Abstract
The main aim of this study was to identify the personal information management (PIM) practices of university students. A quantitative research method was adopted for this study. The population of the study consisted of currently enrolled students at two HEC (Higher Education Commission) affiliated universities of the province of Punjab, Pakistan. A questionnaire was sent to the target population for data collection by using a convenience sampling technique, with 335 students returning the questionnaire, a response rate (of the collected data) of 88.75 %. The data collected through the questionnaire was arranged and entered into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) for analysis. The results of the study showed that students perceived that they were at a high level of agreement about their PIM practices. The study provides insights into the PIM practices of university students for effectively managing their personal information. It is suggested that universities should provide proper training on PIM so that students will be able to manage their personal information.
1 Introduction
The concept of Personal Information Management (PIM) has evolved significantly over the years, with several researchers exploring it in their studies. Świgoń (2013) expanded on this concept, focusing on the organization and management of various forms of personal information. For students, this encompasses emails, web references, documents, handwritten notes, research articles, and other related materials. Given the vast amount of information students must handle across both digital and print formats, effective PIM practices are essential to ensure that needed information is readily available when required. Without proper management, stored information can become difficult to retrieve, leading to inefficiencies and stress. Therefore, students often adopt diverse PIM tools and techniques to acquire and maintain relevant information, which supports their understanding and enhances their research skills.
Bergman (2013) describes PIM as the practice of storing personal information in a way that allows for easy retrieval in the future. Jones and Teevan (2007) similarly describe PIM as a set of activities through which individuals acquire, keep, organize, and use information to fulfill personal and professional objectives. These activities help users maintain accessibility to essential resources, such as physical documents, digital files, emails, web links, and notes, enabling their reuse when necessary. Teevan, Jones, and Bederson (2006) add to this understanding by describing PIM as the actions individuals take to collect, organize, retrieve, and process information within their personal spaces. Thus, PIM encompasses various methods and practices individuals use to handle the large amounts of information they encounter and generate in everyday life, making it critical to success in an information-dense society.
The origins of PIM extend back to early computing days, as people began using computers to create organized file systems and directories for their information (Jones and Teevan 2007). With advancements in digital technology, PIM expanded to include management of emails, calendars, contacts, and other forms of digital information, which became increasingly vital in the digital era (Jones et al. 2017). Today, the availability of PIM applications on mobile devices has further amplified its importance, helping users manage their personal information more effectively. For university students, the need for PIM practices is particularly significant due to the extensive amount of information they must handle regularly. Their tasks include managing digital resources, creating structured folders, performing regular data backups, effectively handling emails, and organizing time to meet academic requirements. Collaboration with peers and supervisors often requires well-structured information-sharing practices, and familiarity with ethical and legal standards related to information use ensures that their academic work remains credible and responsible.
University students are a relevant population for studying PIM practices because they are constantly interacting with both digital and physical information sources across various academic tasks (Saleem, Ameen, and Ashiq 2021). Efficient management of assignments, research materials, emails, and online resources is essential for academic success. Furthermore, developing strong PIM skills during their time at university equips students for future career environments, where effective information handling is crucial to professional success. For this reason, examining PIM among university students sheds light on how these practices can be encouraged and optimized in an academic setting, ultimately benefiting both students’ immediate academic performance and their long-term professional abilities.
A critical component that influences PIM practices is information literacy, as described by Stewart and Basic (2014). Information literacy empowers students to locate, access, evaluate, and apply various information sources effectively, which is integral to PIM. By honing information literacy skills, students become more proficient in organizing, storing, retrieving, and utilizing information for their academic endeavors. This proficiency not only boosts academic productivity but also instills a responsible approach to research, where students respect ethical and legal standards regarding information use. Ultimately, these skills help students produce high-quality work and meet academic demands more effectively.
Thus, PIM is a valuable set of skills for students, enabling them to handle large quantities of information efficiently and achieve higher-quality results in their academic work. The effective integration of PIM practices with strong information literacy skills promotes a structured, organized approach to managing personal information, supporting both academic success and readiness for future professional challenges.
2 Literature Review
Various research studies have been conducted on PIM at an international level for investigating its different facets. But there is a gap in the literature in the Pakistani context, as few studies have been done regarding PIM practices among students here. This section reviews the related studies on PIM practices.
2.1 Personal Information Management Practices: International Context
The study of Personal Information Management (PIM) practices has garnered significant attention in recent years, especially in an international context. Research across diverse cultural and educational settings reveals that PIM practices are essential for effectively organizing, storing, and retrieving information. Existing studies have examined how students across different countries manage personal information. Muthurasu and Suganthi (2020) examined the PIM practices of students and found that they preferred mobile phones for internet access, and also revealed that students encounter difficulties in managing personal information effectively. Likewise, Gopale (2020) reported that research scholars preferred laptops and USBs for organizing their personal information. This study also aligned with Sawant and Manchekar’s (2019) findings which revealed that scholars prefer digital methods for information storage due to ease of access and retrieval but they face challenges with information overload and technology reliance. This study also highlights the significance of digital tools and ICT skills (information and communication technology). AlRukaibani and Chaudhry (2019) investigated knowledge workers’ activities related to information finding, organizing, and relocating. They revealed that workers used diverse information sources and a variety of devices for storage of personal information. Elsewhere, Divya and Sudhier (2018) revealed that participants face challenges while updating information, and also indicated that most research scholars possess average skills in information searching and maintenance. Azadeh, Jadidi, and Haghani (2017) revealed that PIM practices of students were at a moderate level, and also observed that no significant differences were found based on demographics such as gender or academic level. An earlier study by Ameen (2016) addressed usage of PIM tools by students and highlighted different frequently used tools for re-finding information like URL bookmarks and hyperlinks. Elsewhere, an even earlier study by Divya and Sudhier (2015) also addressed the usage of PIM tools by students. They focused on internet-based PIM practices, and revealed that email was the most predominant service. Their study highlighted challenges related to privacy and a lack of awareness in managing information, as scholars limited stored information to only what they intended to share.
2.2 Personal Information Management Practices: Local Context
Personal Information Management contains a variety of practices people use to gather, organize, store, and process academic and personal information effectively. A study by Saleem, Ameen, and Ashiq (2021) reveals that students feel confident in their personal knowledge and information management abilities. They suggest that these abilities/activities are essential for developing information literacy skills. In the same way, Ali and Warraich (2021) studied the impact of mobile phone self-efficacy on PIM practices, and revealed that mobile self-efficacy and PIM had a positive relationship. They observed that participants used browsing and searching for finding and re-finding information through cell phones, and stored the information in drafts on mobile phones. Further examining PIM in an academic/workplace context, Yasmeen, Warraich and Ali (2019) studied information practices at academic workplaces, where staff expressed confidence in their ability to manage information effectively. The faculty frequently organized data based on their academic interests, reflecting high levels of proficiency in gathering and categorizing information.
Faize, Akhtar, and Hussain (2018) investigated PIM competency levels among university students. They categorized competencies into low, moderate, and high levels, with students at the low level of competency in searching for and sharing information and at the moderate level in storing, disposing, and retrieving information.
The above studies reveal a detailed view on PIM practices in various contexts. They indicate the training needs in digital and information literacy skills to make PIM practices more effective. While reviewing previous published literature, it is obvious that many studies have been conducted to examine PIM practices at professional and academic levels by using various tools. Researchers, faculty, and knowledge workers have faced many challenges. Nevertheless, a gap was indicated in how these practices vary among current university students, especially in relation to demographic factors like gender, age group, institution, and education level. The present study fills the gap in PIM practices among university students and suggests measures for improvement of their PIM practices. This will help such students manage their information management needs within the academic context.
