Content uploaded by Virginia Clinton-Lisell
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Virginia Clinton-Lisell on Oct 22, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Virginia Clinton-Lisell
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Virginia Clinton-Lisell on Mar 29, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Savings without sacrifice: A case report on open-source textbook
adoption
Virginia Clinton
Department of Educational Foundations and Research, University of North Dakota,
Grand Forks, ND, USA.
Address correspondence to Virginia Clinton, University of North Dakota, 231
Centennial St., Grand Forks, ND, 58202, virginia.clinton@und.edu, phone 1 (701) 777-
3920, and fax 1 (701) 777-3454. Orcid identifier is orcid.org/0000-0002-4705-2217 and
follow on Twitter at @v_e_clinton.
Virginia Clinton, PhD is an Assistant Professor of Educational Foundations and Research at the
University of North Dakota. She holds a masters’ degree in Teaching English to Speakers of
Other Languages from New York University and a doctorate in Educational Psychology from
the University of Minnesota. Dr. Clinton’s research focuses on affective factors in student
cognition and learning.
Courtney Duff, R. Alex Karie, Newzaira Khan, and Stacy Meester are thanked for their
assistance with this project.
Please cite as the following:
Clinton, V. (2018). Savings without sacrifices: A case study of open-source textbook
adoption. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance, and e-Learning,
33(3), 177-189. doi: 10.1080/02680513.2018.1486184
2
Savings without sacrifice: A case report on open-source textbook
adoption
Rising textbook costs have prompted the development of open-source textbooks to
increase access to education. The purpose of this case report is to examine open-source
textbook adoption through the COUP framework (costs, outcomes, use, and
perceptions) comparing a semester with a commercial textbook to a semester with an
open-source textbook. Students (N = 520) were enrolled in an undergraduate course at a
mid-sized public university in the United States. Results indicated that although costs
were substantially lower, student learning outcomes and perceptions of quality were
similar or better with an open-source textbook. Although students were much more
likely to access the open-source textbook electronically, there were no differences in
how they reported using the two textbooks to support their learning. Considering the
financial savings of open-source textbooks, these findings build on existing empirical
support that encourage the adoption of open-source textbooks.
Keywords: open-source educational resources; textbooks; electronic reading;
open source
3
Textbooks are commonly-used learning resources in undergraduate courses
(Illowsky, Hilton, Whiting, & Ackerman, 2016). Unfortunately, the high cost of
commercial textbooks contributes to economic inequities in access to education
throughout the world (Ally & Samaka, 2013). For this reason, open-source textbooks,
which are available electronically without fees to download, have been developed
(Smith, 2009). These textbooks, along with other Open Educational Resources (OERs)
such as online videos and activities, have been advocated internationally to increase
access to education (Bliss & Smith, 2017). However, faculty members are often reticent
to adopt these textbooks due to a need for more information regarding effectiveness and
concerns about the quality of free textbooks (Belikov & Bodily 2016). There is a
growing body of scholarship of teaching and learning literature in support of open
education resources such as textbooks, but the field is nascent, requiring replication and
expansion to address gaps (see Hilton, 2016).
A framework to ground research in OERs including open-source textbooks is the
COUP (Cost, Outcome, Use, Perceptions) framework (Bliss, Robinson, Hilton, &
Wiley, 2013). Based on the COUP framework, research into OERs is focused on the
four areas in which OERs are considered to be of critical importance in education: cost,
outcomes, use, and perceptions. The purpose of this case report is to apply the COUP
framework to empirically compare the use of an open-source textbook to a commercial
textbook in an undergraduate course.
Cost
A clear motivation behind the development of open-source textbooks has been
financial given the high costs of commercial textbooks (Ally & Samaka, 2013; Hilton &
Wiley, 2011). However, college students are savvy to methods of saving money on
commercial textbooks by purchasing older editions, sharing textbooks, using course
4
reserve copies at the campus library, downloading illegal electronic copies, or simply
not getting the textbook at all (Florida Virtual Campus, 2012; Moxley, 2013). Often
cost savings are assumed when examining research findings on open-source textbooks,
but not explicitly tested (e.g., Fischer et al, 2015; Hilton & Laman, 2012; Hilton et al.,
2013; see Bliss et al., 2013, for an exception). Given that faculty often state that saving
students money is the primary attraction of open-source textbooks (Petrides, Jimes,
Middleton-Detzner, Walling, & Weiss, 2011), additional evidence of the cost-savings
assumption is warranted.
