Demographics

There was a total of 447 respondents and 102 variables which represent the number of questions
asked in this study. From table 1, 240 (54%) of the respondents were males, 203 (45%) were
females and the remaining 4 (1%) are missing data.

Table1: Demographic characteristics of the respondents

Variables Frequency Percentage

Gender Male 240 53.7
Female 203 45.4
NA 4 0.9
Total 447 100.0
Age 15 - 20 254 56.8
21 - 35 185 41.4
NA 8 1.8
Total 447 100.0
Levels 100 409 91.5
200 7 1.6
300 2 0.4
400 24 5.4
600 1 0.2
NA 4 0.9
Total 447 100.0

Also, table 1 showed that 254 (57%) of the respondents were between 15 to 20 years (Teenagers)
and 185 (41%) were between the ages 21 to 35. On levels, majority of the respondents were level
100s (91%). There were about 409 level 100s, 34 (8%) level 200s, 300s, 400s and 600s and 4 (1%) as
missing data.

Figure 1: ICT Devices owned by respondents

439 430
450 412 413

400

350

300 254
250
192
200

150

100
34 33
50 7 16
1 1 1 1 1
0
Desktop Computer Laptop Palmtop Smart Phone Ipad

Yes No Missing Data

 Figure 2: Familiarity in the use of ICT Devices

Ipad 71 62 58 88 58 110

Smart Phone 9310 131 278 16

Palmtop 107 72 78 43 34 113

Laptop computer 20 22 60 187 129 29

Desktop Computer 34 24 66 159 86 78

Not at all Unfamiliar Somewhat Familiar Very Familiar Missing Data

Figure 1 showed that 439 (98.2%) of the respondents owned a smart phone, 412 (92.2%) did not
have a desktop computer, 254 (57%) had at least one laptop, only one person had a palmtop and 16
(3.6%) owned an iPad.

Figure 2 also revealed that 409 (91.5%) of the respondents were familiar with the usage of smart
phones, 316 (70.7%) were familiar with the use of laptops, 245 (54.8%) were confident with the use
of a desktop computer, 32.7% were familiar with the use of iPad and very few were okay with the
usage of a palmtop (1.7%).

Table 2: Comfortability in performing tasks

Task Not at all Uncomfortabl Somewhat Comfortable Very Total

e comfortable
Powering on/off your 11 9 21 114 278 433
computer (2.5%) (2.0%) (4.7%) (25.5%) (62.2%) (96.9%)
Launching and using 20 31 50 121 211 433
an internet browser (4.5%) (6.9%) (11.2%) (27.1%) (47.2%) (96.9%)
Finding a file 18 29 50 141 198 436
(4.0%) (6.5%) (11.2%) (31.5%) (44.3%) (97.5%)
Saving a file 19 18 38 144 214 433
(4.3%) (4.0%) (8.5%) (32.2%) (47.9%) (96.9%)
Downloading a file 20 31 55 136 193 435
(4.5%) (6.9%) (12.3%) (30.4%) (43.2%) (97.3%)
Sharing of files 28 36 48 143 178 433
(6.3%) (8.1%) (10.7%) (32.0%) (39.8%) (96.9%)
Renaming a file 26 27 40 128 213 434
(5.8%) (6.1%) (8.9%) (28.6%) (47.7%) (97.1%)
Creating a folder 29 27 37 124 217 434
(6.5%) (6.1%) (8.3%) (27.7%) (48.5%) (97.1%)
Renaming a folder 29 35 43 114 205 426
(6.5%) (7.8%) (9.6%) (25.5%) (45.9%) (95.3%)
Navigating folders 55 56 62 102 158 433
(12.3%) (12.5%) (13.9%) (22.8%) (35.3%) (96.9%)

From table 2, majority of the respondents (more than 58%) were comfortable in performing some
basic tasks with ICT devices (Computers). 392 (88%) of the respondents were comfortable powering
on or off a computer, 20 (4.5%) were uncomfortable and the rest (4.7%) were a little comfortable
and a bit uncomfortable. 111 (25%) were intolerable in navigating folders, 260 (58%) were
comfortable and 62 (14%) were somewhat comfortable and uncomfortable in navigating through
folders.

