1st Student Research Colloquium

1 Digital and Media literacy of Science and Mathematics

2 Students
3 Kezia Kym Faith F. Lopez1, Mark Denzel B. Tobias2, Noemi Grace A. Paj-yo3,
4 Abegail A. Pagador4, and Dhesy D. Rosete5
5 3rd year BSED Science
6 College of Teacher Education
7 keziakymfaithlopez@gmail.com1, tobiasmarkdenzel2@gmail.com2,
8 pajyonoemigrace@gmail.com3, abegailpagador@gmail.com4,
9 dhesyrosete@gmail.com5
10
11 ABSTRACT
12
13 The purpose of this study is to investigate and determine the digital
14 participation and media exposure of science and mathematics students. The
15 study used the quantitative type of research. The respondents of this study
16 are BSED major in Science and Mathematics students at Quirino State
17 University Diffun, Campus. The data gathered were analyzed and
18 interpreted using statistical tools, the weighted mean, t-Test, and ANOVA to
19 arrive at valid findings. An online questionnaire was administered to gather
20 the information of the respondents. Results indicated that most of the
21 respondents ages 21-22 years old, with a higher proportion of female
22 students. Most of the respondents are in their first year, followed by the
23 third year. Regarding socioeconomic status, the majority mentioned that
24 their income is just enough for daily needs but struggle to save. It
25 recommends giving the tertiary students more innovative and real-life
26 exercises so they may regularly practice their knowledge and skills from
27 digital and Media literacy instructions. Furthermore, it recommends the
28 future researcher or studies to be conducted may consider teachers as the
29 participants in determining the levels of digital and media literacy.
30
31 Keywords: exposure, participation, literacy, media, digital

32 1. INTRODUCTION

33 The emergence of an evolving field in technology has undergone a steep

34 change in the landscape of education. The use of computer and web-
35 based tools in education has a long history, and it has become prevalent
36 thanks to the advancement of internet facilities. During the COVID-19
37 pandemic, Zoom or Google’s Meet were used to organize online learning.
38 However, the use of online learning has revealed some challenges
39 experienced by students. Therefore, technological developments must be
40 followed by media literacy skills to fundamentally change various forms
41 of economic activity for students.

42 Doing research online, communicating through email or instant

43 messaging with teachers or peers, and presenting a report are all part of
44 every single course. However, not all the students possess the same level
45 of media literacy. For this reason, it is necessary to approach the term
46 media literacy with caution and analyze it in relation to different
47 variables.

48 The idea of media literacy became increasingly important for media

49 consumption and media production for full participation in today’s
50 digital environment. It was a necessity, specifically in educational

1|Page
 1st Student Research Colloquium

51 settings. The main goal of media literacy is to have critical, independent

52 interaction with all forms of media. It aimed to provide students with the
53 ability to use computers, social media, and the Internet. It improved
54 students’ comprehension and enjoyment of how the media work, how
55 they are organized, how they produce meaning, and how they construct
56 reality. It also helped students produce and select information to make
57 students in higher education more active in the learning process.

58 In this context, this study aimed to determine the extent of the digital
59 and media literacy of Bachelor of Secondary Education students
60 majoring in science and mathematics at the College of Teacher
61 Education, Quirino State University-Diffun Campus. It investigated the
62 level of digital and media exposure and literacy of the respondents. This
63 showed their capability and their readiness as future teachers to have
64 full participation in today’s digital environment. It was used to determine
65 the necessary data to address the problems that arise in education
66 settings and the effective strategies and practices to ensure quality
67 education.

68 Objectives of the Study

69 This study was intended to determine the Digital and Media

70 Literacy of Science and Mathematics Major students. Specifically, it aims
71 to:
72 1. Determine the profile of the respondents in terms of:
73 a. Age
74 b. Sex
75 c. Year Level
76 d. Socioeconomic Status
77 2. Determine the extent of the digital participation and media exposure
78 of the respondents in terms of:
79 a. Extent of using the type of media and digital devices
80 b. Time spent on the media and digital devices
81 3. Determine the level of media literacy of the respondents in terms of:
82 a. Transmedia Navigation
83 b. Networking
84 c. Visualization
85 4. Determine if there are significant differences in respondent’s digital
86 and media exposure when grouped according to profile.

87 5. Determine if there are significant differences on the level of media

88 literacy skills of the respondents when grouped according to their
89 profile.