3 Statement of the Problem
In the digital era, many academic activities depend on digital platforms and the significance of PIM practices among university students has increased. Jones (2010) sees PIM as the method individuals use to collect, organize, store and retrieve information for personal and academic purposes. It is obvious that academic success has a close relation with effective PIM practices, as it helps students to handle a lot of information efficiently and avoid information overload. Despite the importance of these practices, there are some shortcomings among university students in Punjab in managing their personal information and there are questions over whether these practices differ across demographic factors such as gender, age, institutional affiliation, and educational level.
Research shows that students often face challenges in managing personal information, such as disorganization, difficulty in retrieving saved data, and improper use of digital tools (Iqbal, Tariq, and Ahmad 2021). Furthermore, demographic factors have been found to influence the PIM practices of individuals, with variations observed in how different age groups, genders, and academic levels approach information management (Saleem, Ameen, and Ashiq 2021). In the context of Punjab, Pakistan, little research has been conducted on PIM practices, and the extent to which these practices are shaped by demographic characteristics remains unclear. This study aims to bridge this gap by exploring the PIM practices of currently enrolled university students in Punjab, examining differences in opinions based on demographic factors, and suggesting measures for improvement to enhance the effectiveness of PIM practices among students.
4 Objectives of the Study
To address the research problem, the following research objectives are used.
To identify the personal information management (PIM) practices of currently enrolled university students.
To examine the difference of opinions on PIM practices based on participants’ demographics (gender, age group, institution, and education level).
To suggest measures for the improvement of PIM practices of university students.
5 Research Design/Methodology
The quantitative research method was considered most appropriate and best suitable in this research study for investigating the PIM practices of students, as this research design provides descriptions of present circumstances, including individuals’ attitudes, preferences, behaviors, practices, concerns, or interests (Gay, Mills, and Airasian 2009). Moreover, this technique is widely favored due to its high flexibility, allowing researchers to investigate a broad spectrum of research objectives. It also allows for easy generalizability while ensuring respondent anonymity (Muijs 2004). The data collection technique was a close-ended questionnaire, which is utilized to collect the necessary data in the study due to its convenience for both the participants and the researcher.
6 Population, Sampling Technique, and Sample Size
The population is the total set of subjects, events, or groups of individuals about which the researcher wants to establish various characteristics (Fraenkel, Wallen, and Hyun 1996). The population for the study consisted of currently enrolled students at two universities in the Sargodha region (University of Sargodha and University of Lahore, Sargodha campus) in Pakistan. Sargodha is a metropolitan city of Pakistan with its two largest universities being public sector (University of Sargodha) and private sector (University of Lahore). The total number of students in the University of Sargodha was approximately 20,000 in all disciplines (BS to PhD, personal communication). On the other hand, the University of Lahore Sargodha campus has 4,000 total students in all disciplines (personal communication).
Etikan, Musa, and Alkassim (2016) explain that convenience samples are sometimes called “accidental samples” because the researcher chooses elements for the sample based on their nearby location or availability during data collection. Therefore, convenience sampling technique was used in this research. Convenience sampling is the best choice for selecting participants non-randomly based on their availability at the time of data collection (Gay, Mills, and Airasian 2012), allowing the researcher to efficiently gather data from a diverse group of students across various disciplines and academic years. The formula provided by Wrenn, Stevens, and Loudon (2002) was applied to calculate the sample size. This formula determined n = 384 as a total sample size, as under:
where:
n = sample size,
Z = value from normal distribution table for desired confidence level (i.e. corresponding to the chosen alpha level – for 0.05 it is 1.96)
p = obtained population proportion (i.e. 50 %) and q = l − p
e = error of sampling or desired precision = ±0.05
Although the sample size was calculated as 384, to minimize the sampling error and to enhance the strength of generalizability, the researcher decided to collect data from 400 respondents. Therefore, 400 questionnaires were distributed among the participants to collect data for this study. Out of the total, 355 participants returned the questionnaire, with a response rate of 88.75 %.
7 Measurement Method
Saunders et al. (2011) stated that when aiming to depict the attitudes and traits of a larger population, a survey-based questionnaire is often deemed appropriate, and it is also known as an efficient data collection procedure. In previous studies on PIM practices, researchers commonly utilized questionnaires for investigation. With this procedure, data can be collected at a low cost by mail, in person, or electronically, allowing for wide geographical coverage (Sekaran and Bougie 2013; Walliman and Baiche 2001). The study used the survey based questionnaire as the data collection method to gather information from the targeted population.
8 Measurement Instrument
Questionnaires can be designed to gather data from the participant according to the nature of the study (quantitative and qualitative), and thus depend on the study’s nature and objectives. The questionnaire is administered either in-person, by phone, or online and can be self-administered or administered from experts.
A questionnaire serves as a research method whereby a predefined set of structured questions is utilized to collect information from particular participants. It is a common research technique used in many fields, including social sciences, health sciences, and business, to collect different variety of data on various subjects, for example study of beliefs, behaviors, experiences, and attitudes. The questionnaire is distributed among the respondents personally, through telephone calls and online as per the availability of the participants. Before creating a new research instrument, it is essential for a researcher to determine if there are already existing, reliable, and validated tools that align with the study’s objectives (Mertens 2010). For this study, the Personal Information Management (PIM) practices scale, developed by Świgoń (2013), was selected. This scale includes 30 items organized across five dimensions.
The decision to use this particular scale was influenced by its clarity, brevity, and comprehensiveness, which make it well-suited to address the research objectives. The questionnaire consisted of two parts, where the first dealt with personal profiles of the respondents and the second covered the items related to PIM and its subsections.
9 The Validity and Reliability of the Measures
The validity of this instrument was ensured through expert reviews. Expert reviews involve specialists in the field of Library and information science (LIS)/Information management (IM) who ensured the accuracy of the items. The construct validity of the data collection was measured by convergent and discriminant validity. To assess convergent validity, composite reliability (CR) and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) were computed. The CR value for each dimension was calculated, and all dimensions yielded values greater than 0.70. The AVE values ranged from 0.51 to 0.59. These CR and AVE values exceeded the suggested thresholds of 0.60 for CR and 0.50 for AVE as suggested by Byrne (2016).
Cronbach’s alpha was computed for assessing the validity and internal consistency of the 30 scale items. The alpha value was 0.948, indicating a strong level of consistency among the scale items. Additionally, this alpha value, as suggested by Hair et al. (2018), exceeded the threshold value of ≥0.70 (Table 1).
Validity and reliability of the measures.
