View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.

uk brought to you by CORE

provided by Liberty University Digital Commons

DO STUDENTS USING ELECTRONIC BOOKS DISPLAY DIFFERENT READING

COMPREHENSION AND MOTIVATION LEVELS THAN STUDENTS USING

TRADITIONAL PRINT BOOKS?

by

Casey L. Wells

Liberty University

A Dissertation Proposal Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Education

Liberty University

November, 2012
 Do Students Using Electronic Books Display Different Reading
Comprehension and Motivation Levels than Students Using Traditional Print Books?
By Casey Lee Wells

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education

Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA

November, 2012

APPROVED BY:

Amanda Rockinson-Szapkiw, Ed.D., Committee Chair

David Holder, Ph.D., Committee Member

Daphne O’Brien, Ph.D., Committee Member

Scott Watson, Ph.D., Associate Dean, Advanced Programs

2
 ABSTRACT

The effect of electronic books on the reading comprehension of middle and high school

students was examined using an experimental posttest-only control-group design. A

convenience sample of 140 randomly assigned middle and high school English students

at an independent school in eastern North Carolina participated. Half of the students used

passages from text read on tablets while half utilized traditional print text passages. Data

was collected during one class period in which the reading comprehension section of the

Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests®, a 35 minute test containing 48 questions, was

administered. Reading comprehension data was analyzed using an independent t-test.

The effect of electronic books on the reading motivation of middle and high school

students was examined using a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest control-group design.

All students from the Reading Comprehension testing took the initial Motivations for

Reading Questionnaire, a 15-20 minute survey containing 53 questions, on day two. A

posttest MRQ was administered in which 27 participants completed the MRQ after

reading a book excerpt in paper form, and 27 participants completed the MRQ after

reading the same excerpt in electronic form. Reading motivation data was analyzed

using a MANOVA. Results demonstrated no significant differences in either reading

comprehension or motivation levels based on book format.

Descriptors: Electronic books, reading comprehension, reading motivation.

3
 Acknowledgements

A sentence could never begin to describe the thanks that I owe my family. My

wife and I have often joked that she deserves the degree as much as I do, and that is

absolutely true. Without her support, there is no way this would have been

accomplished. I look forward to spending time with all of you that doesn’t involve

stopping to work on coursework or some aspect of the dissertation.

I owe a great deal of thanks to my chair, Dr. Szapkiw, and committee members

Drs. Holder and O’Brien. Dr. Szapkiw, you are an amazing “solutions” person. For

every problem I presented, and there were many, you handled them with a positive

attitude that always put my concerns at ease. Dr. Holder, your constructive feedback

forced me to consider many aspects of the research that aided my understanding

greatly. Dr. O’Brien, it was a great advantage to simply walk down the hall and

discuss issues with you, and I thank you for the time you put into the research.

Finally, to the research school, I owe many thanks. To the administrators who

allowed me to conduct this study, even knowing how hectic the research days would

be, I am grateful. To the faculty who worked so diligently to implement the research

and ensure its success, I offer my thanks. To the students, your volunteering to help

me attain this goal speaks volumes about your character.

4
 Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. 4
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... 8
List of Abbreviation ............................................................................................................ 9
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 10
EBook Adoption ............................................................................................................ 12
Theoretical Basis ........................................................................................................... 16
Problem Statement ........................................................................................................ 18
Purpose Statement ......................................................................................................... 20
Significance of the Study .............................................................................................. 21
Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 22
Research Hypotheses in Null Form ............................................................................... 22
Identification of Variables ............................................................................................. 25
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................. 28
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 28
Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................. 28
Comprehension .......................................................................................................... 28
Motivation ................................................................................................................. 31
The Transition to eBooks .............................................................................................. 33
Current and Projected Data........................................................................................ 33
International Influence ............................................................................................... 36
College Libraries ....................................................................................................... 36
Medical Libraries ....................................................................................................... 37
Distance learning ....................................................................................................... 38
Benefits and Limitations of eBooks .............................................................................. 39
Limitations of eBooks ............................................................................................... 39
Benefits of eBooks..................................................................................................... 41
eBooks in Academic Environments .............................................................................. 42
eBooks in College Courses ........................................................................................ 42
eBooks in Elementary Schools .................................................................................. 46

5
 eBooks in Middle and High Schools ......................................................................... 49
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 51
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ........................................................................ 52
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 52
Participants .................................................................................................................... 52
Setting............................................................................................................................ 54
Procedures ..................................................................................................................... 61
Research Design ............................................................................................................ 65
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 66
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS ....................................................................................... 69
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 69
Question One: Independent t-Test................................................................................. 69
Descriptive Statistics ................................................................................................. 69
Inferential Statistics ................................................................................................... 71
Question Two: MANOVA ........................................................................................... 72
Descriptive Statistics ................................................................................................. 72
Inferential Statistics ................................................................................................... 77
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 78
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION .................................................................................... 80
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 80
Review of Methodology ................................................................................................ 80
Summary of Results ...................................................................................................... 82
Relationship to Prior Research ...................................................................................... 83
Theoretical Implications ................................................................................................ 85
Practical Implications .................................................................................................... 87
Assumptions and Limitations ........................................................................................ 88
Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................................ 90
Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................................ 92
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 94
APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................. 114
APPENDIX B ................................................................................................................. 116

6
APPENDIX C ................................................................................................................. 119
APPENDIX D ................................................................................................................. 120
APPENDIX E ................................................................................................................. 121

7
 List of Tables

Table 4.2:
Descriptive Statistics for Reading Comprehension: Group Assignments…………….68

Table 4.3:
Descriptive Statistics for Reading Comprehension: Reading Motivation ……………71

Table 4.4:
Descriptive Statistics for Reading Comprehension: Correlation Matrix………………74

8
 List of Abbreviations

Confirmatory Fit Index (CFI)

Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests® (GMRT®)

Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA)

Motivations for Reading Questionnaire (MRQ)

9
 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

The use of electronic books continues to expand as eBooks are increasingly

adopted by academic communities. Major publishers, such as McGraw-Hill, Pearson,

and John Wiley & Sons, are working with colleges and universities to expand eBook

adoption. Some colleges and universities now charge students a mandatory course-

materials fee; this fee includes the use of the course eBook (Acker, 2011; Young, 2010).

The University of California-Berkeley, University of Minnesota, University of

Wisconsin, University of Virginia, and Cornell University now require the use of eBooks

in certain courses (Abutaleb, 2012). Increased eBook offerings, and mandatory use of

eBooks for some college courses, will continue to drive expansion of eBooks into the

educational environment. With the increased use of mobile devices in the K-12 setting,

the 2011 Horizon Report projected a one year or less timeframe for school systems to

begin widespread use of eBooks (Johnson, Smith, Willis, Levine, & Haywood, 2011).

The 2012 Horizon Report followed with a prediction of widespread use of tablet

computers within a one-year timeframe (Johnson, Adams, & Cummins, 2012). As

eBooks are increasingly adopted in the K-12 setting, it is necessary to consider their

effect on academic performance. Reading comprehension is a foundational skill, with

instruction beginning in kindergarten and continuing throughout the educational process

(Pardo, 2004). There is a direct link connecting level of comprehension to the transaction

between reader and text (Kucer, 2001). Cognitive science views this transaction as

occurring when the body engages the physical world and thus studies transaction in the

context of interactions between people and environment (Gibbs, 2003). Research

10
displaying the effect of format on transaction has been mixed. A study using random

assignment of 40 adults required groups to read from either a paper or electronic text and

found no difference in recall levels and information retrieval based upon text format

(Morineau, Blanche, Tobin, & Gueguen, 2005). This study used electronic books read on

a Pocket PC using a thin film transistor LCD screen with 240 x 320 pixels and back-

illumination (Morineau et. al., 2005). A separate study found reading comprehension to

be superior using the print format (Noyes & Garland, 2008). Noyes & Garland (2008)

were reporting the results of studies conducted using Cathode Ray Tube screens, and

admitted that technological improvements could lead to computer and paper equivalence.

This contradiction in results displays the need for further study. Also inherent in this

study is the need to determine how new technology has altered results. The two studies

noted used text passages read on different types of screens. The current study will use

passages read on Lenovo X220 Tablets. These tablets offer 12.5 inch, LED backlit

screens with a resolution of 1366 x 768. Tablet devices have proven effective tools for

reading instruction in grades K-5 (Dundar & Akcayir, 2012), but this research needs to be

extended through high school. This research will not incorporate electronic books read

using e-ink technology. E-ink devices, such as Amazon’s Kindle, feature resolutions of

600 x 800 and are composed of microcapsules containing charged ink granules (Torres,

2012). When the device changes the electric field, it forces either the white or black

granules to move to the top of the capsule, displaying text (Torres, 2012).

Reading motivation is a second key factor in reading performance. Motivated

readers work harder to build meaning in their reading and display increased

comprehension (Pardo, 2004). eBooks are currently being promoted as a less expensive

11
and more efficient method for reading (Jones & Brown, 2011). Such efficient,

inexpensive availability affects selection, and selection of high-interest material has been

shown to increase motivation and engagement (Flowerday, Schraw, & Stevens, 2004;

Jones & Brown, 2011; Marinak & Gambrell, 2008). Thus, the effect of eBook use on

reading motivation is an essential component for researching eBooks and reading

comprehension. If the eBook format has positive or no effect on comprehension and

motivation, the many benefits regarding portability and cost encourage continued use. If

the effect is negative, however, the adoption must be reconsidered.

This study examined middle and high school students’ use of a tablet computer to

read eBook passages displayed using Riverside Publishing’s (2012) Testing Interface.

The study determined the effect of eBooks on the reading comprehension and motivation

levels of middle and high school students.

Chapter one will provide an extensive background regarding the transition from

print to digital formats that is taking place within the educational setting. Special

emphasis will be placed on the lack of research regarding how this transition has affected

reading comprehension and motivation for middle and high school students, and how the

study’s research questions are derived from the literature. Chapter one will conclude

with a brief overview of the research plan, including the assumptions and limitations

inherent in this research.

EBook Adoption

The adoption of eBooks has occurred in our society. Miller and Bosman (2011)

reported that beginning in April, 2011, at Amazon’s site, 105 eBooks sell for every 100

traditional print books. The authors detailed Amazon’s predictions that, within a decade,

fewer than 25% of books sold will be print versions. The International Digital Publishing
12
Forum (2011), providing quarterly earnings reports for the Association of American

Publishers, placed U.S. trade electronic book sales in 2010 at greater than $340 million.

Libraries are increasingly adopting and offering eBooks. Statistics provided by the

American Library Association revealed that 66% of public libraries currently make

eBooks available to their patrons (Osnos, 2011). Korah, Cassidy, Elmore, and Jerabek

(2009) found that 88% of 552 college libraries surveyed provided access to eBooks, with

45% providing access to greater than 10,000 eBooks. Many college students are opting

for e-textbooks. In a survey, students at the University of Illinois reported their

acceptance of e-texts. Fifty six percent of the survey participants reported using a

combination of traditional and e-texts (Shelburne, 2009). While such results indicated

that eBooks are far from eliminating the print format entirely, their use at this level is

increasing. Monetary savings present a compelling reason for not only universities, but

also K-12 school systems to transition from print to digital formats. Storage costs for

both universities and school systems are considerably cheaper for eBooks than print

books (Schell, Ginanni, & Heet, 2010). A University of Texas study determined the costs

per use for printed books to range from $3.24 to $28.57 when expenses for heating,

cooling, shelving, and maintenance were included, while the costs per use for eBooks

was reported to range from $0.25 to $4.80 (Bunkell & Dyas-Correia, 2009).

The academic impact of eBook adoption is also being realized. In a trial study at the

University of Florida, 392 introductory psychology students were offered either

traditional or electronic texts; only 37 chose the eBook. The e-text group reported

spending less time in reading, yet displayed no significant difference in course grades

(Shepperd, Grace, & Koch, 2008). The e-text in this study was accessed using

13
traditional computer interface, not tablet computers. The use of eBooks has been shown

to increase reading motivation and literacy among elementary students. Shamir and

Korat (2007) studied 72 kindergarten students from three schools located in low

socioeconomic communities to determine the effect to which eBooks supported emergent

literacy. An experimental group of 48 students read CD ROM storybooks while a control

group of 48 students read a traditional print form. Interaction with an eBook was

reported to improve word recognition, emergent literacy, writing, and phonological

awareness. The eBook was accessed using a CD ROM, not a tablet computer. Larson

(2010) studied 17 second grade students and reported that students used the tools

available with the eBook reader to engage with the text through font manipulation,

dictionary use, and text to speech features. The eBook reader in this study was the

Amazon Kindle. The classroom studied had access to only two Kindles, thus the research

was conducted using two students reading from a Kindle at the same time. Research has,

thus far, indicated eBooks to have either a positive effect or no effect on emergent

literacy. The fact that eBook use has not adversely affected student readers, coupled with

the monetary benefits for school systems, supports further implementation at the primary

level.

Although such studies have indicated the benefits associated with eBook

incorporation, limitations have been noted. Reports of negative effects have largely

focused on ease of reading. Students have reported greater eye fatigue and discomfort

when reading electronic versions (Clark, Goodwin, Samuelson, & Coker, 2008; Gunter,

2005; Jamali, Nicholas, & Rowlands, 2009; Kang, Wang, & Lin, 2009; Rockinson-

Szapkiw, Holder, & Dunn, 2011), as well as citing the difficulty of reading from a screen

14
as the reason for preferring hard copies (Jamali et. al., 2009; Lam, Lam, Lam, &

McNaught, 2009). Some students have also reported a preference for traditional print

books (Kang et. al., 2009; Rockinson-Szapkiw et. al., 2011; Shepperd et. al., 2008;

Woody, Daniel, & Baker, 2010). Research has also found that computers present too

many distractions for students (Kelley & Warbuton, 2011).

At the collegiate level, research has focused on the monetary, portability, and

connectivity advantages that both schools and students receive from the incorporation of

this technology (Clark et. al., 2008; Jamali et. al., 2009; Shepperd et. al., 2008). Much of

the research at the elementary level focuses on how eBooks aid in the process of literacy

development and increased reading motivation for emergent readers (Korat, Segal-Drori,

& Klein, 2009; Larson, 2010; Moody, 2010; Rhodes & Milby, 2007; Shamir, 2009;

Shepperd et. al., 2008). These studies highlight two significant gaps in the literature.

Studies have been relegated to elementary and collegiate levels, and have only recently

begun to research middle and high school students. Through my search of the literature,

using databases such as ERIC and Education Research Complete, I have located only

minimal research studying the effect of eBooks on middle and high school students

(Fisher, Lapp, & Wood, 2011; Mardis & Everhart, 2011), and none that specifically study

the effect eBooks have on the reading comprehension and motivation levels of middle

and high school students. Thus, research to make such a determination for students at the

middle and secondary levels was needed. This research determined how the use of

eBooks affected the comprehension and motivation levels of these students. Previous

studies had also used desktop or laptop computers to access the eBooks. This research

15
differed in its use of a tablet to access the online GMRT® using Riverside Publishing’s

(2012) Testing Interface.

Theoretical Basis

The theoretical basis for this research on reading comprehension is found within

Piaget’s (1952) focus on schema. Schemas guide the transfer of information from the

page to the brain, allowing the reader to construct an understanding of the new

information (Pressley, 2003; Schallert & Martin, 2003). Schema theory, developed by

R. C. Anderson, expands the meaning of schema to include the importance of general

knowledge and concept understanding in reading comprehension, specifying that most

reading difficulties can be traced to insufficient prior knowledge (Anderson, Pearson, &

Bolt, 1984; Little & Box, 2011). When readers’ schemata do not provide sufficient

understanding of the incoming text, problems comprehending the text exist (Rumelhart,

1982). According to schema theory, a reader’s prior knowledge, experiences, concepts,

and vocabulary significantly influence reading comprehension (Little & Box, 2011). The

lack of tools to recognize terms and understand concepts presents the greatest obstacle to

comprehension (Little & Box, 2011). This presents an area of potential impact for

eBooks. The digital format offers readers the opportunity to determine immediately the

meaning of unfamiliar vocabulary terms using linked dictionaries. E-Readers with

internet connectivity offer the opportunity to search key concepts and terms, improving

background knowledge and expanding the schema through which meaning is constructed.

