Data includes: board and school information, grade 3 and 6 EQAO student achievements for reading, writing and mathematics, and grade 9 mathematics EQAO and OSSLT. Data excludes private schools, Education and Community Partnership Programs (ECPP), summer, night and continuing education schools.

How Are We Protecting Privacy?

Results for OnSIS and Statistics Canada variables are suppressed based on school population size to better protect student privacy. In order to achieve this additional level of protection, the Ministry has used a methodology that randomly rounds a percentage either up or down depending on school enrolment. In order to protect privacy, the ministry does not publicly report on data when there are fewer than 10 individuals represented.

* Percentages depicted as 0 may not always be 0 values as in certain situations the values have been randomly rounded down or there are no reported results at a school for the respective indicator. * Percentages depicted as 100 are not always 100, in certain situations the values have been randomly rounded up.

The information in the School Information Finder is the most current available to the Ministry of Education at this time, as reported by schools, school boards, EQAO and Statistics Canada. The information is updated as frequently as possible.

This information is also available on the Ministry of Education's School Information Finder website by individual school.

Descriptions for some of the data types can be found in our glossary.

School/school board and school authority contact information are updated and maintained by school boards and may not be the most current version. For the most recent information please visit: https://data.ontario.ca/dataset/ontario-public-school-contact-information.

If this Data Set is useful, and upvote is appreciated. This data approach student achievement in secondary education of two Portuguese schools. The data attributes include student grades, demographic, social and school related features) and it was collected by using school reports and questionnaires. Two datasets are provided regarding the performance in two distinct subjects: Mathematics (mat) and Portuguese language (por). In [Cortez and Silva, 2008], the two datasets were modeled under binary/five-level classification and regression tasks. Important note: the target attribute G3 has a strong correlation with attributes G2 and G1. This occurs because G3 is the final year grade (issued at the 3rd period), while G1 and G2 correspond to the 1st and 2nd-period grades. It is more difficult to predict G3 without G2 and G1, but such prediction is much more useful (see paper source for more details).

In this project, we aim to analyze and gain insights into the performance of students based on various factors that influence their academic achievements. We have collected data related to students' demographic information, family background, and their exam scores in different subjects.

**********Key Objectives:*********

1. Performance Evaluation: Evaluate and understand the academic performance of students by analyzing their scores in various subjects.

2. Identifying Underlying Factors: Investigate factors that might contribute to variations in student performance, such as parental education, family size, and student attendance.

3. Visualizing Insights: Create data visualizations to present the findings effectively and intuitively.

Dataset Details:

• The dataset used in this analysis contains information about students, including their age, gender, parental education, lunch type, and test scores in subjects like mathematics, reading, and writing.

Analysis Highlights:

• We will perform a comprehensive analysis of the dataset, including data cleaning, exploration, and visualization to gain insights into various aspects of student performance.

• By employing statistical methods and machine learning techniques, we will determine the significant factors that affect student performance.

Why This Matters:

Understanding the factors that influence student performance is crucial for educators, policymakers, and parents. This analysis can help in making informed decisions to improve educational outcomes and provide support where it is most needed.

Acknowledgments:

We would like to express our gratitude to [mention any data sources or collaborators] for making this dataset available.

Please Note:

This project is meant for educational and analytical purposes. The dataset used is fictitious and does not represent any specific educational institution or individuals.

This dataset includes the attendance rate for public school students PK-12 by student group and by district during the 2021-2022 school year. Student groups include: Students experiencing homelessness Students with disabilities Students who qualify for free/reduced lunch English learners All high needs students Non-high needs students Students by race/ethnicity (Hispanic/Latino of any race, Black or African American, White, All other races) Attendance rates are provided for each student group by district and for the state. Students who are considered high needs include students who are English language learners, who receive special education, or who qualify for free and reduced lunch. When no attendance data is displayed in a cell, data have been suppressed to safeguard student confidentiality, or to ensure that statistics based on a very small sample size are not interpreted as equally representative as those based on a sufficiently larger sample size. For more information on CSDE data suppression policies, please visit http://edsight.ct.gov/relatedreports/BDCRE%20Data%20Suppression%20Rules.pdf.

