Transitioning to ebooks: Using Interaction Theory as a Lens To

Article Cite This: J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

Transitioning to ebooks: Using Interaction Theory as a Lens To Characterize General Chemistry Students’ Use of Course Resources Elizabeth L. Day*,† and Norbert J. Pienta‡ †

Department of Chemistry, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, United States Department of Chemistry, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602, United States

‡

Downloaded via GUILFORD COLG on July 28, 2019 at 13:09:25 (UTC). See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

S Supporting Information *

ABSTRACT: This 21-item survey administered at the end of first-semester General Chemistry asked students to estimate their average weekly use of course resources and rate how helpful they find various textbook and online homework features of their current textbook. During data collection, the General Chemistry textbook changed from a print version to one that is primarily electronic. A comparison of previous results of a print textbook semester to a semester using an ebook provided insight into how the equivalent features are utilized in different mediums. In the first three semesters’ worth of data analyzed, General Chemistry I students report relying on their textbook for approximately 5 h of studying per week, regardless of textbook medium; when the ebook was adopted, the homework resource was more frequently used. A comparison of equivalent textbook features between formats revealed that the helpfulness ratings of reading outline and animations increased significantly, whereas worked-examples and end-of-chapter questions decreased significantly. In addition to mathemagenic features, ebook features that help students stay on-task or visualize reactions are significantly highly rated. KEYWORDS: First-Year Undergraduate/General, Curriculum, Textbooks/Reference Books, Multimedia-Based Learning, Student-Centered Learning, Nonmajor Courses, Chemical Education Research FEATURE: Chemical Education Research

F

characteristics, the former can be demonstrated in the following work. The justification is that any course resource has no opportunity to influence learning if the students do not perceive it as helpful or valuable. Thus, to explore the viability of an ebook as a primary content-delivery medium for an active-learning course structure, it is important to survey students about their attitudes toward and their perceived usage of the textbook, particularly in relation to other course resources.

rom the instructor’s point-of-view, the purpose of the textbook is to serve as a multipurpose reference to deliver in-depth conceptual explanation of the course; however, it is commonly used by students to find problem-solving algorithms and (ideally, although perhaps secondarily) to gain conceptual understanding of the lecture content.1 The instructor-chosen textbook often drives the curriculum, especially for instructors with heavy teaching loads. Ninety years ago, the curriculum was dominated by traditional hard-copy texts used to train future chemists and focused on purely descriptive chemistry; with the widespread curricular changes of the 1960s, textbooks ballooned in volume to accommodate a “theory-first” presentation.2,3 Even with the recent popularity of the active and flipped pedagogies, adaptation of the textbook is needed to meet the current pedagogical revolution.4 It is important to make the distinction between what students perceive as valuable to their learning and what course components help students learn.1 While the latterwhat influences students’ learningis a highly variable and complex web of resources, prior knowledge, and student affective © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

■

BACKGROUND

Literature Review

Within the literature designated as chemistry education research (CER) on textbooks, few studies have focused on ebooks. With the rise in prevalence of “flipped” classrooms, the Received: January 4, 2019 Revised: June 25, 2019

A

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00011 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Figure 1. Visual representation of Moore’s Theory of Interaction with Anderson’s expansions of the theory.39,40 Adapted from a review, but edited to reflect the original terminology of the theory.42

