Etextbooks Versus Print Textbooks- A Comparison Study Of Their Influence On Student Learning And Engagement

ETEXTBOOKS VERSUS PRINT TEXTBOOKS: A COMPARISON STUDY OF
THEIR INFLUENCE ON STUDENT LEARNING AND ENGAGEMENT
Connor Heyward, Suzanne Parkinson
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the Bachelor of Arts in Psychology
Mary Immaculate College, University of Limerick
Email: Connorhey@me.com
2014-2015

eTextbooks vs. Print Textbooks 2
ABSTRACT
This research seeks to evaluate the use of a modern reflowable eTextbook with features such
as dynamic media and compare it to a paper textbook to determine if there is a difference in
the retention of information and levels of engagement in focused and non-focused
environments. 92 students were randomly and equally distributed into two groups (eTextbook
and Paper Booklet), then randomly subdivided into Non-focused and Focused environments.
An excerpt from an Ecology eTextbook was presented on an iPad and in text form. Retention
of information was measured by a short exam. Level of engagement was measured by 18
questions answered via a Likert scale. Results revealed no significant difference in
performance in the focused environment. In non-focused environments, iPad users performed
significantly better. Participants in a non-focused environment who used the eTextbook were
significantly more engaged than those who read from the paper textbook. In the focused
condition, the opposite was true. In a survey of attitudes, participants who used the iPad rated
it highly, many believed they learned the same or more than they would have from a standard
textbook. It concludes that eTextbooks and modern tablet computers have a positive role to
play in supporting effective student learning.

INTRODUCTION
New technologies are revolutionising modern living. Students have witnessed
technology encroach on every aspect of their lives, whether it be personal, social,
professional or now their academic studies. Online journals and digital textbooks are
changing the way we study. Technology is becoming more and more integrated into
academic life, but in truth this remains a battleground between tradition and innovation,
where students still prefer to use paper textbooks (Weisberg, 2011; Jeong, 2012; Woody,
Daniel, & Baker, 2010; Bole, 2011). However according to Weisberg (2011), students’
unwillingness to use a technology device for their course textbook is likely to decline once
they get accustomed to using one. The study reported that over 50% of students who initially
declared they would not use a digital device for their course textbook changed their minds
over the course of the study during which they were provided with one. He also reported that
only 26% of people said they would use it as their primary source. Weisberg’s study was
carried out over two years and as such has good reliability; however all the participants were
senior undergraduates in business taking the same class and therefore it does not take into
account that attitudes towards the use of technology for textbooks may vary across
disciplines. Nevertheless, Weisberg (2011) believes this problem is minimised because “the
class follows the traditional pedagogical model of textbook reading, homework assignments
and papers, and classroom lecture and discussion” (p. 190). Chesser (2011) reports that
findings from attitude surveys that indicate students are opposed to electronic textbooks may
be flawed because they stem from the fact eTextbooks are new and expensive, whereas used
paper books are familiar, cheap and readily available. To quote Dennis (2011) “No one
seriously doubts that the paper textbook will be replaced by eTextbooks; it is only a question
of when” (p. 2).

Background
The emergence of the eTextbook has been widely predicted over the past three
decades culminating in the explosion of the eBook market towards the end of the last decade
culminating in Amazon reporting they sold 105 eBooks for every 100 paper books in early
2011, while Barnes and Noble reported that their eBooks were outselling print books by three
to one. It was expected that textbooks would follow suit, however according to Outsell,
eTextbooks comprised just 3.4 % of the market (Mulvihill, 2011). Part of the problem lies in
the fact that each of the major publishers has their own eTextbook products, each requiring
special software, apps or web logins. Additionally, the methods of highlighting the text,
making annotations, using built-in media and additional tools such as dictionaries vary
depending on the publisher or device in use (Schugar, Schugar, & Penny, 2011). According
to Chesser (2011), fears about piracy were another reason that eTextbooks were slow to
emerge; not surprising considering the textbook market is worth billions of dollars a year.
Furthermore various types of eTextbooks have emerged. Rockinson-Szapkiw,
Courduff, Carter and Bennett’s (2013) research points out that there are now two formats of
eTextbook; page fidelity eTextbooks and reflowable digital eTextbooks. Page fidelity
eTextbooks mimic paper textbooks in a digital format and therefore suffer the same
limitations as paper in that they lack web links, dynamic media, and the ability to change text
size or interact with pictures (Chesser, 2011). Reflowable eTextbooks allow flexibility when
reading the text in that the user can adjust font and windows size, view pictures full screen
etc. This flexible format is also what makes it so versatile in terms of devices because the text
can be modified to suit display mediums of any size (Chesser, 2011). More recently
eTextbooks have been taking advantage of the emergence of tablet computers such as the
iPad and those based on Google’s Android operating system such as the Samsung Galaxy

