ENGLISH LECTURERS’ DIGITAL LITERACY AND THEIR SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATION: SEEKING THE CORRELATION

The research aimed at seeking the correlation between English lecturers’ digital literacy and their productivity in publishing their research articles. It applied a quantitative research by correlating the variables between the online questionnaire result of English lecturers’ digital literacy and lecturers’ scientific publication data from their Google Scholar accounts and Science and Technology Index Portal or SINTA Portal of the Republic of Indonesia. The research population was all permanent English lecturers at State Islamic Higher Education in West Sumatera. There were 65 respondents in three institutions, but only 85% of participants gave feedback on the online questionnaire. The questionnaire was about the digital literacy of English lecturers in using and finding digital information and technology. The research also accounted online journal publication of each English lecturer in his/her account. To analyze the data, the research used the Pearson correlation formula. The finding reveals a positive correlation between English lecturers’ digital literacy and their research publication, as shown by the Pearson correlational coefficient, 0,48. The score lies between 0,40-0,59, which is under sufficient category. The result implies that English lecturers’ digital literacy has something to do with publication. The more digitally literate they are, the more productive they will be, even though there are other factors that influence someone to carry out the publication.


INTRODUCTION
Nowadays, literacy is believed as one essential skill (Jeffrey et al., 2017) in competing in the modern global era where everything is handled online. The more someone has competence in using digital literacy, the more successful he/she is in any respect of digital life. When learners know and understand much about information and communication technology, they can be motivated to learn, solve school problems and tasks, and triumph in society (Shopova, 2017). For teachers or lecturers, whenever they are digitally literate, many activities can be carried out professionally related to their obligation as educators. It is called the Tri Dharma of higher education, namely education and teaching, research, and social obedience and services (Zain et al., 2017). Their achievement in those aspects is well-known as world recognition.
In the educational aspect, many researchers have investigated the concept of digital literacy. Durriyah and Zuhdi (2018) have examined student teacher perceptions about digital literacy in relation to technology integration in teaching and learning. They find several digital platforms used in teaching, namely Facebook, WhatsApp, Skype, and blogs. In line with that, Peled (2021) has found a high and positive perception of pre-service teachers about digital readiness and digital literacy in teaching.
Moreover, there are previous researches that have investigated the digital literacy concept across fields or disciplines. Ata and Yıldırım (2019) have investigated pre-service teachers' perception of digital literacy in terms of four predictors: attitude, technical, social, and cognitive. They find the high and positive perception of pre-service teachers in attitude, technical, social, and cognitive factors. In line with that, Dedebali (2020) in Rusydiyah, Purwati, andPrabowo (2020), andLiza andAndriyanti (2020) in Indonesia, has found high readiness and digital literate of the graduate student in integrating digital technologies in education. In Spain, Sánchez-Cruzado and Sánchez-Compaña (2021) have also found the readiness of teachers to be highly digital literate due to the pandemic impact.
However, there are not many kinds of research about digital literacy for the sake of research and publication. Spante and Hashemi (2018) have sought the concept of digital literacy and digital competence of higher education research from three databases of Scopus, WoS, and ERIC. They find the concept of digital literacy is more frequently used than digital competence even though both definitions are used interchangeably. Zain et al. (2017) have found high motivation and very productive Malaysian lecturers in publishing their research qualifiedly. In community services, the researcher only finds studies of the traditional concept of digital literacy for social services like being literate in reading and writing.
Based on those researches, professional educators struggle to fulfill the educational and teaching domain, research, and community services. As long as they have the desire and are supported by skill in processing digital information and technology, doing Tri Dharma becomes an exciting activity. In fact, among these three obligations, research productivity is left behind (Carleton, Parkerson, & Horswill, 2012), and they are busy with teaching and administration affairs. Doing research and publication is media that can be used by educators to promote learning and seek the new model that is from knowledge transfer to knowledge construct (Yazon et al., 2019). However, for some cases, to be productive in research through publication and citation is still difficult to carry out. There are individual factors like the perception of getting the benefit, lack of research cost, and institutional factor-like library facilities (Anamofa et al., 2019).
Lecturers can use their knowledge and skill in the digital world to carry out research and publish it in scientific journals. Then, they can also cite many other resources and their colleagues. They can find many references digitally and read a lot. After that, they can do research and write it. Novelty innovation of learning models can be created from the result of their researches and disseminated through that publication (Liu et al., 2020). For some lecturers, doing publication is challenging and difficult to carry out, so they are stagnant at the same level of position or academic function for a long period in one institution (Anamofa & Nanuru, 2019).
Based on the phenomena found in the field, not all English Lecturers at IAIN Bukittinggi are able to publish their scientific writing or article in the journal, even though they have English capability and are demanded to undertake research and publish the output in a scientific journal. This becomes one of the indicators of deciding someone to get allowances or not. The publication carried out by lecturers will impact not only the lecturers themselves but also the institution. The first rank campus is indicated by the highest rate of lecturers' publication in reputed and accredited journals.
In fact, many English lecturers are not able to publish their articles even though they have English competence and know digital information and technology around them. It is seen from the functional level, which is mostly at Lektor (Lecturer). Based on this, the research needs to investigate the correlation between English lecturers' digital literacy and their research publication.

