Assessing Research Excellence: How Data Literacy, Digital Literacy, and Humanism Influence Research Performance Through Academic Integrity
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56294/saludcyt20251061Keywords:
Data literacy, digital literacy, humanism literacy, integrity, research performanceAbstract
Introduction: In the context of higher education, the quality of research is paramount for institutional development and knowledge advancement. Objectives: This study aims to explore the interrelationships between data literacy, digital literacy, humanism literacy, academic integrity, system accessibility, and research performance among university lecturers. Methods: Employing a quantitative research design, data were collected through a structured survey distributed to 75 respondents via Google Forms and WhatsApp. The analysis utilized Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) with Warp-PLS software to assess the proposed relationships. Results: The findings indicate that data literacy and digital literacy significantly enhance research performance, while humanistic literacy does not exhibit a direct effect. Furthermore, academic integrity emerged as a critical factor positively influencing research performance, underscoring its importance in fostering a culture of ethical research practices. The results suggest that improving lecturers' competencies in data and digital literacy can lead to enhanced research outputs, ultimately contributing to the academic integrity of higher education institutions. Conclusion: In conclusion, this research highlights the necessity of integrating data and digital literacy training into professional development programs for lecturers, as these competencies are essential for promoting high-quality research and maintaining academic integrity. The study provides valuable insights for policymakers and educational leaders aiming to enhance research performance in higher education settings.
References
1. Coman C, Țîru LG, Meseșan-Schmitz L, Stanciu C, Bularca MC. Online teaching and learning in higher education during the coronavirus pandemic: Students’ perspective. Sustain. 2020;12(24):1–22.
2. Battista S, Furri L, Pellegrini V, Giardulli B, Coppola I, Testa M, et al. Which lecturers’ characteristics facilitate the learning process? A qualitative study on students’ perceptions in the rehabilitation sciences. BMC Med Educ. 2023;23(1):1–10.
3. Elena Denisova-Schmidt. The Challenges of Academic Integrity in Higher Education: Current Trends and Prospects. CIHE Perspect. 2017;5(June):1–25.
4. Schneider, R. Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Information Literacy (ECIL). In: Communications in Computer and Information Science. 2013. p. 134–50.
5. Ongena G. Data literacy for improving governmental performance: A competence-based approach and multidimensional operationalization. Digit Bus. 2023;3(1):100050.
6. Prado JC, Marzal MÁ. Incorporating data literacy into information literacy programs: Core competencies and contents. Libri. 2013;63(2):123–34.
7. Saripudin S, Sumarto S, Juanda EA, Abdullah AG, Ana A. Understanding technology literacy: The characteristics of ICT literacy vocational teachers. Int J Eng Technol. 2018;7(4):182–5.
8. Fortier J, Potter C, Grady S, Lohr N, Klein J. Wisconsin’s Model Academic Standards for Information and Technology Literacy. Vol. Bulletin N, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. 1998.
9. Kulkarni M. Digital accessibility: Challenges and opportunities. IIMB Manag Rev. 2019;31(1):91–8.
10. Belando-Montoro MR, Naranjo-Crespo M, Carrasco-Temiño MA. Barriers and facilitators to the retention and participation of socially, economically, and culturally disadvantaged university students. An international systematic review. Int J Educ Res. 2022;113(March):1–10.
11. Huberts LWJC. Integrity: What it is and Why it is Important. Public Integr. 2018;20(0):S18–32.
12. Conroy TJ, Ehrensal PAL. Values and the Ethics of Care: Four Portraits. Values Ethics Educ Adm.. 2021;16(1):1–11.
13. Dr. Arora B. Importance of emotional intelligence in the workplace. Int J Eng Appl Sci. 2017;4(4):43–5.
14. Jo Shan Fu, Fu JS. ICT in Education : A Critical Literature Review and Its Implications. Int J Educ Dev Using Inf Commun Technol. 2013;9(1):112–25.
15. Haleem A, Javaid M, Qadri MA, Suman R. Understanding the role of digital technologies in education: A review. Sustain Oper Comput [Internet]. 2022;3(May):275–85. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2022.05.004
16. Sidhu A, Bhalla P, Zafar S. Mediating Effect and Review of its Statistical Measures. Empir Econ Lett. 2021;20(4):29–40.