90 Conceptual Framework
91 This research study presents a paradigm which consists of input,
92 process, and output. The respondents were given a questionnaire to
93 determine the digital and media literacy of the BSED science and
94 mathematics major students at Quirino State University-Diffun Campus.
95

96

97

98

2|Page
 1st Student Research Colloquium
INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT
Data on:
 Profile of the
respondents
Data on digital and
 Digital
media literacy of
participation and Floating of a
media exposure science and
questionnaire.
 Level of media mathematics
literacy students.
 Test of means
 T-Test
 ANNOVA

INTERVENING
VARIABLES
Profiles of the respondents

 Age
 Sex
 Year Level
 Socioeconomic Status
 Types of media and digital
devices that they own or at
home.
99
100
101 Figure 1 shows the conceptual framework of the study
102
103 2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY (non-technical)
104 This section presents the research design, locale of the study, the
105 respondents who answered the instrument, the characterization of the
106 instrument used, the data gathering procedure, the data treatment plan
107 and the ethical consideration of this study.
108 Research Design
109 This study used a descriptive research design, particularly the survey.
110 It involved a careful description of the respondent’s digital and media
111 exposure and literacy. This design fitted best when the intention of the
112 researcher was to gather information regarding a certain phenomenon at
113 the time of the study without manipulating variables or introducing any
114 condition to influence their beliefs or attitudes, among others.
115 Respondents of the study

116 The respondents of this study were the Science and Mathematics
117 major students of the Bachelor of Secondary Education program of the
118 College of Teacher Education, Quirino State University, Diffun Campus,
119 for the second semester, SY 2022-2023.

120 The sample size was computed using Cochran’s formula for sample
121 size computation. Allows you to calculate an ideal sample size given the
122 desired level of precision, the desired confidence level, and the estimated
123 portion of the attribute present in the population.

124 Table 1. Respondents of the Study

3|Page
 1st Student Research Colloquium

Total Number Sample

First Year 21 18

Second Year 11 10

Third Year 14 12

Fourth Year 10 9

Total 56 49
125

126 Research Instrument

127 This study employed an adopted questionnaire from the study of

128 Literat, I. (2014), titled Measuring New Media Literacies: Towards the
129 Development of a Comprehensive Assessment Tool.

130 The instrument has three parts:

131 Part 1 deals with the respondent’s demographic profile, which was
132 intended to gather information among the education students as to sex,
133 age, and grade level.

134 Part 2 deals with the digital participation and media exposure among the
135 education students towards media literacy, and

136 Part 3 deals with the factors affecting the media literacy skills of
137 education students. The purpose of research using this method is to
138 systematically describe the facts and characteristics of the research
139 object accurately and without subjective assessment intervention.

140 Data Gathering Procedure

141 The researcher requested permission from the office of the Dean of
142 the College of Teacher Education through the Chairperson of the BSE
143 program prior to the proper conduct of data gathering. Once approved,
144 the researcher convened all the respondents in a room for the floating of
145 the questionnaire.

146 After gathering all the answers to the questionnaires, the

147 researcher encoded and tabulated the data via Excel for statistical
148 analysis. Answered questionnaires were kept temporarily in a safe place,
149 but they were shredded after validation and checking by the research
150 advisor. This is to ensure the confidentiality of the information given by
151 the respondents.

152 Data Treatment Plan

153 The gathered data was treated using the following statistical tests:
154 1. Frequency. This will be used to determine the number of
155 frequencies to the known profile of the respondents.
156 2. Mean. This will be used to determine the average of the vouched
157 answers of the respondents along the indicators of the identified
158 parameters of the study.

4|Page
 1st Student Research Colloquium

159 3. ANOVA or Kruskal Wallis Test. Depending on the variability of the

160 data, ANOVA or Kruskal Wallis test will be used to differentiate the
161 vouched answers of the respondents with at least three
162 independent groupings.
163 4. T-Test. It is a statistical test that is used to compare the means of
164 two groups.
165
166 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
167 This chapter presents the findings of the study regarding the extent of
168 digital and media literacy among Bachelor of Secondary Education
169 students majoring in science and mathematics at Quirino State
170 University-Diffun Campus. It provides a detailed analysis and
171 interpretation of the data collected, examining the respondents'
172 demographic profile, their level of media literacy across various
173 dimensions, the relationship between demographic factors and digital
174 participation, and media consumption habits.
175 Table 1: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of the extent of the digital
176 participation and media exposure of the respondents when grouped
177 by age.
F-comp p-value (Sig)

Extent of using the type of media and digital

devices:

1. For school activities 0.911 0.443

2. During free time/ as a hobby. 0.655 0.584

Time spent on the media and digital devices

1. Watching TV (not on your computer) 1.159 0.336

2. Reading books, magazines, and 1.420 0.249
newspapers.
3. Surfing the internet to 1.842 0.153
accomplish assignments
4. Playing computer games and applications 0.706 0.553

5. Visiting social networking sites 1.555 0.213

6. Visiting online groups and blogs 3.096 0.036*

178 * Significant at 0.05 Level of Significance

179

180 ANOVA results indicate a significant difference in the extent of

181 visiting online groups and blogs among different age groups (F = 3.096, p
182 = 0.036 < 0.05). However, for variables related to school activities, free
183 time, watching TV, reading, surfing the internet for assignments, playing
184 computer games, and visiting social networking sites, there is no
185 significant difference across age groups (p > 0.05). In summary, while
186 visiting online groups and blogs varies significantly by age, there are no
187 significant differences in digital and media exposure among age groups
188 for other variables.
189

