Digital Literacy Skills and Academic-Library Engagement among Generation Z Students in Malaysian Higher Education

This study investigates the relationship between digital-literacy competencies and academic-library engagement among Generation Z students in a Malaysian private university. Grounded in the Big6 Model, DigComp 2.2 Framework, and Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy, the research adopts a quantitative descriptive-correlational design to examine how information literacy, critical thinking, digital communication, and problem-solving skills influence students’ use of digital-library resources. Data were collected through a validated questionnaire (N = 421) and analysed using descriptive statistics, Pearson’s correlation, and multiple regression in IBM SPSS Statistics 29. Findings indicate that while students exhibit moderate overall digital literacy (M = 3.47, SD = 0.61), their engagement with institutional e-resources remains limited (M = 2.96). All four literacy dimensions correlated positively with library engagement (p < .01); however, information literacy emerged as the strongest predictor (β = 0.48, p < .001), followed by problem solving (β = 0.24) and critical thinking (β = 0.19). The results highlight a perception–practice gap: students overestimate their abilities yet underuse scholarly databases. The study affirms that higher-order cognitive and evaluative skills are central to effective digital participation and recommends integrating structured literacy modules, gamified tutorials, and peer-mentoring initiatives to strengthen Malaysia’s digital-competency agenda.

Academic-library engagement, Digital literacy, Generation Z

1. Aguilar, M., Santos, J., & Nieves, R. (2020). Digital learner competency framework in Philippine higher education. Asian Journal of Education and e-Learning, 8(2), 45–57. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Azhari, F., & Wong, S. (2019). Technology adoption and digital-learning outcomes among Malaysian undergraduates. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 67–84. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bawden, D. (2008). Origins and concepts of digital literacy. In C. Lankshear & M. Knobel (Eds.), Digital literacies: Concepts, policies and practices (pp. 17–32). Peter Lang. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Carretero, S., Vuorikari, R., & Punie, Y. (2017). DigComp 2.2: The digital competence framework for citizens. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/38842 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Dancey, C., & Reidy, J. (2017). Statistics without maths for psychology (7th ed.). Pearson. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Eisenberg, M. B., & Berkowitz, R. E. (2003). The Big6 information-literacy skills for student learning. McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Eutsler, L., & Perez, A. (2022). Culturally Relevant Model for Digital Language and Literacy Instruction. Language and Literacy, 24(2), 107–132. https://doi.org/10.20360/langandlit29576 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Gay, G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Giunta, C. (2017). Digital communication habits and academic discourse among Generation Z students. Journal of Educational Media Research, 12(1), 23–39. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2020). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Hamizak, N., & Uzir, M. (2024). Digital-literacy readiness and e-learning engagement among Malaysian undergraduates. Jurnal Intelek, 19(1), 85–97. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Head, A. J., Farkas, M., & Eisenberg, M. B. (2020). Information literacy in the age of algorithms: Student research behaviors in digital environments. College & Research Libraries, 81(4), 676–707. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.81.4.676 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Jusoh, N., Rahim, R., & Yusof, H. (2022). Patterns of digital resource use among Malaysian university students. Journal of Information and Knowledge Management, 21(3), 2250037. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219649222500372 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607–610. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Lim, W. S. (2022). Digital engagement patterns of Malaysian Gen Z learners. Malaysian Journal of Educational Technology, 10(2), 45–57. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Limilia, S., Puspitasari, R., & Kharisma, T. (2022). Digital literacy and academic performance among Indonesian undergraduates. Journal of Information Literacy, 16(1), 99–115. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Malaysia Digital Economy Blueprint (MyDIGITAL). (2021). Driving Malaysia’s Digital Transformation. Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister’s Department, Putrajaya. https://www.mydigital.gov.my/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. McGrew, S., Breakstone, J., Ortega, T., Smith, M., & Wineburg, S. (2018). The challenge of evaluating information online: Young people’s digital literacy. Educational Researcher, 47(3), 165–178. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17738761 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Meyers, E. M., Erikson, I., & Small, R. V. (2013). Digital literacy and information evaluation: A conceptual review. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 49(4), 363–396. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.49.4.c [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2015). Malaysia Education Blueprint 2015–2025 (Higher Education). Putrajaya: Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Neuman, W. L. (2014). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (7th ed.). Pearson. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Computers & Education, 59(3), 1065–1078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.016 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS survival manual: A step-by-step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Parkes, M., Stein, S., & Reading, C. (2021). Student information-evaluation skills and perceived system usability in digital libraries. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(4), 102114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102114 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Pinto, M., Escalona-Fuentes, A., & Sales, D. (2020). Perceived information-literacy competence and academic engagement in higher education. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 72(6), 745–765. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-04-2020-0121 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Punch, K. F., & Oancea, A. (2019). Introduction to research methods in education (3rd ed.). SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Puspitasari, R., Kharisma, T., & Limilia, S. (2024). Digital-literacy interventions and critical-thinking improvement among Indonesian undergraduates. Journal of Information Literacy, 18(1), 22-38. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Rafi, M., Rahman, A., & Karim, R. (2019). Information-literacy competency and research performance among Asian university students. Library Management, 40(8/9), 589–602. https://doi.org/10.1108/LM-02-2019-0018 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Rahman, M., & Karim, N. (2023). Digital literacy and employability in Asian higher education. International Journal of Educational Development, 98, 102754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2023.102754 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Salubi, O. G., Onyeaso, G. E., & Bello, T. O. (2018). Information-literacy competence as a predictor of library use among undergraduates. Library Philosophy and Practice, 2018, 1823. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1823 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research methods for business students (8th ed.). Pearson Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2019). Research methods for business: A skill-building approach (8th ed.). John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Sirisak, P., & Suwannaphim, W. (2021). Evaluating digital-literacy interventions in Thai universities. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 16(1), 92–106. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Sirisak, P., & Suwannaphim, W. (2023). Gamified library-skills training and digital-literacy outcomes in Thai universities. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 18(1), 90-108. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Tan, S. Y., & Ismail, N. (2023). Evaluating Malaysian university students’ digital-information discernment in the post-pandemic era. Asian Journal of Education and e-Learning, 11(2), 55-67. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. UNESCO. (2013). Global media and information literacy assessment framework: Country readiness and competencies. UNESCO Institute for Statistics. https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/global-media-and-information-literacy-assessment-framework-country-readiness-and-competencies-2013-en.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. University Technology MARA. (2022). Guidelines: Research Ethics Committee (REC) and researchers (Revision 2022). Research Ethics Committee, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Wilson, T. D. (1999). Models in information behaviour research. Journal of Documentation, 55(3), 249–270. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000007145 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Wilson, J. (2024). Digital collaboration and information evaluation among Generation Z professionals. Journal of Information Science, 50(2), 221–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515231100 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Indirect Effect of Liquidity and Activity on Company Value with Profitability as an Intervening Variable
• Effect of Financial Skills, Knowledge, and Attitude on The Financial Behaviour of Clergy
• A Decade of Review: Trends in Budget Execution and Financial Performance of Development Projects in Tanzania (2014/15-2023/24)
• The Influence of Pre-Project Planning on the Budget Absorption Rate of Public Funded Infrastructure Projects in Kenya a Comparative Case Study of Narok, Migori, and Kisii County Government Projects
• Assessment of Factors Influencing Digital Transformation in Hotels’ Facility Management in Abuja Metropolis, Nigeria