Journal of Research on Technology in Education

ISSN: 1539-1523 (Print) 1945-0818 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujrt20

The Influence of Digital Interactive Textbook

Instruction on Student Learning Preferences,
Outcomes, and Motivation

Blanche W. O'Bannon, Gary J. Skolits & Jennifer K. Lubke

To cite this article: Blanche W. O'Bannon, Gary J. Skolits & Jennifer K. Lubke (2017) The
Influence of Digital Interactive Textbook Instruction on Student Learning Preferences, Outcomes,
and Motivation, Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 49:3-4, 103-116, DOI:
10.1080/15391523.2017.1303798

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2017.1303798

Published online: 11 May 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 475

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujrt20
 JRTE | Vol. 49, Nos. 3–4, pp. 103–116 | Ó 2017 ISTE | iste.org/jrte
DOI: 10.1080/15391523.2017.1303798

The Influence of Digital Interactive Textbook Instruction on

Student Learning Preferences, Outcomes, and Motivation

Blanche W. O’Bannon & Gary J. Skolits

University of Tennessee

Jennifer K. Lubke
University of Tennessee, Chattanooga

Abstract

This study examined achievement when an interactive textbook (iBook) was used in place of
lecture to teach students to create instructional flipcharts for a Promethean interactive
whiteboard. The study was conducted with students enrolled in a required technology course
for teachers at a large research-intensive university in the southeastern United States. Further,
the study examined the iBook group’s perceptions of the benefits and challenges of using an
interactive text as an educational tool. The results showed a significant difference in the
achievement of students who received instruction delivered through the use of the interactive
textbook versus those who received lecture instruction. In addition, the participants indicated
that the iBook provided a new way of learning, and also motivated them to learn, made
learning more exciting, increased their attention toward instruction, was more efficient, and
increased their interest in the class. A few students disliked viewing in landscape view versus
portrait view, felt more cues were needed to alert less intuitive multimedia components, and
desired access extended to Android platforms. (Keywords: 21st-century skills, interactive
textbooks, iBooks, ebooks, teacher education)

W
e cannot ignore that the students we teach today are different from those we taught in the
past, in that today’s students have grown up in a technology-driven world and are com-
fortable with mobile options for learning (Anderson, 2015). One such option is made pos-
sible through the integration of interactive e-books that permit students to work directly with
information through an assortment of multimedia components. At the most basic level, e-books are
simply static PDF documents; more advanced tools, such as EPUB3 and Apple’s iBooks 2, allow
the integration of various multimedia components (Bidarra, Natalio, & Rigueiredo, 2014). While
there are a number of free and open e-book authoring tools, we chose Apple’s iBooks Author to
develop an interactive text because of its ease of use and its ability to incorporate a variety of multi-
media components, including text, graphics, and hyperlinks, as well as those created with prede-
fined widgets including scrolling sidebars for text boxes, audio and video files or screencasts, photo
galleries, popovers (mouse-over graphics to expose or “pop up” more information), interactive dia-
grams, three-dimensional (3D) objects, and slideshows. Additionally, students can underline text,
make notes, use text-to-speech, search unfamiliar definitions in the glossary, and self-assess their
learning by responding to a variety of question types that offer immediate feedback. Bidarra et al.
(2014) suggest that “the ease of creating widgets allow users to add any object to an interactive
iBook,” including calculators, puzzles, and maps (p. 8).
iBooks Author, a free e-book authoring application, was developed by Apple Computer in 2012
and has been updated continuously to deal with bugs and stability (Apple, 2016). After development,
these e-books are uploaded to the iBookstore and can then be downloaded to using iTunes to Apple’s
iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch, or Mac devices with iOS 8. This “21st-century” learning tool is emerging
Volume 49 Numbers 3–4 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l 103
O’Bannon, Skolits, & Lubke

in education, although its ability to increase knowledge is discussed sparingly in the literature. This
study examined the effect on achievement when preservice teachers used an interactive e-book to
acquire the skills necessary to create instructional flipcharts for a Promethean interactive whiteboard.
Flipchart is the term coined by Promethean for the files used with their interactive whiteboards.
Each flipchart contains pages that are used to guide instruction in the classroom. The study took
place in a technology course that is a core course for students seeking teacher licensure at a large
research-intensive university in the southeastern United States. Further, it examined the treatment
group’s perceptions of this method of learning a well as its benefits and challenges.

Literature Review
Tablet computing has captured the attention of teachers and students because of its unique ability to
assist in the creation, collaboration, and sharing of information from anywhere and at any time
(Johnson et al., 2013). These portable learning devices, including Apple’s iPad, Amazon’s Kindle
Fire, and assorted Android tablets, connect students to other students, their teachers, and professio-
nals in the field. The rapid growth of tablet computer ownership, as well as the implementation of e-
books and schools’ acceptance of the BYOD (bring your own device) movement, makes them
exceptional choices for learning in classrooms. In an account of tablet implementation in Arizona,
Wong (2012) reports that instructors found their students to be more collaborative and interactive as
they read electronic texts, made notes, and obtained immediate feedback from interactive quizzes.
Yet because the use of e-books is somewhat new, insufficient empirical studies focusing on their
benefits exist.
Payne, Goodson, Tahim, Wharrad, and Fan (2012) suggest that the greatest benefit of iBooks is
their portable nature, as this permits books to be viewed without an Internet connection, giving read-
ers the option to view while “on the go.” Additional researchers report benefits of traditional e-
books to include their convenience and portability (Clark, 2009; Kang, Wang, & Lin, 2009; Kim-
ball, Ives, & Jackson, 2010; Pattuelli & Rabina, 2010); their currency of information (Shelburne,
2009); their reusable nature (Payne et al., 2012); their accessibility, searchability, and cost (Nicho-
las, Rowlands, & Jamali, 2010); and their ability to engage the reader and differentiate instruction
(Schugar, Smith, & Schugar, 2013).
The challenges associated with e-books include fatigue and discomfort from screen reading
(Jamali, Nicholas, & Rowlands, 2010; Jeong, 2012; Kang et al., 2009); the expense of buying a
mobile device; and difficulty in sharing, text highlighting, and note taking (Knutson & Fowler,
2009). Further, Payne et al. (2012) point out that additional restrictions are apparent for iBooks,
which include the need to own an iPad to view the iBook, and that the costs of Apple products are
higher than other tablet options.

