The Use of E-Books in Higher Education: A Balanced Perspective

The Use of E-Books in Higher Education: A Balanced Perspective

By Divine Agodzo

Over the last decade, e-books have emerged as one of the most significant technological innovations in the educational sector. Without doubt, the growing adoption of e-books in higher education has revolutionary implications for teaching and learning. This essay briefly discusses this trend and provides an overview of relevant research on e-book use in college-level education. It will also consider the case in favor of and against e-books and argue that on balance, e-books promise more benefits than burdens to the learning project and should be embraced by educators.

One of the earliest initiatives to digitize books for academic use was Project Guttenberg (Polanka, 2011). Project Guttenberg founder Michael Hart, credited with the invention of e-books in 1971, set about to create “the world’s first digitized library” (Lebert, 2004). Since then, several innovators have built on this vision, including Google, which launched the Google Print Library Project (Google Books, for short) in 2004. Although not without controversy, Google’s partnership with institutions such as Cambridge University Press, Harvard University and the University of Michigan to digitize and publish their library collections was a significant step towards legitimizing e-books in academia. Other smaller scale projects provided further early endorsement of e-books in higher education, including the University of Texas at Austin’s contract with NetLibrary in 1999 and Pennsylvania State University’s Sony E-Book Reader Project (Polanka, 2011).

Some educators and librarians have hailed e-books as a welcome complement to print texts (Polanka, 2012) and most university libraries continue to invest in e-book collections. Academic libraries in the U.S. recognized as leaders in the e-book revolution include the Stanford University Engineering Library, the University of Texas at San Antonio Applied Technology and Engineering Library, and the University of Texas at Austin Undergraduate Library (Polanka, 2012). The Stanford University Engineering Library, for example, is well on its way to becoming a bookless library that only houses digital collections (Stanford News, 2010).

Various studies have been conducted investigating the use and preference (or otherwise) of e-books in comparison to print texts. In their study of e-book use by graduate students and faculty at the San Houston State University, Cassidy, Martinez and Shen (2012) found that 38% of respondents had used the library’s e-books. Of those who had not yet used e-books, graduate students were much more likely to give them a try in future (68%) than faculty (47%), suggesting a greater reticence by university professors to embrace e-books than their students.

In a two-year longitudinal study of students at the Suffolk University Sawyer Business School, Weisberg (2011) documented a shift in initial attitudes towards digital books over time, from perceptions that there were unsuitable for university studies to increasing acceptance and eventual preference over print texts. Staiger (2012) reviewed 24 studies conducted between 2006 and 2011 on e-book use in post-secondary institutions around the world. He found that roughly 50% of participants, on aggregate, had used e-books.

E-books present several benefits to students and ongoing improvements in technology will likely continue to increase their appeal. One study (Kiriakova, Okamoto, Zubarev, & Gross, 2010) found that 84.5% of students preferred an e-book reader to print books because the former was more fun, portable, and easier to use. E-books that are searchable can significantly assist students in locating and retrieving pertinent material for research and features such as the ability to add notes, highlight material, and extract citations can all facilitate academic work. There are benefits for academic publishing as well – electronic publishing makes it easier for scholars to publish or revise subject content and research findings. Given all of this, it is not surprising that several leading universities have been promoting e-books, as the foregoing discussion has shown.

On the other hand, there are some in the academic community who worry that adoption of e-books may lead to inferior scholarship. Staiger (2012) laments that students use, rather than read, e-books, making a distinction between the practice of reading and referencing. The closest students come to reading is the habit of power-browsing through e-texts, “they do not immerse themselves in them for extended periods of time in order to grasp their overall argument and point of view” (Staiger, 2012, p. 357). Given this, he votes strongly in favor of print books over their electronic counterparts:
Because of the central and often cherished role the [print] book has historically played in scholarly life, let alone in our culture more generally, the prospect that it may be replaced by a novel technology that makes cursory and spotty practices easier and more likely cannot but worry anybody who cares about the continuing vitality of that life. (Staiger, 2012, 361)

But the verdict on e-book use in academia is not that clear-cut. In spite of his criticism, Staiger (2012) also acknowledges that students may in fact be using the same spotty practices he attributes to e-books in their engagement with print texts and that further research is needed to draw a definitive conclusion. Research by Weisberg (2011) discovered no significant difference in learning outcomes between students who used e-textbooks and those who used print textbooks. In addition, Connell, Bayliss, and Farmer (2012) found that although e-book readers went through the content more slowly than print book readers, the overall comprehension of both groups of readers was the same.

