Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Dijital Okuryazarlık Becerileri ile Dijital Mahremiyet Kaygısı Arasındaki İlişki

Year 2021, Volume: 6 Issue: 12, 342 - 363, 31.05.2021
https://doi.org/10.37679/trta.907558

Abstract

Mahremiyetin tehdit altında olduğu dijital çağda kullanıcılar, kişisel bilgilerinin nasıl kullanıldığı, paylaşıldığı, korunduğu ve bu bilgilerin yayılması üzerindeki kontrol derecesi konusunda ciddi bir mahremiyet kaygısı duymaktadır. Dijital ortamları her kullanımlarında dijital ayak izlerini bırakan bireyler hem söz konusu ortamlarda var olabilmek adına kişisel bilgilerini gönüllü olarak paylaşmakta hem de kişisel bilgilerinin kötüye kullanılması durumunda yaşayacakları olası ekonomik ve sosyal sonuçlardan da endişe duymaktadırlar. Bu durum da bireylerde mahremiyet/gizlilik paradoksu yaratmaktadır. Günümüzde dijital araçları çok iyi kullanmanın ötesinde kullanıcıların dijital ortamda etkin şekilde var olabilmeleri için gerekli olan bilişsel, sosyolojik ve duygusal becerilerini de kullanmaları gerekmektedir. Dijital okuryazarlık becerileri olarak tanımlanan bu becerilerin bireyleri ile mahremiyet kaygıları arasında bir ilişki olup olmadığının araştırılması bu çalışmanın amacını oluşturmaktadır. İki değişken arasındaki ilişki Buchanan (2007) ve Ng (2012) tarafından geliştirilen ölçekler yardımı ile ölçülmüştür. Araştırma, nicel araştırma desenlerinden yordayıcı ilişkisel desene göre yürütülmüştür. Bu bağlamda Atatürk Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesinde öğrenim gören öğrenciler özelinde veri toplama tekniklerinden anket tekniği kullanılmış ve anket formu online ortamda öğrencilerle paylaşılmıştır. 457 öğrenci geri dönüş sağlamıştır. Araştırma kapsamında öğrencilerin dijital okuryazarlık becerileri ve dijital mahremiyet kaygıları arasında pozitif yönlü ve doğrusal bir ilişki tespit edilmiştir.