The ability to manipulate font size and style, highlight passages, use linked glossaries and

hear the writing via text-to-speech features do not exist in the print format, and allow the

reader increased interaction in the eBook format.

16
 The theoretical basis for this research on reading motivation is found within

Social Cognitive Theory, and Bandura’s (1997) emphasis on the role of self-efficacy in

motivation. This view of motivation asserts that efficacy beliefs, involving both intrinsic

and extrinsic motivation as well as the individual’s purposes for achievement, play an

integral role in the decision to perform activities, and the amount of effort exerted in the

chosen activities (Baker & Wigfield, 1999; Bandura, 1997). Motivation and

comprehension are connected via the expectancy-value theory of motivation, which

asserts that motivation is strongly influenced by expectation of success or failure (Eccles,

1983; Ford, 1992; Winne, 1985). Students who succeed at reading and comprehend

easily are more motivated to read. Students who struggle with comprehension do not

perceive reading as a valuable task and do not display continued motivation to read. This

is a cycle that eBooks have the potential to break. eBook tools hold the potential to

improve schema, which leads to improved comprehension. Improved comprehension

leads to viewing reading as a valuable task. Increased value placed on reading provides

increased motivation for reading.

These theories indicate the importance of schema as the vehicle for

comprehension, and the positive influence of expected success in motivating students to

read. eBooks offer many new possibilities directly affecting both areas. A new level of

interaction with the text is provided through eBooks, and linkage of dictionaries and

search capabilities allow readers to construct schema in ways traditional print offerings

do not. Improving schema leads to increased comprehension. Increasing comprehension

success increases student motivation to read. The determination of eBook impact on

reading comprehension must be made prior to widespread implementation of this

17
technology within the K-12 setting. The study of motivation is necessary due to the

question of whether students assign greater value to reading when using eBooks. If the

eBooks positively affect comprehension, then they hold the potential to also positively

impact motivation as students experience greater success in reading. If comprehension

and motivation are positively affected, then the incorporation of eBooks will promote

student reading. If comprehension and motivation are not affected, then monetary

advantages are valid reasons for transitioning from print to digital books. If

comprehension and motivation are negatively affected, then the transition from print to

digital formats must be reconsidered.

Problem Statement

The problem addressed in this study was the lack of research regarding the effect

of eBooks on reading comprehension and motivation at the middle and high school level.

Reading comprehension is commonly defined as the process in which readers incorporate

prior knowledge and experience with information in the text in order to construct

meaning, and is considered one of the most important skills for students to develop if

they are to be successful (Pardo, 2004). Comprehension is essential not only to learning

in all academic areas, but to lifelong learning as well (Durkin, 1993). The National

Reading Panel (2000) viewed comprehension as such an essential part of the learning

process that it was listed as one of the five most important areas for further study. The

effect of computer technology on reading instruction was viewed as an additional listing

within the five areas in need of further study (National Reading Panel, 2000). The

importance of comprehension as a foundational skill essential to understanding and

succeeding in any academic discipline, combined with a lack of understanding regarding

how computer technology will affect this area, made this an important study. The
18
benefits of transitioning from print to digital format, such as decreased costs,

maintenance, and environmental impact, as well as increased access and portability make

the adoption of eBooks a very attractive option. These benefits, however, mean little in

comparison to the overriding goal of improving student academic performance. An

initial area of great importance given the use of any textbook is a determination of

whether students actually understand what is presented in the text. Thus, the effect of

eBooks on the reading comprehension levels of middle and high school students must be

determined.

A second focal point in this study was whether students were motivated to read

the text. Wigfield and Guthrie (1997) state that motivation to accomplish any task is

based on individual beliefs, values, and goals, and the closer reading activities match

these values and goals, the greater the likelihood that students will be motivated to read.

Motivation for reading influences the reader’s material selection, interest, purpose,

emotion, engagement persistence, and ultimate competence (Butcher & Kintsch, 2003;

Schallert & Martin, 2003; Pitcher et al., 2007). Considerable research exists to directly

link motivation and achievement (Gambrell, Palmer, Codling, & Mazzoni, 1996). It is

this connection between motivation and achievement that was of great interest in this

study. Students who succeed at reading and comprehend easily are motivated to read

while students who struggle with comprehension do not perceive reading as a valuable

task and do not display continued motivation to read. eBooks can alter this cycle through

their potential to improve schema. Increased schema improves comprehension.

Increased comprehension raises the value of reading. Increased value provides increased

19
motivation for reading. Thus, the effect of eBooks on the reading motivation levels of

middle and high school students must be determined.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this experimental posttest-only control-group design study was to

determine if there was a statistically significant difference in the reading comprehension

levels of middle and high school English students when using eBooks versus traditional

print books. The purpose of this quasi-experimental pretest-posttest control-group design

study was to determine if there was a statistically significant difference in the reading

motivation levels of middle and high school English students when using eBooks versus

traditional print books. A convenience sample of 140 middle and high school English

students at an independent school in eastern North Carolina served as the sample for this

study. The independent variable was defined as the type of book – electronic or

traditional. The dependent variable was defined as student reading comprehension and

motivation. The RAND Reading Study Group (2002) stated that comprehension is, “the

process of simultaneously extracting and constructing meaning through interaction and

involvement with written language” (p. 11). Reading comprehension was measured

using the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests® (GMRT®; MacGinitie, MacGinitie, Maria, &

Dryer, 2006). Motivation, as specifically applied to reading, is framed in terms of

attitudes towards reading. More motivated readers display a positive attitude toward

reading as revealed through increased interest, engagement, and persistence in reading

(Baker & Wigfield, 1999). Motivation was measured using the Motivations for Reading

Questionnaire (MRQ; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997).

20
 Significance of the Study

The research problem represented an essential study due to its possible alteration

of secondary schools’ book/textbook systems. The transition to electronic

books/textbooks due to an increasing implementation of technology within our

educational system, and its possible cost effectiveness for school systems, seems destined

to greatly impact the field of secondary education. Yet, given its impending

implementation, very little research has measured the impact such technology will have

on student reading comprehension and motivation at this level.

This research contributed to the current knowledge base as its population is

largely absent in the literature. Studies involving the effect of eBooks on reading

comprehension and motivation have focused on elementary and collegiate students.

Studies displaying the effect of this technology on students at the middle and high school

levels have been few. This study examined the gap in the literature by displaying the

effect of eBooks on a sample of middle and high school students. This research will also

directly contribute to the knowledge base administrators access in determining if their

school/district should make the switch from print to digital format for textbooks.

Studies at the collegiate level have focused on the potential monetary savings to

be realized by colleges and their libraries (Schell et. al., 2010; Bunkell & Dyas-Correia,

2009). Studies at the elementary level have provided information on student

achievement, but have only included students in kindergarten through fifth grade (Larson,

2010; Rhodes & Milby, 2007; Shamir, 2009; Shamir & Korat, 2007). To date, only

minimal research has been located that studies middle and high school students (Fisher et

al., 2011; Mardis & Everhart, 2011), and none that determines the effect of using eBooks

on the reading comprehension and motivation of middle and high school students.
21
 Determining the effect this technology has on student reading comprehension and

motivation is essential. In an educational environment where 292 school districts across

the US have reduced the school week to four days in order to save money, school systems

will be attracted to the monetary advantages of transitioning from print to electronic

books (Layton, 2011). Money, however, cannot be the driving factor. The effect on

students must remain the priority, and research must be conducted to statistically

establish the effect this transition has on reading comprehension and motivation prior to

making such a drastic change.

Research Questions

The following research questions guided this study:

R1. Is there a statistically significant difference in the reading comprehension of

middle and high school English students using electronic books compared to students

using traditional print books?

R2. Is there a statistically significant difference in the reading motivation of

middle and high school English students using electronic books compared to students

using traditional print books?

Research Hypotheses in Null Form

H1. Middle and high school English students using traditional print and electronic

books will display statistically significant different levels of reading comprehension as

measured using the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests®.

H01. Middle and high school English students using traditional print and

electronic books will not display statistically significant different levels of reading

comprehension as measured using the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests®.

22
 H2. Middle and high school English students using traditional print and electronic

books will display statistically significant differences in their mean scores for the linear

combination of the reading motivation scales as measured using the Motivations for

Reading Questionnaire.

H02. Middle and high school English students using traditional print and

electronic books will display no statistically significant difference in their mean scores

for the linear combination of the reading motivation scales as measured using the

Motivations for Reading Questionnaire.

H02.1. Middle and high school English students using traditional print and

electronic books will display no statistically significant difference in their mean scores

for the Reading Efficacy scale as measured using the Motivations for Reading

Questionnaire.

H02.2. Middle and high school English students using traditional print and

electronic books will display no statistically significant difference in their mean scores

for the Reading Challenge scale as measured using the Motivations for Reading

Questionnaire.

H02.3. Middle and high school English students using traditional print and

electronic books will display no statistically significant difference in their mean scores

for the Reading Curiosity scale as measured using the Motivations for Reading

Questionnaire.

H02.4. Middle and high school English students using traditional print and

electronic books will display no statistically significant difference in their mean scores

23
for the Reading Involvement scale as measured using the Motivations for Reading

Questionnaire.

H02.5. Middle and high school English students using traditional print and

electronic books will display no statistically significant difference in their mean scores

for the Importance of Reading scale as measured using the Motivations for Reading

Questionnaire.

H02.6. Middle and high school English students using traditional print and

electronic books will display no statistically significant difference in their mean scores

for the Reading Work Avoidance scale as measured using the Motivations for Reading

Questionnaire.

H02.7. Middle and high school English students using traditional print and

electronic books will display no statistically significant difference in their mean scores

for the Competition in Reading scale as measured using the Motivations for Reading

Questionnaire.

H02.8. Middle and high school English students using traditional print and

electronic books will display no statistically significant difference in their mean scores

for the Recognition in Reading scale as measured using the Motivations for Reading

Questionnaire.

H02.9. Middle and high school English students using traditional print and

electronic books will display no statistically significant difference in their mean scores

for the Reading for Grades scale as measured using the Motivations for Reading

Questionnaire.

24
 H02.10. Middle and high school English students using traditional print and

electronic books will display no statistically significant difference in their mean scores

for the Social Reasons for Reading scale as measured using the Motivations for Reading

Questionnaire.

H02.11. Middle and high school English students using traditional print and

electronic books will display no statistically significant difference in their mean scores

for the Compliance scale as measured using the Motivations for Reading Questionnaire.

Identification of Variables

The independent variable for research questions one and two was book format.

There were two levels to the independent variable: (1) Print book format, and (2)

Electronic book format. For the purposes of this study, an electronic book was defined as

a book published in electronic form that could be delivered, via the internet, to any

electronic device capable of receiving it (Sparrowhawk, 2005). The electronic book

passages used in this study were included in the GMRT® online and accessed through

Riverside Publishing’s (2012) Testing Interface. For the purposes of this study, a

traditional print book was defined as reading passages presented in paper format.

The dependent variable for research question one was student reading

comprehension as measured using the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test® (MacGinitie,

Maria, & Dreyer, 2006). The GMRT® is designed to provide a general assessment of

reading achievement in grades 3-12 (MacGinitie et. al., 2006).

Reading passages included in the GMRT® are taken from published books and

periodicals (MacGinitie et. al., 2006). The print format was delivered in the form of a

traditional pencil and paper version of the test, while the electronic format delivered both

25
the reading passages and answer sections through an online version of the test accessed

using Riverside Publishing’s (2012) Testing Interface.

The dependent variable for research question two was student reading motivation

as measured using the Motivations for Reading Questionnaire. The MRQ is a student

rated assessment of the extent to which each student is motivated to read (Wigfield &

Guthrie, 1997). Motivation was chosen as the second factor due to its influence on

student engagement with the text (Butcher & Kintsch, 2003; Schallert & Martin, 2003).

Text engagement is the key to establishing the link between motivation, achievement, and

literacy learning (Gambrell et. al., 1995). The MRQ contained 53 questions and

measureed 11 constructs of reading motivation (Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). The Reading

Efficacy construct measured the expectation each student had for reading success

(Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). The Reading Challenge construct measured the satisfaction

each student feels when mastering complex issues within the text (Wigfield & Guthrie,

1997). The Reading Curiosity construct measured the desire to learn about a topic

(Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). The Reading Involvement construct measured each

student’s enjoyment when reading new kinds of text (Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). The

Importance of Reading construct measured the value each student places on

accomplishing the task of reading (Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). The Reading Work

Avoidance construct measured what each student does not like about reading (Wigfield &

Guthrie, 1997). The Competition in Reading construct measured each student’s desire to

outperform other readers (Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). The Recognition for Reading

construct measured the pleasure each student feels when receiving recognition for their

reading accomplishments (Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). The Reading for Grades construct

26
measured each student’s desire to receive good grades in reading (Wigfield & Guthrie,

1997). The Social Reasons for Reading construct measured the degree to which each

student shares their reading with family and friends (Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). The

final construct, Compliance, measured the effect of external requirements on student

reading (Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997).

27
 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

The purpose of this true-experimental posttest-only control-group design study

was to determine if there was a statistically significant difference in the reading

comprehension levels of middle and high school English students when using eBooks

compared to traditional print books. The purpose of this quasi-experimental pretest-

posttest control-group design study was to determine if there was a statistically

significant difference in the reading motivation levels of middle and high school English

students when using eBooks compared to traditional print books. The following research

indicates the effect of electronic devices on reading comprehension and motivation levels

has been measured at the collegiate and elementary levels, but little research on these

aspects of reading has been conducted at the middle and high school levels.

Chapter Two will review the cognitive framework upon which the study of

reading comprehension and motivation was based, the historical usage of eBooks in both

general public and academic environments, and the overall benefits and limitations of

using eBooks in schools. Specific studies will be detailed in which comprehension and

motivation were studied at the elementary level with special emphasis on what is missing

in the literature – similar studies at the middle and high school levels. Chapter Two will

conclude with a summary of the literature review.

Theoretical Framework

Comprehension

Schema theory. Piaget referred to an organized pattern of thought used to

explain experiences as a scheme (Piaget, 1952; Shaffer, 2002). Cognitive scientists use

the term schema to describe how prior knowledge is used to understand, organize, and

28
store new information (Gillani, 2010; Vacca & Vacca, 2005; Zhang, 2010). Rumelhart

(1982) referred to schema as the building blocks of cognition since they serve as the

network of information through which people make sense of new experiences. Schema

theory expands this meaning to include the importance of general knowledge and concept

understanding in reading comprehension, specifying that most reading difficulties can be

traced to insufficient prior knowledge (Anderson et. al., 1984). Schema theory is based

on Goodman’s (1967) psycholinguistic model. The psycholinguistic model views

reading as a psycholinguistic guessing game, involving an interaction between thought

and language based not on a precise understanding of each element within the reading,

but an ability to use a partial understanding of the material to process the unknown and

make decisions regarding meaning (Goodman, 1967). According to the psycholinguistic

model, the ability to anticipate that which has not been seen is vital to reading

comprehension (Goodman, 1967). Proper anticipation is based upon key word

understanding, and schema theory indicates key words and concepts presented to the

reader through the text allow the reader to temporarily transfer information stored in

long-term memory to short-term memory and use that information during reading to

interact with, and construct an understanding of, new information (Pressley, 2003;

Schallert & Martin, 2003). This information is often used to construct mental

representations that allow the readers to exit the transaction with a mental image or

summary of the text (Pardo, 2004; van den Broek, 1994).

Transactional theory. The use of schema in understanding reading is further

explained using Rosenblatt’s (1995) transactional theory of reader response. According

to Rosenblatt, each reader breathes life into the text as they consider the material through

29
the lens of their individual experiences, and work to construct personal meanings. As

readers interact with the text, they make text-to-text, text-to-self, and text-to-world

connections leading to comprehension (Keene & Zimmerman, 1997; Miller, 2002). It is

during this transaction between the reader and the text that comprehension occurs (Kucer,

2001; Rosenblatt, 1978). This transaction is based upon a model of comprehension that

places equal importance on context and culture (Pardo, 2004). Culture is important to the

transaction because the reader’s culture must match the culture of the writer/text (Pardo,

2004). Context is important to the transaction because each reader varies in the skills,

knowledge, and cognitive development they bring to the text (Butcher & Kintsch, 2003;

Navarez, 2002). This meeting of the reader’s context and culture with that of the text

forces a transaction between reader and text. When the context and the culture of the

reader and text are similar, the transaction allows for the construction of meaning, and

true comprehension of the text occurs.