Note and Google Nexus devices. This has led to an increase in video resources as well as
other interactive embedded material (Chesser, 2011)
Research in the area of the readability of electronically generated text began decades
ago with the increasing use of the computer monitor; researchers such as Gould (1968, as
cited in Mayes, Sims, & Koonce, 2001) began working on behalf of the manufacturers to
develop guidelines for their best use. At the time, he concluded that the screens available
were not advanced enough in terms of pixel quality to be considered as possible replacements
for paper printed material. Nineteen years later, he conducted further research and, although
he found improvements in the quality of the screens, his findings showed that reading from a
screen was still 25% slower than reading from paper (Gould, 1987, as cited in Margolin,
Driscoll, Toland, & Kegler, 2013; Mayes et al., 2001). Mayes et al.’s (2001) research 14
years on appeared to indicate that advances in the technology of the screens during this
period had reduced the differences in reading speed to negligible levels, and by 2004,
Garland and Noyes found no differences in comprehension or reading speed. However, the
generalisability of these studies today is limited because they were carried out using cathode
ray tube (CRT) monitors, a now out-dated technology. CRT monitors produce vibrations that
occur when the screen refreshes and these can negatively affect reading performance, this
may explain earlier findings, but fundamentally it is the quality of the display that has the
largest effect on reading performance (Garland & Noyes, 2004). Screen technology has since
progressed with the invention of the liquid crystal display (LCD), Light-Emitting Diode
(LED) and Organic Light-Emitting Diode (OLED) (Dundar & Akcayir, 2012; Jeong, 2012).
More recent research has centred on the eReader, with devices such as the Kindle and the
Nook, however the lack of a colour display greatly limits their suitability as eTextbooks and
furthermore these devices do not offer integrated web browsing, media support, or popular

external applications such as Microsoft Office which are becoming ever more essential for
study in most modern subject areas (Chesser, 2011).
Potential
There are many potential benefits to switching to electronic forms of text presentation
such as the ability to annotate eTextbooks, greater portability and convenience (especially in
tablet computers), the ability to search and make directional choices by means of hyperlink
(Weisberg, 2011; Uso-Juan & Ruiz-Madrid, 2009) and the benefits to the environment in
paper saving. Surprisingly, research by Dennis (2008) found that more students (69%)
believed that the ability for instructors to annotate their eTextbook and the associated saving
in paper as a benefit to the environment (67%) was actually more important to them than cost
(64%). This data was gathered by the use of a survey and other benefits reported by students
included the reduced weight in their backpacks (61%) and the ability to annotate the text
themselves (60%). In addition, tablet computers, such as the iPad, provide students with other
features on the move such as calendars, reminders and notes, as well as email, something that
is becoming essential in the modern university for the rapid distribution of information
(Nguyen, Barton, & Nguyen, 2015).
Electronic text presentation means that books would no longer be limited to simply
text and graphics; the use of video, animation, and/or sound could add a whole new
dimension to the way we read and understand course texts (Jeong, 2012). On the other hand,
the traditional textbook serves up far less distractions than a computer or tablet (Weisberg,
2011; Schugar, Schugar, & Penny, 2011; Nguyen, Barton, & Nguyen, 2015). There are
countless digital disturbances for students, like the many forms of social media with real time
notifications. Despite the relative low cost of eTextbooks, the overall cost is very high
considering the initial outlay and lack of resale potential, an advantage of current paper
textbooks (Marmarelli & Ringle, 2011). Attitudes do appear to be changing, most likely due

to the fast paced nature of the technology sector. Nguyen et al. (2015) conducted a systematic
literature review (SLR) of papers published within the last two years using iPads in the higher
education sector. It was found that overall, students now hold a positive attitude about using
iPads as part of their education and they can motivate learning.
Learning
Rockinson-Szapkiw et al. (2013) looked at perceived learning from a number of
presentation methods: print, laptop, tablet computer, e-reader, and smartphone. They point to
Bloom’s (1956, as cited in Rockinson-Szapkiw et al., 2013) research which defined learning
as having three interrelated dimensions; cognitive, affective and psychomotor. Using a self-
report measure of this wider dimension of learning combined with student grades, they found
that scores did not differ based on the presentation format chosen for the course textbook.
This study was carried out across a whole semester in a variety of subjects using various
eTextbooks; however there may have been a threat to validity in that students could choose
the presentation format they wanted to use. Schugar et al. (2011) looked much deeper at
student learning and found that there was no significant difference in answers with supporting
details across four time points in a semester depending on whether a student was using a
traditional textbook or a Nook eReader device. It appears that, despite students concerns
about using digital devices for their core textbook, the majority of recent literature on
eTextbooks has indicated little difference in comprehension between using traditional
textbooks over these devices (Connell, Bayliss, & Farmer, 2012; Dundar & Akcayir, 2012;
Rockinson-Szapkiw et al., 2013; Schugar et al., 2011). Indeed, Margolin et al. (2013)
concluded in their study that in today’s world “electronic forms of text presentation may be
just as viable a format as paper presentation” (p. 517).
Across the literature, student learning is the most commonly used measure of efficacy
for any new educational tools; this is usually carried out using a grade or achievement test.

