=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3037/paper5
|storemode=property
|title=Levels of Information Literacy and its Influence in Reciprocal Teaching in Communication Sciences Students
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3037/paper5.pdf
|volume=Vol-3037
|authors=Guillermo Ocrospoma,Doris Fuster-Guillen,Yolvi Ocaña,Klinge Villalba-Condori
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/cisetc/OcrospomaFOV21
}}
==Levels of Information Literacy and its Influence in Reciprocal Teaching in Communication Sciences Students==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3037/paper5.pdf
Levels of Information Literacy and its Influence in Reciprocal
Teaching in Communication Sciences Students
Guillermo Ocrospoma 1, Doris Fuster-Guillen 2, Yolvi Ocaña 2 and Klinge Villalba_Condori 3
1
Universidad César Vallejo, Av. Alfredo Mendiola 6232 Urb. Molitalia – Los Olivos, Lima, www.ucv.edu.pe,
Perú
2
Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Av. Carlos Germán Amezaga #375 - Cercado de Lima, Lima,
https://www.unmsm.edu.pe/, Perú
3
Universidad Continental, Av. Los Incas s/n Urb. Lambramani - José Luis Bustamante y Rivero, Arequipa,
https://ucontinental.edu.pe/, Perú
Abstract
This quantitative basic research was a cause-effect correlational design, where the instruments
results for information literacy and reciprocal teaching were ,987 and ,992 through the
Cronbach’s Alpha. The validation of the instruments was carried out by 3 expert judgment and
the population was composed of 249 communication science students of a private university
in Lima, Perú. Through the multinominal logistic regression was statistically verified that the
predominant level in the dimension of information literacy (sourcing, evaluating and managing
information) in a 90% are at level 3 according to the DigComp 2.1 scale; nevertheless, the
expectation for the Communication Sciences Program was they managed to achieve a higher
level in the evaluating information dimension considering their training should be oriented
towards information assurance, showing the necessity to strengthen the development of these
competences.
Keywords
Information Literacy, Reciprocal teaching, Digital Development, Participative strategies.
1. Introduction
The current development of technology has revolutionized human activity in every aspect, where
Information and Communications Technology (ICT) have become instruments and resources
transforming the way people and society communicate, providing interconnection, immateriality,
proximity, multimodality and diversity to the communication process [1], also integrating to all
activities of society daily life, being many of them conditioned to have the systems that allow their
development so they can be provided at a certain point, such as political activities which depend on an
Internet connection [2].
The digital literacy is connected with the society development due to the connection of learning
cognitive elements with Internet, which is important to develop practices that foster information and
content problem solving in digital environments [3]. Due to the above, the information literacy become
important in the academic field because of the need to know the information in its different aspects
going from how, what, when, why and the purpose of the information is required for in people’s activity,
becoming an important help in educational process for students and teachers, subject matter experts and
education authorities [4]. On the other hand, the advance of technology favors the information literacy
achievement due to internet provides the access facility breaking barriers of time and space, a
characteristic we should take in advantage of.
CISETC 2021: International Congress on Educational and Technology in Sciences, November 16-18, 2021, Chiclayo, Peru
EMAIL: gocrospoma@ucv.edu.pe (A. 1); dfuster@unmsm.edu.pe (A. 2); yocanaf@unmsm.edu.pe (A. 3);
kvillalba@continental.edu.pe (A. 4)
ORCID: 0000-0003-4029-3920 (A. 1); 0000-0002-7889-2243 (A. 2); 0000-0002-2566-6875 (A. 3); 0000-0000-0002-8621-7942 (A. 4)
© 2020 Copyright for this paper by its authors.
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
UNESCO highlighted the fact that information literacy is related to the universal human right to
access, receive, critically evaluate. Create, use and spread multimedia information and content in every
possible way [5]. DigComp 2.1 stated that information literacy is the set of skills that people acquire to
access, filter, evaluate and manage the elements linked to information, establishing 8 levels of these
competencies’ development [6].