References

  • Andrejevic, M. (2007). ISpy: Surveillance and power in the interactive era. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
  • Aslanyürek, M. (2016). İnternet ve sosyal medya kullanıcılarının internet güvenliği ve çevrim içi gizlilik ile ilgili kanaatleri ve farkındalıkları. Maltepe Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(1), 80-106.
  • Bansal, G., Fatemeh, F. M. ve Gefen, D. (2016). Do context and personality matter? Trust and privacy concerns in disclosing private information online Information & Management 53, 1-21.
  • Barnes, S. (2016). A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States, First Monday 11(9).
  • Beldad, A., De Jong, M. ve Steehouder, M. (2010). How shall I trust the faceless and intangible? A literature review on the antecedents of online trust, Comput. Hum. Behav. 26, 857–869.
  • Belsey, Andrew ve Ruth Chadwick (2011). Medya ve Gazetecilikte Etik Sorunlar. İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.
  • Brown, B. (2001). HP laboratories tecnichal report, HPL Studying the ınternet experience, 39.
  • Buchanan, T., Paine, C., Joinson, A. N., & Reips, U. D. (2007). Development of measures of online privacy concern and protection for use on the Internet. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(2), 157-165.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çokluk, Ö. ve Köklü, N. (2011). Sosyal bilimler için istatistik (11. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
  • Calvani, A., Cartelli, A., Fini, A., & Ranieri, M. (2008). Models and instruments for assessing digital competence at school. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 4(3), 183-193.
  • Cresswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Boston: Pearson Publication.
  • Culnan, M. (1993). How did they get my name? An exploratory investigation of consumer attitudes toward secondary information use. MIS Quarterly, 17(3), 341–362.
  • Eroğlu, Ş. (2018). Dijital yaşamda mahremiyet (gizlilik) kavramı ve kişisel veriler: hacettepe üniversitesi bilgi ve belge yönetimi bölümü öğrencilerinin mahremiyet ve kişisel veri algılarının analizi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 35(2), 130-153.
  • Erstad, O. (2007). Conceiving digital literacies in schools-Norwegian experiences. In 3rd International workshop on Digital Literacy, Crete, Greece.
  • Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2004). Digital Literacy: A Conceptual Framework for Survival Skills in the Digital Era. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(1), 93.
  • Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2012). “Thinking in the digital era: a revised model for digital literacy” Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 9: 267-276.
  • Feng, Y. ve Xie, W. (2014). Teens' concern for privacy when using social networking sites: an analysis of socialization agents and relationships with privacyprotection behaviors. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 153-162.
  • Ferrari, A. (2012) Digital Competence in Practice: An Analysis of Frameworks. A Technical Report by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission.
  • Futurelab, (2010) http://www2.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/handbooks/digital_literacy.pdf
  • Gegez, A. E. (2010). Pazarlama Araştırmaları, Beta Yayınevi.
  • Gillen, J. (2009). Literacy Practices in Schome Park: A Virtual Literacy Ethnography, Journal of Research in Reading, Volume 32, Issue 1, 57–74.
  • Gilster, P. (1997). Digital literacy. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Hicks and Turner, (2013). http://www.ncte.org/library/nctefiles/resources/journals/ ej/1026-jul2013/ej1026longer.pdf
  • Hiller, J. S.ve Cohen, R. (2001). Internet law and policy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Hobbs, R. (2010) Digital and Media Literacy: A plan of Action, 2010.
  • Hoy, M. ve Milne, M. (2010). Gender Differences in Privacy-Related Measures for Young Adult Facebook Users. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2010.10722168.
  • Kokolakis, S. (2017). Privacy attitudes and privacy behaviour: A review of current research on the privacy paradox phenomenon. Comput. Secur. 64, 122–134.
  • Kütükoğlu, E. (2019). Sosyal Medyada Mahremiyet Algısının Belirlenmesi: X, Y ve Z Kuşakları Üzerinde Bir Araştırma. (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Dan. Doç. Dr. Mustafa KOÇER. Kayseri.
  • Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2008). Digital literacies: concepts, policies and practices: New York: Peter Lang.
  • Laufer, R.S. ve Wolfe, M. (1977). Privacy as a concept and a social issue: a multidimensional development theory, J. Soc. Issues 33 (3), 22–42.
  • Li, X., Santhanam, R. (2008). Will it be disclosure or fabrication of personal information? An examination of persuasion strategies on prospective employees Int. J. Inf. Secur. Priv. 29 (4), 91–113.
  • Malhotra, N.K., Kim, S.S. ve Agarwal, J. (2004). Internet users' information privacy concerns (IUIPC): The construct, the scale, and a causal model. Information Systems Research, 15(4), 336-355.
  • Martin, A. (2008). Digital Literacy and the "Digital Society". In C. Lankshear & M. Knobel (Eds.), Digital Literacies: Concepts, Policies and Practices (pp. 151-176). New York: Peter Lang.
  • Mcknight, D.H. Choudhury, V. ve Kacmar, C. (2002). Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: an integrative typology, Inf. Syst. Res. 13 (3), 334–359.
  • Metzger, M. J. (2006). Effects of site, vendor, and consumer characteristics on Web site trust and disclosure. Communication Research, 33, 155-179.
  • Mothersbaugh, D.L., Foxx , W.K., Beatty, S.E. ve Wang, S. (2012). Disclosure antecedents in an online service context: the role of sensitivity of information, J. Serv. Res. 15 (1), 76–98.
  • Mollick, J.S. ve Mykytyn, P.P. (2009). An empirical investigation on the effects of privacy policies on perceived fairness of online vendor, J. Int. Commer. 8, 88– 112.
  • Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Computers & Education, 59(3), 1065- 1078.
  • O’Brien, D., Scharber, C. (2008). Digital Literacies Go to School: Potholes and Possibilities, Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52 (1), 66–68.
  • Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1, On the Horizon, Vol. 9, No: 5, 1–6.
  • Rezgui, A., Bouguettaya, A. ve Eltoweissy, M.Y. (2003). Privacy on the web: facts, challenges, and solutions, IEEE Secur. Priv. 40–49.
  • Schoenbachler, D. ve Gordon, G. (2002). Trust and consumer willingness to provide information in database-driven relationship marketing. Journal of interactive marketing, 16(3), 2–16.
  • Smith, H.J., Dinev, T. ve Xu,H. (2011). Information privacy research: an interdisciplinary review, MIS Q. 35 (4), 992–1015.
  • Solove, D. J. (2007). The future of reputation: Gossip, rumor, and privacy on the internet. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  • Stone, E. F., Gueutal, H. G., Gardner, D. G. ve McClure, S. (1983). A field experiment comparing information-privacy values, beliefs, and attitudes across several types of organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68 (3), 459.
  • Tidwell, L. C. ve Walther, J. B. (2002). Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: getting to know one another a bit at a time. Human Communication Research, 28, 317-348.
  • Töngel, E. (2020). Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Çevrim içi Mahremiyet Farkındalıklarının Çeşitli Değişkenler Açısından İncelenmesi. (Yayımlanmamış Y.Lisans Tezi). Dan. Dr. Öğr. Üyesi Mehmet KARA. Amasya.
  • Trepte, S., Teutsch, D., Masur, P.K., Eicher, C.,Fischer, M., Hennah M. ve Lind,F. (2015) Do people know about privacy and data protection strategies? Towards the Online Privacy Literacy Scale (OPLIS), in: S. Gutwirth, R. Lennes, P. de hert (Eds.), Reforming European Data Protection Law, Springer, Dordrecht, 333–366.
  • Üstündağ, M. T., Güneş, E., ve Bahçivan, E. (2017). Dijital okuryazarlık ölçeğinin Türkçe’ ye uyarlanması ve fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının dijital okuryazarlık durumları. Eğitim ve Gelecek Dergisi, 12, 19-29.
  • Westin, A. (1967). Privacy and Freedom. New York: Atheneum.
  • Westin, A. (1984). The origins of modern claims to privacy. F.D. Schoeman (Ed.). Philosophical Dimensions of Privacy: An Anthology içinde. Cambridge, London, New York, New Rochelle, Melbourne, Sydney: Cambridge University Press.
  • Wu, K.W., Huang, S. Y., Yen, D. C., ve Popova, I. (2012). The effect of online privacy policy on consumer privacy concern and trust. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(3), 889–897.
  • Yabancı, C., Akça, F., & Ulutaş, E. (2018). Çevrim içi mahremiyet kaygısı ve duygusal zekâ arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences, 54, 191-218.
  • Yao, M. Z. (2011). Self-protection of online privacy: A behavioral approach. In Privacy online Springer. 111-125.
  • Zviran, M. (2008). User’s perspectives on privacy in web-based applications. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 48(4), 97–105

