Varied student perception of e-text use among student populations in biology courses

Kerrie McDaniel 1 * , Jerry Daday 2
More Detail
1 Department of Biology, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY
2 Department of Sociology, Executive Director Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY
* Corresponding Author
EUR J SCI MATH ED, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp. 24-35. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/9520
OPEN ACCESS   1644 Views   896 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

The faculty in a biology department at a four-year public comprehensive university adopted e-texts for all 100 and 200 level biology courses with the primary motivation of reducing textbook costs to students. This study examines the students’ perceptions of the e-texts adopted for these 100 and 200 level biology courses. An online questionnaire was developed and administered in multiple sections of six 100 and 200 level biology courses during the spring and fall semesters of 2014 to measure student perceptions of the e-texts used in these courses. Results suggest a bimodal distribution among our sample (N = 2,152) of student participants. However, there are statistically significant and noteworthy exceptions to this general pattern. Black students reported a significantly higher satisfaction with e-texts compared to white students, and students repeating one of these courses reported significantly higher levels of satisfaction with the e-text compared to students taking the for the first time. Additionally, students with lower grade point averages (GPAs) preferred the e-text significantly more compared to those with higher GPAs. Further analyses reveal that the majority of student participants perceived the use of value-added technologies, such as e-homework, favorably.
Keywords: e-text, student perception, learning materials, repeating students, minority students

CITATION

McDaniel, K., & Daday, J. (2018). Varied student perception of e-text use among student populations in biology courses. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(1), 24-35. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/9520

