바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.52 No.3
Citation Share

A Study on the Direction of Reading and Information Service through Analysis of Digital Reading and Information Literacy Competencies Evaluation Items: Focusing on PIAAC and PISA

Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science / Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science, (P)1225-598X; (E)2982-6292
2018, v.52 no.3, pp.61-89
https://doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2018.52.3.061
(University of Missouri)
(2018). A Study on the Direction of Reading and Information Service through Analysis of Digital Reading and Information Literacy Competencies Evaluation Items: Focusing on PIAAC and PISA. Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science, 52(3), 61-89, https://doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2018.52.3.061
  • Downloaded
  • Viewed
PDF Download

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to analyze the items related to digital reading and information literacy which were measured by PIAAC and PISA, to examine the measurement contents and methods of these literacy items, and to derive the implications for providing reading and information services for librarians at public libraries and teacher librarians. In order to solve the questions measuring digital reading literacy and digital information literacy, respondents commonly needed ICT skills as well as cognitive strategies. However, in digital reading literacy measurement items, the ability to comprehend and critically think about texts was emphasized. And in digital information literacy measurement items, the ability to use ICT skills, navigate, and evaluate whether or not to read the retrieved text was emphasized. Librarians and teacher librarians need to encourage readers to read and provide a customized competencies improvement program to reflect the performance results and characteristics of a particular group. And It is also necessary to improve and develop the library environment so that library user can understand and use library search system and the Korean decimal classification.

keywords
독서 리터러시, 정보활용능력, 자료 검색 시스템, 정보 서비스, 독서 교육, Reading Literacy, Information Literacy, Library Search System, Information Service, Reading Education

Reference

1.

과학기술정보통신부, 한국인터넷진흥원. 2017. 『2017 인터넷이용실태조사 요약보고서』. [online][cited 2018. 6. 20.] <https://isis.kisa.or.kr/board/?pageId=060100>

2.

교육부, 고용노동부, 한국직업능력개발원. 2013. 『한국인의 역량, 학습과 일: 국제성인역량조사(PIAAC) 보고서』. 서울: 한국직업능력개발원.

3.

교육부 외. 2013. 『국제성인역량조사 주요 분석 결과』. 서울: 한국직업능력개발원.

4.

김남희. 20012. PISA 읽기 소양과 21세기 국어 능력. 국어교육, 138, 41-71.

5.

김은하, 이태문. 2015. 『2015년도 해외 주요국의 독서실태 및 독서문화진흥정책 사례 연구』. 세종:문화체육관광부.

6.

박주현. 2018. 독서․정보․ICT․디지털 리터러시의 개념화 모델 개발 연구. 한국도서관․정보학회지, 49(2), 267-300.

7.

박주현, 장우권. 2014. PISA 2009 학업성취도에 대한 학교도서관 변인의 영향력 분석. 정보관리학회지, 31(3), 331-351.

8.

박현정, 하여진, 박민호. 2011. ICT 활용 유형에 따른 학습자 특성 및 성취도에 대한 혼합모형분석. 교육평가연구, 24(3), 733-754.

9.

배경재, 박희진. 2013. 디지털 정보활용교육 운영실태 및 개선방안 연구. 한국도서관․정보학회지, 44(2), 241-265.

10.

변우열. 2003. 지식정보사회에 있어서 讀書敎育 활성화 방안. 한국도서관․정보학회지, 34(1),1-17.

11.

송경진. 2016. 공공도서관의 성인 리터러시 프로그램 모델 개발 연구. 한국비블리아학회지, 27(4), 175-204.

12.

송경진, 차미경. 2014. 문헌정보학과 공공도서관 서비스에 있어서 리터러시 개념에 대한 연구. 한국문헌정보학회지, 48(4), 215-240.

13.

송기호. 2011. 국가 수준 교육과정에서 범 교육과정으로서의 정보 활용 능력 위상 강화 방안. 한국도서관․정보학회지, 29-50.

14.

유사라. 2018. 메타리터러시 관점에서의 문헌정보학 전공 커리큘럼 진단연구. 한국문헌정보학회지, 52(2), 191-220.

15.

이경화, 송기호. 2016. 자유학기제 지원을 위한 통합 주제 중심의 도서관 정보활용교육 프로그램개발에 대한 연구. 한국비블리아학회지, 27(4), 85-104.

16.

이병기. 2011. 정보활용교육을 위한 수행과제 개발 도구에 관한 연구. 한국도서관․정보학회지, 42(4), 31-50.

17.

장덕현, 최고운. 2008. 대학도서관 정보활용교육 모형 개발에 관한 연구. 한국비블리아학회지, 19(1), 37-60.

18.

장윤금 외. 2016. ICT 리터러시 교육 활용 공간으로서의 공공도서관. 한국비블리아학회지, 27(3), 273-294.

