This study presented at AECT 2015 was a part of my dissertation of instructors' using e-Textbooks in higher education. It examined instructors in public universities in east south central of the U.S.

1. A Study of the
Demographic Differences
of Instructors in Using
E-Textbooks in Higher
Education
SiruiWang, Ph.D.
The University of Southern Mississippi/ Colorado State University
AECT, November 5, 2015

2. Introduction
• E-Textbooks
In this research, this refers to a textbook in its digital form or textbook converted into
certain digital format or in a computer file format to be displayed on a computer screen or
read on a computer through a network or viewed on a dedicated portable device or read on
all types of computers or formatted for display on eBook readers (Cavanaugh, 2005; Chen,
Crooks, & Ford, 2013; Dalton & Palincsar, 2013; Daniel &Woody, 2013; Lamothe, 2011; Rao,
2003;Tripathi, & Jeevan, 2007).
• E-Textbooks and Education
o Flexible
o Interactive
o Accessible
(Alliance for Excellent Education, 2013; Duffey & Fox, 2012; Ihmeideh, 2014; Mardis,
Everhart, Smith, Newsum, & Baker, 2010; Moody, 2010; Roskos, Burstein, Shang, & Gray,
2014;Tsang,Yuen, Li, & Cheung, 2013)
• Diffusion of InnovationTheory
The process by which an innovation is “communicated through certain channels over time
among the members of a social system” (Rogers, 2003, p. 6).

3. State of the problem
• Incomplete adoption of e-Textbooks in education. Using e-Textbooks in
teaching in higher education is still far from its confirmation stage.
o In the U.S., 19 states neither proposed any policies or guidelines of adopting or using
digital content, nor included digital content in learning material (State Education Policy
Center, 2012).
• A contrary between students and instructors in using e-Textbooks in class.
Instructors displayed unsupportive attitudes and showed lower intentions of
using e-Textbooks in teaching (Kissinger, 2011), which opposed by students'
higher expectations on using e-Textbooks for more interactive and
collaborative learning opportunities in higher education (Center for Digital
Education, 2013)

4. Research Question
Based upon the purpose of this study, which is to explore the factors that affect
instructors using e-Textbooks in teaching by comparing the demographic differences
between adopter and non-adopters in higher education, the research question is:
• How do demographics (state, gender, age, academic rank, and study field) differ
between instructors using e-Textbooks (adopters) and those who are not using e-
Textbooks (non-adopters) in teaching in higher education? (Five Hypotheses)
o Five hypotheses were associated with the research question:
Hypothesis 1:There is a difference between adopters and non-adopters of using e-Textbooks in
terms of state of residence.
Hypothesis 2:There is a difference between adopters and non-adopters of using e-Textbooks in
terms of gender.
Hypothesis 3:There is a difference between adopters and non-adopters of using e-Textbooks in
terms of age group.
Hypothesis 4:There is a difference between adopters and non-adopters of using e-Textbooks in
terms of academic rank.
Hypothesis 5:There is a difference between adopters and non-adopters of using e-Textbooks in
terms of study fields.

5. Methodology
• Research Design
Quantitative research method (Hopkins, 2008; Muijs, 2004)
Categorical data analysis (Chi-Square test of Independence)
Questionnaire (Almobarraz, 2007; Hannan, 2007; Jebeile & Reeve, 2003; Moore
& Benbasat, 1991)
• Research Setting
Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, andTennessee (east south central in the U.S.)
• Participants
Instructors in public universities who were teaching in educational-related
programs in the college of education
o lecturers, assistant professors, associate professors, full professors, and other
instructors who were teaching

6. Findings…
• Response Rate: 39 public universities (8 in MS, 14 in AL, 8 in KY, and 9 inTN),
2309 survey through email invitation, 366 responses (70 from MS, 118 from
AL, 85 from KY, and 93 fromTN).
• Gender ratio: 34.4% male vs. 52.7% female
• Participants’ ethnicity consisted of 78.9%White, 12.1% Black, 5.3% Asian,
0.6 % Latin, 0.3% Native-American, and 1.2% others