Digital competence is defined as the people capacity to apply skills and knowledge on the various
elements provided by the ICTs to carry out their activities from the personal to the professional sphere
[7]. In people’s training, it allows to improve the prospects in today’s social sphere such as
employability, politics, economy and entertainment [8]. The development of digital competencies
becomes important in aspects related to educational technology covering a lot of activities such as
learning, research, recreation, social and more activities [9]. In the same way, this is very useful to
promote knowledge, attitudes and processes by facilitating the comprehension of contents and
production of innovation in students [8].
The technological developments are occurring at such a dizzying way that the usage and
management of competencies development in the educational field, is still lagging behind which is
something important to reduce with the government participation in order to implement State policies
and a private initiative to promote their development and massification at all levels. Therefore, it’s
necessary to identify and measure the development of student’s digital competencies for decision
making in order to reduce the gap existing in their personal development compared to the expectations
required for the achievement of learning, even more at the current situation where digital environments
are highly required.
Due to the current sanitary situation of Covid-19 which has been affecting many activities at all
levels in the world creating the isolation, it has been observed that students of the Communication
Science school of a private university located in Los Olivos district, Lima province, Peru, do not have
an adequate level of development in digital skills despite the fact that they are considered as digital
natives since they show an inappropriate handling of communication. Computer solving problem skills
and information management, showing difficulties to develop academic activities. Therefore, this
investigation had as general objective to determine the relation between digital competencies,
specifically in terms of information literacy and reciprocal teaching in communication science students
of a private university in Lima.
1.1. Information Literacy
The term information literacy was coined by Paul Zurkowski in 1974 [10]. It means the attributes of
the individual whereby this person can be able to locate, recognize, evaluate and effectively employ the
information required [11]. This is related to the universal human right to have information, where
citizens can access, receive, critically evaluate, create, use and disseminate multimedia information and
content in every possible way [5].
Information literacy is defined by the set of skills that people have to surf, search, filter, evaluate
and manage information, illustrated ion structure shown by DigComp 2.1 [6] and INTEF 2017 [20],
classifying them in 8 levels in a staggered way with criteria from less to more complex achievement of
competencies as shown in Table 1.
Table 1.
Main keywords that feature the proficiency levels.
Level in
Level in Cognitive Do-
DigComp Complexity of tasks Autonomy
DigComp 1.0 main
2.1
Foundation 1 Simple tasks With guidance Remembering
2 Simple tasks Autonomy and with Remembering
guidance where
needed.
Intermediate 3 Well-defined and routine On my own. Understanding
tasks, and straightforward
problems
4 Tasks and well-defined and Independent and Understanding
non-routine problems according to my needs.
Advanced 5 Different tasks and Guiding others. Applying
problems
6 Most appropriate tasks Able to adapt to others Evaluating
in a complex context.
Highly spe- 7 Resolve complex problems Integrate to contribute Creating
cialized with limited solutions to the professional
practice and to guide
others.
8 Resolve complex problems Proposing new ideas Creating
with many interacting and processes to the
factors field.
Source: DigComp 2.1
Information literacy is made up of three competencies [6] related to develop skills associated to
information access, search, evaluation and management and which focus on the following dimensions:
1) Surf, research and filter information: ability to search and identify what information is needed, access
to such information; 2) Evaluate information: ability to analyze, compare, evaluate and interpret
critically the information, reliability and seriousness of information resources and; 3)Manage
information: ability to organize, store, recover and process the information in simple or structured
digital environments
The aforementioned dimensions complement each other to produce a set of competencies in
information processing that will be useful in work and academic activities development. These
dimensions are structured in 8 levels according to DigComp 2.1, evolving since the Level 1 basic stage
(Basic 1) to the Level 8 (Specialized 2), moving between intermediate levels as they increase to reach
a higher level. The first step depends on a guide oriented to search, surf, filter and manage information;
then activities are carried out with some autonomy; to another where is exposed and explained the
information needs and showed how to access to the content; it will be able to adapt the most appropriate
search strategies and access to contents; and it will manage to instruct other people in the process of
searching, filtering and managing information, to end developing the ability to propose and implement
innovations related to the search, filtering and management of information [6].