190 Table 2: t-test of the extent of the digital participation and media
191 exposure of the respondents when grouped by sex
t-comp p-value (Sig)

5|Page
 1st Student Research Colloquium

Extent of using the type of media and digital devices:

1. For school activities -1.377 0.175

2. During free time/ as a hobby. -1.873 0.067

Time spent on the media and digital devices

1. Watching TV (not on your computer) 0.008 0.994

2. Reading books, magazines, and 0.135 0.893
newspapers.
3. Surfing the internet to -2.543 0.014*
accomplish assignments
4. Playing computer games and applications -0.953 0.345

5. Visiting social networking sites -1.499 0.140

6. Visiting online groups and blogs -0.738 0.464

192 * Significant at 0.05 Level of Significance

193
194 The table above shows the t-test of the extent of the digital
195 participation and media exposure of the respondents when grouped by
196 sex. It is reflected in the table that only one of the indicators has a p-
197 value less than 0.05, which means that the null hypothesis is rejected.
198 This states that there is a significant difference in the extent of the digital
199 participation and media exposure of the respondents when grouped by
200 sex. The table also shows that almost all of the indicators have a p-value
201 greater than 0.05, which means that the null hypothesis is accepted.
202 Hence, it states that there is no significant difference in the extent of the
203 digital participation and media exposure of the respondents when
204 grouped by sex, implying that the respondents’ extent of digital
205 participation and media exposure has nothing to do with their sex.
206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218 Table 3: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of the extent of the digital

219 participation and media exposure of the respondents when grouped
220 by year level
F-comp p-value (Sig)

6|Page
 1st Student Research Colloquium

Extent of using the type of media and digital devices:

1. For school activities 3.486 0.023*

2. During free time/ as a hobby. 0.611 0.611

Time spent on the media and digital devices

1. Watching TV (not on your computer) 1.339 0.274

2. Reading books, magazines, and 1.805 0.160
newspapers.
3. Surfing the internet to 1.923 0.139
accomplish assignments
4. Playing computer games and applications 0.111 0.953

5. Visiting social networking sites 2.503 0.071

6. Visiting online groups and blogs 1.218 0.314

221 * Significant at 0.05 Level of Significance

222
223 The table above shows the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of the
224 extent of the digital participation and media exposure of the respondents
225 when grouped by year level. It is reflected in the table that only one of the
226 indicators has a p-value less than 0.05, which means that the null
227 hypothesis is rejected. This states that there is a significant difference in
228 the extent of the digital participation and media exposure of the
229 respondents when grouped by year level. The table also shows that
230 almost all of the indicators have a p-value greater than 0.05, which
231 means that the null hypothesis is accepted. Hence, it states that there is
232 no significant difference in the extent of the digital participation and
233 media exposure of the respondents when grouped by sex, implying that
234 the respondents’ extent of digital participation and media exposure has
235 nothing to do with their year level.
236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246 Table 4. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of the extent of the digital

247 participation and media exposure of the respondents when grouped
248 by socioeconomic status
F-comp p-value (Sig)

Extent of using the type of media and digital devices:

1. For school activities 0.214 0.886

7|Page
 1st Student Research Colloquium

2. During free time/ as a hobby. 1.849 0.152

Time spent on the media and digital devices

1. Watching TV (not on your computer) 2.976 0.041*

2. Reading books, magazines, and newspapers. 5.832 0.002*

3. Surfing the internet to 0.269 0.847
accomplish assignments
4. Playing computer games and applications 3.579 0.021*

5. Visiting social networking sites 2.735 0.055

6. Visiting online groups and blogs 2.282 0.092

249 * Significant at 0.05 Level of Significance

250
251 The table above shows Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of the extent of
252 the digital participation and media exposure of the respondents when
253 grouped by socioeconomic status. It can be seen in the table that there
254 are three indicators that have a p-value of less than 0.05 which means
255 that the null hypothesis is rejected. This states that there is a significant
256 difference in the extent of the digital participation and media exposure of
257 the respondents when grouped by socioeconomic status. This implies
258 that socioeconomic status has no influence on the extent of the digital
259 participation and media exposure of the respondents.
260 Table 5: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of the level of media literacy
261 skills of the respondents in terms of distributed cognition when
262 grouped by age
DISTRIBUTED COGNITION F-comp p-value (Sig)