Clearly, there are strong arguments that can be made for and against e-books and this essay has only discussed a few. Traditional bibliophiles point to various features of print books, including their tangibility, artistry, and rich literary heritage among reasons they consider them superior to e-books (Conrad, 2008). While these are rather subjective arguments, they have some worth. The concern that e-books may simply be used, rather than read, is one that educators need to be conscious of (although this is less likely to happen with e-textbooks that serve as core reading for a course, as opposed to use for supplementary research). There will be learners who prefer print textbooks (for example those with tactile or kinesthetic learning styles) so educators and librarians will need to accommodate the print format side-by-side with e-books in their curricula and catalogues. For this reason, while the Stanford University Engineering Library’s vision of an all-digital archive is a bold and interesting experiment, it should not serve as a universal model for university libraries.

This notwithstanding, the proliferation of e-books in academic instruction will no doubt continue. The divide between students’ use of media technology for social communication and entertainment and their use for academic work will continue to narrow. As research has shown, print-oriented students who try e-books may eventually begin to accept and even prefer them (Weisberg 2011). Educators must not stand in the way of this wave of change. Instead, they must capitalize on it. E-books, like every other form of technological innovation, have their potential downsides. But if the pros and cons were to be placed on a scale, in the opinion of this writer, the pros would outweigh the cons.

References

Cassidy, E. D., Martinez, M., & Shen, L. (2012). Not in love, or not in the know? Graduate
student and faculty use (and non-use) of e-books. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 38(6), 326-332. doi: 10.1016/j.acalib.2012.08.005

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.

Conrad, P. (2008, July 27). It made me feel alienated from the books I know well. The Observer.
Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/books/2008/jul/27/ebooks

Kiriakova, M., Okamoto, K., Zubarev, M., & Gross, G. (2010). Aiming at a moving target: Pilot
testing eBook readers in an urban academic library. Computers in Libraries, 30(2), 20-24.

Lebert, M. (2004). Michael Hart: Changing the world through e-books. Retrieved from
http://pge.rastko.net/about/marie_lebert

Polanka, S. (Ed.). (2011). No shelf required: E-books in libraries. Chicago, IL: American
Library Association.

Polanka, S. (Ed.). (2012). No shelf required 2: Use and management of electronic books.
Chicago, IL: American Library Association.

Staiger, J. (2012). How e-books are used. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 51(4), 355-365.
Retrieved from Teacher Reference Center Database.

Stanford News (2010). 'Bookless' library at Stanford looks to the future. Retrieved from
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/july/enginbooks-072610.html

Weisberg, M. (2011). Student attitudes and behaviors towards digital textbooks. Publishing
Research Quarterly, 27(2), 188-196. doi: 10.1007/s12109-011-9217-4

Group and public communication: The what, why, where, when, who, and how

This post explores group (and to a lesser extent) public communication using the 5 Ws and H of journalism. It offers a concise summary of group communication scholarship.

What is group/team/public communication and what theories help us explain or predict the process?
A group is comprised roughly of three to 19 individuals joined by a common purpose and who influence each other as they work towards their stated vision or goal (Beebe & Masterson, 2009, p. 5).  A team is different from a group in that the former is more structured (p. 6).  Various theories help explain or predict group processes. Systems theory emphasizes the interdependence of  groups, social exchange theory shows how reciprocal benefits influence group behavior, structuration theory explains how groups use and amend rules to achieve their ends, symbolic convergence theory reveals how  communication behaviors unify the group, and functional theory highlights specific activities groups must perform to achieve success (Beebe & Masterson, 2009, pp. 39-45; Frey, 2004). Dialectics is another theory that explains group processes in terms of the reconciliation of conflicting forces of belonging and separation (Kramer, Benoit, Dixon, and Benoit-Bryan, 2007). When the activities of individuals or groups seek to influence culture or politics, they are operating in the public sphere (McKee, 2005).

Why group/public communication?

Groups allow members to bring more information, perspectives, and creativity to problem solving than individuals working in isolation, while fulfilling members’ needs such as belonging and self-actualisation (Beebe & Masterson, 2009, pp. 12-13, 52-54). Communication in the public sphere using channels such as the media allows citizens to be involved in shaping political and cultural structures (McKee, 2005).

Where does group and public communication take place?

