digital library literature review

• Architecture and Design
• Asian and Pacific Studies
• Business and Economics
• Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
• Computer Sciences
• Cultural Studies
• Engineering
• General Interest
• Geosciences
• Industrial Chemistry
• Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Library and Information Science, Book Studies
• Life Sciences
• Linguistics and Semiotics
• Literary Studies
• Materials Sciences
• Mathematics
• Social Sciences
• Sports and Recreation
• Theology and Religion
• Publish your article
• The role of authors
• Promoting your article
• Abstracting & indexing
• Publishing Ethics
• Why publish with De Gruyter
• How to publish with De Gruyter
• Our book series
• Our subject areas
• Your digital product at De Gruyter
• Contribute to our reference works
• Product information
• Tools & resources
• Product Information
• Promotional Materials
• Orders and Inquiries
• FAQ for Library Suppliers and Book Sellers
• Repository Policy
• Free access policy
• Open Access agreements
• Database portals
• For Authors
• Customer service
• People + Culture
• Journal Management
• How to join us
• Working at De Gruyter
• Mission & Vision
• De Gruyter Foundation
• De Gruyter Ebound
• Our Responsibility
• Partner publishers

Your purchase has been completed. Your documents are now available to view.

A Literature Review on Digitization in Libraries and Digital Libraries

The purpose of this work was due to critical literature reviews often being used as a crucial tool for the research outputs of different ideologies to access and develop the knowledge base. The main aim of this paper is to review current literature on digitization in libraries considering different facets like process of selection, acquisition, conversion, creation of metadata, storage, preparing for long term access and issues and challenges for managing these through a review of literature. The current study follows a literature review process where there is analysis of 56 full papers on different aspects of digitization and digital libraries after a filtration from 110 research papers from 2010 to 2019. A number of major issues and challenges like high budget, diversity in records, efficiency and hard labor, document security, quality control, information retrieval, and manipulation of metadata associated with digitization and digital library management with correspondence solutions to them were identified. The study provides valuable information to researchers and librarians working in the field of digitization by illustrating the process, challenge, and implication in libraries as were outlined by various scholars from different corners of the world.

Adekannbi, J. O. 2015. “Comparative Analysis of the Preservation and Conservation Techniques of Selected Special and Academic Libraries in Nigeria.” Library Philosophy and Practice 1328, https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1328/ . Search in Google Scholar

Adjei, E., and M. Mensah. 2019. “The Story So Far-Digital Preservation in Institutional Repositories.” Digital Library Perspectives 35: 80–96, https://doi.org/10.1108/dlp-12-2018-0039 . Search in Google Scholar

Akter, T. 2013. “Digital Preservation of Library Materials.” International Research: Journal of Library and Information Science 3 (1): 20–29. Search in Google Scholar

Alhaji, I. U. 2015. “Digitization of Library Resources and the Formation of Digital Libraries: A Practical Approach.” University News 53 (47): 22–8. Search in Google Scholar

Atram, P. N. 2017. “Digital Library Services in the Digital Age.” International Journal of Library and Information Science 6 (1): 79–82. Search in Google Scholar

Bakshi, S. I. 2016. “Digitization and Digital Preservation of Cultural Heritage in India with Special Reference to IGNCA, New Delhi.” Asian Journal of Information Science and Technology 6 (2): 1–7. Search in Google Scholar

Balogun, T. 2018. “The Nexus between Digitization, Preservation and Access in the Context of Selection of Materials for Archives.” Library Philosophy and Practice , https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1893/ . Search in Google Scholar

Bandi, A., and S, Bandi. 2011. “Open Access to Knowledge: Initiatives in India.” In National Conference on Beyond Librarianship:Creativity, Innovation and Discovery . New Delhi: Vedams Books. Search in Google Scholar

Baro, E. E. 2013. “Digitization Projects in University Libraries in Nigeria: The Journey So Far.” Library Hi Tech News 9: 21–6, https://doi.org/10.1108/lhtn-09-2013-0049 . Search in Google Scholar

Bishoff, L. 2010. “Digital Preservation Plan.” Information Standards Quarterly 22 (2): 20–25, https://doi.org/10.3789/isqv22n2.2010.03 . Search in Google Scholar

Chauhan, S. 2012. Digitization of Resources in University Libraries in India: Problems and Perspectives (Thesis) . Amritsar: Department of Library and Information Science, Guru Nanak Dev University. Search in Google Scholar

Cherukodan, S., G. S. Kumar, and S. H. Kabir. 2011. “Using Open Source Software for Digital Libraries: A Case Study of CUSAT.” The Electronic Library 31 (2): 217–25. 10.1108/02640471311312393 Search in Google Scholar

Dappert, A., and M. Enders. 2010. “Digital Preservation Metadata Standards.” Information Standards Quarterly 22 (2): 4–13. 10.3789/isqv22n2.2010.01 Search in Google Scholar

Dhamdhere, S. N. 2012. “Digital Library Services and Practices: An Online Survey.” International Journal of Library Science 6 (2): 65–75. Search in Google Scholar

Fox, R. 2011. “Digital Libraries: The Systems Analysis Perspective Forensics of Digital Librarianship.” OCLC Systems and Services International Digital Library Perspectives 27 (4): 264–71, https://doi.org/10.1108/10650751111182560 . Search in Google Scholar

Gbaje, E. S. 2013. “Digital Preservation Policy in National Information Centres in Nigeria.” The Electronics Library 31 (4): 483–92, https://doi.org/10.1108/el-01-2012-0011 . Search in Google Scholar

Goswami, M. 2018. Preservation of Library Documents in Digital Environment with Reference to College Libraries of Assam: An Empirical Study (Thesis) . Guwahati: Department of Library and Information Science, Guwahati University. Search in Google Scholar

Hariri, N., and Y. Norouzi. 2011. “Determining Evaluation Criteria for Digital Libraries’ User Interface: A Review.” The Electronic Library 29 (5): 698–722, https://doi.org/10.1108/02640471111177116 . Search in Google Scholar

Hirwade, M. A. 2011. “A Study of Metadata Standards.” Library Hi Tech News 28 (7): 18–25, https://doi.org/10.1108/07419051111184052 . Search in Google Scholar

Islam, S. 2011. “Towards Digitization: Problems and Prospects for the Libraries of Bangladesh.” World Congress of Muslim Librarians and Information Scientists 2011, IIUM , https://www.academia.edu/3342256 . Search in Google Scholar

Katre, D. 2012. “Need of Legisalation and Digital Preservation Policy Framework in Indian Context.” DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology 32 (4): 321–6, https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.32.4.2526 . Search in Google Scholar

Krtalic, M. 2012. “Exploring a Framework for Comprehensive and Successful Preservation Management in Libraries.” Journal of Documentation 68 (3): 353–77. 10.1108/00220411211225584 Search in Google Scholar

Kumar, K. 2014. “Analytical Survey on Digital Preservation and Techniques Among Engineering Education Institutional Libraries in Rayalaseema Region of Andhra Pradesh.” Library Philosophy and Practice , https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1045/ . Search in Google Scholar

Kumar, N. 2016. “E-resources preservation: Challenge with libraries of twenty first century.” International Journal of Education & Management 6 (2): 229–232. Search in Google Scholar

Kumar, D. V., and P. Padma. 2015. “Need and Opportunities of Digital Preservation in Academic Libraries: An Overview.” International Journal of Educational Research and Technology 6 (4): 13–7. Search in Google Scholar

Londhe, N. L. 2011. “Development of a Digital Library of Manuscripts: A Case Study at the University of Pune, India.” Program: Electronic Library and Information Systems 45 (2): 135–48, https://doi.org/10.1108/00330331111129697 . Search in Google Scholar

Mapulanga, P. 2012. “Digitising Library Resources and Building Digital Repositories in the University of Malawi Libraries.” Electronic Library 31 (5): 635–47, https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-02-2012-0019 . Search in Google Scholar

Maurya, R. N. 2011. “Digital Library and Digitization.” International Journal of Information Dissemination and Technology 1 (4): 228–31. Search in Google Scholar

Moulaison, H. L. 2015. “Open DOAR Repositories and Metadata Practices.” D-Lib Magazine 21: 3–4, https://doi.org/10.1045/march2015-moulaison . Search in Google Scholar

Musa, A. U., and S. Musa. 2012. “Digitization of Library Resources in Kashim Ibrahim Library: Processes, Challenges and the Impacts on the Services of the Library.” In Kaduna State Chapter of NLA/AGM Conference Held at Kaduna State . University Kaduna. Search in Google Scholar

Nneji, K. O. 2018. “Digitization of Academic Library Resources: A Case Study of Donald E.U. Ekong Library.” Library Philosophy and Practice , https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1990/ . Search in Google Scholar

Nnenna, O. B., and E. L. Ume. 2015. “Digitization of Library Resources in Academic Libraries: Challenges and Implication.” IOSR Journal of Mobile Computing and Application 2 (2): 35–40, 10.9790/0050-0223540 . Search in Google Scholar

Oni, O., L. Abu, and I. A. Ekeniyere. 2018. “Prospects and Challenges of Digitization of Academic Libraries Resources for Effective Services Delivery in Universities in Edo State.” International Researchers: Journal of Library and Information Science 8 (2): 278–92. Search in Google Scholar

Perez, I. J., E. Herrera-Viedma, J. López-Gijón, and F. J. Cabrerizo. 2010. “A New Application of a Fuzzy Linguistic Quality Evaluation System in Digital Libraries.” In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Intelligent Systems Design and Applications, IEEE, 639–44. Cairo, Egypt. 10.1109/ISDA.2010.5687193 Search in Google Scholar

Rafiq, M., and K. Ameen. 2013. “Digitization in University Libraries of Pakistan.” OCLC Systems and Services: International Digital Library Perspectives 29 (1): 37–46, https://doi.org/10.1108/10650751311294546 . Search in Google Scholar

Rafiq, M., and K. Ameen. 2017. “Barriers to Digitization in University Libraries of Pakistan: A Developing Country’s Perspective.” The Electronic Library 36 (3): 457–70. 10.1108/EL-01-2017-0012 Search in Google Scholar

Rahman, A., M. J. Rahman, and M. H. H. Chowdhury. 2015. “Digital Resource Management in Libraries: Step Towards Digital Bangladesh.” National Seminar on Cross Talk of Digital Resource Management : 1–24. Search in Google Scholar

Rathour, P. R., and A. K. Sahu. 2011. “Comparison of Open Source Software for Digital Libraries.” World Digital Libraries 4 (1): 19–31. Search in Google Scholar

Reddy, T. R., and K. Kumar. 2013. “Open Source Software’s and Their Impact on Library and Information Centre: An Overview.” International Journal of Library and Information Science 5 (4): 90–6. Search in Google Scholar

