Skip to main content

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, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousands Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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/.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B. (2011). Science learning and instruction: Taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Z. (2005). Reading behavior in the digital environment. Journal of Documentation, 61(6), 700–712. doi:10.1108/00220410510632040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Richardson, J. S., Morgan, R. F., & Fleener, C. E. (2012). Reading to learn in the content areas (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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

Authors and 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

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-016-9109-x

Keywords

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