The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning
Volume 9 | Issue 1

Article 5

4-16-2018

As Good or Better than Commercial Textbooks:
Students’ Perceptions and Outcomes from Using
Open Digital and Open Print Textbooks
Rajiv S. Jhangiani
Kwantlen Polytechnic University, rajiv.jhangiani@kpu.ca

Farhad N. Dastur
Kwantlen Polytechnic University, farhad.dastur@kpu.ca

Richard Le Grand
Kwantlen Polytechnic University, richard.legrand@kpu.ca

Kurt Penner
Kwantlen Polytechnic University, kurt.penner@kpu.ca

Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cjsotl_rcacea
Part of the Curriculum and Instruction Commons, Higher Education Commons, and the
Psychology Commons
https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2018.1.5
Recommended Citation
Jhangiani, R. S., Dastur, F. N., Le Grand, R., & Penner, K. (2018). As Good or Better than Commercial Textbooks: Students’
Perceptions and Outcomes from Using Open Digital and Open Print Textbooks. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching
and Learning, 9 (1). https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2018.1.5

As Good or Better than Commercial Textbooks: Students’ Perceptions
and Outcomes from Using Open Digital and Open Print Textbooks
Abstract

The increase in the cost of college textbooks together with the proliferation of digital content and devices has
inspired the development of open textbooks, open educational resources that are free, openly licensed, and
often peer-reviewed. Although several published studies have investigated the impact of open textbook
adoption on educational outcomes, none have separated the effects of textbook openness and format and only
two have taken place in Canada (Hendricks, Reinsberg, & Rieger, 2017; Jhangiani & Jhangiani, 2017). This
study investigates the perceptions, use, and course performance of Canadian post-secondary students
assigned a commercial or open textbook in either print or digital format. Results show that students using the
print format of the open textbook perceive its quality to be superior to the commercial textbook. Moreover,
students assigned an open textbook in either format perform either no differently from or better than those
assigned a commercial textbook. These results are consistent with the existing literature and support the
conclusion that the cost savings to students associated with the adoption of open textbooks do not come at
the expense of resource quality or student performance.
L’augmentation du coût des manuels universitaires ainsi que la prolifération du contenu numérique et des
appareils électroniques ont inspiré le développement de manuels ouverts, des ressources éducationnelles qui
sont gratuites, dont les licences d’exploitation sont ouvertes et qui sont souvent évalués par les pairs. Bien que
plusieurs études publiées aient étudié l’impact de l’adoption de manuels ouverts sur les résultats
éducationnels, aucune n’a séparé les effets du caractère ouvert des manuels et du format et seulement deux
études ont été menées au Canada (Hendricks, Reinsberg & Rieger, 2017; Jhangiani & Jhangiani, 2017). Cette
étude examine les perceptions, l’emploi et les résultats des étudiants dans des établissements d’enseignement
supérieur canadiens à qui on avait assigné un manuel commercial ou un manuel ouvert en format imprimé ou
numérique. Les résultats ont montré que les étudiants qui avaient utilisé le format imprimé du manuel ouvert
avaient perçu que sa qualité était supérieure à celle du manuel commercial. De plus, les étudiants à qui on avait
assigné un manuel ouvert dans l’un ou l’autre des formats avaient obtenu des résultats semblables à ceux des
étudiants à qui on avait assigné un manuel commercial. Ces résultats concordent avec les publications
existantes et confirment la conclusion que les économies de coûts pour les étudiants liées à l’adoption de
manuels ouverts n’entraînent pas une dégradation de la qualité des ressources ni des résultats des étudiants.
Keywords

open textbooks, open educational resources, open educational practices, post-secondary education, access,
Canada
Cover Page Footnote

This research was funded by a Katalyst grant from Kwantlen Polytechnic University to the first author. The
authors are grateful to Rebecca Deutschmann for her assistance with data collection and management, and to
Clint Lalonde from BCcampus for providing print copies of the open textbook.

This research paper/rapport de recherche is available in The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning:
https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cjsotl_rcacea/vol9/iss1/5

Jhangiani et al.: Perceptions and Outcomes of Open Textbooks

The cost of textbooks in the United States rose by 142% between December 2001 and
July 2017, a rate that is almost four times that of inflation (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
2017). Although comparable Canadian data are not publicly available, the cost of textbooks in
this smaller market is often higher due to a 10-15% tariff imposed on imported books (Justice
Laws, 2008), a piece of legislation that costs students an estimated $30 million per year (Hall,
2013). As a result, students’ educational choices and outcomes are increasingly being
influenced by the cost of required course materials. For instance, a survey of over 22,000
students in Florida found that 67% reported not having purchased a required course textbook
(Florida Virtual Campus, 2016). This is despite the fact that 94% of students believe that not
having access to the textbook negatively impacts their course performance (U.S. PIRG, 2014).
The same survey in Florida found that 48% of students had taken fewer courses, 26% had
dropped a course, and 21% had withdrawn from a course, all due to high textbook costs (Florida
Virtual Campus, 2016).
Despite significantly lower tuition fees, it appears that similar pressures exist in the
Canadian post-secondary system. A survey of 320 post-secondary students from 12 institutions
in British Columbia found that 54% had not purchased at least one required course textbook,
27% had taken fewer courses, 26% had dropped or withdrawn from a course, and 30% had
earned a poorer grade, all specifically due to high textbook costs (Jhangiani & Jhangiani, 2017).
Similar results have since been found in surveys of 152 students at the University of British
Columbia (Hendricks et al., 2017) and 4,240 students at the University of Guelph (Martin et
al., 2017).
This state of affairs has prompted state governments (e.g., 26 states from Arizona to
Wisconsin), international higher educational authorities (e.g., British Columbia Ministry of
Advanced Education), philanthropic organizations (e.g., The William and Flora Hewlett
Foundation), universities and colleges (e.g., State University of New York), and even
professional bodies (e.g., Center for Computer-Assisted Legal Instruction) to fund the
development of open textbooks for the highest-enrolled undergraduate courses. Open textbooks
are a type of open educational resource (OER) that are available to students at no cost (in a
variety of digital formats) or at very low cost (in print format). Beyond providing free,
immediate, flexible, and permanent access to required course materials, open textbooks are
also openly licensed (e.g., Creative Commons), a feature that bestows upon adopting faculty a
suite of additional permissions that enable users to reuse, revise, remix, retain, and redistribute
these resources (Wiley, Bliss, & McEwen, 2014). This ability to readily update and
contextualize course textbooks arguably represents a new layer of academic freedom, as faculty
are no longer bound by the limitations of the offerings of commercial publishers vis-à-vis
content, currency, clarity, and cultural relevance.
The goal of the present study is to investigate the impact of open textbook adoption on
exam performance, study habits, and perceptions of textbook quality in a sample of Canadian
undergraduate students taking a semester-long, introductory psychology course.
Commercial vs. Open Textbooks
As the adoption of open textbooks has proliferated (collectively saving students
worldwide more than $174 million [Creative Commons, 2015]), a growing number of
researchers have begun to investigate the impact of OER adoption on educational outcomes
along with how students assigned OER perceive their quality.
Student performance. Numerous studies of the impact of OER on student outcomes—
conducted across diverse disciplinary, institutional, and jurisdictional contexts—have
repeatedly confirmed the same result: that students using OER perform just as well as or, in