The study assessed the knowledge, attitude and practice of undergraduate students regarding family planning methods. A descriptive quantitative design was used. The population was undergraduate students, and the sample size was four hundred (400) students. The study was conducted in a selected institution of higher learning in the Tshwane district of the Gauteng Province. A questionnaire was used to collect data, and descriptive statistics analysis was used to analyze the data. The data collected were entered into Microsoft Office 2019. The IBM SPSS Statistics version 28 was used to perform the analysis. Test for associations the Pearson Chi-square test was performed.

The National Postsecondary Student Aid Study, 1992-93 (NPSAS:93), is a study that is part of the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) program; program data is available since 1989-90 at https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/getpubcats.asp?sid=013. NPSAS:93 (https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/npsas/about.asp) is a cross-sectional survey that is designed to compile a comprehensive research dataset, based on student-level records, on financial aid provided by the federal government, the states, postsecondary institutions, employers, and private agencies along with student demographic and enrollment data. The study was conducted using multiple sources, including institutional records, government databases, and student interviews. NPSAS:93 contains the data on a sample of about 66,000 eligible postsecondary students who were enrolled at any time between July 1, 1992 and June 30, 1993 in about 1,100 postsecondary institutions. The data are representative of all undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in postsecondary institutions in the 50 United States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico that were eligible to participate in the federal financial aid programs in Title IV of the Higher Education Act. After adjusting for institutional nonresponse and for attendance at more than one institution, the overall weighted study response rate was 85 percent. Statistics produced from the NPSAS:93 provide reliable national estimates of characteristics related to financial aid for postsecondary students.

Student Enrollment reports the number of enrolled students, per grade.

This dataset includes the attendance rate for public school students PK-12 by town during the 2022-2023 school year. Attendance rates are provided for each town for the overall student population and for the high needs student population. Students who are considered high needs include students who are English language learners, who receive special education, or who qualify for free and reduced lunch. When no attendance data is displayed in a cell, data have been suppressed to safeguard student confidentiality, or to ensure that statistics based on a very small sample size are not interpreted as equally representative as those based on a sufficiently larger sample size. For more information on CSDE data suppression policies, please visit http://edsight.ct.gov/relatedreports/BDCRE%20Data%20Suppression%20Rules.pdf.

This dataset contains college enrollment information for the state of Michigan. College enrollment was defined as the number of public high school students who graduated in 2017, who enrolled in a college or university. This dataset includes enrollment in two-year and four-year institutions of higher education.

Data set used in the example 'student data set' (read the .txt file)

The National Postsecondary Student Aid Study, 2007-08 (NPSAS:08), is a study that is part of the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) program. NPSAS:08 [https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/npsas/about.asp]is a cross-sectional survey that is designed to compile a comprehensive research dataset, based on student-level records, on financial aid provided by the federal government, the states, postsecondary institutions, employers, and private agencies, along with student demographic and enrollment data. The study was conducted using multiple sources, including institutional records, government databases, and student interviews. NPSAS:08 contains the data on a sample of 114,000 undergraduate students and 14,000 graduate students. These students were enrolled between July 1, 2007 and June 30, 2008 in about 1,730 postsecondary institutions. The data are representative of all undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in postsecondary institutions in the 50 United States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico that were eligible to participate in the federal financial aid programs in Title IV of the Higher Education Act. Statistics produced from the NPSAS:08 provide reliable national estimates of characteristics related to financial aid for postsecondary students.

Data includes: * board information * school information * grade 3 and 6 EQAO student achievements for reading, writing and mathematics * grade 9 EQAO academic and applied student achievements * grade 10 OSSLT student achievement * student demographic percentages on student parents, special education, first language spoken and new students to Canada, This information is also available on the Ministry of Education's School Information Finder website by individual school. How Are We Protecting Privacy? Results for OnSIS and Statistics Canada variables are suppressed based on school population size to better protect student privacy. In order to achieve this additional level of protection, the Ministry has used a methodology that randomly rounds a percentage either up or down depending on school enrolment. In order to protect privacy, the ministry does not publicly report on data when there are fewer than 10 individuals represented. * Percentages depicted as 0 may not always be 0 values as in certain situations the values have been randomly rounded down or there are no reported results at a school for the respective indicator. * Percentages depicted as 100 are not always 100, in certain situations the values have been randomly rounded up. Note: The information in the School Information Finder is the most current available to the Ministry of Education at this time, as reported by schools, school boards, EQAO and Statistics Canada. The information is updated as frequently as possible. Please note that school enrolment totals have been rounded to the nearest 5 in order to better protect and maintain student privacy. Descriptions for some of the data types can be found in our glossary. Data includes public, Roman Catholic, publicly funded hospitals and provincial schools. Data excludes private schools, Education and Community Partnership Programs (ECPP), summer and night schools. Note : School board and school authority contact information are updated and maintained by school boards and may not be the most current version. For the most recent information please visit: https://data.ontario.ca/dataset/ontario-public-school-contact-information. [EQAO]: Education Quality and Accountability Office [OnSIS]: Ontario School Information System *[OSSLT]: Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test

