Advertisement

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 221–235 | Cite as

Effects of e-textbook instructor annotations on learner performance

  • Alan R. Dennis
  • Serdar Abaci
  • Anastasia S. Morrone
  • Joshua Plaskoff
  • Kelly O. McNamara
Article

Abstract

With additional features and increasing cost advantages, e-textbooks are becoming a viable alternative to paper textbooks. One important feature offered by enhanced e-textbooks (e-textbooks with interactive functionality) is the ability for instructors to annotate passages with additional insights. This paper describes a pilot study that examines the effects of instructor e-textbook annotations on student learning as measured by multiple-choice and open-ended test items. Fifty-two college students in a business course were randomly assigned either a paper or an electronic version of a textbook chapter. Results show that the e-textbook group outperformed the paper textbook group on the open-ended test item, while both groups performed equally on the multiple-choice subject test. These results suggest that the instructional affordances that an interactive e-textbook provides may lead to higher-level learning.

Keywords

e-textbook Print textbook Learning Reading comprehension Instructor annotations Experimental study 

Notes

Acknowledgments

A previous version of this paper was presented at the 48th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2015. We would like to thank David A. Goodrum and Sarah Engel for reviewing and providing their valuable comments in preparation of this manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abaci, S., Morrone, A., & Dennis, A. (2015). Instructor engagement with e-texts. Educause Review, 50(1). Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/instructor-engagement-e-texts.
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. Bidwell, A. (2014). Report: High textbook prices have college students struggling. U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/01/28/report-high-textbook-prices-have-college-students-struggling.
  4. Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  5. Chen, C.-M., & Chen, F.-Y. (2014). Enhancing digital reading performance with a collaborative reading annotation system. Computers & Education, 77, 67–81. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459. doi: 10.2307/1170217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousands Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dennis, A. R. (2011). e-textbooks at Indiana University: A summary of 2 years of research. from http://etexts.iu.edu/files/eText%20Pilot%20Data%202010-2011.pdf.
  12. Dobler, E. (2015). e-Textbooks: A personalized learning experience or a digital distraction? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(6), 482–491. doi: 10.1002/jaal.391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eden, S., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2013). The effect of format on performance: Editing text in print versus digital formats. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(5), 846–856. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01332.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Flavell, J. H. (1981). Cognitive monitoring. In W. P. Dickson (Ed.), Children’s oral communication skill (pp. 35–60). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  15. Gee, T. C., & Rakow, S. J. (1990). Guiding reading comprehension: Techniques English teachers value. The Clearing House, 63(8), 341–344. doi: 10.1080/00098655.1990.10114123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Giacomini, C., Wallis, P., Lyle, H., Haaland, W., Davis, K., & Comden, D. (2013). Exploring e-textbooks at the University of Washington: What we learned and what is next. Retrieved from https://www.washington.edu/itconnect/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/UWeTextCampusReport.pdf.
  17. Green, T. D., Perera, R. A., Dance, L. A., & Myers, E. A. (2010). Impact of presentation mode on recall of written text and numerical information: Hard copy versus electronic. North American Journal of Psychology, 12(2), 233–242.Google Scholar
  18. Greeno, J. G. (2006). Learning in activity. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 79–96). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hastings, N., & Tracey, M. (2004). Does media affect learning: where are we now? TechTrends, 49(2), 28–30. doi: 10.1007/BF02773968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hwang, W.-Y., Liu, Y.-F., Chen, H.-R., Huang, J.-W., & Li, J.-Y. (2015). Role of parents and annotation sharing in children’s learning behavior and achievement using e-readers. Educational Technology & Society, 18(1), 292–307.Google Scholar
  21. Indiana State University. (2013). Students perform well regardless of reading print or digital books. Science Daily. Retrieved December 14, 2015 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130524160710.htm.
  22. Jabr, F. (2013). The reading brain in the digital age: The science of paper versus screens. Scientific American. Retrieved December 15, 2015 from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reading-paper-screens/.
  23. Ji, S. W., Michaels, S., & Waterman, D. (2014). Print versus 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Junco, R., & Clem, C. (2015). Predicting course outcomes with digital textbook usage data. The Internet and Higher Education, 27, 54–63. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.06.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kamil, M. L., & Chou, H. K. (2009). Comprehension and computer technology: Past results, current knowledge, and future promises. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 289–304). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Kiewra, K. A., DuBois, N. F., Christian, D., McShane, A., Meyerhoffer, M., & Roskelley, D. (1991). Note-taking functions and techniques. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(2), 240–245. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.83.2.240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with Media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179–211. doi: 10.2307/1170534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7–19. doi: 10.2307/30218683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lee, H., Lim, K., & Grabowski, B. (2010). Improving self-regulation, learning strategy use, and achievement with metacognitive feedback. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(6), 629–648. doi: 10.1007/s11423-010-9153-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leutner, D., Leopold, C., & Den Elzen-Rump, V. (2007). Self-regulated learning with a text-highlighting strategy: A training experiment. Journal of Psychology, 215(3), 174–182.Google Scholar