Figure 3: Knowledge in using computer software

Missing Data; 12; 3%

No; 75;
17%

Yes;
358;
80%

Figure 4: Knowledge in the use of applications

Turnitin 181 114 40 26 9

Sakai 1310 109 190 87

Ms. Word 25 12 66 194 121

Ms. Excel 38 40 124 158 54

Ms. PowerPoint 57 59 132 123 40

Not at all No knowledge Somewhat

Knowledgeable Very knowledgeable
Also, from figure 3, 358 (80%) of the respondents had knowledge in using computer software and 75
(17%) did no have knowledge on the use of computer software. The remaining 12 were missing data.

Figure 4 further revealed that 163 (36.5%) of the respondents had knowledge about Ms.
PowerPoint, 132 (29.5%) were not sure whether or not they had knowledge about power point and
116 (26%) had no knowledge of it. Also, 212 (47.4%) had knowledge on Ms. Excel, 78 (17.4%) had no
knowledge of it and 124 (27.7%) were uncertain. Figure 4 again, showed that 315 (70.5%) of the
respondents had knowledge on Ms. Word, 277 (62%) had knowledge about Sakai and just 35 (7.8%)
knew of Turnitin.

Knowledge of digital literacy abilities and integration of freshmen

Data were re organized into average counts of digital literacy abilities and integration of freshmen.
The variables of the new data were normally distributed and linearity were established between
them.

The output of the linear model was as follows:

Output 1:
##
## Call:
## lm(formula = Freq.Extent ~ Freq.Data + Freq.Media + Freq.Information,
## data = DAT)
##
## Residuals:
## Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
## -1.2236 -1.1537 -1.0841 0.6361 2.8253
##
## Coefficients:
## Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
## (Intercept) 31.60699 1.51192 20.91 <2e-16 ***
## Freq.Data -1.23569 0.03913 -31.58 <2e-16 ***
## Freq.Media 1.02958 0.03961 25.99 <2e-16 ***
## Freq.Information 0.81613 0.02623 31.12 <2e-16 ***
## ---
## Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
##
## Residual standard error: 1.691 on 26 degrees of freedom
## Multiple R-squared: 0.9814, Adjusted R-squared: 0.9792
## F-statistic: 456.6 on 3 and 26 DF, p-value: < 2.2e-16

The output of the model above showed that knowledge of digital literacy abilities does significantly
have effect on integration of freshmen. The adjusted R – squared showed that 98% of the times,
student’s integration into teaching and learning in the university can be explained or accounted for
in their knowledge of digital literacy abilities. The output further explains that media literacy and
information literacy tend to have a positive impact on students’ academic and social integration in
the university. Data literacy on the other hand tends to have a negative effect on the level of
integration amongst students in the university. In other words, as students get comfortable with
media literacy and information literacy, they are equipped to be able to cope with social and
academic problems in the university.

Knowledge of digital literacy abilities and adoption of technology

Responses on the adoption of technology were organized into average counts and assumptions such
as linearity and normality were checked.

The output of the model was as follows:

Output 2:
##
## Call:
## lm(formula = Freq.Adoption ~ Freq.Data + Freq.Media + Freq.Information,

## data = DAT)
##
## Residuals:
## Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
## -10.359 -2.332 3.975 4.230 4.486
##
## Coefficients:
## Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
## (Intercept) 27.44346 5.54335 4.951 3.83e-05 ***
## Freq.Data -1.59197 0.14347 -11.096 2.33e-11 ***
## Freq.Media 1.85306 0.14524 12.758 1.07e-12 ***
## Freq.Information 0.41987 0.09616 4.366 0.000179 ***
## ---
## Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
##
## Residual standard error: 6.2 on 26 degrees of freedom
## Multiple R-squared: 0.8706, Adjusted R-squared: 0.8557
## F-statistic: 58.31 on 3 and 26 DF, p-value: 1.119e-11

Output 2 indicated that there is a relationship between knowledge of digital literacy and adoption of
technology. Media literacy and information literacy had a positive association with adoption of
technology and data literacy on the other hand had a negative relationship with adoption of
technology. Thus, the possession and understanding of digital literacy on information and media
makes it easy for adoption of technology. The adjusted R- squared (86%) further demonstrated how
strong digital literacy can be used to explain students’ adoption to technology in the university