nach oben

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

Erschienen in:

21.06.2017

Facilitating adoption of an interactive e-textbook among university students in a large, introductory biology course

verfasst von: Sam Van Horne, Marisa Henze, Kathy L. Schuh, Carolyn Colvin, Jae-Eun Russell

Erschienen in: Journal of Computing in Higher Education | Ausgabe 3/2017

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

E-textbooks are more prevalent in college courses, but much recent research still shows that students prefer paper textbooks and have difficulty regulating their learning with digital course materials. Still, college instructors—especially in lower-division STEM courses—often adopt digital course materials with e-textbooks that include a variety of metacognitive supports that students may not use. The purpose of this study was to test whether an intervention that drew upon the principles of the Technology Acceptance Model could facilitate better adoption of an interactive e-textbook in a large, introductory biology course. Participants included 239 undergraduate students from laboratory sections that were randomly assigned to a treatment or control group. The treatment group viewed a video detailing the most beneficial ways to interact with an e-textbook. A pre- and post-test were administered to the participants in both groups. The treatment group had higher overall satisfaction, on average, with the e-textbook than the control group but did not report using the interactive tools more often. The implications for instruction with digital course materials are discussed.

Vorheriger Artikel Feedback 2.0 in online writing instruction: Combining audio-visual and text-based commentary to enhance student revision and writing competency

Nächster Artikel An exploration of asynchronous and synchronous feedback modes in EFL writing

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Ackerman, R., & Goldsmith, M. (2011). Metacognitive regulation of text learning: On screen versus on paper. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(1), 18–32. doi:10.1037/a0022086.

Ackerman, R., & Lauterman, T. (2012). Taking reading comprehension exams on screen or on paper? A metacognitive analysis of learning texts under time pressure. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1816–1828. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.04.023.CrossRef

Baker-Eveleth, L., & Stone, R. W. (2015). Usability, expectation, confirmation, and continuance intentions to use electronic textbooks. Behavior & Information Technology, 34(10), 992–1004. doi:10.1080/0144929X.2015.1039061.CrossRef

Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Introduction: Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1301_1.CrossRef

Berg, S. A., Hoffmann, K., & Dawson, D. (2010). Not on the same page: Undergraduates’ information retrieval in electronic and print books. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36(6), 518–525. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2010.08.008.CrossRef

Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0202_2.CrossRef

Brunet, D. P., Bates, M. L., Gallo, J. R., & Strother, E. A. (2011). Incoming dental students’ expectations and acceptance of an electronic textbook program. Journal of Dental Education, 75(5), 646–652.

Caverly, D. C., Orlando, V. P., & Mullen, J. L. (2000). Textbook study reading. In R. F. Flippo & D. C. Caverly (Eds.), Handbook of college reading and study strategy research (pp. 105–147). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Cuillier, C. A., & Dewland, J. C. (2014). Understanding the key factors for e-textbook integration into a business course: A case study. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship. doi:10.1080/08963568.2013.824338.

Daniel, D. B., & Woody, W. D. (2013). E-textbooks at what cost? Performance and use of electronic v. print texts. Computers & Education, 62, 18–23. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.016.CrossRef

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. doi:10.2307/249008.CrossRef

Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38(3), 475–487. doi:10.1006/imms.1993.1022.CrossRef

Devolder, A., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2012). Supporting self-regulated learning in computer-based learning environments: Systematic review of effects of scaffolding in the domain of science education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(6), 557–573. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00476.x.CrossRef

Dillon, A., McKnight, C., & Richardson, J. (1988). Reading from paper versus reading from screen. The Computer Journal, 31(5), 457–464.CrossRef

Fischer, L., Hilton, J., III, Robinson, T. J., & Wiley, D. A. (2015). A multi-institutional study of the impact of open textbook adoption on the learning outcomes of post-secondary students. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 27(3), 159–172. doi:10.1007/s12528-015-9101-x.CrossRef

Hargittai, E. (2010). Digital na (t) ives? Variation in internet skills and uses among members of the “net generation”*. Sociological Inquiry, 80(1), 92–113. doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.2009.00317.x.CrossRef

Harvey, C., Eshleman, K., Koo, K., Smith, K. G., Paradise, C. J., & Campbell, A. M. (2016). Encouragement for faculty to implement vision and change. CBE-Life Sciences Education. doi:10.1187/cbe.16-03-0127.

