P W34 QZ VWga BXN P1 Q BNimz 2 P Q3 y BJ SJC

ENGLISH LECTURERS’ DIGITAL LITERACY AND THEIR
SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATION: SEEKING THE CORRELATION
Veni Roza
veniroz_501@yahoo.com
Genta Sakti
gentasakti@gmail.com
Abstract –The study aimed at seeking the INTRODUCTION

correlation between English lecturers’ digital
literacy and their productivity in publishing their Nowadays literacy is believed as one essential
research articles. In fact, some lecturers who are skill (Jeffrey & Kelly, 2017: 383) in competing
digitally literate in the ICT and have English in the modern global era where everything is
proficiency were not productive in journal
handled online. The more someone has
publications. This study used quantitative research
competence in using digital literacy, the more
by correlating the variables between the online
questionnaire result of English lecturers’ digital successful he is in any respect of digital life.
literacy and data of lecturers’ scientific publication When learners know and understand much
from their Google Scholar accounts and Science about information and communication
and Technology Index Portal or SINTA2 of the technology, they can be motivated to learn, can
Republic of Indonesia. The population of the solve school problems and tasks and can get
research was all permanent English lecturers at triumph in society (Shopova, 2017:25). For
State Islamic Higher Education in West Sumatera. teachers or lecturers, whenever they are digital
There are 65 respondents in three institutions but literate, many activities can be carried out
only 85% participants who gave feedbacks of the professionally related to their obligation as
online questionnaire shared to them. The
educators. It is called Tri Dharma of higher
questionnaire was about digital literacy of English
education namely education and teaching,
lecturers in using and finding digital information
and technology. The researcher also accounted research and social obedience and services
online journal publication of each English lecturer (Zain & Ab-Rahman, 2017:213). Their
in his account. To analyze the data, researcher used achievement in those aspects is well-known as
Pearson correlation formula. The finding reveals world recognitions.
that there is positive correlation between English
lecturers’ digital literacy and their research In the educational aspect, many researches
publication as shown by the Pearson correlational have investigated the concept of digital
coefficient, 0.48. The score lies between 0.40-0.59 literacy. Lathipatud Durriyah & Zuhdi ( 2018:
which is under sufficient category. The result 55) examined student teacher perceptions
implies English lecturers’ digital literacy has about digital literacy in relation to technology
something to do with doing publication. The more integration in teaching and learning. They
digitally literate they are, the more productive they found several digital platforms used in
will be; even though there are other factors which
teaching namely FB, WA, Skype and blogs. In
influence someone to carry out the publication.
line with that, Peled (2021:2887) found high
and positive perception of pre-service teacher
Keywords: digital literacy, ICT, productivity, about the digital readiness and digital literacy
publication, in teaching.
Moreover, there are previous researches that

have investigated the digital literacy concept
1
across fields or disciplines. Ata & Yıldırım publication is media that can be used by
(2019:13) investigated the pre-service teacher educators to promote learning and seek the
perception about their digital literacy in terms new model that is from knowledge transfer to
of four predictors namely attitude, technical, knowledge construct (Yazon, Ang-Manaig,
social and cognitive. They found high and Buama, & Tesoro, 2019: 1738). However, for
positive perception of pre-service teacher in some cases to be productive in research though
factors of attitude, technical, social and publication and citation is still difficult to carry
cognitive. In line with that, Dedebali (2020: out. There are individual factor like the
135) in Turkey and (Rusydiyah, Purwati, & perception of getting benefit, lack of research
Prabowo (2020: 309), Liza & Andriyanti cost; and institutional factor like facilities of
(2020: 74) in Indonesia found high readiness library (Anamofa & Nanuru, 2019: 3).
and digital literate of graduate student in
integrating digital technologies in educational. Lecturers can use the knowledge and skill in
In Spain, Sánchez-Cruzado & Sánchez- digital world to carry out a research and
Compaña (2021: 12) also found the readiness publish it in the scientific journals. Then, they
of teacher of being highly digital literate due to can also cite many other resources and their
the pandemic impact. colleagues. They can find many references
digitally and read a lot. After that, they can do
However, researches in the sake of research a research and write it. Novelty innovation of
and publication were not so many in relations learning model can be created form the result
to digital literacy. Spante & Hashemi (2018: 5) of their researches and disseminated through
sought the concept of digital literacy and that publication (Liu, 2020:4). For some
digital competence of higher education lecturers, doing publication is something
research from three databases of Scopus, WOS challenging and difficult to carry out, so that
and ERIC. They found the concept of digital they are stagnant at the same level of position
literacy is more frequently used than digital or academic function for long period in one
competence even though both definitions are institution (Anamofa & Nanuru, 2019: 5).
used interchangeably. Zain & Ab-Rahman
(2017: 215) found high motivation and very Based on the phenomena found in the field, not
productive of Malaysian lecturers in publishing all English Lecturers at IAIN Bukittinggi were
their research qualifiedly. In community able to publish their scientific writing or article
services, the researcher only found studies of in the journal, even though they have English
traditional concept of digital literacy for social capability and are demanded to undertake a
service like being literate in reading and research and publish the output in a scientific
writing. journal. This becomes one of the indicators of
deciding someone to get allowances or not.
Based on those studies, professional educators The publication carried out by lecturers will
struggle to fulfill the educational and teaching give impact not only to the lecturers
domain, research and community services. As themselves but also to institution. The first
long as they have desire and are supported by rank campus is indicated by the highest rate of
skill in processing digital information and lecturers’ publication in reputed and accredited
technology, doing Tri Dharma becomes exiting journals.
activities. In fact, among these three
obligations, research productivity is left behind In fact, many English lecturers were not able to
(Carleton, Parkerson, & Horswill, 2012: 2). publish their articles even though they have
They are busy with teaching and English competence and know digital
administration affairs. Doing research and information and technology around them. It is
2
seen from the functional level which is mostly 4. Digital Literacy in terms 25-27 3
of applying digital
at Lektor (Lecturer). Based on this, the resources
researcher needs to investigate the correlation 5 Digital literacy in terms of 28-35 8
between English lecturers’ digital literacy and understanding digital
practices
research publication. Total 35
METHODS
Meanwhile the indicator of English lecturer
The method used in this research was a publication is based in the rubric of
correlational design to see the correlation accreditation rubric (BAN PT, 2019: 26) for
between English lecturers’ digital literacy
based on their perceptions and their research research outcome as follows:
publication. To collect the data about the
Table 2 English lecturer publication in last 3 years
variables, the reseacher used online N Initial of Kind of Publication Amount
qustionnaire for digital literacy perceptions and o English
numerical data for English lecturers Lecturer
publication in the last 3 years (2019-2021) 1 National journal
from the SINTA Portal by Ministry of higher .
education of Indonesia at Accredited National
http://sinta.ristekbrin.go.id/ and their Google journal
scholar accounts.
International journal
The participants of the research were all
permanent English lecturers in state Islamic Reputed International
Higher Education Institution in West Sumatera journal
IAIN Bukittinggi, IAIN Batusangkar and UIN
Local Seminar
Imam Bonjol Padang. There were 65 English
lecturers in three intuitions. However, only National Seminar
85% lecturers gave feedbacks. The
questionnaire was created in Google form and International Seminar
shared link to their Whatssap Group of English
Lecturers and through emails. It consisted of National mass media
35 items in Guttmann scale with the yes and no
choices in order to get strong answer (Wulan International mass
Sari & Roza, 2021: 3). Yes answer gets 1 score media
and No is 0.
Total
Here is the rubric of the questionnaire which
was adapted from (Yazon & Ang-Manaig,
