etextbooks versus print textbooks- a comparison study of their influence on student learning and...

ETEXTBOOKS VERSUS PRINT TEXTBOOKS: A COMPARISON STUDY OF THEIR INFLUENCE ON STUDENT LEARNING AND ENGAGEMENT

Connor Heyward, Suzanne Parkinson

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the Bachelor of Arts in Psychology

Mary Immaculate College, University of Limerick

Email: [email protected]

2014-2015

eTextbooks vs. Print Textbooks 2

ABSTRACT

This research seeks to evaluate the use of a modern reflowable eTextbook with features such

as dynamic media and compare it to a paper textbook to determine if there is a difference in

the retention of information and levels of engagement in focused and non-focused

environments. 92 students were randomly and equally distributed into two groups (eTextbook

and Paper Booklet), then randomly subdivided into Non-focused and Focused environments.

An excerpt from an Ecology eTextbook was presented on an iPad and in text form. Retention

of information was measured by a short exam. Level of engagement was measured by 18

questions answered via a Likert scale. Results revealed no significant difference in

performance in the focused environment. In non-focused environments, iPad users performed

significantly better. Participants in a non-focused environment who used the eTextbook were

significantly more engaged than those who read from the paper textbook. In the focused

condition, the opposite was true. In a survey of attitudes, participants who used the iPad rated

it highly, many believed they learned the same or more than they would have from a standard

textbook. It concludes that eTextbooks and modern tablet computers have a positive role to

play in supporting effective student learning.


INTRODUCTION

New technologies are revolutionising modern living. Students have witnessed

technology encroach on every aspect of their lives, whether it be personal, social,

professional or now their academic studies. Online journals and digital textbooks are

changing the way we study. Technology is becoming more and more integrated into

academic life, but in truth this remains a battleground between tradition and innovation,

where students still prefer to use paper textbooks (Weisberg, 2011; Jeong, 2012; Woody,

Daniel, & Baker, 2010; Bole, 2011). However according to Weisberg (2011), students’

unwillingness to use a technology device for their course textbook is likely to decline once

they get accustomed to using one. The study reported that over 50% of students who initially

declared they would not use a digital device for their course textbook changed their minds

over the course of the study during which they were provided with one. He also reported that

only 26% of people said they would use it as their primary source. Weisberg’s study was

carried out over two years and as such has good reliability; however all the participants were

senior undergraduates in business taking the same class and therefore it does not take into

account that attitudes towards the use of technology for textbooks may vary across

disciplines. Nevertheless, Weisberg (2011) believes this problem is minimised because “the

class follows the traditional pedagogical model of textbook reading, homework assignments

and papers, and classroom lecture and discussion” (p. 190). Chesser (2011) reports that

findings from attitude surveys that indicate students are opposed to electronic textbooks may

be flawed because they stem from the fact eTextbooks are new and expensive, whereas used

paper books are familiar, cheap and readily available. To quote Dennis (2011) “No one

seriously doubts that the paper textbook will be replaced by eTextbooks; it is only a question

of when” (p. 2).


Background

The emergence of the eTextbook has been widely predicted over the past three

decades culminating in the explosion of the eBook market towards the end of the last decade

culminating in Amazon reporting they sold 105 eBooks for every 100 paper books in early

2011, while Barnes and Noble reported that their eBooks were outselling print books by three

to one. It was expected that textbooks would follow suit, however according to Outsell,

eTextbooks comprised just 3.4 % of the market (Mulvihill, 2011). Part of the problem lies in

the fact that each of the major publishers has their own eTextbook products, each requiring

special software, apps or web logins. Additionally, the methods of highlighting the text,

making annotations, using built-in media and additional tools such as dictionaries vary

depending on the publisher or device in use (Schugar, Schugar, & Penny, 2011). According

to Chesser (2011), fears about piracy were another reason that eTextbooks were slow to

emerge; not surprising considering the textbook market is worth billions of dollars a year.

Furthermore various types of eTextbooks have emerged. Rockinson-Szapkiw,

Courduff, Carter and Bennett’s (2013) research points out that there are now two formats of

eTextbook; page fidelity eTextbooks and reflowable digital eTextbooks. Page fidelity

eTextbooks mimic paper textbooks in a digital format and therefore suffer the same

limitations as paper in that they lack web links, dynamic media, and the ability to change text

size or interact with pictures (Chesser, 2011). Reflowable eTextbooks allow flexibility when

reading the text in that the user can adjust font and windows size, view pictures full screen

etc. This flexible format is also what makes it so versatile in terms of devices because the text

can be modified to suit display mediums of any size (Chesser, 2011). More recently

eTextbooks have been taking advantage of the emergence of tablet computers such as the

iPad and those based on Google’s Android operating system such as the Samsung Galaxy


