Resources

Papier vs digitaal

Om na te gaan of de uitkomsten van de pilot op zichzelf stonden of niet, is gebruik gemaakt van de volgende bronnen:

Main sources:

  • Baron, N.S. (2015). Words Onscreen, The Fate of Reading in a Digital World. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  • Mangen, A. & Kuiken, D. (2014). Lost in the iPad: Narrative engagement on paper and tablet. Scientific Study of Literature, Volume 4, Number 2, 2014, pp. 150-177(28).

Quoted via main sources:

  • Ackerman, R., & Goldsmith, M. (2011). Metacognitive regulation of text learning: On screen versus on paper.
    Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17 (1), 18–32.
  • Book Industry Group (2013). Student Attitudes Toward Content in Higher Education, vol 3, first installment.
  • Educause and Internet2 E-Content Pilot Series. EDUCAUSE.
  • Jeong, H. (2012). A comparison of the influence of electronic books and paper books on reading comprehension, eye fatigue, and perception. The Electronic Library , 30 , 390–408.
  • Kim, H. & Kim, J. (2013). Reading from an LCD monitor versus paper: Teenagers’ reading performance.
    International Journal of Research Studies in Educational Technology (IJRSET) , 2 , 1–10.
  • Kretzschmar, F., Pleimling, D., Hosemann, J., Füssel, S., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2013). Subjective impressions do not mirror online reading effort: Concurrent EEG-eyetracking evidence from the reading of books and digital media. PloS one, 8 (2), e56178.
  • Mangen, A., Walgermo, B.R., Brønnick, K. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research 58, 61–68.
  • Margolin, S. J., Driscoll, C., Toland, M. J., & Kegler, J. L. (2013). E‐readers, computer screens, or paper: Does reading comprehension change across media platforms? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 512–519.
  • Student Monitor LLC, fall 2013 survey.
  • Wästlund, E., Reinikka, H., Norlander, T., & Archer, T. (2005). Effects of VDT and paper presentation on consumption and production of information: Psychological and physiological factors.  Computers in Human Behavior 21 , 377–394.

Platforms

Voor de pilot is gebruik gemaakt van de volgende platforms:

Eisen aan eTextbooks

De onderstaande artikelen zijn gebruikt voor de literatuurstudie op basis waarvan de eisen aan goede eTextbooks zijn geformuleerd.