19.

주재욱 외. 2016. 『2016 한국미디어패널조사』. 충청북도: 정보통신정책연구원.

20.

정영미. 2018. 미국 공공도서관의 성인을 위한 디지털 리터러시 교육에 관한 연구. 한국문헌정보학회지, 52(1), 359-380.

21.

정준민. 2009. U-City 구현을 위한 도서관서비스 모델. 한국비블리아학회지, 20(3), 163-169.

22.

조지민 외. 2011. 『2011년 국제 학업성취도 평가 연구(PISA/TIMSS): PISA 2009 결과에 기반한 읽기 영역 성취 특성 비교』. 서울: 한국교육과정평가원.

23.

최재황. 2016. ACRL 정보 리터러시 ‘프레임웍(2015)’의 중심 개념 고찰. 한국문헌정보학회지, 50(3), 171-191.

24.

American Association of School Librarians(AASL). 2007. Standards for the 21st-Century Learner. Chicago: ALA.

25.

American Association of School Librarians(AASL). 2018. National School Library Standards for Learner, School Librarians, and School Libraries. Chicago: ALA Editions.

26.

Bolter, J. D. and Grusin, R. 1999. Remediation: Understanding New Media. Massachusetts:MIT Press.

27.

Eisenberg, M. B. 2008. Information Literacy: Essential Skills for the Information Age.Journal of Library & Information Technology, 28(2), 39-47.

28.

Eisenderg, M. B. 2011. Develop and Deliver Essential Information Literacy Programs.Journal of the Korean Library and Information Science Society, 45(2), 5-21.

29.

Gorman, M. 1998. Our Singular Strengths: Meditations for Librarians. Chicago: American Library Association.

30.

OECD. 2010. PISA 2009 Assessment Framework: Key competencies in reading, mathematics and science. Paris: OECD.

31.

OECD. 2011. PISA 2009 Results: Students On line-Volume Ⅵ. [online] [cited 2018. 6. 21.]<http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/48270093.pdf>

32.

OECD. 2012. Literacy, Numeracy and Problem Solving in Technology-Rich Environments:Framework for the OECD Survey of Adult Skills. [online] [cited 2018. 6. 22.]<http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264128859-en>

33.

OECD. 2013a. OECD Skills Outlook 2013: First Results from the Survey of Adult Skills. [online] [cited 2018. 6. 23.] <http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/97892642042 56-en>

34.

OECD. 2013b. The Survey of Adult Skills: Reader’s Companion. [online] [cited 2018. 6. 24.]<http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264204027-en>

35.

OECD. 2016. PISA 2018 Draft Analytical Frameworks-May 2016. [online] [cited 2018. 4. 3.]<https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/PISA-2018-draft-frameworks.pdf>

36.

OECD. 2018a. PISA Released Field Trial New Reading Items. [online] [cited 2018. 5. 9.]<https://www.oecd.org/pisa/test/PISA_2018_FT_Released_New_Reading_Items.pdf>

37.

OECD. 2018b. Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC 2015): Full selection of indicators. [online][cited 2018. 6. 1.] <http://gpseducation.oecd.org>

38.

OECD Home page. Summary of Assessment Domains. [online] [cited 2018. 7. 1.]<http://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/samplequestionsandquestionnaire.htm>

39.

Owusu-Ansah, E. K. 2003. Information Literacy and the Academic Library: A Critical Look At a Concept and the Controversies Surrounding It. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 29(4), 219-230.

40.

O’Reilly, T. and Sabatini, J. 2013. Reading for Understanding: How Performance Moderators and Scenarios Impact Assessment Design. [online] [cited 2018. 6. 20.]<https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-13-31.pdf>

41.

Ritchhart, R. 2001. From IQ to IC: A Dispositional View of Intelligence. Roeper Review, 23(3), 143-150.

42.

Shenton, A. K. 2007. “Causes of Information-seeking Failure: Some Insights from an English Research Project.” In Chelton, M. K. and Cool, C. ed. Youth Information-seeking Behavior Ⅱ: Context, Theories, Models, and Issues. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press.

43.

Shenton, A. K. 2011. Information literacy + Reading Skills = Successful Information Behaviour. Literacy Today, 67, 21-23.

44.

Todd, R. J. 2010. From Information to Knowledge: The Information Literacy Conundrum.Journal of the Korean Library and Information Science Society, 44(4), 131-153.

45.

UNESCO. 2005. EFA Global Monitoring Report 2006: Education for All Literacy for Life. France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

46.

Wolf, S., Brush, T., and Saye, J. 2003. The Big Six Information Skills as a Metacognitive Scaffold: A Case Study. School Library Media Research, 6.

Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science

e-Submission OA Policy