Note and Google Nexus devices. This has led to an increase in video resources as well as

other interactive embedded material (Chesser, 2011)

Research in the area of the readability of electronically generated text began decades

ago with the increasing use of the computer monitor; researchers such as Gould (1968, as

cited in Mayes, Sims, & Koonce, 2001) began working on behalf of the manufacturers to

develop guidelines for their best use. At the time, he concluded that the screens available

were not advanced enough in terms of pixel quality to be considered as possible replacements

for paper printed material. Nineteen years later, he conducted further research and, although

he found improvements in the quality of the screens, his findings showed that reading from a

screen was still 25% slower than reading from paper (Gould, 1987, as cited in Margolin,

Driscoll, Toland, & Kegler, 2013; Mayes et al., 2001). Mayes et al.’s (2001) research 14

years on appeared to indicate that advances in the technology of the screens during this

period had reduced the differences in reading speed to negligible levels, and by 2004,

Garland and Noyes found no differences in comprehension or reading speed. However, the

generalisability of these studies today is limited because they were carried out using cathode

ray tube (CRT) monitors, a now out-dated technology. CRT monitors produce vibrations that

occur when the screen refreshes and these can negatively affect reading performance, this

may explain earlier findings, but fundamentally it is the quality of the display that has the

largest effect on reading performance (Garland & Noyes, 2004). Screen technology has since

progressed with the invention of the liquid crystal display (LCD), Light-Emitting Diode

(LED) and Organic Light-Emitting Diode (OLED) (Dundar & Akcayir, 2012; Jeong, 2012).

More recent research has centred on the eReader, with devices such as the Kindle and the

Nook, however the lack of a colour display greatly limits their suitability as eTextbooks and

furthermore these devices do not offer integrated web browsing, media support, or popular


external applications such as Microsoft Office which are becoming ever more essential for

study in most modern subject areas (Chesser, 2011).

Potential

There are many potential benefits to switching to electronic forms of text presentation

such as the ability to annotate eTextbooks, greater portability and convenience (especially in

tablet computers), the ability to search and make directional choices by means of hyperlink

(Weisberg, 2011; Uso-Juan & Ruiz-Madrid, 2009) and the benefits to the environment in

paper saving. Surprisingly, research by Dennis (2008) found that more students (69%)

believed that the ability for instructors to annotate their eTextbook and the associated saving

in paper as a benefit to the environment (67%) was actually more important to them than cost

(64%). This data was gathered by the use of a survey and other benefits reported by students

included the reduced weight in their backpacks (61%) and the ability to annotate the text

themselves (60%). In addition, tablet computers, such as the iPad, provide students with other

features on the move such as calendars, reminders and notes, as well as email, something that

is becoming essential in the modern university for the rapid distribution of information

(Nguyen, Barton, & Nguyen, 2015).

Electronic text presentation means that books would no longer be limited to simply

text and graphics; the use of video, animation, and/or sound could add a whole new

dimension to the way we read and understand course texts (Jeong, 2012). On the other hand,

the traditional textbook serves up far less distractions than a computer or tablet (Weisberg,

2011; Schugar, Schugar, & Penny, 2011; Nguyen, Barton, & Nguyen, 2015). There are

countless digital disturbances for students, like the many forms of social media with real time

notifications. Despite the relative low cost of eTextbooks, the overall cost is very high

considering the initial outlay and lack of resale potential, an advantage of current paper

textbooks (Marmarelli & Ringle, 2011). Attitudes do appear to be changing, most likely due


to the fast paced nature of the technology sector. Nguyen et al. (2015) conducted a systematic

literature review (SLR) of papers published within the last two years using iPads in the higher

education sector. It was found that overall, students now hold a positive attitude about using

iPads as part of their education and they can motivate learning.

Learning

Rockinson-Szapkiw et al. (2013) looked at perceived learning from a number of

presentation methods: print, laptop, tablet computer, e-reader, and smartphone. They point to

Bloom’s (1956, as cited in Rockinson-Szapkiw et al., 2013) research which defined learning

as having three interrelated dimensions; cognitive, affective and psychomotor. Using a self-

report measure of this wider dimension of learning combined with student grades, they found

that scores did not differ based on the presentation format chosen for the course textbook.

This study was carried out across a whole semester in a variety of subjects using various

eTextbooks; however there may have been a threat to validity in that students could choose

the presentation format they wanted to use. Schugar et al. (2011) looked much deeper at

student learning and found that there was no significant difference in answers with supporting

details across four time points in a semester depending on whether a student was using a

traditional textbook or a Nook eReader device. It appears that, despite students concerns

about using digital devices for their core textbook, the majority of recent literature on

eTextbooks has indicated little difference in comprehension between using traditional

textbooks over these devices (Connell, Bayliss, & Farmer, 2012; Dundar & Akcayir, 2012;

Rockinson-Szapkiw et al., 2013; Schugar et al., 2011). Indeed, Margolin et al. (2013)

concluded in their study that in today’s world “electronic forms of text presentation may be

just as viable a format as paper presentation” (p. 517).