The Relation Between Digital Literacy Skills and Digital Privacy Corncerns of University Students

Year 2021, Volume: 6 Issue: 12, 342 - 363, 31.05.2021
https://doi.org/10.37679/trta.907558

Abstract

In the digital age in which privacy is under threat, users have serious privacy concerns about how their personal information is used, shared and protected. They are also concerned about the level of control over the dissemination of that information. Individuals, who leave their digital footprints in every use of digital media, share their personal information voluntarily in order to exist in these environments. On the other hand, they are worried about the possible economic and social consequences in case of any misuse of their personal information. This situation causes a privacy paradox in individuals. Today, users should both use digital tools well and the required cognitive, sociological and emotional skills for an effective existence in the digital environment. The aim of this study is to investigate whether there is a relationship between these skills, which are defined as digital literacy skills, and privacy concerns. The relationship between the two variables was measured by using scales developed by Buchanan (2007) and Ng (2012). The research was conducted according to the predictive correlational design, one of the quantitative research designs. In order to achieve this aim, being one of the data collection techniques, survey was used. An online questionnaire form was conducted to the students taking education in Atatürk University Faculty of Communication. 457 students responded to the questionnaire. Within the scope of the research, a positive and linear correlation was found between the digital literacy skills and digital privacy concerns of the students