2019: 1736) who investigated the correlation
To analyze the data, the researcher used SPSS
between digital literacy, digital competence
20 software by using the Pearson correlation.
and educators’ productivity in research:
The correlation magnitude was checked by
Table 1 Indicator of Digital Literacy interpretation of table by (Gay, L. R., Mills,
2016: 315).
N Indicator Item Amount
o no. Table 3 Magnitude of Correlation
1. Digital literacy in terms of 1-9 9
finding information No Coefficient Magnitude of
2. Digital literacy in terms of 10-16 7 correlation
using information
3. Digital literacy in terms of 17-24 8 1. 0.80 – 1.00 Very strong
creating information
2. 0.60 – 0.79 Strong
3
be inferred that using digital information is
mostly positively perceived by English
3. 0.40 – 0.59 Sufficient lecturers. It is because the action of using is
4. 0.20 – 0.39 Weak easy to carry out and it is lower than the action
of creating based on the Taxonomy (Covello,
5. 0 – 0.19 Very weak 2017: 2). It can also be inferred that English
lecturers were quite literate in digital
information and technology as mentioned in
(Redecker, 2017:16) (Lankshear, Colin
Based on Table 3, the magnitude of correlation Knobel, 2008) that educators need to have
is divided into 5 namely very weak for score digital literacy in order to be professional
ranging between 0-0.19; weak for 0.2-0.39; educators who will produce digital literate
sufficient 0.4-0.59; strong for 0.6-0.79 and learners and improve research productivity
very strong for 0.8-1.00. quality and quantity (Okiki Olaatokunbo
Christoper, 2017:1). To make each indicator
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION clearer, here is in detail of each aspect:
The result of questionnaire shows the English Table 5 English Lecturers’ Perception about digital
literacy in finding information
lecturers’ perception about their digital literacy
in 5 aspects being asked. They are digital No Statement Score %
literacy in finding information, digital literacy
in using information, digital literacy in creating Digital literacy in terms
information, digital literacy in using digital of finding information
resources, and digital literacy in understanding 1 I know what information 14 25%
digital practices. These results of questionnaire I can find on the web.
2 I know what information 6 11%
(yes/ no answers) are very useful to seek the
I can find in an online
correlation between digital literacy and Library.
publication: 3 I use advanced search 16 29%
options to limit and refine
Table 4 English Lecturers’ Perception about digital my search.
literacy 4 I use keywords 12 22%
commonly used in my
No Indicator Mean Percent
discipline to search for
score age
information online.
1. Digital literacy in terms 13,7 25% 5 I use social networks as a 15 27%
of finding information source of information.
2. Digital literacy in terms 18,4 33% 6 I know when to change 12 22%
of using information my search strategy or
3. Digital literacy in terms 16,1 29% stop searching.
of creating information 7 I filter large numbers of 17 31%
4. Digital Literacy in 17 30.67% search results quickly.
terms of applying 8 I do scanning/ skimming 16 29%
digital resources a web page to get to the
5 Digital literacy in terms 14,6 26,5% key relevant information
of understanding digital quickly.
practices 9 I keep up-to-date with 16 29%
information from
Based on Table 4, there are 5 indicators that authoritative people or
are asked related to English lecturers’ digital organisations by
subscribing to Really
literacy. The highest mean score of digital Simple Syndication
literacy the English lecturers positively (RSS) feeds.
perceived is in using information 33%, in MEAN 13,7 25%
applying digital resources is 30,67%, in
creating information is 29%, in understanding Based on Table 5, there are 9 items that are
digital practices is 26,5% and in finding asked about English lecturers’ perception on
information is 25%. From this finding, it can
4
their digital literacy in finding information. Based on Table 6, there are 7 items that are
The highest score is in filtering large number asked about using information. English
of search result quickly 31%, after that in lecturer perceived positively in keeping a
scanning/ skimming a web page 29%, keeping record of the relevant details of information
up date with information from authoritative 46%, in assessing whether an online resource
people 29% and using advanced search options is credible and trustworthy 42%. After that
29%. After that, they positively perceived that they perceived they use other work without
they use social networks as a source of committing plagiarism 38%; they share files
information 27%; that they know what legally with others 36%; they cite a reference
information they can find on the web 25%; using correct format 34%; and they use social
they use keywords to search information bookmarking 20%. The lowest score is in
online and they know when to change search using information in different media like
strategy 22%. Those mean that English podcast 18%. It can be said that English
lecturers have some strategies in mind how to lecturers keep good ethic when using
get prominent information through social information. They did citation and used correct
network they have, like FB, IG, Whatsapp reference because doing plagiarism in
group and other. The lowest score is in item 2 academic work is a crime. Khathayut &
in knowing information from online library. It Walker-Gleaves (2021:1) mentions that higher
is due to some reasons like online library is not education staff can avoid plagiarism by
open access so it is lower perceived by keeping writing honestly through
respondents. paraphrasing.
Table 6 English Lecturers’ Perception about digital Table 7 English Lecturers’ Perception about digital
literacy in using information literacy in creating information
N Statement Score % No Statement Score %