Across the literature, student learning is the most commonly used measure of efficacy

for any new educational tools; this is usually carried out using a grade or achievement test.


While the retention of information is a valid measure and is certainly required, as Rockinson-

Szapkiw et al. (2013) point out, “learning consists of not only knowledge about a topic but

the feelings and attitudes about a topic and the inclination to behaviourally engage in the

topic related experiences” (p. 259). Therefore student engagement is acknowledged to be

intrinsically linked to educational outcomes, but despite this, to the best of this researcher’s

knowledge, no study has scientifically looked at engagement levels of people studying from

an eTextbook.

Engagement

Modern tablet computers are widely perceived as having the potential to better engage

students. Indeed Nguyen et al.’s (2015) systematic literature review reported that the iPad

was “found to highly engage and potentially enhance students’ learning experience” across

the literature (p.194). Manuguerra and Petocz (2011) reported that the iPad can be “used as a

means to engage, inspire and motivate students through high-level presentation and

communication tools” (p. 62). Diemer, Fernandez and Streepey’s (2013) research had 209

undergraduate students partake in a classroom activity that was designed to promote

engagement through active and collaborative learning. This was followed by a survey rating

their perceived learning and engagement using a five-point Likert scale. Four of the ten

questions related to engagement and focused specifically on the iPad’s influence on

motivation, participation, attention and the ease of working in groups. “Students, on average,

reported high levels of perceived learning and moderate levels of perceived engagement”

(Diemer et al., 2013, p. 19). It is unclear why they chose not to use a more robust measure of

engagement.

Some early non-educational measures of engagement were simply inferred from

measurements of the opposite: burnout. It was assumed that if an employee was not burnt-

out, then they were engaged (Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá, & Bakker, 2002).


Schaufeli et al. (2002) believed that engagement should be operationalized and measurable in

its own right. By examining the Maslach-Burnout Inventory (MBI) they were able to

determine the opposite states of burnout. Three dimensions were identified: vigour,

dedication and absorption, contributing to “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind”

(p. 74). From these three dimensions they were able to create a work engagement scale. They

created an experiment by adapting a version of the scale and putting it alongside a version of

the MBI suitable for use with students. By testing it on 314 undergraduates, and later 619

employees, they found that burnout and engagement are indeed antipodes. Salanova, Llorens,

Cifre, Martínez and Schaufeli (2003) have since adapted this scale for use in a task situation.

Need for this Research

Nguyen et al. (2015) explain how modern technology devices are already changing the

way people study as part of a shift toward digital mobile learning (m-learning). These

portable devices loaded with the latest eTextbooks are usable in a variety of reading settings,

some of which are more conducive to positive engagement than others. Connell et al. (2012)

acknowledges a gap in the research in this area and recommends that further research needs

to focus on a variety of reading settings, as previous research has focused on traditional study

environments. Research into focused and non-focused environments is required because

noise has been shown to affect “attention to central cues during complex language related

tasks” (Haines, Stansfeld, Job, Berglund, & Head, 2001, p. 274). Limited capacity theories

state that if a person is faced with two or more tasks, however involuntary, these will compete

for a limited amount of information processing resources. For example, while a person is

studying in a non-focused environment, distracting noise, such as other people’s

conversations, can elicit orienting responses that will decrease the amount of cognitive

resources available for understanding and remembering information (Pool, Koolstra, &

Voort, 2003). This finding is supported by studies such as Haines et al. (2001) which,


consistent with previous research, found that chronic aircraft noise below Heathrow airport

flight paths negatively affected children’s reading comprehension. However, this study was

carried out on children between the ages of 9 and 11 and may not be generalizable to the

adult student population. The present research aims to establish whether the interactive

features on a modern reflowable eTextbook can mitigate the negative effects of a noisy

environment.

Rockinson-Szapkiw et al. (2013) calls for further research into the viability of modern

eTextbooks (such as those developed under the iBooks format) in education as they continue

to evolve and for further research to look at student perceptions of this new type of learning

tool. Therefore this study aims to address these gaps in the research area. Following the

analysis of previous literature and taking into account these recommendations, three main

questions were developed.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

1. Does a modern eTextbook (presented on an iPad) containing videos, interactive

material, the ability to highlight, bookmark and annotate text, affect participant

learning when compared to the same information presented on paper?

2. Which of these modes of presentation is more effective in non-focused and focused

environments?