It should be noted that the cost-effectiveness of accessing an electronic textbook
depends on where a student is located. In countries in which most students already are
paying for internet and have computers, an open-source textbook may be downloaded
without additional cost to the student (Bliss & Smith, 2017). However, a student living
in a country in which internet and/or access to technology is limited would likely have
costs associated with either accessing the open-source textbook electronically or in print
(Butcher, 2015).
Outcomes
In general, open textbooks are associated with better or similar student
performance outcomes than commercial textbooks. For example, there were higher final
examination scores and a lower withdrawal rate in the semester an open-source
textbook was adopted compared to the previous semester for the same course with a
commercial textbook (Hilton & Laman, 2012). In an examination of multiple courses at
a community college, student outcomes in terms of grades and course completion when
using open-source textbooks were usually similar or better compared to commercial
textbooks (Fischer, Hilston, Robinson, & Wiley, 2015). However, in many studies, the
adoption of open textbooks was part of a larger course redesign such as the inclusion of
5
interactive online learning (Bowen, Chingos, Lack, & Nygren, 2012), greater use of
active learning techniques in the classroom (Pawlyshyn, Braddlee, Casper, & Miller,
2013), development of new course objectives (Hilton & Laman, 2012), or an entirely
new curriculum (Feldstein et al., 2012). There has been limited examination between
open source and commercial textbooks in which instructional and assessment methods
were similar (Hilton, 2016). Therefore, these previous findings are not helpful for
instructors who already use innovative teaching methods and incorporate textbooks as
resources for students to apply in active learning activities (e.g., Love, Hodge,
Grandgenett, & Swift, 2014) or to prepare for class (e.g., Heiner, Banet, & Wieman,
2014; Parappilly, Siddiqui, Zadnik, Shapter, & Schimidt, 2013). In addition, students’
prior academic performance was typically not considered in research studies comparing
grades using open-source versus commercial textbooks (Hilton, 2016; see Allen,
Guzman-Alvarez, Molinaro, & Larsen, 2015, for an exception). Given that random
assignment of different textbooks to students is not tenable, causal claims cannot be
made from previous research findings, prompting a need for replication (Fisher et al.,
2015). Given these issues, it is necessary to conduct a study comparing learning
outcomes in courses with open-source and commercial textbooks in which the instructor
and content were held constant and student prior academic performance was considered.
Use
Open access textbooks are typically available electronically without fees, but
there are costs if a student wishes read it from paper (e.g., Hilton & Wiley, 2011).
Faculty members often assume open textbooks would be accessed electronically and,
based on this assumption, have concerns about learning from digital materials (Belikov
& Bodily, 2016). This concern is substantiated given research findings indicating
students may be more likely to be distracted when reading from a screen than from
6
paper (Daniel & Woody, 2013). Furthermore, college students often indicate a
preference for reading from paper as opposed to electronic text (Aharony & Bar-Ilan,
2016; Mizrachi, 2015), which could lead to reluctance to use the textbook. A lack of
textbook use may be detrimental to learning (Landrum, Gurung, & Spann, 2012). This
may be particularly problematic for courses that incorporate active learning because
students often need to use the textbook to complete activities (Seaton, Kortemeyer,
Bergner, Rayyan, & Pritchard, 2014). Therefore, examining how students access an
open-source textbook compared to a commercial textbook (i.e., electronically or paper)
is critical to consider in empirical comparisons of these textbooks. Not only should the
medium of access be addressed, but this issue should be considered when examining
how the textbook is used in the course. In other words, do students typically read the
open-source textbook electronically and the commercial textbook on paper and, if so,
does a difference in medium carry over to less use and poorer learning with open-source
textbooks compared to commercial textbooks?
Perceptions
Student perceptions of open-source textbooks are of critical importance to
examine for multiple reasons. Instructors often choose textbooks based on students’
preferences (Durwin & Sherman, 2008). Moreover, students tend to perform better on
learning measures of textbooks they rate as high quality (Durwin & Sherman, 2008).
