Examining academicians’ COVID-19 anxiety and digitalisation in terms of different variables
Article Category: Research Article
Online veröffentlicht: 25. Jan. 2023
Seitenbereich: 53 - 72
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/eurodl-2022-0005
Schlüsselwörter
© 2023 Gülçin Karakuş, published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Changes in all areas of life, such as management, economy, politics and technology in the globalising world, directly or indirectly affect educational organisations. Computers have made human life easier in all areas and developed opportunities in recent years. People benefit from computers in every field that is needed. With the spread of digitalisation, information technologies have become a driving force for innovation and transformation. Technological tools offered by the digital world and the power of computer technologies have affected the changing world. Digital opportunities have become the most essential element for the progress of daily operations by facilitating working life, using both software and hardware tools. Thus, the professional knowledge and skills of various occupational groups in life should be developed as a part of the transformation in this direction. One of these areas is education and also educators. An educator is a person who devotes himself to the study and problems of education and works in this field. An educator should also be good at the instructional design process and facilitate training. Today, the use of computers in education has become a necessity. Therefore, an educator should have digital skills such as finding, evaluating, using, sharing and creating content using digital devices such as computers and smartphones.
Digitalisation has also caused changes in the structure and functioning of higher education institutions. This change is closely related to academicians working at universities in both administrative and academic fields. Academician is the general professional designation given to people who teach at universities and similar higher education institutions, do research and contribute to their field with their original research. These academic studies may be in the social, natural or formal sciences.
Digitalisation has many dimensions, such as digital literacy, digital tools and digital education. Digital education includes converting text, images, video and audio into digital formats that can be transferred to the computer environment. It also has an online admission process, online exam, sharing online/web information, digital support materials (in different formats such as ppt, pdf and doc), social media groups, digital publications and so on (Ataş & Gündüz, 2019). Digital education is also defined as the teacher's or the student's participation in virtual learning environments (VLEs) via a personal computer, laptop, mp3 player or console, and improving their knowledge and skills (Özdamlı & Uzunboylu, 2015). Therefore, the educator should have the digital skills to use digital tools in digital education. One of them is digital literacy. Van Joolingen (2004) defines digital literacy as ‘the interest, attitude and ability of individuals to appropriately use digital technology and communication tools to access, manage, integrate and evaluate information, create new knowledge and communicate with others’. Moreover, educators should know and use digital tools. They are the tools that make the digital learning process easier for both teachers and students. These tools attract students and reduce teachers’ concerns about digital education. Digital tools can both include hardware and software. By using many digital tools such as smart-boards, LCD screens and videos, teachers can deliver information to very distant locations (Peachey, 2017). Literary reviews indicate that a number of digital tools can be used for effective digital education. Although numerous digital tools are in use today in social media and gamification, these tools are also listed as a must-learn tool for educators. Some of them are presented below. Kalimullina, Tarman and Stepanova (2021) suggest digital tools in their study such as the personalised integrated educational system (PIES), which aims for life-long learning. PIES has an open-source code that can increase the usage and implementation of technology for further integration in educational institutions. The next-generation digital learning environment (NGDLE) can also be used in digital education. This tool has a modular approach that can be used like Lego and includes interoperability between users, personification and automated analytics. Another digital tool can be the massive open online course (MOOC). MOOC is a state-of-the-art educational project, whose platforms can be simultaneously used as both a tool and digital environment. More than 48 million students have recently signed up on popular worldwide MOOC platforms (Coursera, edX, XeuetangX, FutureLearn and Udacity). Finally, learning management systems (LMS) are used to organise distance learning and are mostly used worldwide. Furthermore, tools such as teleconferencing, email, audio, television lessons, radio broadcasts, and interactive voice response system can be used in the digital education process (Bejinaru, 2019).
Google Classroom, Google Docs, Google Scholar, Screencast-O-Matic, QuickTime Player and YouTube are the most used digital tools. Using Google Classroom, an educator can create courses, invite students to join courses, add content and communicate with students. With Google Docs., educators can collaborate with students and provide feedback on student work. Google Scholar is also an excellent way to find the necessary sources for education. To record videos, educators could use Screencast-O-Matic or QuickTime Player. YouTube provides students and educators with an opportunity to learn from videos by pausing, playing and replaying. For assessment, digital applications such as Socrative, Google Forms, COPPA/FERPA, Mentimeter, Poll Everywhere and Kahoot can be used by educators (Mucundanyi & Woodley, 2021).
Moreover, Mendeley, iTunes, Hopcscotch, Duolingo, Photomath, Khan Academy and My Study Life can also be listed as some popular digital tools. Mendeley helps to organise research and collaborate with other researchers in the same field, and iTunes U gives educators everything they need to bring their students together on iPad. In the Hopcscotch application, writing with a very simple drag and drop interface, one must place the blocks, enter the motion and loop data and create animations. Duolingo is a language application. This application is claimed to teach languages in 34 h, twice as fast as any university language course. With PhotoMath, students can find solutions to questions by taking pictures of mathematical expressions. Coursera, on the other hand, is a social entrepreneurship organisation founded by Stanford University providing MOOCs on various fields and subjects, or free online education that anyone can enjoy. Khan Academy provides a personalised learning experience with course videos and interactive exercises where learners can learn at their own pace, inside and outside the classroom. My Study Life is a planner for students, teachers and lecturers with Google Chrome Internet browsers designed to make learning easier (Parlak, 2017). As mentioned above, there are many digital tools useful for digital education. However, owing to a few reasons, all of them are not used by educators. These reasons can be not knowing the details about these applications, inadequate infrastructure, time constraints or problems with Internet connection. Computers, the Internet, smartphone, scanner, digital camera, projectors and printers can also be listed as digital tools. Apart from this hardware, this study focuses on software as digital applications.
In today's world, where everything is changing rapidly depending on technology, academicians should also have digital skills as educators in higher educational intuitions (Ersöz & Özmen, 2020). They should know Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), digital tools and technological applications, gain proficiency, and use these tools and opportunities in their courses. For academicians, there are many advantages in using digital materials in education. Education in the virtual environment continues regardless of time and place, transforming into a simple and understandable structure and providing students with richer content in terms of resources and materials, which increases interaction between the student–student and the student–educator (Hamutoğlu et al., 2019). All these are important contributions of digitalisation to the educational environment. However, to see the positive effects of these contributions, digital skills must be internalised, and academicians must be at a sufficient level. Unfortunately, the sudden transition from the actual classroom environment to the virtual classroom environment with the COVID-19 pandemic, which has immensely impacted the world, requires the adequacy of the digital skills of academics to be questioned. The fact that academicians, who already have many responsibilities, are suddenly exposed to rapid change has brought their digital competencies to the agenda.