While the retention of information is a valid measure and is certainly required, as Rockinson-
Szapkiw et al. (2013) point out, “learning consists of not only knowledge about a topic but
the feelings and attitudes about a topic and the inclination to behaviourally engage in the
topic related experiences” (p. 259). Therefore student engagement is acknowledged to be
intrinsically linked to educational outcomes, but despite this, to the best of this researcher’s
knowledge, no study has scientifically looked at engagement levels of people studying from
an eTextbook.
Engagement
Modern tablet computers are widely perceived as having the potential to better engage
students. Indeed Nguyen et al.’s (2015) systematic literature review reported that the iPad
was “found to highly engage and potentially enhance students’ learning experience” across
the literature (p.194). Manuguerra and Petocz (2011) reported that the iPad can be “used as a
means to engage, inspire and motivate students through high-level presentation and
communication tools” (p. 62). Diemer, Fernandez and Streepey’s (2013) research had 209
undergraduate students partake in a classroom activity that was designed to promote
engagement through active and collaborative learning. This was followed by a survey rating
their perceived learning and engagement using a five-point Likert scale. Four of the ten
questions related to engagement and focused specifically on the iPad’s influence on
motivation, participation, attention and the ease of working in groups. “Students, on average,
reported high levels of perceived learning and moderate levels of perceived engagement”
(Diemer et al., 2013, p. 19). It is unclear why they chose not to use a more robust measure of
engagement.
Some early non-educational measures of engagement were simply inferred from
measurements of the opposite: burnout. It was assumed that if an employee was not burnt-
out, then they were engaged (Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá, & Bakker, 2002).

Schaufeli et al. (2002) believed that engagement should be operationalized and measurable in
its own right. By examining the Maslach-Burnout Inventory (MBI) they were able to
determine the opposite states of burnout. Three dimensions were identified: vigour,
dedication and absorption, contributing to “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind”
(p. 74). From these three dimensions they were able to create a work engagement scale. They
created an experiment by adapting a version of the scale and putting it alongside a version of
the MBI suitable for use with students. By testing it on 314 undergraduates, and later 619
employees, they found that burnout and engagement are indeed antipodes. Salanova, Llorens,
Cifre, Martínez and Schaufeli (2003) have since adapted this scale for use in a task situation.
Need for this Research
Nguyen et al. (2015) explain how modern technology devices are already changing the
way people study as part of a shift toward digital mobile learning (m-learning). These
portable devices loaded with the latest eTextbooks are usable in a variety of reading settings,
some of which are more conducive to positive engagement than others. Connell et al. (2012)
acknowledges a gap in the research in this area and recommends that further research needs
to focus on a variety of reading settings, as previous research has focused on traditional study
environments. Research into focused and non-focused environments is required because
noise has been shown to affect “attention to central cues during complex language related
tasks” (Haines, Stansfeld, Job, Berglund, & Head, 2001, p. 274). Limited capacity theories
state that if a person is faced with two or more tasks, however involuntary, these will compete
for a limited amount of information processing resources. For example, while a person is
studying in a non-focused environment, distracting noise, such as other people’s
conversations, can elicit orienting responses that will decrease the amount of cognitive
resources available for understanding and remembering information (Pool, Koolstra, &
Voort, 2003). This finding is supported by studies such as Haines et al. (2001) which,

consistent with previous research, found that chronic aircraft noise below Heathrow airport
flight paths negatively affected children’s reading comprehension. However, this study was
carried out on children between the ages of 9 and 11 and may not be generalizable to the
adult student population. The present research aims to establish whether the interactive
features on a modern reflowable eTextbook can mitigate the negative effects of a noisy
environment.
Rockinson-Szapkiw et al. (2013) calls for further research into the viability of modern
eTextbooks (such as those developed under the iBooks format) in education as they continue
to evolve and for further research to look at student perceptions of this new type of learning
tool. Therefore this study aims to address these gaps in the research area. Following the
analysis of previous literature and taking into account these recommendations, three main
questions were developed.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
1. Does a modern eTextbook (presented on an iPad) containing videos, interactive
material, the ability to highlight, bookmark and annotate text, affect participant
learning when compared to the same information presented on paper?
2. Which of these modes of presentation is more effective in non-focused and focused
environments?
3. Do people engage differently with modern eTextbooks than standard paper textbooks?
It was hypothesized that learning would not be impacted by the use of an eTextbook
when compared with a standard textbook. It was further hypothesized that students would
engage more with the eTextbook than the standard paper textbook due to the use of
interactive features. Lastly, it was hypothesized and that the iPad would be more effective in