SN | PIM sub-constructs | CR | AVE | α value |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Gathering, searching | 0.77 | 0.53 | 0.831 |
2 | Organizing, keeping, securing | 0.73 | 0.51 | 0.760 |
3 | Selecting, evaluating | 0.75 | 0.59 | 0.765 |
4 | Spreading, sharing | 0.76 | 0.54 | 0.888 |
5 | Creating, analyzing, and presenting | 0.76 | 0.50 | 0.835 |
10 Data Collection Procedure and Response Rate
Participants for this study were recruited using a convenience sampling technique, targeting university students in Punjab, Pakistan, to capture a range of perspectives on personal information management (PIM) practices. Online (Google Doc) and personally administered questionnaires were distributed among the target population for data collection. Participants for the study were recruited from two universities in the Sargodha region. All ethical considerations were considered and given due importance in this study. Throughout the study, no harm was caused to any student, and their voluntary participation was ensured. Before collecting data the purpose statement was presented to the participants. After receiving permission from university administration, data was collected from 335, with a 88.75 response rate. However, a few limitations of this study should be noted. First, the study relies on self-reported data, which may introduce response bias and affect the accuracy of participants’ reported practices. Second, the cross-sectional nature of the research provides a snapshot of PIM practices at a single point in time, limiting the ability to assess changes over time or causal relationships. Additionally, the study’s scope may not fully capture the diverse cultural and technological contexts that influence PIM practices across different groups. Despite these limitations, this research serves as a valuable foundation for future studies to assess PIM practices and other variables, such as the impact of PIM practices on information literacy, lifelong learning, creativity, and research productivity. After collection of required data, the data was analyzed and interpreted with the help of Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)-22.
11 Data Analysis
For data analysis, descriptive and inferential statistical tests were applied to achieve research objectives. Descriptive statistics involves percentage, frequency, mean, and standard deviation, while in inferential statistics, independent samples t-test and ANOVA were run.
11.1 Profile of the Survey Participants
The total of respondents was 335, of which 119 (35.5 %) were male and 216 (64.5 %) were female, as shown in Table 2. Out of the respondents, 136 (40.5 %) were up to 20 years old, 166 (49.5 %) were 21–30 years old, 30 (8.9 %) were 31–40 years old and three (0.89 %) were 41–50 years old, as shown in Table 2. Out of the participants, BS accounted for 227 participants (67.8 %), MA accounted for 25 participants (7.5 %), MPhil accounted for 70 participants (20.9 %), and PhD accounted for 13 participants (3.9 %) from the total respondents shown in Table 2. As said previously, two universities of the Sargodha region were the population of the study: the University of Lahore (Sargodha campus) had 125 participants (37.3 %), and the University of Sargodha had 210 (62.7 %) participants, as shown in Table 2.
Demographic information of the respondents.
SN | Demographic variables | Frequency | Percentage (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 119 | 35.5 |
Female | 216 | 64.5 | |
Age group (years) | Up to 20 | 136 | 40.5 |
21–30 | 166 | 49.5 | |
31–40 | 30 | 8.9 | |
41–50 | 3 | 0.89 | |
Enrollment level | BS | 227 | 67.8 |
MA | 25 | 7.5 | |
MPhil | 70 | 20.9 | |
PhD | 13 | 3.9 | |
Institution | University of Sargodha | 210 | 62.7 |
The University of Lahore | 125 | 37.3 |
11.2 Personal Information Management Practices
The next category of questionnaire was about PIM practices, in which students were asked to rate their PIM practices on a five-point Likert scale from “Strongly disagree” (1) to “Absolutely agree” (5). The mean score (M) represents the average level of agreement with each statement, while the standard deviation (SD) indicates the variability or dispersion of responses. The original statements for all the tables are provided in Appendix along with their corresponding item numbers.
11.2.1 Gathering, Searching
Table 3 presents the results of students’ responses regarding their gathering and searching practices for information on subjects of interest. Each item, identified by Item No. (GS1 to GS6), corresponds to a specific statement related to students’ gathering and searching behaviors. The results showed that GS6 had the highest mean (3.57), suggesting that students generally prefer experts and professionals for learning over reading literature. GS1 (3.56) follows closely with a mean of 3.56, indicating that students feel confident in their ability to gather information on subjects of interest. GS5 (3.55) implies that students value information from knowledgeable individuals like teachers and colleagues. GS4 (3.40) shows that students somewhat systematically make notes, though it ranks lower than the previous items. GS2 (3.39) suggests that students are somewhat familiar with various information resources. GS3 has the lowest mean (3.11), indicating a relatively lower familiarity or confidence with using the deep Web for information gathering.
Gathering, searching.
Item no. | M | SD |
---|---|---|
GS6 | 3.57 | 1.250 |
GS1 | 3.56 | 1.234 |
GS5 | 3.55 | 1.268 |
GS4 | 3.40 | 1.320 |
GS2 | 3.39 | 1.259 |
GS3 | 3.11 | 1.214 |
Computed variable (GS) | 3.43 | 0.927 |
-
Scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = do not know, 4 = agree, 5 = absolutely agree. GS, gathering, searching.
The overall mean (3.43) and SD (0.927) provide a summary of the students’ general tendency and consistency in gathering and searching for information. A mean of 3.43 suggests a moderate to slightly positive agreement with the statements overall. In summary, students appear to moderately agree with statements about gathering information, with a particular preference for consulting experts and confidence in managing information on topics they find interesting. However, they exhibit relatively lower familiarity with deep web resources.
11.2.2 Organizing, Keeping, Securing
Table 4 presents data on students’ attitudes toward organizing, keeping, and securing information, which is categorized under the computed variable “OKS” (Organizing, Keeping, and Securing). Each statement, labeled from OKS1 to OKS6, reflects specific practices or attitudes related to information management. The results showed OKS1 had the highest mean (M = 3.65), indicating that students generally agree with the importance of ordering, classifying, and sorting information for easy retrieval. This suggests that students prioritize organization for ease of access. OKS2 details that “I usually keep information that is not immediately needed but could be useful in the future” (Mean = 3.61, SD = 1.176). OKS3 details that “I preserve information in both print and E-forms” (Mean = 3.41, SD = 1.323). OKS4 details that “I save information only in electronic form, not in print format” (Mean = 2.98, SD = 1.367). OKS5 details that “I make an effort to note down spoken information that is of interest for me so I can retain it and add it to my collection” (Mean = 3.47, SD = 1.238). OKS6 details that “I prefer to create copies of kept materials and ensure they are saved” (Mean = 3.44, SD = 1.312).
Organizing, keeping, securing.
Item no. | M | SD |
---|---|---|
OKS1 | 3.65 | 1.163 |
OKS2 | 3.61 | 1.176 |
OKS3 | 3.41 | 1.323 |
OKS4 | 2.98 | 1.367 |
OKS5 | 3.47 | 1.238 |
OKS6 | 3.44 | 1.312 |
Computed variable (OKS) | 3.43 | 0.847 |
-
Scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = do not know, 4 = agree, 5 = absolutely agree. OKS, organizing, keeping, securing.
The overall mean (3.43) and SD (0.847) summarize students’ general tendencies and consistency in organizational and storage practices. A mean of 3.43 suggests a moderate to slightly positive agreement with the statements overall, indicating that students generally engage in these practices to manage their information effectively.