Academicians complain of academic stress and work overload. Increasing workload, time limit, resource shortage, and overwork increase their stress and decrease their motivation (Winter, Taylor & Sarros, 2000), creating anxiety for them. When COVID-19, which has been effective in all areas of the world in recent years, is added to this anxiety, difficulties that academicians may experience should be taken into consideration. Fear and anxiety caused by the pandemic have led academicians, like many educators, to adapt to the digital environment. Unfortunately, technology sometimes also affects the stress level of academicians (Jena & Mahanti, 2018). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the sudden shift to online education has revealed the necessity of examining academicians’ digital skills and COVID-19 anxiety. Therefore, this study has two focus points: academicians’ digitalisation and their COVID-19 anxiety.
The COVID-19 outbreak, which started to spread worldwide in the first days of 2020, affected human life in many ways. Although some measures are taken to reduce interpersonal contact and social communication to prevent the spread of the pandemic, it will continue to have its effects in the long term. More health problems may be experienced during the pandemic, including the anxiety of not being able to access medical supplies such as a sufficient number of masks and disinfectants, sad and sensational news headlines in the media, and many publications that have not been proven to be true cause an increase in anxiety and fear among individuals (Ayittey et al., 2020).
As in all workplaces, education and instruction activities were suspended in many countries to reduce personnel density, stop the spread of the pandemic and control the illness (Huang & Rong, 2020). Most educational institutions worldwide were closed to end the social interaction between students and reduce the pandemic spread. Although the closure of schools did not positively affect the spread of the pandemic, social distance is effective in preventing its spread. However, social isolation also causes many psychological problems, especially anxiety (Viner et al., 2020). Some stress factors that occurred during the pandemic and negatively affected individuals can be listed as indefinite extension of quarantine periods, anxiety about decreasing income, economic stress, loss of productivity, problems in eating habits, effects on daily life and academic procrastination (Cao et al., 2020).
The consequences have been inevitable, such as stopping educational activities, adopting online education practices and experiencing transportation problems for students in exchange programmes (Gonzalez et al., 2020). With all these negativities, some precautions can be, for example, to minimise the effects of the pandemic, universities can update their previous rules in line with pandemic conditions, offer strategies to students and education personnel to combat pandemic and stress, organise online counselling activities and conferences, and support mental health protection.
As in the past, changes in the educational structure, innovations in curriculum, cooperation practices, and a more detailed and rigorous structuring are among the expected changes in the future (Chick et al., 2020). Negativities seen with the pandemic and problems experienced have required us to turn to different solutions, and more pronounced effects of technological developments have emerged in educational environments. As a result, classrooms have been transferred to digital environments over time, which has ensured the continuation of communication and interaction for teaching purposes (Galusha, 1998).
One of the crucial changes in education under the pandemic effect is online education practices that are becoming widespread daily. Nowadays, where technological developments are accelerating, online education is used more and more widely. By removing space limitations in education and instruction activities, online education enabled education to be restructured, depending on access to information quickly (Akça, 2006). Online education is crucial, as it is an application that supports education in every aspect, as a functional system for teachers and students, and nowadays, it should be given more attention for better education (Birişçi, 2013). Online education, which attracts more attention as a result of the effect of the pandemic on education, brings to light the concept of digitalisation and the questioning of the digitalisation skills of academics.
Before the COVID-19 pandemic in Turkey, limited digital tools were used in digital education environments. After the pandemic spread, this situation became a necessity, and the traditional education environment was suddenly transferred to the digital education environment. However, the fact that all educators do not have sufficient knowledge and skills in the digital education environment has caused some problems. Although these problems were mostly solved with accessible applications and the individual efforts of educators, the anxiety created by this transition affected the psychological structures of educators in the digital environment (Akyıldız & Durna, 2021).
In Turkey as of March 2020, academicians continued to provide education in the digital education environment for 10 months during the pandemic. Course documents were delivered to students via online systems, mainly by Zoom, Teams and Adobe. In September 2020, most universities switched to synchronous education. LMS is used in the digital education process in universities in Turkey. In addition, all universities carried out digital education under a Distance Education Centre (DEC). The most widely used distance education tools within the scope of DECs are the Diversified Teaching and Content Management Systems such as Moodle, ALMS, Blackboard and Greenbox. E-learning contents and video-supported courses are also frequently used by educators in Turkey (Ataş & Gündüz, 2019).
This study has two aspects. One of them is digitalisation. The term digitalisation can be confused with the term digitisation. The concept of digitalisation is known as the digitisation of information, the process of digitising the obtained data and making it available on various platforms. Karakaş, Rukancı and Anameriç (2009) define digitisation as converting analogue processes into a digitised format by storing them in a computer environment. In another definition, Bloomberg (2018) defines digitisation as ‘digitization essentially refers to taking analog information and coding it into zeros and ones so that computers can store, process and transmit that information’. However, he adds that there is no clear definition for digitalisation. Similarly, Kuusisto (2017) refers digitalisation as a vague term to describe many different things depending on the context. Bejtkovský, Rózsa and Mulyaningsih (2018), on the other hand, define digitalisation as the noticeable progress of digital technologies, while Hagberg, Sundstrom and Egels-Zandén (2016) underline that digitalisation is one of the most significant ongoing transformations of contemporary society.
Selwyn (2011) states that digitalisation of education is ‘hype, hope, and disappointment’. Mahova et al. (2018) focus on the importance of digitalisation of education in the perspective of students and add that students are also aware of the importance of digitalisation. Chekanov and Neizvestny (2019) claim that for digital education systems to be successful, educators and academicians must also have sufficient digital skills.