1.2. Reciprocal teaching
Reciprocal teaching appeared in 1984 as a process to reduce the gap in reading comprehension,
where the teacher provided the scaffolding and a means to peer-to-peer collaborative learning [12]. In
reciprocal teaching, teacher and students change leader roles in the academic session; the teacher
support students as they learn to lead discussions and pose their own questions [13]. The objective in
such an interaction is getting students to personalize and internalize the use of problem-solving
strategies jointly, encouraging an autonomous learning based on the interaction among peers in order
to share the knowledge.
That method adopted the principles of active learning, helping students with appropriate learning
strategies, encouraging collaborative learning, giving feedbacks and recognition of team performance,
negotiating rules and initiating the reflection process [14]. Systematic cooperation between teacher and
students allows achieving a better result in a collaborative environment than doing it independently;
and in a way this form of instruction is relevant to students’ mental development and reflective
awareness [15]. This makes reciprocal teaching to be considered as a participatory teaching style.
Reciprocal teaching emphasizes the collaboration and dialog in class where collaborating is a
concern in the application of teaching-learning models, allowing students to support and cooperate each
other in order to complete tasks through the process, collaborating in the material analysis in small
groups or in discussions, assisted by a mutualism in learning, where students assume responsibility
regardless od the success of the process.
In accordance to the mentioned before, students must be trained to learn from their partners through
group activities with the aim to improve several cognitive skills because of the capacity to interact in a
social environment is one of the main components of interpersonal intelligence [10].
The aspects linked to reciprocal teaching referred to in this study comprise enhanced skills and
promoted attitudes. Skill is understood as knowing how to perform something in practice or with the
technique, being able to be individually, in addition to being specific or interrogatives when complex
situations are taking place [16]. The attitude is the tendency or predisposition to evaluate an object or
situation in a certain way and that stars from the particular beliefs of the same, leading the individual to
act for or against the object or situation, as a result of all evaluation [17].
2. Methodology
This quantitative basic research was a cross-sectional descriptive study with a non-experimental
design. The population analyzed was composed by 249 Communication Science students. Data
collection was indirect using the survey as an instrument through a digital questionnaire designed in
Google Form. The instrument was elaborated adapting the list of skills described in INTEF 2017 [20]
about the teacher’s approach to students’ activities and principles of DigComp 2.1 [6], with a total of
100 questions with Likert scale (range de 0 – 9, being 9 the maximum rating for a development of the
skill).
The measurement instrument fulfilled with reliability criteria by obtaining the same results in a
sample of 30 cases being the validation of the content made by the judgment of 3 experts in
methodology. The reliability of the instrument was established by means of the Cronbach’s Alpha
obtaining the values of ,987 for Information literacy and ,992 for reciprocal teaching. In the statistics
analysis, to get the data normality the Spearman’s Rho correlational coefficient was applied to stablish
the correlation between both variables and in order to determine the level of influence, the Multinomial
Logistic Regression coefficient was applied, being all processed by the SPSS version 25 program.
3. Results
The descriptive analysis of the data shown in Table 2, exhibits that the segmentation of the levels of
the information literacy dimensions is concentrated in Level 3, for the general value of the variable and
for each dimension. From the table, it can be seen that 90% of the cases achieve Level 3 and the
remaining 10% are distributed between Level 4 and Level 5, evidencing that there are significant
elements that can restrict the development towards higher levels.
Table 2.
Concentration of cases for digital literacy.
%
Level of competence %
Accumulated
Level 3 90% 90%
Level 4 1% 91%
Level 5 9% 100%
Total 100%
Table 3 shows the results for reciprocal teaching, where the development of enhanced skills and
promoted attitudes in this teaching-learning method, are concentrated in the medium level (43% and
40%) and with a relative tendency towards the high level (34% and 38%); however, the percentages of
the low level (22% and 20%) show that a significant group of students did not achieve to develop these
skills and attitudes properly.
Table 3.
Distribution of the development levels of reciprocal teaching activities.
Level of development Percentages
of activities Skills Attitudes
Low 22% 22%
Middle 43% 40%
High 34% 38%
Total 100% 100%
Table 4 shows the calculation of Spearman's rank correlation coefficient for information literacy and
reciprocal teaching. The value obtained from this coefficient was .372 (significance of p=0.000) so this
explains the existence of a positive correlation, low but significant correlation between the aspects
indicated.