11.2.3 Selecting, Evaluating
Table 5 presents data on students’ perspectives on selecting and evaluating information, with an overall computed mean score of 3.35, indicating a moderate agreement with the practices involved. The statements explore different facets of information evaluation, including the perceived usefulness of knowledge gained during studies for future applications, the ability to evaluate and select valuable online information, challenges in choosing relevant academic sources, and tendencies in browsing previously saved materials. Each item (SE1 to SE6) reflects different aspects of how students perceive their abilities to handle, evaluate, and benefit from information. The highest mean score (3.69) is observed for the statement about utility of knowledge and skills from current studies in future private and professional life, suggesting that students generally agree on the long-term value of their studies. The ability to evaluate information on the internet also received a relatively high mean score (3.53), indicating confidence in this skill. However, students report slight difficulties in selecting the most relevant articles, even from reputable sources, with a mean score of 3.24. Lower mean scores for statements related to browsing stored materials only when needed (3.23) and periodically reviewing and discarding redundant materials (3.21) suggest a more selective approach to accessing saved information. A similarly moderate level of agreement is seen in managing large search results, with a mean score of 3.20. The standard deviations range from 1.213 to 1.299, indicating some variability in responses, though the overall computed variable’s standard deviation of 0.842 shows consistency in attitudes across the different aspects of selecting and evaluating information. This suggests that while students generally appreciate the importance of information evaluation, they vary in their methods and frequency of engaging with stored materials.
Selecting, evaluating.
Item no. | M | SD |
---|---|---|
SE6 | 3.69 | 1.299 |
SE1 | 3.53 | 1.223 |
SE3 | 3.24 | 1.213 |
SE5 | 3.23 | 1.223 |
SE4 | 3.21 | 1.245 |
SE2 | 3.20 | 1.247 |
Computed variables (SE) | 3.35 | 0.842 |
-
Scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = do not know, 4 = agree, 5 = absolutely agree. SE, selecting, evaluating.
11.2.4 Spreading, Sharing
Table 6 provides insights into students’ spreading and sharing (SS) in the context of their academic environment, specifically focusing on the sharing of information and collaboration among peers and with academic staff. Each item (SS1 to SS6) reflects different aspects of spreading and sharing, such as teacher availability, satisfaction with teaching methods, and knowledge-sharing behaviors among students. The mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) values for each item, along with the overall computed variable, help us understand students’ general attitudes toward spreading and sharing in their studies. SS2 and SS1, “I like to share study related knowledge with other students” and “I like to share my notes and other materials with other students,” had M = 3.70 for both items, with Standard Deviation of SD = 1.286 for SS2 and SD = 1.279 for SS1. These two items have the highest means, indicating that students are generally enthusiastic about sharing knowledge and study materials with their peers. SS6, “Our teachers are available and guide us cordially,” had a M = 3.6 and SD = 1.275. This indicates that students feel they can rely on their instructors for guidance, which may enhance their confidence in navigating academic challenges. SS5, “I am satisfied with the teaching methods and knowledge sharing approaches of my teachers,” had M = 3.53 and SD = 1.299. This item reflects students’ satisfaction with the teaching methods of their instructors. The moderate agreement suggests that students are generally content with how their teachers share knowledge, which may contribute positively to their academic experience and motivation to learn. SS3, “In the case of my absence other students share notes with me,” has M = 3.42 and SD = 1.281. Students agree that their peers are willing to share notes when they miss classes. SS4, “Other students share their knowledge with me,” had M = 3.38 and SD = 1.270. This suggests that while students do share information about their studies, this may occur less frequently or spontaneously compared to sharing materials like notes (as reflected in SS1 and SS3). The Overall Computed Variable had M = 3.56 and SD = 1.026. The overall mean of 3.56 shows a generally positive perception of social support in the academic setting. The relatively low SD of 1.026 suggests that students’ views are fairly consistent across different aspects of social support, from teacher availability to peer collaboration.
Spreading, sharing.
Item no. | M | SD |
---|---|---|
SS2 | 3.70 | 1.286 |
SS1 | 3.70 | 1.279 |
SS6 | 3.62 | 1.275 |
SS5 | 3.53 | 1.299 |
SS3 | 3.42 | 1.281 |
SS4 | 3.38 | 1.270 |
Computed variable (SS) | 3.56 | 1.026 |
-
Scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = do not know, 4 = agree, 5 = absolutely agree. SS, spreading, sharing.
11.2.5 Creating, Analyzing, and Presenting
Table 7 reflects students’ perceptions of their creating, analyzing and presenting (CAP) in various academic tasks, such as public speaking, using office applications, conducting research, and preparing academic materials. Each item (CAP1 to CAP6) represents a specific skill or aspect of academic competence, with the mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) values indicating the level of confidence and comfort students have in each area. The statements explore areas such as public speaking, familiarity with office applications, preparing and analyzing new subjects, conducting empirical studies, and developing research questions. The highest mean score (3.50) was observed for “I like speaking in classes and conferences” indicating a relatively positive attitude toward public speaking. This was closely followed by familiarity with basic office applications (M = 3.45), suggesting moderate comfort with tools like Microsoft Office. Preparing new subjects (M = 3.39) and conducting empirical studies (M = 3.34) also scored moderately, reflecting an openness to these tasks. The overall mean score across all items is 3.37, with a standard deviation of 0.940, indicating that most participants generally agreed with the statements but with some variability in responses.
Creating, analyzing and presenting.
Item no. | M | SD |
---|---|---|
CAP6 | 3.50 | 1.304 |
CAP5 | 3.45 | 1.261 |
CAP1 | 3.39 | 1.313 |
CAP4 | 3.34 | 1.237 |
CAP2 | 3.30 | 1.288 |
CAP3 | 3.25 | 1.223 |
Computed variables (CAP) | 3.37 | 0.940 |
-
Scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = do not know, 4 = agree, 5 = absolutely agree. CAP, creating, analyzing and presenting.
11.3 Gender and PIM Practices of Students
An independent sample t-test was used to examine opinions of students on gender. The results of the t-test were significant between the opinion of female and male students. The results showed a significant difference in the opinion of female and male students’ opinions on two out of the five dimensions being investigated. Spreading, sharing; Selecting, evaluating; Organizing, keeping, securing; and Gathering, searching dimensions had a significant difference of opinion as the value of Sig 2-tailed for these dimensions was less than the p value (0.05) (Table 8). Further, it was noted that the opinion of female respondents was higher than the opinion of male respondents as the M scores of female students on these dimensions were higher than the M scores of their male counterparts.
Gender and personal information management practices of students.
SN | Statements | Male | Female | Sig 2-tailed | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M | SD | M | SD | |||
01 | Gathering, searching | 3.22 | 1.069 | 3.54 | 0.819 | 0.004* |
02 | Organizing, keeping, securing | 3.27 | 0.953 | 3.51 | 0.772 | 0.012* |
03 | Selecting, evaluating | 3.13 | 0.994 | 3.47 | 0.719 | 0.001* |
04 | Spreading, sharing | 3.37 | 1.148 | 3.66 | 0.940 | 0.020* |
05 | Creating, analyzing and presenting | 3.25 | 1.061 | 3.44 | 0.861 | 0.097 |
11.4 Institution and PIM Practices of Students
An independent samples t-test was run to see the difference of opinion between students based on their institution. The findings of the study show that there is no significant difference between all dimensions. For all dimensions’ gathering of information to presenting of information, the Sig 2-tailed values are greater than 0.05, indicating that there are no statistically significant differences between the M scores of students from the University of Sargodha and the University of Lahore for any of the practices related to personal information management (Table 9).
Institution and PIM practices of students.
