Advertisement

The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 303–312 | Cite as

College Students’ Digital Readiness for Academic Engagement (DRAE) Scale: Scale Development and Validation

  • Ah Jeong Hong
  • Hye Jeong KimEmail author
Regular Article

Abstract

This study involves the development and validation of a survey that measures college students’ digital readiness for academic engagement in terms of their perceived digital competencies for academic work. Both exploratory and confirmatory analyses were employed to assess the factorial structure of the Digital Readiness for Academic Engagement (DRAE) Scale. The participants in this study were undergraduate students enrolled in a Korean university. The data were randomly split into two groups. The results of the exploratory factor analysis indicated a five-factor structure. In addition, confirmatory factor analysis found that the predicted model had an acceptable fit. The results are discussed, and implications for educational approaches in higher education are provided.

Keywords

Digital competency Digital media Information seeking Student engagement 

References

  1. Bandalos, D. L., & Finney, S. J. (2010). Factor analysis: Exploratory and confirmatory. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), The reviewer’s guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences (pp. 93–114). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Bartlett, M. S. (1950). Test of significance in factor analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 3(2), 77–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bollen, K. A., & Stine, R. A. (1992). Bootstrapping goodness-of-fit measures in structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 205–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen, P. S. D., Lambert, A. D., & Guidry, K. R. (2010). Engaging online learners: The impact of Web-based learning technology on college student engagement. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1222–1232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen, Y. H., & Chengalur-Smith, I. (2015). Factors influencing students’ use of a library Web portal: Applying course-integrated information literacy instruction as an intervention. Internet and Higher Education, 26, 42–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Çoklar, A. N., Yaman, N. D., & Yurdakul, I. K. (2017). Information literacy and digital nativity as determinants of online information search strategies. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DeVellis, R. F. (2012). Scale development: Theory and applications (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE publication.Google Scholar
  11. European Commission. (2010). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Communication (Vol. 5).Google Scholar
  12. European Council. (2006). Recommendation of the European Parliament and the Council on key competencies for lifelong learning. Official Journal of the European Union, 10–18. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:394:0010:0018:en:PDF. Accessed 30 Dec 2006.
  13. Everson, M., Gundlach, E., & Miller, J. (2013). Social media and the introductory statistics course. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), A69–A81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferrari, A., Neža Brečko, B., & Punie, Y. (2013). DIGCOMP: A framework for developing and understanding digital competence in Europe. eLearning Papers. Retrieved from http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC83167/lb-na-26035-enn.pdf.
  15. Fitch, J. L. (2004). Student feedback in the college classroom: A technology solution. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(1), 71–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gerbing, D. W., & Hamilton, J. G. (1996). Viability of exploratory factor analysis as a precursor to confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 3(1), 62–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goode, J. (2010). The digital identity divide: How technology knowledge impacts college students. New Media & Society, 12(3), 497–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goodfellow, R., & Lea, M. R. (2013). Literacy in the digital university: Critical perspectives on learning, scholarship, and technology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Gratch-lindauer, B. (2008). College student engagement surveys: Implications for information literacy. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 114, 101–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Greene, J. A., Yu, S. B., & Copeland, D. Z. (2014). Measuring critical components of digital literacy and their relationships with learning. Computers & Education, 76, 55–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Guzmán-Simón, F., García-Jiménez, E., & López-Cobo, I. (2017). Undergraduate students’ perspectives on digital competence and academic literacy in a Spanish University. Computers in Human Behavior, 74, 196–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haythornthwaite, C., & Andrews, R. (2011). E-Learning theory and practice. London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Henderson, M., Selwyn, N., Finger, G., & Aston, R. (2015). Students’ everyday engagement with digital technology in university: Exploring patterns of use and ‘usefulness’. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 37(3), 308–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hu, S., & Kuh, G. D. (2002). Being (dis)engaged in educationally purposeful activities: The influences of student and institutional characteristics. Research in Higher Education, 43(5), 555–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, A. J., & Weigel, M. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21 Century. Retrieved from https://www.curriculum.org/secretariat/files/Sept30TLConfronting.pdf.
  26. Jones, C. (2012). Networked learning, stepping beyond the net generation and digital natives. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, & D. McConnell (Eds.), Exploring the theory, pedagogy and practice of networked learning (pp. 27–41).Google Scholar
  27. Julien, H., & Barker, S. (2009). How high-school students find and evaluate scientific information: A basis for information literacy skills development. Library and Information Science Research, 31(1), 12–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Julien, H., & Genuis, S. K. (2011). Librarians’ experiences of the teaching role: A national survey of librarians. Library and Information Science Research, 33(2), 103–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Junco, R., Heiberger, G., & Loken, E. (2011). The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(2), 119–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kaiser, H. F., & Rice, J. (1974). Little Jiffy, Mark IV. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34(1), 111–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kim, H. J. (2016). Exploring college students’ perceptions and educational experiences of digital literacy. Korean Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 16(8), 937–958.Google Scholar