17. Md Ghazali NH. A Reliability and Validity of an Instrument to Evaluate the School-Based Assessment System: A Pilot Study. Int J Eval Res Educ. 2016;5(2):148.
18. Hair JF, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM, Mena JA. An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. J Acad Mark Sci. 2012;40(3):414–33.
19. Sarstedt M, Ringle CM, Hair JF. Handbook of Market Research. Handbook of Market Research. 2020.
20. Budiastuti D, Bandur A. Validitas dan Reliabilitas Penelitian. Binus. 2018. 1–232 p.
21. Purwanto A, Sudargini Y. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling ( PLS-SEM ) Analysis for Social and Management Research : A Literature Review. Agus Purwanto, Journal of Industrial Engineering & Management Research. AGUSPATI Res Institute, Indones - SMA Negeri 1, Pati. 2021;2(4):114–23.
22. Sarstedt M, Hair JF, Pick M, Liengaard BD, Radomir L, Ringle CM. Progress in partial least squares structural equation modeling use in marketing research in the last decade. Psychol Mark. 2022;39(5):1035–64.
23. Setyorini D, Syahlani A. Analisis Jalur (Path Analysis) Pengaruh Kondisi Sosial Ekonomi dan Motivasi Belajar terhadap Prestasi Belajar Mahasiswa. J Akunt dan Manaj. 2019;16(02):177–93.
24. Dra Ni Luh Putu Suciptawati O, Jurusan Matematika Ms. Penuntun Pratikum Statistika Non Parametrik Dengan Spss 21. penuntun Prakt Stat non Parametr dengan SPSS 21. 2016;115.
25. Cui Y, Chen F, Lutsyk A, Leighton JP, Cutumisu M. Data literacy assessments: a systematic literature review. Assess Educ Princ Policy Pract. 2023;30(1):76–96.
26. Facione, P. A. Critical Thinking : What It Is and Why It Counts. Insight assessment. 2015. 1–28 p.
27. Schildkamp K, Lai MK, Earl L. Improving Data Literacy in Schools. Data-based Decis Mak Educ Challenges Oppor. 2013;(June 2014):1–216.
28. Koltay T. Data literacy: In search of a name and identity. J Doc. 2015;71(2):401–15.
29. Ebbeler J, Poortman CL, Schildkamp K, Pieters JM. The effects of a data use intervention on educators’ satisfaction and data literacy. Educ Assessment, Eval Account. 2017;29(1):83–105.
30. Richard P. Bagozzi YY and LWP. Bogazzi_Assessing Construct Validity in Organizational Research. Adm Sci Q [Internet]. 2017;36(3):421–58. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2393203
31. Ridsdale C, Bliemel M, Kelley DE, Matwin SS. Strategies and Best Practices for Data Literacy Education Knowledge Synthesis Report Strategies and Best Practices for Data Literacy Education Knowledge Synthesis Report View project Mentored Undergraduate Research and Identity Development View project. 2015;(November):1–123.
32. Taber KS. The Use of Cronbach’s Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments in Science Education. Res Sci Educ. 2018;48(6):1273–96.
33. Gowda GS, Komal S, Sanjay TN, Mishra S, Kumar CN, Math SB. Sociodemographic, legal, and clinical profiles of female forensic inpatients in Karnataka: A retrospective study. Indian J Psychol Med. 2019;41(2):138–43.
34. Elastika RW, Sukono, Dewanto SP. Analysis of factors affecting students’ mathematics learning difficulties using sem as information for teaching improvement. Int J Instr. 2021;14(4):281–300.
35. Bretag T. Handbook of Academic Integrity. Handbook of Academic Integrity. 2016. 1094 p.
36. Ayu Arsari MHA. The Importance of Digital Literacy to Enhance Students' Ability in the English Language. Jambura J English Teach Lit. 2022;3(1):12–8.