Empirical studies of student perceptions of open-source textbooks are limited, but show
that students tend to rate their open-source textbooks as the same or better quality as
commercial textbooks they have used (Bliss, Hilton, Wiley, & Thanos, 2013; Cooney,
2016; Hilton, Gaudet, Clark, Robinson, & Wiley, 2013; Illowsky et al., 2016).
However, in previous studies of student perceptions of open-source textbooks (Bliss et
al., 2013; Cooney, 2016; Illowsky et al., 2016), students were asked to compare an
7
open-source textbook they were currently using to the commercial textbooks used in
their other courses, which would likely be other disciplines. It is possible that attitudes
regarding open-source textbooks were complicated by differences in content. An
examination of student perceptions of open-source textbooks compared to student
attitudes of commercial textbooks in the same type of course would avoid these
complications.
Current Study
To date, no study has applied the COUP framework to compare open-source and
commercial textbooks between students in the same course from the same instructor. In
order to address this gap, this current study compared two semesters of an introductory
psychology course: one with a commercial textbook and one with an open-source
textbook. This study addressed four research questions:
1. What were the differences in self-reported costs between commercial and open-
source textbooks?
2. How did student learning outcomes compare in semesters with commercial
versus open-source textbooks?
3. How did students report accessing (electronically or on paper) and using the
different types of textbooks in their courses?
4. How did student perceptions towards the required course textbook compare in
semesters with commercial versus open-source textbooks?
Method
Participants
Participants were students in the author’s introduction to psychology courses in
Spring 2016 (two courses with 316 students enrolled at the end of the term) and Fall
2016 (one course with 204 students enrolled at the end of the term) at a mid-sized,
8
Midwestern university. In Spring 2016, a commercial textbook was used and in Fall
2016 an open-source textbook was used (see details in Materials). Based on
questionnaire responses (see Measures), there was a greater percentage of female
students in the semester with an open-source textbook compared to the semester with a
commercial textbook (this potential confound is addressed in the Discussion). The
percentages of native English speakers, first-generation college students, and freshmen
were not significantly different between the two semesters (see Table 1 for descriptive
and chi-square statistics).
Materials
The commercial textbook used Spring 2016 was the 11th edition of Worth
Publishers’ Psychology in Modules (Myers & Dewall, 2015). This textbook was at the
campus bookstore in print, loose-leaf format, but could be ordered in electronic or
bound formats. In the preface of the Worth Publishers’ textbook, 77 reviewers and
consultants from a variety of institutions were listed. The open-source textbook was the
1st edition of OpenStax College’s Psychology (OpenStax College, 2014). A PDF of the
textbook as well as the link to its web-based format were posted on the course’s
learning management system’s site (Blackboard). In addition, students were informed
that, if they preferred paper, they could order a bound copy through OpenStax or they
could print it out on their own paper. In the preface of the OpenStax textbook, 36 peer
reviewers from a variety of institutions were listed.
Measures
Grades. To address the research question regarding outcomes, course-level data
of student grades were compared. Specifically, the final course percentages and the
number of students who withdrew from the course were examined based on course
records and institutional records, respectively. Course percentages were based on four
9
exams, weekly quizzes, two writing assignments, and participation. Approximately 15%
of the items in the quizzes and exams were from content covered in the textbook, but
not in lectures. The exams and quizzes were similar, but not identical, in the two
semesters due to slight variations in the content covered in the two textbooks. To gauge
the students’ academic preparation, the average high school grade point averages of
students enrolled at the end of the terms as well as students who withdrew from the
courses were obtained from institutional records.
Questionnaire. To address research questions on cost, use, and perceptions, a
questionnaire was developed. For cost, there was one item in which students were asked
how much they spent on their textbook. There was one item for how the textbook was
accessed. There were five items on use based on what the course instructor
recommended students use the textbook for. Students were asked to rate on a six-point
Likert scale how much they agreed with statements about use (strongly disagree to
strongly agree; see Table 2 for types of use). There were seven items regarding quality
perception based on features in both the commercial and open-source textbook (see
Table 2 for features). Students were asked to rate on a six-point Likert scale how much
they liked each of the textbook features (strongly dislike to strongly like). There were
also two open-ended items in which students were asked what they liked and disliked
the most about their course textbook. The end of questionnaire asked students to report
their gender, first generation college status, native language, and year in school. For the
semester with the commercial textbook, approximately 86% of the students responded
to the questionnaire. For the semester with the open-source textbook, approximately
91% of the students responded.