Helsper, E. J., & Eynon, R. (2010). Digital natives: Where is the evidence? British Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 503–520. doi:10.1080/01411920902989227.CrossRef

Jao, C. S., Brint, S. U., & Hier, D. B. (2005). Making the neurology clerkship more effective: Can e-textbook facilitate learning? Neurological Research, 27(7), 762–767. doi:10.1179/016164105X35639.CrossRef

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. doi:10.1108/02640471211241663.CrossRef

Ji, S. W., Michaels, S., & Waterman, D. (2014). Print vs. electronic readings in college courses: Cost-efficiency and perceived learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 21, 17–24. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.004.CrossRef

Kelly, A. E., Lesh, R. A., & Baek, J. Y. (2008). Handbook of design research methods in education: Innovations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics learning and teaching. New York: Routledge.

Kim, M. C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2010). Scaffolding problem solving in technology enhanced learning environments (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice. Computers & Education, 56(2), 403–417. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.024.CrossRef

Kim, M., Yoo, K., Park, C., & Yoo, J. (2010). Development of a digital textbook standard format based on XML. In T. Kim, & H. Adeli (Eds.), Advances in computer science and information technology (Vol. 6059, No. 2010, pp. 363–377). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13577-4_32.

Landøy, A., Repanovici, A., & Gastinger, A. (2015, October). The more they tried it the less they liked it: Norwegian and Romanian student’s response to electronic course material. In European conference on information literacy (pp. 455–463). Springer.

Lauterman, T., & Ackerman, R. (2014). Overcoming screen inferiority in learning and calibration. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 455–463. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.046.CrossRef

Lovett, M., Meyer, O., & Thille, C. (2008). JIME—The open learning initiative: Measuring the effectiveness of the OLI statistics course in accelerating student learning. Journal of Interactive Media in Education. doi:10.5334/2008-14.

Macmillan. (2015). What can Launchpad do for you? Retrieved July 22, 2015 from http://www.macmillanhighered.com/Catalog/elearningbrowsebymediatype/LaunchPad.

Mangen, A., Walgermo, B. R., & Brønnick, K. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 58(2013), 61–68. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2012.12.002.CrossRef

Mizrachi, D. (2015). Undergraduates’ academic reading format preferences and behaviors. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(3), 301–311. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2015.03.009.CrossRef

Morrison, G., Ross, S., & Kemp, J. (2007). Designing effective instruction. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Norman, E., & Furnes, B. (2016). The relationship between metacognitive experiences and learning: Is there a difference between digital and non-digital study media? Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 301–309. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.046.CrossRef

Noyes, J., & Garland, K. (2005). Students’ attitudes toward books and computers. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(2), 233–241. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.02.016.CrossRef

Noyes, J., & Garland, K. (2006). Explaining students’ attitudes toward books and computers. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(3), 351–363. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.09.004.CrossRef

Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRef

Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 385–407. doi:10.1007/s10648-004-0006-x.CrossRef

Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rai, A., Lang, S. S., & Welker, R. B. (2002). Assessing the validity of IS success models: An empirical test and theoretical analysis. Information systems research, 13(1), 50–56. doi:10.1287/isre.13.1.50.96.CrossRef

Reeves, T. C. (2006). Design research from a technology perspective. In J. Van Den Ekker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 52–66). New York: Routledge.

Rho, Y. J., & Gedeon, T. D. (2000). Academic articles on the web: Reading patterns and formats. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 12(2), 219–240. doi:10.1207/S15327590IJHC1202_4.CrossRef

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. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.022.CrossRef

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.

Seid-Karbasi, P., Xin, C. Y., Zhang, A. W., Gladish, N., Cheng, S. Y., Rothe, K., et al. (2017). CuboCube: Student creation of a cancer genetics e-textbook using open-access software for social learning. PLoS Biology. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2001192.

Shepperd, J. A., Grace, J. L., & Koch, E. J. (2008). Evaluating the electronic textbook: Is it time to dispense with the paper text? Teaching of Psychology, 35(1), 2–5. doi:10.1080/00986280701818532.CrossRef

Sidi, Y., Ophir, Y., & Ackerman, R. (2016). Generalizing screen inferiority—Does the medium, screen versus paper, affect performance even with brief tasks? Metacognition and Learning, 11(1), 15–33. doi:10.1007/s11409-015-9150-6.CrossRef

Sidi, Y., Shpigelman, M., Zalmanov, H., & Ackerman, R. (2017). Understanding metacognitive inferiority on screen by exposing cues for depth of processing. Learning and Instruction. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.01.002.

Stone, R. W., & Baker-Eveleth, L. (2013a). Students’ expectation, confirmation, and continuance intention to use electronic textbooks. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 984–990. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.007.CrossRef

Stone, R. W., & Baker-Eveleth, L. (2013b). Students’ intention to purchase electronic textbooks. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 25(1), 27–47. doi:10.1007/s12528-013-9065-7.CrossRef

Terpend, R., Gattiker, T. F., & Lowe, S. E. (2014). Electronic textbooks: Antecedents of students’ adoption and learning outcomes. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education. doi:10.1111/dsji.12031.

Van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S., & Nieveen, N. (2006). Educational design research. New York: Routledge.

Van Horne, S., Russell, J. E., & Schuh, K. L. (2015). Assessment with e-textbook analytics. EDUCAUSE center for analysis and research. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/library/resources/assessment-e-textbook-analytics.

Van Horne, S., Russell, J. E., & Schuh, K. L. (2016). The adoption of mark-up tools in an interactive e-textbook reader. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(3), 407–433. doi:10.1007/s11423-016-9425-x.CrossRef

Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926.CrossRef

Wang, S. K., Hsu, H. Y., Campbell, T., Coster, D. C., & Longhurst, M. (2014). An investigation of middle school science teachers and students use of technology inside and outside of classrooms: Considering whether digital natives are more technology savvy than their teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(5), 637–662. doi:10.1007/s11423-014-9355-4.CrossRef

Winne, P. H. (2010). Improving measurements of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 45(4), 267–276. doi:10.1080/00461520.2010.517150.CrossRef

Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. Metacognition in educational theory and Practice, 93, 27–30.

Winters, F. I., Greene, J. A., & Costich, C. M. (2008). Self-regulation of learning within computer-based learning environments: A critical analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 429–444. doi:10.1007/s10648-008-9080-9.CrossRef

Woody, W. D., Daniel, D. B., & Baker, C. A. (2010). E-books or textbooks: Students prefer textbooks. Computers & Education, 55(3), 945–948. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.04.005.CrossRef

Worm, B. S. (2013). Learning from simple ebooks, online cases or classroom teaching when acquiring complex knowledge. A randomized controlled trial in respiratory physiology and pulmonology. PLoS ONE, 8(9), e73336. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0073336.CrossRef

Titel: Facilitating adoption of an interactive e-textbook among university students in a large, introductory biology course
verfasst von: Sam Van Horne
Marisa Henze
Kathy L. Schuh
Carolyn Colvin
Jae-Eun Russell
Publikationsdatum: 21.06.2017
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Journal of Computing in Higher Education / Ausgabe 3/2017
Print ISSN: 1042-1726
Elektronische ISSN: 1867-1233
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9153-1

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2017

Project Sanitarium: playing tuberculosis to its end game

Inclusive game design facilitating shared gaming experience

Erratum to: The nature and level of learner–learner interaction in a chemistry massive open online course (MOOC)

Feedback 2.0 in online writing instruction: Combining audio-visual and text-based commentary to enhance student revision and writing competency

The nature and level of learner–learner in a chemistry massive open online course (MOOC)

Linking serious game narratives with pedagogical theories and pedagogical design strategies