Cognitive science and transaction. Cognitive science views this transaction as

occurring when the body engages the physical world and thus studies transaction in the

context of interactions between people and environment (Gibbs, 2003). Transaction

using the paper format, as measured in terms of reading comprehension, has thus far been

superior to the electronic format (Noyes & Garland, 2008). Numerous studies have

reported difficulties in reading from a computer screen (Clark et. al., 2008; Jamali et. al.,

2010). Given that the readability of the text, specifically font type and size, play a

significant role in the transaction between reader and text (Tracey & Morrow, 2002),

difficulties reading from a screen present a significant issue for eBook success.

Developments in screen technology, however, have lessened the impact of reading

30
difficulties, and improvements in the transaction using the electronic format have been

noted (Noyes & Garland, 2008). Tablets have been shown to be effective tools for

reading in grades K-5 (Dundar & Akcayir, 2012). Tablets such as Amazon’s Kindle and

Apple’s iPad are having the greatest impact in terms of changing people’s attitudes

regarding reading on a screen (Chesser, 2011). eBooks now offer many opportunities for

the reader to make adjustments to readability features. Font adjustments are easily made,

interaction with the text via hyperlinks and glossaries is instantaneous, and new

information can be researched, understood, and organized (Hancock, 2008; Larson,

2009). eBooks have the ability to incorporate aspects of inquiry based learning in ways

that traditional print resources cannot (Gillani, 2010). Tools for inquiry based learning

can improve schema, which leads to increased comprehension. Students who

comprehend what they read are more motivated to read. Thus, eBooks, through an

improved interaction with the text, offer an interesting opportunity to affect both reading

comprehension and motivation.

Motivation

Self-efficacy. A second goal of the research is to determine the effect of eBooks

on motivation. The theoretical framework for this study’s motivational research is based

upon Social Cognitive Theory, specifically Bandura’s (1997) ideas regarding self-

efficacy and the major role this plays in the motivational level for any task. This view of

motivation asserts that efficacy beliefs, involving both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

as well as the individual’s purposes for achievement, play an integral role in the decision

to perform activities, and the amount of effort exerted in the chosen activities (Baker &

Wigfield, 1999; Bandura, 1997; Eccles, Wigfield, & Schiefele, 1998; Wigfield, Eccles, &

31
Rodriguez, 1998). Eccles (1983) built upon this framework in developing the

expectancy-value theory of motivation, which states that motivation is influenced by the

participant’s expectation of failure or success, and by the attractiveness or value the

participant places on the task. Ford (1992) furthered the expectancy-value theory’s focus

on the value of a task in his motivational systems theory, which states that participants

are motivated to achieve goals they value and perceive as achievable. Winne (1985)

focused on the expectancy-value theory’s effect on reading motivation by stating the

reader will only be motivated to read materials perceived to have personal value or

practical importance. A major influence in value perception is the provision of materials

(Arzubiaga, Rueda, & Monzo, 2002; Clark, Power, Blom-Huffman, Dwyer, Kellecher, &

Novak, 2003; Flowerday et. al, 2004; Jones & Brown, 2011; Marinak & Gambrell, 2008;

McGlinn & Parrish, 2002; Wigfield et. al., 2008). Reading motivation and engagement

are positively affected when high-interest material is available (Jones & Brown, 2011;

Flowerday et. al, 2004). Students who perceive reading to have personal value and

importance engage with the text to a much greater extent (Ames & Archer, 1988; Dweck

& Elliot, 1983; Gambrell et. al., 1996; Paris & Oka, 1986). Engagement with the text has

been shown to be an accurate predictor of motivation to read and reading achievement

(Jones & Brown, 2011; Wigfield et. al., 2008)

Expectancy-value theory and achievement. Motivation and comprehension are

connected via the expectancy-value theory of motivation, which asserts that motivation is

strongly influenced by expectation of success or failure (Eccles, 1983; Ford, 1992;

Winne, 1985). Students who succeed at reading and comprehend easily are more

motivated to read. Students who struggle with comprehension do not perceive reading as

32
a valuable task and do not display continued motivation to read. Students who are

motivated to read display greater academic achievement (Cox & Guthrie, 2001;

O’Flahavan, Gambrell, Guthrie, Stahl, Baumann, & Alvermann, 1992; Sachs, 2001;

Sankaran & Bui, 2001; Schunk, Pintrich, & Meese, 2007).

The displayed link between motivation and achievement indicates an opportunity

to use technological innovation to improve both reading comprehension and motivation.

Students who have access to a high interest selection of materials display increased

motivation. Paper libraries do not possess the capability of matching eBooks when it

comes to the immediate availability of high interest resources. Increased motivation has

been directly linked to increased achievement. While promising, the issue with this

foundational research, as with the specific focal points listed, is the vast majority of

research was conducted using either collegiate or elementary students. Little to no

research exists to make these links between motivation and achievement for students in

middle and high school.

The Transition to eBooks

Current and Projected Data

The use of eBooks is expanding at a rapid pace. Wholesale eBook sales started at

under $2 million per quarter in 2002 and had risen to $8 million per quarter by 2008

(Grudzien & Casey, 2008). In 2009, the Association of American Publishers reported

that eBooks still accounted for a very small percentage of total book sales, but their

popularity had increased drastically and the increased availability and use of eBook

readers were further driving the expansion. U.S. trade electronic book sales in 2010

exceeded $340 million (International Digital Publishing Forum, 2011). Beginning in

April, 2011, at Amazon’s site, 105 eBooks sold for every 100 traditional print books
33
(Miller & Bosman, 2011). Amazon’s predictions indicated that, within a decade, fewer

than 25% of books sold would be print versions (Miller & Bosman, 2011). Increased

adoption of eBooks by students and faculty has been projected over the next three years

(Becker, 2010). The 2011 Horizon Report cites the time-to-adoption for eBooks as one

year or less (Johnson et. al., 2011). Although eBook sales are expanding, e-textbooks

remain a very small percentage of overall book sales. For example, electronic textbooks

have been projected to grow at a rate of 49% through 2013, yet even then they will

account for only 11% of all textbooks sold (Murray & Perez, 2011). The continued

growth in student computing footprint is projected to increase the rate of transition. A

2010 Educause survey revealed that almost every college student owns both a computer

and phone and 80% own a laptop (Smith & Caruson, 2010). This expansion is placing

greater pressure on publishers to provide materials that can be accessed using laptops,

tablets, and smartphones (Chesser, 2011). A similar expansion is also occurring within

school districts. McAllen Independent School District in Texas is the largest to attempt

full coverage of tablet devices, having distributed 6,800 iPads and iPods in February of

2012, with a goal of providing all 25,000 students in grades K-12 with a device

(Sherman, 2012). Zeeland public schools in Michigan provided iPads to all high school

students in the Fall of 2011, with plans of providing iPads to every student in grades 3-12

(Sherman, 2012). Estimates indicate digital textbooks will be the dominant format

inside of seven years, with revenues exceeding $1.5 billion within five years (Reynolds,

2011).

Lending further credence to the necessity of this study is the fact that Reynolds’

(2011) estimate of digital dominance within seven years was published prior to the

34
impact of Apple’s iPad being measured. A 2010 Campus Computing Survey of IT

leaders revealed that nearly 80% of them expected eBook readers to be important

platforms for instructional content within five years (Acker, 2011). Current projections

estimate 20% of college students will carry tablet devices by the end of 2012 (Reynolds,

2011). The increase in tablet use will undoubtedly affect high school and middle school

students as 46% of tablet owners have children under the age of 18 (Bizrate

Insights/Forrester Study, 2011). The 2012 Horizon Report predicts widespread use of

tablet computers in the K-12 environment within one year (Johnson et. al., 2012).

Further predictions indicate that all students in the U.S. will be using mobile learning

devices by 2015 (Norris & Soloway, 2011).

Many estimates are based on the expanding iPad market, yet there is a lack of

research establishing the effect of tablet computers on reading comprehension and

motivation. The current study was developed to use iPads as the delivery devices. The

instrument’s (GMRT) use of Adobe Flash prevented the use of the iPad. As a result, this

research will use a Lenovo X220 tablet computer to access Riverside Publishing’s

Testing Interface via the Google ChromeTM internet browser. This tablet uses an LED

backlit screen that is similar to the iPad, and will offer a measurement of how reading

comprehension is affected through the use of tablet computers.

Conflicting estimates regarding growth and market share require further

exploration. While Murray and Perez (2011) predict that only 11% of textbooks will be

electronic by 2013, Reynolds (2011) expects digital textbooks to dominate within seven

years. Significant differences in projections highlight the fact that these estimates are

based on sales of electronic devices, and not on academic performance. Projections offer

35
no data proving that sales will increase as a result of students displaying increased

comprehension or motivation. Student performance will affect purchasing, especially

within the K-12 environment. The manner in which the electronic format effects

academic performance, especially reading comprehension, must be determined prior to

predictions of increased purchasing becoming a reality.

International Influence

Other countries have also rapidly transitioned to the digital format. South Korea

has a stated goal of digitizing all textbooks by 2015, and this assertion has forced

countries, including the U.S., to increase the resources they devote to digital learning

(Eason, 2011). The change from traditional print to electronic book formats is occurring

and will continue. While the change is occurring rapidly within the general public, the

focus of this research involves how the transition will affect academic environments.

Data is available for this transition within academia at the elementary and collegiate

levels, but more is needed for the middle and high school levels.

College Libraries

The charge to make the electronic transition is being led by college and university

libraries and library systems. The University of Houston has transitioned to using over

400,000 electronic books (Wu & Mitchell, 2010). The University of Illinois has

transitioned to using over 250,000 electronic books (Martin & Mundle, 2009). Sam

Houston State University uses over 50,000 eBooks (Korah et. al., 2009). A survey of 552

smaller college and university libraries reported that over 88% contained eBooks in their

collections, with 45% of those surveyed containing greater than 10,000 eBooks (Korah

et. al., 2009). A joint venture between the University of Texas, Notre Dame University,

36
and Trinity University has taken the transition to the electronic format a step further.

These universities made the decision to use pay-per-view models for both electronic

journals and books (Schell et. al., 2010). Transitioning to the electronic format allowed

Trinity University, which faced an 8% increase in subscription prices and only a 2%

budget increase, to save enough money to prevent staff cuts (Schell et. al., 2010).

Library transitions are based on monetary and storage savings. Data in these

areas display the electronic format to have undeniable advantages in the library setting.

Data does not, however, include explorations of effect on student performance. Money

and space are significant within the library environment, but libraries quickly lose their

effectiveness if the electronic materials they provide do not maintain or improve

comprehension.

Medical Libraries

Medical libraries have followed a similar pattern. The University of Pittsburgh’s

Health Sciences Library System allows bedside access to over 2500 titles from its eBook

collection (Foust, Bergen, Maxeiner, & Pawlowski, 2007). Research conducted at Texas

A&M’s Medical Services Library studied the usage of electronic textbooks, finding the

electronic version of all 51 studied texts to have been accessed more frequently than print

versions (Kimball, Ives, & Jackson, 2010; Ugaz & Resnick, 2008).

Data pertaining to medical libraries present a view of textbook accessibility, not

comprehension. Quick access to specific information is of great value in the medical

setting, not the reading of entire chapters or books. Research has proven that information

can be located quickly, but more research is necessary to determine if students in these

libraries comprehend the information once it is located.

37
Distance Learning

This transition is also implemented in libraries serving distance learning students.

Schools offering distance programs must ensure online students have equal access to

books with traditional students and the eBook format fits this need (Hutton, 2008). Royal

Roads University in Canada transitioned from what was once a traditional brick and

mortar school with only residential students to one in which 80% of students and faculty

work at a distance (Croft & Davis, 2010). This shift in enrollment forced the library to

make considerable changes that ensured all students and faculty members maintained

access to a traditional collegiate quality library. As of December 2009, the Royal Roads

University library had transitioned to 55,000 eBooks and only 48,000 traditional print

books (Croft and Davis, 2010). A similar transition has occurred at Nova Southeastern

University. In an attempt to increase library offerings for off-campus students, NSU’s

Alvin Sherman library instituted a plan in which computer science, education, business,

and psychology books were transitioned to eBooks accessible to students through a

MyiLibrary platform (Buckley & Tritt, 2011).

Statistics displaying the benefits of eBooks, especially those indicating decreased

storage space and costs, make the transition from traditional print books to eBooks an

attractive option for libraries. The need to offer sufficient library resources to off-campus

and online students also remains a valid motivation for the transition. The positive effect

on the budget, however, cannot override the focus on student development and

achievement. Providing cheaper and more convenient access to reading materials

remains an insignificant achievement in an academic environment if student performance

is not positively affected. Before academic institutions implement this collegiate model

38
in an effort to save money and increase access, the effect of this format on students must

be determined. Some research has been conducted to this end.

Benefits and Limitations of eBooks

Research has demonstrated benefits and limitations associated with eBook use.

The focus of research has been usability and preference. Accessibility, portability, and

storage have been listed as significant benefits (Clark et. al., 2008). Discomfort with

reading from a screen, inability to highlight and take notes within the text, and the reality

that many students simply prefer print have been listed as significant limitations (Clark

et. al., 2008; Kang et. al., 2009; Woody, Daniel, & Baker, 2010).

Limitations of eBooks

Problems encountered. Problems related to reading from a screen have been

reported. Reading from a screen can cause greater eye fatigue (Clark et. al., 2008;

Gunter, 2005; Jamali et. al., 2009; Kang et. al., 2009; Lam et. al., 2009). Students have

indicated they are more likely to skim electronic texts, choosing to read in an “F” pattern

searching for key words rather than line by line (Woody et. al., 2010). Students cited

difficulty in taking notes using an eBook as a significant drawback (Polanka, 2011).

Three quarters of paper readers report marking notes in paper text as they read while

digital readers report the problem of having to type notes on a separate computer or use

additional paper (Polanka, 2011).

Noted limitations all relate to usability, not academic performance. Eye fatigue is

an issue with electronic devices, but included data contains no information regarding the

comprehension of what is being read. The fact that students are more likely to skim

electronic texts may harm comprehension, but it is necessary to determine if

comprehension is affected in situations where students choose to read carefully.

39
 Print preference. Students have reported they were more likely to use special

features accompanying traditional print books than those incorporated into eBooks

(Woody et. al., 2010) and preferred traditional print books (Buzzetto-More, Sweat-Guy,

& Elobaid, 2007; Gregory, 2006; Jamali et. al., 2010; Woody et.al., 2010). Educational

Marketer (2011) reported that 75.2% of college students prefer print over electronic

textbooks. Students have also displayed a significant difference in format preference

based on age. Studies reveal older students who grew up using the traditional print

format display a preference for the traditional format while younger students prefer the

electronic format (Kang et. al., 2009; Smith, 2008).

Limitations regarding print preference relate to usability, not academic

performance. A preference for print includes no information regarding the effect of the

electronic format on comprehension. The current research will seek to determine if a

statistically significant difference in comprehension based on format exists. Age-based

differences will also be addressed in the research as participants will range in age from

12-18.

Generation Y. Although limitations have been cited, these limitations may

decrease as generations become more familiar with the electronic format and technology

improves. People who learned using predominantly printed texts may find adjusting to

the electronic format difficult (Kang et. al., 2009). Students for whom the electronic

format is common are not required to make this adjustment. Studies displaying the

continued preference for the format used in academic development indicate that

preference for the electronic format will continue to increase as current students use

eBooks to a much greater extent. A new generation of students, Generation Y, or

40
Millennials, outnumbered Baby Boomers at the end of 2010, with 96% of them being

active on social networks (Rivero, 2010). This generation of students is one for whom

reading from electronic books is not new, but rather the norm as technology has been

integrated into every aspect of their lives, and they may display a continued preference

for eBooks over print books.

Technological development. Issues with reading from a screen are being

addressed through technological development. Noyes and Garland (2008) indicated that

developments in display screen technology had reduced the presentation disparity

between print and electronic formats. Chesser (2011) further highlighted how Amazon’s

Kindle and Apple’s iPad were positively changing people’s attitudes about reading on

screens. Estimates that Amazon will sell as many as 35 million Kindles by 2012, and

greater than 33% of the U.S. will use tablet computers by 2015 indicate a growing trend

in acceptance for reading from a screen (Chesser, 2011). As the comfort level with this

technology grows, and the screen technology itself improves, limitations based on eye

fatigue and reading from a screen will continue to decrease.