1. I believe that smart people are born smart. 1.249 0.303

2. My environment plays a big part in how smart I 2.638 0.061
am.
3. I have to keep learning from my surroundings in 1.201 0.320
order to become smarter.
4. I am really pretty good at knowing what to do or
who to ask if I want to find out more about a 0.177 0.912
specific topic.
5. I find it important to use tools like spell check, a
calculator, encyclopedia, etc. to help me in my 3.173 0.033*
learning or work.
263 * Significant at 0.05 Level of Significance
264 The table above shows the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of the
265 level of media literacy skills of the respondents in terms of distributed
266 cognition when grouped by age. It is reflected in the table that only one of
267 the indicators has a p-value less than 0.05, which means that the null
268 hypothesis is rejected. This states that there is a significant difference in
269 the level of media literacy skills of the respondents in terms of
270 distributed cognition when grouped by age. The table also shows that
271 almost all of the indicators have a p-value greater than 0.05, which
272 means that the null hypothesis is accepted. Hence, it states that there is
273 no significant difference in the level of media literacy skills of the
274 respondents in terms of distributed cognition when grouped by age,
275 implying that the level of media literacy skills of the respondents in terms
276 of distributed cognition has nothing to do with their age.

8|Page
 1st Student Research Colloquium

277 Table 6: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of the level of media literacy

278 skills of the respondents in terms of Networking when grouped by
279 age
p-value
NETWORKING F-comp
(Sig)

1. I think that reading other people’s recommendations on

sites like Amazon, Yelp, Lazada, YouTube, etc. is useful 0.226 0.877
in helping me make decisions.
2. I like to share my favorite links or creative work on social 0.924 0.437
media sites like Facebook, or YouTube, or Twitter.
3. I often share links on Facebook, Twitter, my blog, etc. 3.891 0.015*

4. When I go online, I like to feel like I am part of the online 3.450 0.024*
community.
5. It is important for me to be able to stay in touch with my 2.495 0.072
friends online too, and not only in real life.
280 * Significant at 0.05 Level of Significance
281
282 It is reflected in the table above that the computed p-value or level
283 of significance of 2 particulars is lower than the .05 level of significance
284 which mean that it is significant. This suggests that this is not accepted
285 to the null hypothesis in the level of media literacy skills of the
286 respondents in terms of Networking when grouped by age.
287 Table 7: t-test of the level of media literacy skills of the respondents in

288 terms of performance when grouped by sex

PERFORMANCE t-comp p-value (Sig)

1. I have often taken on a different identity … -2.177 0.035*

2. I know what an avatar is. -0.375 0.709
3. I feel I am a different person online… -0.470 0.640
4. In certain situations, it is necessary not to be 0.348 0.730
yourself.
5. Actors learn a lot about life from the roles they play -2.377 0.022*
in films and on stage.
289 * Significant at 0.05 Level of Significance
290
291 Table 7 shows the t-test of the level of media literacy skills of the
292 respondentsin terms of performance when grouped by sex. It is reflected
293 in the table above that the computed p-value or level of significance of
294 the 2 particulars is lower than the .05 level of significance which mean
295 that it is significant. This suggests that this is rejected to the null
296 hypothesis. This indicates that there is a significant difference in the
297 level of media literacy skills of the respondents in terms of performance
298 when grouped by sex. This implies that sex has influence on the level of
299 media literacy skills of the respondentsin terms of performance.
300 Table 8: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of the level of media literacy
301 skills of the respondents in terms of performance when grouped by
302 year level
F- p-value
PERFORMANCE
comp (Sig)

1. I have often taken on a different identity … 1.689 0.183

9|Page
 1st Student Research Colloquium

2. I know what an avatar is. 0.835 0.482

3. I feel I am a different person online… 2.158 0.106

4. In certain situations, it is necessary not to be yourself. 3.712 0.018*

5. Actors learn a lot about life from the roles they play in films 2.436 0.077
and on stage.
303 * Significant at 0.05 Level of Significance

304 Table 8 shows the Analysis of Variance of the level of media

305 literacy skills of the respondents in terms of performance when grouped
306 by year level. The result reveals that the null hypothesis which states
307 that there is no significant differences on the level of media literacy skills
308 of the respondents when grouped by year level is accepted except for the
309 statement 4 “In certain situations, it is necessary not to be yourself.”
310 which has significant results. This implies that year level influences the
311 level of media literacy skills of the respondents in terms of performance.