SN | Statements | University of Sargodha | University of Lahore | Sig 2-tailed | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M | SD | M | SD | |||
01 | Gathering, searching | 3.39 | 0.936 | 3.49 | 0.913 | 0.342 |
02 | Organizing, keeping, securing | 3.42 | 0.857 | 3.43 | 0.835 | 0.946 |
03 | Selecting, evaluating | 3.30 | 0.854 | 3.42 | 0.817 | 0.201 |
04 | Spreading, sharing | 3.50 | 1.071 | 3.66 | 0.941 | 0.163 |
05 | Creating, analyzing, and presenting | 3.37 | 0.945 | 3.38 | 0.935 | 0.908 |
11.5 Age Groups and PIM Practices of Students
The one-way ANOVA test was applied to find the significant differences in opinions among various age groups of respondents regarding students’ personal information management practices (Table 10). The results showed no significant difference of opinion about the PIM practices of students shown in Table 10.
Age groups.
SN | Statements | Up to 20 | 21–30 | 31–40 | 41 and above | F | Sig | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | ||||
01 | Gathering, searching | 3.32 | 0.987 | 3.49 | 0.884 | 3.58 | 0.905 | 4.06 | 0.347 | 1.474 | 0.222 |
02 | Organizing, keeping, securing | 3.41 | 0.931 | 3.43 | 0.829 | 3.45 | 0.678 | 3.89 | 0.694 | 0.327 | 0.806 |
03 | Selecting, evaluating | 3.31 | 0.924 | 3.38 | 0.813 | 3.36 | 0.691 | 3.67 | 0.726 | 0.291 | 0.832 |
04 | Spreading, sharing | 3.55 | 1.060 | 3.52 | 1.027 | 3.82 | 0.962 | 4.50 | 0.289 | 1.543 | 0.203 |
05 | Creating, analyzing, and presenting | 3.30 | 0.959 | 3.41 | 0.956 | 3.49 | 0.824 | 3.56 | 0.631 | 0.551 | 0.648 |
11.6 Enrollment Level and PIM Practices of Students
The study examined how people with different education levels (e.g., BS, MA, MPhil, and PhD) felt about managing their personal information. According to Mills and Gay (2019), if you are going to check the difference of opinion among more than two groups, the parametric significance test ANOVA should be used. Hence, the one-way ANOVA test was utilized to determine variances in respondents’ opinions regarding PIM practices according to their educational qualifications. The findings revealed that the difference of opinions was shown among participants from various educational groups such as gathering, searching (F = 5.817, sig = 0.001* < 0.05) and spreading, sharing (F = 2.938, sig = 0.033* < 0.05) (Table 11). To further explore, a post-hoc Tukey test was run to check the significant difference between the groups (BS, MA, MPhil, and PhD). This analysis revealed students with BS, MPhil, and PhD qualifications seemed to have a different opinion and more different viewpoints compared to the other group, those with BS and MPhil programs (Sig. = 0.004* < 0.05) and PhD students (Sig. = 0.043* < 0.05) on the Gathering, searching statement. In the fourth construct, Spreading, sharing, difference of opinion was observed between BS and MPhil (Sig. = 0.050*). In the fifth construct, Creating, analyzing and presenting, a difference of opinion observed between BS and PhD (Sig. = 0.026*). The results shows that PhD students’ opinions were stronger than those of BS and MPhil students.
Enrollment level.
SN | Statements | BS | MA | MPhil | PhD | F | Sig | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | ||||
01 | Gathering, searching | 3.29 | 0.929 | 3.57 | 0.913 | 3.71 | 0.860 | 3.97 | 0.745 | 5.817 | 0.001* |
02 | Organizing, keeping, securing | 3.36 | 0.873 | 3.48 | 0.694 | 3.55 | 0.831 | 3.88 | 0.529 | 2.354 | 0.072 |
03 | Selecting, evaluating | 3.30 | 0.875 | 3.42 | 0.746 | 3.42 | 0.806 | 3.69 | 0.466 | 1.244 | 0.294 |
04 | Spreading, sharing | 3.45 | 1.047 | 3.62 | 0.957 | 3.81 | 0.999 | 3.95 | 0.595 | 2.938 | 0.033* |
05 | Creating, analyzing, and presenting | 3.28 | 0.948 | 3.35 | 0.761 | 3.56 | 0.957 | 4.03 | 0.630 | 3.884 | 0.009 |
12 Discussion
The purpose of the study is to assess the PIM practices of university students in Punjab Pakistan. The findings of the study have shown that students have neutral level of agreement with all the statements. PIM skills encompass five dimensions: “gathering/searching”; “organizing/keeping/securing”; “selecting/evaluating”; “spreading/sharing”; and “creating/analyzing/presenting”.
12.1 Gathering and Searching
Students report a high preference for learning directly from experts and professionals (GS6) over engaging with scientific literature, which aligns with trends observed in current research on students’ reliance on social learning networks (Deng and Feng 2011). Literature suggests that many students view informal sources as more relatable and practical than formal academic resources (Kuhlthau, Maniotes, and Caspari 2015). This may reflect a need for instructional efforts that highlight the value and credibility of scientific literature, enhancing students’ ability to navigate academic sources effectively.
The relatively high mean for GS1 demonstrates that students generally perceived themselves as and feel confident in gathering information, a foundational skill for academic success (Head and Eisenberg 2010; Saleem, Ameen, and Ashiq 2021; Sawant and Manchekar 2019). However, the low mean for GS3, which reflects unfamiliarity of university students with the deep web, suggests limited exposure to advanced digital literacy skills that could significantly enhance information access (Divya and Sudhier 2015). Research has revealed that training in specialized search tools can bridge this gap by enabling students to retrieve high-quality resources, even from less accessible databases (Gross and Latham 2012).
12.2 Organizing, Keeping, and Securing
This is the second facet of PIM practice and the results show that students highly prioritize organization practices, particularly those that facilitate easy retrieval of information, with OKS1 achieving the highest mean score. This results align with studies indicating that organizational skills are critical for effective PIM practices (Jones and Teevan 2007; Divya and Sudhier 2018). Keeping information in both digital and physical formats (OKS3) also reflects a hybrid approach that accommodates different needs, aligning with recent findings on students’ preference for adaptable information storage methods (Guerrero-Roldán et al. 2021). Students’ relatively lower mean for OKS4, however, suggests a reluctance to rely solely on digital storage, possibly due to concerns about data security or digital overload. Studies have shown that students prefer to store information in multiple places to avoid losing it (Uğur and Çalışkan 2022; Muthurasu and Suganthi 2020). In response, instructors could provide students with guidance on digital tools and techniques that enhance information security, potentially increasing their comfort level with fully digital systems (AlRukaibani and Chaudhry 2019).
12.3 Selecting and Evaluating
In the third facet of PIM practice, the university students validated that they had the skills needed to choose high quality materials from the Internet. Confidence in evaluating and selecting credible sources is moderately high, as seen in SE1. This aligns with previous studies, which suggest that students can often differentiate between credible and non-credible sources, although this skill may vary depending on the depth of information literacy instruction received (Julien, Latham, and Gross 2021). The slight uncertainty in handling large search results (SE2) implies a need for improved skills in narrowing down search parameters, a skill that could be bolstered through targeted digital literacy training (Homa 2022).
The neutral response for SE3, where students express difficulty in selecting relevant academic sources, echoes findings in similar studies, where students report challenges in filtering information amid vast online resources (Withorn et al. 2021). Addressing this gap by incorporating structured guidance on critical evaluation within academic curricula could help students sharpen their abilities to discern the most valuable resources for their work (Ameen 2016).