7. Frequency of How Often Instructors Use
E-Textbooks inTeaching
N=7
N=27
N=16
N=109
N=188
Always
Very Often
Fairly Many Times
Occasionally
Never
0 50 100 150 200

8. N=12
N=64
N=81
N=85
N=77
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 or
above
Age Group Distribution
N=13
N=29
N=128
N=82
N=67
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Others Instructor Assistant
Professor
Associate
Professor
Professor
Academic Ranking

9. RESEARCH QUESTION - HYPOTHESIS 1
• Hypothesis 1:There is a difference between adopters and non-adopters of using
e-Textbooks in terms of state.
• StatisticalTest: Pearson’s chi-square test
• There was no statistically significant difference between adopters and non-
adopters of using e-Textbooks in higher education related to state, χ2 (3, N = 347)
= .843, p = .839
• Findings indicated instructors from any of the four states might or might not use
e-Textbooks in teaching in higher education.

10. Results of Chi-squareTest and Descriptive Statistics for E-Textbook Adoption by State
Note. χ2 = 0.843, df = 3. Numbers in parentheses indicate column percentages.
RESEARCH QUESTION - HYPOTHESIS 1

11. RESEARCH QUESTION - HYPOTHESIS 2
 Hypothesis 2:There is a difference between adopters and non-adopters of
using e-Textbooks in terms of gender.
 StatisticalTest: Pearson’s chi-square test
 There was no statistically significant difference between adopters and non-
adopters of using e-Textbooks in higher education related to gender, χ2 (1, N
= 319) = 0.006, p = .940
 Findings indicated both male and female instructors had similar preferences
regarding using or not using e-Textbooks in teaching.

12. RESEARCH QUESTION - HYPOTHESIS 2
Results of Chi-squareTest and Descriptive Statistics for E-Textbook
Adoption by Gender
e-TextbookAdoption
Gender
Male Female
Adopters 53 (39.3%) 82 (60.7%)
Non-adopters 73 (39.7%) 111(60.3%)
Note. χ2 = 0.006, df = 1. Numbers in parentheses indicate column percentages.

13. RESEARCH QUESTION -HYPERTHESIS 3
 Hypothesis 3:There is a difference between adopters and non-adopters of
using e-Textbooks in terms of age group.
 StatisticalTest: Pearson’s chi-square test
 There was no statistically significant difference between adopters and non-
adopters of using e-Textbooks in teaching related to age, χ2 (4, N = 319) =
2.797, p = .592
 Findings indicated there were young instructors who are using or not using e-
Textbooks, while instructors who were older are also using or not using e-
Textbooks in teaching.

14. RESEARCH QUESTION -HYPERTHESIS 3
Results of Chi-squareTest and Descriptive Statistics for E-Textbook Adoption by Age
e-Textbook
Adoption
Age Group
20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 or above
Adopters 6 (4.4%) 22 (16.3%) 38 (28.1%) 35 (25.9%) 34 (25.2%)
Non-adopters
6 (3.3%) 42 (22.8%) 43 (23.4%) 50 (27.2%) 43 (23.4%)
Note. χ2 = 2.797, df = 4. Numbers in parentheses indicate column percentages.

15. RESEARCH QUESTION -HYPOTHESIS 4
• Hypothesis 4: There is a difference between adopters and non-adopters of using
e-Textbooks in terms of academic ranking.
• StatisticalTest: Pearson’s chi-square test
• There was no statistically significant difference between adopters and non-
adopters of using e-Textbooks in teaching relating to their academic ranking, χ2
(4, N = 319) = 1.919, p = .751
• Findings indicated instructors at any academic level might use or not use e-
Textbooks in teaching.

16. e-Textbook
Adoption
Academic Ranking
Instructor Assistant
Professor
Associate
Professor
Professor Other
Adopters
11 (8.1%) 54 (40.0%) 39 (28.9%) 25 (18.5%) 6 (4.4%)
Non-adopters
18 (9.8%) 74 (40.2%) 43 (23.4%) 42 (22.8%) 7 (3.8%)
Results of Chi-squareTest and Descriptive Statistics for E-Textbook Adoption
by Academic Ranking
Note. χ2 = 1.919, df = 4. Numbers in parentheses indicate column percentages.
RESEARCH QUESTION -HYPOTHESIS 4

17. RESEARCH QUESTION -HYPOTHESIS 5
• Hypothesis 5:There is a difference between adopters and non-adopter of
using e-Textbooks in terms of study field in education.
• Statistical Test: Crosstabulation
• Findings indicated most instructors (both adopters and non-adopters of e-
Textbooks) in this study had their study fields in Curriculum and Instruction
and Educational Leadership and Administration.

18. Study field in Education E-TextbookAdoption
Adopters Non-Adopter
Child and Family Studies 2 (1.3%) 8 (3.8%)
School Counselling 2 (1.3%) 8 (3.8%)
Curriculum and Instruction 36 (22.8%) 44 (20.7%)
Educational Leadership andAdministration 27 (17.1%) 23 (10.8%)
Educational Studies and Research 12 (7.6%) 20 (9.4%)
InstructionalTechnology and Design 12 (7.6%) 9 (4.2%)
Library and Information Science 9 (5.7%) 1 (0.5%)
Music Education 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.5%)
Psychology 8 (5.1%) 16 (7.5%)
Special Education 13 (8.2%) 19 (8.9%)
Descriptive Statistics for E-Textbook Adoption by Study Field (N =319)
RESEARCH QUESTION -HYPOTHESIS 5

19. DISCUSSION
• 1.The adoption of e-Textbooks in higher education did not vary by states.The inconsecutiveness of the state
educational policies between pre K-12 education and higher education might be the culprit.The SEPC report
stated to include digital content and e-Textbooks in through pre K-12 education by state educational policies, but
did not clearly involve higher education in that process, which might lead to a less emphasis of using e-Textbooks
in higher education than pre K-12 education.
• 2.Younger instructors did not express a higher tendency in using e-Textbooks in teachingthan older ones;
instructors who were with higher academic ranks did not play their role as pioneers in using e-Textbooks in
teaching. Several reasons might pay for the situation. For instance, “no e-Textbook available” in their teaching
subject areas makes it impossible for instructors to use e-Textbooks, even if they had the intention. Students’
unresponsiveness made instructors hard to use e-Textbooks. Without supports from students or e-Textbooks
publishers in the social system, instructors could only abandon e-Textbooks, regardless of their age or social
status.
• 3. It is promising to promote instructors to use e-Textbooks in Curriculum & Instruction and Educational
Leadership & Administration, since which have the most people of using e-Textbooks. So, the interpersonal
communication channel could be broadened in higher education, and the adoption rate of using e-Textbooks in
other areas in teaching could be increased. It also suggests a direction for those colleges and institutions that
intend to use e-Textbooks but were unaware of where to start.
• In a sum, the adoption of digital content and e-Textbooks in higher education was not influenced by states’
policies, adopters’ gender, age, academic ranking, or their study fields.

20. Implication and Recommendations
 There are some factor would affect instructors interest in using e-
Textbooks in teaching in higher education, such as the availability of e-
Textbooks, students’ corporations, institutions’ supports, etc.
 Institutions have the responsibilities to assist instructors to adopt and
spread any innovation in education, technically and economically, and
make e-Textbooks compatible to the existing learning environment and
current standards.
 E-Textbooks publishers should not only contribute to exploit features of
e-Textbooks, but also consider a proper method to extend the life of e-
Textbooks for users.
 Instructional technologists and designers should work with faculty
collaboratively on course design.

21. REFERENCE
Almobarraz,A. (2007). Perceived attributes of diffusion of innovation theory as predictors of internet adoption among the faculty
members of Imam Mohammed Bin Saud University. Dissertation for University of NorthTexas.
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2013). What is digital learning? Retrieved from
http://www.all4ed.org/digitallearning/what-is-digital-learning
Cavanaugh,T. (2005). The digital reader: using ebooks in k-12 education. Eugene, OR: International Society forTechnology in
Education (ITSE).
Center for Digital Education. (2013). Digital Content Strategy Guide, Microsoft & Dell. Retrieved from
http://marketing.dell.com/Global/FileLib/Connected_Classroom/DigitalContentStrategyGuide.pdf
Chen, X., Crooks, S., & Ford, S. (2013, March). NoteTaking on eText with Digital NoteTakingTools. In Society for Information
Technology &Teacher Education International Conference, 2013(1), 303-308.
Dalton, B., & Palincsar, A. S. (2013). InvestigatingText–Reader Interactions in the Context of Supported etext. In International
Handbook of Metacognition and Learning Technologies (pp. 533-544). NewYork: Springer.
Daniel, D. B., &Woody,W. D. (2013). E-textbooks at what cost? Performance and use of electronic v. print texts. Computers &
Education, 62, 18-23.
Duffey, D., & Fox, C. (2012). National educational technology trends 2012: state leadership empowers educators, transforms
teaching and learning. Washington, DC: State EducationalTechnology Directors Association (SETDA).
Hopkins, W.G. (2008). Quantitative research design. Retrieved from http://sportsci.org/jour/0001/wghdesign.html
Ihmeideh, F. M. (2014).The effect of electronic books on enhancing emergent literacy skills of pre-school children. Computers &
Education, 79, 40-48.

22. Jebeile, S. & Reeve, R. (2003).The diffusion of e-learning innovations in an Australian secondary college: strategies and tactics
for educational leaders. The Innovation Journal, 8(4), 2003. Retrieved from
http://www.innovation.cc/scholarlystyle/jebeile-reeve-elearning.pdf
Kissinger, J. S. (2011, January). A Collective Case Study of Mobile E-book Learning Experiences. (Doctoral Dissertation). UNF
Theses and Dissertations. paper127. http://digitalcommons.unf.edu/etd/127
Lamothe, A.R. (2011). Factors influencing the usage of an electronic book collection: Size of the e-book collection, student
population, and faculty population. College & Research Libraries, 74(1), 39-59.
Moore, G.C & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information
technology innovation. Information System Research 2(3), 192-222.
Moody, A.K. (2010). Using electronic books in the classroom to enhance emergent literacy skills in young children. Journal of
Literacy andTechnology, 11(4), 23-52.
Muijs, D. (2004). Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS. London, UK: Sage Publications.
Rao, S. S. (2003). Electronic books:A review and evaluation. Library HiTech, 21(1), 85-93.
Rogers, E. M (2003). Diffusion of innovations, Fifth ed. NewYork: Free Press.
Roskos, K., Burstein, K., Shang,Y., & Gray, E. (2014).Young Children’s Engagement With E-Books at School. SAGE Open, 4(1).
Retrieved from http://sgo.sagepub.com/content/4/1/2158244013517244.full-text.pdf+html
State Education Policy Center (SEPC). (2012). Database: http://sepc.setda.org/, 2008-2010.
Tripathi M. & Jeevan,V.K.J. (2007). E-book subscription in a distance education institution: a case of indira gandhi national
open university, India, 104-114.
Tsang, E.Y. M.,Yuen, K. S., Li, K. C., & Cheung, S. K. (2013). Designing OpenTextbooks for EffectiveTeaching and Learning. In
Knowledge Sharing throughTechnology (pp. 43-55). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
REFERENCE cont.