312 Table 9: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of the level of media literacy

313 skills of the respondents in terms of distributed cognition when
314 grouped by year level
p-value
DISTRIBUTED COGNITION F-comp
(Sig)

1. I believe that smart people are born smart. 3.745 0.017*

2. My environment plays a big part in how smart I am. 2.390 0.081

3. I have to keep learning from my surroundings in order to 0.586 0.627

become smarter.
4. I am really pretty good at knowing what to do … 0.806 0.497

5. I find it important to use tools like … 5.414 0.003*

315 * Significant at 0.05 Level of Significance

316
317 Table 9 shows the Analysis of Variance of the level of media
318 literacy skills of the respondents in terms of distributed cognition when
319 grouped by year level. The result reveals that the null hypothesis which
320 states that there is no significant differences on the level of media
321 literacy skills of the respondents when grouped by year level is accepted
322 except for the statement 1 “I believe that smart people are born smart.”,
323 and statement 5 “I find it important to use tools like spell check, a
324 calculator, encyclopedia, etc. to help me in my learning or work.” which
325 has significant results. This implies that year level influences the level of
326 media literacy skills of the respondents in terms ofdistributed cognition.
327 Table 10: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of the level of media literacy
328 skills of the respondents in terms of Transmedia Navigation when
329 grouped by year level
TRANSMEDIA NAVIGATION F-comp p-value (Sig)

1. I follow my favorite shows… 1.974 0.131

2. I can imagine the same story being told in 0.282 0.838
different ways…
3. I often visit the websites… 0.439 0.726

4. If I am curious about something I saw on TV… 2.964 0.042*

10 | P a g e
 1st Student Research Colloquium
5. I’m happy that I can learn about my favorite 1.640 0.194
things…
330 * Significant at 0.05 Level of Significance
331
332 Table 10 shows the Analysis of Variance of the level of media
333 literacy skills of the respondents in terms of transmedia navigation when
334 grouped by year level. The result reveals that the null hypothesis which
335 states that there is no significant differences on the level of media
336 literacy skills of the respondents when grouped by year level is accepted
337 except for the statement 4 “If I am curious about something I saw on TV,
338 I will check it out online later.” which has significant results. This implies
339 that year level influences the level of media literacy skills of the
340 respondents in terms of transmedia navigation.
341 Table 11.: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of the level of media
342 literacy skills of the respondents in terms of Networking when
343 grouped by year level
p-value
NETWORKING F-comp
(Sig)

1. I think that reading other people’s recommendations on sites … 0.267 0.849

2. I like to share my favorite links … 1.710 0.178

3. I often share links on Facebook, Twitter, my blog, etc. 0.770 0.517

4. When I go online, I like to feel like I am part of the online 3.145 0.034*
community.
5. It is important for me to be able to stay in touch with my 2.606 0.063
friends online …
344 * Significant at 0.05 Level of Significance
345
346 Table 11 shows the Analysis of Variance of the level of media
347 literacy skills of the respondents in terms of networking when grouped by
348 year level. The result reveals that the null hypothesis which states that
349 there is no significant differences on the level of media literacy skills of
350 the respondents when grouped by year level is accepted except for the
351 statement 4 “When I go online, I like to feel like I am part of the online
352 community.” which has significant results. This implies that year level
353 influences the level of media literacy skills of the respondents in terms of
354 networking.
355
356
357
358
359 Table 12: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of the level of media literacy
360 skills of the respondents in terms of performance when grouped by
361 socioeconomic status
p-value
PERFORMANCE F-comp
(Sig)

1. I have often taken on a different identity … 1.366 0.265

2. I know what an avatar is. 1.942 0.136

3. I feel I am a different person online… 0.857 0.470

4. In certain situations, it is necessary not to be yourself. 0.152 0.928

5. Actors learn a lot about life from the roles they play in films 3.323 0.028*
and on stage.

11 | P a g e
 1st Student Research Colloquium
362 * Significant at 0.05 Level of Significance
363
364 Table 12 shows the Analysis of Variance of the level of media
365 literacy skills of the respondents in terms of performance when grouped
366 by socioeconomic status. The result reveals that the null hypothesis
367 which states that there is no significant differences on the level of media
368 literacy skills of the respondents when grouped by year level is accepted
369 except for the statement 5 “Actors learn a lot about life from the roles
370 they play in films and on stage” which has significant value of 0.028.
371 This implies that socioeconomic status influences the level of media
372 literacy skills of the respondents in terms of performance.
373
374 4. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORKS
375 CONCLUSION
376  The majority of Bachelor of Secondary Education students majoring in
377 science and mathematics at Quirino State University-Diffun Campus
378 exhibit a generally positive attitude and competence in digital and
379 media literacy, as reflected in their agreement with statements related
380 to performance, distributed cognition, transmedia navigation,
381 networking, and visualization.
382  Age and gender play a significant role in the extent of digital
383 participation and media exposure among the respondents. Younger
384 students show a higher tendency to visit online groups and blogs,
385 while female students exhibit a greater level of digital participation
386 and media exposure compared to male students.
387  The year level of the students does not have a significant impact on
388 their extent of digital participation and media exposure. This suggests
389 that the students' engagement with digital media remains consistent
390 throughout their academic progression.
391  Socioeconomic status does not influence the extent of digital
392 participation and media exposure among the respondents. Regardless
393 of their income levels, the students exhibit similar levels of
394 engagement and exposure to digital media.
395  The findings underscore the importance of integrating media literacy
396 education into teacher training programs, as it prepares future
397 educators to navigate the digital landscape effectively and empowers
398 them to teach media literacy skills to their students. This emphasis
399 on media literacy will contribute to ensuring quality education and
400 fostering critical, independent interaction with various forms of media
401 in educational settings.
402 RECOMMENDATIONS
403  Give the tertiary students more innovative and real-life exercises so
404 they may regularly practice their knowledge and skills from digital
405 and media literacy instruction.
406  The future research or studies to be conducted may consider teachers
407 as the participants in determining the levels of digital and media
408 literacy.
409  Further research can be conducted that covers all majors of BSED for
410 a more comprehensive result.
411 5. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
412 This research paper would not be made possible and would not be
413 completed without the support, guidance, and critiques of the