Studies indicate that acceptance of electronic devices is likely to increase as

technology improves. Increased acceptance based on technological improvement,

however, does not account for student performance. The current research will use a

tablet that incorporates modern screen technology to determine if students display any

difference in comprehension when using the electronic format.

Benefits of eBooks

Research has also suggested eBooks offer numerous benefits. Tracey and

Morrow (2002) view the content of a text, especially the difficulty or readability based

41
upon font size and type as a factor in reader-text interaction and comprehension. E-

Readers have the capability to negate font distractions by allowing individual readers to

adjust surface features (Abram, 2010; Larson, 2009). Additionally, eBooks have been

cited as being convenient, lightweight, environmentally friendly, portable, and easily

stored (Clark et. al., 2008; Jamali et. al., 2009; Shepperd et. al., 2008). eBooks are also

never out of stock since they are downloadable (Crestani, Landoni, & Melucci, 2005).

Additional advantages cited are updatable book versions, linkage of passages, and key-

word searchability (Armstrong, Nardini, McCracken, Lugg, & Johnson, 2009; Crestani

et. al., 2005; Jamali et. al., 2009).

The highlighted benefits offer strong support for the increased use of electronic

books in academic environments, yet fail to include academic performance

measurements. The effect on reading comprehension and motivation has yet to be

determined, and is needed prior to using benefits associated with usability as valid

reasoning for transitioning to eBooks within schools and school districts.

eBooks in Academic Environments

eBooks in College Courses

University trials. The University of Texas at Austin conducted a trial in which

1200 students were provided Amazon’s Kindle e-reader as a replacement for traditional

textbooks (Butler, 2009). Students listed screen size as a significant restriction (Butler,

2009). The small size of the screens made the devices unsuitable to most textbooks, and

was especially problematic with science texts. A 500 student trial at Northwest Missouri

State University replaced traditional textbooks with electronic texts using Sony e-readers,

with the goal of utilizing electronic textbooks for all courses within five years (Butler,

2009). Dozens of the participants quit the trial after two weeks, citing the inability to flip
42
through pages randomly, take notes in the margins, and highlight the text as determining

factors in their decision to purchase a print copy (Knutson & Fowler, 2009). Student

focus groups reported the devices were not adequate to replace print textbooks, and the

university transitioned to using laptops as the delivery devices in a further study (Tees,

2010). A study of first-year graduate students at the University of Washington examined

Kindle DX usage. All students began doing their academic reading using the Kindle DX,

and seven months into the study, 40% of the students continued to use the device

(Polanka, 2011). Students who continued to use the Kindle listed the need to read near a

computer in order to look up references and take notes, or the continued need to carry

paper for better note taking as significant drawbacks (Polanka, 2011). The major

limitation noted in this study was sample size, with only 39 participants (Polanka, 2011).

The University of Illinois conducted a trial in which nursing students were

provided eBook access on their Personal Digital Assistants (Williams & Dittmer, 2009).

The study focused on the usability aspects of portability and accessibility. Students cited

beside access to information as a significant benefit, but listed the limited eight hour

battery life of the device as a considerable challenge since nursing shifts were generally

far longer (Williams & Dittmer, 2009).

The highlighted studies continue to display a significant gap in the literature

regarding academic performance. Most studies at the collegiate level focus on usability,

not academic performance. These studies fail to include a specific measurement of

student reading comprehension or motivation, and focus solely on determining the

reasons for student selections.

43
 Student Preference. A study conducted at the University of Illinois surveyed

students, faculty, and staff to determine their acceptance of electronic textbooks. Results

revealed that while only 10% of the students used electronic textbooks alone, 56 % of the

students used a combination of traditional print and electronic texts (Shelburne, 2009).

Further predictions indicated 11% of faculty and students expected to transition to using

mostly electronic books, while 28% expected to use a combination of electronic and print

books (Shelburne, 2009). This study was limited by sample size. Of the 47,000

community members invited to participate, only 3%, or 1547 members submitted

responses (Shelburne, 2009). A study conducted at the University of Maryland Eastern

Shore surveyed 261 freshmen and sophomore business students to determine their

acceptance of eBooks (Buzzetto-More et. al., 2007). Over 54% of the students surveyed

preferred a print text, but 44% stated they would purchase an eBook for a course if it was

an option (Buzzetto-More et. al., 2007). The major limitation noted in this research was a

lack of diversity. All students were enrolled in the same business course, and the

University of Maryland Eastern Shore is an historically black institution with limited

enrollment of non-black students (Buzzetto-More et. al., 2007). An additional study

conducted at the University of Maine offered chemistry students the opportunity to

purchase eBooks in six courses (Buntrock, 2011). eBooks were purchased in five of the

six courses, but the majority of students preferred print (Buntrock, 2011).

These studies continue to focus on usage, not performance. The decision to

purchase, or continue to use eBooks, while significant to sales predictions, presents no

information regarding the effect of this format on student performance. For example, it

would be useful to know, in addition to the selection information, if the chemistry

44
students selecting electronic textbooks displayed any significant difference in course

grades or reading comprehension.

Academic performance. Some studies have focused more on academic

achievement than usability. A trial conducted at the University of Florida allowed

undergraduate psychology students to choose either traditional or electronic texts. The

electronic text group reported spending less time in their reading, yet displayed no

statistically significant difference in the grades received for the course (Shepperd et. al.,

2008). This study was limited by its inability to assign students to the experimental

group. Of the 329 total participants, only 37 chose to use an eBook (Shepperd et. al.,

2008). This study was also limited by its admission that study habits were difficult to

measure and open to multiple interpretations (Shepperd et. al., 2008). Results were based

solely on final grade and a self-reported survey. Students were not required to report how

much time they spent studying apart from reading the text. It remains possible that

students who read less may have studied more, and study habits may have affected grades

more than book format. Additional study would be required to determine if book format

alone led to improved course grades. A pilot study conducted at a university in Virginia

compared the use of eBooks and traditional books on undergraduate student learning in

an educational history course. Results reported higher psychomotor learning levels for

students using eBooks, and no difference in actual learning between the groups

(Rockinson-Szapkiw & Holder, 2011). The study was limited by sample size, with only

a convenience sample of 16 undergraduate student participants. The study was also

limited by duration, with students using the eBook for only one course session, and not

over the entire length of the 16 week course.

45
 Moving beyond preference. Portability, convenience, decreased expense,

storage capacity, and lessened environmental impact represent wonderful benefits to be

realized through the use of the electronic format. As Rockinson-Szapkiw and Holder

(2011) have highlighted, however, it is necessary to look beyond preferences and focus

on the effectiveness of eBooks as learning tools. The educational reality is the reported

benefits of eBooks are not as important as student development and achievement. While

attractive, these attributes must coincide with increased student performance if eBooks

are to be fully implemented in educational settings. Research on the effect of eBooks has

also been limited to usage and perception, with few studies focusing on effectiveness as a

learning tool (Rockinson-Szapkiw et. al., 2011; Woody et. al., 2010). Research that has

focused on the effectiveness of eBooks has focused on collegiate and elementary

students. Little to no research displaying the effect on student performance at the middle

and high school levels has been located.

Additional research is needed. The initial results of these trial studies have been

promising. Collegiate studies have focused on course grades, general usage, usability,

effectiveness as a learning tool, and motivation. While providing much needed

information on the effectiveness of eBooks for collegiate students, research displaying

statistically significant effects on reading comprehension remains minimal. The lack of

research highlights the difficulty of isolating book format as the sole factor affecting

academic performance. Research remains limited for the K-12 environment as well.

eBooks in Elementary Schools

Kindergarten. A focal point in eBook research at the elementary level has been

the effect of technology on low socioeconomic status kindergarten students (Korat et. al.,

46
2009; Moody, 2010; Shamir & Korat, 2007; Shamir, 2009). Researchers attempted to

determine if the students’ lack of access and experience regarding these devices

prevented the devices from positively impacting student achievement in the classroom.

Students using electronic books were found to display increased motivation to read,

increased curiosity regarding both the device and the books available using the device,

and increased literacy development (Korat et. al., 2009; Moody, 2010; Shamir & Korat,

2007; Shamir, 2009). Problems noted with this research include the limited

generalizability of the study, given the similarity of all three samples, and the vague

description of what constitutes literacy development and emergent literacy (Korat et. al.,

2009; Moody, 2010; Shamir & Korat, 2007; Shamir, 2009). Literacy development and

emergent literacy encompass word meaning, word recognition, emergent writing,

phonological awareness, and letter naming(Scarborough, 2001; Shamir & Korat, 2007;

Whitehurst & Longian, 2001), but include no information on reading comprehension.

K-2. Other researchers have taken this focus from kindergarten to the second

grade level (Larson, 2010; Rhodes & Milby, 2007). The researchers studied second

grade students, with some students reading traditional print books while others were

provided access to an e-reader and eBooks. All students participated in an online

discussion board to determine their level of understanding. Results indicated the students

who had read the story using the e-reader displayed increased literacy development and

increased motivation when compared to those students who had read traditional print

versions (Larson, 2010; Rhodes & Milby, 2007). While these studies expanded the

sample to the second grade level, the research continued to measure literacy development

rather than focusing specifically on reading comprehension.

47
 K-5. A meta-analysis of eBook use at the elementary level reported mixed results

for their effectiveness in pre-K to grade 5 (Zucker, Moody, & McKenna, 2009). For

inclusion in this analysis, the eBook was required to present a text on a computer and

include an oral reading option and hypermedia (Zucker et. al., 2009). Peer-reviewed

journal articles included in the analysis had publication dates ranging from January 1997

to January 2007 (Zucker et. al., 2009). Results of the analysis indicated the practical

effects of this technology to be significant in terms of reading motivation, but moderate

to small for comprehension outcomes. The conflicting results with respect to reading

comprehension highlight an area of conflict for Rosenblatt’s transactional theory of

reader response. Rosenblatt (1995) indicates that the transactional process applies to

transactions using any media. Other researchers, however, have cited the tools provided

in the electronic format as a reason for improved interactions between reader and text in

this format, and have thus used Rosenblatt’s theory as a basis for explaining how surface

features improve transaction (Larson, 2009; Pardo, 2004). Contradictory results

regarding reading comprehension, along with the fact that Rosenblatt’s predictions

occurred prior to many of the technological improvements included within tablet

computers, make it imperative that research is conducted to fully understand the effect

eBooks will have on comprehension and motivation.

Additional research is needed. The highlighted studies stand in agreement that

motivation was positively impacted. It must be understood, however, that motivating

students to read accomplishes little if students don’t comprehend what they are reading.

Studies of students with disabilities have shown bimodal presentation using an electronic

format to positively impact reading comprehension (Leong, 1995; Montali &

48
Lewandowski, 1996). Similar studies have not, however, been conducted on students

without learning disabilities, nor has comprehension using only the visual format been

measured in students reading from eBooks. Prior to making the foundational shift in

educational formatting that will occur with the implementation of eBooks at the middle

and high school levels, a determination of how this format will affect student reading

comprehension and motivation must be made.

eBooks in Middle and High Schools

Middle schools. Recent research has begun to focus on the “deep reading” of

middle school students when using the electronic format. Fisher et al. (2011) studied 100

eighth grade students reading science and social studies information in both the electronic

and paper formats. Students completed the readings and responded to questions in order

to assess their comprehension and attention to detail. There were no significant

differences between the groups on questions related to main themes, but electronic

students performed significantly poorer on questions related to specific details. While

this research took a significant step towards understanding the effect of the electronic

format on reading for this age group, it lacked many aspects needed for a statistically

significant determination. The first issue noted with this research was formatting.

Articles from electronic journals were read as they appeared on the journal’s website, and

were not formatted to resemble book passages. The second major issue noted was

research focus. Three aspects of electronic reading were considered: understanding the

main theme, the three-dimensional nature of reading online, and deep reading (Fisher et

al., 2011). Comprehension was not the main focal point, and researchers further admitted

there were no significant differences in the overall responses, but rather focused on

49
differences in questions related to very specific information. The final issue noted was

instrument selection. The research did not use a validated instrument for the

measurement of reading comprehension, but rather researcher-created questions on the

specific journal articles selected.

High schools. Research has also begun to focus on the use of electronic books

and e-readers at the high school level. Such research has focused mainly on use and

student acceptance, and only minimally on the effect of this format on academic

achievement (Mardis & Everhart, 2011; Sherman, 2012). Mardis and Everhart (2011)

reported on the implementation of eBooks within high school systems in Florida, Texas,

and Massachusetts. These systems have implemented 1:1 reading device initiatives, and

are currently serving as pilot programs for e-readers. Eighty percent of the surveyed

students cited e-readers as increasing their reading enjoyment and comprehension

(Mardis & Everhart, 2011). Major issues regarding sampling and instrument

administration were noted. Student samples were minimal, often using 20 or fewer

students in what were labeled as intensive reading classes. Additionally, effect on

comprehension was reported using student survey results rather than through the

administration of a validated reading comprehension instrument.

Additional research is needed. Research on the effect of the electronic format

using tablets and mobile devices is increasing. The focus, thus far, has been on usage and

student acceptance. Academic research using validated measurement instruments has

been limited. Studies using minimal sample sizes and researcher-created questions on

electronic article postings, or surveys reflecting how students perceived e-readers to

affect their reading comprehension need to be replaced with research using validated

50
reading comprehension measurement instruments administered to sufficient sample sizes

of middle and high school students from which to draw statistically determined

conclusions.

Summary

The research clearly indicates that an expansion in eBook usage is occurring, both

publicly and academically. Popularity, however, is not an accurate indicator of academic

success. Research is needed to determine the effect this transition to an electronic format,

and usage of tablet devices, will have on the reading comprehension and motivation of

the students involved. While research has revealed extensive coverage regarding how

eBooks are being used at the collegiate level, few studies have reported on their

incorporation at the middle and high school levels, with no studies being located that

focus specifically on reading comprehension and motivation. Numerous studies also

exist to reveal how eBooks are being used at the elementary level, and how this increased

usage is affecting student reading comprehension and motivation. The research,

however, has been limited to pre-K through fifth grade. Few studies have detailed how

the reading comprehension and motivation of middle and high school students will be

impacted. Given the three possibilities of positive effect, negative effect, or no effect,

this study represents an important determination. If eBook usage has positive or no effect

on comprehension and motivation, then the many benefits cited in this review encourage

widespread inclusion of this format within middle and high schools. If the effect is

negative, however, the benefits must be bypassed in favor of student performance.

51
 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

Introduction

This study compared the effect of traditional books to electronic books on reading

comprehension and motivation of students in middle and high school English classes.

The purpose of the study was to fill a major gap in the literature that existed with respect

to middle and high school students’ use of eBooks on mobile devices and the impact on

academic performance. Much research exists to indicate the effect of transitioning to

electronic books on university libraries (Croft & Davis, 2010; Kimball et. al., 2010;

Schell et. al., 2010), and elementary students (Dundar & Akcayir, 2012; Larson, 2010;

Rhodes & Milby, 2007; Shamir, 2009; Shamir & Korat, 2007), but only recently have

research studies been conducted on middle and high school students (Fisher et al., 2011;

Mardis & Everhart, 2011; Sherman, 2012).

Chapter three will describe the participants, setting, instrumentation, procedures,

research design, and data analysis that were utilized in the study.

Participants

The participants in the study were a convenience sample of middle and high

school students enrolled in English courses at a local independent school in eastern North

Carolina. As middle and high school students must take English courses each year, all

students were eligible to participate in the study. The total population available for the

study was the 221 students in grades 6-12 taking English courses. All 221 students

received an invitation to participate in the study as well as parent consent and student

assent forms during their homeroom periods two weeks prior to the study.

Consent/Assent forms were received from 152 students, a volunteer rate of 69%. For

various reasons including absence and athletic participation, 12 of the approved students

52
were unable to participate in the reading comprehension portion of the study. As a result,

the 140 student sample was divided into two 70 member groups. Two students in the

paper group were released early for travel to an athletic competition, and were unable to

complete the GMRT®, giving a final participation of 138 students. The minimum sample

for the study, based on Cohen’s d = 0.5, Power = 0.8, and alpha level p = 0.05, was 128

students, with 64 per group (Soper, 2011). At the conclusion of the study, data for the

GMRT® was collected and analyzed for 138 participants, with 68 in the paper group and

70 in the electronic group.