REFERENCES

  • Anderson, J.A., & Adams, M. (1992). Acknowledging the learning styles of diverse student populations: Implications for instructional design. In L. Border, & N. Chism (Eds.), Teaching for diversity (pp. 19-33). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
  • Anderson, E. (2008). Against the wall: Poor, young, black and male. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
  • Austin, B., & Taylor, K. (2007). Reserves, electronic reserves and student copying practices at the University of Colorado Boulder: Is digital different? Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Documentary Delivery & Electronic Reserves, 18(1), 17-32.
  • Bailey, P.D., & Ouwuegbuzie, A.J. (2002). The role of study habits in foreign language courses. Assessment & Evaluation in HigherEducation, 27(5), 463-473.
  • Baker-Eveleth, L. J., Miller, J. R., & Tucker, L. (2011). Lowering business education cost with a custom professor-written online text. Journal of Education for Business, 86(4), 248-252.
  • Baum, S., Ma, J., & Payea, K. (2012). Trends in public higher education: Enrollment, prices, student aid, revenues, and expenditures. Analysis Brief, College Board Advocacy & Policy Center,(May).
  • Bloom, B.S. (1974). Rime and learning. American Psychologist, 29(9), 682-688.
  • Boczar, J., & Pascual, L. (2017). E-books for the classroom and open access textbooks. Two ways to help students save money on Textbooks. The Serials Librarian, 72, 1-4.
  • Butler, D.L. Winne, P.H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: a theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3): 245-281.
  • Cavanaugh, C., Gillan, K. J., Kromrey, J., Hess, M., & Blomeyer, R. (2004). The effects of distance education on K-12 student outcomes: A meta-analysis. Learning Point Associates/North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL).
  • Chapman, J., Seeley, E., Wright, N., Lowell, G., & Adams, L. (2016). An Empirical evaluation of broad ranging E-Text adoption with Recommendations for Improving Deployment Success for Students. E-Jounal of Business Education & Scholarship of Teaching, 10(2), 114.
  • Chickering, A., & Ehrmann, S. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. AAHE Bulletin, 49, 3-6.
  • Ch, A.H., (2006). Effect of guidance services on study attitudes, study habits and acadmic achievement of secondary school students. Bulletin of Education & Research, 28(1), 35-45.
  • Costal, D., Mullan, B.A., Kothe, E.J., & Butow, F., (2010). A web-based formative assessment tool for Masters students: a pilot study. Computer & Education, 54(4), 1248-1253.
  • Daniel, D., & Poole, D.A. (2009). Learning for life: an ecological approach to pedagogical research. Perspectives on Psychological research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(1), 91-96.
  • Daniel, D. B., & Willingham, D. T. (2012). Electronic textbooks: why the rush?. Science, 335(6076), 1569-1571.
  • Daniel, D., & Wood, W.D. (2013). E-textooks at what cost? Performance and use of electronic v. print text. Computers & Education, 62, 18-23.
  • El-Hussein, M. O. M., & Cronje, J. C. (2010). Defining mobile learning in the higher education landscape. Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 12-21.
  • Chesebro, J.L., & McCroskey, J.C. (2000). The relationship between students’ reports of learning and their actual recall of lecture material: a validity test. Communications Education, 49(3), 297-301.
  • Chickering, A.W. & Gamson, Z. (1989). Seven principle for good practice in undergraduate education. Biochemical Education, 17(3), 140-141.
  • Crede, M., & Kuncel, N.R. (2008). Study habits, skills and attitudes: The third pillar supporting collegiate academic performance. Perspective on Psychological Sciences, 3(6), 425-453.
  • Doering, T., Pereira, L., Kuechler, L., (2012). The use of E-textbooks in higher education: A Case Study. E-Leader Berlin (Germany).
  • Du, J., Ge, X., Xu, J. (2015). Online collaborative learning activities: The perspectives of African American female students. Computers & Education, 82, 152-161.
  • Frith, K.J., & Kee, C. (2003). The effect of communication onnursing student outcomes in a web-based course. Journal of Nursing Education, 42(8), 350-358.
  • Gallien, L.B., & Peterson, M. (2004). Instructing and Mentoring the African American College Student: Strategies for success in higher education. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
  • Harper, S.R. (2012). Black male student success in higher education: A report from the National Black Male College Achievement Study. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Center for the Study of Race and Equity in Education.
  • Jamali, H.R., Nicholas, D., & Rowland, I. (2010). Scholarly e-books: the views of 16,000 academics. New Information Perspectives, 61(1), 33-47.
  • Jones, C., (2008). Student perceptions of the impact of web-based homework on course interaction and learning introductory Accounting. The Accounting Educators Journal, 18, 15-28.
  • Kang, Y., Wang, M., & Lin, R. (2009). Usability evaluation of e-books. Displays, 30(2), 49-52.
  • Keller, J. Bless, H. (2008). Flow and regulatory compatibility: An experimental approach to the flow model of intrinsic motivation. Personality Social Psychology Bulletin, 34:196-209.
  • Karweit, N. (1982). Time-on-task Reconsidered: Synthesis of Research on Time and Learning. Educational Leadership, 41(8), 32-35.
  • Kuh, G.D., Cruce, T. M., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R.M. (2008). Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(5),540-563.
  • Lashely, J., Cummings,-Sauls, R., Bennett, A.B., & Lindshield, B. L. (2017) Cultivating Textbook Alternatives from the ground Up: One public university’s sustainable model for open and alternative educational resource proliferation. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(4).