Roopa, E., and M. Krishnamurthy. 2015. “Perspectives of Digital Library Services: A Review.” International Journal of Next Generation Library and Technology 1 (1): 1–19, http://www.ijnglt.com/files/Perspective%20of%20digital%20library%20services.pdf . Search in Google Scholar

Sadiku, M. N. O. 2017. “Digital Preservation.” International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Engineering 7 (4): 5–6, https://doi.org/10.23956/ijarcsse.v7i8.25 . Search in Google Scholar

Sathyanarayana, N. V. 2013. “Collection Development in the E-Content World: Challenges of Procurement, Access and Preservation.” DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology 33 (62): 109–13, https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.33.2.4198 . Search in Google Scholar

Shaikh, T. A. A. M. 2015. “Digitization of Library: Services, Challenges and Preservation of Digitized Information.” E-Library Science Research Journal 3 (11): 1–9, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283571905 . Search in Google Scholar

Singh, S. 2018. “Digitization of Library Resources and the Formation of Digital Libraries: Special Reference in Green Stone Digital Library Software.” IP Indian Journal of Library Science and Information Technology 3 (1): 44–8. 10.18231/2456-9623.2018.0010 Search in Google Scholar

Stiller, J., and V. Petras. 2018. “Learning from Digital Library Evaluations: The Europeana Case.” ABI Technik 38 (1): 37–45, https://doi.org/10.1515/abitech-2018-0006 . Search in Google Scholar

Thomas, B. 2015. “The Issues and Challenges Facing a Digital Library with a Special Focus on the University of Calgary.” Library Review 64 (8–9): 533–51, https://doi.org/10.1108/lr-11-2014-0125 . Search in Google Scholar

Toyo, O. D. 2017. “Library Resources Digitization and its Impact on the Services of Academic Libraries: The Case of John Harris Library, University of Benin.” International Journal of Education and Evaluation 3 (7): 33–48. Search in Google Scholar

Tramboo, S., Humma, S. M. Shafi, and S. Gul. 2012. “A Study on the Open Source Digital Library Software’s: Special Reference to DSpace, Eprints and Greenstone.” International Journal of Computer Applications 59 (16): 1–9, https://doi.org/10.5120/9629-4272 . Search in Google Scholar

Trivedi, M. 2010. “Digital Libraries: Functionality, Usability, and Accessibility.” Library Philosophy and Practice 381, https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/381 . Search in Google Scholar

Tsakonas, G., and C. Papatheodorou. 2011. “An Ontological Representation of the Digital Library Evaluation Domain.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 62 (8): 1577–93, https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21559 . Search in Google Scholar

Velmurugan, C. 2013. “Research on Digital Preservation (2013). Issues and Challenges on Libraries and Information Resource Centres in India.” e-Library Science Research Journal 1 (7): 1–8, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270214770 . Search in Google Scholar

Venkadesan, S. 2010. “Digital Preservation of Electronic Resources.” INDEST (January). Search in Google Scholar

Vullo, G. 2010. “A Global Approach to Digital Library Evaluation.” LIBER Quarterly 20 (2): 169–178, https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.7985 . Search in Google Scholar

Walters, T. O. 2010. “Economics, Sustainability, and the Cooperative Model in Digital Preservation.” Library Hi Tech 28 (2): 259–72, https://doi.org/10.1108/07378831011047668 . Search in Google Scholar

Wei, Z. 2011. “Research on the Application of Open Source Software in Digital Library.” Procedia Engineering 15: 1662–7, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.08.310 . Search in Google Scholar

Xie, I. 2014. Digital Library Evaluation Criteria: What Do Users Want? Also available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264191174_Digital_Library_Evaluation_Criteria_What_do_Users_Want . 10.14699/kbiblia.2014.25.1.005 Search in Google Scholar

Zaveri, P. 2015. “Digital Disaster Management in Libraries in India.” Library Hi Tech 33 (2): 230–44, https://doi.org/10.1108/lht-09-2014-0090 . Search in Google Scholar

Zhang, Y. 2010. “Developing a Holistic Model for Digital Library Evaluation.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 61 (1): 88–110, https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21220 . Search in Google Scholar

© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

• X / Twitter

Supplementary Materials

Please login or register with De Gruyter to order this product.

Journal and Issue

Articles in the same issue.

• Other Journals

An important role for librarians over the next five to ten years is to provide access to online library resources—free, open-access, or purchased, all valuable resources—in an intuitive, easy-to-use one-stop shop and not to be afraid of running a continual beta test in which new services and functions can be added when necessary. To fill this role, librarians and electronic resources managers need flexible, interoperable resource-discovery systems based on open-source software. In addition, we must continue to assess users’ needs and reach out by adapting our systems to fit their requirements, rather than expecting them to come to us; indeed, our very future depends on it. 1

Two decades after the advent of electronic journals and databases, librarians are still grappling with ways to best manage e-resources in conjunction with traditional print resources and at the same time explore new purchasing initiatives and practices, such as demand-driven acquisition of electronic books. In addition, these times of economic austerity are creating budgetary pressures at many institutions of higher education, resulting in librarians having to justify their spending on collections and resource management more than ever.

Techniques for Electronic Resource Management (TERMS) began in 2008 after a discussion about electronic resource management (ERM), current ERM tools, and what was lacking both in current practice and with the systems available. TERMS expands on Pesch’s electronic resources life cycle (see figure 1.1 ) and seeks to become a reference point for those who are new to ERM, those who have suddenly shifted job functions to oversee ERM, and those who may want to implement its recommendations of best practice.

TERMS Tumblr blog http://6terms.tumblr.com TERMS Facebook group https://www.facebook.com/groups/174086169332439 6TERMS on Twitter https://twitter.com/6terms

• TERMS 1: Investigating New Content for purchase/addition, assigned to Ann Kucera (Baker College, Michigan)
• TERMS 2: Acquiring New Content, assigned to Nathan Hosburgh (Montana State University, Montana)
• TERMS 3: Implementation, assigned to Stephen Buck (Dublin City University, Ireland)
• TERMS 4: Ongoing Evaluation and Access, assigned to Anita Wilcox (University College Cork, Ireland)
• TERMS 5: Annual Review, assigned to Anna Franca (King’s College, London, United Kingdom)
• TERMS 6: Cancellation and Replacement Review, assigned to Eugenia Beh (Texas A&M University, Texas)

TERMS Wiki: Main Page http://library.hud.ac.uk/wikiterms/Main_Page

In 2012, TERMS was also endorsed by the Knowledge Base + project in the United Kingdom, which has a project deliverable of providing “workflow management tools related to the selection, review, renewal and cancellation of publications” 2 and has also received interest in the United States from GoKB from Kuali OLE (open library environment), “a community of nine research libraries working together to build the first open-source system designed by and for academic and research libraries for managing and delivering intellectual information.” 3

Electronic Resources and Libraries website www.electroniclibrarian.com

One of the first things to note when performing a literature review on ERM is that there are no independent literature reviews solely on this area. Instead, ERM has now become an integral part of standard literature reviews for acquisitions processing, collection development and management, cataloging and classification, and serials management. At the same time, there are areas of ERM that sit outside of these traditional functioning areas in libraries. This makes performing a literature review on ERM more of a challenge.

From the field of library acquisitions, the issues most readily identified in recent years have been the switch from print processing to ERM and the continued struggle to find management tools that work within the local library context. 6

“Simply put, collection management is the systemic, efficient and economic stewardship of library resources.” 7 The term collection development has been with us since the 1960s. 8 However, it is a constantly evolving area, and as the library collection moves from one dominated by print to one dominated by electronic resources, collection development policies may have been patched rather than redesigned to reflect the different emphasis on delivery. In a 2012 study, Mangrum and Pozzebon found that “over half of the libraries tried to address ER [electronic resources] in some way. However, most policies contain traditional language with a section on library ER inserted into the latter portion of the document.” 9

In regard to collection development and management trends, the two biggest growth areas are e-book purchasing and purchase-on-demand or patron-driven acquisition models. There has been an explosion in collection management literature on these two topics over the past three to four years. 10 A single place for best practices, or from which a local library can create its own localized best practices, is definitely needed: “Bleiler and Livingston stressed that a lack of established policies and procedures for assessment puts a library at risk for financial loss and recommended that libraries create selection policies and standardized methods for assessment, train staff for contract negotiation, and share strategies, policies, and best practices.” 11

In addition to changes to the format of delivery of library resources, libraries must also contend with the impact of today’s economic environment. Hazen suggests that libraries need to rethink their collection development in light of these issues and move from collection to collection and content, where content is “a category that encompasses everything to which a library enjoys ready physical or digital access regardless of ownership status [and] is central to all that we do.” 12

In 2001, Jewell reported on the selection, licensing, and support of online materials by research libraries and concluded that several libraries had developed local systems for acquiring, managing, and supporting electronic resources. 13 Jewell’s report was followed in 2004 by a report from the Digital Library Federation’s (DLF) Electronic Resource Management Initiative (ERMI), which “was organized to support the rapid development of such systems by producing a series of interrelated documents to define needs and to help establish data standards.” 14 The report went on to provide a road map for ERM.

On the back end, we continue to rely on methods developed when we had 250 rather than 25,000 eresources. Information on our electronic resources is currently kept in paper files (license agreements), Excel spreadsheets (vendor contact information and administrative passwords), staff web pages (usage statistics), small databases (trial and decision tracking, divisional library resources, technical problem reports), SFX (ejournal holdings), and our ILS (acquisitions and payment data). Few of these systems are connected to each other; in some cases, information is readily accessible only to one or a few individuals, not by intent, but by the limitations of the storage mechanism. Many procedures are not documented and rely on informal channels of communication. 15

More recently there have been a number of open-source and community ERM systems, such as CORAL 16 and CUFTS, developed by Simon Fraser University (SFU) and implemented by SFU and the University of Prince Edward Island, which view this “technology not necessarily as a way of spending less money, but spending money more wisely.” 17

Another growing area of ERM is the work being performed to develop a suite of standards to support the vast amount of access and management knowledge and myriad of tools needed to maintain adequate access to electronic resources. 18 According to Sarah Glasser, “KBART and IOTA are both working to decrease OpenURL link failures that are caused by metadata deficiencies.” In addition, “PIE-J differs from KBART and IOTA because it is not focused on link resolver errors. Formed by NISO in 2010, PIE-J addresses access barriers that arise from the manner in which electronic journals are presented on provider websites.” 19

There has been a lot of discussion about the implementation of ERM systems in recent years. 20 However, use of these systems is still far from ubiquitous, and many academic libraries have yet to implement or even purchase a system. “A risk of ERMS implementations, more talked about than written about … was that the costs (in added work) to maintain a new system would outweigh the value of the added functionality.” 21 Despite early expectations, Collins and Grogg see the current crop of ERM systems as “less like a silver bullet and more like a round of buckshot.” 22