  • Abbott, W., & Kelly, K. (2004). Sooner or later! – Have e-books turned the page? VALA 12th Biennial Conference and Exhibition, February 3-5, 2004, Melbourne, Australia.
  • Berg, S. A., Hoffmann, K., & Dawson, D. (2010). Not on the Same Page: Undergraduates’ Information Retrieval in Electronic and Print Books. The Journal of Academic Librarianship , 36 (6), 518-525.
  • Buzzetto-More, N., Sweat-Guy, R., & Elobaid, M. (2007). Reading in A Digital Age: e-Books are Students Ready For This Learning Object. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objectss , 3, 239-250.
  • Bliss, T.J. (2013). A Model of Digital Textbook Quality from the Perspective of College Students. A dissertation submitted to the faculty of Brigham Young University in partial fulfillment of the  requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
  • Clay, J. (2012). Preparing for Effective Adoption and Use of Ebooks in Education. UKOLN, University of Bath.
  • Davidson, A.L., Carliner, S. (2013). Characteristics of Effective e-Textbooks: Lessons from the Literature. IEEE Conference. Vancouver.
  • Doering, T., Pereira, L., & Kuechler, L. (2012). The Use of E-Textbooks in Higher Education: A Case Study. E-Leader Conference. Berlin.
  • Estelle, L., & Milloy, C. I. (2009). Understanding how students and faculty really use e-books: the UK National E-books Observatory. London: JISC Collections.
  • Estelle, L., & Woodward, H. (2009). The National E-Books Observatory Project: Examining Student Behaviours and Usage’. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship , 21 (2), 172-177.
  • Gorissen, C. (2009). Towards an educational model of eReaders in education. Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.
  • Hernon, P., Hopper, R., Leach, M. R., Saunders, L. L., & Zhang, J. (2007). E-book use by Students: Undergraduates in Economics, Literature, and Nursing. The Journal of Academic Librarianship , 33 (1), 3-13.
  • Ismail, R., & Zainab, A. N. (2005). The Pattern of E-Book Use Amongst Undergraduates in Malaysia: A Case of To Know Is To Use. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science , 10 (2), 1-23.
  • Jamali, H. R., Nicholas, D., & Rowlands, I. (2009). Scholarly e-books: the views of 16.000 academics. Results from the JISC National E-Book Observatory. New Information Perspectives , 61 (1), 33-47.
  • Kang, Y. W. (2009). Usability evalution of E-books. Displays , 30, 49-52.
  • Lam, P., Lam, S. L., Lam, J., & McNaught, C. (2009). Usability and usefulness of eBooks on PPCs: How students’opinions vary over time. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology , 25 (1), 30-44.
  • Levine-Clark, M. (2006). Electronic Book Usage: A Survey at the University of Denver. Libraries and the Academy , 6 (3), 285-299.
  • Mangen, A., Walgermo, B.R., Brønnick, K. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research 58, 61–68.
  • Marczak, M. (2013). Selecting an e-(Text)book: evaluation citeria. Teaching English with Technology, 13(1), 29-41.
  • Mercieca, P. (2004). E-book acceptance: what will make users read on screen? VALA 12th Biennial Conference and Exhibition, February 3-5, 2004, Melbourne, Australia.
  • Mofers, F. H. (2009). Het eBook in het OU onderwijs. Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.
  • Morton, D. A., Foremann, K. B., Goede, P. A., Bezzant, J. L., & Albertine, K. H. (2007). TK3 eBook software to author, distribute, and use electronic course content for medical education. Advances in Physiology Education , 31 (1), 55-61.
  • Rickman, J., Holzen, R. v., Klute, P., & Tobin, T. (2009). A Campus-Wide E-Textbook Initiative. Educause Quarterly , 32 (2).
  • Rockinson-Szapkiw, A.J., Courduff, J., Carter, K., & Bennett, D. (2013). Electronic versus traditional print textbooks: A comparison study on the influence of university students’ learning. Computers & Education 63, 259–266.
  • Simon, E. (2001). Electronic Textbooks: A Pilot Study of Student E-Reading Habits. Future of Print Media Journal .
  • Smith, G.G., Li, M., Drobisz, J., Park, H., Kim, D., & Smith, S.D. (2013). Play games or study? Computer games in eBooks to learn English Vocabulary. Computers & Education 69, 274–286.
  • Stoop, J. (2010). Studeren met e-books: Onderzoek naar user cases in onderzoekslijn1 ‘Amsterdam e-boekenstad’. Amsterdam: Hogeschool van Amsterdam.
  • Stoop, J., Kreuzer, P., & Kircz, J. (2013). Reading and learning from screens versus print: a study in changing habits. Part 1 – reading long information rich texts. New Library World ,  Vol. 114 No. 7/8 pp. 284-300
  • Stoop, J., Kreuzer, P., & Kircz, J. (2013). Reading and learning from screens versus print: a study in changing habits Part 2 – comparing different text structures on paper and on screen. New Library World Vol. 114 No. 9/10, pp. 371-383.
  • SURFnet. (2009). Pilot E-readers in het onderwijs. Utrecht: SURFnet/Kennisnet Innovatieprogramma.
  • Warren, J. F. (2010). The Future of Digital Textbooks. O’Reilly Tools of Change for Publishing Conference. New York.

Multimedia learning

Op basis van de volgende bronnen is een lijst van eisen aan de didactiek van goede eTextbooks geformuleerd.

  • Koehler, M.J. & Mischra, P (2008). Introducing TPACK. In AACTE Committee in Innovation & Technology (Eds). Handbook of techonological pedagogical content knowledge for educators (pp 3-29). New York: Routledge.
  • Mayer, R.E. (2001). Multimedia Learning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  • Mayer, R.E. (2005). The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  • Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285.