METHODS
The method applied in the research is a correlational design to see the correlation between English lecturers' digital literacy based on their perceptions and their research publication. To collect data about the variables, the research uses an online questionnaire for digital literacy perceptions and numerical data for English lecturers publication in the last three years (2019-2021) from the SINTA Portal by the Ministry of higher education of Indonesia at http://sinta.ristekbrin.go.id/, and their Google scholar accounts.
The research participants are all permanent English lecturers in state Islamic Higher Education Institution in West Sumatera IAIN Bukittinggi, IAIN Batusangkar, and UIN Imam Bonjol Padang. There are 65 English lecturers in three intuitions. However, only 85% of lecturers give feedback. The questionnaire is created in Google form and shared a link to their WhatsApp group of English Lecturers and emails. It consists of 35 items on the Guttmann scale with yes and no choices in order to get a firm answer (Sari & Roza, 2021). Yes answer gets a score of 1, and No is 0. The rubric of the questionnaire is adapted from Yazon et al. (2019), who have investigated the correlation between digital literacy, digital competence, and educators' productivity in research. Table 1 shows the indicator of digital literacy. Meanwhile, the indicator of English lecturer publication based on the rubric of accreditation rubric (BAN PT, 2019) for research outcome can be seen in Table 2. To analyze data, the research uses SPSS 20 software by using the Pearson correlation. The correlation magnitude is checked by interpretation of table by Gay and Mills (2016). It can be seen in Table 3.  Table 3, the magnitude of the correlation is divided into five, namely very weak for a score ranging between 0-0,19; weak for 0,2-0,39; sufficient 0,4-0,59; strong for 0,6-0,79, and very strong for 0,8-1,00.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The questionnaire results show the English lecturers' perception of their digital literacy in five questions. They are digital literacy in finding information, digital literacy in using information, digital literacy in creating information, digital literacy in using digital resources, and digital literacy in understanding digital practices. These results of the questionnaire (yes/no answers) are beneficial to seek the correlation between digital literacy and publication. It can be seen in Table 4. Based on Table 4, five indicators are asked related to English lecturers' digital literacy. The highest mean score of digital literacy that the English lecturers positively perceived is in using information 33%, in applying digital resources is 30,67%, in creating information is 29%, in understanding digital practices is 26,5%, and in finding information is 25%. From this finding, it can be inferred that using digital information is mostly positively perceived by English lecturers. It is because the action of using is easy to carry out, and it is lower than the action of creating based on the Taxonomy (Covello, 2017). It can also be inferred that English lecturers are quite literate in digital information and technology, as mentioned in Redecker (2017) and Lankshear and Knobel (2008). They say that educators need to have digital literacy in order to be professional educators who will produce digitally literate learners and improve research productivity quality and quantity (Okiki & Iyabo, 2013). To make each indicator clearer, here is in detail each aspect in Table 5. Based on Table 5, nine items are asked about English lecturers' perception of their digital literacy in finding information. The highest score is filtering a large number of search results quickly 31%, after that in scanning/skimming a web page 29%, keeping updated with information from authoritative people 29%, and using advanced search options 29%. After that, they positively perceive that they use social networks as a source of information 27%, know what information that they can find on the web 25%, use keywords to search information online, and know when to change search strategy 22%. This means that English lecturers have some strategies in mind for getting prominent information through the social network they have, like Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp group, and others. The lowest score is in item 2 in knowing information from the online library. It is due to some reasons like the online library is not open access, so it is lower perceived by respondents. Based on Table 6, seven items are asked about using information. English lecturers positively perceive keeping a record of the relevant details of information 46%, in assessing whether an online resource is credible and trustworthy 42%. After that, they use other work without committing plagiarism 38%, share files legally with others 36%, cite a reference using correct format 34%, and use social bookmarking 20%.
The lowest score is in using the information in different media like podcasts, 18%. It can be said that English lecturers keep a good ethic when using information. They do citations and use correct references because plagiarism in academic work is a crime. Khathayut and Walker-Gleaves (2021) have mentioned that higher education staff can avoid plagiarism by keeping writing honestly through paraphrasing.   Based on Table 7, eight items are asked to the English lecturers about creating information. 36% of respondents answer yes that they use OJS for their article, add comments in the forum, and write online for the audience. Working with others online is 34%, writing in different media and knowing how to submit writing online is 27%, communicating with others online is 22%. The lowest score is that they use media capture 14%. It is because mostly they are reluctant to record or take a picture for public consumption. Based on Table 8, three items are asked to respondents related to digital resources. Respondents mostly perceive that they create their own digital resources 34%. They use different internet sites and protect their sensitive content 29%. It can be inferred that English lecturers perceive they are quite literate in creating their own digital resources and modifying them. It is proved by digital resources made by some English lecturers' shared via WhatsApp group. The English lessons created on YouTube aim to share the English content via YouTube and Facebook. This link is shared for the sake of knowledge and the likes of the netters. 33 I use online tools and websites to find and record information online.