Published by Scholarship@Western, 2018

1

The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 9, Iss. 1 [2018], Art. 5

some cases, better than those using commercial course materials (see Hilton, 2016 for a
review). For example, Allen and his colleagues (2015) compared the exam performance of 478
students enrolled in a general chemistry course that used a web-based OER known as
ChemWiki for its primary textbook with the performance of 448 students enrolled in a control
class that used a commercial textbook. These two sections were taught during the same
semester at consecutive hours with the same faculty member and team of teaching assistants.
All students received identical exams. Beginning of semester pre-tests and final exams showed
no significant differences in individual learning gains between the two groups, suggesting that
commercial textbooks could be substituted with OER without negatively impacting learning.
In a non-experimental case study, Hilton and Laman (2012) compared the performance
of 690 students using an adapted open textbook in an introductory psychology class to the
performance of 370 students who had used a commercial textbook in a previous semester. The
results showed that students who used the open textbook had a lower withdrawal rate (7.1%
vs. 14%) and scored better on the final examination (71.1% vs. 67.6%).
Another study by Hilton and his colleagues focused on 1400 math students at a
community college in Arizona, comparing average student performance on a standard
departmental exam (Hilton, Gaudet, Clark, Robinson, & Wiley, 2013). The researchers did not
find any significant differences in performance between the year when all classes used OER
and the previous two years when no classes used OER.
The single largest study to date evaluated the impact of OER adoption among students
enrolled in 15 courses at 10 institutions (Fischer, Hilton, Robinson, & Wiley, 2015). In two out
of the fifteen classes, students in the treatment (OER) group were significantly more likely to
complete the course (there were no differences in the remaining thirteen) whereas in five of the
classes students in the treatment group were significantly more likely to receive a C- or better
(there were no significant differences in nine of the classes and only in one class were control
students more likely to receive a C- or better)1. Finally, treatment students were found to have
enrolled in significantly more classes than control students during the semester of OER
implementation as well as the subsequent semester2.
The sole published Canadian open textbook efficacy study investigated the use of OER
among 143 students enrolled in a physics course at the University of British Columbia (UBC;
Hendricks et al., 2017). Compared with students enrolled in the same course in previous
semesters, the students assigned OER showed no significant differences in final exam grades
or course grade distributions.
Student perceptions. A number of studies have measured the student perceptions of
OER (see Hilton 2016 for a review). Once again, these studies reveal a consistent pattern across
several disciplines and institutional contexts. For example, of 490 students at seven U.S.
community colleges, 50% rated their open textbooks as comparable in quality to their
commercial textbooks, with an additional 40% rating the open textbooks as superior (Bliss,
2013). Similarly, approximately two-thirds of 315 business students surveyed by Feldstein and
his colleagues (2012) indicated that they preferred OER to commercial textbooks while 78%
of these respondents felt that the OER “provided access to more up-to-date material than is
available in my print textbooks” (p. 6). Finally, 78% of 910 mathematics students surveyed by
Hilton and his colleagues (2013) indicated that they would recommend OER to their peers
while 83% endorsed the statement that “Overall, the materials adequately supported the work
I did outside of class” (p. 43).
1

For these analyses, 9264 control participants were compared against 1087 treatment participants.
For these analyses, 4147 control participants were matched with 4147 treatment participants using
propensity score matching.
2

https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cjsotl_rcacea/vol9/iss1/5
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2018.1.5

2

Jhangiani et al.: Perceptions and Outcomes of Open Textbooks

The two published Canadian studies of student perceptions of OER echo the rest of the
literature, with 93% of 143 physics students at UBC and 96% of 320 post-secondary students
across BC rating their open textbooks as equal to or better than their commercial textbooks
(Hendricks et al., 2017; Jhangiani & Jhangiani, 2017).
Although the reviewed studies measured perceived quality differently, in every case, a
majority of respondents indicated favorable perceptions of OER when compared against
commercial textbooks.
Print vs. Digital Textbooks
The disruptive opening of the commercial textbook market to free or low cost open
textbooks with flexible copyright parallels and interacts with another disruption: the
availability of content (both commercial and open) on digital platforms. Digital textbooks (also
called e-textbooks) are typically accessed via the Internet and read or downloaded on digital
devices such as desktops, laptops, tablets, netbooks, e-readers, or smartphones. Digital
textbooks come in two forms (Railean, 2015): the first are page-fidelity digital textbooks that
are simply scanned photos of the original print textbook (e.g., a PDF file). The second are
reflowable digital textbooks that use a flexible formatting system and are paginated for the type
of reading device and size. Reflowable digital textbooks allow for interactive features such as
dynamic media, hyperlinks, layout modification, discussions, polling, simulations, and
learning analytics.
Digital textbook adoptions have been increasing due to their lower cost, greater
convenience, and wider access to the Internet and digital platforms (de Noyelles, Raible, &
Seilhamer, 2015; Reynolds, 2011), with one 2014 study reporting that 60% of U.S. college
students have used a digital textbook for at least one course (an increase of 18% from 2012;
Dahlstrom & Bichsel, 2014). McGraw Hill Education (which currently holds a 21% market
share) saw its digital content sales surpass its print sales for the first time in 2015 (McGraw
Hill Education, 2016). However, the adoption of digital textbooks is still impeded by nonstandardization of digital platforms, issues with distribution and discoverability, quality
concerns, differences in the reading experience, and resistance to change.
Student performance. Several studies have investigated the impact of textbook format
on learning. In one case, 538 undergraduate and graduate students showed no differences in
grades or perceived cognitive learning when using print and reflowable digital formats
(Rockinson-Szapkiw, Courduff, Carter, & Bennett, 2013). However, students who chose the etextbook demonstrated higher perceived affective and psychomotor learning than students who
chose the print textbook. Another study, which compared the perceptions and performance of
Introductory psychology students using a digital vs. print textbook, found no differences in
course grades, even as students using the page-fidelity e-textbook reported spending less time
reading for class (Shepperd, Grace, & Koch, 2008).
Daniel and Woody (2013) examined students' use and performance with digital vs. print
textbooks in both laboratory and at-home conditions. Students scored similarly across formats
and conditions; however, reading time was significantly higher in the digital conditions, with
this difference increasing for the home conditions. Self-reports of multi-tasking were
significantly higher for the home/digital condition, possibly accounting for the disparities in
reading time.
Reading time and text comprehension were also examined in an experimental study in
which university students were randomly assigned to read from an Apple iPad tablet, a Kindle
3 eBook reader, or a paper printout. Students reading printed materials had faster reading times
than those reading from eBook readers or tablets. However, students found the tablet the most