choice to use the ebook over the traditional print book.33 Salami and Omiretu found that performance expectancy and effort expectancy significantly correlated to the behavioral intention to adopt the new technology.33,36 Online homework systems have been the focus of study recently. These tools provide immediate and detailed feedback to the student on problem-solving, although this feedback is not specifically tailored to the student.31 In comparing two electronic homework systems, researchers evaluated the students’ preference, attitudes, and performance with the different formats.31 The MindTap system (which is also the system used at the institution of this presented work) has questions embedded within the ebook text that can be assessed for points; each ebook section is followed by “mastery” questions designed to quiz the student. This system also embeds interactive figures, interactive video tutorials, and tutorial solutions to problems. Williamson and Zumalt compared this MindTap system to the Online Web Learning (OWL) system, in which triads of mastery questions were assigned and the electronic text was accessible through a link to a separate browser tab.31 Previous work by these researchers concluded that students perceived that they learned more with MindTap and preferred the embedded arrangement of homework and text.30 Williamson and Zumalt compared the average grades for hourly exams, final exam grades, and overall course grade between groups that used each homework system.31 They noted that the two groups had a similar number of withdrawals from the course and similar grade distributions.31 Although this comparison was between two electronic texts, the rationale of similarity between educational interventions will be relevant in the conclusions of the study presented in this document. In light of the results of the now-defunct TextRev national textbook survey, researchers found that students (N = 3200) were

active learning format assumes that students utilize contentdelivery resources (such as textbooks and videos) outside of the course meetings; however, despite this assumption of widespread student use of the textbook, there are few studies on textbooks to validate this premise. The topics of publications on textbooks in chemistry have included suggestions for reform.2,5−9 CER on textbooks has focused on discourse analysis of the text,10 the use of analogies within the text,11,12 a content analysis of diagrams,13 classifying endof-chapter problems based on Bloom’s taxonomy,14 problematic explanation styles,15 issues of representation,16,17 misconceptions/alternative conceptions in general chemistry textbooks,18−24 and an analysis of visual representations of particulate matter in the text. 25−28 Even fewer have demonstrated how students use their textbooks or how valuable students find the various features of these everexpanding textbooks.1,29−33 In terms of performance, one study found that an openeducational resource ebook was a viable alternative to a traditional textbook via a noninferiority multiple regression.4 Between groups of students who used an ebook and those who used a print textbook, there was no significant difference in performance on most assessments, and the learning gains by the ebook group were comparable to the gains by the print book group.4 Similar results in learning gains have been reported for students using ebooks in statistics courses.34,35 In a quasi-experimental study, Salami and Omiretu used a nonrandom purposeful sampling technique to survey general chemistry students who voluntarily chose to use an ebook over a traditional print textbook for the course; their participants (N = 46) were asked to rate statements on a seven-point Likert scale to elucidate how the constructs of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) and Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) explained the participants’ B

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00011 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

■

Article

COURSE CONTEXT During the implementation of this survey, the chemistry department transitioned from a traditional general chemistry print textbook (in fall 2015) to an ebook (in spring 2016). These books were from the same publisher with different authors45,46 and were uniformly adopted across multiple sections with different instructors of the General Chemistry I course. The ebook included an outline-format reading assignment with interactive figures, written and video tutorials, and embedded questions that could be assessed for points; if a student struggles with these questions, the ebook system provided detailed feedback as a “tutorial solution to the problem.” At the end of each section there were questions designed to help students assess their “mastery” of that material, as well as a variety of review questions and study aids for each chapter. A more traditionally written, although still electronic, version of the textbook is also available within this online system. The corequisite for the General Chemistry I lecture course was a one-credit, three-hour laboratory course, and the typical lecture met three times weekly for 50 min each. Students in General Chemistry I also had access to lecturers’ presentation slides and lecture videos through the classroom management system (LMS). In the initial print-book semester (fall 2015), they were assigned online homework and weekly quizzes through WebAssign,51 which at the time was an outside product but has since been acquired by Cengage, the publisher of the textbooks45,46 used in this work. The weekly online quizzes were also a feature of the fall 2016 semester, after the transition to the electronic textbook. The textbook (and the print textbook’s solutions manual), lecture slides and videos, and homework problems constitute the learner−content interaction in the model in Figure 1. Each instructor held office hours, and teaching assistants (TAs) were required to hold weekly office hours in addition to teaching sections of the laboratory. These professor and TA office hours provided students in the course an opportunity to interact with a content-expert with any questions they may have; this fits the Interaction Theory model under the instructor−learner interaction. Furthermore, students in the course had a variety of learner− learner interactions available, ranging from informal studying with friends to formalized learning communities/study groups to university-sponsored free peer tutoring to students’ paid use of tutoring from local private tutoring companies. Each of these interactions (and the constituent course resources) represent sources of information that General Chemistry students may use to help construct meaning (or simply to memorize algorithms) to aid their chemistry studying. This transition provided a unique opportunity to measure students’ reactions to a format change. The goal of this research is to inform general trends in student textbook use, and to answer the following questions: (1) How often do students perceive that they use their textbooks, and how does this frequency compare to other course resources? (2) Which features of their textbooks do students consider helpful, and does the helpfulness of a feature change after transitioning to an electronic format?

slightly overestimating their grades (by as much as 0.45 points).29 For the presented work, accepting a slight overestimation in anticipated course grade (especially in light of the similar grade distributions between formats in the previous studies) allowed for a larger sample size. Theoretical Framework

In an active learning classroom, the role of the instructor shifts from a central dispensary of knowledge to a discussion leader;37 the dispensary role is now held by online contentdelivery systems (lecture notes, learning managements systems, ebooks, online homework, etc.). A recent article notes that institutions of higher education are moving toward a hybrid/ blended model, which incorporates elements of online contentdelivery with in-person meetings on a semiregular basis.38 What the hybrid model and on-campus courses which incorporate active learning share is a placement of responsibility on the student to prepare for class and assessments with minimal personal feedback, especially in large class sizes. In the process, the line between distance education (in which hybrid/ blended course formats are abundant) and on-campus education has blurred. Therefore, a look at the guiding frameworks of distance education can inform how best to transition to a computer-mediated learning environment. Although complex (and increasingly distance-learning specific) models of interaction exist, Anderson’s expansion of Moore’s three primary forms of interaction can serve as an organization of this work. Deep and meaningful learning is based on three types of interaction as hypothesized by Moore: learner−content, learner−instructor, and learner−learner.39 Anderson also suggests that although multiple types of interaction can lead to a better learning experience, a high level of one type of interaction may make up for missing or poor levels in the other two types of interaction,40 although this assertion does not appear to hold up to a meta-analysis.41 Anderson also expanded this model to include instructor−content, instructor− instructor (professional development networks), and content− content interactions. This expanded model is visualized in Figure 1. In distance education (and increasingly in active learning environments), learner−instructor interaction is embedded into the choice of content delivery and therefore subsumed by the learner−content interaction. While this critical learner−content interaction is theorized to be the “defining characteristic of education” and responsible for restructuring conceptual organization within the learner,39 learner−instructor interaction is an expected, highly valued interaction in modern education.41 Although consolidation of the learner−instructor interaction into the course content materials produces uniform delivery, the social and mentoring function of the learner− instructor interaction has not been appreciably replicated by the content-delivery systems. As Xiao notes, “[u]nless reciprocal interpersonal interaction is built on learners’ interaction with course content, its impact on learners’ academic achievement and perceptions [···] may not be as positive as desired.”41 Although education literature has studied learner−learner and learner−instructor interactions,43,44 there has been fewer studies focusing on the interaction between learners and the assigned course resources. With the increased student responsibility on preparation of content, there is a vital interest in how learners make meaning of the content to inform instructors’ and content developers’ decisions about the structure and level of interactivity of that content.

■

METHODS This Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved survey instrument was administered via Qualtrics to General C

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00011 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Table 1. Demographics and Unit Response Rate Age Semester

Avg

Fall 2015 Fall 2016

18.52 18.54

Sex

Median Female 18 18

363 558

Sampling Male

No. Participants (N)

N (Passed Validation)

Course Enrollment GC1 at Survey Implementation

Completed Response Rate (%)a

231 278

595 845

572 843

1144 981

50.0 85.9

a

Unit response rate was calculated as the number of participants who passed validation divided by course enrollment.

Figure 2. Distribution of self-reported hours of content-delivery resources used by General Chemistry I students between a print semester (fall 2015, black) and ebook semester (fall 2016, red). Box-and-whisker plots were used to describe the range of the responses (as illustrated by the whiskers extending from the block) as well as the median value (which is represented by the line that bisects the box). The box itself is defined by the upper and lower quartiles of the responses; any outliers would be represented by data points outside of the range represented by the whiskers.

Chemistry I students at a southern R1 university at the end of their semesters. Modeled after previous surveys on student’s use of resources and textbooks,1,29 a table of survey questions is provided in the Supporting Information, including an illustration of how the instrument was adapted for the new textbook format. The survey covered demographic data (age, sex, anticipated course grade), time spent studying for chemistry and what resources the participants used to study for chemistry, as well as rating the helpfulness of the features of their textbook. Table 1 describes the average age, numbers of males and females within each semester, as well as the number of participants and unit response rate. The sample size is the number of participants (N = 595 and 845, respectively) who completed the survey at the end of the semester and passed the internal validation measures within the survey; the table also contains the number of students still enrolled in the course at the end of the semester (1144 and 981 students, respectively). While the first semester that piloted the ebook was a spring semester, there is lower enrollment in the General Chemistry I course in the spring, and often this population differs from the fall population in terms of age and number of attempts at this course; textbook feature ratings data for the spring 2016 premiere semester is included in the Supporting Information. Therefore, a comparison of the fall 2015 semester (print

textbook) to the fall 2016 (ebook) semester can be used to determine the relationship between the use of resources because of the changing content-delivery medium. Quantitative comparisons were performed in JMP by SAS Institute.47

■

RESULTS To ascertain which resources students used in the General Chemistry I course, participants were asked “To study for chemistry, how many hours per week do you use the following resources?” The provided responses each had a slider-bar allowing participants to estimate their use on a scale with a maximum of 168 h per week. A full list of resources that were provided is available in the survey flow in Supporting Information. As seen in Figure 2, potential learner−content interactions are illustrated by the reported hours per week of General Chemistry I participants for the in the print book semester (fall 2015, black) and ebook semester (fall 2016, red). This data set was analyzed for outliers (roughly equivalent to a 10 percent trim of the data set) to remove participants whose total for all responses exceeded the maximum hours in a week. The boxplots in Figure 2 illustrate the median value and the range of values reported for each content-delivery resource. D

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00011 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Figure 3. Distribution of self-reported hours of peer and instructor interactions used by General Chemistry I students between a print semester (fall 2015, black) and ebook semester (fall 2016, red).

Table 2. Comparison of Reported Weekly Use of Course Resources between Print and ebook Print (Fall 2015) Resource

Avg Use (hours/week)

Textbook Lecture slides Homework Google Course management site (LMS) Study group Private tutor Friends YouTube Professor’s office hours TA office hourse University peer tutoring Lecture videos Lecture Laboratory

± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±

5.7 2.1 4.1 1.9 2.0 1.8 1.8 2.7 1.2 0.6 0.3 1.1 0.4 3.0 3.0

4.2 1.6 1.9 1.6 1.5 1.9 2.3 2.1 0.9 0.7 0.5 1.4 0.6 0.2 0

ebook (Fall 2016) N

Avg Use (hours/week)

162 121 170 142 123 109 63 128 93 65 43 58 52 120 69

5.7 ± 4.4 2.6 ± 2.2 6.9 ± 4.9 3.2 ± 2.9 3.1 ± 2.9 3.1 ± 3.2 2.1 ± 2.8 3.2 ± 2.7 1.9 ± 1.6 0.7 ± 0.7 0±0 1.8 ± 1.9 0.4 ± 0.7 3.4 ± 0.8 3.3 ± 0.8

Significance Tests N 686 468 731 606 599 445 277 548 441 221 119 292 160 526 606

Test Statistic a

0.0336 2.355b 12.396b 7.608b 6.485b 5.380b 0.442a 2.487b 5.364b 0.0098a 41.7284a 3.325b 0.0109a 10.670b 11.353a

p-Value 0.855 (ns) 0.0193