The above-mentioned digital competencies vary depending on various reasons. When the literature is examined, it is stated there may be a difference in the use of technology depending on gender. For example, while Bem (1981) predicts a difference in the use of technology by individuals depending on the roles that society imposes on them, He and Freeman (2010) state that this difference may be due to the masculine image of men. On the other hand, Bem and Allen (1974) state that male and female brains work with different codes, which may be the reason for this difference. In studies with academicians and technology usage, there are some exciting results. While Jocelyn (2016) states that female academics are neutral towards technology, Sharma and Khurape (2020) state that they were neutral before COVID-19, but their interest in technology decreased after COVID-19. For all these reasons, it is clear that it is crucial to examine the relationship between gender and technology use (Bray, 2007).
The literary review indicated that research focuses on academicians’ computer and technology usage concerns (Oye, Lahad & Rahim, 2012; Jena & Mahanti, 2014) and their use of social media (Arda, 2012; Biçer, 2014; Temel & Önürmen, 2017; Gülmez, Engin & Özekenci, 2019). Some other studies emphasise academicians’ electronic journal usage (Besimoğlu, 2007; Günaydin & Dogan, 2015) and information and communication technologies narratives (Yarımçam, 2017). Similarly, some studies also focus on academicians’ Internet usage at home (Munusamy & Ismail, 2009), their teaching activities in a virtual environment (Caron, 2013) and their views on digital transformation (Balyer & Öz, 2018). To sum up, the literary review indicates that academicians need some digital skills for practical digital education.
The second focus of this study is anxiety caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Although many agree that anxiety affects people's lives too much, there are differences of opinion in the definition of anxiety. If a description needs to be made, anxiety can be defined as emotional unhappiness (Sarason, Sarason & Pierce, 1990). Spielberg (1972) makes a more detailed explanation. He defines anxiety as follows: anxiety is the activation of the autonomic nervous system due to anxiety and tension and the formation of unhappy emotional states.
Similarly, Gale and Oakley-Browne (2000) define anxiety as worry and tension: increased tension can progress to fatigue, tremors, restlessness, muscle tension, shortness of breath, rapid heart rate, dry mouth, cold hands and dizziness. Tuma and Masser (2019) focus on the effect of anxiety apart from these definitions. Anxiety has a profound impact on human psychology. While an average level of anxiety is a motivating factor for human psychology, excessive anxiety can be dangerous. In some cases, it may even cause a permanent anxiety disorder in individuals.
Additionally, Akiskal (1998) defines anxiety as a tendency to feel uncontrollable worry about the well-being of one's own and loved ones. In this case, tension, irritability, restless sleep and gastrointestinal distress may occur. Al-Rabiaah et al. (2020) claim that in an educational environment, it is significant to determine the status of each individual whose anxiety level has increased due to COVID-19, and to provide timely and appropriate psychological support for treatment. Huang and Rong (2020) also add that post-traumatic depression, such as stress, anxiety and fear, are predicted to cause psychological disturbances for many people, and the psychological problems caused by the pandemic can cause more effects than health problems caused by the pandemic. Yavuzer, Karataş and Gündoğdu (2012) underline that anxiety arises when a person views themselves as an inadequate, depending on a situation perceived as a threat, and this can lead to both physical and emotional negativities. Many people experience this situation, and it is also seen among academicians. This condition can last for a lifetime. It is vital to examine academicians’ COVID-19 anxiety (Akyildiz & Durna, 2021; Toh, Ng & Phoon, 2022), whose profound effects on human psychology are expressed in the literature above. For academicians, anxiety can also cause academic procrastination and negativities (Gülay, 2019), or an academician can have limited digital skills for online education, and this lack of skill may result in anxiety. In this context, academicians need to control their concerns in order to increase teaching efficiency and quality (Akçay et al., 2018).
Literary reviews indicate that academicians may have anxiety in different fields. Some studies underline COVID-19 and academicians’ anxiety. Başarır and Sarı (2015) state that female academicians are more anxious. Karakuzu, Canli and Canli (2020) state that these concerns of female academics have increased due to the COVID-19 pandemic process. On the other hand, Murray and Moore (2006) state that academicians are affected by social events, while Sharma and Khurape (2020) state that both female and male academicians have shown increased post-COVID-19 anxiety levels. Some other studies also focus on academicians’ social and academic problems. Mercan, Oyur, Alamur, Gül and Bengül (2012) and Şişman and Turan (2004) claim that they may even have social phobias and social issues. Hayslip, Beyerlein and Nichols (1997), Canöz and Nichols (1997) and Canöz and Baş (2020) searched their retirement concerns; Belkıs (2016) focused on their family and social life concerns. Differently, Boice and Jones (1984), Gülay (2019), Lowenthal and Wason (1981) and Tucker (1997) indicate their concerns about writing, Keinan and Perlberg (1987) underline their stress levels and anxiety and sleep disorder (Akçay et al., 2018) and finally Yavuzer et al. (2012) point out their job satisfaction and anxiety levels. All these studies discuss the effects of anxiety and concern on their educational and social lives; as mentioned above, one of these anxieties is COVID-19 anxiety, which can affect their entire life. However, studies in the literature do not include a study that examines the relationship between academicians’ COVID-19 anxiety and digitalisation. In this context, it is thought that this study is important and will contribute to the literature.
Moreover, it can also be inferred from the above studies that technology usage and COVID-19 anxiety can be investigated as a gender variable. Therefore, in this study, gender is examined both with technology usage and COVID-19 anxiety. Moreover, field, experience and status variables were also examined. Considering the field variable, the fact that some fields are more technology-based while others are more distant from technology may affect the academicians’ anxiety and the use of technology during COVID-19. While more technological applications are dominant in science, this effect is not much in social fields (Inaltekin, 2020). The impact of COVID-19 can differ depending on academicians’ departments (Ali, Kundra, Alam & Alam, 2021). For example, the social sciences has been more affected by the COVID-19 epidemic than other fields (Liu, Liu & Zhong, 2020).
Moreover, the experience variable can be taken into account. Depending on the experience, the anxiety that the COVID-19 pandemic can create needs to be examined, because more experienced academics may be calmer in such social problems, while younger academics may be more anxious (Santamaría, Mondragon, Santxo & Ozamiz-Etxebarria, 2021). It is also essential to determine how much academicians have followed technological developments over the years and how much they have developed their skills (Flavell, Harris, Price, Logan & Peterson, 2019). In the status variable, as academicians’ careers progress, their anxiety and technology skills may change. While an academic may be more anxious at the beginning of their career, an academic who has advanced in their career may be calmer and more controlled. Their academic roles can influence their COVID-19 stress levels (Robinson et al., 2022). In terms of technology use, while young people may follow the rapidly changing technology more closely, they may be more willing for technology (Oye et al., 2013). However, an academic approaching the end of his career may follow technological developments from behind (Haliso, 2011).
