School Library Professionals Report Inadequate Student Digital Information Literacy Across Global Contexts

Abstract

Objective - To explore school library professionals’ perceptions of their students’ digital information literacy (DIL) knowledge, skills, and learning opportunities across multi-country contexts. Design - Cross-sectional survey questionnaire. Setting - School library professionals (SLPs) working in 63 countries. Four public libraries in Norway: The Northern and central-Eastern regions (2), and Oslo (2). Subjects - 971 SPLs responded to the survey, of which 801 (82.5%) were included in the analysis as they indicated they were knowledgeable about their students’ DIL.” Methods - Data was collected via an online Qualtrics-hosted survey from July 12 to August 29, 2024. This analysis focused on one block of questions within a larger international survey of SLPs (Merga & Mat Roni, 2025, p. 401). The DIL measurement included 12 Likert-scale items determining access to technology, DIL education provision, and students’ DIL skills. The researchers conducted partial correlation tests and regression analyses, controlling for country income level. A three-step mediation analysis with Sobel test examined the role of school libraries in DIL instruction. The survey instrument underwent cognitive piloting with diverse international SLPs to ensure cross-contextual validity. Main Results - The findings revealed that although technological infrastructure was nearly universal (95.1% reported majority internet access at country level), and DIL instruction was reportedly integrated across all schooling years in most schools (75.8%), fewer than half of SLPs perceived DIL development as a priority at their schools, with even fewer (48.8%) noting it was prioritized at the national level. The respondents perceived students’ DIL skills as low, with only 43.7% of SLPs agreeing that students have strong DIL skills for their age. Even fewer SLPs believed students possessed sound strategies for evaluating online information credibility (34.2%) or expertise (27.8%). The data revealed a moderate positive correlation (r =. 56, p