12 | P a g e
 1st Student Research Colloquium

414 following people who become inspiration to the researchers to

415 finish this study.
416 To Dr. AgatonPattalitan Jr., his enthusiasm and for letting
417 the researchers to conduct this study to the said department.
418 To Dr. Ma. Theresa B. Valerio, their professor for sharing her
419 expertise on research and for guiding and motivating the
420 researcher in all stages of the study.
421 To Mrs. Ana Maria C. Ventura, their adviser for her
422 comments and insightful feedbacks, untiring effort in checking and
423 editing this study, for motherly pieces of advice and her criticism
424 and suggestions which served as motivation to the researchers
425 that helped improve the research.
426 To our Almighty God, who showed his unending blessings
427 that gave strength, inspiration, and knowledge to pursue and
428 finish this piece of work.
429

430 The Researchers

431 6. LITERATURE CITED
432 Alda, R., Boholano, H., and Dayagbil, F.(2020). Teacher Education
433 Institutions in the Philippines towards Education 4.0. International
434 Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research. Vol. 19, No. 8,
435 pp. 137-154, August 2020 https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.19.8.8
436 Andevski M. &Arsenijevic J. (2013). Research Framework for New Media
437 Literacy of Serbian Education Community Members. Faculty of
438 Management, 69-82.
439 Aufderheide, P. (1993). Media literacy: A report of the national leadership
440 conference on media literacy. Washington DC: Aspen Institute.
441 https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED365294
442 Balaban-Sali, J. (2012). New media literacy of communication students.
443 Contempory Educational Technology, 3(4), 265-277.
444 Baterna, H.B., Mina, T.D.G., &Rogayan, D.V. Jr. (2020). Digital literacy
445 of STEM senior high school students: Basis for enhancement program.
446 International Journal of Technology in Education (IJTE), 3(2), 105-117.
447 Buckingham, D. (2017). Fake news: Is media literacy the answer?
448 [Blog].Retrieved from: https://davidbuckingham.net/2017/01/12/fake-
449 news-is-medialiteracy-the-answer/
450 Bulger, M., & Davison, P. (2018). The Promises, Challenges and Futures
451 of Media Literacy. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 10(1), 1 – 21.
452 https://doi.org/10.23860/JMLE-2018-10-1-1
453 Davies, A., Fidler, D., &Gorbis, M. (2011). Future world skills 2020.
454 Institute for the Future for Apollo Research Institute. Retrieved
455 from:http://apolloresearchinstitute.com/sites/default/files/future_work
456 _skills_2020_full_research_report_final_1.pdf
457 De Los Reyes C Ancheta R Capuno R Pinili L Etcuban J, V. C. B. . V.
458 J. S. (2022). Digital Literacy Skills And Extent Of Engagement On Digital
459 Classroom Tools Of General Education Teachers In An Inclusive
460 Setting.Vol. 6, No. 6, 7203-7210
461 https://journalppw.com/index.php/jpsp/article/view/8790