  32. Kirschner, P. A., & De Bruyckere, P. (2017). The myths of the digital native and the multitasker. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 135–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Knutsson, O., Blåsjö, M., Hållsten, S., & Karlström, P. (2012). Identifying different registers of digital literacy in virtual learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(4), 237–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Koltay, T. (2011). The media and the literacies: Media literacy, information literacy, digital literacy. Media, Culture and Society, 33(2), 211–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Krause, K.-L., & Coates, H. (2008). Students’ engagement in first-year university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 493–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kuh, G. D. (2009). What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement. Journal of College Student Development, 50(6), 683–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Martin, A. (2009). Digital literacy for the third age: Sustaining identity in an uncertain world. Identity, 12(February), 1–15.Google Scholar
  38. McDonald, R. P., & Marsh, H. W. (1990). Choosing a multivariate model: Noncentrality and goodness of fit. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 247–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McGuinness, C. (2006). What faculty think-exploring the barriers to information literacy development in undergraduate education. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32(6), 573–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mohammadyari, S., & Singh, H. (2015). Understanding the effect of e-learning on individual performance: The role of digital literacy. Computers & Education, 82, 11–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2008). Mplus (version 5.1). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  42. National Survey of Student Engagement. (2013). A fresh look at student engagement: Annual results 2013. Bloomington, IN. Retrieved from http://nsse.indiana.edu/NSSE_2013_Results/pdf/NSSE_2013_Annual_Results.pdf.
  43. Nature. (2017). Homo zappiens. Nature, 380.Google Scholar
  44. Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Computers & Education, 59(3), 1065–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. OECD. (2014). Working party on measurement and analysis of the digital economy: Skills for a digital world. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  46. Park, S., & Burford, S. (2013). A longitudinal study on the uses of mobile tablet devices and changes in digital media literacy of young adults. Educational Media International, 50(4), 266–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pérez Tornero, J. M., et al. (2010). Trends and models of media literacy in Europe: Between digital competence and critical understanding. Anàlisi, 40, 85–100.Google Scholar
  48. Potter, W. J. (2010). The state of media literacy. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 54(4), 675–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Prior, D. D., Mazanov, J., Meacheam, D., Heaslip, G., & Hanson, J. (2016). Attitude, digital literacy and self efficacy: Flow-on effects for online learning behavior. The Internet and Higher Education, 29, 91–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Radovanović, D., Hogan, B., & Lalić, D. (2015). Overcoming digital divides in higher education: Digital literacy beyond Facebook. New Media & Society, 17(10), 1733–1749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rieh, S. Y., & Hilligoss, B. (2007). College students’ credibility judgments in the information-seeking process. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning, 49-71.Google Scholar
  52. Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., Williams, P., Huntington, P., Fieldhouse, M., Gunter, B., et al. (2008). The Google generation: The information behaviour of the researcher of the future. Aslib Proceedings, 60(4), 290–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Soldi, R., Cavallini, S., Friedl, J., Volpe, M., & Zuccaro, C. P. (2016). A new skills agenda for Europe: State of implementation. Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/607334/IPOL_BRI%282017%29607334_EN.pdf. Accessed Sept 2016.
  54. Song, H. D., Bae, S. H., & Kim, H. J. (2016). A study on the measurement to evaluate the quality and outcomes of general education at the higher education level (IV). Seoul: Korea National Institute for General Education.Google Scholar
  55. Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 173–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stowell, J. R. (2015). Use of clickers vs. mobile devices for classroom polling. Computers & Education, 82, 329–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Teo, T. (2013). An initial development and validation of a Digital Natives Assessment Scale (DNAS). Computers & Education, 67, 51–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Traxler, J. (2007). Defining, discussing, and evaluating mobile learning: The moving finger writes and having writ.… International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(2). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/346/882.
  59. Xie, H. (2000). Shifts of interactive intentions and information-seeking strategies in interactive information retrieval. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 51(9), 841–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zhu, Y. Q., Chen, L. Y., Chen, H. G., & Chern, C. C. (2011). How does Internet information seeking help academic performance?—The moderating and mediating roles of academic self-efficacy. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2476–2484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zylka, J., Christoph, G., Kroehne, U., Hartig, J., & Goldhammer, F. (2015). Moving beyond cognitive elements of ICT literacy: First evidence on the structure of ICT engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 149–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© De La Salle University 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EducationChung-Ang UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Graduate School of EducationChung-Ang UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations