Volume Two - Academic Conferences

Maruff Akinwale Oladejo and Adelua Olajide Olawole
Hypothesis 6: Electronic publishing by the Nigerian College Academics is not significantly different
on the basis of rank.
Finding: Table 6 shows that there was no significant difference in electronic publishing among
College academics in Oyo State, Nigeria on the basis of rank (t =.376, df =348, P>.05). It was
observed that junior academics below the rank of Senior Lecturer cadre publish through electronic
more than their senior colleagues who are above Senior Lecturer cadre. The hypothesis was
therefore retained.
Table 6: t-test summary table showing significant difference in electronic publishing among college
academics in Oyo State, Nigeria on the basis of Rank
Variable Rank N Mean SD t-value df Sig Rmk Decision
Electronic Senior (> SL) 127 33.11 8.18 0.124
Not Do Not
Sig Reject
Publishing Junior (.05
4. Discussion of findings
Finding from hypothesis one reveals that there was significant relationship between attitude towards
technology and electronic publishing, which indicates that Nigerian College academics are favourably
disposed to embracing electronic publishing as a result of their positive attitudes towards technology.
This finding corroborates the results of studies (Golden, McCrone, Walker & Rudd 2006 ) and (Bertea
2009). For instance, (Bertea 2009) reported that the average overall attitude score of academics
towards electronic publishing is moderately high (3.67). Thus, a favourable attitude of academics
shows a greater probability that they will accept the modern medium of information dissemination.
Also, (Golden, et al. 2006 ) revealed that lecturers’ use of eLearning was associated more with their
own attitudes than with their personal institution.
This finding however, contradicts that of (Vrana, Fragidis, Zafiropoulos & Paschaloudis 2011), who
established lack of correlation between attitudes towards educational technologies and e-publishing
on the one hand and various variables such as age, educational background, employment
relationship or ownership of personal computer (PC) on the other. They asserted that this is an
indication that the attitudes revealed by the participants in their study are not related to exogenous
variables.
Hypothesis two also shows a significant and positive relationship between computer self-efficacy
(CSE) and e-publishing as reported by some previous studies. For instance, a meta-analysis of
studies published between 1998 and 2008 revealed that computer self-efficacy beliefs were positively
related to e-publishing (Multon, Bass & Laslas 2010). Computer self-efficacy beliefs were related to epublishing
(r=.38) and accounted for approximately 2% of the variance. This study also supported the
studies of Nigerians like that of Adegbola (in Oladejo, 2010) which maintained that computer selfefficacy
contributed significantly to the academics’ e-publishing . Reason for this finding might be due
to the fact that individuals with strong CSE will try out new innovations in technology and will be willing
to try to teach themselves how to use software. According to (Compeau, Higgins & Haff 1999) and
(Sein, Bostrom & Olfman 1987), a firm belief in one’s ability to deal with technology allows people to
quickly adapt related skills and provide them with the opportunity to imagine how such skills could be
applied to a variety of tasks. The results concerning the influence of computer self-efficacy may be
due to the fact that it does not reflect the actual existence of skills but the perceptions that the
individual may have of such individual’s abilities.
The present study as shown in hypothesis three establishes no significant relationship between
academic self-concept and e-publishing. This finding corroborates the study of Carpenter ( in Oladejo,
2010) that established no significant relationship between academic self-concept and e-publishing.
The reason for this finding might probably be because the participants have not formed positive
academic self-concept about publishing electronically.
Furthermore, finding from hypothesis four shows that there is significant gender difference in epublishing
(t = 2.29, df =348, P> 0.05). It therefore contradicts studies conducted by Bart (in Omotayo,
2010) that established no significant gender difference in e-publishing, but supports Parllet (in
Oladejo, 2010)’s study that found a significant gender difference in e-publishing. The rationale behind
598