In higher education, academics who manage and direct the education process must provide a certain standard and quality education. It should be a national priority to have a first-class higher education under global standards in the international platform (Yokuş, Ayçiçek & Kanadlı, 2018). Determining how COVID-19 affects academicians, how this effect is related to their digitalisation and what measures can be taken, will contribute to solving the problems experienced due to the pandemic in higher education and conducting online education more effectively. A negative experience of academicians due to the pandemic can affect both their efforts and the quality of online education. The fact that the fear and anxiety experienced affects the psychology of academicians as individuals may cause them to despair. However, their concerns about the digital environment can limit them. A more reluctant and aimless education process than face-to-face education will also negatively affect students.
The research problems of this study were determined as follows:
Is there a significant difference in the digitalisation of academicians and their COVID-19 anxiety regarding gender variables? Is there a significant difference in the digitalisation of academicians and their COVID-19 anxiety regarding field variables? Is there a significant difference in the digitalisation of academicians and their COVID-19 anxiety regarding experience variables? Is there a significant difference in the digitalisation of academicians and their COVID-19 anxiety regarding status variables? Is there a significant relationship between digitalisation of academicians and COVID-19 anxiety?
A survey model was used in this study. Using this, the researcher can generalise data obtained from a sample to a larger population, and it is possible to collect more data than other research models (Aday, 1996). In this model, the researcher aims to collect information with valid and reliable data collection tools for behaviours, thoughts or preferences of participants in the sample (Ponto, 2015). The researcher in this study aims to collect data using two collection tools for COVID-19 anxiety and digitalisation of academicians.
The study was carried out with 103 academicians working in different fields. A convenience sampling technique was used in this study. Academicians from various universities in Turkey participated in the study; 26 participants work in the Central Anatolian Region, 24 in the Aegean Region, 18 in the Black Sea Region, 15 in the Marmara Region and 20 in the Southeastern Anatolia Region. A prerequisite for participation in the study was that the participants should have been involved in online education for at least 8 weeks during the COVID-19 pandemic. The descriptive characteristics of academicians participating in the study are given in Table 1.
Descriptive characteristics of academicians participating in this study
| Gender | ||
| Female | 52 | 50 |
| Male | 51 | 49 |
| Field | ||
| Social Sciences | 57 | 55 |
| Science | 46 | 45 |
| Experience (years) | ||
| 0–5 | 4 | 4 |
| 6–10 | 15 | 15 |
| 11–15 | 24 | 23 |
| ≥16 | 60 | 58 |
| Status | ||
| Professor | 25 | 24 |
| Associate Professor | 31 | 30 |
| Research Associate | 38 | 36 |
| Research Assistant | 9 | 8 |
Table 1 shows that the gender distribution of academicians participating in the study was close, as male and female, and academicians were mainly from the social sciences. Most academicians had worked for ≥16 years, and most were research associates.
The research data were collected using two different scales. COVID-19 Anxiety Scale, the reliability and validity of which was determined by Ladikli et al. (2020) to determine academicians’ COVID-19 anxiety while participating in the study. The scale was first developed by Lee (2020). COVID-19 Anxiety Scale was first developed by Ahorsu et al. (2020). Scale items were created in line with a comprehensive review of existing scales on anxiety, expert evaluations and participant interviews. The scale has a single-factor structure and consists of seven items of five-point Likert type (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). There are no reverse items, internal consistency was 0.82 and test–retest reliability was 0.72. High score obtained from the scale indicates that COVID-19 anxiety is also high.
As a result of a comprehensive review of the existing scales on fear of COVID-19, it was decided that the scale used in this study was more appropriate. The scale has a single-factor structure consisting of seven five-point Likert items. There is no reversed item in the scale. The internal consistency of the scale was 0.82 and the test–retest reliability was 0.72. A high score on the scale indicates an increased anxiety of COVID-19. It was also taken into account that the scale items were simple, understandable and clear. Some items of the scale are as follows:
“My hands sweat when I think of COVID-19.” “I am afraid of losing my life because of COVID-19.” “I get nervous or anxious when I watch news about COVID-19.” “I can’t sleep because I’m worried about catching COVID-19.” “When I think I have COVID-19, I think my heart beats faster.” “Academicians Digitalization Scale” developed by Koç (2018) was used to determine academicians’ digitalisation. The scale consists of 15 items and three dimensions. The reliability analysis showed that Cronbach's α regarding technology usage in the education dimension was 0.836, technology usage in professional development was 0.709, and technology usage in social life was 0.700. The total internal consistency was calculated as 0.801.
Academicians Digitalisation Scale was chosen as it considers how academics use digital technologies in an educational setting. Some items of the scale are as follows:
“I use digital technology to create my educational materials.” “The use of digital technologies facilitates access to information.” “Using Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in learning environments helps students learn better.” “I think that Information and Communication Technologies make learning more interesting.” “Using Information and Communication Technologies in learning environments is more motivating.” “I collaborate with my colleagues on the Internet (writing articles, preparing papers, conferences, etc.).” “More Information-Communication Technologies should be used in education processes.”
Data of the study were collected online in the fall semester of 2020–2021. Before data collection, the personal information of participants was obtained, and information was given about scales in an online meeting for 10 min. Before collecting data while determining the sample of this study, the university admission exam scores were taken into account. This study was conducted in universities where admission scores were close to each other, the number of faculties was similar and the student capacity was close to each other. Academicians working at universities with a nearly equal number of students and having similar academic achievements were preferred. Full consent was obtained from the participants. The protection of the privacy of research participants and confidentiality were ensured. All types of communication was done with honesty and transparency. Scales filled by participants were checked, and missing and incorrect ones were excluded from the study. Data obtained were analysed with a statistical analysis program. First, the Shapiro–Wilks test was used to determine whether data showed a normal distribution (Table 2).