The Motivations for Reading Questionnaire pretest was administered on day two;

a t test was conducted that demonstrated that the two groups did not significantly differ in

terms of motivation to read prior to implementation of the intervention. The Motivations

for Reading Questionnaire posttest, administered on day three, used 54 participants, with

27 students assigned to each group.

The demographics of the school indicated the population to be approximately

88% Caucasian, 51% male, and 49% female (Research School, 2011). Tuition at the high

school level exceeds $10,000 per year, with 24% of students receiving tuition assistance

(Research School, 2011). A 2011 sample of the school population (N = 118) displayed

above average performance on the Stanford 10 reading comprehension assessment (M =

42.00, SD = 5.87). This provided the population with a National Percentile Rank of 78.7

compared to the Mean National Rank of 66.1. Of the 152 participants available for the

GMRT®, 88 (58%) were male and 64 (42%) female. Participants were randomly

assigned to control and experimental groups for the GMRT® administration. The

population available for the MRQ posttest consisted of 61 total students. Forty (66%) of

53
the potential participants were male, and 21 (34%) were female. Due to absences for

illness and athletics, only 54 of the students participated.

Setting

The setting for the study was a local independent school in eastern North

Carolina. The school has a total K-12 enrollment of approximately 400 students, with

221 students in grades 6-12. Eighty-eight percent of the student body is Caucasian, 51%

are males, and 49% are females (Research School, 2011).

The school is located in a small city of approximately 60,000 and a county of

100,000 located in eastern North Carolina (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). City

demographic data indicates a population that is 56% Black, 41% White, 2% Hispanic,

and 1% Asian (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). County demographic data indicates a

population that is 56% White, 37% Black, 6% Hispanic, and 1% Asian (U.S Census

Bureau, 2010).

For the comprehension portion of the study, students were randomly assigned to

the treatment or control group using a random number generator and both groups were

simultaneously administered the treatment and instruments during a regularly scheduled

Flex period beginning at 1:08 p.m. each school day. Flex time is normally used for club

meetings. Participants initially reported to the school cafeteria. Once all students were

seated, each student received a number. Using a random number generator, the students

were assigned to either the paper group or the electronic group. Electronic group

members were then distributed to the library and middle school classrooms. All

electronic students were initially scheduled to remain in the cafeteria for the

administration of the GMRT®. A wireless access point at this location failed as students

began logging into the online GMRT® website, and proctors had to relocate electronic
54
students to the school’s library and to middle school classrooms in order to access

additional wireless access points. Paper group students remained in the cafeteria when

the electronic students were reassigned. Treatment diffusion was addressed using group

separation, through instructions to not discuss any information related to the instrument

administration, and through teacher monitoring to ensure no discussions regarding the

research took place during administration of the instrument. Both groups were

administered the same reading comprehension section of the Gates-MacGinitie Reading

Tests®. The only difference was in format. Paper group students were administered the

reading comprehension section using the traditional paper test booklets. Electronic group

students were administered the reading comprehension section by accessing the GMRT®

online version through Riverside Publishing’s (2012) Testing Interface.

On day two, students reported to their normally assigned FLEX classrooms at

1:08 for the Motivations for Reading Questionnaire pretest. All participants completed

the Motivations for Reading Questionnaire.

On day three, students reported to their normally assigned FLEX classrooms at 1:08 pm

for the MRQ posttest. All participants read an excerpt from James L. Swanson’s (2009)

book entitled Chasing Lincoln’s Killer: The Search for John Wilkes Booth, and

completed the Motivations for Reading Questionnaire. Three classrooms were assigned

to the paper group and read the book excerpt in paper form prior to responding to the

MRQ. Three classrooms were assigned to the electronic group and read the book excerpt

in electronic form using their Lenovo tablet prior to responding to the MRQ.

A validated reading comprehension instrument capable of tablet administration

and traditional administration proved difficult to locate. Few avenues provided

55
assessments meeting these criteria, but Riverside Publishing’s 2010 release of an online

version of the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests® offered a solution. Though the online

version was designed for access from traditional computers, it was accessed using a

Lenovo X220 Tablet in the current study. Originally, the study was to be conducted

using Apple iPads as the delivery devices. A trial conducted with Riverside Publishing

revealed that the inability of the iPad to support Adobe Flash® player would prevent the

device from being used with the GMRT® online. Students accessed the GMRT® online

through Riverside Publishing’s (2012) Testing Interface. The Testing Interface can be

accessed using a standard web browser. For this research, Google’s ChromeTM internet

browser was used. The comprehension sections are designed so that students do not need

to scroll. The reading passage appears on the left side of the screen and the questions

appear on the right of the screen. The bottom of the screen contains a grey progress bar

displaying the number of questions answered and the elapsed time, as well as green

arrows allowing the student to “Go Back” to previous questions or to “Go On” to the next

question. A sample screen for the GMRT® online is displayed below (Riverside

Publishing, 2012).

56
 The independent variable for research question one was book format. There were

two levels to the independent variable: (1) Print book format, and (2) Electronic book

format. The dependent variable for research question one was student reading

comprehension as measured using the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests®. The GMRT®

normally includes both a vocabulary and comprehension assessment and requires 55

minutes to administer both (Riverside Publishing, 2012). This research focused only on

comprehension, and thus, required 35 minutes for the administration of the

comprehension assessment. The vocabulary section was voided by simply omitting the

section in the paper format. This was accomplished in the online version by opting to

void the vocabulary section at the beginning of the assessment. The comprehension

assessment measured students’ abilities to understand various types of writing (Riverside

Publishing, 2012). Reading passages were selected for similarity to both school-related

and recreational reading, and include fiction and nonfiction as well as different styles of

writing (MacGinitie et. al., 2006; Riverside Publishing, 2012). The GMRT® uses leveled
57
tests for students in varying ability groups from pre-reading through adult reading. This

research used the Level 7/9 version which was designed to provide a general assessment

of reading for students in grades 7-9 (Riverside Publishing, 2012). The GMRT® online

allows students in grades 4-12 to be tested in the same room at the same time (Riverside

Publishing, 2012).

The GMRT® has a test reliability coefficient of 0.90, and a reading

comprehension reliability coefficient of 0.89 (MacGinitie et. al., 2006). The reliability

estimates indicate strong total test and subtest consistency levels. A rigorous, nationally

representative standardization sample of 65,000 Kindergarten through 12th grade students

and approximately 2,800 adult community college students participated in the

standardization procedure (MacGinitie et. al., 2006). Content validity was ensured

through the test development process; however, no discussion of validity was included in

the technical report (MacGinitie et. al., 2006). Perhaps the greatest statement of validity

was offered by Pearson’s Developmental Reading Assessment, K-8, Second Edition. In

the spring of 2008, students were administered the DRA followed by one of the following

reading tests within a one week period (Pearson, 2009). The Grays Oral Reading Test –

4th Edition (Gort-4; Wiederholt & Bryant, 2001), DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Test –

6th Edition (DORF; Good, Kaminski, & Dill, 2002), and the Gates MacGinitie Reading

Tests – 4th Edition (MacGinitie et. al., 2002) were used to determine concurrent validity

(Pearson, 2009). The fact that the GMRT® was such an accepted assessment as to be

used in validating more recent reading assessments displays it positioning as a valid, well

respected assessment of reading. The GMRT® print test was scored by the researcher

using scoring manuals purchased through Riverside publishing. The GMRT® online was

58
scored by the publisher and reported to the researcher within 24 hours using Riverside

Publishing’s Interactive Results Manager (iRM) (Riverside Publishing, 2012). Raw

scores were used for statistical analysis in this study.

The independent variable for research question two was book format. There were

two levels to the independent variable: (1) Print book format, and (2) Electronic book

format. The dependent variable was student reading motivation as measured using the

Motivations for Reading Questionnaire (MRQ; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). The MRQ

was also given as a pretest. Originally developed by Wigfield and Guthrie in 1995 and

including 82 items, the MRQ was revised to its current form in 1997 with 53 items

(Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). As a group, students read the instrument directions and

completed the remaining questionnaire independently. The response format for the 53

items is a 4-point Likert scale with 1 = Very different from me, 2 = A little different from

me, 3 = A little like me, and 4 = A lot like me (Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). Eleven

constructs of reading motivation are measured (Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). Of the 53

total questions, responses to three items determine Construct One - Reading Efficacy;

five questions determine Construct Two - Reading Challenge; six questions determine

Construct Three - Reading Curiosity; six questions determine Construct Four - Reading

Involvement; two questions determine Construct Five - Importance of Reading; four

questions determine Construct Six - Reading Work Avoidance; six questions determine

Construct Seven - Competition in Reading; five questions determine Construct Eight -

Recognition for Reading; four questions determine Construct Nine - Reading for Grades;

seven questions determine Construct Ten - Social Reasons for Reading; and five

questions determine Construct Eleven - Compliance (Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). All

59
students were able to complete the 53 items on the MRQ in one 20 minute session

(Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997).

The MRQ was initially administered to 371 fifth and sixth grade students, 52%

girls and 48% boys, attending six elementary schools in a large mid-Atlantic city (Baker

& Wigfield, 1999). Wigfield and Guthrie (1997) reported reliability values for the MRQ

to range from .52 to .81. The Work Avoidance and Reading for Grades constructs

initially reported the lowest reliabilities at .44 and .43 (Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997).

Twenty-eight of the original items were dropped to improve the instrument in these areas,

and further studies have revealed reliabilities for the two constructs to have risen to .60

and .59 (Baker & Wigfield, 1999; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). The remaining nine

constructs have consistently displayed internal reliabilities approaching or exceeding

0.70, and reaching .81 (Baker & Wigfield, 1999; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). Goodness-

of-fit index for the instrument was reported as 0.90 (Baker & Wigfield, 1999). Unrau and

Schlackman (2006) reported validity of the MRQ, following its use with a sample of

2000 6th, 7th, and 8th grade students with a confirmatory fit index (CFI) of .90. The

sample consisted of students who were 75 % Hispanic, 20 % Asian, and 5 % African

American, American Indian or White (Unrau & Schlackman, 2006). Internal consistency

estimates of reliability will be calculated for the survey using Cronbach’s coefficient

alpha for the present data and reported here.

Scoring was performed by the researcher. Students were assigned an overall

score by summing the scores of all items with the exception of the Work Avoidance

dimension (Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). The response format for the 53 items was a 4-

point Likert type scale with 1 = Very different from me, 2 = A little different from me, 3

60
= A little like me, and 4 = A lot like me (Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). Students were

assigned individual construct scores by summing the item scores and dividing by the total

number of questions used to measure the construct (Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). An

exception was noted for the Compliance construct. To obtain an accurate score for this

scale, the first two items were reversed; a score of 1 was converted to a 4, a score of 2

converted to a 3, a score of 3 converted to a 2, and a score of 4 converted to a 1 (Wigfield

& Guthrie, 1997).

Procedures

In August 2012, the middle and high school principals as well as the school

headmaster were contacted to obtain pre-approval to conduct the study on the selected

campus. The Institutional Review Board packet was completed and submitted to the IRB

for approval. Once IRB approval was received, English teachers at the selected site were

contacted to request their participation as proctors.

The researcher met with individual English teachers and principals to explain the

study and testing procedures and to determine the best dates on which to administer the

treatment and tests.

In Fall 2012, parental consent and student assent forms were distributed to parents

and students two weeks prior to the study. Forms were sent home via students. The

forms were given to students during homeroom periods. Notifications were then emailed

to parents as well. Forms had to be signed by the parents and students and returned to the

school in order for students to participate in the study.

On day one of the testing, students participated in the Gates MacGinitie Reading

Tests® (MacGinitie et. al., 2006). The test was administered during the students’

normally assigned Flex period, with teachers serving as test administrators, and required
61
a single 35 minute session. While the Flex period is normally allotted only 24 minutes,

the researcher received permission for students to remain for the duration of the GMRT®.

At 1:08 p.m., students reported to the school cafeteria with their tablet computers. Upon

entering, students were seated at the cafeteria tables. A teacher then presented each

student with an index card containing a specific number. The administrators then

assigned each student to either the experimental group or the control group based upon

the index card’s number using a random assignment list generated by the researcher

through GraphPad software’s (2012) QuickCalcs generator. All electronic students were

initially scheduled to remain in the cafeteria for testing. A wireless access point in the

cafeteria failed while students were logging into the GMRT® online website. As a result,

electronic students had to be distributed to the library and middle school classrooms to

prevent overloading any single wireless access point. Students in the control group

remained in the cafeteria. Each group was instructed to not discuss the research, and was

monitored by teachers during movement to the alternative locations and during

instrument administration. Students in the experimental group did not receive paper

materials, but rather accessed the GMRT® online through Riverside Publishing’s (2012)

Testing Interface via their Lenovo X220 Tablet. Students in the control group were

provided test booklets and pencils to read and respond to the GMRT® passages using the

traditional print format. Both groups read the same passages; only the format differed.

Students taking the print version were guided through the assessment by the proctor and

printed instructions included with the test booklet. Students taking the on-line version

accessed the GMRT® portal, and were kept in a virtual waiting area that prevented them

from beginning until all students were logged in. The GMRT® is a proctored test, and

62
once all students were correctly logged in and in the waiting room, teachers notified the

researcher. Once all students were ready, the administrator electronically started the test.

On-line students were guided through the test by the directions included in the online

version. Students taking the print version were instructed by the on-site proctor to begin

their test at the same time. As online students completed the test, they logged out of the

GMRT® portal. Proctors collected materials from print students once they finished. All

materials were returned to the researcher immediately following administration.

Reading passages for the GMRT® were selected for similarity to both school-

related and recreational reading (MacGinitie et. al., 2006; Riverside Publishing, 2012).

The passages included fiction and nonfiction, and incorporated different types of writing

as well (MacGinitie et. al., 2006; Riverside Publishing, 2012). Questions 1-5 were based

on an excerpt from Yolanda’s Genius, by Carol Fenner (1995). Questions 6-9 were based

on an excerpt from Rear-View Mirrors, by Paul Fleischman (1986). Questions 10-15

were based on an excerpt from Long Lance: The Autobiography of a Blackfoot Indian

Chief, by Chief Buffalo Child Long Lance (1928). Questions 16-19 were based on an

excerpt from Minn of the Mississippi, by Holling Clancy Holling (1951). Questions 20-

23 were based on an excerpt from Invisible Man, by Ralph Ellison (1947). Questions 24-

28 were based on an excerpt from Caterpillars and How They Live, by Robert McClung

(1965). Questions 29-31 were based on an excerpt from O Pioneers! by Willa Cather

(1913). Questions 32-35 were based on an excerpt from Geography Facts, by Dougal

Dixon (1992). Questions 36-38 were based on an excerpt from The Story of Furniture,

by Edmund Hunter (1971). Questions 39-43 were based on an excerpt from Silent

Dancing: A Partial Remembrance of a Puerto Rican Childhood, (1990). Questions 44-

63
48 were based on an excerpt from Humanities: The Evolution of Values, by Lee A.

Jacobus (1986).

On day two of the testing, students participated in the Motivations for Reading

Questionnaire pretest during their normally assigned Flex period. The test was

administered in a single 20 minute session, thus no additional scheduling was necessary.

Students were seated and provided paper copies of the MRQ. Administrators then

allowed the necessary time for MRQ responses to be circled. Response forms were

collected by the teachers serving as proctors and returned to the researcher for grading.

MRQ scoring was conducted by hand using directions provided by the questionnaire’s

authors.

On day three of the testing, students participated in the Motivations for Reading

Questionnaire posttest during their normally assigned FLEX periods. Random

assignment in the educational setting was not possible for this aspect of the study; thus,

three classrooms were selected to serve as members of the control (paper) group and

three classrooms were selected to serve as members of the experimental (electronic)

group. Students were seated and provided paper copies of the MRQ. Control group

students read a paper excerpt from John Swanson’s (2009) book, Chasing Lincoln’s

Killer – The Search for John Wilkes Booth. Experimental students used their Lenovo

tablets to access the excerpt. Administrators then allowed the necessary time for MRQ

responses to be circled. Response forms were collected by the teachers serving as

proctors and returned to the researcher for grading. MRQ scoring was conducted by hand

using directions provided by the questionnaire’s authors. Scoring data was statistically

analyzed using a MANOVA; a t test was conducted on pretest scores and determined

64
there was not a significant difference in the scores for control (Paper GMRT®) group

students (M = 2.62, SD = .50) and experimental (Electronic GMRT®) group students (M

= 2.56, SD = .42) on the conditions; t(138) = .73, p = .47.