One of the most time-consuming parts of an ERM implementation is analyzing licenses and inputting them into the relevant fields of an ERM system in order for them to be meaningful to librarians and patrons. The University of Northern Colorado has developed an in-house system to perform license mapping that “makes information that is often deeply embedded within a license readily available to library personnel who could use such information in the daily operations of the library. This information is useful to any library that maintains license agreements for electronic resources.” 23

A panel session at the 2010 NASIG conference concluded that the “ERM system at UC has not solved all their problems, but some improvements have been realized. Budget tracking and staffing continue to be challenges. A final determination of the effectiveness will not be evident until the system becomes a part of the general staff workflow and not considered as something extra.” 24

Collins and Grogg cited workflow management as number one in librarians’ top six ERM priorities. They found that “over a third of librarians surveyed prioritized workflow or communications management, and they called it one of the biggest deficiencies (and disappointments) of ERMS functionality.” 25 This area has also been highlighted by the National Information Standards Organization (NISO), which has created a working group, ERM Data Standards and Best Practices Review, to undertake a gap analysis regarding ERM. 26

In the United Kingdom, the Managing Electronic Resource Issues (MERI) project at the University of Salford aimed “to produce a use case of ERM systems and a preliminary set of requirements for an electronic resource management system, for use by the University of Salford and other HE institutions and system suppliers.” 27 The requirements document from this project went on to inform the SCONUL shared ERM requirements project. An output of these projects was a set of workflows that describe the various processes involved in managing electronic resources. 28 The University of Huddersfield was one of the sixteen UK universities to take part, and like others, had never actually recorded these workflows until asked to do so by the project. All project members found that by recording workflows, they were able to take advantage of efficiencies discovered as part of documenting the process.

One of the objectives of the TERMS blog and wiki was to collect a number of e-resource workflows from a variety of different types of libraries. Both the University of Huddersfield and Portland State University shared their workflows as part of TERMS. The release of the six TERMS via the blog also encouraged other universities to share their workflows and discuss efficiencies; indeed, “rethinking e-resources workflows and developing practical tools to streamline and enhance various inelegant processes have become the priorities.” 29

Since the launch of the first draft of TERMS, the project has now attracted interest in various workflows from different libraries around the world, including the University of Cork, Duke University, Florida Gulf Coast University, and Texas A&M University.

A recent press release by Jisc in the United Kingdom suggested that international collaboration is needed to transform ERM in libraries—“Many of the concerns libraries have in the management of electronic resources are the same across the world”—and that projects such as GoKB and the Knowledge Base + service in the United Kingdom “are exploring community-based solutions.” 30

TERMS Wiki Investigating New Content for Purchase/Addition http://library.hud.ac.uk/wikiterms/Investigating_New_Content_for_purchase/addition Acquiring New Content http://library.hud.ac.uk/wikiterms/Acquiring_New_Content Implementation http://library.hud.ac.uk/wikiterms/Implementation Ongoing Evaluation and Access http://library.hud.ac.uk/wikiterms/Ongoing_Evaluation_and_Access Annual Review http://library.hud.ac.uk/wikiterms/Annual_Review Cancellation and Replacement Review http://library.hud.ac.uk/wikiterms/Cancellation_and_Replacement_Review

• There are currently no refbacks.

Review of User Satisfaction Models in the Context of Digital Libraries Setting

• Conference paper
• First Online: 20 October 2023
• Cite this conference paper

• Hend Ali Musbah Jebril 16 &
• Mohammad Nazir Ahmad 17  

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 14322))

Included in the following conference series:

• International Visual Informatics Conference

251 Accesses

Student satisfaction is of critical importance in online education, but relatively few research has investigated the factors that contribute to it in developing nations. Libraries located in public universities have, over the course of many years, shelled out a substantial amount of money in order to subscribe to a wide variety of digital resources. These resources include online publications from respectable publishers, journals, online databases, books, monographs, and other resources for the storing of information. Previous research has shown, however, that despite online libraries’ success in locating relevant material, digital library use remains low. The literature review consists largely of studies that evaluate digital libraries based on how satisfied its users are. Nevertheless, the evaluation models for user satisfaction lack the constructs, and factors that contribute to user satisfaction. The primary goals of this study are to (1) identify the most relevant models used to assess user satisfaction in digital library settings, and (2) establish the prevalence users of digital libraries. This review includes, among other things, various publications that were published between the years 2019 and 2023. It emphasized the need for study user satisfaction in the context of digital libraries since this factor could impact the useability and innovation of such education platform.

• User satisfaction
• Digital library
• Digital academic service
• Service quality

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Harrin, E.: Social communities of practice reflection on informal mentoring in curated online spaces. In: Social Media for Project Management, pp. 73–88. CRC Press (2022)

Google Scholar  

Rafi, Muhammad, Ming, Zheng Jian, Ahmad, Khurshid: Estimation of the knowledge management model for performance measurement in university libraries. Libr. Hi Tech 40 (1), 239–264 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-11-2019-0225

Article   Google Scholar  

Manesh, M.F., Pellegrini, M.M., Marzi, G., Dabic, M.: Knowledge management in the fourth industrial revolution: mapping the literature and scoping future avenues. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 68 (1), 289–300 (2020)

Rafi, M., JianMing, Z., Ahmad, K.: Evaluating the impact of digital library database resources on the productivity of academic research. Inf. Discov. Deliv. 47 (1), 42–52 (2019)

Omotayo, F.O., Haliru, A.: Perception of task-technology fit of digital library among undergraduates in selected universities in Nigeria. J. Acad. Librariansh. 46 (1), 102097 (2020)

Sheikhshoaei, F., Naghshineh, N., Alidousti, S., Nakhoda, M., Dehdarirad, H.: Development and validation of a measuring instrument for digital library maturity. Libr. Inf. Sci. Res. 43 (3), 101101 (2021)

Habibi, A., Yaakob, M.F.M., Sofwan, M.: Student use of digital libraries during COVID-19: structural equation modelling in Indonesian and Malaysian contexts. Electron. Libr. 40 (4), 472–485 (2022)

Ashiq, M., Rehman, S.U., Muneeb, D., Ahmad, S.: Global research on library service quality: a bibliometric analysis and knowledge mapping. Glob. Knowl. Memory Commun. 71 (4/5), 253–273 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-02-2021-0026

Chan, V.H.Y., Chiu, D.K., Ho, K.K.: Mediating effects on the relationship between perceived service quality and public library app loyalty during the COVID-19 era. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 67 , 102960 (2022)

Li, Y., Liu, C.: Information resource, interface, and tasks as user interaction components for digital library evaluation. Inf. Process. Manage. 56 (3), 704–720 (2019)

Rafi, M., Ahmad, K., Naeem, S.B., Khan, A.U., JianMing, Z.: Knowledge-based society and emerging disciplines: a correlation of academic performance. The Bottom Line 33 (4), 337–358 (2020)

Ling, E.C., Tussyadiah, I., Tuomi, A., Stienmetz, J., Ioannou, A.: Factors influencing users’ adoption and use of conversational agents: a systematic review. Psychol. Mark. 38 (7), 1031–1051 (2021)

DigitalLibraryFederation: A working definition of digital library (1998). https://old.diglib.org/about/dldefinition.htm . Accessed 16 Mar 2014

Rahman, A.R.A., Mohezar, S., Habidin, N.F., Fuzi, N.M.: Critical success factors of the continued usage of digital library successful implementation in military-context: an organisational support perspective. Digit. Libr. Perspect. 36 (1), 38–54 (2020)

Bae, J.-M.: Narrative reviews. Epidemiol. Health, 36 (2014)

Soltani-Nejad, N., Taheri-Azad, F., Zarei-Maram, N., Saberi, M.K.: Developing a model to identify the antecedents and consequences of user satisfaction with digital libraries. Aslib J. Inf. Manag. 72 (6), 979–997 (2020)

Khan, A.U., Rafi, M., Zhang, Z., Khan, A.: Determining the impact of technological modernization and management capabilities on user satisfaction and trust in library services. Glob. Knowl. Memory Commun. (2022)

Xu, F., Du, J.T.: Examining differences and similarities between graduate and undergraduate students’ user satisfaction with digital libraries. J. Acad. Librariansh. 45 (6), 102072 (2019)

Iqbal, M., Rafiq, M.: Psychometric analysis of integrated digital library user success (IDLUS) scale in academic digital library environment. Glob. Knowl. Memory Commun. (2023)

Iqbal, Memoona, Rafiq, Muhammad: Determinants of overall user success in an academic digital library environment: validation of the integrated digital library user success (IDLUS) model. Electron. Libr. 41 (4), 387–418 (2023)

Afthanorhan, A., Foziah, H., Abd Majid, N.: Investigating digital library success using the DeLone and McLean information system success 2.0: the analysis of common factor based structural equation modeling. In: Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1529, no. 4, p. 042052. IOP Publishing (2020)

DeLone, W.H., McLean, E.R.: Information systems success measurement. Found. Trends® Inf. Syst. 2 (1), 1–116 (2016)

Mehrabian, A., Russell, J.A.: An Approach to Environmental Psychology. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1974)

DeLone, W.H., McLean, E.R.: The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year update. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 19 (4), 9–30 (2003)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Infrastructure University Kuala Lumpur, Kajang, Malaysia

Hend Ali Musbah Jebril

The National University of Malaysia, Bangi, Malaysia

Mohammad Nazir Ahmad

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hend Ali Musbah Jebril .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Universiti Tenaga Nasional, Kajang, Selangor, Malaysia

Halimah Badioze Zaman

University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Peter Robinson

Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland

Alan F. Smeaton

MIT Sloan School of Management, Asia School of Business, Cambridge, MA, USA

Renato Lima De Oliveira

University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

Bo Nørregaard Jørgensen

National Central University, Jhongli, Taiwan

Timothy K. Shih

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

Rabiah Abdul Kadir

Ummul Hanan Mohamad

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this paper

Cite this paper.

Jebril, H.A.M., Ahmad, M.N. (2024). Review of User Satisfaction Models in the Context of Digital Libraries Setting. In: Badioze Zaman, H., et al. Advances in Visual Informatics. IVIC 2023. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 14322. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7339-2_21

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7339-2_21

Published : 20 October 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-99-7338-5

Online ISBN : 978-981-99-7339-2

eBook Packages : Computer Science Computer Science (R0)

Share this paper

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

Digital literacy in the university setting: A literature review of empirical studies between 2010 and 2021

Nieves gutiérrez-Ángel.

1 Departamento de Psicología, Área de Psicología Evolutiva y de la Educación, Universidad de Almería, Almeria, Spain

Jesús-Nicasio Sánchez-García

2 Departamento de Psicología, Sociología y Filosofía, Universidad de León, Leon, Spain

Isabel Mercader-Rubio

Judit garcía-martín.