3. Do people engage differently with modern eTextbooks than standard paper textbooks?

It was hypothesized that learning would not be impacted by the use of an eTextbook

when compared with a standard textbook. It was further hypothesized that students would

engage more with the eTextbook than the standard paper textbook due to the use of

interactive features. Lastly, it was hypothesized and that the iPad would be more effective in


non-focused environments due to its ease of use and additional interactive features which are

more likely to maintain the reader’s attention.

METHOD

Design

The present study incorporated a 2×2 between-subjects factorial design. The first

independent variable was Presentation Type (PT) with two levels (iPad and Paper). The

second independent variable was Type of Environment (TE) with two levels (Focused and

Non-focused). This was operationalized by defining Focused as a psychology experiment

room or classroom and Non-focused as a common area within the college with a sound level

that measured above 50 decibels. The first dependant variable was Exam Score (ES). This

was a score representing the participant’s performance in the short exam. The exam contained

8 MCQ’s worth 1 mark each and 2 short answer questions that were coded quantitatively and

worth 4 marks each. The maximum score on the exam was 16 marks. The second dependant

variable was Engagement Score (ES) measured by an 18-item Engagement Questionnaire.

The study used a survey to gather Participant Opinions (PO) about the usability of the iPad;

this was only gathered from participants using the eTextbook. The experiment was carried

out both one to one and in groups of up to 10 people. Participants were informed that the

study was being carried out to identify the medium which elicits the optimum level of

engagement in study.

Participants


Participants were 92 undergraduate and graduate students (age 18 to 49 years; M =

21.64, SD = 3.84 years, three participants did not disclose their age) selected as a

convenience sample from Mary Immaculate College, a small Irish college of Education and

Liberal Arts. Participation was voluntary and participants were free to withdraw at any time.

Participants were split randomly between the iPad and paper conditions and the focused and

non-focused environments. All participants gave written consent prior to participation. The

gender split was 58 females and 32 males; two participants did not disclose their gender. A

chi-square goodness of fit indicates that there was a significant difference between the

numbers of males and females, χ2 (1, n = 90) = 7.51, p = .006.

Materials

The study used two forms of presentation to display the comprehension task, an iPad

and a printed colour A4 booklet. It used 10 third generation Apple iPads with retina display

(Wi-Fi only model, 64gb memory) running iOS 8.1. A data collection booklet was used to

record answers to the short exam, engagement questionnaire, survey and participant

information (see Appendix V, Appendix VI, Appendix VII, Appendix VIII). The text used in

this research was an excerpt from E.O. Wilson's Life on Earth Unit 7, Chapter 38; this was

sourced from the iBooks web store. It was designed and produced solely in a digital

interactive format for iBooks. A standard text version was created using screenshots of any

interactive video and transcribing video commentary. See Figure 1 for a comparison of the

two formats.


Figure 1: Comparison of eTextbook and Paper Booklet Layout

The engagement questionnaire, originally a 24-item version by Schaufeli et al. (2002),

was adapted to an 18-item scale by Salanova et al. (2003). The scale consists of 18 items,

measuring from 1 (never) to 5 (most of the time). They are scored on three scales: vigour

(seven items), dedication (four items), and absorption (seven items). The wording was altered

from use with work groups to individuals for the purpose of this research. For example,

instead of “during the task, my group felt full of energy”, the wording was changed to

“during the task, I felt full of energy”, see Appendix VI. In Salanova et al. (2003) the α

coefficients were taken over two time periods:

The α coefficients for collective vigour were .76 at Time 1 and .80 in Time 2. The α

coefficients for collective dedication were .75 at Time 1 and .78 in Time 2. After

removing one item, the initial α coefficient of collective absorption was substantively

increased to .70 (Time 1) and .80 (Time 2). (pp. 53-54)


In this study the α coefficient for vigour was .79, and .86 for dedication. Unlike Salanova et

al. (2003) this research did not need to remove any items as the initial α coefficient of

absorption was sufficiently reliable at .83. The post experiment survey questions in the

eTextbook condition were taken and adapted from the one administered by Schugar et al.

(2011), see Appendix VII.

Procedure

A pilot study was carried out on two participants to establish a guideline of how long

it took to complete the experiment and to ensure there was no ceiling effect on the exam

questions. No ceiling effect was found and the full data collection was carried out as follows:

The researcher greeted the participant and briefed them on the experiment before

handing them a consent form (Appendix I). Participants were informed that this was a

reading task and should they have an impairment that might affect their performance on this

type of task, or if English was not their first language, then they could self-select not to

participate. Participants were given the paper booklet or iPad with a set of instructions that

were specific to the condition they were assigned to (Appendix III and Appendix IV).