non-focused environments due to its ease of use and additional interactive features which are
more likely to maintain the reader’s attention.
METHOD
Design
The present study incorporated a 2×2 between-subjects factorial design. The first
independent variable was Presentation Type (PT) with two levels (iPad and Paper). The
second independent variable was Type of Environment (TE) with two levels (Focused and
Non-focused). This was operationalized by defining Focused as a psychology experiment
room or classroom and Non-focused as a common area within the college with a sound level
that measured above 50 decibels. The first dependant variable was Exam Score (ES). This
was a score representing the participant’s performance in the short exam. The exam contained
8 MCQ’s worth 1 mark each and 2 short answer questions that were coded quantitatively and
worth 4 marks each. The maximum score on the exam was 16 marks. The second dependant
variable was Engagement Score (ES) measured by an 18-item Engagement Questionnaire.
The study used a survey to gather Participant Opinions (PO) about the usability of the iPad;
this was only gathered from participants using the eTextbook. The experiment was carried
out both one to one and in groups of up to 10 people. Participants were informed that the
study was being carried out to identify the medium which elicits the optimum level of
engagement in study.
Participants

Participants were 92 undergraduate and graduate students (age 18 to 49 years; M =
21.64, SD = 3.84 years, three participants did not disclose their age) selected as a
convenience sample from Mary Immaculate College, a small Irish college of Education and
Liberal Arts. Participation was voluntary and participants were free to withdraw at any time.
Participants were split randomly between the iPad and paper conditions and the focused and
non-focused environments. All participants gave written consent prior to participation. The
gender split was 58 females and 32 males; two participants did not disclose their gender. A
chi-square goodness of fit indicates that there was a significant difference between the
numbers of males and females, χ
2
(1, n = 90) = 7.51, p = .006.
Materials
The study used two forms of presentation to display the comprehension task, an iPad
and a printed colour A4 booklet. It used 10 third generation Apple iPads with retina display
(Wi-Fi only model, 64gb memory) running iOS 8.1. A data collection booklet was used to
record answers to the short exam, engagement questionnaire, survey and participant
information (see Appendix V, Appendix VI, Appendix VII, Appendix VIII). The text used in
this research was an excerpt from E.O. Wilson's Life on Earth Unit 7, Chapter 38; this was
sourced from the iBooks web store. It was designed and produced solely in a digital
interactive format for iBooks. A standard text version was created using screenshots of any
interactive video and transcribing video commentary. See Figure 1 for a comparison of the
two formats.


Figure 1: Comparison of eTextbook and Paper Booklet Layout
The engagement questionnaire, originally a 24-item version by Schaufeli et al. (2002),
was adapted to an 18-item scale by Salanova et al. (2003). The scale consists of 18 items,
measuring from 1 (never) to 5 (most of the time). They are scored on three scales: vigour
(seven items), dedication (four items), and absorption (seven items). The wording was altered
from use with work groups to individuals for the purpose of this research. For example,
instead of “during the task, my group felt full of energy”, the wording was changed to
“during the task, I felt full of energy”, see Appendix VI. In Salanova et al. (2003) the α
coefficients were taken over two time periods:
The α coefficients for collective vigour were .76 at Time 1 and .80 in Time 2. The α
coefficients for collective dedication were .75 at Time 1 and .78 in Time 2. After
removing one item, the initial α coefficient of collective absorption was substantively
increased to .70 (Time 1) and .80 (Time 2). (pp. 53-54)