Theoretical Underpinnings
Multimedia Learning Theory and the technological-pedagogical-content-knowledge (TPACK)
framework inform our study of the use of multimedia interactive textbooks to increase learning. As
discussed in O’Bannon, Lubke, Beard, and Britt (2011), Mayer’s “generative theory of multimedia
learning” views the learner as “a knowledge constructor who actively selects and connects pieces of
visual and verbal knowledge” (1997, p. 4). Grounded on the premise that people learn better from a
combination of words and pictures, Multimedia Learning Theory combines basic assumptions
within the science of cognition, specifically, that the brain is dual-channeled with limited capacity
and that individuals are active in the construction of knowledge (Mayer, 2009). Further, Mayer
advises that the focus should be shifted away from systems of delivery to “more productive ques-
tions” about the role of multimedia in facilitating instruction and meeting the needs of learners
(1997, p. 8). Mayer’s recommendations for the effective use of multimedia content arrived well
ahead of 21st-century digital tools such as multimedia interactive books. Nonetheless, he predicted
the potential for computer-based aids despite “frustratingly low” levels of classroom-based integra-
tion: “In particular, the visual-based power of computer technology represents a grossly
104 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l Volume 49 Numbers 3–4
 Influence of Digital Interactive Textbook Instruction

underutilized source of potential educational innovation” (p. 17). The TPACK framework is one
way to redress this failure of pedagogic innovation.
TPACK explains the practical and theoretically informed expertise resulting from preservice and
inservice teachers’ engagement with 21st-century technologies. Mishra and Koehler (2006) cap-
tured this highly complex, situated blending of teacher knowledge when they updated Shulman’s
(1986) concept of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) to include technological content knowl-
edge. The resulting TPACK framework guides researchers, teachers, and teacher educators in plan-
ning, implementing, and analyzing the effects of technology integration (Koehler & Mishra, 2008;
Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Voogt, Fisser, pareja Roblin, Tondeur, & van Braak, 2013). Mishra and
Koehler (2006) described TPACK as “developing a nuanced understanding of the complex relation-
ships between technology, content, and pedagogy, and using this understanding to develop appro-
priate, context-specific strategies and representations” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 1029). Hofer
and Swan (2006) summed up a rationale for the TPACK framework as follows: “Clearly, the knowl-
edge and experience required to integrate technology into teaching and learning is a complex, multi-
faceted challenge” (p. 182). Mishra and Koehler (2006) reasoned that technology training should
prepare teachers to use tools that don’t yet exist. Instead of conveying decontextualized, tool-spe-
cific content knowledge, they argued, teachers need generalizable skills and techniques that can be
applied to the rapidly evolving field of digital technologies (p. 1023).

Purpose and Research Questions

In recent years, interactive whiteboards (IWB) were added to the computer lab setting for the
required technology course for preservice teachers. Instruction on the use of these boards was added
to the already full curriculum. The learning curve associated with this technology was greater than
for other technologies taught in this class. Instructors’ observations revealed that students grew pro-
gressively more frustrated and discouraged during periods of instruction and that subsequent student
projects were quite rudimentary. The students complained that they understood procedures during
class instruction but were unable to apply them when attempting development outside of class.
Given the difficulty that students were experiencing, the benefits of learning effective interactive
whiteboard use (T€ urel, 2011; T€
urel & Demirli, 2010), and the fact that many teachers use them inef-
fectively (Sad & Ozhan, 2012), trying a new method of instruction seemed reasonable. Delivering
the information using a different strategy, an interactive textbook in iPad format, seemed valuable.
Multimedia components could provide opportunities for learning not previously possible away
from the class and instructor. There exists a lack of documentation on the academic benefits of these
new texts. Our intention is to contribute information to the literature in this area.
Consequently, the purpose of this study was to examine the effects of interactive textbook on stu-
dent achievement when used to replace lecture. The research questions that guided the study are as
follows:

(1) What effect does using an interactive textbook (versus lecture) have on achievement, as mea-
sured by change in knowledge?
(2) What are the treatment group’s perceptions of the benefits of using an interactive textbook as an
educational tool?
(3) What are the treatment group’s perceptions of the challenges of using an interactive textbook as
an educational tool?

Methodology
Context of the Study
The technology course required for students seeking teacher licensure at this university provided the
context for this study. This “survey” course focuses on the integration of technology into the K–12
curriculum and is designed to meet educational technology standards for teachers (The 2008 ISTE
Standards for Teachers). Each course section meets in a Macintosh computer lab, is capped at 20
Volume 49 Numbers 3–4 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l 105
O’Bannon, Skolits, & Lubke

students, and follows a universal syllabus. The course design emphasizes hands-on development of
technology-enhanced lessons, one of which is an interactive whiteboard flipchart.