References

  • Andrejevic, M. (2007). ISpy: Surveillance and power in the interactive era. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
  • Aslanyürek, M. (2016). İnternet ve sosyal medya kullanıcılarının internet güvenliği ve çevrim içi gizlilik ile ilgili kanaatleri ve farkındalıkları. Maltepe Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(1), 80-106.
  • Bansal, G., Fatemeh, F. M. ve Gefen, D. (2016). Do context and personality matter? Trust and privacy concerns in disclosing private information online Information & Management 53, 1-21.
  • Barnes, S. (2016). A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States, First Monday 11(9).
  • Beldad, A., De Jong, M. ve Steehouder, M. (2010). How shall I trust the faceless and intangible? A literature review on the antecedents of online trust, Comput. Hum. Behav. 26, 857–869.
  • Belsey, Andrew ve Ruth Chadwick (2011). Medya ve Gazetecilikte Etik Sorunlar. İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.
  • Brown, B. (2001). HP laboratories tecnichal report, HPL Studying the ınternet experience, 39.
  • Buchanan, T., Paine, C., Joinson, A. N., & Reips, U. D. (2007). Development of measures of online privacy concern and protection for use on the Internet. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(2), 157-165.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çokluk, Ö. ve Köklü, N. (2011). Sosyal bilimler için istatistik (11. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
  • Calvani, A., Cartelli, A., Fini, A., & Ranieri, M. (2008). Models and instruments for assessing digital competence at school. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 4(3), 183-193.
  • Cresswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Boston: Pearson Publication.
  • Culnan, M. (1993). How did they get my name? An exploratory investigation of consumer attitudes toward secondary information use. MIS Quarterly, 17(3), 341–362.
  • Eroğlu, Ş. (2018). Dijital yaşamda mahremiyet (gizlilik) kavramı ve kişisel veriler: hacettepe üniversitesi bilgi ve belge yönetimi bölümü öğrencilerinin mahremiyet ve kişisel veri algılarının analizi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 35(2), 130-153.
  • Erstad, O. (2007). Conceiving digital literacies in schools-Norwegian experiences. In 3rd International workshop on Digital Literacy, Crete, Greece.
  • Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2004). Digital Literacy: A Conceptual Framework for Survival Skills in the Digital Era. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(1), 93.
  • Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2012). “Thinking in the digital era: a revised model for digital literacy” Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 9: 267-276.
  • Feng, Y. ve Xie, W. (2014). Teens' concern for privacy when using social networking sites: an analysis of socialization agents and relationships with privacyprotection behaviors. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 153-162.
  • Ferrari, A. (2012) Digital Competence in Practice: An Analysis of Frameworks. A Technical Report by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission.
  • Futurelab, (2010) http://www2.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/handbooks/digital_literacy.pdf
  • Gegez, A. E. (2010). Pazarlama Araştırmaları, Beta Yayınevi.
  • Gillen, J. (2009). Literacy Practices in Schome Park: A Virtual Literacy Ethnography, Journal of Research in Reading, Volume 32, Issue 1, 57–74.
  • Gilster, P. (1997). Digital literacy. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Hicks and Turner, (2013). http://www.ncte.org/library/nctefiles/resources/journals/ ej/1026-jul2013/ej1026longer.pdf
  • Hiller, J. S.ve Cohen, R. (2001). Internet law and policy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Hobbs, R. (2010) Digital and Media Literacy: A plan of Action, 2010.
  • Hoy, M. ve Milne, M. (2010). Gender Differences in Privacy-Related Measures for Young Adult Facebook Users. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2010.10722168.
  • Kokolakis, S. (2017). Privacy attitudes and privacy behaviour: A review of current research on the privacy paradox phenomenon. Comput. Secur. 64, 122–134.
  • Kütükoğlu, E. (2019). Sosyal Medyada Mahremiyet Algısının Belirlenmesi: X, Y ve Z Kuşakları Üzerinde Bir Araştırma. (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Dan. Doç. Dr. Mustafa KOÇER. Kayseri.
  • Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2008). Digital literacies: concepts, policies and practices: New York: Peter Lang.
  • Laufer, R.S. ve Wolfe, M. (1977). Privacy as a concept and a social issue: a multidimensional development theory, J. Soc. Issues 33 (3), 22–42.
  • Li, X., Santhanam, R. (2008). Will it be disclosure or fabrication of personal information? An examination of persuasion strategies on prospective employees Int. J. Inf. Secur. Priv. 29 (4), 91–113.