Participants in the iPad condition were given a demonstration on how to use the iPad for the

purpose of this experiment; this included how to turn the page, play videos, make notes and

highlight text. Participants in both conditions were given a pen and paper should they wish to

make notes, however they were informed that these notes could not be used during the exam.

There was no time limit and participants could begin reading the text when ready, they were

advised to only spend as much time as they usually would in reading for an in-semester

exam. When the participant was finished reading, the text and notes were withdrawn from

view and they were handed the self-report data collection booklet. When each participant was

finished, they were handed a debriefing report (Appendix II) and were invited to ask the

researcher any questions they might have.


RESULTS

Presentation Type and Type of Environment on Exam Score

A two-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted to examine the

individual and joint effects of the two independent variables (Presentation Type and Type of

Environment) on the dependant variable (Exam Score). There was a statistically significant

main effect for Presentation Type, F (1, 88) = 5.22, p = .025 and there was a medium effect

size (Partial ɳ² = .06) according to Cohen’s cut off points. There was no main effect for

Environment, p= .60. There was a significant interaction effect found between Presentation

Type and the Environment F (1, 88) = 4.36, p = .04 as shown below in Figure 2, however the

effect size was small (partial ɳ² = .05).

Figure 2: Means Plot of Presentation Type and Type of Environment on Exam Score

Presentation Type and Type of Environment on Engagement


A second two-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted to examine

the individual and joint effects of the two independent variables (Presentation Type and Type

of Environment) on the dependant variable (Engagement Score). The mean values for

Vigour, Dedication and Absorption were calculated for each participant, the mean value of

these three scores was then used to create an overall Engagement Score; this obtained a

reliable α coefficient value of .77. There was a statistically significant interaction effect

found between Presentation Type and the Environment F (1, 84) = 6.69, p = .01 as shown

below in Figure 3 and there was a medium effect size (partial ɳ² = .07). There was no

statistically significant main effect for Presentation Type, p = .32 or for the Environment, p =

.95.

Figure 3: Means Plot of Presentation Type and Type of Environment on Engagement


Participant Opinions about Reading from a Tablet Computer on Engagement Score

A one-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore participant

opinions (PO) about reading from a tablet computer (three groups; ‘more difficult than

reading from a traditional text’; ‘about the same as reading a traditional text’; ‘easier than

reading a traditional text’) on Engagement Score (ES). ANOVA identified the presence of

statistically significant different results between-groups, F (2, 40) = 5.29, p = .009, partial ɳ²

= .21. Post-hoc Tukey tests suggest that participants who found reading from the iPad more

difficult than reading from a traditional text (M = 3.06, SD = .47) had significantly lower

engagement than those who found who found it easier than reading a traditional text (M =

3.78, SD = .38), p = .018. There was also a significant difference between those who found

the iPad about the same as reading a traditional text (M = 3.2, SD = .51) compared to those

who found it easier than reading a traditional text (M = 3.78, SD = .38), p = .014. However

there was no difference between those who found reading from the iPad more difficult than

reading from a traditional text (M = 3.06, SD = .47) and those who found the iPad about the

same as reading a traditional text (M = 3.2, SD = .51), p = .771. This analysis is presented

below in Figure 4.


Figure 4

3.06 3.2 3.78

0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

3 3.5

4 4.5

5

More difficult than reading from a traditional text

About the same as reading a traditional text

Easier than reading a traditional text

Mea

n En

gage

men

t Sco

re

Difficulty in Reading from a Tablet Computer on Engagement Score

High

Low


Survey Data

The vast majority of participants who took part in the iPad condition of the study were

at least somewhat comfortable with technology, however most (65%) did not own a tablet

computer. Despite the low ownership figures, 74% of participants had previously used a

tablet computer. Of those who had not, very few (just 4%) found using it uncomfortable.

Furthermore, participants rated convenience, readability, clarity, ease of use and navigation at

near optimum levels. Most participants felt that the eTextbook was as easy as, or easier than,

reading from a traditional textbook. Furthermore most felt their comprehension of the text

was the same as when reading from a traditional textbook, where as 19% actually thought

they understood better. This research also found that at least 10% of students engage in

passive travelling either by being driven or by using public transport, indicating the potential

for additional study time.

DISCUSSION

If the prediction by Dennis (2011) is correct and it really is only a matter of time

before eTextbooks replace paper textbooks, then this study recorded relevant findings in that

it is demonstrates conclusively that when study takes place in distracting environments,

learning outcomes will be significantly improved with the use of an eTextbook. Research in

this area has been on-going over the past number of decades, but the ferocious pace of

technological advances means that new research is continually needed. This present study is

unique in seeking to explore the difference in reading comprehension from these two

methods of presentation in two different reading environments. Initially, main effects

indicated a statistically significant difference in participant learning between a modern

eTextbook and a paper textbook, but on closer inspection of the interaction effects, there was


very little difference in performance between the two modes of presentation in a focused

environment. In the non-focused condition, however, performance using the eTextbook

improved, whereas performance with the paper textbook decreased significantly. The study is

also amongst the first to measure engagement levels while using these forms of presentation.