Published by Scholarship@Western, 2018

3

The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 9, Iss. 1 [2018], Art. 5

usable, followed by the eBook reader and then the printed material. There were no differences
between groups on reading comprehension (Connell, Bayliss, & Farmer, 2012).
Finally, Ackerman and Goldsmith (2011) evaluated metacognitive regulation of text
learning. Participants were asked to predict their multiple choice test performance after reading
expository text (1000-1200 words) in either digital or print format. Test performance did not
differ between the two formats under a fixed study time but performance was worse for screen
readers when the study time was self-regulated. The authors concluded that performance
differences between digital and print formats are likely metacognitive because they involved
less accurate performance predictions and more erratic study time regulation.
Student perceptions. Most studies have shown that a majority of students prefer print
to digital (e.g., Millar & Schrier, 2015; Woody, Daniel, & Baker, 2010). For example, data
from 655 student respondents of the 2011 Electronic Book and eReader Device survey revealed
that if the choice of textbook for a course were entirely theirs, 75% of students would opt for a
print textbook over a digital one (NACS OnCampus Research, 2011). Recent research that
explored the reasons for this general preference has found contradictory results. For example,
an inability to take notes or highlight text and greater convenience were among the top-cited
reasons for a preference for print (Millar & Schrier, 2015). On the other hand, aside from lower
cost, greater convenience (e.g., ability to access e-textbooks anywhere, access e-textbooks
offline, and store many e-textbooks on the same device) is typically the largest factor that drives
e-textbook adoption3 (de Noyelles et al., 2015). Moreover, three quarters of 707 undergraduate
and graduate students using e-textbooks cited functions that support reading (e.g., searching
for keywords, zooming) and studying (e.g., highlighting, note-taking) as the top features that
influenced their choice to purchase an e-textbook (de Noyelles et al., 2015). A factor that might
account for low adoption rates of e-textbooks is low digital literacy on the part of both students
and instructors.
Methodological issues. Research comparing print textbooks to digital textbooks is
difficult to assess because of the conflation of platform (e.g., digital vs. print) issues with both
content and the structure of content issues (Railean, 2015). Comparing a print textbook to a
page-fidelity digital textbook is the simplest comparison and allows for a direct comparison of
the experience of reading on paper vs. a screen. Here issues of luminance, reflection, resolution,
font, screen size, and spatial landmarks can be addressed (Myrberg & Wiberg, 2015). However,
if one compares a print textbook to a reflowable digital textbook, then the visual experience of
print vs. screen becomes conflated with the dynamic possibilities afforded by reflowable digital
textbooks. Further complexity occurs when one compares a print textbook (the vast majority
of which are commercial) with an open, reflowable digital textbook, which may include
modifications made by the instructor.
The question of which dependent variables best assess learning also need to be
addressed. Although most published studies have utilized course grades or test achievement
scores as the measure of learning, differences in textbook format may also influence the
cognitive (e.g., attention, memory), affective (e.g., preferences), and psychomotor (e.g.,
changes in behaviour) dimensions of learning (Frith & Kee, 2003; National Center for Higher
Education Management Systems, 1994).

3

Greater convenience would help explain why 90% of 367 students enrolled in an Introductory
Psychology course who were given a choice between a print textbook and a cheaper e-textbook on a
compact-disc (CD) elected to purchase a print textbook (Shepperd et al., 2008).

https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cjsotl_rcacea/vol9/iss1/5
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2018.1.5

4

Jhangiani et al.: Perceptions and Outcomes of Open Textbooks

The Present Study
The present study seeks to extend the existing literature in four ways. First, this study
constitutes only the second OER efficacy study within the context of a Canadian postsecondary institution. This is notable because almost all of the published OER efficacy research
has been conducted within U.S. institutions. Given that post-secondary tuition fees are
especially high within the United States, the ratio of the cost of course materials to tuition is
typically much higher outside of the U.S., raising the question of the generalizability of the
(admittedly uniform) findings of the existing literature. Second, we seek to disentangle the
format (digital vs. print) of the course textbook from whether it is open or commercial. This is
desirable because open textbooks are available in both digital and print format. We believe that
it is important to separate the impact on educational outcomes of enhanced access to course
materials from the strengths and limitations of the particular format(s) in which users choose
to interact with their textbook. Third, we seek to measure how students interact with their
textbook (i.e., their study habits) in order to better understand this potential mediator of course
performance. Fourth, we wish to assess the textbook perceptions and preferences of students
enrolled in sections that have adopted an open textbook as well as those that have adopted a
commercial textbook. This is desirable because every other published study has investigated
the perceptions of students assigned OER (typically asking them to compare their current
experience with their previous experiences), a method that is susceptible to reconstructive
memory bias.
In the present study we sought to address the following six questions, all within a
Canadian post-secondary context:
1. Do students using an open textbook perform differently on course exams from students
using a commercial psychology textbook?
2. Do students using an open textbook in page-fidelity digital format perform differently
on course exams from students using the same open textbook in print format?
3. Do students’ study habits vary as a function of textbook openness and format?
4. Do students’ perception of quality vary as a function of textbook openness and format?
5. Do students’ perceptions of a fair price vary as a function of textbook openness and
format?
6. Do students’ textbook format preferences vary as a function of textbook openness and
format?
Method
Participants
The sample consisted of 178 students enrolled in seven sections of an Introductory
Psychology course taught by three instructors (Dastur, Le Grand, and Penner) at Kwantlen
Polytechnic University, a mid-sized, public, Canadian undergraduate university. During the
Spring 2015 semester, two sections were assigned to adopt the digital format of an open
textbook (n = 44), and two sections were assigned to adopt the print format of an open textbook
(n = 51). For each of these conditions, one section was taught by the second author (Dastur)
and the other by the third author (Le Grand). During the Summer 2015 semester, three sections
were assigned to adopt the incumbent commercial textbook (n = 83). One of these sections was
taught by the third author (Le Grand) and the other two by the fourth author (Penner) (see Table
1). Given that all students within each section were assigned to that condition, this study

Published by Scholarship@Western, 2018

5

The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 9, Iss. 1 [2018], Art. 5

employs a quasi-experimental research design. The assignment of condition to sections was
constrained by the instructors’ previously-determined teaching schedules. Consequently (and
given the importance of the instructor variable), Le Grand’s sections provide the best insight
into the impact of textbook openness whereas both Dastur’s and Le Grand’s sections provide
insight into the impact of open textbook format.
Table 1
Course Sections by Semester, Textbook Condition, and Instructor
Semester