Results
10
Descriptive and inferential statistics are reported in Table 1 for chi-square
analyses and in Table 2 for t-test analyses for all research questions. Cohen’s d effect
sizes are stated in the results for statistically significant t-tests, that is p < .05.
Cost
Not surprisingly, students reported spending considerably less on open-source
textbooks (including printing expenses or cost of ordering a print version) than
commercial textbooks, a highly statistically significant (p < .001) and very large
difference (Cohen’s d = 2.12).
Outcomes
Based on a t-test of course percentages, students performed slightly better the
semester in which an open-source textbook was used compared to the semester in which
a commercial textbook was used, a statistically significant (p = .011) and small
difference (Cohen’s d = .23). However, the average high school grade point average for
the students who were enrolled at the end of the term was also slightly higher for the
semester with open-source textbooks, a statistically significant (p = .009) and small
difference (Cohen’s d = .25). In terms of withdrawals, there were proportionally fewer
withdrawals for the semester with the open-source textbook compared to the semester
with the commercial textbook, a finding that was highly statistically significant (p <
.001). The average high school grade point average for students who withdrew was not
reliably different between the two semesters.
Use
Responses for accessing the two types of textbooks were collapsed into two
categories: electronic only and print. Substantially more students accessed the open-
source textbook electronically than the commercial textbook. There were no reliable
11
differences between commercial and open-access textbooks on any of the five items
regarding use of the textbook.
Perceptions
Based on questionnaire responses, student perceptions of the quality of the two
textbooks were generally similar with two exceptions (see Table 2). Visual appeal was
marginally (p = .06) rated higher with the commercial textbook than the open-source
textbook. In contrast, writing was rated higher with the open-source textbook than the
commercial textbook, a statistically significant (p = .029) and small difference (Cohen’s
d = .23).
Student responses to the open-ended items regarding what they liked and
disliked the most about their textbook were categorized. As can be noted in Table 3, the
most common response for what was liked most about the commercial textbook was
regarding the writing followed by its organization. For the open-source textbook, a
theme emerged around responses related to affordability. Responses also suggested that
the writing, electronic access, and electronic features were qualities that students
enjoyed about the open-source textbook. As can be noted in Table 4, the most common
responses for what was disliked about the commercial textbook, were related to its
physical print features, especially its size and weight. In contrast, the most common
responses for what was disliked about the open-source textbook were related to its
electronic nature including a dislike of reading from screens.
Discussion
The purpose of this case report was to compare costs, outcomes, use, and
perceptions for an open-source and commercial textbook. Self-reported costs were
considerably lower the semester in which an open-source textbook was used. Based on
these findings, the savings for a class of 200 students would be $16,382. Indeed, cost
12
was the most valued feature of the open-source textbook. Student grades were
somewhat better in the semester in which an open-source textbook was adopted.
However, the high school GPAs were also somewhat better for these students,
indicating that they were likely better prepared academically. In addition, there was a
larger proportion of female students based on questionnaire results in the semester with
the open-source textbook compared to the semester with the commercial textbook. This
difference in gender distribution is noteworthy because female students, on average,
have been found to have slightly higher grades than male students (Voyer & Voyer,
2014). Taken together, there was likely no real effect of open-source textbook adoption
on course grades.
The number of students who withdrew from the course was substantially higher
in the semester with a commercial textbook compared to the semester with an open-
source textbook, although the high school GPAs of students who withdrew were similar
the two semesters. In terms of use, students were far more likely to solely access the
open-source textbook electronically than the commercial textbook. However, there were
no differences in how students reported using the textbook. As far as student
perceptions of quality, the two textbooks were generally similar with one exception:
Students liked how the open-source textbook was written more than the commercial
textbook. A discussion of these findings applying the COUP framework follows.