COVID-19 Anxiety Scale and Academicians’ Digitalisation Scale normality test results
| COVID-19 Anxiety Scale | Gender* | Female—0.052 |
| Male—0.129 | ||
| Field* | Social Science—0.191 | |
| Science—0.173 | ||
| Status* | Professor—0.282 | |
| Associate Professor—0.241 | ||
| Research Associate—0.443 | ||
| Research Assistant—0.055 | ||
| Experience (years) | 0–5—0.024 | |
| 6–10—0.034 | ||
| 11–15—0.045 | ||
| ≥16—0.484 | ||
| Technology Usage in Education | Gender | Female—0.000 |
| Male—0.000 | ||
| Field | Social Science—0.000 | |
| Science—0.000 | ||
| Status | Professor—0.000 | |
| Associate Professor—0.012 | ||
| Research Associate—0.000 | ||
| Research Assistant—0.107 | ||
| Experience (years) | 0–5—0.024 | |
| 6–10—0.001 | ||
| 11–15—0.003 | ||
| ≥16—0.000 | ||
| Technology and Professional Development | Gender | Female—0.029 |
| Male—0.016 | ||
| Field | Social Science—0.000 | |
| Science—0.219 | ||
| Status* | Professor—0.381 | |
| Associate Professor—0.051 | ||
| Research Associate—0.054 | ||
| Research Assistant—0.074 | ||
| Experience (years) | 0–5—0.024 | |
| 6–10—0.109 | ||
| 11–15—0.046 | ||
| ≥16—0.001 | ||
| Technology Usage in Social Life | Gender | Female—0.089 |
| Male—0.012 | ||
| Field* | Social Science—0.079 | |
| Science—0.148 | ||
| Status* | Professor—0.097 | |
| Associate Professor—0.303 | ||
| Research Associate—0.257 | ||
| Research Assistant—0.122 | ||
| Experience (years) | 0–5—0.024 | |
| 6–10—0.233 | ||
| 11–15—0.001 | ||
| ≥16—0.012 | ||
| Academicians’ Digitalisation Scale | Gender | Female—0.000 |
| Male—0.001 | ||
| Field | Social Science—0.000 | |
| Science—0.036 | ||
| Professor—0.004 | ||
| Status | Associate Professor—0.484 | |
| Research Associate—0.005 | ||
| Research Assistant—0.004 | ||
| Experience (years) | 0–5—0.024 | |
| 6–10—0.015 | ||
| 11–15—0.009 | ||
| ≥16—0.001 | ||
Table 2 shows that data obtained from the COVID-19 Anxiety Scale were normally distributed according to gender, field and status variable, but data related to experience variable were not normally distributed. Moreover, data on Technology Usage in the Education Sub-Dimension (Academicians Digitalisation Scale) were not normally distributed in all variables. In Technology Usage and Professional Development and Technology Usage in Social Life sub-dimensions, data were normally distributed only in the status variables. In other variables data were not normally distributed. In the total score of scale, data were not normally distributed. In this context, parametric tests were used in cases where data were normally distributed, and non-parametric tests were used in cases where data were not normally distributed.
In this section, findings were presented according to the sub-problems of research:
1. Is there a significant difference in the digitalisation of academicians and their COVID-19 anxiety regarding gender variables?
Results of Mann–Whitney
Mann–Whitney
| Technology Usage in Education | Female | 52 | 47.72 | 2,481.50 | 1,103,500 | 0.135 |
| Male | 51 | 56.36 | 2,874.50 | |||
| Technology usage and professional development | Female | 52 | 60.13 | 3,126.50 | 903,500 | 0.005 |
| Male | 51 | 43.72 | 2,229.50 | |||
| Technology Usage in Social Life | Female | 52 | 52.81 | 2,746.00 | 1,284,000 | 0.780 |
| Male | 51 | 51.18 | 2,610.00 | |||
| Total | Female | 52 | 55.39 | 2,880.50 | 1,149,500 | 0.244 |
| Male | 51 | 48.54 | 2,475.50 |
Table 3 shows that there was a significant difference in favour of female academicians in Technology Usage and Professional Development Sub-Dimension of Academicians’ Digitisation Scale regarding gender variable. However, there was no significant difference in other dimensions. This finding in the study may indicate that male dominance has decreased, women have now improved themselves in the field of technology, and equality between men and women has begun to be achieved in the social field.
The results of independent sample
Independent sample
| Female | 52 | 17.94 | 4.94 | 101 | 2.941 | 0.004* |
| Male | 51 | 15.19 | 4.52 |
Table 4 shows that there was a significant difference in favour of female academicians in academicians’ COVID-19 anxiety regarding gender variable. The reason for this difference may be that women have to do many things simultaneously, with much more responsibility in the home environment and the pandemic. However, it is clear that the anxiety levels of female academicians, whose work life, home and family life are already busy, increased.
2. Is there a significant difference in the digitalisation of academicians and their COVID-19 anxiety regarding field variables?
The results of independent sample t-test analysis conducted to determine whether there was a significant difference in Technology Usage in Social Life Sub-Dimension (Academicians’ Digitalisation Scale) regarding field variable are presented in Table 5.
Independent sample
| Social Sciences | 57 | 13.9123 | 3.08 | 101 | 1.017 | 0.311 |
| Science | 46 | 14.500 | 2.68 |
Table 5 shows that there was no significant difference regarding field variable in Technology Usage in Social Life Sub-Dimension scores of Academicians’ Digitisation Scale. Today, academicians have to adapt themselves to this change in all fields where technology is dominant. In this context, the fact that there is no difference according to the fields may result from the necessity to follow technological developments.
Results of Man–Whitney
Mann–Whitney
| Technology Usage in Education | Social Sciences | 57 | 48.39 | 2,758.00 | 1,070,500 | 0.164 |
| Science | 46 | 56.48 | 2,598.00 | |||
| Technology Usage and Professional Development | Social Sciences | 57 | 47.78 | 2,723.50 | 1,105,000 | 0.109 |
| Science | 46 | 57.23 | 2,632.50 | |||
| Total | Social Sciences | 57 | 46.77 | 2,666.00 | 1,013,000 | 0.048 |
| Science | 46 | 58.48 | 2,690.00 |
Table 6 shows a significant difference in favour of Science only in the total scores of Academicians’ Digitalisation Scale regarding the field variable. No significant difference is seen in Technology Usage in Education and Technology Usage and Professional Development sub-dimensions. Although there is no difference between sub-dimensions according to the field above, the close connection of the science course with technological applications, in general, may cause a significant difference in the total scores.