Commercial

Spring 2015
Summer 2015

1 x Le Grand
2 x Penner

Open Print

Open Digital

1 x Dastur
1 x Le Grand

1 x Dastur
1 x Le Grand

-

-

The modal age of the aggregated sample (between 20 and 21), the proportion of females
(59%), ethnic minorities (63%), and those for whom English was a second or subsequent
language (48%) did not vary significantly across the conditions. Two pre-existing differences
were found between students across the three conditions: (a) students assigned the commercial
textbook had completed significantly more undergraduate courses, and (b) students assigned
the commercial textbook were enrolled in significantly fewer concurrent courses.
This study received approval from the Kwantlen Polytechnic University Research
Ethics Board.
Materials
Textbooks. The commercial textbook was the 10th edition of Worth Publishers’
Psychology (Myers, 2014), whereas the open textbook was the first edition of OpenStax
College’s Psychology (OpenStax College, 2014). Both textbooks are used for both semesters
of the popular Introductory Psychology course. The bestselling Worth textbook includes 16
chapters across 685 pages whereas the OpenStax textbook (which is adopted within U.S. higher
education institutions at a similar rate to most commercial textbooks; Seaman & Seaman, 2017)
includes 15 chapters across 631 pages. Both books align with the American Psychological
Association’s (2014) recommended content commonality with at least two topics drawn from
each of the five main pillars of the field (biological, cognitive, development, social and
personality, and mental and physical health). With the exception of one additional topic in the
OpenStax book (Industrial-Organizational Psychology), both textbooks cover identical topics,
with coverage of two chapters in the OpenStax book each split into two chapters in the Worth
book. Both textbooks include learning aids such as quizzes, critical thinking exercises, lists of
key terms, and leaning objectives. Despite all of these similarities, differences remain between
the two books in content, structure, and style.
Students using the commercial textbook had the option of purchasing a print (loose-leaf
binder) format from the university bookstore (at a cost of just over CDN $100) or 180-day
access to the (reflowable) digital format (at a cost of CDN $71). Of course, students may have
acquired the textbook using other means including purchasing older or international editions,
illegally downloading the textbook, using online retailers like Amazon.com, using the copy of
the textbook on library reserve, sharing the book with a classmate, or simply going without the

https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cjsotl_rcacea/vol9/iss1/5
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2018.1.5

6

Jhangiani et al.: Perceptions and Outcomes of Open Textbooks

textbook. We did not constrain these options for ethical reasons. We also wished for the
sections utilizing the commercial textbook to serve as a naturalistic control.
The students assigned the (page-fidelity) digital format of the open textbook had the
option to order a low-cost print copy (at their own cost) or even to print the textbook at home.
Conversely, the students assigned the print format of the open textbook were able to download
the digital format for free. Because we wanted to investigate the impact of the print vs. the
digital formats of the open textbook while holding the cost constant (at zero), free4 print copies
of the open textbook were distributed to students in those two sections.
General knowledge of Psychology pre-test. On the first day of class, students in all
sections were given a 24-item, four-option, multiple-choice test that assessed their general
knowledge of psychology across each of the eight topics to be covered during the course:
Introduction to Psychology, Psychological Research, Biopsychology, States of Consciousness,
Sensation & Perception, Learning, Thinking & Intelligence, and Memory. The Pre-Test was
adapted from a larger set of 851 multiple choice questions created by psychology instructors
from six local institutions as part of a Test Bank Sprint. The questions and their potential
answers were clearly phrased and unambiguous.
Course exams. Students in all sections wrote three non-cumulative exams consisting
of approximately 60, four-option, multiple-choice questions. All of the questions assessed
students’ grasp of concepts that were covered in both textbooks. The questions and their
potential answers were clearly phrased and unambiguous.
Questionnaire. At the end of the semester, students completed an in-class
questionnaire that included both open-ended and closed-ended questions about demographic
characteristics (e.g., age, sex, ethnic minority status), level of employment (e.g., hours worked
per week), educational status (e.g., total credits completed, GPA), textbook preferences (e.g.,
print, digital, or both), perceptions of the quality of their current textbook (including a
modified5 version of the Textbook Usage and Assessment Scale [TAUS]; Gurung & Martin,
2011), and study habits (e.g., hours spent studying per week). Students using the open textbook
were additionally asked about whether they had used the alternate format (print or digital). The
last five digits of their student numbers were requested so that questionnaire data could be
matched with course performance data (described further in the Procedure section).
Procedure
Students registered for their sections using normal procedures and learned of their
assigned textbook by visiting the university bookstore, emailing the instructor, reading the
course syllabus on the course management system, or during the first day of class. A
downloadable digital (PDF) copy of the open textbook was posted to the course webpage of
the sections that were assigned this format. Print copies of the open textbook were distributed,
free of charge, to students enrolled in those two sections by the course instructor on the first
day of class.
During the final class of the semester, a research assistant visited each of the sections
to describe the study, obtain informed consent, and administer the questionnaire. The course
instructors were not present during this time. The students were informed that their decision to
4

BCcampus, a provincial organization that provides a range of shared services to post-secondary
institutions, provided the print open textbooks.
5
We used 16 out of the 22 TAUS items. Three of the deleted items were concerned with the placement
of the figures, tables, and photographs in relation to the material while the other three measured how
often these three types of resources were used to study.

Published by Scholarship@Western, 2018

7

The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 9, Iss. 1 [2018], Art. 5

participate or not was voluntary and that their decision would not be revealed to their instructor
until after the course grades had been submitted. Student participants were offered a 1% bonus
using the Departmental Psychology Lab research pool. Students who chose not to participate
were also offered equivalent bonus marks if they completed a different study in the research
pool. The research assistant addressed any questions posed by the students before distributing
the informed consent forms and a copy of the questionnaire. The students took about 10 minutes
to complete the questionnaire. At the end of this procedure, the research assistant gathered the
informed consent forms and completed surveys, thanked the students for their participation,
and left the classroom.
Upon the conclusion of the course, the instructors submitted the pre-test and exam
grades for all students enrolled in the seven sections to the research assistant, who merged these
data with the questionnaire data using the last five digits of the student numbers. Once the data
had been merged, the partial student numbers were deleted from the dataset.
Timeline of assessments. The study involved 7 sections of Introductory Psychology.
Assessments ran across two, 15-week semesters (including 1 week for Reading Break). We
assessed four sections during the Spring semester (January - April, 2015): 2 sections were
assigned the open, print textbook and 2 sections were assigned the open, digital textbook. All
three sections assessed during the Summer semester (May - August, 2015) were assigned the
commercial textbook.
On the first day of class, those students in attendance completed the General Knowledge
of Psychology Pre-Test. The Pre-Test was administered in-class by the course instructor and
students were given feedback shortly after completion. Referenced against the first day of class
(±1 week to accommodate different sections), the three course exams were delivered after 5
weeks, 11 weeks, and 15 weeks.
Instructional mode. All three instructors taught their classes once a week in 3-hour
lecture format. The instructors were not blind to condition but were careful to coordinate their
respective lectures so that the same topics were being covered. The three course exams were
identical across instructors and sections. However, the instructors did not coordinate the
amount of time spent on each topic, their instructional delivery style (e.g., more formal
lecturing vs. more class discussion), or the types of assessments used beyond the course exams.
Results
General Psychology Knowledge Pre-Test
There were no significant differences in general psychology knowledge between
students enrolled in the sections assigned the commercial (M = 41.8%, SD = 11.4%), open
print (M = 42.2%, SD = 8.2%), or open digital (M = 41.0%, SD = 10.2%) textbooks [F(2, 149)
= 0.16, p = .85, 𝜂𝑝2 = .002].
Exam Performance
A MANOVA with textbook condition (commercial vs. open print vs. open digital) as
the independent variable, instructor as a covariate, and performance on the three exams as the
dependent variables attained statistical significance for both textbook condition [Pillai’s Trace
= .126, F(6, 342) = 3.83, p = .001, 𝜂𝑝2 = .06] and instructor [Pillai’s Trace = .077, F(3,170) =
4.73, p = .003, 𝜂𝑝2 = .08]. A univariate F test showed an impact of textbook condition on
students’ performance on the third exam [F(2,172) = 3.42, p = .04, 𝜂𝑝2 = .04], with pairwise
comparisons indicating that students assigned the commercial textbook scored significantly