Cost and Outcomes
Students spent substantially less on the open-source textbook than the
commercial textbook without detriment to learning outcomes. For students who
completed the course, their performance appeared to be approximately equivalent after
taking into consideration differences in high school grade point averages. The findings
regarding student learning outcomes in this study build on others by incorporating
13
previous academic performance and using actual grades, rather than self-reports of
learning, as well as making comparisons between two semesters with the same
instructor and content (e.g., Bliss et al., 2013; Fischer et al., 2015; Hilton & Laman,
2012; Pawlyshyn et al., 2013).
In this case report, the withdrawal rate was substantially lower for the semester
with an open-source textbook. It is important to note that students withdraw from
courses for numerous reasons with the most common being dislike of the instructor
and/or content (Hall, Smith, Boeckman, Ramachandran, & Jasin, 2003). In this study,
the same instructor taught the same content to the two courses that were compared.
Although the students were obviously different in the two semesters examined in this
study, the previous academic performance of the students who withdrew was similar
both semesters. This is a critical factor that was not addressed in previous findings
associating lower withdrawal rates with the adoption of open-source textbooks (Fischer
et al., 2015; Hilton & Laman, 2012). Therefore, it is realistic to suspect the difference in
withdrawal rate in this study was at least, in some small part, related to the adoption of
an open-source textbook. Perhaps if students feel that they are behind in the material
and have the option to catch up by reading a textbook at no cost, they may be less likely
to withdraw than if they never bought the textbook and need to pay for one to succeed
in the course. Alternatively, students who can access course materials at no cost may be
afforded better opportunity to engage with the course material reducing the likelihood
of getting behind in the course. It should be noted that these possibilities were not
empirically tested and are solely conjecture. An interesting avenue for future research
would be to examine the reasons students withdraw from courses with open-source
versus commercial textbooks.
Use
14
Students were much more likely to access the open-source textbook
electronically than the commercial textbook, perhaps because the open-source textbook
was available online without charge. Given that research findings show students prefer
to read paper as opposed to electronic texts (Aharony & Bar-Ilan, in-press; Mizrachi,
2015), there may be concerns that students would use the open-source textbook less
than the commercial textbook. However, the findings indicated no differences in self-
reports of using the textbook.
Perceptions
Overall, students had similar perceptions of quality for the commercial and the
open-source textbook, with the exception that students liked the writing of the open-
source textbook more than the commercial textbook. This finding is noteworthy given
previous research indicating positive correlations between writing quality and amount
of the textbook read as well as exam scores (Gurung & Martin, 2011). In past research,
students generally had positive perceptions of open-source textbooks (Bliss et al., 2013;
Cooney, 2016; Illowsky et al., 2016). This study addressed gaps in previous studies by
comparing student perceptions of quality between a commercial textbook and an open-
source textbook covering similar content. Furthermore, the findings in previous work
used global measures, such as asking students how they would rate the overall quality of
the textbook compared to other textbooks they have used (e.g., Bliss et al., 2013). In
contrast, the perception of quality measures in this study addressed specific features
(e.g., writing, visuals) to allow for a more nuanced examination.
Conclusion
In this study, the differences in student cost, outcomes, use, and perceptions
between an open-source and commercial textbook were examined. As expected,
students’ self-reported average expense for the open-source textbook was substantially
15
lower than that of the commercial textbook. Importantly, student outcomes in terms of
grades were comparable between the two textbooks and the withdrawal rate was lower
with the open-source textbook, indicating spending more money on materials did not
appear to benefit learning. Although students were much more likely to access the open-
source textbook electronically, they used it as much as the commercial textbook that
was typically accessed in print. Overall, the findings from this case report indicate that
the open-source textbook reduced the financial burden of a college education without
negatively influencing student learning, student perceptions of quality, or use of the
textbook. Taken together, these findings are helpful for encouraging faculty to adopt
open-source textbooks, thereby contributing to a global advocacy effort to promote
OERs.
16
References
Aharony, N., & Bar-Ilan, J. (in-press). Students’ academic reading preferences: An
exploratory study. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. doi:
10.1177/0961000616656044
Allen, G., Guzman-Alvarez, A., Molinaro, M., & Larsen, D. (2015). Assessing the
impact and efficacy of the open-access ChemWiki textbook project. Educause
Learning Initiative Brief. Retrieved from
https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/elib1501.pdf.
