Effects of e-textbook instructor annotations on learner performance

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459. doi:10.2307/1170217.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with Media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179–211. doi:10.2307/1170534.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Walling, D. R. (2014). Designing learning for tablet classrooms: Innovations in instruction. Switzerland: Springer.

    Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Serdar Abaci.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dennis, A.R., Abaci, S., Morrone, A.S. et al. Effects of e-textbook instructor annotations on learner performance. J Comput High Educ 28, 221–235 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-016-9109-x

Download citation

Keywords

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