  31. Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B. (2011). Science learning and instruction: Taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Liu, Z. (2005). Reading behavior in the digital environment. Journal of Documentation, 61(6), 700–712. doi: 10.1108/00220410510632040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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. doi: 10.1002/acp.2930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Marshall, C. C. (1997). Annotation: From paper books to the digital library. Paper presented at the 2nd ACM International Conference on Digital Libraries, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  35. Martinez, M. E. (1991). A comparison of multiple-choice and constructed figural response items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28(2), 131–145. doi: 10.2307/1434795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Morrison, G. R. (1994). The media effects question: “Unresolvable” or asking the right question. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 41–44. doi: 10.2307/30218686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Murray, M. C., & Pérez, J. (2011). e-textbooks are coming: Are we ready? Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 8, 49–60.Google Scholar
  39. Nathan, M., & Robinson, C. (2001). Considerations of learning and learning research: Revisiting the “media effects” debate. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12(1), 69–88.Google Scholar
  40. Niccoli, A. (2015). Paper or tablet? Reading recall and comprehension. Educause Review, 50(5). Retrieved from http://er.educause.edu/articles/2015/9/paper-or-tablet-reading-recall-and-comprehension.
  41. Nokelainen, P., Miettinen, M., Kurhila, J., Floréen, P., & Tirri, H. (2005). A shared document-based annotation tool to support learner-centred collaborative learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 757–770. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00474.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  43. Reiner, C. M., Bothell, T. W., Sudweeks, R. R., & Wood, B. (2002). Preparing effective essay questions: A self-directed workbook for educators. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.Google Scholar
  44. Richardson, J. S., Morgan, R. F., & Fleener, C. E. (2012). Reading to learn in the content areas (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  45. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sawyer, R. K. (2006). The new science of learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 1–16). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Senack, E., & The Student PIRGs. (2014). Fixing the broken textbook market: How students respond to high textbook costs and demand alternatives. Retrieved from http://uspirg.org/reports/usp/fixing-broken-textbook-market.
  48. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Siebenbruner, J. (2011). Electronic versus traditional textbooks: A comparison of college textbook formats. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 22(3), 75–92.Google Scholar
  50. Simpson, M. L., & Nist, S. L. (2000). An update on strategic learning: It’s more than textbook reading strategies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43(6), 528–541. doi: 10.2307/40016831.Google Scholar
  51. Taylor, A. K. (2011). Students learn equally well from digital as from paperbound texts. Teaching of Psychology, 38(4), 278–281. doi: 10.1177/0098628311421330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Terpend, R., Gattiker, T. F., & Lowe, S. E. (2014). Electronic textbooks: Antecedents of students’ adoption and learning outcomes. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 12(2), 149–173. doi: 10.1111/dsji.12031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. van der Pol, J., Admiraal, W., & Simons, P. R. J. (2006). The affordance of anchored discussion for the collaborative processing of academic texts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 339–357. doi: 10.1007/s11412-006-9657-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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,. doi: 10.1007/s11423-016-9425-x.Google Scholar
  55. Vassiliou, M., & Rowley, J. (2008). Progressing the definition of “e-book”. Library Hi Tech, 26(3), 355–368. doi: 10.1108/07378830810903292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Walling, D. R. (2014). Designing learning for tablet classrooms: Innovations in instruction. Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Weisberg, M. (2011). Student attitudes and behaviors towards digital textbooks. Publishing Research Quarterly, 27(2), 188–196. doi: 10.1007/s12109-011-9217-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Yang, S. J. H., Zhang, J., Su, A. Y. S., & Tsai, J. J. P. (2011). A collaborative multimedia annotation tool for enhancing knowledge sharing in CSCL. Interactive Learning Environments, 19(1), 45–62. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2011.528881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kelly School of BusinessIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  2. 2.University Information Technology ServicesIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  3. 3.School of EducationIndiana UniversityIndianapolisUSA
  4. 4.HighPoint Global, LLCIndianapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations