Interactive E-Texts and Students: A Scoping Review
Rebecca Spencer
Dalhousie University
Emilie Comeau
Dalhousie University
Brittany Matchett
Dalhousie University
Maya Biderman
Dalhousie University
Nicole Doria
Dalhousie University
Phillip Joy
Dalhousie University
Matthew Numer
Dalhousie University
Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation 43:1 (2020)
©2020 Canadian Society for the Study of Education/
Société canadienne pour l’étude de l’éducation
www.cje-rce.ca
Interactive E-Texts and Students: A Scoping Review
259
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to explore the scope of available evidence regarding the use
of interactive e-texts and their relationship to student learning experiences in post-secondary education. Following the framework of Arksey and O’Malley, this scoping
review identified and reported on 33 articles. Study characteristics are presented alongside four themes that were found across the included articles: (1) the effect of interactive
e-texts on student learning experiences; (2) the relationship between interactive e-texts
and academic performance; (3) factors influencing student adoption and experience of
interactive e-texts; and (4) roles, responsibilities, and recommendations. While the adoption of interactive e-texts is becoming increasingly common in post-secondary education, their effect on student learning experiences remains complex. This review emphasizes the importance of user-friendliness, affordability, accessibility, portability, and
the role of educators. Using interactive e-texts shows promise, though future research
should explore how barriers might be minimized and benefits might be maximized to
have the strongest impact on student learning experiences.
Keywords: interactive e-text, student experience, scoping review, post-secondary
education
Résumé
L’objectif de cet article était d’explorer l’étendue des connaissances disponibles sur l’utilisation des documents numériques interactifs et leur relation avec les expériences d’apprentissage des étudiants à l’enseignement supérieur. Suivant le cadre de l’étude d’Arksey et
O’Malley (2005), cet examen de l’étendue des connaissances nous a permis de repérer et
d’analyser 33 articles. Les caractéristiques de l’étude sont présentées selon quatre thèmes
retrouvés dans les articles consultés : (1) l’impact des documents numériques interactifs sur les expériences d’apprentissage des étudiants; (2) la relation entre les documents
numériques interactifs et les résultats scolaires; (3) les facteurs influençant l’adoption des
documents numériques interactifs et les expériences d’utilisation par les étudiants; et (4) les
rôles, les responsabilités et les recommandations. Tandis que l’utilisation des documents
numériques interactifs devient de plus en plus fréquente au postsecondaire, leur impact
Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation 43:1 (2020)
www.cje-rce.ca
Interactive E-Texts and Students: A Scoping Review
260
sur les expériences d’apprentissage des étudiants demeure complexe. Cet article souligne
l’importance de la convivialité, du coût, de l’accessibilité, de la portabilité et du rôle des
enseignants. Puisque l’utilisation de documents numériques interactifs est prometteuse,
de futures recherches devraient explorer comment les obstacles pourraient être réduits au
minimum et les avantages maximisés pour permettre le meilleur impact possible sur les
expériences d’apprentissage des étudiants.
Mots-clés : documents numériques interactifs, expérience étudiante, étendue des connaissances, éducation postsecondaire
Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation 43:1 (2020)
www.cje-rce.ca
Interactive E-Texts and Students: A Scoping Review
261
Introduction
Technology is changing the landscape of post-secondary education by influencing both the
ways in which students learn and engage with content, and the kinds of content students
engage with (Tretinjak et al., 2014). Providing students with the opportunity to choose
how they want to engage with course material has long been established as vital to promoting self-directed learning, which is critical for knowledge improvement (Knowles, 1975).
Research has shown that teaching strategies that are active and engaging provide post-secondary students with the necessary tools to self-learn (Pratt et al., 2006). Traditional authoritarian paradigms of teaching that focus on memorization and repetition through static course
materials are not meeting the needs of the modern post-secondary student (Pratt et al., 2019;
Skiba & Barton, 2006). As such, high-quality post-secondary programs should include interactive teaching and learning opportunities for students (Haworth & Conrad, 1997).
Advances in technology such as online learning resources, multi-media platforms
and digital textbooks now enable students to choose when, where, and how to study, facilitating individualized and effective engagement with course material (Numer & Spencer,
2015; Tretinjak et al., 2014; van Dusen, 1996). For example, students reported course learning was more interesting and effective when social media and interactive technology were
used to deliver and support course content (Tretinjak et al., 2014). Student engagement with
course material both in and outside of the classroom was also reported to improve when
using bring-your-own-device technology (Numer & Spencer, 2015). The present learning
environment is a blend of the physical campus and online learning mediums (Percival &
Muirhead, 2009). As a result, it is crucial that educators adapt to the changing technology-informed environment by seeking out innovative methods to use technology to promote
holistic engagement with course materials (Numer & Spencer, 2015; van Dusen, 1996).
The use of technology in post-secondary education is becoming increasingly diverse, with various teaching and learning technologies widely available. In particular,
digital textbooks, or e-textbooks, have been gaining traction and growing in popularity
(Chulkov & VanAlstine, 2013). E-texts are often less expensive than traditional print textbooks and alleviate the burden of carrying around heavy books. E-texts, like other technologies, have been explored as a cost-effective way to engage students in post-secondary
contexts (Tremblay, 2010). Potential benefits of e-texts include the ability to search and
annotate within text and to integrate media that supports student accessibility needs and a
Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation 43:1 (2020)
www.cje-rce.ca
Interactive E-Texts and Students: A Scoping Review
262
variety of learning styles (Chulkov & VanAlstine, 2013). For educators and institutions, the
use of e-texts provides significant advantages over the use of traditional print textbooks in
that they are easier to update and keep current and allow for the tailoring of content to the
specific needs of the instructor, course, or students (Chulkov & VanAlstine, 2013).
Despite the potential benefits of e-text usage, challenges have also been identified.
Evidence suggests that some students have expressed a lack of comfort and familiarity in
using e-texts and there are technological challenges regarding the need to access the internet (Chulkov & VanAlstine, 2013). The ease of navigating e-text features and formats has
also been noted as a potential challenge, as the difficulty of navigating e-text platforms,
compounded with students’ technical abilities, may impede usability (Stone & Baker-Eveleth, 2013). When students are provided with traditional textbook and e-text versions of
the same text, factors influencing student adoption of one format over the other include
ease of purchasing, student personal preferences, and the ability to keep the book after the
semester (Chulkov & VanAlstine, 2013; Daniel & Woody, 2013; Shepperd et al., 2008).
Interactive learning strategies are now well understood to encourage independent
study through the use of computer technology and electronic media (Panitz, 1999). Interactive learning methods engage both the intellect and emotions of learners by deepening
the relationship between the learner and the content as a form of active learning (Bonwell
& Eison, 1991; Lease, 2016; Yale Poorvu Center for Teaching and Learning, 2018). The
benefits and challenges of e-texts vary from student to student, institution to institution,
and e-textbook to e-textbook. Analyses to date, however, have not differentiated between
e-textbooks and interactive e-textbooks. Within e-textbooks, interactivity refers to students’ ability to manipulate their text and engage with embedded media and interactive
features (Baldwin, 2015). The ability to engage students and measure learning outcomes
throughout the course can be a direct benefit of interactive e-textbooks (Baldwin, 2015).
Despite the benefits of interactivity for student learning, e-texts have only recently begun
incorporating interactive components to enhance students’ experiences (Baldwin, 2015).
It remains unclear how interactivity relates to student adoption of and learning experiences with e-textbooks. To date, the scope of literature regarding the effectiveness of
interactive e-textbooks in post-secondary classrooms has not been evaluated. Therefore,
the purpose of this article is to explore the existing evidence regarding the use of interactive e-textbooks, and their relationship to student learning experiences in post-secondary
education. Throughout this article, we will refer to interactive e-textbooks as interactive
Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation 43:1 (2020)
www.cje-rce.ca
Interactive E-Texts and Students: A Scoping Review
263
e-texts, defined as electronic textbooks that have an embedded interactive component
such as videos, audio, quizzes, tools, and/or learning modules that offer the potential to
go beyond traditional textbooks by practising active learning, problem solving, critical
thinking, and connecting to previous knowledge.
Methods
This study employed a scoping review design, which is used to assess the available “scope”
of evidence or literature on a particular topic (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). Scoping studies
are useful for exploring the breadth of published literature on broad, emerging, complex, or
understudied areas of interest (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). Scoping reviews tend to explore
breadth, rather than depth, and typically do not assess quality of evidence. Instead, they
assess the availability of literature, and often identify gaps for future research (Arksey &
O’Malley, 2005). For this review, we employed a rigorous scoping review methodology
conducted in alignment with the Arksey and O’Malley (2005) staged framework, each
stage of which is detailed below. Due to a noted shift from paper to digital textbooks in
the post-secondary environment, the selected research question was: What is known from
the existing literature about the experiences of post-secondary students using interactive
e-texts? More specifically, we were interested in literature exploring interactive e-texts and
their influence on the learning experiences of university students.
Identifying and Selecting Relevant Studies
Our search strategy was developed in consultation with a medical librarian at the Maritime SPOR Support Unit, and an Educational eLearning Developer from the Dalhousie
University Center for Learning and Teaching. Our search strategy (visible as Table 1)
included the following terms: interactive text*, e-text*, electronic text*, student, post-secondary, undergrad*, learning, and experience. The strategy identified studies from the
ERIC, Scopus, CINAHL, MEDLINE and Academic Search Premier databases. Inclusion
and exclusion criteria were developed iteratively as searches were conducted and familiarity with the literature was developed (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). The iterative process
continued through study selection, which occurred at progressive depth, beginning with
title and abstract screening and progressing to full text screening (Arksey & O’Malley,
Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation 43:1 (2020)
www.cje-rce.ca
Interactive E-Texts and Students: A Scoping Review
264
2005); studies were excluded by title or abstract if it could be determined that they did
not meet inclusion criteria. Each study was screened by two reviewers for consensus at
each level. A third person resolved all conflicts that could not be addressed by the two
reviewers.
Table 1. Search strategy
1
2
3
4
5
6
TI (“interactive text*” OR “e-text*” OR “electronic text*” OR “digital text*” OR “online text*”
OR "digital content" OR "digital learning object*") OR AB("interactive text*" OR "e-text*"
OR "electronic text*" OR "digital text*" OR "online text*" OR "digital content" OR "digital
learning object*")
TI(interactive N/2 ("e-book*" OR ebook* OR "electronic book" OR "digital book") OR AB(interactive N/2 ("e-book*" OR ebook* OR "electronic book" OR "digital book")
1 OR 2
TI (student* OR undergrad* OR university OR college OR postsecondary OR "post-secondary"
OR learner*) OR AB(student* OR undergrad* OR university OR college OR postsecondary OR
"post-secondary" OR learner*)
TI (learning OR outcome* OR experience* OR engage* OR comfort* OR confiden* OR attitude* OR percept* OR independ* OR participat* OR opinion* OR interact* OR competen* OR
performance* OR achiev*) OR AB(learning OR outcome* OR experience* OR engage* OR
comfort* OR confiden* OR attitude* OR percept* OR independ* OR participat* OR opinion*
OR interact* OR competen* OR performance* OR achiev*)
3 AND 4 AND 5
We included studies published in English between January 1, 2008 and August 2,
2018 (when the search was conducted) that discussed any form of interactive e-text and
outcomes relating to post-secondary student experiences. Given the ever-changing nature
of technology, a period for inclusion was set at 10 years. Studies were included if they
described interactive e-texts in relation to student learning experiences. We included studies
focused on undergraduate, graduate, and professional student experiences, from post-secondary schools, in any jurisdiction, using any type of methodology. Studies were excluded
if they were published prior to 2008, were focused on elementary, secondary, vocational, or
trade schools, or did not have student experience as a primary outcome or phenomenon of
interest. Studies were also excluded if they did not focus on the use of interactive e-texts,
or the purpose of interactivity was to support students with identified disabilities or specific
accessibility needs. Primarily, studies were excluded on the basis that the digital element
was not integrated into an interactive textbook. Rather, many excluded studies explored educational technologies such as the use of virtual labs, learning platforms, learning management systems, augmented reality, print/paper textbooks with embedded digital mechanics,
Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation 43:1 (2020)
www.cje-rce.ca
Interactive E-Texts and Students: A Scoping Review
265
massive online open classrooms, digital or interactive resources not integrated into the
e-text (including online quizzes), e-libraries, e-readers, or video games.
Interpretation, Synthesis, and Reporting
Data from each article selected for analysis were extracted and charted (Arksey &
O’Malley, 2005). Data were charted, using Microsoft Excel, by one research assistant and
checked by a second. Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005) descriptive-analytical approach to
extraction was used as a framework for extracting and charting demographics and thematic data. Themes were developed and drafted by two reviewers through the iterative
analysis process and thematic analysis procedures guided by the methods of Braun and
Clarke (2006). Each reviewer conducted open inductive coding of the charted data to
note and label key findings, trends, and commonalities. Reviewers then came together to
discuss themes and trends, which were refined and finalized by the lead author.
Results
Search Outcome
Through the database search, a total of 3,209 studies were identified; 722 duplicates
were removed, resulting in 2,487 studies screened. Screening at the title and abstract
level resulted in the exclusion of 2,262 studies; 225 studies were thus assessed as full
text. In total, 192 studies were excluded during full text screening, resulting in 33 articles
selected for inclusion in this scoping review. This process is visible in Figure 1, while
Table 2 presents a summary of the charting details. While 10 years of research were
reviewed, the majority of studies (26) occurred in the most recent five years. Also, though
studies were included from a variety of countries, including Argentina, China, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, the majority (26) occurred in the United States of America and included
a variety of university settings.
Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation 43:1 (2020)
www.cje-rce.ca
Interactive E-Texts and Students: A Scoping Review
266
Figure 1. Search outcome
Studies also used a variety of research approaches, though the majority used
quantitative (19) or mixed methods (13) techniques. Many studies (17) did not identify
a theoretical framework; among those that applied theory, the most common included theories of acceptance (6), cognitive theory (4), and theories of innovation (2). The average
sample size of the included studies was 353 students. Using a thematic analysis and a
descriptive-analytical approach, four themes were developed and are presented below,
referencing examples from the articles included in the review.
Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation 43:1 (2020)
www.cje-rce.ca
Interactive E-Texts and Students: A Scoping Review
267
Table 2. Articles assessed for this study
Authors (year);
Country
Study Purpose
Population
Design/Methodology
Key Points
Alshaya &
Oyaid (2017);
Saudi Arabia.
Female university students
To assess students’
perceptions of the effec- of Princess Nourah Univertiveness of e-books and sity (n = 44).
self-efficacy in their use.
Quantitative: Following a pilot survey
of faculty members, questionnaires
were conducted with students on
e-book design, effectiveness, and
self-efficacy.
Participants had necessary self-efficacy and competence to use interactive e-books, found them to
be effective, and wanted to use them in the future.
Asensio, Barassi, Zambon &
Mazza (2010);
Argentina.
To test undergraduate
students’ performance
while using an interactive textbook.
Undergraduate students in a
course on chemical reaction
engineering at University
of Comahue, Argentina (n =
not specified).
There was a significant degree of acceptance
Quantitative: To evaluate student experience with an interactive text using regarding the interactive text. Course grades were
closed surveys and an evaluation test. higher when using the e-textbook compared to
students using a traditional textbook.
Baek &
Monaghan
(2013); United
States.
To understand students’ experiences
using et-textbooks, and
variables that impact
their experiences, perceptions, and attitudes
towards e-textbooks.
Students from five state
university campuses from
a total of 33 courses (n =
662).
Quantitative: Survey research design
and sampling methodology. The questionnaire was available electronically
on SurveyMonkey and consisted of
30 questions.
More than one-third of the students were satisfied with the e-textbook; more than half of the
students felt that the e-textbook was easy-to-use;
older students (22 or older) tended to have more
positive experiences with the e-textbook than
younger students; and students most liked the
e-textbook’s cost, accessibility, light weight, and
keyword search features.
Birdsong, Chen,
Tseng & Victornio (2015);
United States.
To examine the implementation and effectiveness of online textbooks
in three different undergraduate engineering
courses.
Undergraduate students
enrolled in three undergraduate engineering courses at
California Polytechnic State
University (n = 220).
Mixed methods: Analyzed student
survey responses using both Likert
and open-ended questions conducted
at three time points in the academic
quarter.
Online textbooks hold promise for improving
student engagement and learning, increasing
access, and decreasing cost. However, publishers
have much work to do to gain the acceptance of
students, who are rejecting online textbooks due
to lack of perceived ease of use or usefulness.
Bolsen, Evans & To compare online and
Fleming (2016); face-to-face approaches
to teaching a university
United States.
level course.
Students enrolled in an
introduction to American
Government course at
Georgia State University (n
= 1,542).
Quantitative: Quasi-experimental
design. Students were placed in one
of four conditions: Traditional (traditional textbook and lecture) Breakout (traditional textbook and group
discussions), Blended (e-textbook and
two lectures), and Online (e-textbook,
two lectures, and online assignments).
Students completed pre and post-tests
and exit surveys.
Found that mode of course delivery is significantly related to student academic engagement and
performance. Students enrolled in sections that
were assigned the interactive online textbook rated their textbook as significantly more beneficial
to their learning experiences than students who
were assigned the traditional paper textbook.
Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation 43:1 (2020)
www.cje-rce.ca
268
Interactive E-Texts and Students: A Scoping Review
Authors (year);
Country
Study Purpose
Population
Design/Methodology
Key Points
Chaudhri,
Cheng,
Overtholtzher,
Roschelle,
Spaulding,
Clark& Gunning
(2013); United
States.
To assess student use
of artificial intelligence
within an e-textbook
and determine usefulness of enhancements.
Students enrolled in an
introductory biology course
at a community college (n
= 72).
Mixed Methods: Students were
randomly assigned to one of three
conditions, Full Inquire Biology
group (e-text with all AI-features).
Textbook group (traditional textbook)
and ablated biology group (e-textbook
that lacked AI features but had other
e-text features). Used student surveys
and homework and test scores.
Test results of students in the inquired biology
group were higher than students within the other
two groups using the same textbook. Students
reported the interactive text to be motivating,
engaging, and increase learning.
Coffin Murray
& Perez (2011);
United States.
Compare student performance in two sections
of an online course, one
using an e-textbook
and the other using a
paper-based textbook.
Students from a variety of
majors enrolled in an information technology literacy
course (n = not specified).
Quantitative: Compared student performance on course assessment.
There was no significant difference in student
performance.
Daniel & Woody Examine differences in
(2013); United
learning and differential
States.
usage that result from
using a variety of print
and electronic textbook
modes in both lab and
more naturalistic conditions.
University students in an
introductory psychology
course (n = 298).
Quantitative: Recorded quiz scores,
reading time, motivation, and perceptions of textbook features.
Students performed similarly on a quiz across all
conditions; reading times were higher for electronic text in the lab and even greater at home;
and students reading electronic text at home
reported higher levels of multitasking.
DeNoyelles
& Seilhamer
(2013); United
States.
Understand how
instructors and learners
are integrating e-textbooks to revolutionize
learning spaces.
Students in 84 courses at
the University of Central
Florida (n = 933).
Mixed methods: A university-wide
student survey was distributed to
students.
In a university setting without an e-textbook
initiative, e-textbook use is relatively low, and the
features are not being effectively utilized by students or instructors. In any university that offers
e-textbooks, instructor development is critical.
Dobler (2015);
United States.
To better understand
issues surrounding the
use of e-textbooks for
teaching and learning.
Pre-service teachers in
a language arts methods
course (n = 56).
Mixed methods: Students received
a print and e-textbook for the course
and asked to complete a pre and
post-reading questionnaire, share
e-notes, and participate in a follow-up
focus group.
Some participants described an increase in cognitive engagement due to the ability to both utilize
e-textbook features and engage with media, in addition to text. Others found the process of reading
an e-textbook challenging because of distractions
on their device, eyestrain, and a feeling of being
overwhelmed with choices. Overall the preservice teachers expressed a preference for choice
between using print, electronic format, or both.
Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation 43:1 (2020)
www.cje-rce.ca
Interactive E-Texts and Students: A Scoping Review
269
Authors (year);
Country
Study Purpose
Population
Design/Methodology
Key Points
Dwyer & Davidson (2013);
United States.
To examine student
preferences for textbooks, reading, and
learning.
Undergraduate students
Quantitative: Online survey that conenrolled in a public speaksisted of three demographic items and
ing course at a larger state
14 survey items.
university in the Midwest (n
= 321).
Neither reading the paper textbook nor the e-textbook was a predictor of grade, but comfort in
accessing the e-textbook through the online portal
was associated with grade. Many students reported strong preferences for paper textbook usage
and indicated several reasons for not liking or not
using the e-textbook, such as inconvenience, eye
strain, and difficulty taking notes.
Ebied & Rahman (2015);
Saudi Arabia.
Examine the effect of
interactive e-book on
students’ achievements.
Undergraduate students at
Najran University registered
in a computer in education
course (n = 60).
Quantitative: Quasi-experimental
study design. Students divided into
experimental group (e-textbook) and
control group (printed text).
Significant difference between groups, with greater academic achievement for the experimental
group/students who studied using the e-textbook.
Feldstein,
Martin, Hudson,
Warren, Hilton
& Wiley (2012);
United States.
To describe how
open-textbooks provide
benefits to students.
Students enrolled in nine
core courses at Virginia
State University school of
Business (n = 315).
Quantitative: University replaced
traditional textbooks with an
open-textbook format, a survey was
sent to students enrolled in courses
adopting the new format at the end of
the semester.
Students enjoyed the open-textbook and preferred
it to print resources, found it easy to read, enjoyed the interactive features, but did not find the
videos contributed to their learning.
Huang, Chen
& Ho (2014);
China.
Analyze how presentation methods and
concept maps interact
with cognitive load and
learning outcomes.
Undergraduate and graduate
students in varying disciplines (n = 78).
Quantitative: Compared three presentation methods and used scales to
measure cognitive load and learning
outcomes.
Providing concept maps not only reduced
learners’ cognitive load but also enhanced their
learning outcomes of cognition, affection, and
psychomotor performance. Overall, video was
superior to text and diagram interaction in terms
of learning outcomes, and text and diagram interaction were superior to text and diagram without
an interactive component.
Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation 43:1 (2020)
www.cje-rce.ca
Interactive E-Texts and Students: A Scoping Review
270
Authors (year);
Country
Study Purpose
Population
Design/Methodology
Key Points
Liberatore
(2017); United
States.
Evaluate usage of a new
interactive e-textbook
(zyBook) and related
student outcomes.
Undergraduate students
enrolled in a material and
energy balances course at
the University of Toledo (n
= 100).
Mixed methods: Generated textbook data on student participation,
quantitative web book participation
data, and surveys measuring students’
opinions.
Overall, 87% of the zyBook was read across all
sections and students in the course. The average
zyBook participation grades correlated with final
course grades. Student surveys found strong
support for almost all of the zyBook’s features,
especially the animations. Over 90% of students
reported that they viewed at least one animation
more than once. Finally, 87% of students found
the zyBook to be a useful textbook for the course,
which was higher than previous electronic books
used for the course.
McDaniel &
Daday (2018);
United States.
Examine students’
perceptions of e-texts
for 100 and 200 level
biology courses.
Undergraduate students
enrolled in six 100 and 200
level biology courses (n =
2,152).
Quantitative: An online questionnaire
was developed and administered in
multiple sections of six 100 and 200
level biology courses.
Black students reported a significantly higher
satisfaction with e-texts compared to white students; students with lower grade point averages
significantly preferred the e-text; and the majority
of students perceived the use of value-added technologies, such as e-homework, favourably.
Mills (2016);
United States.
Determine how graduate pre-service teacher
education students perceive the interactivity,
engagement, and value
of customized course
e-texts.
Graduate students enrolled
in a teacher certification
program at a medium-sized
mid-Southern regional university in the United States
(n = 115).
Quantitative: Quasi-experimental
study. Students were separated into a
treatment (multi-touch e-book) and
control (Kindle or PDF version of the
same e-text, with no embedded videos
or multi-touch components), and
completed surveys on their experience.
Users of the multi-touch e-text reported a significantly more interactive and engaging experience
with their text than the other e-text users. The experiment also revealed that students overwhelmingly preferred a free, customized open-access
text for use in their course, no matter what e-text
format was used.
Morris & Lambe To assess the role for
(2017); United
multimedia interactive
Kingdom.
e-books in bioscience
laboratory classes.
Second year students in a
biomedical science undergraduate course at the University of Leeds (n = 39).
Mixed Methods: Experimental design
that grouped students into a trial
and control group. Data collection
involved weekly surveys including
quantitative and qualitative responses.
Students made extensive use of e-books and
over 70% of students agreed that the e-books
were beneficial for learning. Less than 40% of
students, however, indicated a preference for
e-books over traditional paper textbooks, and
e-books had no statistically significant effect on
assessment of marks.
Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation 43:1 (2020)
www.cje-rce.ca
Interactive E-Texts and Students: A Scoping Review
271
Authors (year);
Country
Study Purpose
Population
Design/Methodology
Key Points
Nagra, Eng &
Karrass (2013);
United States.
Determine if interactive
and embedded features
within e-texts aid in
learning mathematic
concepts.
Students enrolled in an introductory statistics course
or a service math course for
elementary school teachers
(n = 83).
Mixed methods: One section of the
statistics course used a traditional text
while the other used an e-textbook.
The elementary school math course
used both a traditional and an e-textbook. Used student pre and post-tests
and focus groups.
E-textbook group had the highest average of all
groups and the most interest in course content.
The bundled group liked the e-textbook more
than the traditional text. Students disliked reading
from the e-textbook but enjoyed the interactive
features.
Ngafeeson &
Sun (2015);
United States.
To examine the role of
technology innovativeness (people’s openness
to new technology) in
determining students’
acceptance of e-textbooks.
Undergraduate college
students enrolled in courses
that adopt e-textbooks (n =
158).
Quantitative: One section of the class
used traditional print textbooks; the
second section used an e-textbook.
A survey was implemented using
5-point Likert scale measure.
Their findings suggest that students’ willingness to try new technology has a direct positive
impact and indirect influence on intention to use
e-textbooks. The amount of exposure to a given
technology can moderate technology acceptance,
adoption, and use.
Novak, Daday
& McDaniel
(2018); United
States.
Explore student preferences with regard to using an e-text compared
to printed materials.
Undergraduate biology
students (n = 1337).
Quantitative: Online questionnaire,
which included e-text cognitive
load questions and questions about
their preference and attitudes toward
e-textbooks.
They established an instrument that discerns
extraneous (EL) and intrinsic load. They also
found that students do not strongly prefer e-texts
to printed textbooks, and find reading off a screen
and manipulating e-texts creates additional
sources of EL.
O’Bannon,
Skolits & Lubke
(2017); United
States.
Examine achievement
when an interactive
textbook is used in
place of lectures,
and the benefits and
challenges of using an
interactive text as an
educational tool.
Pre-service teachers
enrolled in a technology
course at a large research-intensive university
in the southeastern United
States (n = 57).
Mixed methods: Pre and post-exam
scores, online survey responses, blog
posts, and focus group responses
produced the data for this study.
There was a significant difference in the achievements of students who received instruction delivered through the use of the interactive textbook
versus those who received lecture instruction.
Additionally, participants indicated the interactive
textbook provided a new way of learning, motivated them to learn, made learning more exciting,
increased their attention toward instruction, was
more efficient, and increased their interest in class.
Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation 43:1 (2020)
www.cje-rce.ca
Interactive E-Texts and Students: A Scoping Review
272
Authors (year);
Country
Study Purpose
Population
Design/Methodology
Key Points
Peterson (2017);
United States.
To explore how a modification of the Technology Acceptance Model
(TAM) – assessing
usability (ease of use)
and perceived usefulness of specific features
– affects overall use of
electronic textbooks.
Undergraduate students enrolled in a general psychology course (n = 100).
Quantitative: Participants reported
frequency of use, perceived usefulness and usability for each of the
eight e-textbook features chosen for
evaluation.
Advanced e-text features such as highlighting,
annotating and linking to external information are
among the least usable features available and thus
less likely to be used. Results support the conclusion that usability of electronic textbooks must be
improved before they will be a viable alternative
to print textbooks.
Raynor &
Iggulden (2008);
United Kingdom.
Evaluate the effectiveness of using an online
interactive e-book to
deliver anatomy and
physiology teaching.
Undergraduate and graduate
university students (n =
101).
Mixed methods: Questionnaires,
observations, and interviews.
Found that undergraduate students enjoyed the
resource due to the interactive features but had
technical difficulties; Graduate students enjoyed
the resource and used to revise material; Lecturers felt this was an excellent resource.
Rickman, Von
Holzen, Klute
& Tobin (2009);
United States.
Analyze the feasibility
of a university to transition from rentals of
traditional textbooks to
rentals of e-textbooks.
Mixed methods: Observations,
University students in four
selected courses that adopted surveys, focus groups on student
e-textbooks at the University adoption, reading, and study habits.
of Northwest Missouri State
University (n = ~500).
Ryan (2008);
United States.
Determine if e-textbooks were suitable
as a primary course
resource.
University students enrolled
in three separate construction courses (n = 225).
Mixed methods: Online survey exploring student perceptions.
Sun, Flores
& Tanguma
(2012); United
States.
Examine the relevant
experiences of college
students in terms of how
the use of e-textbooks
may enhance their
learning.
Undergraduate students
enrolled in several introductory statistics courses (n =
137).
E-textbooks are perceived as enhancers of student
Quantitative: A short online survey
was sent to students during the semes- learning experiences in two complementing
routes: (1) e-textbook helpfulness enhances stuter with Likert-type questions.
dents’ learning outcomes directly and (2) student
involvement plays an important mediating role
between e-textbook helpfulness and learning
outcome if students use e-textbooks in class.
The majority of students felt they read more with
physical textbooks and did not see any changes
in their study habits. Students enjoyed the ability
to quickly retrieve information and the low cost,
but nearly half of students still preferred physical
textbooks.
Overall, students enjoyed the e-textbook and
the study supports e-textbooks as a primary
course resource. Students had concerns on cost
and re-sale, but enjoyed the interactive features,
accessibility and transportability.
Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation 43:1 (2020)
www.cje-rce.ca
273
Interactive E-Texts and Students: A Scoping Review
Authors (year);
Country
Study Purpose
Population
Design/Methodology
Key Points
Sun & Flores
(2013); United
States.
Examine the role of
technology savvy in
terms of the experiences, skills and self-efficacy of students in using
information technologies.
University students in an
undergraduate statistics
class at a southern university in the United States (n
= 108).
Quantitative: A survey questionnaire
was developed and administered
electronically using an online survey
website. The survey was anonymous
and took less than ten minutes to
complete.
Student experiences with e-textbooks vary
significantly across technology veterans and novices. Results suggest a salient moderating effect
of technology savvy on the relationships among
e-textbook experiences. Technology savvy had a
stronger effect than gender in this regard.
Turner &
Webster (2017);
United States.
Compare student performance and perceptions
of a traditional, teaching-centered classroom
to two different flipped
courses: one using video
lectures and one using
a media-enhanced electronic textbook.
Male university students
enrolled in an introductory
electric power systems
course (n = 27).
Mixed methods: Collected data on
student use of features, student perceptions, quiz scores, and semi-structured interviews with instructors.
Little difference was found in student achievement between the course formats, there were
strong negative reactions by students to unfamiliar instructional methods, and there was little
difference in content coverage.
Usta & Guntepe
(2017); Turkey.
Examine pre-service
teachers’ process in
designing an e-textbook
using the Analysis,
Design, Development,
Implementation, and
Evaluation (ADDIE)
model.
Sophomores in a material
design and use education
course at Giresun University (n = 54).
Qualitative: Special case study. Data
were collected using a form that
included eight open-ended questions and reflection reports where
pre-service teachers expressed their
opinions.
Although the pre-service teachers had problems
in the development process of the e-books, they
expressed positive views about their e-book, such
as its being capable of creating an interactive
learning environment.
Van Horne,
Henze, Schuh,
Colvin &
Russell (2017);
United States.
Determine whether an
instructional video in a
large, introductory biology class could promote
students’ adoption of an
interactive e-textbook.
Undergraduate students
from laboratory sections
in an introductory biology
class (n = 239).
Quantitative: Treatment group
(viewed a video detailing the most
beneficial ways to interact with an
e-textbook) and control group. A preand post- test were administered to
the participants in both groups.
The treatment group had higher overall satisfaction, on average, with the e-textbook than the
control group but did not report using the interactive tools more often.
Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation 43:1 (2020)
www.cje-rce.ca
Interactive E-Texts and Students: A Scoping Review
274
Authors (year);
Country
Study Purpose
Population
Design/Methodology
Key Points
Van Horne,
Russell & Schuh
(2016); United
States.
To assess the factors
associated with time
to students’ first use
of interactive e-textbook features and the
relationship between
frequency of tool usage
and final course grades.
Primarily undergraduate
students from eight courses
that used an e-textbook (n
= 274).
Quantitative: Data mining and survival analysis following recording of
student use of features.
The only tool that more than half of the participants used was highlighting. Students who
purchased a print copy of the textbook had longer
average times using notes and annotations. There
was evidence that using the tools decreased as the
semester progressed, and that students’ self-reported reading behaviors and grade point average
were predictive of the time to using the mark-up
tools. An interaction between bookmark usage
and amount of reading was positively associated
with course grades.
Zhang, Dang &
Amer (2016);
United States.
To examine the impact
of a large-scale blended
and flipped class on
students’ intention to
learn. Specifically, they
examined the influence
of students’ computer
self-efficacy and motivation, as well as instructor
characteristics and teaching method, on students’
intention to learn.
Freshman level students
in an introduction-to-computer-information-systems
course at Northern Arizona
University (n = 538).
Mixed methods: Survey of students
and their written comments.
The model testing results showed that students’
computer self-efficacy, motivation, and teaching
method could significantly influence their intention to learn in the blended and flipped environment. Instructor characteristics were found to
have no impact on intention to learn.
Theme 1: Interactive E-Texts Influence Student Learning Experiences
Overall, the reviewed articles indicate that students generally have more positive perceptions of interactive e-texts than negative or
neutral perceptions. In many studies, students expressed a positive outlook toward the use of interactive e-texts and their associated
features (Alshaya & Oyaid, 2017; Baek & Monaghan, 2013; Dobler, 2015; Feldstein et al., 2012; Liberatore, 2017; O’Bannon et
al., 2017; Raynor & Iggulden, 2008; Ryan, 2008; Zhang et al., 2016). Some studies identified particular key features of interactive
e-texts that positively affected student learning experiences including videos or animations (Baek & Monaghan, 2013; Huang et
al., 2014; Liberatore, 2017; O’Bannon et al., 2017; Raynor & Iggulden, 2008; Zhang et al., 2016) and the use of interactive quizzes
Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation 43:1 (2020)
www.cje-rce.ca
Interactive E-Texts and Students: A Scoping Review
275
(Baek & Monaghan, 2013; Feldstein et al., 2012; Ryan, 2008; Zhang et al., 2016). Other
features of interactive e-texts that were identified as positively influencing student learning
experiences include online note taking and sharing, as well as homework questions (Dobler,
2015; Raynor & Iggulden, 2008; Zhang et al., 2016).
Other reviewed articles suggested that student perceptions of interactive e-texts
were related to learning experiences. In particular, perceived utility was highlighted by
several studies as important, in that perceived usefulness of the interactive e-text was
found to be related to both use and use intention, as well as learning experiences and outcomes (Birdsonget al., 2015; Ngafeeson & Sun, 2015; Peterson, 2017; Sun et al., 2012).
Further, one study found that the more students read, the more they perceived the interactive e-text to be supportive of their learning (Van Horne et al., 2017).
Theme 2: Relationship bBetween Interactive E-Texts and Academic
Performance
While individual student outcomes and academic performance falls outside the purpose
of this review, the relationship between academic performance and student learning
experience is important and was highlighted by many of the included studies. Based on
those studies, the relationship between interactive e-texts and academic performance is
complex. Several studies reported a positive relationship between interactive e-texts and
student learning, noting interactive features relate to improved attention, comprehension,
motivation, excitement, and academic outcomes (Bolsen et al., 2016; Dobler, 2015; Feldstein et al., 2012; Huang et al., 2014; Nagra et al., 2013; O’Bannon et al., 2017). Several
studies compared traditional textbooks and e-texts, and found higher academic achievement using e-texts (Asensio et al., 2010; Chaudhri et al., 2013; Ebied & Rahman, 2015;
O’Bannon et al., 2017). Two studies indicated that interactive e-text use was associated
with increased reading (Liberatore, 2017; Nagra et al., 2013).
In contrast, other studies indicated a less significant relationship between interactive e-text use and academic performance. A few studies noted no significant impact on
student performance when comparing interactive e-texts and traditional textbooks (Coffin
Murray & Pérez, 2011; Daniel & Woody, 2013; Dobler, 2015; Morris & Lambe, 2017;
Turner & Webster, 2017). Similarly, while two studies noted above found that students
read more when using an interactive e-text, two other studies found students read more
Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation 43:1 (2020)
www.cje-rce.ca
Interactive E-Texts and Students: A Scoping Review
276
with a traditional textbook (Dwyer & Davidson, 2013; Rickman et al., 2009). Finally, the
complexity of this relationship was noted in two additional studies; in one study, student
comfort was associated with academic achievement (Dwyer & Davidson, 2013), while
the other found that interactive e-text use was associated with improved engagement but
decreased learning outcome expectations (Sun et al., 2012).
Theme 3: Factors Influencing Student Adoption and Experience of
Interactive E-Texts
Through this review, several factors were identified as important in influencing student
adoption and experience using interactive e-texts, including affordability, accessibility,
and portability. Several studies highlighted cost to students as particularly important
for student adoption and experience, noting that e-texts tend to cost students less than
traditional print textbooks (deNoyelles & Seilhamer, 2013; Dobler, 2015; Rickman et
al., 2009). Studies have also described a shift in student perceptions around cost and an
increasing demand for no- or low-cost options (Mills, 2016; Ryan, 2008). Interestingly,
one study found a majority of students would not be willing to pay more for a print textbook (McDaniel & Daday, 2018), while the opposite was found in another study; that is,
students were willing to spend more for a print textbook (Novak et al., 2018).
Accessibility and portability were highlighted as significant benefits to using
interactive e-texts, which were viewed as more convenient to access in comparison to traditional textbooks and less physically burdensome (Dobler, 2015; O’Bannon et al., 2017;
Raynor & Iggulden, 2008; Rickman et al., 2009; Ryan, 2008; Zhang et al., 2016). Some
studies reported that students enjoyed the format and interface of interactive e-texts.
Instead of large blocks of text, these e-texts tended to have images and activities interspersed, could present course material in more relevant and applicable ways, and were
better able to summarize content (Feldstein et al., 2012; Liberatore, 2017; Ryan, 2008).
Despite the benefits presented in some studies, other studies noted barriers to
adoption or negative aspects of student experience using interactive e-texts. Most often,
these barriers related to a preference for reading from a traditional text or paper, sometimes due to eye strain caused by reading from a screen (Baek & Monaghan, 2013; deNoyelles & Seilhamer, 2013; Dobler, 2015; Dwyer & Davidson, 2013; Morris & Lambe,
2017; Nagra et al., 2013). Similarly, other studies indicated that, for this reason, students
Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation 43:1 (2020)
www.cje-rce.ca
Interactive E-Texts and Students: A Scoping Review
277
would also purchase a print copy or print electronic documents (McDaniel & Daday,
2018; Novak et al., 2018; Peterson, 2017; Van Horne et al., 2017).
Other barriers to positive student experiences using interactive e-texts included
technical difficulties and some confusing interfaces. Some studies reported challenges
with technology as negatively affecting student experience, including personal user challenges with technology and internet speed and accessibility (Birdsong et al., 2015; Morris
& Lambe, 2017; Raynor & Iggulden, 2008). Some articles noted student challenges or
a distaste toward the format or interface of interactive e-text features, such as excessive
module length; others reported underutilization of interactive e-text features due to lack
of familiarity, usability, and disparities between books, formats, and systems (deNoyelles
& Seilhamer, 2013; Peterson, 2017; Van Horne et al., 2016). Finally, one study noted that
the use of interactive e-texts resulted in students perceiving an excess of potential distractions on their personal computers (Dwyer & Davidson, 2013).
Theme 4: Roles, Responsibilities, and Recommendations
Many of the studies noted the critical role and responsibility of educators in the effective development and implementation of interactive e-texts that support student adoption
and positive learning experiences. Regarding educators, studies highlighted the need for
educator training to ensure they are comfortable with the technology and therefore able
to demonstrate its use (Dobler, 2015; Ebied & Rahman, 2015; Van Horne et al., 2017).
Several studies also noted the importance of educators presenting a rationale for e-text
use and actively engaging students in the use of the technology (Dobler, 2015; Sun et al.,
2012; Van Horne et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2016). Additional studies noted that incorporating interactive e-texts requires educator flexibility and creativity, and that educators should
be willing to customize the use of technology based on student needs (Sun & Flores,
2013; Usta & Güntepe, 2017). A few studies also commented on the role of educational
institutions and publishing companies, emphasizing that the implementation of interactive
e-texts should be supported by educational benefits and financial support (deNoyelles &
Seilhamer, 2013; Nagra et al., 2013; Ngafeeson & Sun, 2015). Other articles suggested
educational institutions should work with publishing companies on cost and accessibility
of interactive e-texts (deNoyelles & Seilhamer, 2013; Dwyer & Davidson, 2013).
Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation 43:1 (2020)
www.cje-rce.ca
Interactive E-Texts and Students: A Scoping Review
278
Several of the articles also discussed recommendations for interactive e-text development and implementation to support student learning experiences. Several articles mentioned how additional research and development is required to implement user-friendly
features that will be strategically adopted by students (Huang et al., 2014; Peterson, 2017).
Two authors emphasized that the development and use of interactive e-texts should be
driven by educational benefits as opposed to cost benefits (Coffin Murray & Pérez, 2011;
Nagra et al., 2013). Authors of articles had conflicting views regarding whether e-texts
should be universally adopted or adopted alongside traditional texts (Asensio et al., 2010;
Morris & Lambe, 2017). One article suggested the importance of including students in the
development and improvement of interactive e-text features (Nagra et al., 2013).
Many articles discussed the need for future research in this field. The most frequent
recommendation was that larger and more diverse samples are needed to produce more generalizable results (Baek & Monaghan, 2013; Birdsong et al., 2015; Chaudhri et al., 2013;
Dwyer & Davidson, 2013; Ryan, 2008; Sun & Flores, 2013; Sun et al., 2012; Zhang et al.,
2016). Several other articles noted the need for future research to attempt to disentangle
how multiple variables and features relate to observed outcomes of interactive e-text use
(deNoyelles & Seilhamer, 2013; Mills, 2016). Other studies emphasized the need for future
research to explore the relationship between interactive e-text use and academic performance or learning outcomes further (Daniel & Woody, 2013; Liberatore, 2017; McDaniel
& Daday, 2018). Finally, one article noted the need for future interactive e-text research to
focus on diverse learners and issues related to accessibility (Raynor & Iggulden, 2008).
Discussion
This scoping review of 33 articles explored what is known about post-secondary student
learning experiences using interactive e-texts. Four themes were developed through reviewing the existing literature. The first theme discusses how interactive e-texts influence student
learning experiences, with studies generally describing more positive than negative or neutral experiences using interactive e-texts. They also highlight user-friendly format and the
importance of features that promote interactivity and engagement. Relatedly, the third theme
identifies factors influencing student adoption and learning experiences. Price, accessibility,
and portability seem particularly important for student experiences, while eye-strain and
technological challenges were seen as common barriers. Similar barriers and facilitators to
Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation 43:1 (2020)
www.cje-rce.ca
Interactive E-Texts and Students: A Scoping Review
279
e-text adoption have been noted previously (Foote & Rupp-Serrano, 2010; Jamali et al., 2009;
Marques de Oliveira, 2012; Shelburne, 2009; Stone & Baker-Eveleth, 2013; Tremblay, 2010).
While it was not the intention of this review to explore the impact of interactive
e-texts on individual student-level outcomes or academic performance, it is clear that academic performance and student learning experiences are intertwined. This insight formed
the second theme noted from the studies included in this review. The articles included in
the review describe this relationship as complex and conflicting with a lack of consensus
on how the use of interactive e-texts may affect learning outcomes. Previous literature on
the impact of e-texts on student learning experiences and academic outcomes are mixed;
there is a need to investigate this area further (Rockinson-Szapkiw et al., 2011; Shepperd
et al., 2008; Siebenbruner, 2011; Simon, 2002).
The final theme that emerged related to roles, responsibilities, and recommendations. In particular, the important role of the educator in successful implementation of
interactive e-texts was highlighted in the articles. Studies in our review emphasize educator
comfort level with technology, willingness to be flexible, and their role in engagement and
student motivation. Similarly, professors’ personal preferences, comfort levels, and use of
technology in class have been shown to influence student engagement with e-texts (Doering
et al., 2012; Records et al., 2015; Yager & Szabo, 2011). Studies also noted the important
role of educational institutions and publishing companies, particularly regarding accessibility. Finally, recommendations for future work was a theme seen across studies, with articles
noting the importance of a better understanding of the student experience and use of specific features in order to reduce barriers and improve student learning experiences.
A primary outcome of scoping reviews is to identify gaps in the literature (Arksey
& O’Malley, 2005). From the studies included in this review, we identified three gaps. First,
the majority of the articles included in this review were from the United States. The findings
of this review are therefore likely more representative of the post-secondary education system in the United States. This also indicates a gap in the literature, in that research should
be conducted in other settings. As a team of Canadian researchers, we would like to highlight that no Canadian research was included in this review, indicating a gap in the literature
that warrants further study in Canada. Additionally, a majority of the studies in this review
were either quantitative or used mixed methods approaches that emphasized quantitative
results. More qualitative research is needed to understand the experiences of students better,
particularly regarding the barriers they face, and what could be done to facilitate adoption
Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation 43:1 (2020)
www.cje-rce.ca
Interactive E-Texts and Students: A Scoping Review
280
and implementation of interactive e-texts that positively affect student experiences. Lastly,
the majority of articles included in this review studied a single course in a single setting. Future research should explore adoption of interactive e-texts across contexts including multiple courses, using longitudinal designs, and exploring unit or university-wide adoption.
Strengths of this review include the variety of literature pulled together from a variety of settings and disciplines. Through the literature included in this review, we are beginning to distinguish between digital and electronic textbooks and interactive e-texts and are
better able to understand student learning experiences using interactive e-texts. Through this
review we have also begun to identify key features and factors relating to interactive e-text
and student experiences. Additionally, this work was conducted by a research team with a
growing body of work in educational research, the scholarship of teaching and learning, and
technology and education. A limitation of this work is its inability to draw conclusions in
this complex field of varied research, or to make specific recommendations on any particular
feature of interactive e-texts. Future research could begin to unpack the features and factors
identified here to dive more deeply, particularly in under-researched contexts. Additionally, given the ever-changing nature of technology, articles might have been excluded from
our review based on rapidly advancing and highly variable use of terminology. Finally, one
restriction of scoping reviews is that they do not include quality assessment, so we are unable
to comment on the quality of the research summarized here (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005).
Conclusion
The adoption of interactive e-texts is becoming increasingly common in post-secondary
education, but the relationship between interactive e-text use and student learning experiences
remains complex and warrants further research. The results of this review emphasize the
importance of user-friendliness, low cost, accessibility, portability, and the role of the educator.
While there appears to be more positive experiences associated with interactive e-texts, there
are negative experiences and barriers reported as well, which require further investigation.
There is a need for research in the Canadian context, qualitative research, and longitudinal
research that crosses e-text settings and courses over time. Overall, the use of interactive
e-texts shows promise in the post-secondary education setting. Future research should explore
the student learning experience in more depth, such that barriers might be minimized, and
benefits might be maximized.
Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation 43:1 (2020)
www.cje-rce.ca
281
Interactive E-Texts and Students: A Scoping Review
References
Alshaya, H., & Oyaid, A. (2017). Designing and publication of interactive e-book for
students of Princess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman University: An empirical study.
Journal of Education and Practice, 8(8), 41–57.
Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological
framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
Asensio, D. A., Barassi, F. J., Mazza, G. D., & Zambon, M. T. (2010). On the use of
interactive texts in undergraduate chemical reaction engineering courses: A
pedagogical experience. Advances in Engineering Education, 2(2). Retrieved
from https://advances.asee.org/publication/on-the-use-of-interactive-texts-inundergraduate-chemical-reaction-engineering-courses-a-pedagogical-experience/
Baek, E. O., & Monaghan, J. (2013). Journey to textbook affordability: An investigation
of students’ use of eTextbooks at multiple campuses. The International Review
of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(3), 1–26. https://doi.
org/10.19173/irrodl.v14i3.1237
Baldwin, A. A. (2015). Developing an interactive textbook using iBooks Author.
Federation of Business Disciplines Journal, 3, 1–12.
Birdsong, C., Chen, J., Tseng, M., & Victorino, C. (2015). Student acceptance of online
textbooks across multiple engineering courses. The ASEE Computers in Education
(CoED) Journal, 6(3), 64.
Bolsen, T., Evans, M., & Fleming, A. M. (2016). A comparison of online and face-toface approaches to teaching Introduction to American Government. Journal of
Political Science Education, 12(3), 302–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.20
15.1090905
Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the
classroom. (ASHE–ERIC Higher Education Rep. No. 1).Washington, DC: The
George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.
Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation 43:1 (2020)
www.cje-rce.ca
282
Interactive E-Texts and Students: A Scoping Review
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology.
Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.
org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Chaudhri, V. K., Cheng, B., Overtholtzer, A., Roschelle, J., Spaulding, A., Clark, P.,
Greaves, M., & Gunning, D. (2013). Inquire biology: A textbook that answers
questions. AI Magazine, 34(3), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v34i3.2486
Chulkov, D. V., & VanAlstine, J. (2013). College student choice among electronic and
printed textbook options. Journal of Education for Business, 88(4), 216–222.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2012.672936
Coffin Murray, M., & Pérez, J. (2011). E-textbooks are coming: Are we ready? Issues
in Informing Science and Information Technology, 8, 049–060. https://doi.
org/10.28945/1404
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
deNoyelles, A., & Seilhamer, R. (2013). eTextbook access, usage, and beliefs:
Implications for adoption in higher education. Journal of Applied Research in
Higher Education, 5(2), 189–201.
Dobler, E. (2015). E-textbooks: A personalized learning experience or a digital
distraction? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(6), 482–491.
Doering, T., Pereira, L., Kuechler, L., & College, D. (2012). The ease of e-textbooks in
higher education: A case study. E-Leader, 109–123.
Dwyer, K. K., & Davidson, M. M. (2013). General education oral communication
assessment and student preferences for learning: E-textbook versus paper
textbook. Communication Teacher, 27(2), 111–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/17404
622.2012.752514
Ebied, M. M. A., & Rahman, S. A. A. (2015). The effect of interactive e-book on
students’ achievement at Najran University in Computer in Education course.
Journal of Education and Practice, 6(19), 71–82.
Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation 43:1 (2020)
www.cje-rce.ca
283
Interactive E-Texts and Students: A Scoping Review
Feldstein, A., Martin, M., Hudson, A., Warren, K., Hilton, J., & Wiley, D. (2012). Open
textbooks and increased student access and outcomes. European Journal of Open,
Distance and E-Learning. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ992490
Foote, J. B., & Rupp-Serrano, K. (2010). Exploring e-book usage among faculty and
graduate students in the geosciences: Results of a small survey and focus group
approach. Science & Technology Libraries, 29(3), 216–234. https://doi.org/10.108
0/0194262X.2010.497716
Haworth, J. G., & Conrad, C. F. (1997). Emblems of quality in higher education:
Developing and sustaining high-quality programs. Allyn & Bacon.
Huang, K.-L., Chen, K.-H., & Ho, C.-H. (2014). Enhancing learning outcomes through
new e-textbooks: A desirable combination of presentation methods and concept
maps. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(5), 600–618. https://
doi.org/10.14742/ajet.538
Jamali, H. R., Rowlands, I., & Nicholas, D. (2009). Scholarly e‐books: The views of
16,000 academics: Results from the JISC National E‐Book Observatory. Aslib
Proceedings, 61(1), 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1108/00012530910932276
Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers.
Associated Press.
Lease, L. (2016, June 20). Bloom’s taxonomy. Teaching, Learning, & Everything In
Between. https://lynnleasephd.com/2016/06/20/blooms-taxonomy/
Liberatore, M. (2017). High textbook reading rates when using an interactive textbook for
a Material and Energy Balances course. Chemical Engineering Education, 51(3),
109–118.
Marques de Oliveira, S. (2012). E‐textbooks usage by students at Andrews University:
A study of attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors. Library Management, 33(8/9),
536–560. https://doi.org/10.1108/01435121211279894
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.
Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation 43:1 (2020)
www.cje-rce.ca
284
Interactive E-Texts and Students: A Scoping Review
Mills, M. S. (2016). Student preference of a customized, open-access multi-touch digital
textbook in a graduate education course. Contemporary Educational Technology,
7(2), 123–137.
Morris, N. P., & Lambe, J. (2017). Multimedia interactive eBooks in laboratory
bioscience education. Higher Education Pedagogies, 2(1), 28–42. https://doi.org/
10.1080/23752696.2017.1338531
Nagra, K., Eng, S., & Karrass, M. (2013). The use of ubiquitous learning methods for
mathematics courses in borough of Manhattan Community College: A case
study. Ubiquitous Learning: An International Journal, 5(4), 41–54. https://doi.
org/10.18848/1835-9795/cgp/v05i04/40382
Ngafeeson, M. N., & Sun, J. (2015). The effects of technology innovativeness and
system exposure on student acceptance of e-textbooks. Journal of Information
Technology Education: Research, 14, 055–071. https://doi.org/10.28945/2101
Novak, E., Daday, J., & McDaniel, K. (2018). Assessing intrinsic and extraneous
cognitive complexity of e-textbooklLearning. Interacting with Computers, 30(2),
150–161. https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwy001
Numer, M., & Spencer, R. A. (2015). Bring your own device technology: Preliminary
results from a mixed methods study to explore student experience of in-class
response systems in post-secondary education. Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics
and Informatics, 13(1), 1–6.
O’Bannon, B. W., Skolits, G. J., & Lubke, J. K. (2017). The influence of digital
interactive textbook instruction on student learning preferences, outcomes, and
motivation. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 49, 103–116.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2017.1303798
Panitz, T. (1999). Collaborative versus cooperative learning: A comparison of the two
concepts which will help us understand the underlying nature of interactive
learning. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED448443
Percival, J. C., & Muirhead, B. (2009). Prioritizing the implementation of e-learning
tools to enhance the post-secondary learning environment. Journal of Distance
Education, 23(1), 89–106.
Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation 43:1 (2020)
www.cje-rce.ca
285
Interactive E-Texts and Students: A Scoping Review
Peterson, D. A. (2017). Electronic textbooks: Usability of advanced features a limiting
factor. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 11(4), 360–
377. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMLO.2017.087087
Pratt, R. S., Green, J. L., Rasmussen, K., Lai, H., & Compton, S. M. (2019). Dental
hygiene students and faculty attitudes and utilization of a single source electronic
textbook platform. International Journal of Dental Hygiene, 17(3), 268–279.
https://doi.org/10.1111/idh.12383
Raynor, M., & Iggulden, H. (2008). Online anatomy and physiology: Piloting the
use of an anatomy and physiology e-book-VLE hybrid in pre-registration
and post-qualifying nursing programmes at the University of Salford.
Health Information and Libraries Journal, 25(2), 98–105. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2007.00748.x
Records, H., Li, S., Prichard, J., & Beling, R. (2015). How to increase adoption rates
and use of e-texts in the university setting. Issues in Information Systems, 16(1),
155–162.
Rickman, J. T., Holzen, R. V., Klute, P. G., & Tobin, T. (2009). A Campus-Wide
E-Textbook Initiative. Educause Quarterly, 39(2). https://er.educause.edu/
articles/2009/7/a-campuswide-etextbook-initiative
Rockinson-Szapkiw, A., Holder, D., & Dunn, R. (2011). Motivating students to learn:
Is there a difference between traditional books and e-books? Global Learn Asia
Pacific, 235–239.
Ryan, R. C. (2008). Use of an e-text as a primary course resource. International
Journal of Construction Education and Research, 4(2), 97–114. https://doi.
org/10.1080/15578770802229458
Shelburne, W. A. (2009). E-book usage in an academic library: User attitudes and
behaviors. Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services, 33(2),
59–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcats.2009.04.002
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.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00986280701818532
Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation 43:1 (2020)
www.cje-rce.ca
286
Interactive E-Texts and Students: A Scoping Review
Siebenbruner, J. (2011). Electronic versus Ttaditional textbooks: A comparison of college
textbook formats. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 22(3), 75–92.
Simon, E. J. (2002). An experiment using electronic books in the classroom. Journal of
Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 21(1), 53–66.
Skiba, D. J., & Barton, A. J. (2006). Adapting your teaching to accommodate the net
generation of learners. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 11(2), 5.
Stone, R. W., & Baker-Eveleth, L. (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
Sun, J., & Flores, J. (2013). Student characteristics and e-textbook experiences: The
direct and moderating effects of technology savvy and gender. Information
Systems Education Journal, 11(3), 4–14.
Sun, J., Flores, J., & Tanguma, J. (2012). E-textbooks and students’ learning experiences.
Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 10(1), 63–77. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1540-4609.2011.00329.x
Tremblay, E. (2010). Educating the Mobile Generation – using personal cell phones
as audience response systems in post-secondary science teaching. Journal of
Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 29(2), 217–227.
Tretinjak, M. F., Bednjanec, A., & Tretinjak, M. (2014). Application of modern teaching
techniques in the educational process. 2014 37th International Convention on
Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics
(MIPRO), 628–632. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIPRO.2014.6859643
Turner, M. J., & Webster, R. D. (2017). A comparison of delivery formats to encourage
student-centered learning in a Power Engineering Technology course. American
Journal of Engineering Education, 8(2), 141–156.
Usta, N. D., & Güntepe, E. T. (2017). Pre-service teachers’ material development process
based on the ADDIE Model: E-book design. Journal of Education and Training
Studies, 5(12), 199–210. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v5i12.2820
Van Dusen, G. C. (1996). The virtual campus: Technology and reform in higher
education (Vol. 25, no. 5). Jossey-Bass.
Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation 43:1 (2020)
www.cje-rce.ca
287
Interactive E-Texts and Students: A Scoping Review
Van Horne, S., Henze, M., Schuh, K. L., Colvin, C., & Russell, J.-E. (2017). Facilitating
adoption of an interactive e-textbook among university students in a large,
Introductory Biology course. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 29(3),
477–495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9153-1
Van Horne, S., Russell, J., & Schuh, K. L. (2016). The adoption of mark-up tools
in an interactive e-textbook reader. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 64(3), 407–433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9425-x
Yager, S. E., & Szabo, Z. (2011). Using an e-book to teach technology: Effects on student
performance. Proceedings of the 49th SIGMIS Annual Conference on Computer
Personnel Research, 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/1982143.1982146
Yale Poorvu Center for Teaching and Learning. (2018). Active learning. https://
poorvucenter.yale.edu/ActiveLearning
Zhang, Y., Dang, Y., & Amer, B. (2016). A large-scale blended and flipped Class: Class
design and investigation of factors influencing students’ intention to learn.
IEEE Transactions on Education, 59(4), 263–273. https://doi.org/10.1109/
TE.2016.2535205
Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation 43:1 (2020)
www.cje-rce.ca