o
Digital literacy in terms Digital literacy in terms
of using information of creating information
10 I use information in 10 18% 17 I add comments to blogs, 20 36%
different media, for forums or web pages,
example, podcasts or observing netiquette and
videos. appropriate social
11 I assess whether an online 23 42% conventions for online
resource (e.g. web page, communications.
blog, wiki, video, 18 I write online for 20 36%
podcast, academic journal different audiences, e.g. a
article) or person is web page or blog entry
credible and trustworthy. for private use, for
12 I use other people’s work 21 38% reading by your fellow
(found online) without students, for reading by
committing plagiarism. my tutor, or for reading
13 I cite a reference to an 19 34% by anyone in the world.
online resource (e.g. in an 19 I write in different media 15 27%
assignment) using the for people to read on-
correct format. screen.
14 I keep a record of the 25 46% 20 I communicate with 12 22%
relevant details of others online (forums,
information i find online. blogs, social networking
15 I use social bookmarking 11 20% sites, audio, video, etc.)
to organise and share 21 I work with others online 19 34%
information. to create a shared
16 I share files legally with 20 36% document or presentation.
others. 22 I use media-capture 8 14%
MEAN 18,4 33% devices, e.g. recording
and editing a podcast or
video.
23 I know how to submit my 15 27%
5
writing online to share their content of English via YouTube
24 I can use OJS for my 20 36% and FB. This link is shared for the sake
article enrichment knowledge and the likes of the netters.
MEAN 16,1 29%
Table 9 English Lecturers’ Perception about digital
Based on Table 7, there are 8 items that are literacy in understanding digital practices
asked to the English lecturers about creating
information. 36% respondents answered yes No Statement Score %
that they use OJS for their article, that they add
comments in forum and that they write online Digital literacy in terms
of understanding digital
for audience. Working with others online is practices
34%; writing in different media and knowing 28 I know what categories of 14 25%
how to submit writing online is 27%; in users I can expect to find
communicating with others online is 22%. The online.
29 I explain what happens to 15 27%
lowest score is that they used media capture information I put online:
14%. It is because mostly they were reluctant my digital footprint.
to record or take picture for public 30 I choose the right tool to 10 18%
consumption. find, use, or create
information.
31 I present myself online: 13 24%
Table 8 English Lecturers’ Perception about digital
my digital identity.
literacy in terms of digital resources
32 I find a person online, for 20 36%
No Statement Score % example an expert in my
discipline, and
establishing their contact
Digital Literacy in details.
terms of digital 33 I use online tools and 12 22%
resources websites to find and
25 I use different internet 16 29% record information
sites and search strategies online.
to find and select a range 34 I establish who owns 11 20%
of different digital information and ideas I
resources. find online.
26 I create my own digital 19 34% 35 I establish what online 22 40%
resources and modify information I can legally
existing ones to adapt re-use.
them to my needs MEAN 14,6 26,5%
27 I effectively protect 16 29%
sensitive content, e.g.
exams, students' grades, Based on Table 9, there are 8 items that are
personal data asked in the questionnaire related to
MEAN 17 30.67
understanding digital practices. The English
lecturer mostly perceived that they establish
what online information they can legally reuse
Based on Table 8, there are 3 items that are 40%. After that they can find a person online
asked to respondents related to digital 36%; they can explain what happens to
resources. Respondents mostly perceived that information they put online 27%; they know
they created their own digital resources 34%. what categories of users they find online 25%;
They used different internet sites and protected they present themselves online 24%; they use
their sensitive content 29%. It can be inferred online tools to find online information 22%;
English lecturers perceived they are quite and the lower score is in choosing the right
literate in creating their own digital resources tool in creating information 18%. It can be said
and modifying them. It was proved by digital that English lecturers’ perception about their
resources made by some English Lecturers’ digital literacy is positive. It is in line with
shared via whatsapp group. The content of Lankshear & Knobe (2007:10) and Bawden D
English lesson created in YouTube of them like (2008:17) said that digital literacy is the ability
6
to understand information however it is 28. MK 21
presented (spoken or written) not only to read
and to write. Table 10 is simplified since the researcher just
needs the nominal number. Based on the
Besides presenting the data of English appendix of English lecturers’ publication,