Table 4.
Spearman's rank correlation coefficient.
Reciprocal teaching
Spearman's Rank correlation
0.372
Information coefficient
literacy Sig. (p) 0.000
N 249
Table 5 shows the calculation of multinomial logistic regression coefficients, with the level of
information literacy in the skills to navigate, search and filter information, which predominates in the
activities of reciprocal teaching. The values show that, in the crossings of Level 3, the values of
significance (Sig.) have the lowest result (Medium=,001 and High=,001); the result of B has the highest
values (High=1,686 and Medium=1,504), showing that Level 3 has the highest predominance; the
values of odds ratio "Exp(B)" have values of High=5.4 and Medium=4.5, which meaning that students
are more likely to achieve information literacy and develop reciprocal teaching at the High level at 5.4
times and Middle level 4.5 times. Accordingly, it was determined that Level 3 is the predominant one;
however, the data should be considered to indicate that students are less likely to achieve better
reciprocal teaching development if they do not achieve a greater development of information literacy
for navigating.
Table 5.
Multinomial logistic regression coefficient of the level for the Navigate dimension of information
literacy in reciprocal teaching.
Navigate (*) / Error 95% I.C. for Exp(B)
B Sig. Exp(B)
Reciprocal Teaching Desv. L. limit U. limit
Level 3 Middle 1.504 0.451 0.001 4.500 1.858 10.899
High 1.686 0.487 0.001 5.400 2.080 14.022
2
Source: Database. R = 0.26 (Cox and Snell), 0.28 (Nagelkerke). (*) Navigate, search, and filter
Table 6 shows the calculation of the level of information literacy in the skills to evaluate information
that predominates in the reciprocal teaching activities of students. The values show that, at the crossing
of Level 3, the significance value (Sig.) has the lowest result (Medium=,000 and High=,000); the result
of B is the highest (High=2,128 and Medium=2,079); these coefficients determine that Level 3 is the
one that predominates in students, which is below expectations because the hypothesis was that Level
4 would predominate.
Table 6.
Logistic regression coefficient of the level for the dimension Evaluate of the information literacy in
reciprocal teaching.
Evaluate / Reciprocal Desv 95% I.C. for Exp(B)
B Sig. Exp(B)
Teaching Error. L. limit U. limit
Level 3 Low 2.037 0.614 0.001 7.667 2.302 25.534
Middle 2.079 0.433 0.000 8.000 3.424 18.693
High 2.128 0.473 0.000 8.400 3.323 21.231
Source: Database. R2= 0.52 (Cox and Snell), 0.59 (Nagelkerke).
Table 7 shows the calculation of information literacy levels in the management skills of information
predominating in reciprocal teaching activities. The values show that at the crossing of Level 3, the
significance value (Sig.) has the lowest result (Low=,001, Medium=,000 and High=,000); the results of
B are the highest (Low=2,037, Medium=2,120 and High=2,104); showing that Level 3 is the one that
predominates in students; the odds ratio values "Exp(B)" are Low=7,7, Medium=8.3 and High=8.2
showing that students have more possibilities to achieve the Medium level by 8.3 times, High by 8.2
times and Low by 7.7 times. From the table, it can be seen that Level 3 is the one that predominates in
students, and there is a slight tendency towards higher levels.
Table 7.
Logistic regression coefficient of the level for the dimension Management of information literacy in
reciprocal education
Management / Desv. 95% I.C. for Exp(B)
B Sig. Exp(B)
Reciprocal Teaching Error L. limit U. limit
Level 3 Low 2.037 0.614 0.001 7.667 2.302 25.534
Middle 2.120 0.432 0.000 8.333 3.573 19.435
High 2.104 0.474 0.000 8.200 3.240 20.750
Source: Database. R2= 0.71 (Cox and Snell), 0.76 (Nagelkerke).