Ally, M., & Samaka, M. (2013). Open education resources and mobile technology to
narrow the learning divide. The International Review of Research in Open and
Distributed Learning, 14(2), 14-27. doi: /10.19173/irrodl.v14i2.1530
Belikov, O. M., & Bodily, R. (2016). Incentives and barriers to OER adoption: A
qualitative analysis of faculty perceptions. Open Praxis, 8(3), 235-246. doi:
10.5944/openpraxis.8.3.308
Bliss, T. J., Hilton III, J., Wiley, D., & Thanos, K. (2013). The cost and quality of
online open textbooks: Perceptions of community college faculty and students. First
Monday, 18(1). doi: 10.5210/fm.v18i1.3972
Bliss, T. et al., (2013). An OER COUP: College Teacher and Student Perceptions of
Open Educational Resources. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1, p. Art.
4. doi: http://doi.org/10.5334/2013-04
Bliss, T J & Smith, M. (2017). A Brief History of Open Educational Resources. In:
Jhangiani, R S and Biswas-Diener, R. (eds.) Open: The Philosophy and Practices
that are Revolutionizing Education and Science. Pp. 9–27. London: Ubiquity Press.
doi: https://doi.org/10.5334/bbc.b. License: CC-BY 4.0
17
Bowen, W. G., Chingos, M. M., Lack, K. A., & Nygren, T. I. (2014). Interactive
Learning Online at Public Universities: Evidence from a Six-Campus Randomized
Trial. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 33(1), 94-111. doi:
10.1002/pam.21728
Butcher N (2015) A basic guide to open educational resources (OER). Retrieved
from http://oasis.col.org/handle/11599/36
Cooney, C. (2016). How Do Open Educational Resources (OERs) Impact Students? A
Qualitative Study at New York City College of Technology, CUNY. (Unpublished
masters’ thesis from the Graduate Center, City University of New York). Retrieved
from http://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/1347/
Durwin, C. C., & Sherman, W. M. (2008). Does choice of college textbook make a
difference in students' comprehension? College Teaching, 56(1), 28-34. doi:
10.3200/CTCH.56.1.28-34
Feldstein, A., Martin, M., Hudson, A., Warren, K., Hilton III, J., & Wiley, D. (2012).
Open textbooks and increased student access and outcomes. European Journal of
Open, Distance and E-learning, 15(2). Retrieved from
http://www.eurodl.org/index.php?p=archives&year=2012&halfyear=2&article=533
Fischer, L., Hilton, J., Robinson, T. J., & Wiley, D. A. (2015). A multi-institutional
study of the impact of open textbook adoption on the learning outcomes of post-
secondary students. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 27(3), 159-172. doi:
10.1007/s12528-015-9101-x
Florida Virtual Campus. (2012). 2012 Florida Student Textbook Survey. Tallahassee,
FL: Author.
18
Gurung, R. A., & Martin, R. C. (2011). Predicting textbook reading: The textbook
assessment and usage scale. Teaching of Psychology, 38(1), 22-28. doi:
10.1177/0098628310390913
Hall, M., Smith, K., Boeckman, D., Ramachandran, V., & Jasin, J. (2003). Why do
students withdraw from courses? Southern Association for Institutional Research,
01-11. San Antonio, TX.
Heiner, C. E., Banet, A. I., & Wieman, C. (2014). Preparing students for class: How to
get 80% of students reading the textbook before class. American Journal of
Physics, 82(10), 989-996. doi: 10.1119/1.4895008
Hilton, J. (2016). Open educational resources and college textbook choices: a review of
research on efficacy and perceptions. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 64(4), 573-590. doi: 10.1007/s11423-016-9434-9
Hilton III, J. L., Gaudet, D., Clark, P., Robinson, J., & Wiley, D. (2013). The adoption
of open educational resources by one community college math department. The
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(4). doi:
10.19173/irrodl.v14i4.1523
Hilton III, J., & Laman, C. (2012). One college’s use of an open psychology
textbook. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 27(3),
265-272. doi: 10.1080/02680513.2012.716657
Hilton III, J. L., & Wiley, D. (2011). Open access textbooks and financial sustainability:
A case study on Flat World Knowledge. The International Review of Research in
Open and Distributed Learning, 12(5), 18-26. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v12i5.960
Illowsky, B. S., Hilton III, J., Whiting, J., & Ackerman, J. D. (2016). Examining
Student Perception of an Open Statistics Book. Open Praxis, 8(3), 265-276. doi:
10.5944/openpraxis.8.3.304
19
Landrum, R. E., Gurung, R. A., & Spann, N. (2012). Assessments of textbook usage
and the relationship to student course performance. College Teaching, 60(1), 17-24.
doi: 10.1080/87567555.2011.609573
Love, B., Hodge, A., Grandgenett, N., & Swift, A. W. (2014). Student learning and
perceptions in a flipped linear algebra course. International Journal of
Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 45(3), 317-324. doi:
10.1080/0020739X.2013.822582
Mizrachi, D. (2015). Undergraduates' academic reading format preferences and
behaviors. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(3), 301-311. doi:
10.1016/j.acalib.2015.03.009
Moxley, J. (2013). Open textbook publishing. Academe, 99(5), 40. Retrieved from
https://www.aaup.org/article/open-textbook-publishing#.WNPuNRLyvq0
Myers, D. G., & DeWall, C. N. (2015). Psychology in modules. Macmillan Higher
Education.
OpenStax. (2014). Psychology. Retrieved from https://openstax.org/details/psychology
Parappilly, M., Siddiqui, S., Zadnik, M., Shapter, J., & Schmidt, L. (2013). An inquiry-
based approach to laboratory experiences: Investigating students' ways of active
learning. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics
Education, 21(5), 42-53. Retrieved form http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/3448
Pawlyshyn, N., Braddlee, D., Casper, L., & Miller, H. (2013). Adopting OER: A case
study of crossinstitutional collaboration and innovation. Educause Review.
Retrieved from http://educause. edu/articles/2013/11/adopting-oer-a-case-study-of-
crossinstitutional-collaboration-andinnovation.
Perry, (2015, July 16). The new era of the $400 college textbook, which is part of the
unsustainable higher education bubble. [American Enterprise Institute Ideas Blog
20
Post]. Retrieved from https://www.aei.org/publication/the-new-era-of-the-400-
college-textbook-which-is-part-of-the-unsustainable-higher-education-bubble/
Petrides, L., Jimes, C., Middleton-Detzner, C., Walling, J., & Weiss, S. (2011). Open
textbook adoption and use: implications for teachers and learners. Open
learning, 26(1), 39-49. doi: 10.1080/02680513.2011.538563
Seaton, D. T., Kortemeyer, G., Bergner, Y., Rayyan, S., & Pritchard, D. E. (2014).
Analyzing the impact of course structure on electronic textbook use in blended
introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 82(12), 1186-1197. doi:
10.1119/1.4901189
Smith, M. S. (2009). Opening education. Science, 323(5910), 89-93.