In this study the α coefficient for vigour was .79, and .86 for dedication. Unlike Salanova et
al. (2003) this research did not need to remove any items as the initial α coefficient of
absorption was sufficiently reliable at .83. The post experiment survey questions in the
eTextbook condition were taken and adapted from the one administered by Schugar et al.
(2011), see Appendix VII.
Procedure
A pilot study was carried out on two participants to establish a guideline of how long
it took to complete the experiment and to ensure there was no ceiling effect on the exam
questions. No ceiling effect was found and the full data collection was carried out as follows:
The researcher greeted the participant and briefed them on the experiment before
handing them a consent form (Appendix I). Participants were informed that this was a
reading task and should they have an impairment that might affect their performance on this
type of task, or if English was not their first language, then they could self-select not to
participate. Participants were given the paper booklet or iPad with a set of instructions that
were specific to the condition they were assigned to (Appendix III and Appendix IV).
Participants in the iPad condition were given a demonstration on how to use the iPad for the
purpose of this experiment; this included how to turn the page, play videos, make notes and
highlight text. Participants in both conditions were given a pen and paper should they wish to
make notes, however they were informed that these notes could not be used during the exam.
There was no time limit and participants could begin reading the text when ready, they were
advised to only spend as much time as they usually would in reading for an in-semester
exam. When the participant was finished reading, the text and notes were withdrawn from
view and they were handed the self-report data collection booklet. When each participant was
finished, they were handed a debriefing report (Appendix II) and were invited to ask the
researcher any questions they might have.

RESULTS
Presentation Type and Type of Environment on Exam Score
A two-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted to examine the
individual and joint effects of the two independent variables (Presentation Type and Type of
Environment) on the dependant variable (Exam Score). There was a statistically significant
main effect for Presentation Type, F (1, 88) = 5.22, p = .025 and there was a medium effect
size (Partial ɳ² = .06) according to Cohen’s cut off points. There was no main effect for
Environment, p= .60. There was a significant interaction effect found between Presentation
Type and the Environment F (1, 88) = 4.36, p = .04 as shown below in Figure 2, however the
effect size was small (partial ɳ² = .05).
Figure 2: Means Plot of Presentation Type and Type of Environment on Exam Score
Presentation Type and Type of Environment on Engagement

A second two-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted to examine
the individual and joint effects of the two independent variables (Presentation Type and Type
of Environment) on the dependant variable (Engagement Score). The mean values for
Vigour, Dedication and Absorption were calculated for each participant, the mean value of
these three scores was then used to create an overall Engagement Score; this obtained a
reliable α coefficient value of .77. There was a statistically significant interaction effect
found between Presentation Type and the Environment F (1, 84) = 6.69, p = .01 as shown
below in Figure 3 and there was a medium effect size (partial ɳ² = .07). There was no
statistically significant main effect for Presentation Type, p = .32 or for the Environment, p =
.95.

Figure 3: Means Plot of Presentation Type and Type of Environment on Engagement

Participant Opinions about Reading from a Tablet Computer on Engagement Score
A one-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore participant
opinions (PO) about reading from a tablet computer (three groups; ‘more difficult than
reading from a traditional text’; ‘about the same as reading a traditional text’; ‘easier than
reading a traditional text’) on Engagement Score (ES). ANOVA identified the presence of
statistically significant different results between-groups, F (2, 40) = 5.29, p = .009, partial ɳ²
= .21. Post-hoc Tukey tests suggest that participants who found reading from the iPad more
difficult than reading from a traditional text (M = 3.06, SD = .47) had significantly lower
engagement than those who found who found it easier than reading a traditional text (M =
3.78, SD = .38), p = .018. There was also a significant difference between those who found
the iPad about the same as reading a traditional text (M = 3.2, SD = .51) compared to those
who found it easier than reading a traditional text (M = 3.78, SD = .38), p = .014. However
there was no difference between those who found reading from the iPad more difficult than
reading from a traditional text (M = 3.06, SD = .47) and those who found the iPad about the
same as reading a traditional text (M = 3.2, SD = .51), p = .771. This analysis is presented
below in Figure 4.


Figure 4
3.06 3.2
3.78
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
More difficult than reading
from a traditional text
About the same as
reading a traditional text
Easier than reading a
traditional text
MeanEngagementScore
Difficulty in Reading from a Tablet
Computer on Engagement Score
High
Low

Survey Data
The vast majority of participants who took part in the iPad condition of the study were
at least somewhat comfortable with technology, however most (65%) did not own a tablet
computer. Despite the low ownership figures, 74% of participants had previously used a
tablet computer. Of those who had not, very few (just 4%) found using it uncomfortable.
Furthermore, participants rated convenience, readability, clarity, ease of use and navigation at
near optimum levels. Most participants felt that the eTextbook was as easy as, or easier than,
reading from a traditional textbook. Furthermore most felt their comprehension of the text
was the same as when reading from a traditional textbook, where as 19% actually thought
they understood better. This research also found that at least 10% of students engage in
passive travelling either by being driven or by using public transport, indicating the potential
for additional study time.
DISCUSSION
If the prediction by Dennis (2011) is correct and it really is only a matter of time
before eTextbooks replace paper textbooks, then this study recorded relevant findings in that
it is demonstrates conclusively that when study takes place in distracting environments,
learning outcomes will be significantly improved with the use of an eTextbook. Research in
this area has been on-going over the past number of decades, but the ferocious pace of
technological advances means that new research is continually needed. This present study is
unique in seeking to explore the difference in reading comprehension from these two
methods of presentation in two different reading environments. Initially, main effects
indicated a statistically significant difference in participant learning between a modern
eTextbook and a paper textbook, but on closer inspection of the interaction effects, there was