This paper explores a unique dataset of all the SET ratings provided by students of one university in Poland at the end of the winter semester of the 2020/2021 academic year. The SET questionnaire used by this university is presented in Appendix 1. The dataset is unique for several reasons. It covers all SET surveys filled by students in all fields and levels of study offered by the university. In the period analysed, the university was entirely in the online regime amid the Covid-19 pandemic. While the expected learning outcomes formally have not been changed, the online mode of study could have affected the grading policy and could have implications for some of the studied SET biases. This Covid-19 effect is captured by econometric models and discussed in the paper. The average SET scores were matched with the characteristics of the teacher for degree, seniority, gender, and SET scores in the past six semesters; the course characteristics for time of day, day of the week, course type, course breadth, class duration, and class size; the attributes of the SET survey responses as the percentage of students providing SET feedback; and the grades of the course for the mean, standard deviation, and percentage failed. Data on course grades are also available for the previous six semesters. This rich dataset allows many of the biases reported in the literature to be tested for and new hypotheses to be formulated, as presented in the introduction section. The unit of observation or the single row in the data set is identified by three parameters: teacher unique id (j), course unique id (k) and the question number in the SET questionnaire (n ϵ {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9} ). It means that for each pair (j,k), we have nine rows, one for each SET survey question, or sometimes less when students did not answer one of the SET questions at all. For example, the dependent variable SET_score_avg(j,k,n) for the triplet (j=Calculus, k=John Smith, n=2) is calculated as the average of all Likert-scale answers to question nr 2 in the SET survey distributed to all students that took the Calculus course taught by John Smith. The data set has 8,015 such observations or rows. The full list of variables or columns in the data set included in the analysis is presented in the attached filesection. Their description refers to the triplet (teacher id = j, course id = k, question number = n). When the last value of the triplet (n) is dropped, it means that the variable takes the same values for all n ϵ {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9}.Two attachments:- word file with variables description- Rdata file with the data set (for R language).Appendix 1. Appendix 1. The SET questionnaire was used for this paper. Evaluation survey of the teaching staff of [university name] Please, complete the following evaluation form, which aims to assess the lecturer’s performance. Only one answer should be indicated for each question. The answers are coded in the following way: 5- I strongly agree; 4- I agree; 3- Neutral; 2- I don’t agree; 1- I strongly don’t agree. Questions 1 2 3 4 5 I learnt a lot during the course. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ I think that the knowledge acquired during the course is very useful. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ The professor used activities to make the class more engaging. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ If it was possible, I would enroll for the course conducted by this lecturer again. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ The classes started on time. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ The lecturer always used time efficiently. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ The lecturer delivered the class content in an understandable and efficient way. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ The lecturer was available when we had doubts. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ The lecturer treated all students equally regardless of their race, background and ethnicity. ○ ○

Demographic and PII data (including emails, phone numbers, and addresses) for the US Millennial and Gen Z population segments. Fully opt-in and CCPA compliant (direct submission from the individuals). 30 million+ population.

High success and conversion rates for direct marketing, targeted ads, identity verification, and demographic research.

This data can be merged into the BIGDBM Consumer dataset or have specific data fields appended from the BIGDBM Consumer dataset.

BIGDBM Privacy Policy: https://bigdbm.com/privacy.html

This research introduces a novel dataset developed for streaming learning analytics, derived from the Open University Learning Analytics Dataset (OULAD). The dataset incorporates essential temporal information that captures the timing of student interactions with the Virtual Learning Environment (VLE). By integrating these time-based interactions, the dataset enhances the capabilities of stream algorithms, which are particularly well-suited for real-time monitoring and analysis of student learning behaviors.

The dataset consists of 34 features and 1,718,983 samples, encompassing students' demographic information, assessment scores, and interactions with the VLE for a specific time ( T ), corresponding to each student ( S ) within a given course ( C ) and module ( M ). The target classes—'Withdrawn', 'Fail', 'Pass', and 'Distinction'—were encoded as 0, 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Notably, the data exhibits a significant imbalance, with a substantial prevalence of records associated with students who passed the final examination. The class distribution is as follows: 'Pass' (1,022,760 samples), 'Distinction' (308,642 samples), 'Fail' (227,550$ samples), and 'Withdrawn' (160,031 samples).

For further details on the data, please refer to the manuscript: Gabriella Casalino, Giovanna Castellano, Gianluca Zaza, "Does Time Matter in Analyzing Educational Data? - A New Dataset for Streaming Learning Analytics.", CEUR Proceedings

The 2012 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study, 2012 Base Year (BPS:12) is part of the Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS) program. BPS:12 is the base year of a longitudinal study that followed a cohort of students who enrolled in postsecondary education for the first time during the 2011-12 academic year, irrespective of date of high school completion. The 2012-13 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:12) data provided the base-year sample for BPS:12. BPS:12 data are representative of all first-time beginning (FTB) students enrolled in postsecondary institutions in the 50 United States and the District of Columbia that were eligible to participate in the federal financial aid programs in Title IV of the Higher Education Act. The cohort includes a subset of students initially sampled for participation in NPSAS:12 and classified by their NPSAS institution as FTBs. Key statistics produced from BPS:12 are data on student persistence in, and completion of, postsecondary education programs; their transition to employment; demographic characteristics; and changes over time in their goals, marital status, income, and debt, among other measures.

Open Science in (Higher) Education – data of the February 2017 survey

This data set contains:

• Full raw (anonymised) data set (completed responses) of Open Science in (Higher) Education February 2017 survey. Data are in xlsx and sav format.
• Survey questionnaires with variables and settings (German original and English translation) in pdf. The English questionnaire was not used in the February 2017 survey, but only serves as translation.
• Readme file (txt)

Survey structure

The survey includes 24 questions and its structure can be separated in five major themes: material used in courses (5), OER awareness, usage and development (6), collaborative tools used in courses (2), assessment and participation options (5), demographics (4). The last two questions include an open text questions about general issues on the topics and singular open education experiences, and a request on forwarding the respondent’s e-mail address for further questionings. The online survey was created with Limesurvey[1]. Several questions include filters, i.e. these questions were only shown if a participants did choose a specific answer beforehand ([n/a] in Excel file, [.] In SPSS).

Demographic questions

Demographic questions asked about the current position, the discipline, birth year and gender. The classification of research disciplines was adapted to general disciplines at German higher education institutions. As we wanted to have a broad classification, we summarised several disciplines and came up with the following list, including the option “other” for respondents who do not feel confident with the proposed classification:

• Natural Sciences
• Arts and Humanities or Social Sciences
• Economics
• Law
• Medicine
• Computer Sciences, Engineering, Technics
• Other

The current job position classification was also chosen according to common positions in Germany, including positions with a teaching responsibility at higher education institutions. Here, we also included the option “other” for respondents who do not feel confident with the proposed classification:

• Professor
• Special education teacher
• Academic/scientific assistant or research fellow (research and teaching)
• Academic staff (teaching)
• Student assistant
• Other

We chose to have a free text (numerical) for asking about a respondent’s year of birth because we did not want to pre-classify respondents’ age intervals. It leaves us options to have different analysis on answers and possible correlations to the respondents’ age. Asking about the country was left out as the survey was designed for academics in Germany.

Remark on OER question

Data from earlier surveys revealed that academics suffer confusion about the proper definition of OER^[2]. Some seem to understand OER as free resources, or only refer to open source software (Allen & Seaman, 2016, p. 11). Allen and Seaman (2016) decided to give a broad explanation of OER, avoiding details to not tempt the participant to claim “aware”. Thus, there is a danger of having a bias when giving an explanation. We decided not to give an explanation, but keep this question simple. We assume that either someone knows about OER or not. If they had not heard of the term before, they do not probably use OER (at least not consciously) or create them.

Data collection

The target group of the survey was academics at German institutions of higher education, mainly universities and universities of applied sciences. To reach them we sent the survey to diverse institutional-intern and extern mailing lists and via personal contacts. Included lists were discipline-based lists, lists deriving from higher education and higher education didactic communities as well as lists from open science and OER communities. Additionally, personal e-mails were sent to presidents and contact persons from those communities, and Twitter was used to spread the survey.

The survey was online from Feb 6^th to March 3^rd 2017, e-mails were mainly sent at the beginning and around mid-term.

Data clearance

We got 360 responses, whereof Limesurvey counted 208 completes and 152 incompletes. Two responses were marked as incomplete, but after checking them turned out to be complete, and we added them to the complete responses dataset. Thus, this data set includes 210 complete responses. From those 150 incomplete responses, 58 respondents did not answer 1st question, 40 respondents discontinued after 1st question. Data shows a constant decline in response answers, we did not detect any striking survey question with a high dropout rate. We deleted incomplete responses and they are not in this data set.

Due to data privacy reasons, we deleted seven variables automatically assigned by Limesurvey: submitdate, lastpage, startlanguage, startdate, datestamp, ipaddr, refurl. We also deleted answers to question N^o 24 (email address).

References

Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2016). Opening the Textbook: Educational Resources in U.S. Higher Education, 2015-16.

First results of the survey are presented in the poster:

Heck, Tamara, Blümel, Ina, Heller, Lambert, Mazarakis, Athanasios, Peters, Isabella, Scherp, Ansgar, & Weisel, Luzian. (2017). Survey: Open Science in Higher Education. Zenodo. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.400561

Contact:

Open Science in (Higher) Education working group, see http://www.leibniz-science20.de/forschung/projekte/laufende-projekte/open-science-in-higher-education/.

[1] https://www.limesurvey.org

[2] The survey question about the awareness of OER gave a broad explanation, avoiding details to not tempt the participant to claim “aware”.

Success.ai’s Education Industry Data provides access to comprehensive profiles of global professionals in the education sector. Sourced from over 700 million verified LinkedIn profiles, this dataset includes actionable insights and verified contact details for teachers, school administrators, university leaders, and other decision-makers. Whether your goal is to collaborate with educational institutions, market innovative solutions, or recruit top talent, Success.ai ensures your efforts are supported by accurate, enriched, and continuously updated data.

Why Choose Success.ai’s Education Industry Data? 1. Comprehensive Professional Profiles Access verified LinkedIn profiles of teachers, school principals, university administrators, curriculum developers, and education consultants. AI-validated profiles ensure 99% accuracy, reducing bounce rates and enabling effective communication. 2. Global Coverage Across Education Sectors Includes professionals from public schools, private institutions, higher education, and educational NGOs. Covers markets across North America, Europe, APAC, South America, and Africa for a truly global reach. 3. Continuously Updated Dataset Real-time updates reflect changes in roles, organizations, and industry trends, ensuring your outreach remains relevant and effective. 4. Tailored for Educational Insights Enriched profiles include work histories, academic expertise, subject specializations, and leadership roles for a deeper understanding of the education sector.

Data Highlights: 700M+ Verified LinkedIn Profiles: Access a global network of education professionals. 100M+ Work Emails: Direct communication with teachers, administrators, and decision-makers. Enriched Professional Histories: Gain insights into career trajectories, institutional affiliations, and areas of expertise. Industry-Specific Segmentation: Target professionals in K-12 education, higher education, vocational training, and educational technology.

Key Features of the Dataset: 1. Education Sector Profiles Identify and connect with teachers, professors, academic deans, school counselors, and education technologists. Engage with individuals shaping curricula, institutional policies, and student success initiatives. 2. Detailed Institutional Insights Leverage data on school sizes, student demographics, geographic locations, and areas of focus. Tailor outreach to align with institutional goals and challenges. 3. Advanced Filters for Precision Targeting Refine searches by region, subject specialty, institution type, or leadership role. Customize campaigns to address specific needs, such as professional development or technology adoption. 4. AI-Driven Enrichment Enhanced datasets include actionable details for personalized messaging and targeted engagement. Highlight educational milestones, professional certifications, and key achievements.

Strategic Use Cases: 1. Product Marketing and Outreach Promote educational technology, learning platforms, or training resources to teachers and administrators. Engage with decision-makers driving procurement and curriculum development. 2. Collaboration and Partnerships Identify institutions for collaborations on research, workshops, or pilot programs. Build relationships with educators and administrators passionate about innovative teaching methods. 3. Talent Acquisition and Recruitment Target HR professionals and academic leaders seeking faculty, administrative staff, or educational consultants. Support hiring efforts for institutions looking to attract top talent in the education sector. 4. Market Research and Strategy Analyze trends in education systems, curriculum development, and technology integration to inform business decisions. Use insights to adapt products and services to evolving educational needs.