4. Discussion
The concentration of 90% in Level 3 of information literacy in general aspect and the results for
each of the 3 dimensions (Navigate, filter and manage information) that show a development up to
Level 3, concordant with The information and information literacy area of the digital teaching
competence [11], where the average overall achievement of these competencies reaches a level of 3.2
out of a total of 6.0, and in the dimensions they reach 3.3, 2.9 and 3.4, respectively. This suggests that
the scenario for the development of these competences is similar between the students of the Peruvian
and Spanish universities; and making use of similar schemes in the evaluation (DigComp) the same
patterns are obtained, although in the dimension of Evaluate, in this research, a better result is obtained.
The dimension Evaluate information is related to the capacity of critical analysis of content. It is
considered that the students must reach a higher level of development, because these professionals are
oriented to communication and their main characteristics is being reliable, avoiding and combating the
spread of disinformation and fake news in the media and social networks as indicated in the fake news
and generation z journalists. Post-millennial solutions against disinformation [18]; however, by
showing that they only achieve a level 3 of a total of 8 levels, it is evident that it would not be possible
to adequately train a communicator, from the university study plan and the students' own participation.
When it is determined that Level 3 predominates, out of a total of 8 levels established by DigComp
2.1, the conclusion of Information Literacy (ALFIN) in the teaching of natural sciences in flexible
models of secondary education for adults [19] is confirmed: the levels achieved are not related to the
generalized concept of the skills of the so-called "digital natives", of whom a greater familiarization
and a high level of development of these competences is expected by the simple fact of being in the age
range, concluding that this development is achieved after a learning process and a transversal
methodology, rather than by a simple spontaneous emergence of the use of technologies of those who
have been born in the context of the development of ICTs.
The enhanced skills and attitudes promoted in reciprocal teaching are concentrated in the medium-
low levels with 65.5%, which suggests that 2/3 of the students do not take full advantage of the potential
represented by this method, these values take distant from the results of The effect of reciprocal
instructional models and interpersonal intelligence on the student learning outcomes of social science
education [10], where they show that it improves the development of interpersonal intelligence by
strengthening skills such as collaboration, critical analysis, explanation, summary and prediction of
content; as well as, positive attitudes such as cooperation, problem solving, leadership, self-motivation,
social relations and self-regulation. The distance in the results obtained in this research, suggests that
the university does not promote this type of teaching-learning methods or that it is not understood by
teachers when they are applied.
5. Conclusions
Based on the results, there are strong evidences that curricular planning, teacher competencies and
its training, need to improve applying a transversal and integrative approach throughout the career, in
order to take advantage of the permanent development of ICT and the increasing digitalization in
education, moving from a passive attitude in the competencies formation to a much more active one,
searching to get better professionals profile formed at the university.
University should rethink the developing curriculum, as well as the evaluation and level of
competencies required from its teachers, making a new planning for the curriculum development
considering all changes produced by Covid-19, with the massive digitalization of processes and the
greater need to strengthen these digital competencies in all people which interact with university
community, such as teachers, students and administrative staff, stressing information literacy among all
of them.
Also, investigation offers an approach to reality and current indicators of information literacy and
reciprocal teaching from students of a Peruvian university in Lima, and as a starting point for further
research from other studies to further in the analysis of curriculum factor that would help the digital
competencies levels, being some of them information literacy, technological resources availability,
teachers competencies level and commitment of universities or habits to interact with technology.
6. References
[1] Grande, M., Cañón, R., & Cantón, I. (2016) Tecnologias de la informacion y la comunicación:
Evolucion del concepto y características. International Journal of Educational Research and
Innovation, 6, 218–230.
[2] Espinosa, A. Profesores “migrantes digitales” enseñando a estudiantes “nativos digitales.”
Medisur, 15 (4), 463–473.
[3] Matamala, C. (2018). Desarrollo de alfabetización digital ¿Cuáles son las estrategias de los
profesores para enseñar habilidades de información?. Perfiles Educativos, 40(162), 68-85.
https://doi.org/10.22201/iisue.24486167e.2018.162.58846
[4] González-Rojas, Yineida, & Triana-Fierro, Dairo Alberto. (2018). Actitudes de los docentes frente
a la inclusión de estudiantes con necesidades educativas especiales. Educación y Educadores,
21(2), 200-218. https://doi.org/10.5294/edu.2018.21.2.2.