12.4 Spreading and Sharing
Regarding the fourth aspect of PIM practices, respondents expressed a preference for sharing academic related knowledge with their peers, while also receiving knowledge and ideas in return from other students. The high means for SS2 and SS1 indicated a strong culture of peer-to-peer sharing, aligning with current findings that students derive significant academic support from collaborative networks (Payne, Stone, and Bennett 2023). Peer sharing of resources, such as lecture notes and insights, reflects the collaborative spirit in academic settings, where students often compensate for each other’s gaps in understanding or attendance (Barkley, Major, and Cross 2014; Rafique 2015; Świgoń 2013).
Students’ positive perception of teacher accessibility (SS6), and satisfaction with instructional methods (SS5), reflect a supportive academic environment. These results align with the findings of recent studies that highlight the role of approachable instructors in fostering a collaborative learning atmosphere (Bishop-Swart 2024; Ma and Yuen 2011). Such support can be crucial in building students’ confidence and resilience, especially when navigating complex academic tasks.
12.5 Creating, Analyzing, and Presenting
Concerning the fifth construct of PIM, the university students expressed moderate comfort with public speaking (CAP6), suggesting a general willingness to engage in academic presentations, albeit with a notable range of comfort levels, as indicated by the high standard deviation. According to research, public speaking confidence can vary widely among students, often depending on prior exposure and training (Chollet et al. 2018). Providing students with incremental opportunities to practice and receive feedback on presentation skills could help boost overall confidence levels.
The moderate mean for CAP2, which assesses students’ ability to conduct in-depth literature analysis, suggests that while students are reasonably comfortable with research tasks, some may still struggle with comprehensive literature reviews. This finding align with research indicating that literature synthesis is one of the more challenging tasks for students, often requiring additional guidance and practice (Gopale 2020; Muthurasu and Suganthi 2020). Further instructional support in research methodologies and critical analysis could help students strengthen these foundational skills.
This study also examined the influence of demographic variables, gender, institution, age, and enrollment level on PIM practices (RO2). The gender analysis using an independent samples t-test showed significant differences in the PIM practices between male and female students, especially in the areas of spreading, sharing, selecting, evaluating, organizing, keeping, securing, gathering, and searching (p < 0.05). Examining the opinions of students on gender base, the findings shown a significant difference between the opinion of male and female participants. The results of the study was aligned with the work of Saleem, Ameen, and Ashiq (2021), who found that there was a significant difference between the opinion of male and female students. Examining the difference of opinion between students’ PIM practices and their institutions, as well as age group, the results show that no significant difference of opinion is found between institutions and age group. The study further investigated the difference of opinion between enrollment level and PIM practices of students. The analysis also explored age as a potential factor in PIM practices through a one-way ANOVA test. Findings showed no statistically significant differences among age groups, indicating that students’ PIM practices are relatively consistent regardless of age. This may reflect a universal approach to PIM across age groups within university settings.
In examining the role of educational level, the study identified significant differences in PIM practices between students in different enrollment levels (e.g., BS, MA, MPhil, PhD). The one-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey tests showed that PhD students generally held stronger opinions than BS and MPhil students in areas such as gathering, searching, creating, analyzing, and presenting (p < 0.05). The results of the study shows that there were differences of opinion observed among different levels from BS to PhD.
13 Theoretical and Practical Implications
The current study comprised many theoretical implications. For example, this study is helpful to acquire deep knowledge about PIM practices of university students and also know the challenges facing effective management of information. The results of such studies can be useful for IL program planners to fulfil the specific needs of students regarding PIM practices improvement. This study focuses on the significance of IL skills, for instance, the ability to find, access, assess, and utilize information from different sources. Promotion of information literacy can help students to manage their information for decision making. The significance of such studies enhance productivity by using various tools like PIM apps and an e-mail management system.
Keeping in mind the practical implications, universities and educational institutions should use the findings of the studies to design training programs and workshops for students’ information literacy skills improvement, which will enable students to manage their personal information effectively. These interventions be will useful for students to streamline their information management process by using practical tools and strategies. Educational institutions should give priority to PIM and include it in the curriculum so that students can acquire essential skills for the digital era. The present study will be fruitful for researchers and practitioners of information management. It will also indicate the need for future research to identify PIM practices in various demographic and academic settings.
14 Limitations, Suggestions, and Future Research Directions
This study has several limitations. First, it employed a convenience sampling technique, which may cause the issue of generalizability. Second, the study focused on university students in a specific region, which may limit the applicability of the findings to other contexts. Third, it is also evident that individuals overestimate their perceived skills over actual skills. Thus, the theory of the Dunning–Kruger effect should be considered while interpreting the data. Furthermore, the findings of this study are not claimed to be truly representative of all Pakistani university students with a higher level of confidence as this study was restricted to one province of Pakistan only. The same study should be replicated in other provinces of Pakistan for generalization purposes.
On the basis of above-mentioned results, some suggestions are made so as to improve PIM practices among university students, so they can enhance their effectiveness in gathering, organizing, and utilizing information.
First, information literacy training and workshops should be offered to students to teach them essential skills for effective PIM. Academic institutions, particularly university libraries and faculty members, should take the primary role in organizing and conducting these training sessions. The main topics covered in such training should be information searching, evaluating sources, organizing, and managing resources, so as to introduce PIM tools and technologies to students so they can organize and retrieve information effectively, for example reference management software, note-taking apps, cloud storage solutions, and task management platforms. Training and guidance should be provided on how to use these tools effectively.
Time management skills should be developed among students so that they can gather, organize, and review information effectively. Students should plan their schedules, give priority to the tasks, avoid information overload, and focus on efficient PIM to do so. They should adopt various information organization strategies, for example folder creation, subfolders, tagging, labels, and maintaining files. Proper guidance should be provided to students so they can evaluate all information resources critically. Students should be trained in such a way that they can assess the credibility, relevancy, and authority of sources properly, which will help them to source accurate and reliable information.
Collaborative learning is very useful for students, as it will increase their PIM as well as their knowledge and comprehension. Students should be motivated to review and update stored information continuously. Regular reviewing supports students in maintaining and updating their information repository. Proper resources should be allocated for PIM practices. Librarians/information professionals should provide guidance and arrange regular workshops for PIM skills. The role of institutional factors can and should be investigated in future research, for example educational policies and students support services for shaping PIM practices. Such studies will highlight the need for PIM practices by evaluating the effectiveness of information literacy and PIM among learners.
15 Conclusions
The results of the study revealed as a whole that the students agreed about each category. This inferences projected that a number of respondents perceived that they agreed regarding PIM practices. There was also a concern that universities can support their students to enhance their PIM practices, which will improve productivity, information organization, and critical thinking. Universities should provide hands-on training to students that will enable them to manage their personal information efficiently and effectively. These skills will prove beneficial to students not only during their academic journey but also in their professional endeavors.
-
Research funding: None declared.
Personal Information Management
Please rate your perception/opinion of the following statements on the given scale.