lecturers, the researcher also exhibited the data English lecturers mostly published their
of English lecturer publication that was articles in accredited journals and international
obtained from the Google scholar in last three seminar in proceedings. They rarely publish in
years (2019-2021. The researcher counted all national and international mass media seen
publication of English lecturers in national from their Google Scholar. It is due to some
journal, accredited national journal, reason like they got low points when
international journal, reputed international publishing writing to them. It is also very
journal, local seminar, national seminar, challenging for English lecturers to publish in
international seminar, national mass media, reputed international journals indicated by a
and international mass media which exist in few numbers of English Professor in UIN
their accounts. Here is the recapitulation data: Padang, IAIN Batusangkar and IAIN
Bukittinggi.
Table 10 English Lecturers’ Publication in last three
years To seek the correlation between English
lecturers’ perception about digital literacy and
No Initi Publicat No Initial Publicati their productivity in publication, the researcher
al ion on used the Pearson correlation formula. It is
1. VR 11 29. MN 6 because both variables are symmetric and data
2. MM 5 30. FR 6 used are numeric data. Here is the result of
3. AK 15 31. WE 14 data analysis:
4. LL 11 32. QW 18
Table 10 Output of SPSS20
5. HPP 10 33. AS 5
6. MP 12 34. IU 7
Descriptive Statistics
D
7. WS 12 35. HJ 18
N Mini Maxi Mea Std.
8. GS 14 36. VB 15
mum mum n Deviati
9. S 19 37. FS 18
10. 4 38. RW 17 on
E
11. RF 17 39. ZS 17 16,5
X 55 6 34 5,477
12. LS 23 40. GH 18 5
13. AB 13 41. CV 7 13,3
14. 17 42. TH 15 Y 55 4 23 4,487
SD 8
15. PU 12 43. DF 15
Valid N
16. IL 14 44. EW 18 55
17. 18 45. WE 14 (listwise)
TY
18. LH 14 46. ZS 12
Correlations
19. OP 10 47. VB 14
20. SE 15 48. ZA 14 x y
21. YU 15 49. KH 16
22. OP 9 50. HG 14 Pearson Correlation 1 ,408**
23. 14 51. BN 15 X
TG Sig. (2-tailed) ,002
24. 16 52. FT 5 N 55 55
ER
25. FG 14 53. BF 11 Pearson Correlation ,408** 1
26. 18 54. HY 18 Y
ES Sig. (2-tailed) ,002
27. 12 55. HT 4 N 55 55
KL
7
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). This research was still conducted in the local
area so that the result cannot be generalized to
all English lecturers at Islamic Higher
Based on Table 10, the Pearson Correlation is Education in Indonesia. Moreover, it is
0.408. The score ranges between 0,40 – 0,59 suggested to conduct further research in
which is under category of sufficient consulted relation to digital information and technology
to the interpretation of table by (Gay, L. R., and citation and society services.
Mills, 2016: 315). There is positive and
sufficient correlation between English
lecturers’ perception about digital literacy and
REFERENCES
their research productivity in publication. This
finding is in line with (Covello, 2017: 5) Anamofa, J., & Nanuru, R. (2019). Factors
(Carleton & Parkerson, 2016:3) and (Yazon & Influencing Research Productivity of
Ang-Manaig, 2019: 1734) who found digital Private Higher Education Institutions
literacy becomes main key to be productive in Lecturers in Kopertis Region XII. 2.
publishing the research articles. The https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.18-7-
publication carried out by lecturers gives 2019.2288513
benefit to parties, lecturers and institution.
Ata, R., & Yıldırım, K. (2019). Exploring
Even though those researchers found strong
turkish pre-service teachers’ perceptions
correlations between digital literacy and
and views of digital literacy. Education
productivity in research, the result remains
Sciences, 9(1), 1–16.
positive. But in this research, the magnitude is
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9010040
still sufficient which means not strong nor
weak. English lecturers still need to improve BAN PT. (2019). Matrik Penilaian Laporan
their research outcome namely publication in Evaluasi Diri dan Laporan Kinerja
term of quantity and quality as what is Program Studi. In BAN PT.
suggested by (Okiki Olaatokunbo Christoper,
2017). Furthermore, the English lecturers still Bawden D. (2008). Origins and concepts of
need to improve their literacy in digital digital literacy. In Digital Literacies:
information and technology if they have lower Concepts, Policies and Practices.
publication rates which is persistently carried
out through learning autodidact, by peers, or Bhukuvhani, C., Chiparausha, B., &
joining ICT training or workshop (Okiki Zuvalinyenga, D. (2017). Effects of
Olaatokunbo Christoper, 2017:1) and electronic information resources skills
(Bhukuvhani, Chiparausha, & Zuvalinyenga training for lecturers on pedagogical
2017: 16). practices and research productivity.
International Journal of Education and
CONCLUSION Development Using Information and
From the finding can be concluded that there is Communication Technology, 8(1), 16–28.
positive correlation between English lecturers’
Carleton, R. N., & Parkerson, H. A. (2016).
digital literacy and their productivity in
Assessing the publication productivity of
publication. The strength of the relation is
clinical psychology professors in
sufficient. It means that the more digitally
Canadian psychological association-
literate someone in ICT is, the more productive
accredited Canadian psychology
she is in publication. It also implies that the
departments. Canadian Psychology,
sufficient is not strong nor weak indicating
53(3), 226–237.
there are other factors which influence the
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027731
publication like personal factor, time
management, willingness to share knowledge Covello, S. (2017). A review of digital literacy
and get benefit or lack of research cost. assessment instruments. In A review of
Institution factor also affects the lecturers’ Digital Literacy Assessment Intruments.
productivity like insufficient facilities in Retrieved from
library.
8
http://www.apescience.com/id/wp- Teaching Unit. International Journal of
content/uploads/DigitalLiteracyAssessme Education and Literacy Studies, 6(3), 53.
ntInstruments_Final.pdf https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.6n.3p.
53
Dedebali, N. C. (2020). Analysis of Digital
Literacy and Metaphoric Perceptions of Liu, Z. (2020). Digital Literacy and Digital
Teacher Candidate. International Journal Didactics as the Basis for New Learning
of Educational Methodology, 6(1), 135– Models Development. IjET, 15(14), 4–
145. 18.
https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.6.1.135
Liza, K., & Andriyanti, E. (2020). Digital
Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E. (2016). Educational literacy scale of English pre-service
Research: Competencies for Analysis and teachers and their perceived readiness
Applications (11th ed.). Pearson. toward the application of digital
technologies. Journal of Education and
Jeffrey, L., & Kelly, O. (2017). Developing Learning (EduLearn), 14(1), 74–79.
digital information literacy in higher https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v14i1.1
education: Obstacles and supports. 3925
Journal of Information Technology
Education:Research, 10(1), 383–413. Okiki Olaatokunbo Christoper, M. I. (2017).
https://doi.org/10.28945/1532 Impact of Information Literacy Skills on
Academic Staff Research Productivity in
Khathayut, P., & Walker-Gleaves, C. (2021). Nigerian Federal Universities Impact of
Academic faculty conceptualisation and Information Literacy Skills on Academic
understanding of plagiarism–a Thai Staff Research Productivity in Nigerian
university exploratory study. Journal of Federal Universities. Information and
Further and Higher Education, 45(4), Knowledge Management, 3(January
558–572. 2013), 9–18.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2020.1
795093 Peled, Y. (2021). Pre-service teacher’s self-
perception of digital literacy: The case of
Lankshear, Colin Knobel, M. (2008). Digital Israel. Education and Information
literacies: Concepts, policies and Technologies, 26(3), 2879–2896.
practices. In Concepts, Policies and https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-
Practices (pp. 1–20). Retrieved from 10387-x
https://books.google.com.au/books?
hl=en&lr=&id=doVQq67wWSwC&oi=f Redecker, C. (2017). European Framework for
nd&pg=PA1&dq=lankshear+and+knobel the Digital Competence of Educators.
&ots=h3T39p9C4r&sig=mXTCLtE_PE
MHteqVuNzfzrXT_Q8&redir_esc=y#v= Rusydiyah, E. F., Purwati, E., & Prabowo, A.
onepage&q=lankshear and (2020). How to use digital literacy as a
knobel&f=false learning resource for teacher candidates
in Indonesia. Cakrawala Pendidikan,
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2007). Digital 39(2), 305–318.
Literacies—Concepts, Policies and https://doi.org/10.21831/cp.v39i2.30551
Practices. In Digital Literacies:
Concepts, Policies and Practices (pp. 1– Sánchez-Cruzado, R., & Sánchez-Compaña.
14). (2021). Teacher digital literacy: The
indisputable challenge after covid-19.
Lathipatud Durriyah, T., & Zuhdi, M. (2018). Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(4), 1–29.
Digital Literacy With EFL Student https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041858
Teachers: Exploring Indonesian Student
Teachers’ Initial Perception About Shopova, T. (2017). Digital literacy of students
Integrating Digital Technologies Into a and its improvement at the university.
9
Journal on Efficiency and Responsibility National mass media 0
in Education and Science, 7(2), 26–32.
https://doi.org/10.7160/eriesj.2014.07020 International mass media 0
1
Total 11
Spante, M., & Hashemi, S. S. (2018). Digital
competence and digital literacy in higher 2 MM National journal
education research: Systematic review of
concept use. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1– Accredited National journal 1
21.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2018.1 International journal 0
519143
Reputed International journal 0
Wulan Sari, A., & Roza, V. (2021). Guttmann
scale Method for Analyze Emotional Local Seminar 0
Intelligence and Speaking Achievement
between Students’. Journal of Physics: National Seminar 0