13 | P a g e
 1st Student Research Colloquium

462 Duncan, B. (2006). Media Literacy: Essential Survival Skills for the New
463 Millennium. School Libraries in Canada 25(4): 31–34.
464 http://www.cla.ca/casl/slic/254medialiteracy.html
465 Festl, R. (2021). Social media literacy & adolescent social online behavior
466 in Germany. Journal of Children and Media, 15(2), 249-271.
467 Gee, J.P. (2009) New Digital Media and Learning as an Emerging Area
468 and “Worked Examples” as one way forward. MIT Press.
469 DOI:10.7551/mitpress/8563.001.0001
470 Gospodnetić, F., Morić, D. (2013). Youth and Media. Croatia.
471 http://seeyouthmedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Youth-and-
472 Media-ResearchCroatia.pdf(15.3.2014.)
473 Hobbs, R. (2010). Digital and media literacy: A plan of action. The Aspen
474 Institute.
475 https://www.aspeninstitute.org/wpcontent/uploads/2010/11//Digital
476 Media_Literacy.pdf
477 Hobbs, R. (2011). Digital and media literacy: Connecting culture and
478 classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
479 https://mediaeducationlab.com/sites/default/files/Hobbs%2520digital
480 %2520and%2520Media%2520Literacy%2520Plan2520of
481 %2520Action_0_0.pdf
482 Hobbs, R. (2013). The blurring of art, journalism, and advocacy:
483 Confronting 21st century propaganda in a world of online journalism.
484 Journal of Law and Policy, 8(3), 625-637.
485 Hobbs, R. & Jensen, (2009). The Past, Present, and Future of Media
486 Literacy Education. Journal of Media Literacy Education. 1-11
487 Hobbs, R. & McGee, S. (2014). Teaching about propaganda: An
488 examination of the historical roots of media literacy. Journal of Media
489 Literacy, 6(2), 56-67.
490 Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, A., & Weigel, M.
491 (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media
492 education for the 21st century. MacArthur Foundation.
493 https://www.macfound.org/media/article_pdfs/jenkinswhitepaper.pdf
494 Kellner, D. (2001). New technologies/ new literacies: Reconstructing
495 education for a new millennium. International Journal of Technology and
496 Design Education 11,67-81. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011270402858
497 Kellner, D., & Share, J. (2007) Critical media literacy, democracy, and
498 the reconstruction of education.Media literacy: A reader.3-23.
499 Koltay, T. (2011). The media and the literacies: Media literacy,
500 information literacy, digital literacy. Media, Culture & Society, 33(2),
501 211-221.
502 Lemish, D. (2015). Children and Media: A Global Perspective. Wiley
503 Blackwell. https://eopcw.com/find/downloadFiles/273
504 Literat, I. (2014). Measuring New Media Literacies: Towards the
505 Development of a Comprehensive Assessment Tool. Journal of Media
506 Literacy Education, 6(1).
507 http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/jmle/vol6/iss1/2(2.4.2014.)

14 | P a g e
 1st Student Research Colloquium

508 Livingstone, S. (2005). Media literacy – challenges ahead. LSE Research

509 Online. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/archive/00000551
510 Miocic, B., JadranPerinic, J. (2014). New Media Literacy Skills of Youth
511 in Zadar. MedijskaIstrazivanja.
512 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289106078_New_media_liter
513 acy_skills_of_youth_in_Zadar
514 O'Neill, B. (2010). Media Literacy and Communication Rights: Ethical
515 Individualismin the New Media Environment. International
516 Communication Gazette72. (4-5): 323-338.
517 Olmanson, J., & Abrams, S. (2013). Constellations of support and
518 impediment: Understanding early implementation dynamics in the
519 research and development of an online multimodal writing and peer
520 review environment. E-Learning and Digital Media, 10(4), 357–377.
521 Olmanson, J., Kennett, K., Magnifico, A., McCarthey, S., Searsmith, D.,
522 Cope, B., &Kalantzis, M. (2015). Visualizing revision: Leveraging student-
523 generated between-draft diagramming data in support of academic
524 writing development. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 1–25.
525 doi:10.1007/s10758-015-9265-5
526 Potter, J. (2016). Introduction to media literacy. New York: SAGE
527 Publications. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/introduction-to-
528 media-literacy/445112me
529 Rust, J. (2015). Students’ playful tactics. Journal of Adolescent & Adult
530 Literacy, 58(6), 492–503. doi:10.1002/ jaal.390.
531 Sims, C. (2014). From differentiated use to differentiating practices:
532 Negotiating legitimate participation and the production of privileged
533 identities. Information, Communication & Society, 17(6), 670–682.
534 doi:10.1080/1369118X.2013.808363.
535 Thoman, E., &Jolls, T. (2003). Literacy for the 21st century: An overview
536 & orientation guide to media literacy education. Malibu, CA: Center for
537 Media Literacy.
538 http://www.medialit.org/sites/default/files/mlk/01_MLKorientation.pdf
539 UNESCO (2020), Media and Information Literacy Education in Asia. p.
540 66 ISBN:
541 978-92-9223-6588(Electronicversion)https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/
542 48223/pf0000374575
543 Vasudevan, L. (2010). Research directions: Literacies in a participatory,
544 multimodal world: The arts and aesthetics of web 2.0. Language Arts,
545 88(1), 43–50.
546 Wongkumsin, T. 2019. Media Literacy Skills, Media Litercy, and
547 Emotional Intelligence of Kasetsart University Students. Journal of Social
548 Sciences and Humanities, 45(2),127-161.
549
550 QUESTIONNAIRE
551 Dear Respondents:

552 This survey questionnaire intends to gather data on the digital and
553 media literacy skills of science and mathematics major students of
554 Quirino State University-Diffun Campus. Your responses will help us
555 refine our material so we may form better constructs to measure the

15 | P a g e
 1st Student Research Colloquium

556 variables of our study. Any information identifying you will not be
557 disclosed.