very little difference in performance between the two modes of presentation in a focused
environment. In the non-focused condition, however, performance using the eTextbook
improved, whereas performance with the paper textbook decreased significantly. The study is
also amongst the first to measure engagement levels while using these forms of presentation.
It was found that although there was no significant difference in engagement between the
eTextbook and the paper textbook, interaction effects indicated participants were
significantly more engaged with the eTextbook in the non-focused environment, whereas in
the focused condition, the opposite was true; here participants found the paper textbook more
engaging than the eTextbook.
Overall this study finds that there is a place for eTextbooks and tablet computers in
education. Although it identified no difference in learning, it found slightly reduced levels of
engagement in focused environments. Therefore students who study in focused environments
may find that they prefer to retain the use of paper textbooks. However students who are
short of time and are prone to studying in non-focused environment may benefit significantly
from the use of a modern eTextbook. For example, approximately 10% of the sample could
be using an eTextbook during their commute. The college in which this study was carried out
lacks any direct public transport links; in other educational institutions the percentage of
students who commute by public transport is likely to be much higher. Nevertheless, this
research acknowledges that the monetary costs for those who want to optimise their learning
are potentially very high due to the high cost of a tablet computer and eTextbook, and the
possible need to purchase an additional traditional paper textbook for use in traditional study
conditions. Many standard textbooks now come with accompanying interactive material
which is accessible online. This material could easily be incorporated into an eTextbook
version, with the extra development cost offset by the elimination of paper and printing costs.
Ideally, the purchase of a paper textbook could include a free or low-cost downloadable

eTextbook as an optional extra. These are options which would clearly help with the uptake
of eTextbooks in education, benefitting students’ study while preserving the current business
model.
Most participants in this study were familiar with tablet computers; still there was no
significant difference in exam scores between those who were familiar, and those who were
not. This result is promising because it indicates that there is no prolonged adaption period, as
is the case with some new technologies. This result is also encouraging for their general use
in education. Nevertheless, it appears that some people find it easier using iPads than others
and it was found that this significantly affected engagement levels. Even those who felt it was
about the same as reading from a traditional text were less engaged than those who found it
easier. There is some doubt over this finding, as it is possible that student’s perceived ease of
use naturally leads to better engagement and vice versa. If so, then people who have difficulty
may find IT tutoring of help. Many third level institutions include IT tutoring as part of their
courses and if eTextbooks are to become more common, these courses will need to be
adapted to include tablet computers such as iPads. It is reasonable to expect that there will
always be students who for various reasons will prefer to use a traditional textbook;
nevertheless, by improving skills with these devices, there is no reason why eTextbooks
should not replace paper textbooks for the vast majority, giving students more opportunity to
engage with their core course texts whatever the study environment.
Limitations of the Study
A significant limitation of the study was that participants who were assigned to the
non-focused environment were required to not only read the text, but also to answer the exam
questions in the same environment and it is likely that this affected the recall of information.
Further to this, the participants in the iPad condition were required to watch videos with
sound and this required the use of headphones. Even though not all participants chose to wear

headphones for the entire piece (this was left at the participant’s discretion), this may have
acted as a confounding variable by reducing the distracting noise. Participants were not
allowed to wear headphones during the short exam.
A further limitation of this study was its use of non-standardised conditions. It was
very difficult to keep the non-focused conditions constant. Although the environment was
always in a public place with a sound level above 50db, the noise level and hustle and bustle
varied depending on the time of the day. A smartphone was used to measure the sound level,
and as such may not have been particularly accurate. The 50db lower limit was chosen
because this was the average sound level recorded in public areas within the college;
however, other non-focused environments may measure considerably more. For example the
mean chronic aircraft noise which interrupted children’s reading comprehension in the
aforementioned Haines et al. (2001) study exceeded 64db.
The textbook extract used in this study was designed solely for use as an eTextbook.
However, as this experiment used paper booklets to present it rather than traditional
textbooks, it is feasible that students did not treat them as standard textbooks. Furthermore,
the eTextbook was tested on third level students, but was actually designed for a high school
level reader (E.O. Wilson Biodiversity Foundation, 2014). Third level textbooks were
considered, but many lacked a concentrated sample of interactive features that were suited to
a short experiment and these features were fundamental to the experiment. Although this
textbook was the right choice for this research, in future, if a similar media-rich third level
textbook became available, this should be used.
The engagement scale and survey data used self-report measures. While these are
deemed valid measures of research, it is important to acknowledge the possibility of social
desirability bias. Additionally there was an uneven gender split, with a significantly larger
sample of females than males.