https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cjsotl_rcacea/vol9/iss1/5
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2018.1.5

8

Jhangiani et al.: Perceptions and Outcomes of Open Textbooks

lower than those assigned the digital format of the open textbook (p = .01). There were no
differences in exam performance across types of textbook for the first two exams (see Figure
1).

Figure 1. Mean performance on three course exams as a function of textbook openness and format (all
sections). 95% confidence intervals are represented in the figure by the error bars attached to each
column.

Because of the significant impact of instructor on exam performance, we ran a second
MANOVA, with data only from the one instructor (Le Grand) who taught one section in each
of the three conditions. Once again, textbook condition impacted exam performance [Pillai’s
Trace = .511, F(6, 138) = 7.901, p = .000, 𝜂𝑝2 = .26]. In this case, the univariate F test showed
an impact of textbook condition on students’ performance on the first exam [F(2,70) = 18.98,
p=.000, 𝜂𝑝2 = .35], with pairwise comparisons revealing that students assigned the commercial
textbook scored significantly lower than those assigned either the print or digital formats of the
open textbook (p’s = .000). There were no differences in exam performance across types of
textbook for the first and third exams (see Figure 2).

Published by Scholarship@Western, 2018

9

The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 9, Iss. 1 [2018], Art. 5

Figure 2. Mean performance on three course exams as a function of textbook openness and format (Le
Grand’s sections). 95% confidence intervals are represented in the figure by the error bars attached to
each column.

Study Habits
In order to investigate students’ study habits, a MANOVA was conducted with textbook
condition (commercial vs. open print vs. open digital) as the independent variable and
instructor as a covariate. The dependent variables included the proportion of weekly readings
completed, the amount of time per week spent studying for the course, the amount of time per
week spent studying the textbook, and the amount of time per week spent studying the lecture
material. The MANOVA attained statistical significance for textbook condition [Pillai’s Trace
= .162, F(8, 338) = 3.72, p = .000, 𝜂𝑝2 = .08]. Univariate F tests showed that students across the
three conditions spent different amounts of time per week studying for the course [F(2, 171) =
4.35, p = .01, 𝜂𝑝2 = .05] and the lecture material [F(2, 171) = 7.88, p = .001, 𝜂𝑝2 = .08]. Pairwise
comparisons showed that students assigned the commercial textbook reported spending
significantly more time per week studying than those assigned either the print or digital format
of the open textbook (p’s = .007 and .02; see Figure 3). There were no differences between the
conditions in the amount of time students reported spending reading their textbook [F(2, 171)
= 2.38, p = .10, 𝜂𝑝2 = .03] or the proportion of completed weekly readings [F(2, 171) = 0.45, p
= .64, 𝜂𝑝2 = .01].

https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cjsotl_rcacea/vol9/iss1/5
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2018.1.5

10

Jhangiani et al.: Perceptions and Outcomes of Open Textbooks

Figure 3. Students’ self-reported study habits as a function of textbook openness and format. 95%
confidence intervals are represented in the figure by the error bars attached to each column.

Perceptions of Quality
An ANOVA of the global ratings of textbook quality attained statistical significance
[F(2, 174) = 2.14, p = .05, 𝜂𝑝2 = .03]. Post-hoc Tukey tests revealed that the print format of the
open textbook (M = 3.90, SD = 0.88) was rated significantly higher in quality than the
commercial textbook (M = 3.54, SD = 0.83), with the digital format of the open textbook (M
= 3.73, SD = 0.82) not significantly different from either. Scores on the modified TAUS (α =
0.91) painted a consistent picture, with a MANOVA attaining statistical significance [Pillai’s
Trace = .292, F(32, 310) = 1.66, p = .02, 𝜂𝑝2 = .15]. Univariate ANOVAs showed significant
differences on seven out of the sixteen dimensions of the modified TAUS, with pairwise
comparisons further revealing that the print format of the open textbook was rated significantly
higher than the commercial textbook on writing clarity, writing engagement, effective everyday
life examples, effective research examples, and helpful study aids. In addition, both formats of
the open textbook were rated significantly higher on the number of study aids, and the print
format of the open textbook was rated significantly higher than the commercial textbook or the
digital format of the open textbook on relevant everyday life examples (all p’s <.05; see Table
2). None of the other dimensions of the modified TAUS showed any significant differences
between the three conditions. There was no dimension on which the commercial textbook was
rated higher than either format of the open textbook.

Published by Scholarship@Western, 2018

11

The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 9, Iss. 1 [2018], Art. 5

Table 2
Students’ Ratings on the Textbook Assessment and Usage Scale
Commercial Print (1)
Open Print (2)
Textbook Characteristics
M
SD
M
Helpful figures
4.4
1.2
5.0

SD
1.3

Easy to understand figures
Helpful tables
Easy to understand tables
Relevant photographs
Effective research examples
Helpful research examples
Effective everyday examples
Helpful everyday examples
Relevant everyday examples
Number of study aids
Helpful study aids
Visually appealing textbook
Visually distracting textbook
Engaging writing
Understandable/clear writing

1.3
1.1
1.3
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.5
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.6
1.9
1.6
1.5
1.5

4.6
4.6
4.6
4.8
4.9
4.7
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.3
4.2
4.9
3.1
3.9
4.7

1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.3

5.0
5.0
5.0
5.2
5.4
5.5
5.4
5.6
5.7
5.2
5.1
4.8
2.6
4.6
5.3

Open Digital (3)
M
SD
4.5
1.4
4.9
4.6
4.9
4.9
5.1
5.2
5.0
5.3
5.0
4.9
4.8
4.8
3.3
4.4
5.2

1.1
1.4
1.3
1.1
1.4
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.1
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.3

Post hoc
1=2=3
1=2=3
1=2=3
1=2=3
1=2=3
2>1
1=2=3
2>1
1=2=3
2 > 1, 3
2, 3 > 1
2>1
1=2=3
1=2=3
2>1
2>1

Note: The numbers in parentheses in column heads refer to the numbers used for illustrating significant differences in the last column titled “Post hoc.”

https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cjsotl_rcacea/vol9/iss1/5
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2018.1.5

12

Jhangiani et al.: Perceptions and Outcomes of Open Textbooks

Readability Analyses
In order to ascertain whether the commercial and open textbooks are comparable on
readability, we ran computer-conducted readability analyses (using seven readability
algorithms) of eight representative sections in each textbook6. As seen in Table 3, although the
mean word length of these sections did not significantly differ across textbooks, the open
textbook scored significantly higher on four out of the seven indices of readability (indicating
a higher required level of education).
Table 3
A Comparison of Seven Measures of Readability between the Commercial and Open
Textbooks
Commercial

Open

M

SD

M

SD

t

p

Cohen’s d

Word length

1287

1007

1100

506

0.467

0.647

0.24

Flesch-Kincaid
Grade Level

9.51

0.79

11.65

1.66

-3.296

0.005

1.65

Gunning-Fog Score

12.46

1.04

14.84

2.03

-2.951

0.011

1.48

Coleman-Liau
Index

14.2

1.12

14.31

0.86

-0.225

0.825

0.11

SMOG Index

12.08

0.64

13.81

1.43

-3.135

0.007

1.56

Automated
Readability Index

10.04

0.74

12.14

1.83

-3.01

0.014

1.51

Spache Score

4.46

0.34

4.84

0.44

-1.919

0.076

0.97

Dale-Chall Score

6.08

0.66

6.38

0.38

-1.118

0.282

0.56

Average Grade
Level

9.83

0.64

11.13

1.18

-2.746

0.016

1.37

Note. N = 8

Perceptions of Fair Price
When asked what they consider to be a fair price for their textbook (regardless of what
they paid), students assigned the commercial textbook (which cost >$100) estimated that a fair
price for it would be $53.51 (SD = $29.71). This was not significantly different from the
estimated fair prices for the print (M = $49.90, SD = $27.22) or digital (M = $47.68, SD =
$24.20) formats of the (free) open textbook [F(2, 169) = 0.67, p = .51, 𝜂𝑝2 = .01].

6

These sections focused on correlational research, neural structure and communication, structuralism
and functionalism, reconstructive memory, schedules of reinforcement, components of language, stages
of sleep, and Gestalt principles of perception.

Published by Scholarship@Western, 2018

13

The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 9, Iss. 1 [2018], Art. 5

Preferences for Print vs. Digital Format
When asked about their preference between print and digital textbooks (and told to not
consider cost), students in all three conditions reported a preference for print textbooks
(whether commercial or open) [𝜒2(4, N = 178) = 6.52, p = .16; see Figure 4]. Having both print
and digital formats was the second most popular preference while digital-only was the least
popular. Despite these reported preferences, over the course of the semester only 16% of
students assigned the print format of the open textbook reportedly downloaded a digital copy
and only 18% of students assigned the digital format of the open textbook chose to print it (of
these, 75% elected to print it all at once). Ten percent of the students assigned the commercial
print textbook reported using its digital format, with a further ten percent using both print and
digital formats.

Figure 4. Students’ textbook format preferences as a function of textbook openness and format.

Discussion
This study sought to address six key questions, the first of which concerned whether
students using an open textbook perform differently from students using a commercial
textbook. We found that students assigned the open textbook, in either print or digital formats,
performed either no differently or better on their course exams than students assigned the
commercial textbook. These results mirror the rest of the OER efficacy literature. Students in
all three conditions were comparable on most demographic variables with the exception of
students in the commercial textbook condition having completed a greater number of
undergraduate credits and taking fewer concurrent courses, most likely due to a seasonal

https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cjsotl_rcacea/vol9/iss1/5
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2018.1.5

14

Jhangiani et al.: Perceptions and Outcomes of Open Textbooks

selection bias. However, this confound only reinforces the result because it is reasonable that
students who have taken more courses and who have a smaller course load should perform
better on their course exams.
There were no differences in exam performance between students assigned the digital
and print formats of the open textbook. This result, which addresses the second research
question, is encouraging given the general preference students express for print textbooks. This
finding also carries great practical significance as open textbooks in digital format can be
distributed to students entirely free of cost, evidently with no negative impact on exam
performance. Of course, this does not rule out the possibility that the openness and format of
the textbook might influence other important outcomes (e.g., metacognition).
The third research question, concerning students’ study habits and whether these varied
by condition, yielded mixed results. Students across the three conditions did not differ in the
number of hours per week they reported spending studying the textbook or in the proportion of
their weekly assigned readings that they typically completed. These results suggest that there
were no meaningful differences in how often and how effectively students engaged with their
assigned textbook. Given that students’ exam performance was gauged solely by their answers
to multiple-choice questions that could have been answered by reading any of the textbooks, it
appears that students’ textbook studying habits do not explain the differences in exam
performance.
The students assigned the commercial textbook reported spending a significantly
greater number of hours per week studying for the course than students in either of the open
textbook conditions, a difference that might be traced to the greater amount of time per week
that students assigned the commercial textbook also reported spending reviewing lecture
material. Clues as to why students assigned a commercial textbook would spend more time
reviewing lecture material might appear in their perceptions of the quality of their assigned
textbook.
Students rated the quality of the print format of the open textbook to be significantly
superior to the commercial textbook. Although it is not clear how exactly the students
interpreted the global question of “quality,” their TAUS ratings indicate that they perceived the
print format of the open textbook to be superior on substantive dimensions such as the
effectiveness of the research examples and the clarity of the writing. Although it might be seen
as remarkable that the first edition of a textbook that is available for free (in digital format) or
at low cost (in print format) was rated as equal or superior in quality to a commercial textbook
in its tenth edition, this result also mirrors the existing literature on student perceptions of OER
(Hilton, 2016).
Reinforcing this perception are the students’ converging estimates across the three
conditions of a fair price for their assigned textbook (all around $50), a result that addresses
the fifth research question. Recalling that students assigned the commercial textbook would
have spent over $100 whereas students assigned either format of the open textbook would have
spent nothing, this result also helps address the persistent question of whether students will
equally value a resource that they receive free of cost.
The sixth and final research question concerned students’ preferences for print vs.
digital format. Consistent with earlier research (e.g., Millar & Schrier, 2015), students across
all three conditions showed a preference towards print format. Although this result did not vary
significantly by condition, this tendency was less pronounced among students who were
assigned the digital format of the open textbook. Finally, it is worth noting that although print
remained the most popular preference for textbook format, in practice, the vast majority of
students accepted the default format, even when this was digital. This finding is consistent with
the existing literature on choice and decision-making which shows that making an option the