3 Departamento de Psicología Evolutiva y de la Educación, Universidad de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain

Sonia Brito-Costa

4 Instituto Politécnico de Coímbra, Coimbra, Portugal

5 Coimbra Education School, Research Group in Social and Human Sciences Núcleo de Investigação em Ciências Sociais e Humanas da ESEC (NICSH), Coimbra, Portugal

Associated Data

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

The impact of digital devices and the Internet has generated various changes at social, political, and economic levels, the repercussion of which is a great challenge characterized by the changing and globalized nature of today's society. This demands the development of new skills and new learning models in relation to information and communication technologies. Universities must respond to these social demands in the training of their future professionals. This paper aims to analyze the empirical evidence provided by international studies in the last eleven years, related to the digital literacy of university students, including those pursuing degrees related to the field of education. Our findings highlight the fact that the digital literacy that is offered in universities to graduate/postgraduate students, in addition to treating digital literacy as a central theme, also focuses on perceived and developed self-efficacy. This is done by strengthening competencies related to digital writing and reading, the use of databases, the digital design of content and materials, and the skills to edit, publish or share them on the web, or applications aimed at treating digital literacy as emerging pedagogies and educational innovation. Secondly, we found studies related to digital competencies and use of the Internet, social networks, web 2.0, or the treatment of digital risks and their relationship with digital literacy. Thirdly, we found works that, in addition to focusing on digital literacy, also focused on different psychological constructs such as motivation, commitment, attitudes, or satisfaction.

Systematic review registration: https://www.scopus.com/home.uri ; https://www.recursoscientificos.fecyt.es/ .

Introduction

The concept of digital literacy (DL) appears for the first time in the works of Zurkowski ( 1974 ), for whom it is an ability to identify, locate, and examine information. However, despite its novelty, the conceptions it encompasses have been changing (Lim and Newby, 2021 ). Proof of this are the contributions of Gilster ( 1997 ) who combines the idea that DL is also closely linked to skills such as access, evaluation, and management of information used in learning processes. Digital learning is understood as the set of technical-procedural, cognitive, and socio-emotional skills necessary to live, learn, and work in a digital society (Eshet-Alkalai, 2012 ; European Commission, 2018 ). It is related to reading, writing, calculation skills, and effective use of technology in personal, social, and professional areas. It is also considered inseparable from the social and educational needs of the society in which we live (Larraz, 2013 ; Brata et al., 2022 ). Therefore, we refer to a concept that has several aspects including the technological aspect, the informative and multimedia aspect, and the communicative aspect. It involves a complete process and multiple literacies (Gisbert and Esteve, 2011 ; Lázaro, 2015 ; Valverde et al., 2022 ). It requires mastery of certain competencies related to the identification of training needs, access to information in digital environments, the use of ICT tools to manage information, interpretation, and representation of information, and the evaluation of information and the transmission of information (Covello and Lei, 2010 ; Walsh et al., 2022 ).

Digital literacy in university students

In recent years, society has undergone enormous changes with the digitalization of many of its spheres at the information level, the communication level, the level of knowledge acquisition, the level of the establishment of social relations, and even the level of leisure. Thus, our habits and means of accessing, managing, and transforming information have also changed (European Union, 2013 ; Cantabrana and Cervera, 2015 ; Allen et al., 2020 ; López-Meneses et al., 2020 ).

These developments have also had a great impact on the educational field, in which we have to rethink firstly what kind of students we are training in terms of the skills they need in today's society, and secondly, whether we are training a profile of future teachers capable of training a student body that uses information and communication technologies as something inherent to their own personal and social development. In short, digital communication has changed practices related to literacy and has gained great relevance in the development of knowledge in the twenty-first century (Comisión Europea, 2012 , 2013 ; European Commission, 2012 ; OECD, 2012 ; Unión Europea, 2013 ; Instituto Nacional de Tecnologías Educativas y Formación del Profesorado, 2017 ; Gudmundsdottir and Hatlevik, 2018 ; Pérez and Nagata, 2019 ; Fernández-de-la-Iglesia et al., 2020 ).

The European Commission ( 2013 ) indicates that initial teacher training (IDT) should integrate teachers' digital literacy, betting on the pedagogical use of digital tools, enabling them to use them in an effective, appropriate, and contextualized manner. This teaching competence should be characterized by having a holistic, contextualized, performance-, function-, and development-oriented character. In short, it is about incorporating and adequately using ICT as a didactic resource (Cantabrana and Cervera, 2015 ; Castañeda et al., 2018 ; Tourón et al., 2018 ; Chow and Wong, 2020 ; Vodá et al., 2022 ).

In this sense, according to the work of Krumsvik ( 2009 ), the CDD ( competencia digital docente de los profesores –digital competency training for teachers) is composed of four components: basic digital skills (Bawden, 2008 ), didactic competence with ICT (Koehler and Mishra, 2008 ; Gisbert and Esteve, 2011 ), learning strategies, and digital training or training.

While at the Spanish level, the Common Framework of Digital Teaching Competence of the National Institute of Educational Technologies and Teacher Training (INTEF, 2017 ) standardizes it in five areas: information and information literacy, communication and collaboration, digital content creation, security, and problem solving (López-Meneses et al., 2020 ). Recently, they have been consolidated as competencies that must be acquired by any university student, along with the knowledge, skills, and attitude that make up a digitally competent citizen (Recio et al., 2020 ; Indah et al., 2022 ).

Digital literacy in future teachers

Several efforts have been made to equip future teachers with these competencies through different standards and frameworks to the level of learning acquired (Fraser et al., 2013 ; INTEF, 2017 ; UNESCO, 2018 ). However, how to work these competencies in initial training is still a hotly debated topic, in which special attention is paid to the promotion of experiences of a pedagogical and innovative nature to transform teaching practices, involving the integration of technologies in the classroom, as stated in the Horizon Report 2019 for the Higher Education (Educause, 2019 ; Le et al., 2022 ).

Universities are in a moment of transformation, from a teacher-focused teaching model to a model based on active learning through the use of digital technologies, giving rise to a new type of education in which the use of digital devices is intrinsic (Area, 2018 ; Aarsand, 2019 ). If digital resources and devices are an inescapable part of current and future teaching practice, digital competency training for future teachers becomes extremely relevant, given that teachers need to acquire these competencies in their initial training to integrate them into their practices as future teachers. That is, the digital competence (DC) acquired during their initial training significantly predicts the integration of technologies in future teaching practice (Nikou and Aavakare, 2021 ), which could range from basic digital literacy to the integration of technologies in their daily teaching practice (Gisbert et al., 2016 ; Alanoglu et al., 2022 ). Several studies have defined the different indicators that make up DC (Siddiq et al., 2017 ; González et al., 2018 ; Rodríguez-García et al., 2019 ; Cabero-Almenara and Palacios-Rodríguez, 2020 ).

This calls for a new paradigm, in which future teachers must be digitally literate, in terms of the application of active methodologies, digital competencies, and the use of innovative strategies, styles, and approaches (Garcia-Martin and Garcia-Sanchez, 2017 ; Gómez-García et al., 2021 ).

Currently, literacy workshops for future professionals are being carried out in a timely and precise manner from customized short training capsules to specific semester-long subjects in undergraduate or postgraduate studies. The training is focused on several specific aspects of digital literacy, but there is a lack of experience in imparting comprehensive digital training. In addition, there are just a few interactions with professional experts in such literacy (Ata and Yildirim, 2019 ; Campbell and Kapp, 2020 ; Domingo-Coscolla et al., 2020 ; Tomczyk et al., 2020 ; Vinokurova et al., 2021 ).

The present study

For the present study, we based our approach on quality and current education, in which DC was postulated as a key element for the development of students. The educational system was tasked with preparing them for their full development and participation in society (OECD, 2011 ). For this reason, digital literacy is understood as an essential requirement for development in the society in which we live, based on the promotion of strategies related to searching, obtaining, processing, and communicating information. All these aspects have been consolidated as the dimensions of literacy in the twenty-first century (Piscitelli, 2009 ; Martín and Tyner, 2012 ). It is, therefore, necessary to understand the reality of this subject and to investigate how these practices are being developed in the context of work. And secondly, it is equally necessary to implement new interventions and lines of research that respond to this urgent need for literacy required by today's society. Therefore, we posed the following research questions: What psychoeducational and learning variables are key in digital literacy? What is the current situation internationally regarding digital literacy in all disciplines in pre-service teacher education? What are the differences in digital literacy requirements pre and post pandemic?

The objective of this study is to analyze the empirical evidence provided by international studies from 2010 to 2021 related to the digital literacy of university students, including those who are pursuing careers related to the educational field.

Relevant differences will be observed in the contributions in empirical evidence from international studies pre-post-pandemic; and drawn from diverse cultural backgrounds (Spanish-Latin, Portuguese, Finnish, etc.,), gender, and personal digital resources.

Materials and methods

The systematic review is composed of four phases, following the model of Miller et al. ( 2016 ) and Scott et al. ( 2018 ).

PHASE 1: Search terms: In this phase, we developed a schematic of search terms from Web of Science and Scopus databases. We also accessed the databases to locate specific studies that were referenced in the publications that we found in the databases during our initial search. The schematic of terms and thematic axes that were used as a starting point for scanning both databases for anything related to the descriptor “digital” and the descriptor “literacy” is presented in Figure 1 .

Diagram of search terms used in the systematic review.

PHASE 2: Selection process based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. The following selection criteria were applied: year of publication between 2010 and 2021, availability of full text, and language of publication in English, Portuguese, or Spanish. Once the first results were obtained, they were selected based on title, abstract, and the use of standardized instruments in their methodology. We rejected the studies that used “ ad hoc ” instruments to measure digital competence.

In addition, the selection indicators provided by Cooper and Hedges ( 1994 ) and Cooper ( 2009 ) were used, such as peer-reviewed journals, referenced databases, and citation indexes.

PHASE 3: Analysis of methodological quality and indicators based on scientific evidence. Following Torgerson ( 2007 ) and Risko et al. ( 2008 ) and taking into consideration the MQQn (Risko et al., 2008 ), we used seven indicators to analyze the quality and effectiveness of the studies (Acosta and Garza, 2011 ). These were: alignment of theory, findings, reliability and validity, descriptive details of participants and the study, sample, and consistency of findings and conclusions with the data (Risko et al., 2008 ). Alternatively, evidence-based indicators were also used along with study effect sizes (Díaz and García, 2016 ; Canedo-García et al., 2017 ).

PHASE 4: Reliability and outcomes. Reliability was established for both the selection criteria and the coding criteria during each phase, to evidence the replicability of the results. In addition, the results entailed a qualitative analysis of the selected studies, the central arguments, and the evidence provided in a modulated way to address the research questions.

Therefore, the procedure to be followed was documented and charted according to the PRISMA statement (Moher et al., 2009 ; Page et al., 2021 ) (see Figure 2 ). Likewise, an analysis was undertaken of the key foci in the various studies to highlight the relevant findings and evidence they provided in this regard. The key focus of our work was: first, to analyze the documents related to the digital literacy of university students; second, to identify which variables affect digital literacy; and third, to undertake a comparative analysis between the different variables that were analyzed.

Flowchart of search results of empirical studies in databases applying the criteria of Moher et al. ( 2009 ) and Page et al. ( 2021 ).

All the selected studies had as samples university students who were pursuing some type of degree or postgraduate degree related to education, and therefore, studying to become future teachers. An intervention design was presented that corresponds to a pre-intervention, the intervention itself, and a post-intervention using techniques such as the activation of prior knowledge, instructions, emulation, and subsequent tests. We also found studies that had an experimental design assessing control groups and experimental groups (Kajee and Balfour, 2011 ; Kuhn, 2017 ; Pequeño et al., 2017 ; Sharp, 2018 ; Lerdpornkulrat et al., 2019 ).

In the case of those responsible for the intervention, practically in all cases, the teacher acts as such, with one or two of them taking the lead. Although the presence of specialized personnel should also be highlighted, as is the case of the work elaborated by Alfonzo and Batson ( 2014 ) and Elliott et al. ( 2018 ) in which a professional librarian also intervened. Or, in the work detailed by Ball ( 2019 ), where a consultant who is not a teacher but a professional expert in the use of digital devices and trained for such an occasion by a responsible brand (Apple) carried out the training at the center.

If we examine the constructs or competencies covered by the works selected in our search, we find that all of them, in addition to dealing with digital literacy, also focus on self-efficacy perceived and developed through digital literacy.

The results of our study could be understood under different themes.

First, we found studies that referred to digital competence and other educational issues. Within them, we found a series of competencies that are emphasized such as digital writing and reading. Research developed from digital media, such as databases, web, or applications aimed at the treatment of digital literacy was noted as emerging pedagogies and educational innovation. The digital design of content and materials and the skills to edit, publish or share them, and competencies related to mathematics and its digital literacy, formed part of digital literacy.

Second, we found studies related to digital competence and the use and employment of the Internet, social networks, web 2.0, and the treatment of digital risks and their relationship with digital literacy.

Third, we found works that in addition to focusing on digital literacy, also focused on different psychological constructs such as motivation, commitment, attitudes, or satisfaction ( Tables 1 , ​ ,2 2 ).

Summary of the results found.

Summary of the interventions found.

Regarding instructional literature, we found a large number of results on mass training programs or courses in which digital literacy was the focus. Examples include a course offered in which students could sign up to, or modules taught during the teaching of a subject. We also found investigations on interventions that had been carried out through different subjects in the study program from where the sample was taken. In this case, the samples were taken on an ad hoc basis from a specific student body which the researcher intentionally decided based on a previous intervention experience with them (Ata and Yildirim, 2019 ; Ball, 2019 ; Campbell and Kapp, 2020 ; Domingo-Coscolla et al., 2020 ; Tomczyk et al., 2020 ; Vinokurova et al., 2021 ).

In terms of material resources, all the studies used some type of documentation (digital or not) with instructions on the development of the activities, in which the students were provided with what to do and the steps to follow. In this case, the development scenario was both online and face-to-face, based on different activities given through workshops or seminars for their development.

It should also be noted that in those investigations in which the intervention itself required a specific application or program, the same was used, specifically, and even the intervention had a specific scenario since it was carried out in person in specialized laboratories where experts and specific material was available for this purpose. As an example of these specific materials, in our results, we found the use of the Photo Story 3, Dashboard, and Wikipedia, as well as the EMODO program or the SELI platform (Kajee and Balfour, 2011 ; Robertson et al., 2012 ; Ball, 2019 ; Hamutoglu et al., 2019 ; Tomczyk et al., 2020 ).

Regardless of the setting and the program or application employed, we can classify the duration of these interventions into two broad groups: those that had a duration of <1 semester, and those that had an intervention whose duration ranged from one semester to one academic year.

Regarding the instruments used, it should be noted that most of them used survey forms as an evaluation instrument, either by the researcher or by the students. In addition, it is usually used as a resource to collect information of a personal nature and about one's own experience throughout the intervention. We must also highlight the fact that in many of the results found, this form was used digitally or virtually, abandoning the old paper forms (Kajee and Balfour, 2011 ; Robertson et al., 2012 ; Carl and Strydom, 2017 ; Elliott et al., 2018 ; Ball, 2019 ; Lerdpornkulrat et al., 2019 ; Campbell and Kapp, 2020 ).

Regarding the use of questionnaires, scales or self-reports, we found several works that used participants' digital literacy histories as instruments. Through them, the researcher could learn first-hand about the sample's personal experience of digital literacy, the previous knowledge they possess, the digital skills they had mastered, those they lack, or those they consider they should improve. It also included the sample's vision regarding the use and employment of digital resources in teaching practice (Kajee and Balfour, 2011 ; Robertson et al., 2012 ; Pequeño et al., 2017 ; Elliott et al., 2018 ).

In the case of scales, we found two papers that employed a Likert-scale elaborated ad hoc . We also found studies that employed standardized scales like the Information Literacy Assessment Scale for Education (ILAS-ED), the Digital Literacy Scale, or the E-Learning Attitudes Scale.

Some of the studies we reviewed used semi-structured interviews as a means of monitoring and providing feedback to the students Table 3 ; (Kajee and Balfour, 2011 ; Alfonzo and Batson, 2014 ; Gill et al., 2015 ; Carl and Strydom, 2017 ; Elliott et al., 2018 ; Elphick, 2018 ; Ata and Yildirim, 2019 ; Campbell and Kapp, 2020 ).

Assessment intervention in the reviewed studies.

As for the sequence through which the different interventions were developed, we found two types—first, those that divided the contents in time, as is the case of the work of Kajee and Balfour ( 2011 ), who covered a first semester digital writing from online classes, self-instructions and face-to-face classes in a specific laboratory, and in a second semester was exposed to different digital research techniques, following the same methodology. In contrast, we spotted the second type, where the same technique was followed throughout the study, as is the case of Robertson et al. ( 2012 ). They applied digital stories as a tool for the development of the activity, but also the evaluation of the competency. In the research carried out by Lerdpornkulrat et al. ( 2019 ), it is apparent that with the use of the rubric, the teacher gave them an example of the work and asked them all to practice evaluating and grading this work. In this way, they could check if they understood how to use a rubric. They then used the rubric to self-assess their work. After receiving feedback, both groups of students revised and resubmitted their completed projects again.

In the investigation by Elliott et al. ( 2018 ), the intervention was structured in work modules with the following sequence of sessions: they were introduced in the first session with opportunities for group discussions and questions. Essential module reading was provided in weekly online study units and module workshops integrated academic reading and writing activities, such as paraphrasing and referencing, with module content.

In the study by Ball ( 2019 ), in the first year, the students took modules on publishing history, culture, markets, and media. In the second year, the intervention was based on their publishing skills, reading for writing development, and grammar and general literacy.

Hamutoglu et al. ( 2019 ) organized their intervention in different weeks, such that during the first week of the 14-week semester, the instructor oriented the students for the course and administered pre-tests. In the following week, students were provided with a session on the Edmodo platform and orientation training on the course content.

In the work of Gabriele et al. ( 2019 ), the experimental research plan (i.e., activities to be performed, methodology to be adopted) was established over 4 months followed by the organization of the reading material (power point presentations, introductory videos of the software, handouts, ad hoc created applications as examples).

We also found interventions that had very short time durations, but provide daily detail of the contents and interventions. Similarly, Alfonzo and Batson ( 2014 ) dedicate 1 day to the search and orientation in digital resources, 1 day to the APA standards, and 3 days to develop and use a specific application.

In the research by Istenic et al. ( 2016 ), the intervention was based on six different types of tasks related to a variety of mathematical problems, including problems with redundant data, problems with multiple solutions, problems with multiple paths to the solution, problems with no solution, mathematical problems in logic, and problems with insufficient information.

In some interventions, the sequence through which they are developed is the very development of the subject of the degree course from which they are implemented, as is the case of the work of Gill et al. ( 2015 ).

In the work of Carl and Strydom ( 2017 ), students were first familiarized with the devices and then introduced to electronic portfolios, which helped them to create blogs that serve as platforms for electronic portfolios, and guided them on how to collect artifacts and how to reflect and share content.

In one work we found narrative was used as a technique so that the students could later present their work, analyze it in groups, rework it and present it again to their classmates. Kuhn ( 2017 ), Pequeño et al. ( 2017 ), and Elphick ( 2018 ) followed this model.

Adopting a novel consultative approach, Botturi ( 2019 ) co-designed the intervention with his students in two steps: they were surveyed 4 weeks before the start of the course and asked to choose between two options: an overview of different topics/methods/experiences, or an in-depth exploration of one or two topics/methods/experiences. All respondents indicated a preference for the first option and provided indications of the topics they wished to cover (see Tables 4 , ​ ,5 5 ).

Assessment instruments used in the instructional intervention in the reviewed studies.

Treatment fidelity.

Indicators and controls used in the instructional intervention in the empirical studies reviewed II.

The limitations of our search are listed in Table 6 . At the theoretical level, we encountered studies that were not very current, missing research questions or hypotheses, or even missing objectives. At the statistical level, we found several studies had a small or unrepresentative sample.

Limitations of the instructional interventions described in the empirical studies reviewed.

Analyzing the interventions themselves, we identified a few limitations, especially in those studies that neither indicates the tasks, record the entire process, or lack key information to replicate the intervention. In some studies, key information relating to the person carrying out the intervention was missing, particularly on whether they had the specific training for this purpose. Another limitation that was identified was that very few evaluation strategies were in place to evaluate the interventions (see Table 7 ).

Indicators and controls used in the instructional intervention in the empirical studies reviewed.

Similarly, gaps were found regarding ethical controls, where in some studies the main limitation was that ethical controls were non-existent or not specified (Robertson et al., 2012 ; Istenic et al., 2016 ; Kuhn, 2017 ; Elphick, 2018 ; Ata and Yildirim, 2019 ; Tomczyk et al., 2020 ).

Figure 3 shows the evolution over the years of the samples used in each of the studies from 2011 to 2020.

Evolution over years of the samples used in the studies from 2010 to 2021.

Figure 4 shows the evolution over the years of the controls used in each of the studies from 2011 to 2021.

Evolution over years of the controls used in studies from 2010 to 2021.

This work aimed to analyze the empirical evidence found in international studies between 2011 to 2021 related to the digital literacy of university students, including those pursuing degrees in education. This objective has been met.

Regarding the first focus related to literacy, this paper highlighted the fact that studies from the West are the most prevalent in this field (Çoklar et al., 2017 ; Ata and Yildirim, 2019 ; Hamutoglu et al., 2019 ; Sujarwo et al., 2022 ), which correspond to cross-sectional studies, mostly employing instruments such as “the Digital Literacy Scale” developed by Ng ( 2012 ), and “the information literacy self-efficacy scale (ILS)” developed by Kurbanoglu et al. ( 2006 ). Regarding the level of mastery, the results showed an upper intermediate level of competence in information and digital literacy, communication, and collaboration, but a low intermediate level in terms of digital content creation, particularly in the creation and dissemination of multimedia content using different tools (López-Meneses et al., 2020 ; Moreno et al., 2020 ).

Regarding the second focus, digital literacy in university students, this study reviewed the various contributions of other works and found the presence of a competent group in this field, which makes efficient use of both the Internet and digital media (Çoklar et al., 2016 ; Ata and Yildirim, 2019 ; Lim and Newby, 2021 ). However, differences were also found in this collective relating to gender, where women were more competent than men in digital literacy, information literacy, technological literacy, and communicative literacy (Hamutoglu et al., 2019 ; López-Meneses et al., 2020 ; Navarro, 2020 ). However, on the other hand, we lso found studies that revealed particular gender gaps where men showed a higher propensity for DL, while women outperform men in the overall digital literacy test (Ata and Yildirim, 2019 ). Ata and Yildirim ( 2019 ) also found differences in DL between students where university students studying science or mathematics-related majors had higher levels of digital literacy than students majoring in social sciences or psychology fields (Ata and Yildirim, 2019 ; Chow and Wong, 2020 ).

And as for the third focus, digital literacy in future teachers, we found a dual use of digital literacy, in its social and leisure aspect (searching or maintaining friendships through social networks, sharing digital content, downloading content, or playing online games), and in its academic aspect (searching in search engines, working through online documents, organizing or synthesizing information from different processors, using computer programs to make presentations, edit images or content, or create audiovisual content (López-Meneses et al., 2020 ).

The main contribution of this review lies in its comparison between pre/post-pandemic studies, which show a great increase in the use of technologies in the educational world (across the curriculum), and research work focused on measuring the competencies of these devices (Baber et al., 2022 ). These new investigations have not only followed the line of previous ones but focused on the measurement of digital literacy and its influence on it by variables such as the degree of origin, gender, age, or being a digital native or immigrant (Castañeda-Peña et al., 2015 ; Çoklar et al., 2016 ; Castañeda et al., 2018 ; Ata and Yildirim, 2019 ; Gür et al., 2019 ; Hamutoglu et al., 2019 ; Lerdpornkulrat et al., 2019 ; González et al., 2020 ; Navarro, 2020 ; De Sixte et al., 2021 ). But there has been an expansion of the topics and variables that are studied in conjunction with digital literacy, among which we find as a novelty, the study of psycho-educational variables such as academic motivation (Chow and Wong, 2020 ), self-efficacy and motivation (Lerdpornkulrat et al., 2019 ), effort expectations (Nikou and Aavakare, 2021 ), and self-concept as a student and as a teacher (Yeşilyurt et al., 2016 ). The importance attached to the educational field, the identification of different roles or behaviors within the concept of digital literacy that is delimited, or even the types of uses within the concept of digital literacy (López-Meneses et al., 2020 ; Moreno et al., 2020 ; Navarro, 2020 ; Lim and Newby, 2021 ) are new trends.

Therefore, we can affirm that in this study the research predictions are fulfilled, in that the results found show relevant differences from international studies pre-post pandemic; and by different cultural backgrounds (Spanish Latin, Portuguese, Finnish...), gender, and personal digital resources. In terms of applications for educational practice, these results do not indicate that university students are competent in terms of digital literacy, although they demonstrate some competencies like online information search, information evaluation, information processing, information communication, and dissemination skills (Çoklar et al., 2016 ; Lerdpornkulrat et al., 2019 ). Therefore, there is the risk of training an incomplete student body in digital competence. For complete and comprehensive digital literacy for university students, especially future teachers, there is an urgent need to invest in digital literacy programs. This will ensure that the comprehensive digital competence of students corresponds to the use and employment of the Internet and digital devices in their teaching tasks (Gisbert et al., 2016 ), and be a guarantee of their integration into teaching practice (Aslan and Zhu, 2016 ; Nikou and Aavakare, 2021 ).

As for the limitations of this work, they are closely related to the seven indicators for analyzing study quality and effectiveness (Acosta and Garza, 2011), which are: alignment of theory, findings, reliability and validity, descriptive details of participants, and the study, sample, and consistency of findings and conclusions with the data (Risko et al., 2008 ). Along with evidence-based indicators, and effect sizes of studies (Díaz and García, 2016 ; Canedo-García et al., 2017 ). So future lines of research or work, should take into account overcoming these limitations, and embrace them in the face of their development.

The number of studies found in the systematic review is comparable to what is usual in this type of study and even higher. For example, in the exemplary systematic review by Scott et al. ( 2018 ), they identified only 29 studies that met the quality criteria, reviewing 50 years of studies published in the US, and of these, only four were quantitative. In the study by Borgi et al. ( 2020 ), they only found ten studies that fit the criteria in a very good analysis. Other systematic reviews go along the same lines, and in the same journal and section Frontiers in Psychology . For example, Dickson and Schubert ( 2020 ) and Liu et al. ( 2022 ) found only six studies in a review of great interest; the study by Nguyen et al. ( 2021 ) identified 18 eligible articles; Shou et al. ( 2022 ) with 12 studies included; or Tarchi et al. ( 2021 ); Huang ( 2022 ) found seven studies for quantitative analysis and eight for indirect evidence; Coxen et al. ( 2021 ) with 21 articles included in the focal analyzes of the systematic review. The number of studies to be representative is not defined by the number but by the existence of such studies. In a systematic review, all studies are reviewed, thus the population of published studies that fit the indicated criteria. With these studies, it was possible to do an analysis of objective indicators in a general comparison between studies; assessing the instruments used; examining the characteristics of the interventions such as strategies, instructional procedure, and psychological variables considered; comparing the fidelity controls of the treatments, which guarantees their rigor and their application in the terms prescribed by the empirical validation of the interventions; and reviewing the limitations of the studies and their contributions by years. These contributions were based on objective data from the studies and have been represented in tables and figures. In addition, a qualitative analysis is provided that highlights the value of intervention studies in relation to digital competence, and the key psychological variables that have been used. It is true that the studies published since 2010 were used, and that there could have been more studies before, but considering the evolution of this type of focus in relation to digital competence and the psychological variables involved, it is evident that the most interesting thing is to consider the recent years which is when its need and use has been generalized throughout the population.

Conclusions

In general, the results show that university students are digitally literate and make efficient use of both the Internet and digital media. In this sense, we found an intermediate or higher level in skills related to communication and collaboration, such as through different chat rooms, platforms, and communication applications. But an intermediate-low level in terms of digital content creation, especially in the creation and dissemination of multimedia content. So, this should be one of the future competencies to increase in this group. Although there are differences according to gender, age, or degree of origin.

We have to invest in comprehensive digital literacy programs for teachers in initial training, which appears implicit in the training plans of their official studies. Digital literacy needs to be a part of the official curriculum, and be developed rather quickly as a separate subject but in an interdisciplinary manner throughout their training. In this way, they become digitally literate people capable of creating and generating digital content and possessing the necessary competencies and skills to use and share such content.

We must also invest in assessing teachers' self-perception. Only by knowing their opinion, skills, and shortcomings, can digital training programs be designed. Digital literacy is a predictor of good digital use and a predictor of the good use and employment of digital devices and the Internet in the future when they would be teaching.

The findings of this study compel us to consider the following: first, we need to rethink the form and manner in which future teachers are capacitated in digital literacy, if we are doing it in the best way, or if on the contrary there are gaps that should be solved. Second, we should take into account the contributions of the results found and their consequences to formulate effective intervention designs and strategies to effectively capacitate pre-service teachers in digital literacy.

Data availability statement

Author contributions.

J-NS-G, NG-Á, IM-R, JG-M, and SB-C: conceptualization, methodology, software, writing—review and editing, visualization, supervision, and validation. NG-A: formal analysis, investigation, and resources: UAL, ULE, USAL, IPC, data curation, writing—original draft preparation, and funding acquisition. J-NS-G and NG-A: project administration. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

The generalx operating funds of the universities have been used Universidad de León (Spain), Universidad de Almería (Spain), Universidad de Salamanca (Spain), Instituto Politécnico de Coimbra and NICSH (Portugal).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

* The asterisk of focal references are APA standards.