Why Choose Success.ai? 1. Best Price Guarantee Access industry-leading Education Industry Data at unmatched pricing for cost-effective campaigns and strategies. 2. Seamless Integration Easily integrate verified data into CRMs, recruitment platforms, or marketing systems using downloadable formats or APIs. 3. AI-Validated Accuracy Depend on 99% accurate data to reduce wasted outreach and maximize engagement rates. 4. Customizable Solutions Tailor datasets to specific educational fields, geographic regions, or institutional types to meet your objectives.

Strategic APIs for Enhanced Campaigns: 1. Data Enrichment API Enrich existing records with verified education professional profiles to enhance engagement and targeting. 2. Lead Generation API Automate lead generation for a consistent pipeline of qualified professionals in the education sector. Success.ai’s Education Industry Data enables you to connect with educators, administrators, and decision-makers transforming global...

The American Community Survey (ACS) is designed to estimate the characteristic distribution of populations* and estimated counts should only be used to calculate percentages. They do not represent the actual population counts or totals. Beginning in 2019, the Washington Student Achievement Council (WSAC) has measured educational attainment for the Roadmap Progress Report using one-year American Community Survey (ACS) data from the United States Census Bureau. These public microdata represents the most current data, but it is limited to areas with larger populations leading to some multi-county regions**.

*The American Community Survey is not the official source of population counts. It is designed to show the characteristics of the nation's population and should not be used as actual population counts or housing totals for the nation, states or counties. The official population count — including population by age, sex, race and Hispanic origin — comes from the once-a-decade census, supplemented by annual population estimates (which do not typically contain educational attainment variables) from the following groups and surveys:
-- Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM): https://www.ofm.wa.gov/washington-data-research/population-demographics -- US Census Decennial Census: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census.html and Population Estimates Program: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest.html

**In prior years, WSAC used both the five-year and three-year (now discontinued) data. While the 5-year estimates provide a larger sample, they are not recommended for year to year trends and also are released later than the one-year files.

Detailed information about the ACS at https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/guidance.html

This data set contains the replication data and supplements for the article "Knowing, Doing, and Feeling: A three-year, mixed-methods study of undergraduates’ information literacy development." The survey data is from two samples: - cross-sectional sample (different students at the same point in time) - longitudinal sample (the same students and different points in time)Surveys were distributed via Qualtrics during the students' first and sixth semesters. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected and used to describe students' IL development over 3 years. Statistics from the quantitative data were analyzed in SPSS. The qualitative data was coded and analyzed thematically in NVivo. The qualitative, textual data is from semi-structured interviews with sixth-semester students in psychology at UiT, both focus groups and individual interviews. All data were collected as part of the contact author's PhD research on information literacy (IL) at UiT. The following files are included in this data set: 1. A README file which explains the quantitative data files. (2 file formats: .txt, .pdf)2. The consent form for participants (in Norwegian). (2 file formats: .txt, .pdf)3. Six data files with survey results from UiT psychology undergraduate students for the cross-sectional (n=209) and longitudinal (n=56) samples, in 3 formats (.dat, .csv, .sav). The data was collected in Qualtrics from fall 2019 to fall 2022. 4. Interview guide for 3 focus group interviews. File format: .txt5. Interview guides for 7 individual interviews - first round (n=4) and second round (n=3). File format: .txt 6. The 21-item IL test (Tromsø Information Literacy Test = TILT), in English and Norwegian. TILT is used for assessing students' knowledge of three aspects of IL: evaluating sources, using sources, and seeking information. The test is multiple choice, with four alternative answers for each item. This test is a "KNOW-measure," intended to measure what students know about information literacy. (2 file formats: .txt, .pdf)7. Survey questions related to interest - specifically students' interest in being or becoming information literate - in 3 parts (all in English and Norwegian): a) information and questions about the 4 phases of interest; b) interest questionnaire with 26 items in 7 subscales (Tromsø Interest Questionnaire - TRIQ); c) Survey questions about IL and interest, need, and intent. (2 file formats: .txt, .pdf)8. Information about the assignment-based measures used to measure what students do in practice when evaluating and using sources. Students were evaluated with these measures in their first and sixth semesters. (2 file formats: .txt, .pdf)9. The Norwegain Centre for Research Data's (NSD) 2019 assessment of the notification form for personal data for the PhD research project. In Norwegian. (Format: .pdf)