Skip to main content

E-textbook as object and mediator: interactions between instructor and student activity systems

Journal of Computing in Higher Education volume 30, pages 298–325 (2018)Cite this article

Abstract

In this paper, we discuss the activity systems of students and instructors who used an interactive e-textbook in their instructional activities. Data included instructor interviews and student journals about e-textbook use in eight university courses. Exploration of the data through a cultural-historical activity theory lens indicated that e-textbook use can be limited when students act on it merely as an object without any intentional goal. Without requirements by the instructor, the embedded tools in the e-textbook may do little to support the student activity in the system. In addition, many instructors, as well, approached the e-textbook as an object, and a number of them did not include the e-textbook in their own activity systems. Considering the e-textbook as a mediating tool to address other goals (such as completing an assignment) or to support instructional decisions by faculty through developed awareness of students’ understandings, positioned the e-textbook as a mediator of learning, rather than an object on which to act. We end our discussion pointing to the need for an expansive transformation regarding the use of e-textbooks so they may be positioned as new kinds of mediating tools for learning.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

References

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT–TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52(1), 154–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Celik, I., Sahin, I., & Akturk, A. O. (2014). Analysis of the relations among the components of technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK): A structural equation model. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 51(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2013.824338.

    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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis, A., Abaci, S., Morrone, A., Plaskoff, J., & McNamara, K. (2016). Effects of e-textbook instructor annotations on learner performance. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-016-9109-x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y. (2001) Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080020028747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinchin, I. (2012). Avoiding technology-enhanced non-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), E43–E48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01264.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koh, J. H. L., & Chai, C. S. (2016). Seven design frames that teachers use when considering technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 102, 244–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozulin, A. (2003). Psychological tools and mediated learning. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp. 15–38). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 61–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.12.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc. ISBN-13: 978-0803955400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nardi, B. A., Whittaker, S., & Schwarz, H. (2002). Networkers and their activity in intensional networks. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 11, 205–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prawat, R. S., & Floden, R. E. (1994). Philosophical perspectives on constructivist views of learning. Educational Psychologist, 29(1), 37–48.

    Article  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Introduction: The new science of learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 1–16). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schul, J. E. (2012). Compositional encounters: Evolvement of secondary students’ narratives while making historical desktop documentaries. The Journal of Social Studies Education, 36(3), 219–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    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. https://doi.org/10.1111/dsji.12031.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Horne, S., Russell, J.-E., & Schuh, K. L. (2015). Assessment with e-textbook analytics., Research Bulletins Louisville, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research (ECAR).

    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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9425-x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, G. (2002). The role of dialogue in activity theory. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9(1), 43–66. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327884MCA0901_04.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolcott, H. F. (2001). Writing up qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0073336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2010). Activity systems analysis methods: Understanding complex learning environments. New York, NY: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Consortium of College and University Media Centers, who provided an award that supported the research study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychological and Quantitative Foundations, N304 Lindquist Center, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, 52242, USA

    Kathy L. Schuh

  2. The Office of Teaching, Learning, and Technology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

    Sam Van Horne & Jae-eun Russell

Authors
  1. Kathy L. Schuh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sam Van Horne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jae-eun Russell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kathy L. Schuh.

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

Schuh, K.L., Van Horne, S. & Russell, Je. E-textbook as object and mediator: interactions between instructor and student activity systems. J Comput High Educ 30, 298–325 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-9174-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-9174-4

Keywords

  • Electronic textbooks
  • Cultural-historic activity theory
  • Mediating tools
  • Adoption of technology