Published by Scholarship@Western, 2018

15

The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 9, Iss. 1 [2018], Art. 5

default choice significantly increases the likelihood that it will be chosen (e.g., Davidai,
Gilovich, & Ross, 2012; Johnson, Bellman, & Lohse, 2002).
The present study extends the existing literature in several ways: Importantly, it is the
first OER efficacy study that has attempted to disentangle the format of the textbook (digital
vs. print) from the cost savings associated with its open license. Second, it is only the second
OER efficacy study that includes measures of students’ study habits, a potential mediator for
any effects of textbook openness and format. Third, the choice of a between-subjects design
eliminated the possibility of memory biases colouring participants’ textbook perceptions and
preferences. Fourth, this study is the first to utilize a multidimensional measure of students’
perceptions of textbook quality (the TAUS) that is both reliable and valid. Fifth, unlike the
other published study that considered the efficacy of an open textbook in Psychology courses
(Hilton & Laman, 2012), the present study measures and controls for preexisting differences
between the groups, standardized the commercial textbook, and does not involve the adaptation
of the open textbook to include additional pedagogical features. Sixth and finally, this
represents only the second OER efficacy study within the Canadian post-secondary system.
However, despite important contextual differences between the Canadian and U.S. postsecondary systems, the key results concerning efficacy and perceptions were consistent with
the existing literature, which is based almost exclusively on research at U.S. institutions.
Limitations
To enhance our study’s ecological validity, we used a quasi-experimental design in the
naturalistic setting of students taking a semester-long introductory psychology course. This
design choice introduced several limitations. For instance, although we measured a range of
demographic characteristics along with the baseline level of general psychology knowledge,
we did not randomly assign individual students to the different conditions. Moreover, two out
of the three instructors did not teach sections across all three conditions, a function of
previously determined teaching schedules. The sections assigned the commercial textbook
were also taught only during the summer semester, when students tend to take fewer courses
(as reflected in our sample) and, at least in our experience, tend to perform better. Future
research would do well to address these potential selection biases.
Another potential confound in our study is that the open textbook (in its first edition)
and the commercial textbook (in its tenth) are written by different authors with differences in
the breadth and depth of content coverage, organization, and writing style. Of course, this
problem is not limited to comparisons between commercial and open textbooks. Indeed, even
among commercial introductory psychology textbooks, there is “a heterogeneous assortment
of pedagogical and critical thinking programs, with core terminology and references showing
minimal overlap” (Griggs & Marek, 2001, p. 256). Our attempt to measure the readability of
both textbooks showed mixed results, with four of seven indices showing small differences.
We also acknowledge here that readability analyses have been criticized for their use of
surface-level indicators (e.g., average sentence length, the number of polysyllabic words, the
percentage of unique words, etc.) as substitutes for the complex cognitive processes involved
in reading (Duffy, 1985; Griesinger & Klene, 1984; Shriver, 2000).
A separate concern is that the cost savings associated with the open textbook may have
created a halo effect (Thorndike, 1920) resulting in more positive perceptions of that textbook.
Future research should therefore measure students’ perceptions of the different textbooks while
holding cost constant. It is also worth noting that students’ ratings of textbook quality may not
necessarily reflect those of faculty, who may place greater value on the breadth and depth of
coverage in the commercial textbook than the engagement of the writing. Of course, the notion

https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cjsotl_rcacea/vol9/iss1/5
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2018.1.5

16

Jhangiani et al.: Perceptions and Outcomes of Open Textbooks

of quality may be operationalized differently and may include the perceptions of faculty,
perceptions of students, or impact on learning outcomes.
Finally, given that we relied on self-reports for (a) number of hours spent per week
reading the textbook, (b) the proportion of weekly assigned readings completed, (c) number of
hours per week spent studying the lecture material, (d) number of hours per week spent
studying the lecture material, and (e) number of hours per week spent studying for the course,
future research should look to corroborate these findings using more objective measures.
Conclusion
The present study’s findings replicate the rest of the OER efficacy literature within a
Canadian context by showing that students assigned an open textbook perform the same as or
better than those assigned a commercial textbook on course exams. The study also extends the
literature by demonstrating no discernible impact of textbook format on exam performance or
textbook-related study habits, and finding that students perceive a textbook that is free and
open to be superior in quality and similar in perceived market value to one that is expensive
and commercially produced. However, the differences in perceived quality between the
textbooks together with the seasonal selection bias, the large effect on course performance of
the instructors, and other limitations temper a clear-cut interpretation of the results.
On the one hand, given the number of factors that can influence a student’s course
performance—including intelligence, motivation, and professor-student rapport—it should
hardly seem surprising that the choice of assigned textbook does not greatly influence
educational outcomes. But on the other, given the negative impact on students of commercial
textbook costs and the positive impact of perpetual access to OER, instructors would do well
to evaluate the suitability of available open textbooks. Carefully-designed empirical research
on the outcomes, perceptions, and use of open textbooks in both naturalistic and experimental
settings will help address the limitations of the present study.
Overall, we believe the results provide cautious encouragement for instructors
considering adopting open textbooks for their courses. Indeed, given the availability of relevant
and high quality open textbooks, the question we believe instructors should ask themselves is:
how much better would students have to perform when assigned commercial textbooks to
justify the negative impact of their high cost?
References
Ackerman, R., & Goldsmith, M. (2011). Metacognitive regulation of text learning: On screen
versus on paper. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(1), 18-32.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022086
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://library.educause.edu/resources/2015/1/assessing-theimpact-and-efficacy-of-the-openaccess-chemwiki-textbook-project
American Psychological Association. (2014). Strengthening the common core of the
introductory psychology course. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association, Board of Educational Affairs. Retrieved from
http://www.apa.org/ed/governance/bea/intro-psych-report.pdf
Bliss, T., Robinson, T. J., Hilton, J., & Wiley, D. (2013). An OER COUP: College teacher and
student perceptions of open educational resources. Journal of Interactive Media in
Education, 17(1), 1–25. http://doi.org/10.5334/2013-04

Published by Scholarship@Western, 2018

17

The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 9, Iss. 1 [2018], Art. 5

Connell, C., Bayliss, L., & Farmer, W. (2012). Effects of e-book readers and tablet computers
on reading comprehension. International Journal of Instructional Media, 39(2), 13140.
Creative Commons. (2015). State of the commons. Retrieved from
https://stateof.creativecommons.org/2015/sotc2015.pdf
Dahlstrom, E., & Bichsel, J. (2014, October 30). Study of students and information technology,
2014. Retrieved from https://library.educause.edu/resources/2014/10/study-ofstudents-and-information-technology-2014
Daniel, D. B., & Woody, W. D. (2013). E-textbooks at what cost? Performance and use of
electronic v. print texts. Computers & Education, 62(C), 18-23.
https://doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.016
Davidai, S., Gilovich, T., & Ross, L. D. (2012). The meaning of default options for potential
organ donors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(38), 1520115205. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211695109
de Noyelles, A., Raible, J., & Seilhamer, R. (2015). Exploring students’ e-textbook practices
in higher education. Educause Review. Retrieved from
http://er.educause.edu/articles/2015/7/exploring-students-etextbook-practices-inhigher-education
Duffy, T. M. (1985). Readability formulas: What’s the use? In T. M. Duffy & R. Waller (Eds.),
Designing usable texts (pp. 113-143). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
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, 2, 1-9. Retrieved from
http://www.eurodl.org/index.php?article=533
Fischer, L., Hilton, J., Robinson T. J., & Wiley, D. (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.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12528-015-9105-6
Florida Virtual Campus. (2016). 2016 Florida student textbook survey. Retrieved from
https://florida.theorangegrove.org/og/file/3a65c507-2510-42d7-814cffdefd394b6c/1/2016%20Student%20Textbook%20Survey.pdf
Frith, K. H., & Kee, C. C. (2003). The effect of communication on nursing student outcomes
in a web-based course. Journal of Nursing Education, 42(8), 350-358.
https://doi.org/10.3928/0148-4834-20030801-06
Griesinger, W. S., & Klene, R. R. (1984). Readability of introductory psychology textbooks:
Flesch versus student ratings. Teaching of Psychology, 11(2), 90-91.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top1102_8
Griggs, R. A., & Marek, P. M. (2001). Similarity of introductory psychology textbooks: Reality
or illusion? Teaching of Psychology, 28(4), 254-256.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328023TOP2804_03
Gurung, R. A. R., & Martin, R. (2011). Predicting textbook reading: The Textbook Assessment
and Usage Scale. Teaching of Psychology, 38(1), 22-28.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628310390913
Hall, A. (2013). It's time to buy those god-awful textbooks! The Carillon. Retrieved
from http://www.carillonregina.com/its-time-to-buy-those-god-awful-textbooks/
Hendricks, C., Reinsberg, S., & Rieger, G. (2017). The adoption of an open textbook in a large
Physics course: An analysis of cost, outcomes, use, and perceptions. The International
Review of Research in Open And Distributed Learning, 18(4).
http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i4.3006

https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cjsotl_rcacea/vol9/iss1/5
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2018.1.5

18

Jhangiani et al.: Perceptions and Outcomes of Open Textbooks

Hilton III, 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9434-9
Hilton III, J., & Laman, C. (2012). One college’s use of an open psychology textbook. Open
Learning, 27(3), 265-272. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2012.716657
Hilton III, J., 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).
http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v14i4.1523
Jhangiani, R. S., & Jhangiani, S. (2017). Investigating the perceptions, use, and impact of open
textbooks: A survey of post-secondary students in British Columbia. The International
Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(4).
http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i4.3012
Johnson, E. J., Bellman, S., & Lohse, G. L. (2002). Defaults, framing, and privacy: Why opting
in-opting out. Marketing Letters, 13(1), 5-15.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015044207315
Justice Laws Website. (2008). Book importation regulations. Retrieved from http://lawslois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-99-324/FullText.html
Martin, H., Versluis, A., Cassidy, M., Ward, R., Green, N., & Cheskes, B. (2017). University
of Guelph student textbook survey. Retrieved from
https://www.lib.uoguelph.ca/sites/default/files/uofg_student_textbooksurvey_report.pdf
McGraw Hill Education. (2016). McGraw-Hill Education reports sales of digital units overtake
print in its U.S. higher education group in 2015 [Press release]. Retrieved from
http://www.mheducation.com/news-media/press-releases/reports-sales-digital-unitsovertake-print-us-higher-education-group-2015.html
Millar, M., & Schrier, T. (2015). Digital or printed textbooks: Which do students prefer and
why? Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 15(2), 166-185.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15313220.2015.1026474
Myers, D. G. (2014). Psychology (10th ed.). New York, NY: Worth.
Myrberg, C., & Wiberg, N. (2015). Screen vs. paper: What is the difference for reading and
learning? Insights: the UKSG journal, 28(2), 49–54. http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.236
NACS OnCampus Research. (2011, March). Update: Electronic book and eReader device
report. Retrieved from
http://www.nacs.org/LinkClick.aspx%3Ffileticket%3DuIf2NoXApKQ%253D%26tab
id%3D2471%26mid%3D3210
National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. (1994). A preliminary study of
the feasibility and utility for national policy of instructional 'good practice' indicators
in undergraduate education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
OpenStax. (2014). Psychology. Retrieved from https://openstax.org/details/psychology
Railean, E. (2015). Psychological and pedagogical considerations in digital textbook use and
development. Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
Reynolds, R. (2011). Trends influencing the growth of digital textbooks in US higher
education. Publishing Research Quarterly, 27(2), 178-187.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-011-9216-5
Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. J., Courduff, J., Carter, K., & Bennett, D. (2013). Electronic versus
traditional print textbooks: A comparison study on the influence of university students’
learning. Computers & Education, 63, 259-266.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.022

Published by Scholarship@Western, 2018

19

The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 9, Iss. 1 [2018], Art. 5

Seaman, J. E. & Seaman, J. (2017). Opening the textbook: Educational resources in U.S. higher
education, 2017. Retrieved from https://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/oer.html
Shepperd, J. A., Grace, J. L., & Koch, E. J. (2008). Evaluating the electronic textbook: Is it
time to dispense with the paper text? Teaching of Psychology, 35(1), 2-5.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00986280701818532
Shriver, K. A. (2000). Readability formulas in the new millennium: what's the use? ACM
Journal of Computer Documentation, 24(3), 138-140.
https://doi.org/10.1145/344599.344638
Thorndike, E. L. (1920). A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 4(1), 25-29. http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0071663
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2017, August 13). Consumer price index – All urban
consumers: College textbooks. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/data/
U.S. PIRG. (2014). Fixing the broken textbook market. Retrieved from
http://www.uspirg.org/reports/usp/fixing-broken-textbook-market
Wiley, D., Bliss, T. J., & McEwen, M. (2014). Open educational resources: A review of the
literature. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of
Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 781–789). New York,
NY: Springer.
Woody, W. D., Daniel, D. B., & Baker, C. A. (2010). E-books or textbooks: Students prefer
textbooks. Computers & Education, 55, 945-948.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.04.005

https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cjsotl_rcacea/vol9/iss1/5
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2018.1.5

20