Research Design

Research question one was studied using a true experimental posttest-only

control-group design. This design was chosen for its rigor, and due to the ability to

randomly assign the sample. The choice to exclude a pretest was based on the fact that

administering a pretest may have adversely affected scores on the posttest (Gall, Gall, &

Borg, 2007; Wiersma & Jurs, 2005). Random assignment allowed for the assumption of

equal groups (Campbell & Stanley, 1963).

Research question two was studied using a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest

control-group design. This design was chosen due to the inability of the researcher to

randomly assign the sample on days two and three of the study; this design is often used

in educational settings for this reason and is thus appropriate for this study (Gall et. al.,

2007). The study research questions were:

R1: Is there a statistically significant difference in the reading comprehension of

middle and high school English students using electronic books compared to students

using traditional print books as measured using the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests®

(GMRT®)?

R2: Is there a statistically significant difference in the reading motivation of

middle and high school English students using electronic books when compared to those

using traditional print books as measured by the Motivations for Reading Questionnaire

(MRQ)?

65
 Data Analysis

The first research question was analyzed using an independent t-test to evaluate

the null hypothesis that middle and high school English students using print and

electronic books would not display a statistically significant difference in reading

comprehension as measured by the Gates MacGinitie Reading Tests®. This was the

appropriate statistical test due to the fact that the research was testing hypotheses of

difference with one independent variable having two levels, one dependent variable, and

no covariate (Gall et. al., 2007). The alpha level for the study was p <0.05 in order to

prevent the incorrect rejection of the null hypothesis (Sprinthall, 2003). The number of

participants calculated with an alpha level of p <0.05, Cohen’s d value of 0.5, and a

power level of 0.80 provided a minimum sample size for an independent t-test of 128

(Soper, 2011). Effect size was reported as Cohen’s d (Ary, Jacobs, Razavieh, &

Sorenson, 2006). Prior to conducting the analysis assumption testing was conducted.

Normality was assessed using histograms (Sprinthall, 2003). Equal variance was

assessed using Levene’s test of homogeneity (Sprinthall, 2003). Large sample sizes (i.e.,

when both groups have >25 subjects) and equally sized groups made this test robust to

violations of normality and homogeneity of variance assumptions (Diekhoff, 1992); thus,

minor violations were not a concern. The sample for this research included 138 students

divided into a paper group of 68 and an electronic group of 70. The presence of outliers

was examined using box plots (Howell, 2008). Outliers resulting from errors were

eliminated. Representative outliers forced a drop from interval to ordinal tests of

significance (Sprinthall, 2003).

The second research question used a one-way multivariate analysis of variance

(MANOVA) to evaluate the null hypothesis that middle and high school English students
66
reading an excerpt from John Swanson’s (2009) book, Chasing Lincoln’s Killer – The

Search for John Wilkes Booth in traditional print and electronic formats would display

no statistically significant difference in their mean scores for the linear combination of

the reading motivation scales as measured using the Motivations for Reading

Questionnaire. A MANOVA was chosen because it tests the significance of group

differences between two or more groups when there are correlated dependent variables

(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The optimal number of participants per group range from

20 to10 times the number of dependent variables for this analysis (Swanson & Holton,

2005); the convention for the design used 54 posttest participants in two groups of 27,

exceeding the 15 per group minimum set by Gall, et al. (2007), and providing a

sufficient, but small sample size. A p <.05 level of significance was used for all analyses

to determine if the null hypotheses could be rejected. The effect size was calculated

using the Eta squared statistic and interpreted using Cohen’s d (1988).

Assumption testing was conducted prior to the analysis. The assumption of

outliers was examined using boxplots (Sprinthall, 2003). The assumption of normality

was examined using a One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test with Lilliefor’s correction,

(Lilliefors, 1967; Shapiro & Wilk, 1965). Mahalanobis distance was calculated to test for

multivariate normality. Correlations and scatterplots were analyzed to evaluate assumptions for

linearity, singularity, and multicollinearity. The assumption of homogeneity of variances

and covariance was completed using Levene’s test and Box’s M test (Box, 1949;

Sprinthall, 2003). The assumption of sphericity was examined using Bartlett’s and

Mauchly’s tests (Mauchly, 1940; Snedecor & Cochran, 1989).

An independent t-test of the MRQ pretest scores was conducted to determine if

there was a significant difference in scores based on group assignment. No significant

67
difference was found between the scores for control (Paper GMRT®) group students (M =

2.62, SD = .50) and experimental (Electronic GMRT®) group students (M = 2.56, SD =

.42) on the conditions; t(131) = .73, p = .47. The finding of no statistically significant

difference between the groups on the pretest led to the use of a MANOVA for data

analysis as there was no need to determine the effect of a covariate.

68
 CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS

Introduction

This chapter contains a summary of the results for each of the research questions,

and a detailed description of the decisions regarding the research hypotheses for this

study. The data presented in this chapter was used to determine the effect of book format

on the reading comprehension and motivation of middle and high school students. Data

for the reading comprehension section of the study was collected from 138 randomly

assigned 6th – 12th grade students and statistical analyses were conducted to compare the

data between the study’s experimental group and control group. Data from the t test was

used to determine if a significant difference in student reading comprehension scores

existed based on book format.

Data for the reading motivation section of the study was collected from 54 middle

and high school students and statistical analyses were conducted to compare the data

between the study’s experimental group and control group. Data from the multivariate

analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to determine the association between the

dependent variables, reading motivation levels as measured by the 11 subscales of the

Motivations for Reading Questionnaire (MRQ), based on the independent variable, book

format.

Question One: Independent t-Test

Descriptive Statistics

The first research question was, “Is there a statistically significant difference in

the reading comprehension of middle and high school English students using electronic

books compared to students using traditional print books?” An independent two-tailed t

69
– test was performed to determine if a statistically significant difference existed between

the experimental group and the control group in the level of reading comprehension as

measured using raw scores from the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests®. Group

assignment, experimental (electronic) or control (paper) was used as the independent

variable when evaluating the equality or differences among population means. The

means and standard deviations for reading comprehension as represented by the

participants’ group assignments are reported in Table 4.2.

70
Table 4.2.

Descriptive Statistics for Reading Comprehension based on Group Assignment

Dependent Variable Experimental Group Control Group

(n = 70) (n = 68)

M SD M SD

GMRT Raw Score 37.84 7.63 37.71 7.33

Assumption testing was performed to determine whether the following

assumptions were tenable: Normality, homogeneity of variance, and no extreme outliers.

Normality and no extreme outliers were assessed using histograms and box plots. There

were no extreme outliers presented in the graphs to indicate any errors or inconsistencies

in the data.

Equal variance was assessed using Levene’s test of homogeneity. For this

research, Levene’s test reported significance of .75, indicating the two variances were

approximately equal (Sprinthall, 2003). t-tests are also robust to violations of normality

and homogeneity of variance assumptions when sample sizes are large (i.e., when both

groups have > 25 subjects) (Diekhoff, 1992). This study used 138 participants in two

groups, with a control group of 68 participants and an experimental group of 70

participants.

Inferential Statistics

Among 6th – 12th grade students taking the GMRT (N = 138), there was not a

statistically significant difference between the paper group (M = 37.71, SD = 7.33) and

the electronic group (M = 37.84, SD = 7.63), t (136) = -.11, p = .92. Therefore, the

71
research failed to reject the null hypothesis. Cohen’s effect size value (d = .02) suggested

low practical significance, and observed power = .83.

Question Two: MANOVA

Descriptive Statistics

The second research question was, “Is there a statistically significant difference in

the reading motivation of middle and high school English students using electronic books

compared to students using traditional print books?” A one-way multivariate analysis of

variance (MANOVA) was performed to identify whether a significant difference between

the experimental group and the control group in the level of reading motivation

associated with book format existed. The linear combination of the 11 subscales of the

Motivations for Reading Questionnaire served as the dependent variables. These

variables included reading efficacy, reading challenge, reading curiosity, reading

involvement, importance of reading, reading work avoidance, competition in reading,

recognition in reading, reading for grades, social reasons for reading, and compliance.

Group assignment, experimental or control, was used as the independent variable when

evaluating the equality or differences among population means. The means and standard

deviations for each of the 11 subscales represented by the participants’ group assignments

are reported in Table 4.3.

72
Table 4.3.

Descriptive Statistics for Reading Motivation based on Group Assignment

Dependent Variables Experimental Group Control Group

(n = 27) (n = 27)

M SD M SD

Reading Efficacy 2.72 .68 2.85 .78

Reading Challenge 2.60 .68 2.47 .64

Reading Curiosity 2.76 .69 2.74 .61

Reading Involvement 2.56 .68 2.50 .58

Importance of Reading 2.40 1.05 2.65 .77

Reading Work Avoidance 2.66 .69 2.46 .56

Competition in Reading 2.47 .76 2.67 .71

Recognition in Reading 2.41 .89 2.62 .81

Reading for Grades 2.55 .81 2.90 .66

Social Reading 1.67 .63 1.70 .44

Compliance 2.62 .62 2.94 .52

Linear Combination 2.51 .39 2.57 .46

Prior to conducting a MANOVA, assumption testing was completed to determine

whether the following assumptions were tenable: sample size, normality, outliers,

homogeneity of variance-covariance, linearity, and multicollinearity/singularity. For a

MANOVA, there should be more cases in each cell than total dependent variables for the

study (Pallant, 2011). For this study, the sample size assumption is satisfied by having 27

73
cases in each cell with only 11 dependent variables. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic

was examined to check univariate normality. For this test, an alpha value greater than .05

indicates normality (Pallant, 2011). Normality was present in all dependent variables.

As an additional check for normality and univariate outliers, histograms, Q-Q plots, and

boxplots were examined. Boxplots revealed four extreme outliers for the Reading

Involvement scale and one for the Reading Avoidance scale. The outliers were first

checked to ensure they were not the result of recording errors (Gall et. al., 2007). Since a

MANOVA is tolerant to outliers if values are not too extreme and N > the number of

dependent variables, the outlers were not removed (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). A

Mahalanobis distance statistic was calculated to examine multivariate outliers; the

Mahalanobis distance values were assessed using 2 (11, N = 54) = 32.9, p < .001. The

Mahalanobis distance value was compared against a critical value to determine if there

was a violation of this assumption within the data set (Pallant, 2011). The critical value of

32.9 was determined using a chi-square table with the number of dependent variables

(11) as the degrees of freedom and an alpha value of p = .001. There were no violations

of this assumption as none of the cases were larger than the critical value, indicating a

lack of multivariate outliers for this study. The assumption of homogeneity of variance-

covariance was tenable based on Box’s M = 98.92, F(66, 8621) = 1.16, p = .18.

A matrix of scatterplots was generated to check for linearity assumptions. The

plots showed no evidence of non-linearity; therefore, the assumption of linearity was

satisfied. Pearson’s r correlations were conducted to examine multicollinearity among

the dependent variables. A Pearson’s r correlation shows the strength of the relationship

between groups of students on each of the 11 scales (Reading Efficacy, Reading

74
Challenge, Reading Curiosity, Reading Involvement, Importance of Reading, Reading

Work Avoidance, Competition in Reading, Recognition in Reading, Reading for Grades,

Social Reasons for Reading, and Compliance). Correlations exceeding .8 are reasons for

concern (Pallant, 2011). For this data set, the correlations among the dependent variables

are all below .8; therefore the data set does not violate the assumptions of

multicollinearity and singularity. Results for this data set at shown in Table 4.4.

75
Table 4.4.

Correlation Matrix

EFF CHA CUR INV IMP WA CR RR RG SR C

Reading Efficacy 1 .58** .64** .52** .52** -.43** .40** .48** .43** .28* .36**
Reading Challenge .58** 1 .76** .63** .53** -.47** .42** .39** .46** .55** .44**
Reading Curiosity .64** .76** 1 .49** .47** -.43** .33* .30* .36** .37** .39**
Reading Involvement .52** .63** .49** 1 .57** -.41** .39** .43** .30* .50** .54**
Importance of Reading .52** .53** .47** .57** 1 -.34* .69** .74** .71** .63** .58**
Reading Work Avoidance -.43** -.47** -.43** -.41** -.34* 1 -.09 -.26 -.29* -.27* -.32*
Competition in Reading .40** .42** .33* .39** .69** -.09 1 .74** .60** .59** .54**
Recognition in Reading .48** .39** .30* .43** .74** -.26 .74** 1 .73** .58** .58**
Reading for Grades .43** .46** .36** .29* .71** -.29* .60* * .73** 1 .58** .54**
Social Reasons .28* .55** .37** .50** .63** -.27* .59** .59** .58** 1 .52**
Compliance .36** .44** .39** .54** .58** -.32* .54** .58** .54** .52** 1

Note: **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.
Table 4.4 was also used to assess correlations among the dependent variables and to

determine if the MANOVA was the most appropriate choice of analysis.

The MRQ was designed with multiple subscales and each of those subscales

served as a dependent variable in this study. In previous research, the subscales have

been significantly correlated. All subscales are significantly positively correlated with

one another, with the exception of the subscale Work Avoidance (Wigfield & Guthrie,

1997). This subscale is negatively correlated with other subscales (Wigfield & Guthrie,

1997). Consistent with previous research, Table 4.4 demonstrates that the subscales in

this study are significantly positively correlated with the exception of the Work

Avoidance scale. Given the significant correlations among the dependent variables, the

MANOVA was conducted and deemed appropriate as the MANOVA considers the

interrelationship between variables and determines whether groups differ on more than

one dependent variable (Gall et. al., 2007).

Wilk’s Lambda was used to indicate statistically significant differences among the

variables since there were no violations.

Inferential Statistics

The results of the MANOVA indicated there was not a statistically significant

difference between reading motivation levels based on book format, Wilk’s lambda =

.750, F (11, 42) = 1.27, p = .27. , partial η2 = .25. Further, Cohen’s effect size value for

the linear combination of the reading motivation scales d = .26. Based on the

nonsignificant results, the decision was made to fail to reject the null hypothesis.

Observed power = .59, which indicates a 59% probability that failing to reject the null

hypothesis was correct.

 The impact of book format on responses to the Motivations for Reading

Questionnaire was evaluated using the effect size statistic, partial eta squared. Results

revealed that book format was associated with overall reading motivation for only 1.6%

of participants. A further breakdown of results based on partial eta squared showed that

0.8% of students’ reading efficacy, 0.9% of students’ reading challenge, 0.0% of

students’ reading curiosity, 0.3% of students’ reading involvement, 1.8% of students’

reading importance, 2.5% of students’ reading avoidance, 1.9% of students’ reading

competition, 1.6% of students’ recognition for reading, 5.6% of students’ reading for

grades, 0.1% of students’ social reasons for reading, and 7.5% of students’ reading

compliance was associated with book format.

In summary, the F statistic was not significant, indicating that the middle and high

school English students who used the electronic format did not differ significantly in their

mean scores with respect to the 11 subscales of the Motivations for Reading

Questionnaire than the students who used the paper format (Gall et. al., 2007; Howell,

2008). Since the MANOVA F statistic was not significant, individual ANOVAs for each

dependent variable were not performed (Gall et. al., 2007).