37. Rosmia AR, Suziani M. Digital Literacy in the Use of Technology-based Information Systems. 2019;214(Ices 2018):11–3.
38. Kennet AM, Shkodkina Y. A Review of the Factors behind Academic Integrity Violations: Comparing the United States and Ukraine. Bus Ethics Leadership. 2018;2(2):84–96.
39. Roza V. English Lecturers’ Digital Literacy and Their Scientific Publication: Seeking the Correlation. Ling Cult. 2021;15(2):223–36.
40. Purwanto A. Investigating The Role of the use of computer Hardware, software, and lecturer involvement on online universities' student satisfaction. 2023;3(1).
41. Chan BSK, Churchill D, Chiu TKF. Digital Literacy Learning In Higher Education Through a Digital Storytelling Approach. J Int Educ Res. 2017;13(1):1–16.
42. Wiannastiti M, Oktriono K, Simatupang MS. Digital literacy of ELT lecturers in different contexts: A case at two universities in Jakarta. ACM Int Conf Proceeding Ser. 2019;515–9.
43. Endang Herawan, Febianti YN, Alifa Lesta Safitri. Digital Literacy and Student Creativity Through E-Resources on the Quality of Learning in College. J Educ Technol. 2023;7(1):25–33.
44. Aydinlar A, Mavi A, Alis D. Awareness and level of digital literacy among students receiving health-based education. 2023;1–28.
45. Mohammad Chowdhury. Emphasizing Morals, Values, Ethics, and Character Education in Science Education and Science Teaching. Malaysian Online J Educ Sci. 2016;4(2):1–16.
46. Bland AM, DeRobertis EM. Humanistic Perspective. Encycl Personal Individ Differ. 2019;1–19.
47. Asnawi A, Zulaeha I, Wahyuni S, Etfita F. Humanist Literacy in Critical Reading Activities as an Alternative Direction for Future Language Learning. AL-ISHLAH J Pendidik. 2022;14(2):2579–88.
48. Eaton SE, Christensen J, Editors. H. Academic Integrity in Canada: An Enduring and Essential Challenge. Springer, Cham. 2022.
49. Sari DI, Rejekiningsih T, Muchtarom M. The Concept of Human Literacy as Civics Education Strategy to Reinforce Students’ Character in the Era of Disruption. 2020;397(Icliqe 2019):1132–41.
50. Karmini NW, Yudari AAKS, Suasthi IGA, Hadriani NLG, Setini M. Model of Humanism Education based on Local Wisdom in Elementary School in Bali. Int J Early Child Spec Educ. 2021;13(2):1056–63.
51. Cadez S, Dimovski V, Zaman Groff M. Research, teaching and performance evaluation in academia: the salience of quality. Stud High Educ. 2017;42(8):1455–73.
52. Arono, Arsyad S, Syahriman, Nadrah, Villia AS. Exploring the effect of digital literacy skills and learning style of students on their meta-cognitive strategies in listening. Int J Instr. 2022;15(1):527–46.
53. Resnik AES and DB. Responsible Conduct of Research. 2015. 346 p.
54. Al Tajir GK. Ethical treatment of participants in public health research. J Public Heal Emerg. 2018;2:2–2.
55. Bassey and Valentine J. Owan. Ethical Issues in Educational Research, Management and Practice. In: The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation. 2018. p. 1287–301.
56. The National Academy of Science. Fostering Integrity in Research. Fostering Integrity in Research. 2017. 294 p.
57. Wächter B, Kelo M, Lam QKH, Effertz P (DAAD), Jost C (DAAD), Kottowski S (DAAD). University Quality Indicators: A Critical Assessment. Vol. 1542, CEUR Workshop Proceedings. 2015. 33–36 p.
58. Labib K, Evans N, Roje R, Kavouras P, Reyes Elizondo A, Kaltenbrunner W, et al. Education and training policies for research integrity: Insights from a focus group study. Sci Public Policy. 2022;49(2):246–66.
59. Kamal Kumar and Babita Sharma. Research Integrity & Ethics : Scientific Misconduct. In 2023.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Suharsiwi, Fauzi, Laila Yumna, Imam Hanafi, Rd Heri Solehudin, Adiyati Fathu Roshonah, Muhammad Choirin, Diah Andika Sari (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.