558 By answering this survey, you are giving full consent to the
559 researchers to collect, store, access, and/or process the data that you
560 will supply herein whether manually or electronically for whatever
561 academic or research purposes as covered by applicable laws and
562 regulations on Data Privacy and Research Ethics.

563 M.D. Tobias, et. al 1, A. M. Ventura 2

1
564 Research Writing Student, College of Teacher Education, Quirino State
565 University
2
566 Research Writing Professor, College of Teacher Education, Quirino State
567 University
568
569
570 PART I: RESPONDENT’S DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
571
Age: 17-18 years old Sex: ( ) Male ( ) Female
19-20 years old Year Level: _____
21-22 years old
23 years old and above
572
573 Socioeconomic status: (please check what is most appropriate for you)
574
1 Have much money and properties than we need; we can buy
) whatever we like.
2 Income is very sufficient for our family’s daily needs; can save
) some money.
3 Income is just enough for our family’s daily needs; but can hardly
) save.
4 Income is little, sometimes not enough for our family.
)
5 Income is very little, not always enough for the family.
)
575 Part II: Digital Participation and Media Exposure
576
577 A. How often do you create projects/outputs that use audio, video,
578 music, photographs, etc.?
579
580 Using a scale from 1-5, 1=Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often,
581 5=Always, please rate the following statements:
582 (1) For school activities: __ A __O __S __R __N
583 (2) During free time/ as a hobby: __ A __O __S __R __N
584
585 B. How much time do you spend on the following activities:
586

16 | P a g e
 1st Student Research Colloquium

587 Using a scale from 1-5, 1=Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often,

588 5=Always, please rate the following statements:
589
A O S R N
1. Watching TV (not on your computer)

2. Reading books, magazines, newspapers

3. Surfing the internet to accomplish
assignments
4. Playing computer games and applications
(online, on your cellphone, on PSP, etc.)
5. Visiting social networking sites (Facebook,
Twitter, Instagram, etc.)
6. Visiting online groups and blogs
590

591 Part III. New Media Literacy Skills

592
593 Direction: Put a check mark to your response in each of the items
594 below. Please use the scale and its corresponding as your basis.
595
596 1: Strongly Disagree 2: Disagree 3: Agree 4: Strongly Agree
597
New Media Literacy Skills

PERFORMANCE 1 2 3 4

1. I have often taken on a different identity in order to

experience something new or to solve a problem (online
games, playing, theatre exercises).
2. I know what an avatar is.

3. I feel I am a different person online than how I act in

person.
4. In certain situations, it is necessary not to be yourself.

5. Actors learn a lot about life from the roles they play in
films and on stage.
DISTRIBUTED COGNITION 1 2 3 4

6. I believe that smart people are born smart.

7. My environment plays a big part in how smart I am.

8. I have to keep learning from my surroundings in order

to become smarter.
9. I am really pretty good at knowing what to do or who to
ask if I want to find out more about a specific topic.
10. I find it important to use tools like spell check, a
calculator, encyclopedia, etc. to help me in my learning
or work.
TRANSMEDIA NAVIGATION 1 2 3 4

11. I follow my favorite shows, actors, musicians etc.

across different platforms and media (TV, magazines,

17 | P a g e
 1st Student Research Colloquium

internet, Facebook, Twitter, etc).

12. I can imagine the same story being told in different
ways, such as through music, acting, writing, drawing,
etc.
13. I often visit the websites (either official or fan-
created) of my favorite TV shows, bands, etc.
14. If I am curious about something I saw on TV, I will
check it out online later.
15. I’m happy that I can learn about my favorite things
in different ways (on TV, on the internet, on Facebook,
etc.)
NETWORKING 1 2 3 4

16. I think that reading other people’s

recommendations on sites like Amazon, Yelp, Lazada,
Youtube, etc. is useful in helping me make decisions.
17. I like to share my favorite links or creative work on
social media sites like Facebook, or YouTube, or
Twitter.
18. I often share links on Facebook, Twitter, my blog,
etc.
19. When I go online, I like to feel like I am part of the
online community.
20. It is important for me to be able to stay in touch
with my friends online too, and not only in real life.
VISUALIZATION 1 2 3 4

21. I feel I understand things better when I can think of

them visually.
22. When I prepare a project for work or school, I like to
use many images, graphs and diagrams as possible.
23. I think I am pretty good at understanding
information from images, graphs, diagrams and other
visual tools.
24. I like the fact that I can see all my friends on my
Facebook profile.
25. I find Google Maps and/or Google Earth to be
extremely useful tools.
598
599
600 Adapted from Literat, I. (2014). Measuring New Media Literacies:
601 Towards the Development of a Comprehensive Assessment Tool. Journal
602 of Media Literacy Education, 6(1).
603 http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/jmle/vol6/iss1/2(2.4.2014.)

18 | P a g e