Journal of Information Management,
66(1), 54–76. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-08-2012-0066.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Georgina, D. A., & Hosford, C. C. (2009). Higher education faculty perceptions on technology integration and
training. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(5), 690–696.
Ghalandari, K. (2012). The effect of performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence and
facilitating conditions on acceptance of e-banking services in Iran: The moderating role of age and
gender. Middle East Journal of Scientific Research, 12(6), 801–807.
Gross, M., & Latham, D. (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
Technology, 63(3), 574–583.
Gullikson, S. (2006). Faculty perceptions of ACRL's information literacy competency standards for higher
education. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32(6), 583–592.
Gupta, R., Seetharaman, A., & Maddulety, K. (2020). Critical success factors influencing the adoption of
digitalisation for teaching and learning by business schools. Education and Information Technologies, 25,
1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10246-9.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed, a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural
equation modelling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Sage publications.
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of
PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24.
Heider, K. (2009). Information literacy: The missing link in early childhood education. Early Childhood
Education Journal, 36(6), 513–518.
Hess, J., & Singer, E. (1995). The role of respondent debriefing questions in questionnaire development. In:
Proceedings of the Annual Conference of American Association for Public Opinion Research (pp 1075-
1080). Fort Lauderdale, FL: AAPOR.
Jacobs, G. E. (2006). Fast times and digital literacy: Participation roles and portfolio construction within
instant messaging. Journal of Literacy Research, 38(2), 171–196.
Jeffrey, L., Hegarty, B., Kelly, O., Penman, M., Coburn, D., & McDonald, J. (2011). Developing digital
information literacy in higher education: Obstacles and supports. Journal of Information Technology
Education: Research, 10(1), 383–413.
Johnston, B., & Webber, S. (2003). Information literacy in higher education: A review and case study. Studies
in Higher Education, 28(3), 335–352.
Kanniainen, L., Kiili, C., Tolvanen, A., Aro, M., & Leppänen, P. H. (2019). Literacy skills and online research
and comprehension: Struggling readers face difficulties online. Reading and Writing, 32(9), 2201–2222.
Keefe, E. B., & Copeland, S. R. (2011). What is literacy? The power of a definition. Research & Practice for
Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36(3–4), 92–99.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. New York: Guilford Press.
Kong, J., Deng, S., & Zhang, Y. (2019). Research on influencing factors of college students’ intention of
online health information behaviour based on social cognitive theory. Journal of Physics: Conference
Series, 1213(2), 022017. https://doi.org/10.1088/2F1742-6596/2F1213/2F2/2F022017.
Kurbanoglu, S. S., Akkoyunlu, B., & Umay, A. (2006). Developing the information literacy self-efficacy
scale. Journal of Documentation, 62(6), 730–743.
Lazar, I. M., Panisoara, G., & Panisoara, I. O. (2020). Digital technology adoption scale in the blended
learning context in higher education: Development, validation and testing of a specific tool. PLoS One,
15(7), e0235957.
Lea, M. R., & Jones, S. (2011). Digital literacies in higher education: Exploring textual and technological
practice. Studies in Higher Education, 36(4), 377–393.
3914 Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:3893–3915

Leahy, D., & Dolan, D. (2010). Digital literacy: A vital competence for 2010? In IFIP international
conference on key competencies in the knowledge society (pp. 210–221). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Lewin, C., & McNicol, S. (2015). Supporting the development of 21st century skills through ICT. In T.
Brinda, N. Reynolds, R. Romeike, & A. Schwill (Eds.), KEYCIT 2014: Key competencies in informatics
and ICT (pp. 98–181). Potsdam, Germany: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.
Liu, Q., Geertshuis, S., & Grainger, R. (2020). Understanding academics’ adoption of learning technologies:
A systematic review. Computers & Education, 151, 103857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.
103857.
Lloyd, A. (2006). Information literacy landscapes: An emerging picture. Journal of Documentation, 62(5),
570–583.
Lodge, J. M., Kennedy, G., & Lockyer, L. (2019). Digital learning environments, the science of learning and
the relationship between the teacher and the learner. In A. Carroll, R. Cunnington, & A. Nugent (Eds.),
Learning under the lens: Applying findings from the science of learning to the classroom. Abingdon:
CRC Press.
Lowenthal, J. N. (2010). Using mobile learning: Determinates impacting behavioural intention. The American
Journal of Distance Education, 24(4), 195–206.
Major, L., Warwick, P., Rasmussen, I., Ludvigsen, S., & Cook, V. (2018). Classroom dialogue and digital
technologies: A scoping review. Education and Information Technologies, 23(5), 1995–2028.
Martin, A. (2006). A European framework for digital literacy. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 1(02), 151–
161.