doi: 10.1126/science.1168018
Taipale, S. (2014). The affordances of reading/writing on paper and digitally in
Finland. Telematics and Informatics, 31(4), 532-542. doi:
10.1016/j.tele.2013.11.003
Voyer, D., & Voyer, S. D. (2014). Gender differences in scholastic achievement: A
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1174. doi: 10.1037/a0036620
Woody, W. D., Daniel, D. B., & Baker, C. A. (2010). E-books or textbooks: Students
prefer textbooks. Computers & Education, 55(3), 945-948. doi:
10.1016/j.compedu.2010.04.005
21
Table 1. Descriptive and chi-square statistics
Commercial
Textbook
Open-Source
Textbook
c2
Percentage female
59%
70%
5.68*
Percentage first
generation
18%
17%
.13
Percentage of native
English speakers
97%
96%
.49
Percentage freshmen
59%
63%
.84
Percentage of
withdrawals
27%
12%
20.58***
Percentage electronic
access only
4%
91%
296.91***
*p < .05, ***p < .001
22
Table 2. Descriptive and t-test statistics
Commercial Textbook
M(SD)
Open-
Source
Textbook
M(SD)
t-test
Cost (dollars)
84.00(53.97)
2.09(6.90)
-18.66***
Outcomes
High School GPA
(enrolled end of term)
3.36(.45)
3.47(.42)
2.62**
High School GPA
(Withdrew)
3.25(.42)
3.18(.45)
.67
Use
Read before lectures
2.53(1.34)
2.48(1.30)
.37
Read after lectures
3.08(1.42)
3.18(1.44)
.64
Use the textbook for exam
preparation
4.19(1.44)
4.20(1.54)
.04
Answer open-ended
questions recommended in
the study guide
2.80(1.48)
2.89(1.58)
.55
Read for missed lectures
3.83(1.59)
3.74(1.67)
.59
Perceptions
Visual appeal
4.36(.87)
4.17(1.08)
-1.91+
Diagrams and tables
4.60(.877)
4.46(1.04)
-1.45
Photographs and
illustrations
4.63(.90)
4.61(1.04)
-.26
Questions to test
understanding
4.40(1.01)
4.56(1.02)
1.49
Chapter summaries
4.79(.94)
4.88(.99)
.81
Way it is written
4.16(1.07)
4.40(1.05)
2.20*
Every-day life examples
4.77(.99)
4.82(1.04)
.41
+p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
23
Table 3. Responses to ‘What do you like the most about your PSYC 111 textbook?’
Category
Commercial
Textbook
Response
Examples for
Commercial
Open-
Source
Textbook
Response Examples
for Open-Source
Writing
25.3%
‘It’s easy to
understand’
17.1%
‘Easy to follow and
understand’
Visuals
7.5%
‘It has nice
graphics and
pictures.’
5.9%
‘Diagrams and
illustrations to help
explain concepts
that would be hard
to visualize.’
Cost
0%
32.2%
‘It was free!’
Organization
22.4%
‘It’s easy to
navigate and
find answers.’
9.2%
‘It’s well laid out.’
Electronic
access/electronic
features
1.7%
‘It’s electric and
doesn’t take up
space on my
desk.’
11.2%
‘Can use control F
to find material.’
Print access/print
features
1.2%
‘It’s printed.’
.7%
‘That I can print it
and have that copy
but I also have
access to it through
my computer if I
forget it, or don't
want to carry it.’
Examples
9.5%
‘Provides more
examples than
what is just
covered in
class.’
3.3%
‘The real-life
examples.’
Review questions
4.1%
‘How well the
review
questions are
written.’
3.9%
‘The questions to
see if I understand.’
Information quality
15.8%
‘It’s a good way
to supplement
the lecture in
class.’
7.2%
‘It has good
information.’
No answer/nothing
11.6%
8.6%
Other
.8%
‘How it helps
me learn.’
.7%
‘The fact I don’t
always need it.’
24
Table 4. Responses to ‘What don’t you like about your PSYC 111 textbook?’
Category
Commercial
Textbook
Response
Examples for
Commercial
Open-
Source
Textbook
Response Examples
for Open-Source
Writing
6.2%
‘It over explains
things.’
12.5%
‘The book can get
wordy sometimes.’
Visuals
.8%
‘I don't like some
of the diagrams
in the textbook
because I feel
they can be
confusing and I
don't understand
how it relates to
the content.’
2.0%
‘Diagrams aren't
always the best
representation of
the concept.’
Cost
5.8%
‘How much it
costs!!!’
0%
Organization
6.2%
‘Some of the
layout is a little
disorganized and
could have a
more organized
layout.’
3.9%
‘The layout.’
Electronic
access/electronic
features
.8%
‘online’
44.1%
‘It is a lot of screen
time.’
Print
access/print
features
46.5%
‘It’s really big,
heavy and bulky.
Not easy to really
transport if you
want to read
between classes.’
0%
Examples
.8%
‘Needs to include
more real life
examples.’
0%
Review
questions
0%
1.3%
‘That the review
questions do not
have the answers
with them.’1
Information
quantity and
quality
8.3%
‘It’s a little
outdated to me.
2.6%
‘A lot of
information that
isn't on the test.’
No
answer/nothing
24.5%
33.6%
Other
0%
0%
1
The review questions had answers at the end of the textbook
25