Group and public communication are pervasive. From families, to churches, to businesses and in the public sphere, through political parties, community organizations, and various interest groups, we see group and public communication at work. An emerging new venue is cyberspace, which is redefining the traditional rules and processes of group and public communication resulting in new opportunities and challenges (Beebe & Masterson, 2009, pp. 20-25; Li, 2007; Han, 2007). Regardless of the meeting place, a supportive climate is important to foster group cohesiveness (Beebe & Masterson, 2009, p. 102).

When does group communication take place?

While scheduling is important for face-to-face interactions, gone are the days when individuals needed to meet at the same time to engage in group work. One important benefit of online technology is asynchronous group/public communication (Beebe & Masterson, 2009, p. 21).

Who should join/lead the group?

Research indicates that groups are strengthened by diversity (social, educational, racial, age, gender, skills) but if heterogeneous groups are not well managed, it can result in negative outcomes, including potential conflict (Beebe & Masterson, 2009, pp. 64, 92-97; Mannix & Neale, 2005). Group leaders may emerge naturally (Beebe & Masterson, 2009, p. 297) or they may be formally appointed. In either case, group leaders can be examined using a traits, functional, situational, or transformational perspective (pp. 284-297).

How do you get the best out of group processes?

To succeed, groups need to fulfil task and group building/maintenance functions that encompass problem-oriented competencies, solution-oriented competencies; discussion management competencies; and relational competencies (Beebe & Masterson, 2009, pp.26-28). Groups must be especially good at managing conflict (pp. 151-168) and at employing traditional and alternative brainstorming to arrive at creative, collaborative solutions to problems (pp. 268-277).

References

Beebe, S. A., & Masterson, J. T. (2009). Communicating in small groups: Principles and practices (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Frey, L. R. (2004). The symbolic-interpretive perspective on group dynamics small group research. Small Group Research, 35, 277-306. doi: 10.1177/1046496404263771

Han, C. (2007, May). Towards an online public sphere: A case study of an online civic journalism. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, San Francisco, CA.

Kramer, M. W., Benoit, P. J., Dixon, M. A., & Benoit-Bryan, J. (2007). Group processes in a teaching renewal retreat: Communication functions and dialectical tensions. Southern Communication Journal, 72(2), 145-168. doi:10.1080/10417940701316476

Li, S-C. S. (2007). Computer-mediated communication and group decision making: A functional perspective. Small Group Research, 38, 593-614. doi:10.1177/1046496407304335

Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2005). What differences make a difference? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6(2), 31-55. doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2005.00022.x

McKee, A. (2005). The public sphere: An introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

What is Christian media (and some guidelines for Biblical media consumption)

In terms of defining Christian communication, it's my view that a secular work that has "redemptive" themes does not make it Christian per se. We must not make the definition of Christian media too wide, or else it becomes a catch-all -- a non-category. But we should acknowledge the important contributions of some secular (or better termed, mainstream) works to issues of spirituality, justice and equity, all of which align with Christianity. We can call these works "pre-Christian," rather than "Christian." There are a lot of excellent works that fall into this category and Christians need to exploit these media for the opportunities they provide to share our faith.

Here is how I would suggest we try to define Christian communication,  from the perspectives of motivation, content and reception:

Motivation/intention: The motivation of the work is to promote a Christian worldview (which may or may not include "salvation"), whether this is the primary intent or secondary/subtle. I would acknowledge here that for popular media productions, the work itself may be produced by non-Christians, based on a Christian work, such as Hollywood productions of C. S. Lewis or Tolkien novels. If the motivation behind the original work is to advance a Christian worldview (even if indirectly), and if the Hollywood production remains largely faithful to the original material, it would still meet the motivation criteria.

Content: The quality and quantity of Christian content or themes should meet or exceed a minimum threshold. Here is where my definition gets a bit subjective. By quality of Christian content, I mean the Biblical orthodoxy of the message being expressed and this leaves room for theological disagreement. But this is important because a work may have a lot of Biblical themes (e.g. The Da Vinci Code) but if it presents a derogatory view of Christianity or is based on unsound doctrine, then it's not Christian communication. I would add that the messages/themes do not have to be overtly Christian, as C.S Lewis has shown with his Chronicles of Narnia (the work does not need to be preachy or require direct references to the Bible, allowing Christian pre-evangelistic works to qualify). But somehow the work needs to address some of the core truths and tenets of Christianity. I would also like to open this criteria to works that are not necessarily aimed at advancing the Great Commission. The work may be aimed at providing entertainment or be prophetic in terms of addressing issues of justice and equity in the culture, but it would still need to reflect some core truths and tenets of Christianity. The quantity criteria is also admittedly subjective. I would argue that one prayer in a script or novel would not make it Christian. Prayer in several scenes might. There needs to be some minimal amount of Christian content and I propose at least 30 percent of the content.