Item no. | Statements | Strongly disagree | Disagree | Do not know | Agree | Absolutely agree |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gathering and searching | ||||||
GS1 | I cope well with gathering information on subjects that interest me. | |||||
GS2 | I know a variety of information resources and I can use them; I am familiar with them. | |||||
GS3 | I know the deep Web and how to use this kind of resource. | |||||
GS4 | I make notes systematically. | |||||
GS5 | When I search for information, I try to find people (teachers, experts, colleagues) who have knowledge in the field. | |||||
GS6 | I prefer learning from experts and professionals than reading scientific literature. | |||||
Organizing, keeping, securing | ||||||
OKS1 | I try to order, classify and sort gathered information to be able to find it easily later. | |||||
OKS2 | Usually I keep information that I do not need currently but which might be useful in the future. | |||||
OKS3 | I keep information in both electronic (hard disk, USB drive) and paper forms (notes, binders). | |||||
OKS4 | I keep information only in electronic form, without any paper copies, handwritten notes etc. | |||||
OKS5 | I try to take note of spoken information that is interesting for me in order to add it to my collection. | |||||
OKS6 | I care about making copies of kept materials and saving them. | |||||
Selecting, evaluating | ||||||
SE1 | I know how to evaluate information on the Internet and am able to select valuable information and webpages. | |||||
SE2 | In case of large search results (thousands of links) I have no problems with selecting high quality materials. | |||||
SE3 | Even if I use peer-reviewed journals and books, I have problems selecting the articles and publications that are the most important for the subject I am working on. | |||||
SE4 | Sometimes I browse documents that I am keeping (both in electronic and paper form) and I throw away unnecessary and redundant materials. | |||||
SE5 | I never browse materials I have kept for the future unless I need them currently. | |||||
SE6 | I think that knowledge and skills I gain during my studies will be useful in my private and professional life. | |||||
Spreading, sharing | ||||||
SS1 | I like sharing my lecture notes and other materials (photocopies, data) with other students. | |||||
SS2 | I like sharing knowledge (spoken information) related to studying with other students. | |||||
SS3 | Other students share their notes with me if I am absent from classes. | |||||
SS4 | Other students share their knowledge (spoken information about our studies) with me. | |||||
SS5 | Generally speaking, I am pleased with the methods of teaching and knowledge sharing of my teachers and lecturers. | |||||
SS6 | Our academic teachers are available and advise us cordially. | |||||
Creating, analyzing, and presenting | ||||||
CAP1 | I like preparing new subjects (writing tasks, speeches etc.) for classes. | |||||
CAP2 | I have no problems with preparing subjects that are new to me, with deep analysis of scientific subject literature. | |||||
CAP3 | I have no problems with searching for and forming new problem statements (analysis of literature, research questions, hypotheses), e.g. for Bachelor or Master’s theses. | |||||
CAP4 | Conducting empirical studies (surveys, experiments) on my own would not be a problem for me, if necessary for my Bachelor/Master’s thesis. | |||||
CAP5 | I am familiar with basic office applications (like Microsoft Office) needed for typesetting a paper (computer presentation, essay, and bachelor/master’s thesis). | |||||
CAP6 | I like public speaking (speaking in classes, conferences). |
References
Ali, I., and N. F. Warraich. 2021. “The Relationship Between Mobile Self-Efficacy and Mobile-Based Personal Information Management Practices: A Systematic Review.” Library Hi Tech 39 (1): 126–43. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-06-2019-0116.Search in Google Scholar
AlRukaibani, B., and A. S. Chaudhry. 2019. “The Personal Information Management Practices of the Graduates of the Department of Information Studies at Kuwait University.” International Journal of Knowledge Content Development & Technology 9 (1): 19–42. https://doi.org/10.5865/IJKCT.2019.9.1.019.Search in Google Scholar
Ameen, K. 2016. “Personal Information Management Practices and Behaviors of Social Sciences’ Students.” Pakistan Journal of Information Management and Libraries 18 (1): 12–24. https://doi.org/10.47657/2016181952.Search in Google Scholar
Azadeh, F., Z. Jadidi, and H. Haghani. 2017. “An Investigation into the Use Level of Personal Information Management (PIM) by Faculty Members of Allied Medical Sciences Schools in Tehran, Shahid Beheshti and Iran Medical Sciences Universities in 2014 Year.” Payavard Salamat 11 (3): 44–52. http://payavard.tums.ac.ir/article-1-6271-en.html (accessed April 30, 2025).Search in Google Scholar
Barkley, E. F., C. H. Major, and K. P. Cross. 2014. Collaborative Learning Techniques: A Handbook for College Faculty. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.Search in Google Scholar
Bergman, O. 2013. “Variables for Personal Information Management Research.” ASLIB Proceedings: New Information Perspectives 65 (5): 464–83. https://doi.org/10.1108/ap-04-2013-0032.Search in Google Scholar
Bishop-Swart, S. 2024. “A Study of Teacher Emotions in a Unique Online Learning Environment Due to a Pandemic Lockdown.” PhD diss., University of Stellenbosch. https://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/130574 (accessed December 15, 2024).Search in Google Scholar
Byrne, B. M. 2016. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming, 3rd ed. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315757421Search in Google Scholar
Chollet, M., P. Ghate, C. Neubauer, and S. Scherer. 2018. “Influence of Individual Differences When Training Public Speaking with Virtual Audiences.” In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents, 1–7.10.1145/3267851.3267874Search in Google Scholar
Deng, T., and L. Feng. 2011. “A Survey on Information Re-finding Techniques.” International Journal of Web Information Systems 7 (4): 313–32. https://doi.org/10.1108/17440081111187538.Search in Google Scholar
Divya, L. R., and K. P. Sudhier. 2015. “A Study on the Personal Information Management Practices Among the Research Scholars of University of Kerala.” Information Studies 21 (2–3): 63. https://doi.org/10.5958/0976-1934.2015.0.Search in Google Scholar
Divya, L. R., and K. G. Sudhier. 2018. “Attitude to PIM Behaviour of Research Scholars at the University of Kerala.” KLA Journal of Information Science & Technology 1 (1): 14–23. http://www.kjist.in/index.php/kjist/article/view/7/18 (accessed April 30, 2025).Search in Google Scholar
Etikan, I., S. A. Musa, and R. S. Alkassim. 2016. “Comparison of Convenience Sampling and Purposive Sampling.” American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics 5 (1): 1–4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11.Search in Google Scholar
Faize, F. A., M. Akhtar, and W. Hussain. 2018. “Exploring Students’ Competency in Personal Information Management: Problems and Prospects.” Pakistan Journal of Information Management & Libraries 20: 1–18. https://doi.org/10.47657/2018201048.Search in Google Scholar
Fraenkel, J. R., N. E. Wallen, and H. H. Hyun. 1996. How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. New York: McGraw-Hill.Search in Google Scholar
Gay, L. R., G. E. Mills, and P. W. Airasian. 2009. Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Applications, 9th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Search in Google Scholar
Gay, L. R., G. E. Mills, and P. W. Airasian. 2012. Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Applications, 10th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Merrill/Prentice Hall.Search in Google Scholar
Gopale, V. B. 2020. “Attitude towards Personal Information Management Practices by Research Scholars of Pondicherry University: A Study.” Journal of Information Management 7 (2): 107–14. https://doi.org/10.5958/2348-1773.2020.00013.2.Search in Google Scholar
Gross, M. and D. Latham. 2012. “What’s Skill Got to do with it? Information Literacy Skills and Self-Views of Ability Among First-year College Students.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63 (3): 574–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21681.Search in Google Scholar