Summary

The results of the data analysis displayed no statistically significant differences

between the experimental and control groups for this study. Based on the results, the

research failed to reject the null hypotheses for the following research questions: (1) Is

there a statistically significant difference in the reading comprehension of middle and

high school English students using electronic books compared to students using

traditional print books? and (2) Is there a statistically significant difference in the reading

motivation of middle and high school English students using electronic books compared
78
to students using traditional print books? An independent t-test displayed no statistically

significant difference in reading comprehension based on book format. Preliminary

assumption testing was conducted to check for normality, outliers, and homogeneity of

variance. Among 6th – 12th grade students taking the GMRT® (N = 138), there was no

statistically significant difference between the paper group (M = 37.71, SD = 7.33) and

the electronic group (M = 37.84, SD = 7.63), t (136) = -.11, p ≥ .05. Therefore, we fail to

reject the null hypothesis that middle and high school English students using traditional

print and electronic books will not display significantly different levels of reading

comprehension as measured using the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests®. A one-way

between groups multivariate analysis of variance was performed to investigate group

differences in students’ reading motivation based on book format. Eleven dependent

variables were used: Reading Efficacy, Reading Challenge, Reading Curiosity, Reading

Involvement, Importance of Reading, Reading Work Avoidance, Competition in

Reading, Recognition in Reading, Reading for Grades, Social Reasons for Reading, and

Compliance. The independent variable was book format. Preliminary assumption testing

was conducted to check for normality, linearity, univariate and multivariate outliers,

homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices, and multicollinearity. Results displayed

no statistically significant difference between the experimental group and control group

for reading motivation based on book format.

79
 CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION

Introduction

This chapter will review the methodology for this combination experimental post-

test only design and quasi-experimental pretest-posttest control-group design study and

provide a summary of the results from the independent t-test and multivariate analysis of

variance (MANOVA) analyses. This quantitative research study will be discussed in

light of prior research. Limitations are outlined, and the theoretical and practical

implications are discussed. The chapter concludes with recommendations for future

research and a closing summary.

The purpose of this study was to determine if there was a statistically significant

difference in the reading comprehension and reading motivation levels of middle and

high school English students when using electronic books compared to using traditional

print books. This study investigated two research questions: (1) Is there a statistically

significant difference in the reading comprehension of middle and high school English

students using electronic books compared to students using traditional print books? and

(2) Is there a statistically significant difference in the reading motivation of middle and

high school English students using electronic books compared to students using

traditional print books?

Review of Methodology

A convenience sample of middle and high school English students (N = 138) at an

independent school in eastern North Carolina was randomly assigned to an experimental

and a control group. On day one of the research, both groups of students were

administered the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests® comprehension section. Control

group students took the GMRT® using the traditional paper version while experimental

80
group students took the GMRT® using the online version accessed via Riverside

Publishing’s (2012) Testing Interface. No pretest was administered to avoid unnecessary

testing as a threat to the internal validity of the study; group equivalence was assumed

due to random assignment (Campbell & Stanley, 1963). Data was collected from the

GMRT® comprehension section in the form of raw scores and analyzed using an

independent t-test. The t-test was used to determine if there was a statistically significant

difference in reading comprehension level based on book format.

On day two of the study, research question two was addressed using a quasi-

experimental pretest-posttest control-group design. The pretest was administered by

having students who participated in the previous day’s GMRT® assessment provide

responses to the Motivations for Reading Questionnaire. Data analysis for the pretest

was conducted using a t test that demonstrated the two groups did not significantly differ

in terms of motivation to read prior to implementation of the intervention. On day three,

a posttest MRQ was administered to a sample of 54 GMRT® participants. A control

group of 27 students read an excerpt from John Swanson’s (2009) book, Chasing

Lincoln’s Killer – The Search for John Wilkes Booth in paper form while an experimental

group of 27 students read the excerpt using Lenovo X220 tablets. Data collected from

the Motivations for Reading Questionnaire posttest was analyzed using a one-way

multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). The MANOVA was used to investigate

the differences in means of the 11 dependent variables: Reading Efficacy, Reading

Challenge, Reading Curiosity, Reading Involvement, Importance of Reading, Reading

Work Avoidance, Competition in Reading, Recognition in Reading, Reading for Grades,

Social Reasons for Reading, and Compliance. Prior to analysis, data was tested to ensure

81
conformity to the assumptions of sample size, normality, outliers, linearity, homogeneity

of variance-covariance, singularity, and multicollinearity. There were no major concerns

related to the violation of any assumptions;

Summary of Results

An independent t-test was used to investigate research question #1: Is there a

statistically significant difference in the reading comprehension of middle and high

school English students using electronic books compared to students using traditional

print books? Results indicated there was not a statistically significant difference in

comprehension based on book format. Students in the experimental group did not display

significantly different levels of reading comprehension when compared to students in the

control group. Results provided statistical support for full transition to electronic testing

within the research population’s school as groups displayed no statistically significant

difference in raw scores. Given the importance of comprehension as a foundational skill

essential to the understanding and success of students in any academic discipline, these

results have wide-ranging implications for the research school. The fact that students

performed as well in the electronic format suggests that students at the research school

would not be adversely affected by the implementation of either electronic texts or

electronic testing. Since academic achievement will not be adversely affected, the school

now has a statistical basis upon which to implement further electronic transitions.

A MANOVA was used to investigate research question #2: Is there a statistically

significant difference in the reading motivation of middle and high school English

students using electronic books compared to students using traditional print books?

Results indicated there was not a statistically significant difference in motivation based

on book format. Students in the experimental group did not display significantly
82
different levels of reading motivation when compared to students in the control group. It

must be noted that observed power for the MANOVA was .59, indicating a 59%

probability that failing to reject the null hypothesis was correct. Results provided

statistical support for continued transition to the electronic format. While motivation was

not improved using electronic books, neither was it harmed. Thus, the transition to

electronic books and textbooks possible with the school’s implementation of a 1:1 tablet

program will continue to be a valid option based on other factor such as textbook costs

and sustained academic achievement.

Relationship to Prior Research

The purpose of this true-experimental posttest-only control-group design study

was to determine if there was a statistically significant difference in the reading

comprehension levels of middle and high school English students when using electronic

books compared to traditional print books. The purpose of this quasi-experimental

pretest-posttest control-group design study was to determine if there was a statistically

significant difference in the reading motivation levels of middle and high school English

students when using electronic books compared to traditional print books. Through my

search of the literature, using databases such as ERIC and Education Research Complete,

I was unable to locate research that specifically studied the effect eBooks have on the

reading comprehension and motivation levels of middle and high school students. Thus,

research to make such a determination for students at the middle and secondary levels

was needed.

Research conducted at the collegiate level indicated little effect on academic

performance. A University of Florida trial allowed undergraduate psychology students to

choose either traditional or electronic texts. The electronic text group reported spending
83
less time in their reading, yet displayed no statistically significant difference in the grades

received for the course (Shepperd et. al., 2008). Another study conducted at a university

in Virginia compared the use of eBooks and traditional books on undergraduate student

learning in an educational history course. While results reported higher psychomotor

learning levels for students using eBooks, no difference in actual learning between the

groups existed (Rockinson-Szapkiw & Holder, 2011). The current study’s retention of

the null hypothesis that middle and high school English students using traditional print

and electronic books will not display statistically significant different levels of reading

comprehension as measured using the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests® supports

previous results indicating no change in academic achievement based on format.

Research at the elementary level has displayed electronic books to improve

reading motivation. A study of kindergarten students using electronic books displayed

increased motivation to read (Korat et. al., 2009; Moody, 2010; Shamir& Korat, 2007;

Shamir, 2009). A study of second grade students who read a story using an e-reader also

displayed increased motivation when compared to those students who had read traditional

print versions (Larson, 2010; Rhodes & Milby, 2007). Results of a meta-analysis of

studies using electronic books with K-5 students indicated the technology to be

significant in terms of reading motivation (Zucker et. al., 2009). The current study’s

retention of the null hypothesis that middle and high school English students using

traditional print and electronic books will not display significantly different levels of

reading motivation as measured using the Motivations for Reading Questionnaire does

not support generalizing these conclusions for students beyond grade 5.

84
 Research has begun to be conducted on reading using the electronic format at the

middle and high school levels (Fisher et al., 2011; Mardis & Everhart, 2011). Previous

studies, however, have relied upon researcher generated assessments or student surveys

in making determinations of effect. The current study’s use of the Gates-MacGinitie

Reading Tests®, a validated instrument for measuring reading comprehension, provides

full statistical support for making the determination of effect of format on reading

comprehension.

Theoretical Implications

The results of this study provide support for the theory that schema dictate level

of reading comprehension regardless of the text format. Piaget referred to an organized

pattern of thought used to explain experiences as a scheme (Piaget, 1952; Shaffer, 2002).

Rumelhart (1982) referred to schema as the building blocks of cognition, and schema

theory expanded this meaning to include the importance of general knowledge and

concept understanding in reading comprehension, specifying that most reading

difficulties can be traced to insufficient prior knowledge (Anderson et. al., 1984).

Schema theory is based on Goodman’s (1967) psycholinguistic model, which places the

ability to anticipate that which has not been seen as vital to reading comprehension

(Goodman, 1967). This research supported schema theory in that the format of the text

had no effect on reading comprehension. The students’ raw scores on the GMRT®

comprehension section were based on their ability to access prior knowledge to process

the unknown and make inferences regarding meaning, and were not affected by format.

The use of schema in understanding reading is further explained using

Rosenblatt’s (1995) transactional theory of reader response. According to Rosenblatt,

each reader considers the material through the lens of their individual experiences, and
85
works to construct personal meanings as they interact with the text (Keene &

Zimmerman, 1997; Miller, 2002). It is during this transaction between the reader and the

text that comprehension occurs (Kucer, 2001; Rosenblatt, 1978). This study provides

support for the transactional theory of reader response in that format had no effect on

comprehension. The students’ raw scores on the GMRT® were dependent upon their

interaction with the text, and their ability to construct personal meanings as they

interacted with the passages, not on format.

Noyes and Garland (2008) discussed how developments in screen technology

lessened the impact of reading difficulties, and noted improvements in the transaction

using the improving technology involved in the electronic format. This research provides

support for this viewpoint in that the current study utilized tablets to access Riverside

Publishing’s (2012) Testing Interface. This newer technology resulted in not only

improvements in the transaction using the electronic format, but equivalence in the

transaction as measured using GMRT® reading comprehension raw scores.

The theoretical framework for this study’s motivational research is based upon

Social Cognitive Theory, specifically the role of Bandura’s (1997) ideas regarding self-

efficacy in the motivational level for any task. This view of motivation asserts that

efficacy beliefs, involving both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation as well as the

individual’s purposes for achievement, play an integral role in the decision to perform

activities, and the amount of effort exerted in the chosen activities (Baker & Wigfield,

1999; Bandura, 1997; Eccles et al., 1998; Wigfield et al., 1998). This research provided

support for this view of motivation as book format was found to have no significant

effect on the motivation to read. The motivation each student reported for reading was

86
based upon their purposes for achievement and the effort they were committed to

exerting to reading, and not based upon the format of the reading.

Practical Implications

The results of the current study lead to implications for educational practices in

the area of school purchasing and testing. Results indicated no significant relationship

between either reading comprehension or reading motivation and book format. In this

study, middle and high school students displayed no statistically significant difference in

reading comprehension or motivation based upon using paper or electronic books. Given

these results, middle and high schools in which students are participants in 1:1 computer

programs, or have access to sufficient technology, have a statistical determination of

standardized testing results using the electronic format upon which to base testing format

decisions. The fact that students using online versions of a standardized test such as the

GMRT® showed no statistically significant difference in raw scores provides schools

capable of making the transition to the electronic testing format confidence in knowing

the move will not adversely affect their students’ academic performance. In addition to

the testing confidence provided, results allow administrators to fully consider making the

transition to the electronic format for educational materials. In an educational

environment in which the 2011 Horizon Report projected a one year or less timeframe for

school systems to begin widespread use of eBooks (Johnson et al., 2011), and the 2012

Horizon Report followed with a prediction of widespread use of tablet computers within

a one-year timeframe (Johnson et al., 2012), this study’s results provide statistical

evidence that students comprehend such text in an equivalent manner to traditional paper

texts.

87
 Assumptions and Limitations

This experimental post-test only control-group design and quasi-experimental

pretest-posttest control-group design study made every effort to limit the threats to

internal and external validity. Although this study accounted for participant selection and

assignment, setting, and history, the limitations need to be recognized. This study used a

heterogenetic sample and all students who returned permission forms were eligible to

participate. The results of this study are only generalized to the current sample

population (Shadish, Cook & Campbell, 2002; Tebes, 2000). The research school is

located in a small city of approximately 60,000 and a county of 100,000 located in

eastern North Carolina (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). The sample was taken from a school

that was 88% Caucasian with tuition nearing or exceeding $10,000 per year (Research

School, 2011). While 24% of the student body received tuition assistance, there

remained considerable restrictions regarding ethnic and socioeconomic generalizations.

The sample was drawn from a school in which 82% of 5th grade students qualified for

Duke University’s Talent Identification Program, and 69% of 7th grade students qualified

to take the SAT through Duke’s TIP (Research School, 2011). The average 2010 SAT

score for the population was 1849 while the U.S. average was 1509 (Research School,

2011). While this limits generalizations on a national level, it does not prevent

generalizations to the experimentally accessible population (Gall et al., 2007). These

results may differ given a population displaying more variance in academic achievement

or socioeconomic status, as studies have displayed that one of the most important

influences on student achievement is socioeconomic status (Tajilli, & Opheim, 2005).

This study was conducted using a high socioeconomic status sample taken from a school

in which a 1:1 tablet program had been implemented. Therefore, all students who
88
participated in the research were already familiar with using tablet computers. Results

may differ when using a population for whom the implementation of technology in the

classroom environment is not as normal.

The Motivations for Reading Questionnaire was a self-report measure, and it was

assumed that participants’ responses were a true representation of their levels of reading

motivation. The self-report measure is a possible limitation in that the researcher cannot

guarantee students were completely honest, accurate, and free from external influences

(Campbell & Stanley, 1963). Participants may have been vulnerable to emotional,

physical, and social stresses which may have contributed to their self-reported reading

motivation levels (Crockett, Schulenberg, & Petersen, 1987; Cronbach, 1970).

The possibility of cheating, while minor, also presents a limitation. Students were

monitored during the data collection process by test proctors, but cheating remains an

influence that must be noted given the fact that all students took the same comprehension

and motivation assessments.

While it is unlikely that interference occurred during the data collection process, it

must be noted that in the event internal or external influences affected student responses,

the results may not be an accurate representation of the independent variable used in the

study. The internal validity of this study refers to the accuracy of results collected from

the research groups (Keppel & Wickens, 2002). Random assignment of the sample

population was the major control for many threats to internal validity in the first part of

the study (Keppel & Wickens, 2002). Random sampling allowed for participant biases to

be equally distributed across the two groups, and decreased the possibility of biases

interfering with the results (Shadish et al., 2002). An experimental, post-test only

89
control-group design prevented familiarity with the testing instruments or peer discussion

from influencing results. The experimental, post-test only design offered researcher

control for threats and ensured results were valid and accurate representations of the

sample population (Shadish et al., 2002). The quasi-experimental pretest-posttest design

was used for research question two as random sampling was not possible. MRQ groups

used classroom assignment, not individual assignment. A pretest was used to control for

threats to internal validity. Pretest results were analyzed to ensure there were no existing

group differences prior to implementation of the treatment.

Despite the possibility of limiting influences on data and results, this study

attempted to determine the effect of book format on the reading comprehension and

motivation levels of middle and high school students. To the best of the researcher’s

knowledge, the results are an accurate representation of the research procedures and

variables used in this study, which are considered to be reliable, practical, and provide an

accurate measure of the effect of book format on the reading comprehension and

motivation of the research population.

Recommendations for Future Research

The planning process for this study revealed several recommendations for future

research. The literature review highlighted the belief of multiple researchers that

adjustments to readability features possible using electronic books may alter interaction

with the text, and thus affect comprehension (Hancock, 2008; Larson, 2009; Gillani,

2010). An extension of the current research could include additional research questions

regarding the use of these features, and data could be collected by inserting researcher-

created questions at the end of the research instrument.

90
 Additionally, a study should be conducted to determine individual grade level

differences that may exist within a population. Previous research cited within the

literature review indicated that electronic books improved reading motivation for K-5

students. This research found no effect on reading motivation for students in grades 6-12.

Further research is necessary to determine if such a grade level difference truly exists,

and if so, at which grade level the change in effect on motivation occurs.

The review of literature also indicated that despite student acceptance of the

electronic format, many students still simply preferred print. The current study could

easily be furthered through an additional research question, and an accompanying

researcher-created survey to collect student format preferences.