Conference Series, 1779(1).
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742- International Seminar 4
6596/1779/1/012031
National mass media 0
Yazon, A. D., & Ang-Manaig. (2019). Digital
literacy, digital competence and research International mass media 0
productivity of educators. Universal
Journal of Educational Research, 7(8), Total 5
1734–1743.
3. AK National journal 9
https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2019.07081
2
Accredited National journal 0
Zain, S. M., & Ab-Rahman. (2017).
Motivation for research and publication: International journal 0
Experience as a researcher and an
academic. Procedia - Social and Reputed International journal 0
Behavioral Sciences, 18, 213–219.
Local Seminar 0
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.05.0
30
National Seminar 0
Table 11 Appendix of Lecturers’ Publication
International Seminar 6
N Initial Kind of Publication Amou
o nt National mass media 0
1. VR National journal 4
International mass media 0
Total 15
International journal 0
4 LL National journal 0
Local Seminar 0
National Seminar 0
10
Local Seminar 0 Accredited National journal 2
National Seminar 0 International journal 0
International Seminar 8 Reputed International journal 0
National mass media 0 Local Seminar 0
International mass media 0 National Seminar 0
Total 11 International Seminar 10
5 HPP National journal National mass media 0
Accredited National journal 3 International mass media 0
International journal 0 Total 12
Reputed International journal 0 8 GS National journal
6 MPD National journal National mass media 0
Reputed International journal 0 9 S National journal 6
7 WS National journal National mass media 0
11
10 E National journal National mass media 0
Reputed International journal 0 13 AB National journal
11 RF National journal National mass media 0
Reputed International journal 0 14 SD National journal
12 LS National journal National mass media 0
Reputed International journal 0 15 PU National journal
12
Local Seminar 0 18 LH National journal 2
National Seminar 0 Accredited National journal 4
International Seminar 8 International journal 0
National mass media 0 Reputed International journal 0
International mass media 0 Local Seminar 0
Total 12 National Seminar 0
16 IL National journal International Seminar 8
Accredited National journal 5 National mass media 0
International journal 0 International mass media 0
Reputed International journal 0 Total 14
Local Seminar 0 19 OP National journal
Total 14 National Seminar 0
17 TY National journal International Seminar 6
Accredited National journal 7 National mass media 0
International journal 0 International mass media 0
Reputed International journal 0 Total 10
Local Seminar 0 20 SE National journal
13
National Seminar 0 National mass media 0
International Seminar 8 International mass media 0
National mass media 0 Total 9
International mass media 0 23 TG National journal 2
Total 15 Accredited National journal 4
21 YU National journal International journal 0
Accredited National journal 4 Reputed International journal 0
International journal 0 Local Seminar 0
Reputed International journal 0 National Seminar 0
Local Seminar 0 International Seminar 8
International mass media 0 24 ER National journal
Local Seminar 0
National Seminar 0
22 OP National journal National mass media 0
Reputed International journal 0 25 FG National journal
14
Local Seminar 0 International Seminar 8
International mass media 0 28 MK National journal
Local Seminar 0
National Seminar 0
26 ES National journal National mass media 0
Reputed International journal 0 29 MN National journal
27 KL National journal National mass media 0
Reputed International journal 0 30 FR National journal
15
Reputed International journal 0 33 AS National journal
31 WE National journal National mass media 0
Reputed International journal 0 34 IU National journal
32 QW National journal National mass media 0
Reputed International journal 0 35 HJ National journal
16
36 VB National journal National mass media 0
Reputed International journal 0 39 ZS National journal
37 FS National journal National mass media 0
Reputed International journal 0 40 GH National journal
38 RW National journal National mass media 0
Reputed International journal 0 41 CV National journal
17
Reputed International journal 0 44 EW National journal
42 TH National journal National mass media 0
Reputed International journal 0 45 WE National journal 2
43 DF National journal National mass media 0
Reputed International journal 0 46 ZS National journal
18
National Seminar 0 International Seminar 8
19
47 VB National journal 2 National mass media 0
Reputed International journal 0 50 HG National journal
48 ZA National journal 2 National mass media 0
Reputed International journal 0 51 BN National journal
49 KH National journal National mass media 0
Reputed International journal 0 52 FT National journal
20
Reputed International journal 0 55 HT National journal
53 BF National journal National mass media 0
Local Seminar 0
National Seminar 0
International mass media 0
Total 11
54 HY National journal
Local Seminar 0
National Seminar 0
21