Reception: This relates to the definition of communication as a meeting of minds, some measure of shared understanding. Christian communication is completed when the intended message strengthens or develops a Christian worldview in the audience and/or leads them to act in accordance with that worldview.

I submit that a work is Christian if it at least meets both the motivation and content criteria explained above.

My guidelines for consuming/selecting media may be summed up as follows: Would you be okay consuming this media with Jesus? If so, what would he say (from the reformer's perspective) about the media you are consuming? Drilling down, here are some specific questions I would ask:

(a) Does this media production include gratuitous violence (violence for the sake of violence, with no moral or ethical lessons)? Even if the violence has a moral basis or simply depicts historical reality, is the level of violence appropriate for the viewer (e.g. kids?). Violence is okay in a media production, but the intent and appropriateness of the violence needs to be questioned.

(b) Does the media production advance unbiblical views of sex, sexuality and relational intimacy? Sexual content is a big factor, because it's hard to critique from a reformer's point of view. By simply (and intentionally) viewing sexual content, I may already have crossed the Biblical line about lustful use of the eye (Matthew 5:28). Content aimed at sex education, if it excludes explicit images and is age appropriate, would however be fine.

(c) Does the media production use gratuitous profanity and coarse language? This is not to say some use of expletives in a media work immediately disqualifies it from my viewing list. But flagrant use (or over-use) throughout a movie that does not have other strong redeeming values, would. So I would be more flexible on this criteria than the sexual criteria -- I can accept some foul language, balanced against the media work's overall merits. Perhaps the foul language makes a moral point or helps advance the story in some way, without overwhelming it.

(d) Does the media production glorify worldly values and false spirituality? This one is a bit of a catch-all for material that does not fall into the Big Three above. It could range from the advancement of New Age and occultic ideas, to crass materialism, to unbiblical notions of love and romanticism. I will confess that my standards have been a bit lose on this one, specifically the last two. I will watch a romantic view with my wife although often it paints a picture of love and marriage that is unrealistic and not Biblically founded.

What are your thoughts? How would you define Christian media and what standards do you use for media consumption as a Christian?

Is online learning for everyone?

Online courses/work must be integrated, in varying degrees, into all levels of the educational system. At lower levels of the educational system, I believe the online component needs to be less than at higher levels, when dealing with older, more mature students. While I fully support online education, the extent to which it is integrated into student's education should not be based on a cookie cutter approach.

Online education requires specialized pedagogy -- online teachers need to be specifically trained for the cyber classroom and the curriculum must suit the different learning environment. Without this, online courses will fail to live up to expectations. Thankfully, educational institutions are now recognizing that online learning is not face-to-face learning simply transferred to the internet.

Having said that, online learning is clearly gaining in recognition. In fact, in 2013, 74% of chief academic officers in U.S. colleges and universities said online courses are the same or better in quality compared to face-to-face courses and the number of U.S. post-secondary students who took online course rose to a record 33.5% (Allen & Seaman, 2014). Benefits such as convenience, access, and the opportunity for constructivist learning all make online learning very appealing.

Educators should however recognize that online learning is not for everyone. Even some adult learners will struggle with online learning, so online learning for younger students must be approached wisely. Online learning, especially at higher levels, requires a great deal of motivation (Rovai, Ponton, Wighting, & Baker, 2007), combined with effective time management, and while online courses can replicate some of the social presence of the brick and mortar classroom (Cox & Cox, 2008), some students may find it difficult to handle the lack of physical presence.

In short, should your school go online? Yes, but it should be handled strategically, with attention to the varying needs of students, based on their maturity, interests, motivation, and their overall suitability for online learning.

References

Allen, I. E. A., & Seaman, J. (2014). Grade change: Tracking online education in the United States. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group.

Cox, B., & Cox, B. (2008). Developing interpersonal and group dynamics through asynchronous threaded discussions: The use of discussion board in collaborative learning. Education, 128(4), 553-565.

Rovai, A., Ponton, M., Wighting, M., & Baker, J. (2007). A comparative analysis of student motivation in traditional classroom and e-learning courses. International Journal on E-learning, 6(3), 413-432.