Participants
Sixty-one students who were enrolled in four of the five sections of the technology course during
the spring 2014 semester were invited to participate in the study. These sections were chosen
because the class format (meets twice weekly for 75 minutes) is identical. Of these students, 57
(93%) completed the study. The average age of the participants was 23.82. Forty-one (72%) of the
participants were female, and 16 (28%) were male.
The four sections were purposefully assigned to the iBook group (iBG) or the control group
(CG). The assignment was made to ensure that the treatment group was under the direction of the
research team, while the control group was under the direction of a faculty member who tradition-
ally taught the course. Within the iBG, 30 (100%) of the students who were enrolled accepted the
invitation to participate in the study. Twenty (67%) were female, and 10 (33%) were male. The aver-
age age of participants in the group was 23.10 years. Twenty-six (86.7%) were Caucasian, three
(10.0%) were Asian, and one (3.3%) was Hispanic-Latino. Five were seeking licensure in early
childhood education (K–3); six in elementary education; two in middle school education; eight in
K–12 programs of art, music, special education, or English as a second language (ESL); and nine in
secondary education in English, math, social studies, or world languages. Within the CG, 26 (87%)
of the students enrolled agreed to participate. Twenty (87%) were female, and six (23%) were male.
The average age of participants in the control group was 24.62 years. Twenty-two (85%) were Cau-
casian, one (4.0%) was African American, two (7.0%) were Hispanic-Latino, and one (4.0%) was
more than one race. Five were seeking licensure in early childhood education (K–3); seven in ele-
mentary education; seven in K–12 programs of art, music, special education, or ESL; and seven in
secondary education programs in English, math, social studies, and world languages.

Data Sources
Guided by the suggestions of Creswell (2009), this study used a mixed-methods research design,
which utilized quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis to provide a comprehensive
view of the data. Pre/post exam (Appendix A) scores, online survey (Appendix B) responses, blog
posts, and focus-group responses (Appendix C) produced the data for this study.
The scores from the pre/post exams were used to answer the first research question. The pre/post
exams covered pertinent whiteboard hardware and software content and consisted of 25 multiple-
choice questions that were developed by the instructional team. The pretest and posttest exams
(Appendix A) were administered prior to and after the instruction through the assessment feature in
Blackboard Learn. At the conclusion of the instruction, members of the iBG were asked to complete
an online survey (Appendix B), post a blog entry, and participate in focus-group interviews (Appen-
dix C) that were used to answer the second and third research questions. The online survey, devel-
oped by the researchers, consisted of 18 items, including scaled questions and an open-response
question. Using a 4-point scale (1 D never; 4 D often), the participants were asked to report their
frequency of use of an interactive textbook, an iPad, a Kindle, or similar device for reading, and an
interactive whiteboard, as well as their perceptions of using interactive texts for learning. The partic-
ipants were asked to respond to fourteen 5-point scaled (1 D SD D strongly disagree; 5 D SA D
strongly agree) questions to determine their perceptions of using interactive textbooks for learning.
Cronbach’s alpha was administered and revealed that the internal consistency indicated high reli-
ability (a D .93).
All of the iBG participants posted entries to their blogs to chronicle their experiences with the
iBook and express their views of the instruction and its effect on their learning. Finally, focus-group
interviews were conducted with the iBG participants to explore their perceptions of the instruction
and its effect on their learning. The blog posts and focus-group transcripts were analyzed for
content.
106 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l Volume 49 Numbers 3–4
 Influence of Digital Interactive Textbook Instruction

Content validity was established for the exam by using six experts (university faculty) in the field
of educational technology. Preservice teachers (n D 300) in the technology course took the exam in
past semesters, and questions have been revised over time for clarity based on their requests. Most
questions were retained (n D 23), and two were revised as suggested by the experts and students to
better communicate the questions. None were eliminated.

Procedures
Prior to instruction, both groups completed the pretest to establish baseline knowledge; results were
recorded in Blackboard Learn. Students were then directed to read the research aligned with interac-
tive whiteboards.
Instructional sequence. The CG received a print-based copy of the research, while the iBG
read/interacted with the research in the first chapter in the iBook. The CG proceeded by listening to
corresponding class lectures and watching instructor demonstrations on the interactive whiteboard.
The iBG read and interacted with the text, followed by class discussion and instructor demonstra-
tions on the interactive whiteboard. Both groups participated in hands-on guided practice and devel-
oped project-related materials. At the conclusion of the project development period, the posttest was
administered online, and the results were recorded in Blackboard Learn.
Creating and publishing the iBook. During the fall semester, the first and fourth authors
enrolled in training that was focused on the use of iBooks Author. During the semester, the book
was planned, designed, and developed. The iBook contained three chapters composed of text,
graphics, hyperlinks, and widgets consisting of scrolling textboxes, photo galleries, popovers, and a
large number of videos/screencasts demonstrating ways to create interactivity in a flipchart. In addi-
tion, quizzes were created within chapters so that students could assess their knowledge as they
worked through the text. Chapter four provided the references. Table 1 presents each chapter con-
cept and an overview of chapter content.
Concurrently, Promethean (http://www.prometheanworld.com) was contacted to explain the
project and request permission to use images and video tutorials that it makes available on the Web.
It granted consent and provided the rights to use its materials. In addition, the first author applied
for and was awarded two small university-funded grants to secure iPads for the three course instruc-
tors, to fund video capture and editing in area schools by a university creative services team, and to
buy stock photos. Further, area schools were contacted to get permission to video teachers using the