The results of the independent sample t-test to determine whether there was a significant difference in Academicians COVID-19 Anxiety regarding field variable are presented in Table 7.
Independent sample
| Social Sciences | 57 | 17.28 | 4.44 | 101 | 1.618 | 0.109* |
| Science | 46 | 15.71 | 5.36 |
Table 7 shows no significant difference in academicians’ COVID-19 anxiety regarding field variables. The reason that there is no difference according to the field variable may be that the anxiety is an individual situation, and personal characteristics are more effective in the anxiety of the individual regardless of the field of study.
3. Is there a significant difference in the digitalisation of academicians and their COVID-19 anxiety regarding experience variable?
The results of Kruskal–Wallis Test analysis conducted to determine whether there was a significant difference in all sub-dimensions and total scores of Academicians Digitalisation Scale regarding experience variable are presented in Table 8.
Kruskal–Wallis test results of Academicians Digitalisation Scale regarding experience variable
| Technology Usage in Education | 0–5 | 4 | 49.00 | 3 | 1,439 | 0.696 | |
| 6–10 | 15 | 43.90 | |||||
| 11–15 | 24 | 54.04 | |||||
| ≥16 | 60 | 53.41 | |||||
| Technology Usage and Professional Development | 0–5 | 4 | 85.75 | 3 | 12,293 | 0.006 | 1 > 4 |
| 6–10 | 15 | 54.40 | |||||
| 11–15 | 24 | 63.17 | |||||
| ≥16 | 60 | 44.68 | |||||
| Technology Usage in Social Life | 0–5 | 4 | 56.00 | 3 | 1,147 | 0.766 | |
| 6–10 | 15 | 57.03 | |||||
| 11–15 | 24 | 47.19 | |||||
| ≥16 | 60 | 52.40 | |||||
| Total | 0–5 | 4 | 67.75 | 3 | 2,852 | 0.415 | |
| 6–10 | 15 | 52.70 | |||||
| 11–15 | 24 | 57.75 | |||||
| ≥16 | 60 | 48.48 |
Table 8 shows no significant difference in Technology Usage in Social Life and Technology Usage in Education sub-dimensions and scale total scores in Academicians’ Digitalisation Scale regarding experience variable. However, there was a significant difference regarding experience variable in Technology Usage and Professional Development scores. Considering that most academicians use technology in social life, it can be perceived as an expected situation that there is no difference in this context.
The results of Kruskal–Wallis Test analysis to determine whether there was a significant difference in Academicians’ COVID-19 Anxiety regarding experience variable are presented in Table 9.
Kruskal–Wallis test analysis results of Academicians’ COVID-19 Anxiety Scale regarding experience variable
| COVID-19 Anxiety Scale | 0–5 | 4 | 72.50 | 3 | 12.53 | 0.006 |
| 6–10 | 15 | 73.13 | ||||
| 11–15 | 24 | 52.31 | ||||
| ≥16 | 60 | 45.23 |
Table 9 shows that there was a significant difference in academicians’ COVID-19 anxiety regarding experience variable. As a result of Mann–Whitney
4. Is there a significant difference in the digitalisation of academicians and their COVID-19 anxiety regarding status variable?
The results of one-way ANOVA test analysis conducted to determine whether there was a significant difference in scores of Technology Usage and Professional Development and Technology Usage in Social Life Sub-Dimension (Academicians’ Digitalisation Scale) regarding status variable are presented in Table 10.
One-way ANOVA test results of Technology Usage and Professional Development and Technology Usage in Social Life Sub-Dimension (Academicians’ Digitalisation Scale) regarding status variable
| Technology Usage and Professional Development | Professor | 25 | 14.7600 | 3.17910 | 3 | 0.641 | |
| Assistant Professor | 31 | 13.9355 | 2.98815 | ||||
| Research Associate | 38 | 13.8684 | 2.97894 | ||||
| Research Assistant | 9 | 14.6667 | 1.22474 | ||||
| Technology Usage in Social Life | Professor | 25 | 15.8000 | 3.06866 | 3 | 0.024 | 3 > 2 |
| Assistant Professor | 31 | 14.0968 | 3.24915 | ||||
| Research Associate | 38 | 16.3947 | 4.08385 | ||||
| Research Assistant | 9 | 17.4444 | 3.64387 |
Table 10 shows no significant difference in the Technology Usage and Professional Development sub-dimension scores of Academicians’ Digitalisation Scale regarding status variable. However, in Technology Usage in Social Life Sub-Dimension, there was a significant difference between Research Associate and Assistant Professor, and this difference was in favour of Research Associate.
The results of Kruskal–Wallis test analysis conducted to determine whether there was a significant difference in Technology Usage in Education sub-dimension (Academicians’ Digitisation Scale) scores regarding status variable are presented in Table 11.
Kruskal–Wallis test results of Technology Usage in Education Sub-Dimension (Academicians’ Digitalisation Scale) regarding status variable
| Technology Usage in Education | Professor | 25 | 48.42 | 3 | 1,138 | 0.768 |
| Assistant Professor | 31 | 50.13 | ||||
| Research Associate | 38 | 55.80 | ||||
| Research Assistant | 9 | 52.33 |
Table 11 shows no significant difference in academicians’ Using Technology in Education Sub-Dimension score regarding status variable.
The results of one-way ANOVA analysis conducted to determine whether there was a significant difference in Academicians’ COVID-19 Anxiety regarding status variable, are presented in Table 12.
One-way ANOVA test results of Academicians’ COVID-19 Anxiety Scale regarding status variable
| COVID-19 Anxiety Scale | Professor | 25 | 14.96 | 4.82 | 4.45 | 0.006 | 4 > 1 |
| Assistant Professor | 31 | 16.26 | 3.99 | 4 > 2 | |||
| Research Associate | 38 | 16.73 | 5.41 | 4 > 3 | |||
| Research Assistant | 9 | 21.55 | 2.46 |
Table 12 shows a significant difference in academicians’ COVID-19 anxiety regarding status variable.
The results of Tukey test conducted to determine the source of significant difference are presented in Table 13.