Mercader, C. (2020). Explanatory model of barriers to integration of digital technologies in higher education
institutions. Education and Information Technology, 25, 5133–5147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-
10222-3.
Meyers, E. M., Erickson, I., & Small, R. V. (2013). Digital literacy and informal learning environments: An
introduction. Learning, Media and Technology, 38(4), 355–367.
Mohammadyari, S., & Singh, H. (2015). Understanding the effect of e-learning on individual performance:
The role of digital literacy. Computers & Education, 82, 11–25.
Nassuora, A. B. (2012). Students’ acceptance of mobile learning for higher education in Saudi Arabia.
American Academic & Scholarly Research Journal, 4(2), 24–30.
Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Computers & Education, 59(3), 1065–1078.
Nikou, S., Brännback, M., & Widén, G. (2018). The impact of multidimensionality of literacy on the use of
digital technology: Digital immigrants and digital natives. In international conference on well-being in
the information society (pp. 117–133). Cham: Springer.
Nikou, S., Brännback, M., & Widén, G. (2019). The impact of digitalization on literacy: Digital immigrants
vs. digital natives. In proceedings of the 27th European conference on information systems (ECIS),
Stockholm & Uppsala, Sweden, June 8-14. http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2019_rp/39
Nikou, S., Molinari, A., & Widén, G. (2020). The interplay between literacy and digital technology: A fuzzy-
set qualitative comparative analysis approach. Information Research, 25(4), paper isic2016. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.47989/irisic2016.
Pastore, S., & Andrade, H. L. (2019). Teacher assessment literacy: A three-dimensional model. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 84, 128–138.
Rabah, J. (2015). Benefits and challenges of information and communication technologies (ICT) integration in
Québec English schools. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 14(2), 24–31.
Rachmadtullah, R., Marianus Subandowo, R., Humaira, M. A., Aliyyah, R. R., Samsudin, A., & Nurtanto, M.
(2020). Use of blended learning with Moodle: Study effectiveness in elementary school teacher education
students during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology,
29(7), 3272–3277.
Rosman, T., Peter, J., Mayer, A. K., & Krampen, G. (2018). Conceptions of scientific knowledge influence
learning of academic skills: Epistemic beliefs and the efficacy of information literacy instruction. Studies
in Higher Education, 43(1), 96–113.
Sarrab, M., Al-Shihi, H., & Rehman, O. M. H. (2013). Exploring major challenges and benefits of m-learning
adoption. Current Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 3(4), 826–839.
Shields, R., & Chugh, R. (2018). Preparing Australian high school learners with 21st century skills. Paper
presented at the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for
Engineering (TALE) (pp. 1101-1106). New York, NY: IEEE.
Silber-Varod, V., Eshet-Alkalai, Y., & Geri, N. (2019). Tracing research trends of 21st-century learning skills.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(6), 3099–3118.
Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:3893–3915 3915

Skulmowski, A., Rey, G., & D. (2020). COVID-19 as an accelerator for digitalization at a German university:
Establishing hybrid campuses in times of crisis. Human Behaviour and Emerging Technologies, 2(3),
212–216.
Tang, C. M., & Chaw, L. Y. (2016). Digital literacy: A prerequisite for effective learning in a blended learning
environment? Electronic Journal of E-learning, 14(1), 54–65.
Teo, T. S. H., Srivastava, S. C., & Jiang, L. (2008). Trust and electronic government success: An empirical
study. Journal of Management Information Systems, 25(3), 99–132.
Turnbull, D., Chugh, R., & Luck, J. (2019). Learning management systems: An overview. In A. Tatnall (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of education and information technologies. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
319-60013-0_248-1.
Van Laar, E., Van Deursen, A. J., Van Dijk, J. A., & De Haan, J. (2017). The relation between 21st -century
skills and digital skills: A systematic literature review. Computers in Human Behaviour, 72, 577–588.
Van Oostveen, R., & Desjardins, F. (2013). Developing and implementing a new online bachelor program:
Formal adoption of videoconferencing and social networking as a step towards m-Learning. In M. B.
Nunes & M. McPherson (Eds.), Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference on e-Learning (pp.
223–230). Prague, Czech Republic, Jul 23-26, 2013: International Association for Development of the
Information Society.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information
technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology:
Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178.
von Loh, S. G., & Henkel, M. (2014). Information and media literacy in kindergarten. In European
conference on information literacy (pp. 253–262). Cham: Springer.
Záhorec, J., Hašková, A., & Munk, M. (2019). Teachers’ professional digital literacy skills and their upgrade.
European Journal of Contemporary Education, 8(2), 378–393.
Zheng, Y., Wang, J., Doll, W., Deng, X., & Williams, M. (2018). The impact of organisational support,
technical support, and self-efficacy on faculty perceived benefits of using learning management system.
Behaviour & Information Technology, 37(4), 311–319.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.