22%
34 I establish who owns information and ideas I find online.

20%
35 I establish what online information I can legally re-use.

MEAN 14,6 26,5%
Based on Table 9, eight items are asked in the questionnaire related to understanding digital practices. The English lecturers mostly perceive that they establish what online information they can legally reuse 40%. After that, they can find a person online 36%, explain what happens to the information they put online 27%, know what categories of users they find online 25%, present themselves online 24%, use online tools to find online information 22%, and the lower score is in choosing the right tool in creating information 18%. It can be said that English lecturers' perception of their digital literacy is positive. It is in line with Lankshear and Knobe (2008), and Bawden (2008) have said that digital literacy is the ability to understand information however it is presented (spoken or written) not only to read and to write. Besides presenting the data of English lecturers, the researcher also exhibits the data of English lecturer publications that have been obtained from Google Scholar in the last three years (2019-2021). The researcher counts all publications of English lecturers in national journals, accredited national journals, international journals, reputed international journals, local seminars, national seminars, international seminars, national mass media, and international mass media, which exist in their accounts. Table 10 shows the recapitulation data of English lecturers' publication in the last three years (see Appendix for the full description). Table 10 is simplified since the researcher just needs the nominal number. Based on the appendix of English lecturers' publications, English lecturers mostly publish their articles in accredited journals and international seminars in proceedings. They rarely publish in national and international mass media seen from their Google Scholar. It is due to some reason like they get low points when publishing writing to them. It is also very challenging for English lecturers to publish in reputed international journals indicated by a few numbers of English Professors in UIN Padang, IAIN Batusangkar, and IAIN Bukittinggi.
The researcher uses the Pearson correlation formula to find the correlation between English lecturers' perception of digital literacy and their productivity in publication. It is because both variables are symmetric, and the data used are numeric. Table 11 shows the result of data analysis (output of SPSS20).
Based on Table 11, the Pearson Correlation is 0,408. The score ranges between 0,40-0,59, which is under the category of sufficient consulted to the interpretation of the table by Gay and Mills (2016). There is a positive and sufficient correlation between English lecturers' perception of digital literacy and their research productivity in publication. This finding is in line with Covello (2017), Carleton, Parkerson, andHorswill (2012), andYazon et al. (2019), who find digital literacy becomes the main key to be productive in publishing the research articles. The publication carried out by lecturers gives benefit to parties, lecturers, and institutions. Even though those researchers find strong correlations between digital literacy and productivity in research, the result remains positive. However, in the research, the magnitude is still sufficient, which means not strong nor weak. English lecturers still need to improve their research outcome, namely publication in terms of quantity and quality, as suggested by Okiki and Iyabo (2013). Furthermore, the English lecturers still need to improve their literacy in digital information and technology if they have lower publication rates, which is persistently carried out through learning autodidact, by peers or joining ICT training or workshop (Okiki & Iyabo, 2013;Bhukuvhani, Chiparausha, & Zuvalinyenga 2017).

CONCLUSIONS
From these findings, it can be concluded that there is a positive correlation between English lecturers' digital literacy and their productivity in publication. The strength of the relationship is sufficient. It means that the more digitally literate someone in ICT (Information and Communication Technology) is, the more productive he/she is in publication. It also implies that the sufficient is not strong nor weak, indicating that other factors influence the publication like personal factor, time management, willingness to share knowledge, and benefit or lack of research cost. Institution factor also affects the lecturers' productivity, like insufficient facilities in the library.
The research is still conducted in the local area, so the result cannot be generalized to all English lecturers at Islamic Higher Education in Indonesia. Moreover, it is suggested to conduct further research in relation to digital information and technology and citation and society services.