Unlike Connell et al. (2012), this study did not screen for prior knowledge about the
subject matter. Because of time constraints and the need to keep the experiment as short as
possible to maximise the number of participants, it was deemed unnecessary based on the fact
that biology and ecology were not subjects taught in the college.
Finally, engagement is a complex and multifaceted subject area that is not yet fully
understood. Definitions of student engagement continue to emerge. These definitions place
emphasis on different elements, from positive adult-student and peer relationships to how
students self-regulate, challenge themselves and how much effort they put in (Christenson,
Reschly, & Wylie, 2012). Christenson et al. (2012) point out that, while there is consensus
that student engagement is multidimensional, researchers still disagree as to the number and
types of dimensions. These were the problems this research confronted when seeking a
relevant task engagement scale for use in an experimental setting. The engagement
questionnaire adapted by Salanova et al. (2003) was used with the best intentions of
measuring student engagement, however this research acknowledges that engagement is still
an evolving concept, and as such it may emerge that this scale may not have measured the
dimensions that were most relevant to the eTextbook domain. Nevertheless, in the
circumstances, this scale was the best measure currently available.
Recommendations for Future Research
Sun, Flores, and Tanguma (2012) point out that the more students use eTextbooks and
tablet computers, the more they are exposed to features that can enhance their learning
outcomes. There are further benefits for students that this research has not explored. For
example eTextbooks can provide a platform for out of class discussion through dedicated
online discussion forums, they can also allow students to obtain immediate feedback on
exercises that can enhance understanding. They can also be of use to distance learners,

creating a virtual classroom that allows effective tuition and collaboration (Sun, Flores, &
Tanguma, 2012). This is an area that requires more research.
Much of the focus from studies examining the role of modern technologies focuses on
the students that can make use of it, but technology adoption in the educational setting may
be more reliant on its uptake by academics. Academics tend to remain sceptical about
changing their established traditional teaching methods in favour of modern technologies,
their concerns generally revolve around distracted students, fitting them into their proven and
established teaching methods, and concerns about cost and how the technology can become
out-dated very quickly (Nguyen et al. 2015). Nguyen et al. (2015) state how “there has been
little concern about engaging academics, motivating them and discussing with them possible
changes to their teaching and research processes” (p. 198); these factors are clear barriers to
the uptake of technology in education. Therefore further research into effective uptake
strategies for those across the academic discipline is needed. If academics come to understand
how technology can offer students the opportunity to access their education resources in a
“flexible and seamless manner”, their scepticism is likely to decline (Nguyen et al., 2015,
p.192).
This research did not include results from those who had a reading impairment that
might have affected their performance on the reading task; however technology may indeed
be of great benefit to those very people, in that they can make use of features such as font
adjustment. Furthermore, there is potential for text-to-speech facilities to be incorporated into
eTextbooks. A dedicated study to investigate this would therefore be beneficial.
An important factor that this study did not touch upon is the issue of eye fatigue
caused by reading from screens. Eye fatigue is a phenomenon where stress is put on the eyes
when “reading an e-book from a backlit computer screen or other LCD or OLED device”
(Jeong, 2012, p. 393). Reading from a screen decreases blinking rate, which in turn reduces

the level of moisture in the eye causing irritation. Jeong (2012) found there was a difference
in eye fatigue when reading from paper versus an LCD screen in children ages 10-12 years
old. In general eye fatigue has been found to be much more of a factor when the screen
resolution and contrast are poor. Furthermore Jeong (2012) admits that eye fatigue from
computer monitors is likely to be higher due to the static reading position. As this study used
a portable third generation iPad with retina display, it is unlikely to have affected the results,
however, further research in this area is needed to verify this assumption.
Lastly, experimental research is also required in other reading environments, such as
public transport to verify this research’s previous hypothesis.
Strengths of this Research
The strengths of this study are that it used a random sample of third level students
who were not given the option of choosing their mode of presentation, thus reducing
selection bias. Furthermore it clearly addresses a gap in the literature by focusing on the
influence of the quality of reading environments in determining levels of learning and
engagement. It made use of devices with the latest technological advances in terms of display
quality and integrated features. It investigated the potential of a rapidly emerging educational
resource, focusing on learner engagement, something which is increasingly being recognised
as an important component of learning. It controlled for confounding variables such as
reading impairments and first language. It incorporated no time limit for the reading of the
text as tasks that are conducted with time pressure have been shown to require more cognitive
resources, and therefore cognitive capacity is more likely to be exceeded (Kahneman, 1973,
as cited in Pool et al., 2003). It possessed both quantitative and qualitative elements that
examined student attitudes to modern eTextbooks in addition to performance and
engagement. Finally the results contributed some interesting results for the existing body of
research in that it indicated an important role for modern eTextbooks in education.