It was found that although there was no significant difference in engagement between the

eTextbook and the paper textbook, interaction effects indicated participants were

significantly more engaged with the eTextbook in the non-focused environment, whereas in

the focused condition, the opposite was true; here participants found the paper textbook more

engaging than the eTextbook.

Overall this study finds that there is a place for eTextbooks and tablet computers in

education. Although it identified no difference in learning, it found slightly reduced levels of

engagement in focused environments. Therefore students who study in focused environments

may find that they prefer to retain the use of paper textbooks. However students who are

short of time and are prone to studying in non-focused environment may benefit significantly

from the use of a modern eTextbook. For example, approximately 10% of the sample could

be using an eTextbook during their commute. The college in which this study was carried out

lacks any direct public transport links; in other educational institutions the percentage of

students who commute by public transport is likely to be much higher. Nevertheless, this

research acknowledges that the monetary costs for those who want to optimise their learning

are potentially very high due to the high cost of a tablet computer and eTextbook, and the

possible need to purchase an additional traditional paper textbook for use in traditional study

conditions. Many standard textbooks now come with accompanying interactive material

which is accessible online. This material could easily be incorporated into an eTextbook

version, with the extra development cost offset by the elimination of paper and printing costs.

Ideally, the purchase of a paper textbook could include a free or low-cost downloadable


eTextbook as an optional extra. These are options which would clearly help with the uptake

of eTextbooks in education, benefitting students’ study while preserving the current business

model.

Most participants in this study were familiar with tablet computers; still there was no

significant difference in exam scores between those who were familiar, and those who were

not. This result is promising because it indicates that there is no prolonged adaption period, as

is the case with some new technologies. This result is also encouraging for their general use

in education. Nevertheless, it appears that some people find it easier using iPads than others

and it was found that this significantly affected engagement levels. Even those who felt it was

about the same as reading from a traditional text were less engaged than those who found it

easier. There is some doubt over this finding, as it is possible that student’s perceived ease of

use naturally leads to better engagement and vice versa. If so, then people who have difficulty

may find IT tutoring of help. Many third level institutions include IT tutoring as part of their

courses and if eTextbooks are to become more common, these courses will need to be

adapted to include tablet computers such as iPads. It is reasonable to expect that there will

always be students who for various reasons will prefer to use a traditional textbook;

nevertheless, by improving skills with these devices, there is no reason why eTextbooks

should not replace paper textbooks for the vast majority, giving students more opportunity to

engage with their core course texts whatever the study environment.

Limitations of the Study

A significant limitation of the study was that participants who were assigned to the

non-focused environment were required to not only read the text, but also to answer the exam

questions in the same environment and it is likely that this affected the recall of information.

Further to this, the participants in the iPad condition were required to watch videos with

sound and this required the use of headphones. Even though not all participants chose to wear


headphones for the entire piece (this was left at the participant’s discretion), this may have

acted as a confounding variable by reducing the distracting noise. Participants were not

allowed to wear headphones during the short exam.

A further limitation of this study was its use of non-standardised conditions. It was

very difficult to keep the non-focused conditions constant. Although the environment was

always in a public place with a sound level above 50db, the noise level and hustle and bustle

varied depending on the time of the day. A smartphone was used to measure the sound level,

and as such may not have been particularly accurate. The 50db lower limit was chosen

because this was the average sound level recorded in public areas within the college;

however, other non-focused environments may measure considerably more. For example the

mean chronic aircraft noise which interrupted children’s reading comprehension in the

aforementioned Haines et al. (2001) study exceeded 64db.

The textbook extract used in this study was designed solely for use as an eTextbook.

However, as this experiment used paper booklets to present it rather than traditional

textbooks, it is feasible that students did not treat them as standard textbooks. Furthermore,

the eTextbook was tested on third level students, but was actually designed for a high school

level reader (E.O. Wilson Biodiversity Foundation, 2014). Third level textbooks were

considered, but many lacked a concentrated sample of interactive features that were suited to

a short experiment and these features were fundamental to the experiment. Although this

textbook was the right choice for this research, in future, if a similar media-rich third level

textbook became available, this should be used.

The engagement scale and survey data used self-report measures. While these are

deemed valid measures of research, it is important to acknowledge the possibility of social

desirability bias. Additionally there was an uneven gender split, with a significantly larger

sample of females than males.