Table 1. Chapters and Overviews

Chapter/concept Overview

1.About IWBs Provides and introduction to interactive whiteboard systems; popular IWB companies;
effective use of IWB features; instructional benefits; student achievement; instructional
challenges; teacher training. This chapter is the least interactive, although it does
contain video from two local schools with teachers using the board and discussing its
importance in learning. An interactive quiz is offered at the conclusion of the chapter.
2.Getting Acquainted with the Board Provides an introduction to the hardware components associated with the board and
and the Software software including the stylus, student-response systems, document cameras, and
slates. The software section describes launching the software, the dashboard, the
seven browsers and their use, the toolbar, and how to access desktop annotate, and
the profiles. This chapter contains multiple videos and an interactive quiz.
3.Creating Interactivity Provides ways for students to interact with information on the board including the creation
of tables and their value when presenting information. Various ways to “reveal”
information are presented, including “move to reveal” “change color to reveal,” and the
use of “magic revealers.” Adding actions to objects to turn pages, go to websites, or
access audio and video are demonstrated as well as ways to “clone” objects, identify
parts of diagrams, and “group and pull” information onto the board are demonstrated.
Finally, ways to use “containers” are described and demonstrated. These magical
components offer feedback for students to let them know if answers are correct. This
chapter contains multiple videos and an interactive quiz.
4.References Provides the references that were used to compile the information as well as information
about the authors.

Volume 49 Numbers 3–4 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l 107

O’Bannon, Skolits, & Lubke

interactive boards with students and to interview the teachers to determine their views of the benefits
of using interactive boards in the classroom. Two schools agreed to help and are featured in the
iBook. Finally, the iBook was uploaded to the iBookstore, where is it available for free download
(O’Bannon & Anderson, 2014). Since that time, the book has been updated based on student
reaction.
Equipment provisions. iPads were provided for checkout for the students who did not own a
current model of the mobile device by a university instructional support facility. The support staff
in that facility downloaded the iBook to the iPads prior to checkout, which took place during a class
session. Sixteen members of the iBG checked out an iPad to use during the instructional period.
While the checkout was taking place, the students who owned iPads were directed to download the
iBook from the iBookstore.
Training provisions. Because use of the iPad was new for almost half of the students, volun-
teers in the two sections of the treatment group gave basic directions for use. This instruction was
brief and was followed by the instructor’s explanation of the content sequence and the types of inter-
activity the students would encounter when using the iBook. With iPads in hand, the instructor dem-
onstrated the navigation of the iBook, and students were allowed to practice and ask questions. The
students were advised to use the iBook in landscape mode for optimal viewing and were cautioned
about securing the iPads, as well as charging them nightly.

Data Collection and Analysis

Students accessed the information sheet explaining the study online. Completion of the pre/post
tests and the online survey confirmed their agreement to participate. Instructors were unaware of the
identities of the students who agreed/disagreed to participate during the semester. At the conclusion
of the instruction, the iBG participants were asked to complete the survey constructed in Qualtrics,
an online assessment tool. They were also asked to journal about the learning experience in their
blogs and provide examples of what they perceived to be the most beneficial aspects and what they
felt could be improved. Further, a selection of the iBG participated in focus-group interviews after
the instruction. Those who participated in the focus groups signed informed consent paperwork,
because their responses were recorded. The constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967)
was used to analyze data and develop prominent themes generated from the blog posts and focus
group transcripts.

Results
Prior Experience Using iPads, Kindles, or Similar Devices and Interactive
Whiteboards
Sixteen (53.3%) of the iBG members owned an iPad prior to participating in the study. Using a 4-
point scale (1 D never, 2 D rarely, 3 D sometimes, 4 D often), members of the iBG were asked to
report the frequency of their previous use of an interactive textbook, an iPad, a Kindle or similar
device for reading, and an interactive whiteboard. The students reported that prior to the activity,
they used iPads sometimes (M D 2.93, SD D 1.258) but rarely used an interactive textbook (M D
2.43, SD D 1.053), a Kindle or similar device for reading (M D 2.33, SD D 1.061), or an interactive
whiteboard (M D 2.17, SD D .747).

Effect on Achievement
The first research question examined the effect on achievement of using a multitouch interactive text
versus lecture. The means of the pretest/posttest scores for the iBG and the CG were calculated and
are presented in Table 2. A repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was administered and
revealed a significant interaction, F(1,54) D 8.586, p D .005, hp2 D .137. To explore the interaction,
independent-sample t-tests comparing groups for both pretest and posttest were administered. No
significant differences were found at pretest (t D .380, df D 54, p D .706). A significant difference
108 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l Volume 49 Numbers 3–4
 Influence of Digital Interactive Textbook Instruction

Table 2. Group Statistics on Pretest/Posttest

Test Group N Mean SD SE Mean

Pretest iBook 30 55.47 9.401 1.809

Control 27 54.81 12.980 2.370
Posttest iBook 30 82.67 9.928 1.813
Control 27 70.52 12.801 2.464

was found at posttest (t D 4.094, df D 54, p  .001), indicating the treatment group increased signif-
icantly more than the control group.

Perceptions of the Interactive Textbook by the iBook Group

The second research question investigated the iBG’s perceptions of the benefits associated with
using the interactive book for learning. Using a 5-point scale (1 D SD; 5 D SA), the iBG partici-
pants were asked how strongly they agreed or disagreed with 14 items related to the use of the mul-
titouch interactive book for learning (see Table 3). The participants agreed that the text was easy to
understand (M D 4.27, SD D .521), assisted in their development of their flipcharts (M D 4.03,
SD D .850), and provided a new way of learning (M D 3.97, SD D .615). Additionally, they
reported that the interactive text motivated them to learn the IWB (M D 3.83, SD D .759), made
learning more exciting (M D 3.77, SD D .858), increased their attention toward instruction
(M D 3.77, SD D .971), was more efficient (M D 3.73, SD D .980), and increased their interest in
the class (M D 3.70, SD D .794). The participants were somewhat neutral when asked their agree-
ment about the remaining six questions. It should be noted that a few participants were quite nega-
tive about the experience.
The blog posts and focus-group responses revealed more in-depth information about their per-
ceptions of the text. The iBG participants were required to post a blog about their experience. The
directions were very general and requested that participants journal about their learning experience
with the iBook, including what they liked about it as well as what they felt could be improved. It
should be noted that these participants were required to write blog posts throughout the semester.
Questions about benefits and improvements were also addressed in the focus-group interviews. The
results revealed benefits to be accessibility, portability, and convenience, as well as helpful

Table 3. iBook Group Means and Standard Deviations on Perceptions of the Interactive Text

Item Minimum Maximum Mean SD

The interactive text was easy to understand. 3 5 4.27 .521

The use of the interactive text assisted me in the development of my 1 5 4.03 .850
flipchart.
The interactive text provided a new way of learning for me. 2 5 3.97 .615
The interactive text motivated me to learn the IWB. 2 5 3.83 .759
Use of the interactive text made learning more exciting. 2 5 3.77 .858
The interactive text increased my attention towards instruction 1 5 3.77 .971
I think instruction is more efficient with an interactive text. 1 5 3.73 .980
The interactive text increased my interest in class. 2 5 3.70 .794
I liked using an interactive text better than a traditional textbook. 1 5 3.67 1.269
If my instructors use interactive texts more often, I would enjoy 1 5 3.57 .935
instruction more.
I can focus on instruction more when an interactive text is used. 1 5 3.55 .948
I learned faster with the use of an interactive text than a traditional 1 5 3.50 1.106
textbook.
The interactive text makes it easier for me to remember what I learned in 2 5 3.47 .860
class when I apply the information.
I had technical issues (accessing the videos, etc.) with the interactive 1 5 2.67 1.287
text.

Note. N D 29.

Volume 49 Numbers 3–4 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l 109

O’Bannon, Skolits, & Lubke

interactive components, including the videos, quizzes, easy highlighting, and note taking. In addi-
tion, the step-by-step directions for creating interactive components were reported to be extremely
helpful and the iBook served as a surrogate instructor, giving them confidence to work outside of
class.

Accessibility, Portability, and Convenience

The iBG participants discussed their appreciation for the accessibility, portability, and convenience
offered by the iBook. More than half of the iBG (20 or 67%) made specific comments, including,
“The accessibility of the book is phenomenal. Flipping through pages in order to find a certain chap-
ter is no more with the iBook. You simply had to swipe, and a table of contents pulled up for easy
search.” Another added, “What I liked most about [the iBook] was that it was always available to
me, either on my phone or iPad and it was so light weight to carry around,” and another added,
“Being able to take the text anywhere, have the text at my fingertips, and not add a single pound to
what I already carry to class was wonderful.” Yet another said, “The textbook was much lighter and
easier to transport from home to class. This may seem a trivial advantage, but lugging a backpack
full of textbooks around all day can be physically demanding.”

Interactivity
The iBook was designed to provide a rich multimedia environment for active learning. The iBG par-
ticipants (30, or 100%) agreed that the most helpful feature of the iBook was the interactivity that it
provided. The participants related how the interactive videos, the quizzes, and the ability to high-
light and take notes enhanced their learning experience and assisted with their flipchart develop-
ment. A favorite of all participants was the videos. While some remarks were short and to the point,
such as “I loved the video tutorials,” or “I really liked the videos included in the book,” others elab-
orated in more detail, such as, “I also loved the video tutorials. I am the kind of person who has to
see how something is done in order to be able to do so on my own.” Another said, “One feature that
I found very helpful was the videos. Though I was capable of reading the text and doing the action,
it was nice to have the option of actually watching someone do the task at hand and follow along,”
and one more said, “I thought one of the best features were the instructional videos. These are a
good way for the reader to be able to process and connect information by seeing and hearing it in
front of them.”
The chapter quizzes were another interactive favorite of 75% of the participants, who provided
detailed accounts of their usefulness. Comments included, “The quizzes at the end of each chapter
were really great. They allowed me to check my answers quickly, which I would not have been able
to do with a traditional book. It helped point out the important information I should remember from
the text [chapter].” Another added, “One of my favorite features of this book was the end-of-the-
chapter reviews [quizzes] because those tested my knowledge of the key points from the chapter
and showed how much I was learning.” Still another said, “I highly enjoyed the short quizzes at the
end of each chapter as they helped me review the material just presented and become confident that
I knew the information.” Although one student said that he liked the quizzes, he suggested that they
were not challenging enough: “The quizzes seemed to be incredibly basic and didn’t seem to test
whether or not you truly understood all the material. So, I would like to see a more engaging and
telling quiz that provides just a little challenge by providing some more in depth questions.”
The ability to highlight text and take notes was reported to be easy and helpful to learning and
was discussed by more than half of the iBG. One student said, “I like the ability to highlight and
add notes, which makes it easy to find important information later,” while another added, “The
iBook made taking notes incredibly easy. All you had to do was click on a portion of the text, high-
light it, and then attach notes. If you had a newer iPad you were able to speak your notes, making
note taking that much easier.” And yet other said, “I really enjoyed the interactivity; I could take
notes, highlight, annotate, and search within the book. This made for a better reading experience
and I think a better understanding about the material.”
110 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l Volume 49 Numbers 3–4
 Influence of Digital Interactive Textbook Instruction

Step-by-Step Directions Helpful for Learning and Development

Participants repeatedly spoke of the usefulness of the step-by-step instructions during their develop-
ment phase. One student said, “The step-by-step instructions were simple to follow, easy to read,
and made the development of my flipchart a lot easier and effective. As a result, I relied mostly on
the iBook to guide me through the development.” Another added, “While working on my interac-
tive whiteboard [flipchart], I frequently forgot how to complete different actions with the software.
Using the iBook made it extremely easy to quickly look up how to do something [a procedure].”
And yet another replied, “Having the [step-by-step] instructions right at my fingertips really made
me more comfortable while working on the interactive whiteboard project. I was not familiar with
ActivInspire [software], so it helped me get through the project with relative ease.”

iBook Served as a Surrogate Instructor During Instruction

More than 25% of iBG participants pointed out that the iBook could guide their development when
the instructor was not available.
One student said,

Creating the flipchart was certainly not the easiest thing that I have ever done, and with almost
every person needing [the instructor’s] help during class time, it made it much less frustrating
having the iBook to refer to when I couldn’t figure something out.

Another remarked, “I loved that if I had a question, I could just look at the iBook instead of hav-
ing to ask,” while another added:

In my opinion, the most useful part of using this iBook was having it as a tool to use when we
were creating our flipcharts. When working on this project outside of class, I would have
been very stressed out and worried that I was not doing my flipchart correctly. But since we
used this tool [iBook], it made the process a lot smoother.

Challenges
The third research question examined the challenges of using the iBook for learning. The iBG par-
ticipants reported three primary challenges associated with the iBook use: accessibility issues,
restrictions for reading, and a need for “cues” to signify less intuitive interactive components.
The primary concern mentioned by six participants (20%) was accessibility, although their acces-
sibility concerns differed. Three (10%) spoke of the availability of the iBooks on iPads rather than
Androids. One student said, “If students do not own an iPad but do own another form of tablet, they
would not have been able to download the book.” Another added, “Further development of this
iBook is needed to provide a version for Google Play. As an Android user, I would find it beneficial
to use this book on my own tablet.” And yet another said,

Creating an iBook limits the audience because not all teachers have access to iPads. If the
book was online or if it provided a version for Google Play, that would capture more [a larger]
audience, especially when teachers want to go back and refer to this book anytime in the
future, they could do it without restrictions.

Another student wanted access on her Mac:

One aspect of the iBook that I did not like was simply the fact that it had to be read from an
iPad. I do not have an iPad, and it would have been nice to have the opportunity to download
this book onto my Mac.

It should be noted that iBooks can now be downloaded to other iOS technology including lap-
tops and phones. Another student voiced his desire for a traditional paper-based text in saying,
Volume 49 Numbers 3–4 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l 111
O’Bannon, Skolits, & Lubke

I am pretty tech savvy, but when it comes to books, I gravitate more towards REAL paper
[rather] than reading on a computer screen. I do not like the electronic white paper version
either. Even still, since this was for class, I forced myself to use it.

The remaining concerns involved design issues. Three students (10%) stressed their discomfort
in viewing the iBook in landscape view versus portrait view, saying, “If possible, something should
be done that would allow readers to view the book in both landscape and portrait views,” and “I did
not like only being able to use the book in landscape mode. I actually lock my screen and keep it in
portrait mode 24/7.” The last concern was voiced by three (10%) of the students as they recounted
problems detecting some of the interactive elements. Comments included “Sometimes the interac-
tive graphics were a bit hard to notice” and “Something I think needs a little work were some of the
photo galleries. I would sometimes overlook these by mistake because I did not realize there was
additional material.”

Discussion, Implications, and Limitations

This study examined the effect on achievement when an interactive e-book was used in lieu of lec-
ture in a core technology course taken by preservice teachers. Further, it examined the perceptions
of the iBG and the benefits and challenges of using an interactive multi-touch textbook for learning
purposes. There is a lack of research on the effect of interactive e-books on learning. This study pro-
vides insight for educators who are interested in using these interactive textbooks for learning as
well as in future research efforts.
Our research concluded that there is a significant difference in the achievement of students who
received instruction through the use of the interactive e-book versus those who received lecture
instruction. This is a major finding and suggests that interactive books can be used to disseminate
information effectively in a technology course and improve learning while decreasing frustration.
One-half of the participants owned an iPad and reported prior experience in using interactive text-
books, although only three (10%) reported this use to be often.
The data revealed many benefits of using iBooks for instruction. All but one of the preservice
teachers agreed that the text was easy to understand, and the majority (more than 80%) reported that
it assisted in the development of their projects. This assistance resulted in an increased motivation
to learn, made learning more exciting, increased their attention toward instruction, was more effi-
cient, and increased their interest in the class. Additional benefits reported support former studies
on e-books and included accessibility (Nicholas, Rowlands, & Hamali, 2010), portability, and con-
venience (Clark, 2009; Kang et al., 2009; Kimball et al., 2010; Pattuelli & Rabina, 2010). In con-
trast to earlier research by Knutson and Fowler (2009) that revealed difficulty with highlighting and
note taking, the participants in this study reported that highlighting and note taking were very easy
and enhanced their learning. They also described valuable interactive components, including videos
and quizzes, as well as the ability to highlight and take notes. In addition, many revealed that the
step-by-step instructions assisted in their development. These findings should guide faculty who
design and develop such books for learning purposes.
The study revealed several challenges, some of which support earlier studies that should be taken
into consideration in future developments. While half of the students in this study owned iPads, sev-
eral other students complained about not being able to access the text on Android devices. This con-
cern supports those of Payne et al. (2012), who point out that a key limitation to the iBook approach
is the necessity of developing iBooks on an Apple computer and accessing them on an iPad. Another
participant complained about the lack of access on her Mac; however, viewing capabilities have now
extended to Apple computers with the latest system software. Another preferred traditional textbooks,
which is to be expected as these new digital options become accepted in classrooms.
A few students preferred to read information in portrait view. These students all had prior iPad
experience. The researchers concluded that this preference is likely a result of reading “text only” e-
books versus books with interactive components. Designing a multimedia textbook in portrait view
112 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l Volume 49 Numbers 3–4
 Influence of Digital Interactive Textbook Instruction

was not preferable due to layout considerations. To create the design in portrait view would increase
the number of pages and result in awkward spacing.
The data also exposed the need for additional “cues” within the text to alert readers to less intui-
tive interactive components of the iBook. This is a concern that developers should consider when
designing interactive books. As with all instructional design, it is important to make sure that the
reader can recognize multimedia components clearly and use them to the fullest. Piloting the text
prior to use can help overcome this challenge.
The results of this study have a number of implications for the inclusion of iBooks in classrooms,
as well as for future research. This study contributes to what is known about the benefits and chal-
lenges of using this type of instruction. Clearly, students who experienced this textbook benefited
from its unique ability to increase their knowledge while decreasing frustration. In addition, the use
of the iBook decreased the instructors’ need to meet with students outside of class to supplement
classroom instruction. Students can interact with the information rather than simply read it, which
makes for a much richer learning experience. They are more engaged with the information and have
resources at their fingertips rather than having to link out to textbook sites for activities and websites.
These findings also have implications for faculty and textbook publishers who want to produce
textbooks that actively involve learners and allow students to access information in the digital age.
This study calls for additional research on this learning approach to investigate different content at
various grade levels. The design of the text is very important and should follow good design princi-
ples and use various types of interactivity.
The results of the study may be influenced by the limitations. The participants in this study are lim-
ited in size and were enrolled in a required technology course in education and, thus, were a convenience
sample. Because this research was limited to students in a higher education setting, the findings do not
give attention to K–12 contexts. In addition, the study was limited in duration to one semester. Studies
of short duration may suffer from the novelty effect, the tendency for individuals to initially increase
their performance when new technology is involved because of increased interest in the new technology.
Received 15 June 2016
Revised 27 February 2017
Accepted 4 March 2017

Declaration of Conflicting Interests. The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest

with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding. The authors received funding from the Office of Information Technology, University
of Tennessee.

Author Notes
Blanche W. O’Bannon is a professor of Educational Technology in the Department of Theory and Prac-
tice in Teacher Education at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. She is the coordinator of the core
technology course for teacher candidates and the Specialist in Education in Teacher Education with a
concentration in Educational Technology. Her research interests include the integration of technology
in the classroom, web 2.0 tools and apps and mobile learning. Please address correspondence regarding
this article to Blanche W. O’Bannon, Theory & Practice in Teacher Education, The University of Ten-
nessee, 445 Claxton Complex, Knoxville, TN 37996-3442, USA. E-mail: bobannon@utk.edu

Gary J. Skolits is an associate professor of evaluation, statistics, and measurement in the Department
of Educational Psychology and Counseling at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. His research
interests include educational interventions, college access, and program evaluation.

Jennifer K. Lubke is an assistant professor of Literacy Education in the School of Education at the
University of Tennessee, Chattanooga. She is a certified reading specialist and holds secondary certi-
fication in English education. Her research interests include web-based applications and online

Volume 49 Numbers 3–4 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l 113

O’Bannon, Skolits, & Lubke

content sharing, virtual learning communities, media education, media literacy, multiliteracies, and
adolescent literacy.

References
Anderson, M. (2015). Technology device ownership. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/29/technology-
device-ownership-2015/
Apple. (2016). Mac app store preview: iBooks Author. Retrieved from https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ibooks-author/
id490152466?mtD12
Bidarra, J., Natalio, C., & Rigueiredo, M. (2014, November). Designing eBook interaction for mobile and contextual learn-
ing. Paper presented at the 2014 International Conference on Interactive Mobile Communication Technology, Thessalo-
niki, Greece.
Clark, D. T. (2009). Lending Kindle e-book readers: First results from the Texas A&M project. Collection Building, 28(4),
146–149.
Creswell, J. C. (2009). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Hofer, M., & Swan, K. O. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge in action: A case study of a middle school
digital documentary project. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 41(2), 179–200.
Jamali, H. R., Nicholas, D., & Rowlands, I. (2010). Scholarly e-books: The views of 16,000 academics. Aslib Proceedings:
New Information Perspectives, 61(1), 33–47.
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(3), 390–408.
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Ludgate, H. (2013). NMC Horizon Report: 2013
Higher education edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
Kang, Y., Wang, M., & Lin, J. (2009). Usability evaluation of e-books. Displays, 20(2), 49–52.
Kimball, R., Ives, G., & Jackson, K. (2010). Comparative usage of science e-book and print collections at Texas A&M librar-
ies. Collection Management, 35(1), 15–28.
Knutson, R., & Fowler, J. (2009, July 16). Book smarts? E-texts receive mixed reviews from students. Wall Street Journal.
Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970203577304574277041750084938
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), Hand-
book of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp. 3–29). New York, NY: Routledge.
Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32(1), 1–19.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge.
Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
Nicholas, D., Rowlands, I., & Jamali, H. (2010). E-textbook use, information seeking behavior and its impact: Case study
business and management. Journal of Information Science, 36(2), 263–280.
O’Bannon, B., & Anderson, M. (2014). Engaging learners with interactive whiteboards. Cupertino, CA: Apple.
O’Bannon, B., Lubke, J., Beard, J., & Britt, G. (2011). Using podcasts to replace lecture: Effects on student achievement.
Computers & Education, 57, 1885–1892. https://doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.001
Pattuelli, M. C., & Rabina, D. (2010). Forms, effects, function: LIS students’ attitudes towards portable e-book readers. Aslib
Proceedings: New Information Perspectives, 62(3), 228–244.
Payne, K. F., Goodson, A. M., Tahim, A., Wharrad, H. J., & Fan, K. (2012). Using the iBook in medical education and
healthcare settings-the iBook as a reusable learning object: A report of the author’s experience using iBooks author soft-
ware. Journal of Visual Communication in Medicine, 35(4), 162–169.
€
Şad, S. N., & Ozhan, U. U. (2012). Honeymoon with IWBs: A qualitative insight in primary students’ views on instruction
with interactive whiteboard. Computer and Education, 59(4), 1184–1191. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.010
Schugar, H., Smith, C., & Schugar, J. (2013). Teaching with interactive picture e-books in grades K–6. The Reading Teacher,
66(8), 615–624. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1168
Shelburne, W. A. (2009). E-book usage in an academic library: User attitudes and behaviors. Library Collections, Acquisi-
tions and Technical Services, 33(1), 59–72.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
T€urel, Y. K. (2011). An interactive whiteboard student survey: Development, validity and reliability. Computer and Educa-
tion, 57, 2441–2450.
T€urel, Y. K., & Demirli, C. (2010). Instructional interactive whiteboard materials: Designers’ perspectives. Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 1437–1442.
Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja Roblin, N., Tondeur, J., & van Braak, J. (2013). Technological pedagogical content knowledge—A
review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(2), 109–121. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00487.x
Wong, W. (2012, April/May). Tools of the trade: How mobile devices are changing the face of higher education. Community
College Journal, 55–60.

114 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l Volume 49 Numbers 3–4

 Influence of Digital Interactive Textbook Instruction

Appendix A: Sample Questions From Pre/Post Tests

1. The features of an interactive whiteboard (IWB) that have proven positive effects on student learning include
a. dragging/dropping information and hiding/revealing text or photos.
b. matching terms with definitions and navigating the Internet.
c. hiding/revealing text or photos and playing games.
d. listening to music and dragging/dropping information.
2. Instructional benefits associated with IWB are
a. increasing reading comprehension.
b. increasing student attention and participation.
c. improving understanding of abstract concepts for lower ability groups.
d. improving rote memory.
3. No improvement in learning has been document when teachers use the IWB for
a. highlighting.
b. projection purposes.
c. hiding/revealing text.
d. matching terms and definitions.
4. The major function of “magic revealers” is to
a. provide feedback for correct answers.
b. duplicate text and photos.
c. uncover hidden text or pictures.
d. reveal “magic” formulas.
5. Pull tabs or “pulleys” are used to
a. provide feedback for correct answers.
b. present additional information on a flipchart page.
c. present abstract information.
d. match terms and definitions.
6. The power associated with “containers”
a. their ease of creation.
b. their ability to offer immediate feedback.
c. their ability to teach abstract information.
d. their novelty.
7. IWBs have proven to be more effective with students in
a. early childhood classrooms.
b. elementary classrooms.
c. high school classrooms.
d. no differences that been found in effectiveness between grade levels.

Appendix B: Survey Administered Online After the Instructional Period

1. Do you own a tablet computer? YES NO
2. If yes, what type of tablet do you own? iPad___________ Android___________ Other ___________
Indicate the frequency of your use with the following prior to the instruction:
3. Interactive multi-touch textbook Never Rarely Sometimes Often
4. Kindle or similar device for reading Never Rarely Sometimes Often
5. iPad Never Rarely Sometimes Often
6. Interactive Whiteboard Never Rarely Sometimes Often

Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements:
7. The interactive text provided a new way of learning for me. SD D N A SA
8. The interactive text was easy to understand. SD D N A SA

(continued on next page)

Volume 49 Numbers 3–4 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l 115

O’Bannon, Skolits, & Lubke

9. I liked the interactive text better than a traditional text. SD D N A SA

10. The interactive text increased my attention towards the instruction. SD D N A SA
11. The interactive text made learning more exciting. SD D N A SA
12. I learned faster with the interactive text than with a traditional text. SD D N A SA
13. The interactive text motivated me to learn the IWB. SD D N A SA
14. I can focus on the instruction more when an interactive text is used. SD D N A SA
15. If my instructors use interactive texts more often, I will enjoy the instruction more. SD D N A SA
16. The interactive text makes it easier for me to remember what I learned in class when I SD D N A SA
apply the information.
17. The interactive text increased my interest in class. SD D N A SA
18. I think instruction is more efficient with the interactive text. SD D N A SA
19. I had technical issues with the interactive text SD D N A SA
20. The use of the interactive text assisted my development of an instructional flipchart. SD D N A SA

21. Do you have other comments about this instruction?

Appendix C: Focus Group Questions

1. How was the instruction on the use of interactive whiteboards (IWB) different than the typical instruction you have
taken here at this university?
2. What do you think were the benefits of the use of the interactive multimedia text for learning about the IWB?
3. To what extent did interactive text promote your ability to create a flipchart?
4. In what ways do you think this instruction could have been improved?
5. To what extent was this particular approach used in the teaching of IWB consistent with the way you prefer to learn?
6. Do you think this instruction was more difficult or less difficult than the typical instruction you have taken at this
university?
7. Do you think you would have performed better learning about the IWB if it had been taught in a more traditional
manner?
8. Would you recommend instruction that uses this teaching approach to fellow students? (Why or why not?)

116 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l Volume 49 Numbers 3–4