Concluding Statement
In conclusion this paper supports the rollout of eTextbooks in education with the
findings indicating that they can have a positive role to play in supporting effective student
learning; every time an eTextbook encourages the student to engage in learning wherever, or
whatever they may be doing, the chances of the student succeeding in learning outcomes
increase.
REFERENCES
Bole, A. (2011). College Students Want their Textbooks the Old-Fashioned Way: In Print.
Retrieved January 5, 2015, from Book Industry Study Group [Press Release]:
https://www.bisg.org/news/press-releasecollege-students-want-their-textbooks-old-
fashioned-way-print
Chesser, W. D. (2011). Chapter 5: The E-textbook Revolution. Library Technology Reports,
47(8), 28-40.
Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of Research on
Student Engagement. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.
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.
Dennis, A. (2011). e-Textbooks at Indiana University: A summary of two years of research.
IRB, 912000863(1003001166), 1-6.
Diemer, T. T., Fernandez, E., & Streepey, J. W. (2013). Student perceptions of classroom
engagement and learning using iPads. Journal of Teaching and Learning with
Technology, 1(2), 13-25.

Dundar, H., & Akcayir, M. (2012). Tablet vs. Paper: The Effect on Learners' Reading
Performance. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4(3), 441-
450.
E.O. Wilson Biodiversity Foundation. (2014). E.O. Wilson’s Life on Earth. Retrieved January
4, 2015, from E.O. Wilson Biodiversity Foundation: http://eowilsonfoundation.org/e-
o-wilson-s-life-on-earth/
Garland, K. J., & Noyes, J. M. (2004). CRT monitors: Do they interfere with learning?
Behaviour & Information Technology, 23(1), 43-52.
Haines, M. M., Stansfeld, S. A., Job, R. S., Berglund, B., & Head, J. (2001). Chronic aircraft
noise exposure, stress responses, mental health and cognitive performance in school
children. Psychological medicine, 31(2), 265-277.
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.
Manuguerra, M., & Petocz, P. (2011). Promoting student engagement by integrating new
technology into tertiary education: The role of the iPad. Asian Social Science, 7(11),
61-65.
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.
Marmarelli, T., & Ringle, M. (2011). The Reed College iPad Study. 1-8.
Mulvihill, A. (2011). Etextbooks: coming of age. Information Today, 28(8), 1-4.
Nguyen, L., Barton, S. M., & Nguyen, L. T. (2015). iPads in higher education - Hype and
hope. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(1), 190-203.

Pool, M. M., Koolstra, C. M., & Voort, T. H. (2003). The impact of background radio and
television on high school students' homework performance. Journal of
Communication, 53(1), 74-87.
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.
Salanova, M., Llorens, S., Cifre, E., Martínez, I. M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2003). Perceived
Collective Efficacy, Subjective Well-Being And Task Performance An Experimental
Studymong Electronic Work Groups. Small Group Research, 34(1), 43-73.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The
measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic
approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71-92.
Schugar, J. T., Schugar, H., & Penny, C. (2011). A nook or a book: Comparing college
students’ reading comprehension level, critical reading, and study skills. International
Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 7(2), 174-192.
Sun, J., Flores, J., & Tanguma, J. (2012). E-Textbooks and students’ learning experiences.
Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 10(1), 63-77.
Uso-Juan, E., & Ruiz-Madrid, M. N. (2009). Reading Printed versus Online Texts. A Study
of EFL Learners’ Strategic Reading Behavior. International Journal of English
Studies, 9(2), 59-79.
Weisberg, M. (2011). Student Attitudes and Behaviors Towards Digital Textbooks.
Publishing Research Quarterly, 27(2), 188-196.
Woody, W. D., Daniel, D. B., & Baker, C. A. (2010). E-books or textbooks: Students prefer
textbooks. Computers & Education, 55(3), 945-948.

Etextbooks Versus Print Textbooks- A Comparison Study Of Their Influence On Student Learning And Engagement

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (17)

Similar to Etextbooks Versus Print Textbooks- A Comparison Study Of Their Influence On Student Learning And Engagement

Similar to Etextbooks Versus Print Textbooks- A Comparison Study Of Their Influence On Student Learning And Engagement (20)

Etextbooks Versus Print Textbooks- A Comparison Study Of Their Influence On Student Learning And Engagement