• Aarsand P. (2019). Categorization activities in norwegian preschools: digital tools in identifying, articulating, and assessing . Front. Psychol. 10 , 973. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00973 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Acosta S., Garza T. (2011). The Podcasting Playbook: A Typology of Evidence-Based Podagogy for PreK-12 Classrooms with English Language Learners . [ Google Scholar ]
• Alanoglu M., Aslan S., Karabatak S. (2022). Do teachers' educational philosophies affect their digital literacy? The mediating effect of resistance to change . Educ. Inf. Technol . 27 , 3447–3466. 10.1007/s10639-021-10753-3 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• * . Alfonzo P. M., Batson J. (2014). Utilizing a co-teaching model to enhance digital literacy instruction for doctoral students . Int. J. Doc. Stud. 9 , 61–71. 10.28945/1973 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Allen J., Belfi B., Borghans L. (2020). Is there a rise in the importance of socioemotional skills in the labor market? Evidence from a trend study among college graduates . Front. Psychol. 11 , 1710. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01710 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Area M. (2018). Hacia la universidad digital: dónde estamos y a dónde vamos? Rev. Iberoam. Educ. Dist. 21 , 25–30. 10.5944/ried.21.2.21801 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aslan A., Zhu C. (2016). Investigating variables predicting turkish pre-service teachers' integration of ICT into teaching practices . Br. J. Educ. Technol. 48 , 552–570. 10.1111/bjet.12437 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• * . Ata R., Yildirim K. (2019). Exploring Turkish pre-service teachers' perceptions and views of digital literacy . Educ. Sci. 9 , 40–56. 10.3390/educsci9010040 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baber H., Fanea-Ivanovici M., Lee Y.-T., Tinmaz H. (2022). A bibliometric analysis of digital literacy research and emerging themes pre-during COVID-19 pandemic . Inform. Learn. Sci. 123 , 214–232. 10.1108/ILS-10-2021-0090 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• * . Ball C. (2019). WikiLiteracy: enhancing students' digital literacy with wikipedia . J. Inform. Liter. 13 , 253–271. 10.11645/13.2.2669 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bawden D. (2008). Revisión de los conceptos de alfabetización informacional y alfabetización digital: traducción . Anal. Document. 5 , 361–408. Available online at: https://revistas.um.es/analesdoc/article/view/2261 [ Google Scholar ]
• Borgi M., Collacchi B., Giuliani A., Cirulli F. (2020). Dog visiting programs for managing depressive symptoms in older adults: a meta-analysis . Gerontologist 60 , e66–e75. 10.1093/geront/gny149 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• * . Botturi L. (2019). Digital and media literacy in pre-service teacher education: a case study from Switzerland . Nordic J. Dig. Liter. 14 , 147–163. 10.18261/issn.1891-943x-2019-03-04-05 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brata W., Padang R., Suriani C., Prasetya E., Pratiwi N. (2022). Student's digital literacy based on students' interest in digital technology, internet costs, gender, and learning outcomes . Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 17,138–151. 10.3991/ijet.v17i03.27151 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cabero-Almenara J., Palacios-Rodríguez A. (2020). Marco europeo de competencia digital docente “DigCompEdu”. Traducción y adaptación del cuestionario “DigCompEdu Check-In” . Edmetic 9 , 213–234. 10.21071/edmetic.v9i1.12462 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• * . Campbell E., Kapp R. (2020). Developing an integrated, situated model for digital literacy in pre-service teacher education . J. Educ. 79 , 18–30. 10.17159/2520-9868/i79a02 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Canedo-García A., García-Sánchez J. N., Pacheco-Sanz D. I. (2017). a systematic review of the effectiveness of intergenerational programs . Front. Psychol. 8 , 1882. 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01882 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cantabrana J. L. L., Cervera M. G. (2015). El desarrollo de la competencia digital docente a partir de una experiencia piloto de formación en alternancia en el Grado de Educación . Educar 51 , 321–348. 10.5565/rev/educar.725 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• * . Carl A., Strydom S. (2017). e-Portfolio as reflection tool during teaching practice: the interplay between contextual and dispositional variables . S. Afr. J. Educ. 37 , 1–10. 10.15700/saje.v37n1a1250 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Castañeda L., Esteve F., Adell J. (2018). Por qué es necesario repensar la competencia docente para el mundo digital? Rev. Educ. Distan. 56 , 2–20. 10.6018/red/56/6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Castañeda-Peña H., Barbosa-Chacón J. W., Marciales G., Barreto I. (2015). Profiling information literacy in higher education: traces of a local longitudinal study . Univer. Psychol. 14 , 445–458. 10.11144/Javeriana.upsy14-2.pilh [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chow S. K. Y., Wong J. L. K. (2020). Supporting academic self-efficacy, academic motivation, and information literacy for students in tertiary institutions . Educ. Sci. 10 , 361. 10.3390/educsci10120361 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Çoklar A., Efilti E., Şahin Y., AkÇay A. (2016). Determining the reasons of technostress experienced by teachers: A qualitative study. Turkish Online J. Qual. Inq . 7 , 71–96. 10.17569/tojqi.96082 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Çoklar A. N., Yaman N. D., Yurdakul I. K. (2017). Information literacy and digital nativity as determinants of online information search strategies . Comput. Hum. Behav. 70 , 1–9. 10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.050 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Comisión Europea (2012). Informe Conjunto de 2012 del Consejo y de la Comisión sobre la Aplicación del Marco Estratégico Para la Cooperación Europea en el Ámbito de la Educación y la Formación (ET 2020). Comisión Europea . Available online at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ES/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52012XG0308(01)andfrom=EN
• Comisión Europea (2013). Monitor Education and Training 2013. Comisión Europea . Available online at: https://op.europa.eu/es/publication-detail/-/publication/25626e01-1bb8-403c-95da-718c3cfcdf19/language-en
• Cooper H. (2009). Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis: A Step-By-Step Approach . London: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper H., Hedges L. V. (1994). The Handbook of Research Synthesis. New York: Russell Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Covello S., Lei J. (2010). A Review of Digital Literacy Assessment Instruments. IDE-712 Front-End Analysis Research . Syracuse: Analysis for Human Performance Technology Decisions. [ Google Scholar ]
• Coxen L., van der Vaart L., Van den Broeck A., Rothmann S. (2021). Basic psychological needs in the work context: a systematic literature review of diary studies . Front. Psychol . 12 :698526. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.698526 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Sixte R., Fajardo I., Mañá A., Jáñez Á., Ramos M., García-Serrano M., et al.. (2021). Beyond the educational context: relevance of intrinsic reading motivation during COVID-19 confinement in Spain . Front. Psychol. 12 , 703251. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.703251 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Díaz C., García J. N. (2016). Identification of relevant elements for promoting eficient interventions in older people . J. Psychodidact. 21 , 157–173. 10.1387/RevPsicodidact.13854 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dickson G. T., Schubert E. (2020). Music on prescription to aid sleep quality: a literature review . Front. Psychol. 11 , 1695. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01695 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• * . Domingo-Coscolla M., Bosco A., Carrasco Segovia S., Sánchez Valero J. A. (2020). Fomentando la competencia digital docente en la universidad: percepción de estudiantes y docentes . Rev. Invest. Educ. 38 , 167–782. 10.6018/rie.340551 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Educause (2019). Horizon Report 2019—Higher Education Edition . Boulder: Educause. [ Google Scholar ]
• * . Elliott S., Hendry H., Ayres C., Blackman K., Browning F., Colebrook D., et al.. (2018). 'On the outside I'm smiling but inside I'm crying.' Communication successes and challenges for undergraduate academic writing . J. Furth. High. Educ. 45 , 758–770. 10.1080/0309877X.2018.1455077 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• * . Elphick M. (2018). The impact of embedded iPad use on student perceptions of their digital capabilities . Educ. Sci. 8 , 102–125. 10.3390/educsci8030102 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eshet-Alkalai Y. (2012). Thinking in the digital era: a revised model for digital literacy . Iss. Inform. Sci. Inform. Technol. 9 , 267–276. 10.28945/1621 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• European Comission . (2012). The European Commission and bureaucratic autonomy: Europe's custodians . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• European Comission . (2013). The European Commission of the Twenty-First Century . Oxford: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• European Commission (Ed) (2018). Proposal for a Council Recommendation on Key Competences for Lifelong Learning. New York: European Commission. [ Google Scholar ]
• European Union (2013). Digital protest skills and online activism against copyright reform in France and the European Union . Policy Int. 5 , 27–55. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fernández-de-la-Iglesia J. C., Fernández-Morante M. C., Cebreiro B., Soto-Carballo J., Martínez-Santos A. E., Casal-Otero L. (2020). Competencias y actitudes para el uso de las TIC de los estudiantes del grado de maestro de Galicia . Publicaciones 50 , 103–120. 10.30827/publicaciones.v50i1.11526 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fraser J., Atkins L., Richard H. (2013). Digilit Leicester. Supporting Teachers, Promoting Digital Literacy, Transforming Learning . Leicester: Leicester City Council. [ Google Scholar ]
• * . Gabriele L., Bertacchini F., Tavernise A., Vaca-Cárdenas L., Pantano P., Bilotta E. (2019). Lesson planning by computational thinking skills in Italian pre-service teachers . Inform. Educ. 18 , 69–104. 10.15388/infedu.2019.04 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Garcia-Martin J., Garcia-Sanchez J. N. (2017). Pre-service teachers' perceptions of the competence dimensions of digital literacy and of psychological and educational measures . Comp. Educ. 107 , 54–67. 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.010 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• * . Gill L., Dalgarno B., Carlson L. (2015). How does pre-service teacher preparedness to use ICTs for learning and teaching develop through their degree program? Austral. J. Teach. Educ. 40 , 36–59. Available online at: https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84870756234andorigin=inwardandtxGid=927e8280a577067fddaa8df02fa0b665andfeatureToggles=FEATURE_NEW_DOC_DETAILS_EXPORT:1 [ Google Scholar ]
• Gilster P. (1997). Digital Literacy (p. 1) . New York, NY: Wiley Computer Pub. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gisbert M., Esteve F. (2011). Digital Leaners: la competencia digital de los estudiantes universitarios . La Cuestión Univer. 7 , 48–59. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gisbert M., Esteve F., Lázaro J. (2016). La competencia digital de los futuros docentes: “cómo se ven los actuales estudiantes de educación” Perspect. Educ. 55 , 34–52. 10.4151/07189729-Vol.55-Iss.2-Art.412 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gómez-García G., Hinojo-Lucena F. J., Fernández-Martín F. D., Romero-Rodríguez J. M. (2021). Educational challenges of higher education: validation of the information competence scale for future teachers (ICS-FT) . Educ. Sci. 12, 14. 10.3390/educsci12010014 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• González M. J. M., Rivoir A., Lázaro-Cantabrana J. L., Gisbert-Cervera M. (2020). “Cuánto importa la competencia digital docente? Análisis de los programas de formación inicial docente en Uruguay . Int. J. Technol. Educ. Innov. 6 , 128–140. 10.24310/innoeduca.2020.v6i2.5601 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• González V., Román M., Prendes M. P. (2018). Formación en competenciasdigitales para estudiantes universitarios basada en el modelo DigComp . Rev. Electró. Tecnol. Educ. 65 , 1–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gudmundsdottir G. B., Hatlevik O. E. (2018). Newly qualified teachers' professional digital competence: implications for teacher education . Euro. J. Teach. Educ. 41 , 214–231. 10.1080/02619768.2017.1416085 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gür D., Canan Ö., Hamutoglu N. B., Kaya G., Demirtas T. (2019). The Relationship between lifelong learning trends, digital literacy levels and usage of web 2.0 tools with social entrepreneurship characteristics . Croat. J. Educ. 21 , 45–76. Available online at: https://hrcak.srce.hr/220701 [ Google Scholar ]