Tukey test results of Academicians’ COVID-19 Anxiety Scale regarding status variable
| Professor | 2 | −1.30 | 0.731 |
| 3 | −1.78 | 0.457 | |
| 4 | −6.60* | 0.003 | |
| Assistant Professor | 1 | 1.30 | 0.731 |
| 3 | −.48 | 0.974 | |
| 4 | −5.30* | 0.018 | |
| Research Associate | 1 | 1.78 | 0.457 |
| 2 | .48 | 0.974 | |
| 4 | −4.82* | 0.033 | |
| Research Assistant | 1 | 6.60* | 0.003 |
| 2 | 5.30* | 0.018 | |
| 3 | 4.82* | 0.033 |
Table 13 shows significant difference between Research Assistant and Professor, Research Assistant and Associate Professor and Research Assistant and Research Associate in favour of Research Assistant. In this context, it is possible to say that the experience and status variables offer similar results. However, younger and less experienced academics are likely to be more concerned about their professional development and future concerns. Both the anxiety of completing the curriculum academically and the administrative procedures may cause these concerns.
5. Is there a significant relationship between academicians’ digitalisation and COVID-19 anxiety?
The results of Spearman–Brown test analysis conducted to determine whether there was a significant relationship between academicians’ digitalisation and their COVID-19 anxiety are presented in Table 14.
Relationship between Academicians’ Digitalisation and COVID-19 Anxiety Scales
| Spearman's rho | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Academicians’ Digitalisation Scale | Correlation coefficient | 1,000 | −100 |
| Sig. (two-tailed) | 0.313 | ||
| 103 | 103 | ||
| COVID-19 Anxiety Scale | Correlation coefficient | −100 | 1,000 |
| Sig. (two-tailed) | 313 | . | |
| 103 | 103 | ||
Table 14 shows no significant relationship between academicians’ digitisation and COVID-19 anxiety. This indicates that there is no relationship between the technological skills of academicians and their concerns about COVID-19. Although both are effective separately in the professional and personal development of academicians, the anxiety caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and online education does not affect each other.
This study aims to examine academicians’ COVID-19 anxiety and digitalisation regarding different variables. In addition, another aim of this study is to determine the relationship between academicians’ COVID-19 anxiety and digitalisation.
Although it is expected that men will dominate in technology as in many areas in the past (Bem, 1981; He & Freeman, 2010), this image has been destroyed with the entry of women in business life. Their technological knowledge and skills have increased (Fox, Johnson, Rosser & Rosser, 2006). The proportion of women in technical roles has grown steadily over the past years (Bala, Sharma & Sharma, 2006) as large tech companies have made slow but steady progress in the representation of the female workforce (Bebbington, 2002). Before the pandemic, women were struggling to secure their place in the tech industry and achieve their desired positions. COVID-19 has exacerbated the situation by overwhelming women with household responsibilities and disrupting the work–life balance with remote work. For example, many women feel burnout at work compared with men. In addition, women are, unfortunately twice as likely to lose their jobs due to the pandemic compared with men (Okeke-Uzodike & Gamede, 2021). The results of this study are also similar.
Regarding the gender variable, there was a significant difference in favour of female academicians in Technology Usage and Professional Development sub-dimension of Academicians’ Digitalisation Scale and no significant difference was found in other dimensions. Similarly, Luan et al. (2005) express that female academicians have higher attitudes towards technology than male academicians. Jena and Mahanti (2014) point out that male academicians experience more technological stress than female academicians, since women do not have difficulty using technology, and female academicians also tend to use it whenever they need it. Awang, Taib and Muda (2020) affirm that gender is ineffective in experiencing any technology-related problems, and that when individuals start to digitalise earlier and are more interested in technology, they will have a more positive attitude. Cai, Fan and Du (2017) and Houtz and Gupta (2001) specify that males have a more positive attitude than females. Awofala et al. (2019) indicated that male teachers’ computer anxiety scores were higher, while Munusamy and Ismail (2009) figured out that women lagged in using technology at home. Considering how intertwined academicians are in technology, both genders are expected to have a positive attitude. Sherman et al. (2002) highlight that the difference between women and men in Internet and technology usage is decreasing daily, and the rapid change all over the world effectively reduces this difference. However, as in many work areas, women encounter some limitations and inequalities in academia. In this context, they strive to improve themselves and be more successful in the profession. This effort can lead to high levels of digitisation. In addition, the fact that women and men use technology for different purposes in social life may affect this difference.
Correcting gender inequality and increasing women's visibility in technology can benefit both women and technology. We need to prevent women from leaving their roles in companies and thus retain a qualified workforce to empower women to develop their skills, promote to senior management positions, unlock other attractive career options and improve career satisfaction and dynamics for female technology professionals.
There was a significant difference in favour of female academicians regarding gender variables in academicians’ COVID-19 anxiety. This may be due to an increase in workload and responsibilities of female academicians at home, and also less time left for academic studies in the pandemic. The deepening of already existing gender inequality among academicians before the pandemic is also included in the literature (Viglione, 2020). Conducting academic studies requires a great deal of time and effort. However, unfortunately, female academicians did not have much time for academic studies during the pandemic. Significantly increased working hours (Deryugina, Shurchkov & Stearns, 2021), and inability to receive support from their spouses at home, despite doing the same job (King & Frederickson, 2021), may be a reason for increased anxiety of female academics (Howe-Walsh & Turnbull, 2016; Gabster, van Daalen, Dhatt & Barry 2020). However, unlike the finding obtained in this study, a significant relationship was found between gender and psychological resilience in a study by Tönbül, (2020), where it was determined that the psychological resilience of females was higher than that of males. A study by Çiçek, Tanhan and Tanrıverdi (2020) emphasised that female teachers experience more psychological flexibility than male teachers due to the COVID-19 outbreak.
There was a significant difference regarding field variables in favour of the Science field in the total Academicians’ Digitisation Scale scores. This situation can be because there are courses with more technological applications in the field of science (Ayyildiz, Yilmaz & Baltaci, 2021), and experiments and activities are taught with the support of technology (De la Rama et al., 2020).
Uğur and Turan (2018) underline that distance education should be continued with a scientific approach, and in this context, academicians’ scientific skills should be increased to adapt to technology better. Therefore, there was a connection between science and technology. Technology progresses with the development of science and engineering. However, this difference may be because it covers not only material objects used for humanity, such as machines and equipment, but also broader scientific themes, including systems and methods (Oye et al., 2014).