P W34 QZ VWga BXN P1 Q BNimz 2 P Q3 y BJ SJC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

P W34 QZ VWga BXN P1 Q BNimz 2 P Q3 y BJ SJC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ENGLISH LECTURERS’ DIGITAL LITERACY AND THEIR

SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATION: SEEKING THE CORRELATION

Abstract –The study aimed at seeking the INTRODUCTION

Moreover, there are previous researches that

N Statement Score % No Statement Score %

National Seminar 0 International journal 0

International Seminar 8 Reputed International journal 0

National mass media 0 Local Seminar 0

International mass media 0 National Seminar 0

Total 11 International Seminar 10

5 HPP National journal National mass media 0

Accredited National journal 3 International mass media 0

International journal 0 Total 12

Reputed International journal 0 8 GS National journal

Local Seminar 0 Accredited National journal 5

National Seminar 0 International journal 0

International Seminar 7 Reputed International journal 0

National mass media 0 Local Seminar 0

International mass media 0 National Seminar 0

Total 10 International Seminar 9

6 MPD National journal National mass media 0

Accredited National journal 4 International mass media 0

International journal 0 Total 14

Reputed International journal 0 9 S National journal 6

Local Seminar 0 Accredited National journal 10

National Seminar 0 International journal 0

International Seminar 8 Reputed International journal 0

National mass media 0 Local Seminar 0

International mass media 0 National Seminar 0

Total 12 International Seminar 3

7 WS National journal National mass media 0

Total 19 International Seminar 8

10 E National journal National mass media 0

Accredited National journal 2 International mass media 0

International journal 0 Total 23

Reputed International journal 0 13 AB National journal

Local Seminar 0 Accredited National journal 9

National Seminar 0 International journal 0

International Seminar 2 Reputed International journal 0

National mass media 0 Local Seminar 0

International mass media 0 National Seminar 0

Total 4 International Seminar 4

11 RF National journal National mass media 0

Accredited National journal 5 International mass media 0

International journal 0 Total 13

Reputed International journal 0 14 SD National journal

Local Seminar 0 Accredited National journal 8

National Seminar 0 International journal 0

International Seminar 12 Reputed International journal 0

National mass media 0 Local Seminar 0

International mass media 0 National Seminar 0

Total 17 International Seminar 9

12 LS National journal National mass media 0

Accredited National journal 15 International mass media 0

International journal 0 Total 17

Reputed International journal 0 15 PU National journal

Local Seminar 0 Accredited National journal 4

Reputed International journal 0

Local Seminar 0 18 LH National journal 2

National Seminar 0 Accredited National journal 4

International Seminar 8 International journal 0

National mass media 0 Reputed International journal 0