• * . Hamutoglu N. B., Savaşçi M., Sezen-Gültekin G. (2019). Digital literacy skills and attitudes towards e-learning . J. Educ. Fut. 16 , 93–107. 10.30786/jef.509293 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huang C. (2022). Self-Regulation of learning and EFL learners' hope and joy: a review of literature . Front. Psychol. 13 , 833279. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.833279 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Indah R. N., Budhiningrum A. S., Afifi N. (2022). The research competence, critical thinking skills and digital literacy of Indonesian EFL students . J. Lang. Teach. Res. 13 , 315–324. 10.17507/jltr.1302.11 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Instituto Nacional de Tecnologías Educativas y Formación del Profesorado (2017). Marco Común de Competencia Digital Docente Octubre 2017. Instituto Nacional de Tecnologías Educativas y Formación del Profesorado . Available online at: https://aprende.intef.es/sites/default/files/2018-05/2017_1020_Marco-Com%C3%BAn-de-Competencia-Digital-Docente.pdf
• INTEF (Ed.) (2017). Marco Común de Competencia Digital Docente. INTEF . Available online at: https://aprende.intef.es/sites/default/files/2018-05/2017_1020_Marco-Com%C3%BAn-de-Competencia-Digital-Docente.pdf
• * . Istenic A., Cotic M., Solomonides I., Volk M. (2016). Engaging preservice primary and preprimary school teachers in digital storytelling for the teaching and learning of mathematics . Br. J. Educ. Technol. 47 , 29–50. 10.1111/bjet.12253 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• * . Kajee L., Balfour R. (2011). Students' access to digital literacy at a South African university: privilege and marginalisation . S. Afr. Linguist. Appl. Lang. Stud. 29 , 187–196. 10.2989/16073614.2011.633365 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Koehler M. J., Mishra P. (2008). “Introducing tpck,” in The Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (tpck) for Educators , ed AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; ), 3–29. [ Google Scholar ]
• Krumsvik R. J. (2009). Situated learning in the network society and the digitised school . Euro. J. Teach. Educ. 32 , 167–185. 10.1080/02619760802457224 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• * . Kuhn C. (2017). Are students ready to (re)-design their personal learning environment? The case of the e-dynamic space . J. N. Approach. Educ. Res. 6 , 11–19. 10.7821/naer.2017.1.185 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kurbanoglu S. S., Akkoyunlu B., Umay A. (2006). Developing the information literacy scale . J. Doc. 62 , 730–743. 10.1108/00220410610714949 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Larraz E. F. (2013). Competencia digital en la educación superior: instrumentos de evaluación y nuevos entornos. Enl@ ce: Revista Venezolana de Información. Tecnología y Conocimiento . 10 , 29–43. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lázaro J. (2015). La Competència Digital Docent Com a Eina per Garantir la Qualitat en l'ús de les TIC en un Centre Escolar (Tesis doctoral: ), Tarragona: Universitat Rovira i Virgili. [ Google Scholar ]
• Le B., Lawrie G. A., Wang J. T. (2022). Student self-perception on digital literacy in STEM blended learning environments . J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 31 , 303–321. 10.1007/s10956-022-09956-1 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• * . Lerdpornkulrat T., Poondej C., Koul R., Khiawrod G., Prasertsirikul P. (2019). The positive effect of intrinsic feedback on motivational engagement and self-efficacy in information literacy . J. Psychoeduc. Assess. 37 , 421–434. 10.1177/0734282917747423 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lim J., Newby T. J. (2021). Preservice teachers' attitudes toward Web 2.0 personal learning environments (PLEs): considering the impact of self-regulation and digital literacy . Educ. Inform. Technol. 26 , 3699–3720. 10.1007/s10639-021-10432-3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu W., Xu Y., Xu T., Ye Z., Yang J., Wang Y. (2022). Integration of neuroscience and entrepreneurship: a systematic review and bibliometric analysis . Front. Psychol . 13, 810550. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.810550 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• López-Meneses E., Sirignano F. M., Vázquez-Cano E., Ramírez-Hurtado J. M. (2020). University students' digital competence in three areas of the DigCom 2.1 model: a comparative study at three European universities . Austral. J. Educ. Technol. 36 , 69–88. 10.14742/ajet.5583 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martín A., Tyner K. (2012). Media education, media literacy and digital competence . Co-municar 19 , 31–39. 10.3916/C38-2012-02-03 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller D. M., Scott C. E., McTigue E. M. (2016). Writing in the secondary-level disciplines: a systematic review of context, cognition and content . Educ. Psychol. Rev. 30 , 83–120. 10.1007/s10648-016-9393-z [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moher D. Liberati A. Tetzlaff J. Altman D.G. The PRISMA Group . (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement . PLoS Med . 6, e1000097. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moreno A. J., Fernández M. A., Godino A. L. (2020). Información y alfabetización digital docente: influencia de la rama formativa . J. Educ. Teach. Train. 10 , 140–150. Available online at: https://digibug.ugr.es/handle/10481/59591 [ Google Scholar ]
• Navarro J. A. M. (2020). La competencia digital de los estudiantes universitarios latinoamericanos . Int. J. Educ. Res. Innov. 14 , 276–289. 10.46661/ijeri.4387 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ng W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Comput. Educ. 59 , 1065–1078. 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.016 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nguyen H. T. T., Hoang A. P., Do L. T. K., Schiffer S., Nguyen H. T. H. (2021). The rate and risk factors of postpartum depression in vietnam from 2010 to 2020: a literature review . Front. Psychol . 12, 731306. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.731306 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nikou S., Aavakare M. (2021). An assessment of the interplay between literacy and digital technology in higher education . Educ. Inform. Technol. 26 , 3893–3915. 10.1007/s10639-021-10451-0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD (2011). Informe Habilidades y Competencias Del Siglo xxi Para Los Aprendices Del Nuevo Milenio En los Paí ses de la . OECD . Available online at: http://recursostic.educacion.es/blogs/europa/media/blogs/europa/informes/Habilidades_y_competencias_siglo21_OCDE.pdf
• OECD (2012). Education at a Glance 2012. OECD Indicators. Panorama de la educación. Indicadores de la OCDE 2014. Informe español . Available online at: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/education-at-a-glance-2012_eag-2012-en
• Page M. J., McKenzie J. E., Bossuyt P. M., Boutron I., Hoffmann T. C., Mulrow C. D., et al.. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews . BMJ 372 , n71. 10.1136/bmj.n71 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• * . Paige K., Bentley B., Dobson S. (2016). Slowmation: an innovative twenty-first century teaching and learning tool for science and mathematics pre-service teachers . Austral. J. Teach. Educ. 2 , 1–15. 10.14221/ajte.2016v41n2.1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• * . Pequeño J. M. G., Rodríguez E. F., de la Iglesia Atienza L. (2017). Narratives transmèdia amb joves universitaris. Una etnografia digital en la societat hiperconnectada . Anàlisi 57 , 81–95. Available online at: https://raco.cat/index.php/Analisi/article/view/330248 [ Google Scholar ]
• Pérez T. A., Nagata J. J. (2019). The digital culture of students of pedagogy specialising in the humanities in Santiago de Chile . Comput. Educ. 133 , 1–12. 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.01.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Piscitelli A. (2009). Nativos Digitales . Mexico: Santillana. 10.26439/contratexto2008.n016.782 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Recio F., Silva J., Marchant N. A. (2020). Análisis de la competencia digital en la formación inicial de estudiantes universitarios: un estudio de meta-análisis en la web of science . Rev. Med. Educ. 59 , 125–146. 10.12795/pixelbit.77759 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Risko V. J., Roller C. M., Cummins C., Bean R. M., Block C. C., Anders P. L., et al.. (2008). A critical analysis of research on reading teacher education . Read. Res. Q. 43 , 252–288. 10.1598/RRQ.43.3.3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• * . Robertson L., Hughes J., Smith S. (2012). “Thanks for the assignment!”: digital stories as a form of reflective practice . Lang. Liter. 14 , 78–90. 10.20360/G2S88D [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodríguez-García A. M., Raso F., Ruiz-Palmero J. (2019). Competencia digital, educación superior y formación del profesorado: un estudio de meta-análisis en la web of Science . Pixel Bit 54 , 65–81. 10.12795/pixelbit.2019.i54.04 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Scott C. E., McTigue E. M., Miller D. M., Washburn E. K. (2018). The what, when, and how of preservice teachers and literacy across the disciplines: a systematic literature review of nearly 50 years of research . Teach. Teach. Educ. 73 , 1–13. 10.1016/j.tate.2018.03.010 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• * . Sharp L. A. (2018). Collaborative digital literacy practices among adult learners: levels of confidence and perceptions of importance . Int. J. Instruct. 11 , 153–166. 10.12973/iji.2018.11111a [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shou S., Li Y., Fan G., Zhang Q., Yan Y., Lv T., et al.. (2022). The efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy for tic disorder: a meta-analysis and a literature review . Front. Psychol . 13, 851250. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.851250 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Siddiq F., Gochyyev P., Wilson M. (2017). Learning in digital networks – ICT literacy: a novel assessment of students' 21st century skills . Comput. Educ. 109 , 11–37. 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.01.014 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sujarwo S., Tristanti T., Kusumawardani E. (2022). Digital literacy model to empower women using community-based education approach . World J. Educ. Technol. Curr. Issues 14 , 175–188. 10.18844/wjet.v14i1.6714 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tarchi C., Ruffini C., Pecini C. (2021). The contribution of executive functions when reading multiple texts: a systematic literature review . Front. Psychol . 12:, 716463. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.716463 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• * . Tomczyk Ł., Potyrała K., Włoch A., Wnek-Gozdek J., Demeshkant N. (2020). Evaluation of the functionality of a new e-learning platform vs. previous experiences in e-learning and the self-assessment of own digital literacy . Sustainability 12 , 10219. 10.3390/su122310219 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Torgerson K. (2007). A genetic study of the acute anxious response to carbon dioxide stimulation in man . J. Psychiatric Res . 41 , 906–917. 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2006.12.002 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tourón J., Martín D., Navarro E., Pradas S., Íñigo V. (2018). Validación de constructo de un instrumento para medir la competencia digital docente de los profesores (CDD) . Rev. Española Pedag. 76 , 25–54. 10.22550/REP76-1-2018-02 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• UNESCO (2018). ICT Competency Framework for Teachers. UNESCO . Available online at: https://en.unesco.org/themes/ict-education/competency-framework-teachers
• Unión Europea (2013). Comprender las Polí ticas de la Unión Europea: Una Nueva Revolución Industrial . Unión Europea . Available online at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/es/sheet/61/los-principios-generales-de-la-politica-industrial-de-la-union
• Valverde J., González A., Acevedo J. (2022). Desinformación y multialfabetización: Una revisión sistemática de la literatura . Comunicar 7 , 97–110. 10.3916/C70-2022-08 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• * . Vinokurova N., Mazurenko O., Prikhodchenko T., Ulanova S. (2021). Digital transformation of educational content in the pedagogical higher educational institution . Rev. Invest. Apuntes Univer. 11 , 1–20. 10.17162/au.v11i3.713 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vodá A. I., Cautisanu C., Grádinaru C., Tánásescu C., de Moraes G. H. S. M. (2022). Exploring digital literacy skills in social sciences and humanities students . Sustainability 14 , 2483. 10.3390/su14052483 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Walsh K., Pink E., Ayling N., Sondergeld A., Dallaston E., Tournas P., et al.. (2022). Best practice framework for online safety education: results from a rapid review of the international literature, expert review, and stakeholder consultation . Int. J. Child Comput. Interact. 33 , 100474. 10.1016/j.ijcci.2022.100474 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yeşilyurt E., Ulaş A. H., Akan D. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy, academic self-efficacy, and computer self-efficacy as predictors of attitude toward applying computer-supported education . Comput. Hum. Behav. 64 , 591–601. 10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.038 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zurkowski P.G. (1974). The information service environment relationships and priorities . Relat. Pap. 5, 27. [ Google Scholar ]