Unlike Connell et al. (2012), this study did not screen for prior knowledge about the

subject matter. Because of time constraints and the need to keep the experiment as short as

possible to maximise the number of participants, it was deemed unnecessary based on the fact

that biology and ecology were not subjects taught in the college.

Finally, engagement is a complex and multifaceted subject area that is not yet fully

understood. Definitions of student engagement continue to emerge. These definitions place

emphasis on different elements, from positive adult-student and peer relationships to how

students self-regulate, challenge themselves and how much effort they put in (Christenson,

Reschly, & Wylie, 2012). Christenson et al. (2012) point out that, while there is consensus

that student engagement is multidimensional, researchers still disagree as to the number and

types of dimensions. These were the problems this research confronted when seeking a

relevant task engagement scale for use in an experimental setting. The engagement

questionnaire adapted by Salanova et al. (2003) was used with the best intentions of

measuring student engagement, however this research acknowledges that engagement is still

an evolving concept, and as such it may emerge that this scale may not have measured the

dimensions that were most relevant to the eTextbook domain. Nevertheless, in the

circumstances, this scale was the best measure currently available.

Recommendations for Future Research

Sun, Flores, and Tanguma (2012) point out that the more students use eTextbooks and

tablet computers, the more they are exposed to features that can enhance their learning

outcomes. There are further benefits for students that this research has not explored. For

example eTextbooks can provide a platform for out of class discussion through dedicated

online discussion forums, they can also allow students to obtain immediate feedback on

exercises that can enhance understanding. They can also be of use to distance learners,


creating a virtual classroom that allows effective tuition and collaboration (Sun, Flores, &

Tanguma, 2012). This is an area that requires more research.

Much of the focus from studies examining the role of modern technologies focuses on

the students that can make use of it, but technology adoption in the educational setting may

be more reliant on its uptake by academics. Academics tend to remain sceptical about

changing their established traditional teaching methods in favour of modern technologies,

their concerns generally revolve around distracted students, fitting them into their proven and

established teaching methods, and concerns about cost and how the technology can become

out-dated very quickly (Nguyen et al. 2015). Nguyen et al. (2015) state how “there has been

little concern about engaging academics, motivating them and discussing with them possible

changes to their teaching and research processes” (p. 198); these factors are clear barriers to

the uptake of technology in education. Therefore further research into effective uptake

strategies for those across the academic discipline is needed. If academics come to understand

how technology can offer students the opportunity to access their education resources in a

“flexible and seamless manner”, their scepticism is likely to decline (Nguyen et al., 2015,

p.192).

This research did not include results from those who had a reading impairment that

might have affected their performance on the reading task; however technology may indeed

be of great benefit to those very people, in that they can make use of features such as font

adjustment. Furthermore, there is potential for text-to-speech facilities to be incorporated into

eTextbooks. A dedicated study to investigate this would therefore be beneficial.

An important factor that this study did not touch upon is the issue of eye fatigue

caused by reading from screens. Eye fatigue is a phenomenon where stress is put on the eyes

when “reading an e-book from a backlit computer screen or other LCD or OLED device”

(Jeong, 2012, p. 393). Reading from a screen decreases blinking rate, which in turn reduces


the level of moisture in the eye causing irritation. Jeong (2012) found there was a difference

in eye fatigue when reading from paper versus an LCD screen in children ages 10-12 years

old. In general eye fatigue has been found to be much more of a factor when the screen

resolution and contrast are poor. Furthermore Jeong (2012) admits that eye fatigue from

computer monitors is likely to be higher due to the static reading position. As this study used

a portable third generation iPad with retina display, it is unlikely to have affected the results,

however, further research in this area is needed to verify this assumption.

Lastly, experimental research is also required in other reading environments, such as

public transport to verify this research’s previous hypothesis.

Strengths of this Research

The strengths of this study are that it used a random sample of third level students

who were not given the option of choosing their mode of presentation, thus reducing

selection bias. Furthermore it clearly addresses a gap in the literature by focusing on the

influence of the quality of reading environments in determining levels of learning and

engagement. It made use of devices with the latest technological advances in terms of display

quality and integrated features. It investigated the potential of a rapidly emerging educational

resource, focusing on learner engagement, something which is increasingly being recognised

as an important component of learning. It controlled for confounding variables such as

reading impairments and first language. It incorporated no time limit for the reading of the

text as tasks that are conducted with time pressure have been shown to require more cognitive

resources, and therefore cognitive capacity is more likely to be exceeded (Kahneman, 1973,

as cited in Pool et al., 2003). It possessed both quantitative and qualitative elements that

examined student attitudes to modern eTextbooks in addition to performance and

engagement. Finally the results contributed some interesting results for the existing body of

research in that it indicated an important role for modern eTextbooks in education.