  • Linn, J.W., & Lai, Y.C. (2013). Harnessing collaborative annotations on online formative assessments. Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 263-274.
  • McDaniel, K. & Daday, J. (2017). An Undergraduate Anatomy Lab Revision Success Story. HAPS Educator, 21(2), 8-18.
  • Milrad, M. & Spikol, D. (2007). Anytime, anywhere learning supported by smart phones: experiences and results from the MUSIS project. Education Technology & Society, 10(4), 62-70.
  • Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Henriksen, D. (2010). The 7 transdisciplinary habits of mind: Extending the TPACK framework framework towards 21st century learning. Educational Technology, 51(2), 22-28.
  • Misch, D.A. 2002. Andragogy and medical education: are medical student internally motivated to learn? Advances in Health Science Education Theory and Practice, 7:158-160.
  • Mueller, J., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Ross, C., & Specht, J. (2008). Identifying discriminating variables between teachers who fully integrate computers and teachers with limited integration. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1523-1537.
  • Murray, M., & Perez, J. (2011). E-textbooks are coming; are we ready? Issues in Informing Science & Information Technology, 8, 49-60.
  • Nagaraju, M.T.V. (2004). Study habits of secondary school students. New Delhi: Discovery Publishing House.
  • Noguera, P. (2008). The trouble with black boys…and other reflections on race, equity and the future of public education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • Paulsen, M.B., & St. John, E.P.S., (2002) Social class and collge costs: Examing the financial nexus between college choice and persistence. The Journal of Higher Education,73(2),189-236.
  • Pintrich, P.R., Zusho, A. (2002). Student motivation and self-regulated learning in the college classroom. In : J.C. Smart and W.G. Tierney (Eds) Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Volume XVII, New York, Agathon Press.
  • Provasnik, S., & Planty, M. (2008). Community colleges: special supplement to the condition of education 2008. Statistical analysis report. NCES 2008-033. National Center for Education Statistics.
  • Okwumabua, T.M., Walker, K.M., Hu, X, & Watson, A. (2011). An exploration of African American students’ attitudes toward online learning. Urban Education, 46, 241-250.
  • Reid, M.J., Flam, R., & Tisiouris, F., (2012). New models for medical education : web-based conferencing to support HIV training in subSahara Africa. Telemedicine Journal and E-Health, 18(7), 565-569.
  • Rhodes, A. E., & Rozell, T. G. (2015). A constructivist approach to e-text design for use in undergraduate physiology courses. Advances in physiology education, 39(3), 172-180.
  • Rockinson-Szapkiw, A., Holder, D., & Dunn, R. (2011). Motivating students to learn: Is there a difference? Published in a Proceedings of Global Learn Asia Pacific. Pg. 235-239.
  • Rockinson-Szapkiw, A., Courdouff, J., Carter, K., & Bennet, D. (2013). Electronic versus traditional print textbooks: A comparison study on the influence of university students’ learning, Computers & Education, 63, 259-266.
  • Rossing, J. P., Miller, W. M., Cecil, A. K., & Stamper, S. E. (2012). iLearning: The Future of Higher Education? Student Perceptions on Learning with Mobile Tablets. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 12(2), 1-26.
  • Rovai, A., & Baker, J. (2005). Gender differences in online learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6(1), 33-34.
  • Rovai, A., Wighting, M., Baker, J., & Grooms, L. (2009). Development of an instrument to measure perceived cognitive, affective and psychomotor learning in traditional and virtual classroom higher education setting. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(1), 7-13.
  • Sheppard, 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.
  • Soares, A.P., Guidsande, A.M., Almeida, L.S., & Parama, F.M. (2009). Academic achievement in first-year Portuguese college students: The role of academic preparation and learning strategies. International Journal of Psychology, 44(3), 204-212.
  • Sobral, D. (2004). What kind of motivation drives medical students’ learning quests? Medical Education, 38:950-957.
  • St. John, E.P., Paulsen, M.B., & Carter, D.F. (2005). Diversity, college costs, and postsecondary opportunity: An examination of the Financial nexus between college choice and persistence for African Americans and Whites. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(5), 545-569.
  • Tapscott, D. (2008). Grown Up Digital: How the Net Generation is Changing Your World HC. McGraw-Hill.
  • Vasileyeva, E., Pethenizkiy, M., & De Bra, P. (2008). Adaptation of elaborated feedback in e-learning. In Adaptive Hypermedia and Adaptive Web-based Systems. (pp. 235-244). Springer Berlin, Heidleberg.
  • Wang, J.H., & Guthrie, J.T. (2004). Modeling the effects of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, amount of reading, and past reading achievement on text comprehension between U.S and Chinese students. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 162-186.
  • Wood, L.J. & Williams, R.C. (2013). Persistence factors for black males in the community college: An examination of background, academic, social and environmental variables. Spectrum: A Journal on Black Men, 1(2).
  • Wook, S., Michaels, S., & Waterman, D. (2013). Print vs. electronic readings in college courses: Cost-efficiency and perceived learning. Internet and Higher Education, 21, 17-24.
  • Yager, S. and Szabo, Z. (2011). Using an e-Book to teach technology: Effects on student performance. SIGMIS-CPR’11.