There was no significant difference regarding field variables in academicians’ COVID-19 anxiety. In a study by Temel, Nas and Dalkilic (2020), academicians working in different faculties had positive perceptions of COVID-19, and their psychological resilience was moderate. It is expected that anxiety experienced in COVID-19, which affects the whole world, has similar characteristics. In another study by Gencer (2020), it was determined that the education variable did not affect COVID-19 anxiety, and Doğan and Düzel (2020) found that COVID-19 fear varies regarding different demographic characteristics. However, Mahmud, Rahman, Masud-Ul-Hasan and Islam (2021) indicated that anxiety experienced due to COVID-19, regardless of any field, is mainly about individuals’ careers, families and concerns about whether they will continue their jobs.
There was a significant difference regarding the experience variable between 0–5 years and ≥16 years in favour of 0–5 years in Technology Usage and Professional Development Sub-Dimension scores of academicians. Similarly, Jena and Mahanti (2014) state that more experienced academicians experience more stress in the technological environment. This difference may be because experienced academicians have difficulty following technology due to their age. Moreover, Koç, Demirbilek and İnce (2015) focus on the fact that as experience increases, academicians need less professional development, young academicians need to improve themselves more due to their workload, and they use more technology for this purpose. However, Khan, Rasli, Yusoff and Ahmad (2015) express that the excessive workload of young academics may cause their burnout level to increase over time, which may negatively affect personal and professional development, which are crucial for the future of academic profession (Clark, 1989). Both universities and academics need to take the necessary measures to continue the decreasing professional development studies of academics at later ages with previous efforts (Abdullah, Shamsuddin, Wahab & Muazu, 2018).
Regarding the experience variable, there was a significant difference in academicians’ COVID-19 anxiety. The difference is between 6–10 years and ≥16 years in favour of 6–10 years. This finding implies that less senior academicians have higher levels of fear. Another finding obtained in this study is differentiation of status variable in academicians’ COVID-19 anxiety. This difference appears to be between Research Assistant and Professor, Research Assistant and Assistant Professor, and Research Assistant and Research Associate in favour of Research Assistant. These two findings obtained in this study are compatible with each other. The close characteristics of both experience and status variables indicate that younger and newer academicians have higher anxiety levels.
Problems experienced by academicians who are new to academics and have little professional experience during the COVID-19 outbreak may cause an increase in their anxiety levels. The fact that these new academicians had more expectations but only lectured in online education, being physically away from school may have caused their expectations not to be met and anxiety increased (Kovancı & ve Ergen, 2019). Another study found that research assistants during the pandemic had more positive behaviour than professors regarding what should be done during the COVID-19 outbreak (Ceyhan & Uzuntarla, 2020). The reason can be that younger academicians are usually alone and closely follow up-to-date information and research due to their use of social media and the Internet (Ceyhan & Uzuntarla, 2020). In addition, due to high anxiety levels, they may pay more attention to what needs to be done during the pandemic. Another reason for this anxiety can be problems with online education. Doyumgaç, Tanhan and Kiymaz (2021) underline that teachers, students and academicians are experiencing problems with online education and applications during the pandemic. Reasons such as a sudden transition to online education, the fact that these curriculums have not been used before, lecturing in different places, lack of face-to-face communication and the uncertainty of how long the pandemic will last may be effective in increasing COVID-19 anxiety in young academicians. In a study conducted by Küçükali and Çınar (2020), where the majority of participants are experienced academicians, it is presented that academicians considered measures taken during the COVID-19 outbreak as sufficient. This situation indicates that experienced academicians have less anxiety related to COVID-19. Arı (2018) suggests that sometimes problems can be a heavy burden for younger academics when they show up and adds that one of the effective ways to solve this problem and keep anxiety under control is to develop relaxing hobbies and to spend time for art and sports.
There was a significant difference regarding the status variable in Technology Usage in Social Life Sub-Dimension between Research Associate and Assistant Professor in favour of Research Associate. This shows that research associates have a more positive attitude towards using technology in social life. By considering the age characteristics of research associates, it can be viewed as an expected result to use technology more. Yelkikalan and Ayhun (2013) state that it is normal for academics to differ from their own and previous generations in their use of technology in their social lives. For research associates who are in the early stages of their careers, this also contributes to them academically. They follow many academic studies, journals and publications more easily using technology which provides faster access (Arda, 2012). Similarly, Mersin and Demiralp (2017) found that middle-aged academics who participated in their studies mainly used technology for their scientific studies. Balakrishnan and Loo (2014) present that primarily young academicians use technology more in their social lives; Yıldız (2020) emphasises that in today's world, where technology is constantly evolving, academicians should always use technology and social media effectively.
There was no significant relationship between academicians’ digitisation and COVID-19 anxiety. In a study conducted by Şen and Kızılcalıoğlu (2020), it is stated that academicians do not lag behind technology in online education process due to COVID-19; the reason for this is the active nature of online education. This process made it compulsory for educators to follow technology and thus allowed them to develop themselves technologically. Due to COVID-19, it is clear that academicians are now more active in online education and use technology in education with applications such as lectures, material preparation and educational channels (Yerlikaya, 2020), but Taştan (2020), points out that after the pandemic, digital addiction of especially middle-aged individuals may increase. This rapid effect can be seen more in education, although it was not determined during the pandemic.
In light of the results obtained from this study, the following suggestions can be made:
Similar studies can be carried out by expanding participants. Different variables (such as residence and place of duty) that may affect academicians’ attitudes towards digitalisation and their COVID-19 fears can be included. It has been observed that few studies investigate the psychological effects of the pandemic on academicians; in this context, it is recommended to increase studies on this subject. Although quantitative research methods are used in this study, by using qualitative research methods, different studies can be conducted in which academicians’ views can be dealt with in more depth.
This study is limited in some respects, outlined in this section. The first of these relates to the data collection instruments. While the questions used as a data collection tool significantly reflect the participants’ perspectives, a different data collection tool may present further findings. In this regard, mixed-method, more in-depth, multi-dimensional studies, including open-ended questions, may be conducted to investigate academicians’ digitalisation and COVID-19 anxiety. In so doing, a comprehensive understanding of academicians’ views can be obtained.
Moreover, the study is limited to academicians working in Turkey. Therefore, it may be beneficial to compare academicians working in different countries. Also longitudinal studies may be carried out at various times to determine academicians’ digitalisation and COVID-19 anxiety.