Guerrero-Roldán, A. E., M. E. Rodríguez-González, D. Bañeres, A. Elasri-Ejjaberi, and P. Cortadas. 2021. “Experiences in the Use of an Adaptive Intelligent System to Enhance Online Learners’ Performance: A Case Study in Economics and Business Courses.” International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 18: 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00271-0.Search in Google Scholar
Hair, J. F., B. J. Babin, R. E. Anderson, and W. C. Black. 2018. Multivariate Data Analysis, 8th ed. Boston: Cengage.Search in Google Scholar
Head, A., and M. Eisenberg. 2010. “Truth Be Told: How College Students Evaluate and Use Information in the Digital Age.” SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2281485.Search in Google Scholar
Homa, D. E. 2022. Defining and Improving Higher Education Administrators’ Digital Technology Literacy. PhD diss., Northeastern University. https://www.proquest.com/openview/6f9e3212124ecc822aeca2aa2d96bdec/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y (accessed December 15, 2023).Search in Google Scholar
Iqbal, Q., M. Tariq, and Z. Ahmad. 2021. “Student’s Challenges in Access to Digital Resources in Higher Education Institutes of Pakistan.” Library Philosophy and Practice. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=10155&context=libphilprac (accessed December 15, 2024).Search in Google Scholar
Jones, W. 2010. Keeping Found Things Found: The Study and Practice of Personal Information Management. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann. https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=_PIvyFbit1QC&printsec=frontcover (accessed June 15, 2024).Search in Google Scholar
Jones, W. P., and J. Teevan, eds. 2007. Personal Information Management. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. http://www.cs.umd.edu/∼bederson/images/pubs_pdfs/p40-teevan.pdf (accessed December 15, 2023).Search in Google Scholar
Jones, W., J. D. Dinneen, R. Capra, A. R. Diekema, and M. A. Pérez-Quiñones. 2017. “Personal Information Management.” In Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science. 4th ed., edited by M. Levine-Clark and J. McDonald, 3584–605. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Search in Google Scholar
Julien, H., D. Latham, and M. Gross. 2021. “Instruction from the Margins: Giving Voice to Community College Librarians.” In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of CAIS/Actes du congrès annuel de l’ACSI.10.29173/cais1189Search in Google Scholar
Kuhlthau, C. C., L. K. Maniotes, and A. K. Caspari. 2015. Guided Inquiry: Learning in the 21st Century. California: Bloomsbury.10.5040/9798400660603Search in Google Scholar
Ma, W. W. K., and A. H. K. Yuen. 2011. “Understanding Online Knowledge-Sharing: An Interpersonal Relationship Perspective.” Computers & Education 56 (1): 210–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.004.Search in Google Scholar
Mertens, D. M. 2010. Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology: Integrating Diversity with Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods. London: SAGE Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Mills, G. E., and L. R. Gay. 2019. Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Applications. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson.Search in Google Scholar
Muijs, D. 2004. Doing Quantitative Research in Education with SPSS. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.10.4135/9781849209014Search in Google Scholar
Muthurasu, C., and M. Suganthi. 2020. “Assessment of Personal Information Management Practices Among College Students in Tirunelveli District, Tamil Nadu.” International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology 5 (2): 381–4. https://www.ijisrt.com/assets/upload/files/IJISRT20FEB325_(2).pdf (accessed April 30, 2025).Search in Google Scholar
Payne, A. L., C. Stone, and R. Bennett. 2023. “Conceptualizing and Building Trust to Enhance the Engagement and Achievement of Under-Served Students.” The Journal of Continuing Higher Education 71 (2): 134–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2021.2005759.Search in Google Scholar
Rafique, G. M. 2015. Knowledge Sharing Attitude of Medical Students. Unpublished MPhil thesis. Lahore, Pakistan: University of the Punjab.Search in Google Scholar
Saleem, Q. U. A., K. Ameen, and M. Ashiq. 2021. “Personal Knowledge and Information Management Practices of Life Sciences Research Students in Pakistan.” Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science 26 (2): 107–23. https://doi.org/10.22452/mjlis.vol26no2.6.Search in Google Scholar
Saunders, M. N., M. Saunders, P. Lewis, and A. Thornhill. 2011. Research Methods for Business Students, 5th ed. Essex: Pearson Education.Search in Google Scholar
Sawant, S., and B. Manchekar. 2019. “Personal Information Management by Ph.D. Scholars of Library and Information Science in India.” Library Philosophy and Practice. link.gale.com/apps/doc/A622153688/AONE?u=anon∼c098e8dd&sid=googleScholar&xid=bb42ee3b (accessed December 15, 2023).Search in Google Scholar
Sekaran, U., and R. Bougie. 2013. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach, 6th ed. New Jursey, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Search in Google Scholar
Stewart, K. N., and J. Basic. 2014. “Information Encountering and Management in Information Literacy Instruction of Undergraduate Students.” International Journal of Information Management 34 (2): 74–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2013.10.007.Search in Google Scholar
Świgoń, M. 2013. “Personal Knowledge and Information Management-Conception and Exemplification.” Journal of Information Science 39 (6): 832–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551513501435.Search in Google Scholar
Teevan, J., W. Jones, and B. B. Bederson. 2006. “Personal Information Management.” Communications of the ACM 49 (1): 40–3. https://doi.org/10.1145/1107458.1107491.Search in Google Scholar
Uğur, N. G., and K. Çalışkan. 2022. “Time for De-cluttering: Digital Clutter Scaling for Individuals and Enterprises.” Computers & Security 119: 102751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2022.102751.Search in Google Scholar
Walliman, N., and B. Baiche. 2001. Your Research Project: A Step-by-step Guide for the First-Time Researcher. London: Sage Publications Inc.Search in Google Scholar
Withorn, T., J. Eslami, H. Lee, M. Clarke, C. Caffrey, C. Springfield, A. Haas, et al.. 2021. “Library Instruction and Information Literacy 2020.” Reference Services Review 49 (3/4): 329–418. https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-07-2021-0046.Search in Google Scholar
Wrenn, B., R. Stevens, and D. L. Loudon. 2002. Marketing Research: Test and Cases. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Yasmeen, S., N. F. Warraich, and I. Ali. 2019. “Personal Digital Information Management Practices of Engineering Faculty: Finding, Organizing, and Re-finding Information.” Pakistan Journal of Information Management & Libraries 21: 88–103. https://doi.org/10.47657/pjim&l.v21i0.1541.10.47657/2019211541Search in Google Scholar
© 2025 the author(s), published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Fun with Images: An Analysis of the Role of Visual Literacy in Facilitating Easy and Enjoyable Learning with a Focus on Future Prospects
- GONGO Structure, Risk Transfer, and Waste in Iranian Public Libraries: An Exploratory Study
- Applications of the Critical Incident Technique in Library and Information Science Research: A Literature Review
- Personal Information Management Practices of University Students in Punjab, Pakistan
- A Qualitative Study on the Life-World Experiences and Everyday Information Practices of Urban Youth
- University Students’ Needs for Communication Spaces in Higher Education in China: A Survey at Three Universities
- Assessing the Relevance of Implementing Blockchain Technology to Modernize Services in Academic Libraries
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Fun with Images: An Analysis of the Role of Visual Literacy in Facilitating Easy and Enjoyable Learning with a Focus on Future Prospects
- GONGO Structure, Risk Transfer, and Waste in Iranian Public Libraries: An Exploratory Study
- Applications of the Critical Incident Technique in Library and Information Science Research: A Literature Review
- Personal Information Management Practices of University Students in Punjab, Pakistan
- A Qualitative Study on the Life-World Experiences and Everyday Information Practices of Urban Youth
- University Students’ Needs for Communication Spaces in Higher Education in China: A Survey at Three Universities
- Assessing the Relevance of Implementing Blockchain Technology to Modernize Services in Academic Libraries