Concluding Statement

In conclusion this paper supports the rollout of eTextbooks in education with the

findings indicating that they can have a positive role to play in supporting effective student

learning; every time an eTextbook encourages the student to engage in learning wherever, or

whatever they may be doing, the chances of the student succeeding in learning outcomes

increase.

REFERENCES

Bole, A. (2011). College Students Want their Textbooks the Old-Fashioned Way: In Print.

Retrieved January 5, 2015, from Book Industry Study Group [Press Release]:

https://www.bisg.org/news/press-releasecollege-students-want-their-textbooks-old-

fashioned-way-print

Chesser, W. D. (2011). Chapter 5: The E-textbook Revolution. Library Technology Reports,

47(8), 28-40.

Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of Research on

Student Engagement. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.

Connell, C., Bayliss, L., & Farmer, W. (2012). Effects of eBook Readers and Tablet

Computers on Reading Comprehension. International Journal of Instructional Media,

39(2), 131-140.

Dennis, A. (2011). e-Textbooks at Indiana University: A summary of two years of research.

IRB, 912000863(1003001166), 1-6.

Diemer, T. T., Fernandez, E., & Streepey, J. W. (2013). Student perceptions of classroom

engagement and learning using iPads. Journal of Teaching and Learning with

Technology, 1(2), 13-25.


Dundar, H., & Akcayir, M. (2012). Tablet vs. Paper: The Effect on Learners' Reading

Performance. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4(3), 441-

450.

E.O. Wilson Biodiversity Foundation. (2014). E.O. Wilson’s Life on Earth. Retrieved January

4, 2015, from E.O. Wilson Biodiversity Foundation: http://eowilsonfoundation.org/e-

o-wilson-s-life-on-earth/

Garland, K. J., & Noyes, J. M. (2004). CRT monitors: Do they interfere with learning?

Behaviour & Information Technology, 23(1), 43-52.

Haines, M. M., Stansfeld, S. A., Job, R. S., Berglund, B., & Head, J. (2001). Chronic aircraft

noise exposure, stress responses, mental health and cognitive performance in school

children. Psychological medicine, 31(2), 265-277.

Jeong, H. (2012). A comparison of the influence of electronic books and paper books on

reading comprehension, eye fatigue, and perception. The Electronic Library, 30(3),

390-408.

Manuguerra, M., & Petocz, P. (2011). Promoting student engagement by integrating new

technology into tertiary education: The role of the iPad. Asian Social Science, 7(11),

61-65.

Margolin, S. J., Driscoll, C., Toland, M. J., & Kegler, J. L. (2013). E-readers, Computer

Screens, or Paper: Does Reading Comprehension Change Across Media Platforms?

Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(4), 512-519.

Marmarelli, T., & Ringle, M. (2011). The Reed College iPad Study. 1-8.

Mulvihill, A. (2011). Etextbooks: coming of age. Information Today, 28(8), 1-4.

Nguyen, L., Barton, S. M., & Nguyen, L. T. (2015). iPads in higher education - Hype and

hope. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(1), 190-203.


Pool, M. M., Koolstra, C. M., & Voort, T. H. (2003). The impact of background radio and

television on high school students' homework performance. Journal of

Communication, 53(1), 74-87.

Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. J., Courduff, J., Carter, K., & Bennett, D. (2013). Electronic versus

traditional print textbooks: A comparison study on the influence of university

students' learning. Computers & Education, 63, 259-266.

Salanova, M., Llorens, S., Cifre, E., Martínez, I. M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2003). Perceived

Collective Efficacy, Subjective Well-Being And Task Performance An Experimental

Studymong Electronic Work Groups. Small Group Research, 34(1), 43-73.

Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The

measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic

approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71-92.

Schugar, J. T., Schugar, H., & Penny, C. (2011). A nook or a book: Comparing college

students’ reading comprehension level, critical reading, and study skills. International

Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 7(2), 174-192.

Sun, J., Flores, J., & Tanguma, J. (2012). E-Textbooks and students’ learning experiences.

Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 10(1), 63-77.

Uso-Juan, E., & Ruiz-Madrid, M. N. (2009). Reading Printed versus Online Texts. A Study

of EFL Learners’ Strategic Reading Behavior. International Journal of English

Studies, 9(2), 59-79.

Weisberg, M. (2011). Student Attitudes and Behaviors Towards Digital Textbooks.

Publishing Research Quarterly, 27(2), 188-196.

Woody, W. D., Daniel, D. B., & Baker, C. A. (2010). E-books or textbooks: Students prefer

textbooks. Computers & Education, 55(3), 945-948.

etextbooks versus print textbooks- a comparison study of their influence on student learning and...

Documents