[5] Muratova, N., Grizzle, A., & Mirzakhmedova, D. (2019) Media and Information Literacy in
Journalism. UNESCO (2019).
[6] Carretero, S., Vuorikari, R., & Punie, Y.: DigComp 2.1: The Digital Competence Framework for
Citizens. With eight proficiency levels and examples of use. Luxembourg: Publications Office of
the European Union (2017) 1–48.
[7] Iordache, E., Mariën, I., & Baelden, D. (2017). Developing Digital Skills and Competences: A
Quick-Scan Analysis of 13 Digital Literacy Models. Italian Journal of Sociology of Education,
9(1), 6-30. doi: 10.14658/pupj-ijse-2017-1-2.
[8] Marzal, M. y Cruz, E. (2018). Gaming como Instrumento Educativo para una Educación en
competencias Digitales desde los Academic Skills Centres. Revista General de Información y
Documentación, 28(2), 489-506. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5209/RGID.60805
[9] Levano-Francia, L., Sanchez Diaz, S., Guillén-Aparicio, P., Tello-Cabello, S., Herrera-Paico, N.,
& Collantes-Inga, Z. (2019). Competencias digitales y educación. Propósitos y Representaciones,
7(2), 569-588. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.20511/pyr2019.v7n2.329
[10] Abas, M., Solihatin, E., & Nadiroh.( 2019) The effect of reciprocal instructional models and
interpersonal intelligence on the student learning outcomes of social science education.
International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology, 8(5), 427–433.
[11] Moreno-Guerrero, A., Miaja-Chippirraz, N., Bueno-Pedrero, A., & Borrego-Otero, L. (2020). The
Information and Information Literacy Area of the Digital Teaching Competence. Revista
Electrónica Educare, 24(3), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.15359/ree.24-3.25.
[12] Boamah, N. A. Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and monitoring strategies in an
ESL setting in Ghana. Ohio University (1997)
[13] Martínez, E. S., Díaz, N., & Rodríguez, D. E. (2011) The Assistance Framework in Reading
Comprehension Processes for University Students. Educación y Educadores,14(3), 531–556.
https://doi.org/10.5294/edu.2011.14.3.5
[14] Rebollo, Á., García, R., Buzón, O., & Barragán, R. (2012) Las comunidades virtuales como
potencial pedagógico para el aprendizaje colaborativo a través de las TIC. Enseñanza & Teaching:
Revista Interuniversitaria de Didáctica, 30, 105–126.
[15] Escallón, E., González, B. I., Peña, P. C., & Rozo, L. J. Implicaciones Educativas de las Teorías
de Vygotsky: el Desarrollo de Conceptos Científicos en Estudiantes Bogotanos. Revista
Colombiana de Psicología, 28(1), 81–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.15446/rcp.v28n1.68020.
[16] Torres, C. M. (2017) Educación por habilidades: Perspectivas y retos para el sistema educativo.
Revista Educación, 41(2)1–13. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.15517/revedu.v41i2.21719.
[17] Andrade-Valles, I., Facio-Arciniega, S., Quiroz -Guerra, A., Alemán-de la Torre, L., Flores-
Ramírez, M., & Rosales-González, M. (2018). Actitud, hábitos de estudio y rendimiento
académico: Abordaje desde la teoría de la acción razonada. Enfermería universitaria, 15(4), 342-
351. https://doi.org/10.22201/eneo.23958421e.2018.4.533.
[18] García-Marín, D. (2021). Las fake news y los periodistas de la generación z. Soluciones post-
millennial contra la desinformación. Vivat Academia, 37–63.
https://doi.org/10.15178/va.2021.154.e1324
[19] Cardona, P., Hernández, P., López, P., & Murcia, E. (2021). Alfabetización informacional
(ALFIN) en la enseñanza de las ciencias naturales en modelos flexibles de educación media para
adultos. Ocupaciones pedagógicas en clave del desarrollo humana. 197-213.
[20] INTEF. (2017). Marco común de Competencia Digital Docente. Enero 2017, 1–71.