  • Malhotra, N.K., Kim, S.S. ve Agarwal, J. (2004). Internet users' information privacy concerns (IUIPC): The construct, the scale, and a causal model. Information Systems Research, 15(4), 336-355.
  • Martin, A. (2008). Digital Literacy and the "Digital Society". In C. Lankshear & M. Knobel (Eds.), Digital Literacies: Concepts, Policies and Practices (pp. 151-176). New York: Peter Lang.
  • Mcknight, D.H. Choudhury, V. ve Kacmar, C. (2002). Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: an integrative typology, Inf. Syst. Res. 13 (3), 334–359.
  • Metzger, M. J. (2006). Effects of site, vendor, and consumer characteristics on Web site trust and disclosure. Communication Research, 33, 155-179.
  • Mothersbaugh, D.L., Foxx , W.K., Beatty, S.E. ve Wang, S. (2012). Disclosure antecedents in an online service context: the role of sensitivity of information, J. Serv. Res. 15 (1), 76–98.
  • Mollick, J.S. ve Mykytyn, P.P. (2009). An empirical investigation on the effects of privacy policies on perceived fairness of online vendor, J. Int. Commer. 8, 88– 112.
  • Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Computers & Education, 59(3), 1065- 1078.
  • O’Brien, D., Scharber, C. (2008). Digital Literacies Go to School: Potholes and Possibilities, Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52 (1), 66–68.
  • Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1, On the Horizon, Vol. 9, No: 5, 1–6.
  • Rezgui, A., Bouguettaya, A. ve Eltoweissy, M.Y. (2003). Privacy on the web: facts, challenges, and solutions, IEEE Secur. Priv. 40–49.
  • Schoenbachler, D. ve Gordon, G. (2002). Trust and consumer willingness to provide information in database-driven relationship marketing. Journal of interactive marketing, 16(3), 2–16.
  • Smith, H.J., Dinev, T. ve Xu,H. (2011). Information privacy research: an interdisciplinary review, MIS Q. 35 (4), 992–1015.
  • Solove, D. J. (2007). The future of reputation: Gossip, rumor, and privacy on the internet. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  • Stone, E. F., Gueutal, H. G., Gardner, D. G. ve McClure, S. (1983). A field experiment comparing information-privacy values, beliefs, and attitudes across several types of organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68 (3), 459.
  • Tidwell, L. C. ve Walther, J. B. (2002). Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: getting to know one another a bit at a time. Human Communication Research, 28, 317-348.
  • Töngel, E. (2020). Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Çevrim içi Mahremiyet Farkındalıklarının Çeşitli Değişkenler Açısından İncelenmesi. (Yayımlanmamış Y.Lisans Tezi). Dan. Dr. Öğr. Üyesi Mehmet KARA. Amasya.
  • Trepte, S., Teutsch, D., Masur, P.K., Eicher, C.,Fischer, M., Hennah M. ve Lind,F. (2015) Do people know about privacy and data protection strategies? Towards the Online Privacy Literacy Scale (OPLIS), in: S. Gutwirth, R. Lennes, P. de hert (Eds.), Reforming European Data Protection Law, Springer, Dordrecht, 333–366.
  • Üstündağ, M. T., Güneş, E., ve Bahçivan, E. (2017). Dijital okuryazarlık ölçeğinin Türkçe’ ye uyarlanması ve fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının dijital okuryazarlık durumları. Eğitim ve Gelecek Dergisi, 12, 19-29.
  • Westin, A. (1967). Privacy and Freedom. New York: Atheneum.
  • Westin, A. (1984). The origins of modern claims to privacy. F.D. Schoeman (Ed.). Philosophical Dimensions of Privacy: An Anthology içinde. Cambridge, London, New York, New Rochelle, Melbourne, Sydney: Cambridge University Press.
  • Wu, K.W., Huang, S. Y., Yen, D. C., ve Popova, I. (2012). The effect of online privacy policy on consumer privacy concern and trust. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(3), 889–897.
  • Yabancı, C., Akça, F., & Ulutaş, E. (2018). Çevrim içi mahremiyet kaygısı ve duygusal zekâ arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences, 54, 191-218.
  • Yao, M. Z. (2011). Self-protection of online privacy: A behavioral approach. In Privacy online Springer. 111-125.
  • Zviran, M. (2008). User’s perspectives on privacy in web-based applications. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 48(4), 97–105
There are 55 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Communication and Media Studies
Journal Section Makale
Authors

Meryem Okumuş 0000-0003-2096-802X

Sait Sinan Atilgan 0000-0002-6173-0248

Publication Date May 31, 2021
Submission Date March 31, 2021
Acceptance Date May 24, 2021
Published in Issue Year 2021 Volume: 6 Issue: 12

Cite

APA Okumuş, M., & Atilgan, S. S. (2021). Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Dijital Okuryazarlık Becerileri ile Dijital Mahremiyet Kaygısı Arasındaki İlişki. TRT Akademi, 6(12), 342-363. https://doi.org/10.37679/trta.907558