This focus on preference should also be expanded to include teachers. The

current study’s use of the GMRT® online and the accompanying Interactive Results

Manager (iRM) displayed for the researcher the ease with which results can be obtained

via the electronic format (Riverside Publishing, 2012). The provision of tools increasing

the efficiency of grading may impact format preference for the teachers involved, and the

inclusion of additional research questions could be used make this determination.

An additional recommendation for research involves the time required to finish

electronic reading. Research has indicated students are more likely to skim electronic

texts, reading in an “F” pattern searching for key words rather than line by line (Woody

et. al., 2010). The GMRT® online administrator has access to elapsed time information

for electronic test takers. The current study could be furthered by having the paper test

administrators record finishing times for a statistical comparison of the two groups. The

final recommendation for future research involves the use of the obvious tablet choice,

91
Apple’s iPad. This study attempted to use the iPad as the device for online GMRT®

testing, but the device’s inability to use Adobe Flash forced the researcher to alter the

study to include a tablet capable of accessing Riverside Publishing’s (2012) Testing

Interface. Research needs to be conducted to determine if the lack of effect on reading

motivation found when using the Lenovo X220 tablet is retained when using the much

more popular Apple tablet.

Continued research regarding format is critical. As school’s further transition to

the use of electronic formats, statistical evidence for technological implementation will

guide administrative decisions. The current study represents a step towards our

understanding of the effect of the electronic book format on middle and high school

students, but more research is necessary to guide how far the technological transition is

taken within secondary education.

Summary and Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of electronic books on the

reading comprehension and motivation levels of middle and high school students.

Results indicated there was not a statistically significant difference in either

comprehension or motivation levels based on book format. Students in the experimental

group using electronic books displayed similar GMRT® raw scores and similar reading

motivation scores when compared to students in the control group using traditional paper

materials. Based on the results, electronic books were found to have no effect on the

reading comprehension and motivation of middle and high school students. These results

suggest the time for transition to the electronic format has arrived. The decreased cost,

maintenance, environmental impact, and portability offered using the electronic format,

along with a statistical analysis displaying how this transition does not adversely affect
92
student academic achievement, provides sufficient incentive for schools to make the

electronic transition if they are technologically equipped to do so.

93
 REFERENCES

Abram, S. (2010). P-Books vs. Ebooks: Are there education issues?. Multimedia &

Internet@Schools, 17(6), 13-16.

Abutaleb, Y. (2012, August 13). Some universities require students to use e-textbooks.

USA Today. Retrieved from

http://www.usatoday.com/money/markets/story/2012-08-

13/etextbooks/57039872/1

Acker, S. R. (2011). Chapter 6: Digital textbooks. Library Technology Reports, 47(8),

41-51.

Ames, C. & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning

strategies and motivation process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260-

267.

Anderson, R. C., Pearson, P., & Bolt, B. A. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic

processes in reading comprehension. Technical Report No. 306.

Armstrong, K., Nardini, B., McCracken, P., Lugg, R., & Johnson, K.G. (2009). When

did(E)-books become serials?. The Serials Librarian, 56(1), 129 – 138.

Ary, D., Jacobs L. C., Razavieh, A., & Sorenson, C. (2006). Introduction to research in

education (7th ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Arzubiaga, A., Rueda, R., & Monzo’, L. (2002). Family matters related to the reading

engagement of Latino children. Journal of Latinos and Education, 1(4), 1-17.

Baker, L., & Wigfield, A. (1999). Dimensions of children’s reading motivation for

reading and their relations to reading activity and reading achievement. Reading

Research Quarterly, 34, 452-477.

94
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Becker, B. (2010). Understanding and applying the technology forecast of the 2010

Horizon Report. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian, 29(2), 162-165.

Bizrate Insights/ Forrester Study. (2011, May). The emerging tablet market: What online

retailers need to know. Retrieved from

http://www.bizrateinsights.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Bizrate-

Forrester-Study-Tablet-Usage-Among-Online-Buyers.pdfBox, G. E. P., 1949. A

general distribution theory for a class of likelihood criteria. Biometrika, 36, 317–

346.

Box, G. E. P. (1949). A general distribution theory for a class of likelihood

criteria. Biometrika, 36, 317-346.

Buckley, M., & Tritt, D. (2011). Ebook approval plans: Integration to meet user needs.

Computers In Libraries, 31(3), 15-18.

Buffalo Child Long Lance. (1928). Long Lance: The autobiography of a Blackfoot

Indian chief. London: Faber & Gwyer Limited.

Bunkell, J., & Dyas-Correia, S. (2009). E-books vs. print: Which is the better value?.

The Serials Librarian, 56(1), 215-219.

Buntrock, R. E. (2011). Ebooks. Searcher, 19(3), 38-41.

Butcher, K.R., & Kintsch, W. (2003). Text comprehension and discourse processing. In

A.F. Healy, R.W. Proctor, & I.B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology,

Volume 4, Experimental psychology (pp. 575-595). New York: Wiley.

Butler, D. (2009). The textbook of the future. Nature, 458(2), 568-570.

95
Buzzetto-More, N., Sweat-Guy, R., & Elobaid, M. (2007). Reading in a digital age: E-

books are students ready for this learning object? Interdisciplinary Journal of

Knowledge & Learning Objects, 3, 239-250.

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs

for research. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Cather, W. (1992). O pioneers! 1st Vintage classics ed. New York: Vintage Books.

Chesser, W. D. (2011). Chapter 5: The E-textbook revolution. Library Technology

Reports, 47(8), 28-40.

Clark, A. T., Power, T. J., Blom-Huffman, J., Dwyer, J. F., Kelleher, C. R., & Novak, M.

(2003). Kindergarten reading engagement: An investigation of teacher ratings.

Journal of Applied School Psychology, 20(1), 131-144.

Clark, D. T., Goodwin, S. P., Samuelson, T., & Coker, C. (2008). A qualitative

assessment of the Kindle e-book reader: Results from initial focus groups.

Performance Measurement and Metrics, 9(2), 118-129.

Cofer, J. O. (1990). Silent dancing: a partial remembrance of a Puerto Rican

childhood. ouston, Tex. rte P blico Press.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Second Edition.

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Cox, K. E., & Guthrie, J. T. (2001). Classroom conditions for motivation and engagement

in reading. Educational Psychology Review, 13(3), 283-302.

Crestani, F., Landoni, M., & Melucci, M. (2005). Appearance and functionality of

electronic books. International Journal on Digital Libraries, 6(2), 192-209.

96
Crockett, L. J., Schulenberg, J. E. & Petersen, A. C. (1987). Congruence between

objectiveand self-report data in a sample of young adolescents. Journal of

AdolescentResearch, 2(4), 383-392.

Croft, R., & Davis, C. (2010). E-books revisited: Surveying student e-book usage in a

distributed Learning academic library 6 years later. Journal of Library

Administration, 50(1), 543-569.

Cronbach, L. J. (1970). Essentials of psychological testing (3rd. ed.). New York:

Harper& Row.

Diekhoff, G. (1992). Statistics for the social and behavioral sciences: Univariate,

bivariate, multivariate. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.

Dixon, D. (1992). Geography facts. New York: Barnes & Noble.

Dundar, H., & Akcayir, M. (2012). Tablet vs. paper: The effect on learners’ reading

performance. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4(3),

441-450.

Durkin, D. (1993). Teaching them to read. (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Dweck, C., & Elliott, E. (1983). Achievement motivation. In E.M. Heatherington (Ed.),

Handbook of Child Psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, Personality, and Social

Development (pp. 643-691). New York: Wiley.

Eason, G. (2011, October 18). Digital textbooks open a new chapter. Retrieved from

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15175962.

EBooks and college students: Still not a match. (2011). Educational Marketer, 42(10), 5-

6.

97
Eccles, J. (1983). Expectancies, values and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.),

Achievement and achievement motives (pp. 75-146). San Francisco: Freeman.

Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In N.

Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology: Volume 3 -- Social, Emotional,

and Personality Development (5th ed.). New York: Wiley.

Ellison, R. (1947). Invisible man. New York: New American Library.

Fenner, C. (1995). Yolanda’s genius. New York: Aladdin Paperbacks.

Fleischman, P. (1986). Rear-view mirrors. New York: Harper & Row.

Flowerday, T., Schraw, G., & Stevens, J. (2004). The role of choice and interest in reader

engagement. The Journal of Experimental Education, 72(2), 93-114.

Fisher, D., Lapp, D., & Wood, K. (2011). Reading for details in online and printed text:

A prerequisite for deep reading. Middle School Journal, 42(3), 58-63.

Ford, M.E. (1992). Motivating humans. Newbury Park: Sage.

Foust, J. E., Bergen, P., Maxeiner, G. L., & Pawlowski, P. N. (2007). Improving e-book

access via a library-developed full-text search tool. Journal of the Medical

Library Association, 95(1), 40-45.

Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). Educational research: An introduction (8th

ed., pp. 137 and 348.Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Gambrell, L. B., Palmer, B. M., Codling, R. M., & Mazzoni, S. A. (1996). Assessing

motivation to read. Reading Teacher, 49(7), 518-533.

Gibbs, R. W. (2003). Embodied experience and linguistic meaning. Brain and Language,

84, 1-15.

98
Gillani, B. B. (2010). Inquiry-based training model and the design of e-learning

environments. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 7, 1-9.

Good, R. H., Kaminski, R. A., & Dill, S. (2002). DIBELS oral reading fluency. In R. H.

Good & R. A. Kaminski (Eds.), Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills

(6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational

Achievement.

Goodman, K. S. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the

Reading Specialist, 6(1), 126-135.

Graphpad software. (2012). Retrieved from

http://graphpad.com/quickcalcs/randomize1.cfm

Gregory, C. (2006). But I want a real book. Reference and User Services Quarterly,

47(3), 266-273.

Grudzien, P., & Casey, A. M. (2008). Do off-campus students use e books?. Journal of

Library Administration, 48(3/4), 455-466.

Gunter, B. (2005). Electronic books: A survey of users in the UK. Emerald Insight,

57(6), 513-522.

99
Hancock, M. R. (2008). The status of reader response research: Sustaining the reader’s

voice in challenging times. In S. Lehr (Ed.), Shattering the looking glass:

Challenge, risk, and controversy in children’s literature (pp. 97-116). Norwood,

MA: Christoper-Gordon.

Holling, H. C. (1951). Minn of the Mississippi. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Howell, D. C. (2008). Fundamental statistics for the behavioral sciences. (6th ed.).

Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education.

Hunter, E. (1971). The story of furniture. London: Wills & Hepworth.

Hutton, J. (2008). Academic libraries as digital gateways: Linking students to the

burgeoning wealth of open online collections. Journal of Library Administration,

48(3/4), 495-507.

International Digital Publishing Forum, (2011). Industry statistics. Retrieved from

http://idpf.org/about-us/industry-statistics.

Jacobus, L. (1986). Humanities: The evolution of values. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Jamali, H. R., Nicholas, D., & Rowlands, I. (2009). Scholarly e-books: The views of

16,000 academics Results from the JISC National E-Book Observatory. Aslib

Proceedings, 61(1), 33-47.

Johnson, L., Smith, R., Willis, H., Levine, A., & Haywood, K., (2011). The 2011 Horizon

Report. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.

Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Cummins, M. (2012). NMC Horizon Report: 2012 K-12

Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.

100
Jones, T., & Brown, C. (2011). Reading engagement: A comparison between ebooks and

traditional print books in an elementary classroom. International Journal Of

Instruction, 4(2), 5-22.

Kang, Y., Wang, M. J., & Lin, R. (2009). Usability evaluation of e-books. Displays,

30(2), 49-52.

Keene, E. O., & Zimmerman, S. (1997). Mosaic of thought: Teaching comprehension in

a reader’s workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heineman.Kelley, M., & Warburton, B.

(2011). Survey: Undergraduates prefer print over ebooks. Library Journal,

136(12), 14-15.

Kelley, M., & Warburton, B. (2011). Survey: Undergraduates prefer print over ebooks.

Library Journal, 136(12), 14-15

Keppel, G., & Wickens, T. D. (2002).Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook(4th

edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kimball, R., Ives, G., & Jackson, K. (2010). Comparative usage of science e-book and

print collections at Texas A&M university libraries. Collection Management,

35(1), 15-28.

Knutson, R., & Fowler, G. A. (2009, July 20). Book smarts? E-texts receive mixed

reviews from students. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203457427704175008493

Korah, A., Cassidy, E., Elmore, E., & Jerabek, A. (2009). Off the shelf: Trends in the

purchase and use of electronic reference books. Journal of Electronic Resources

Librarianship, 21(3/4), 263-278.

101
Korat, O., Segal-Drori, O., & Klein, P. (2009). Electronic and printed books with and

without adult support as sustaining emergent literacy. Journal of Educational

Computing Research, 41(4), 453-475.

Kucer, S. B. (2001). Dimensions of literacy: A conceptual base of teaching reading and

writing in school settings. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lam, P., Lam, S. L., Lam, J., & McNaught, C. (2009). Usability and usefulness of

eBooks on PPCs: How students’ opinions vary over time. Australasian Journal of

Educational Technology, 25(1), 30–44.

Larson, L. C. (2009). Digital literacies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(3),

255-258.

Larson, L. C. (2010). Digital readers: The next chapter in e-book reading and response.

Reading Teacher, 64(1), 15-22.

Layton, L. (2011, October 28). In trimming school budgets, more officials turn to a four-

day week. The Washington Post. Retrieved from

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/in-trimming-school-budgets-.

Leong, C. (1995). Effects of on-line reading and simultaneous DECtalk aiding in helping

below-average and poor readers comprehend and summarize text. Learning

Disability Quarterly, 18(2), 101-16.

Lilliefors, H. W. (1967). On the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality with mean and

variance unknown, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 62, 399.

Little, D. C., & Box, J. (2011). The use of a specific schema theory strategy-semantic

mapping-to facilitate vocabulary development and comprehension for at-risk

readers. Reading Improvement, 48(1), 24-31.

102
MacGinitie, W. H., MacGinitie, R. K., Maria, K., Dreyer, L. G., & Hughes, K. E. (2007).

Gates-Macginitie reading tests score comparisons 1999-2006 norms. Rolling

Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing. Retrieved from

http://www.riverpub.com/products/gmrt/pdf/GMRT2006ScoreComparisons9-

40450 NEW COVER.pdf

MacGinitie, W. H., MacGinitie, R. K., Maria, K., & Dreyer, L. (2006). Gates-MacGinitie

reading tests ®, Fourth Edition, Forms S & T. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/login.aspx?direct=true&db

=mmt&AN=TIP07001060&site=ehost-live&scope=site

MacGinitie, W. H., MacGinitie, R. K., Maria, K., & Dreyer, L. (2002). Gates-MacGinitie

reading tests: Technical report (4th ed.). Ilasca, IL: Riverside.

Marinak, B. A., & Gambrell, L. B. (2008). Intrinsic motivation and rewards: What

sustains young children’s engagement with text? Literacy Research and

Instruction, 47(1), 9-26.

Mardis, M., & Everhart, N. (2011). Digital textbooks in Florida: Extending the teacher-

librarians’ reach. Teacher Librarian, 38(3), 8-11.

Martin, K. E., & Mundle, K. (2009). Notes on operations cataloging e-books and vendor

records. Library Resources and Technical Services, 54(4), 227-237.

Mauchly, J. W. (1940). Significance test for sphericity of a normal n-variate distribution.

The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 11, 204-209.

McClung, R. M. (1965). Caterpillars and how they live. New York: W. Morrow.

McGlinn, J. M., & Parrish, A. (2002). Accelerating ESL students’ reading progress with

accelerated reader. Reading Horizons, 42(3), 175-189.

103
Miller, C. C., & Bosman, J. (2011, May 19). E books outsell print books Amazon. New

York Times. Retrieved from

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/technology/20amazon.html.

Miller, D. (2002). Reading with meaning: Teaching comprehension in the primary

grades. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

Montali, J., & Lewandowski, L. (1996). Bimodal reading: Benefits of a talking computer

for average and less skilled readers. Journal Of Learning Disabilities, 29(3), 271.

Moody, A. K. (2010). Using electronic books in the classroom to enhance emergent

literacy skills in young children. Journal of Literacy and Technology, 11(4), 22-

52.

Morineau, T., Blanche, C., Tobin, L., & Guéguen, N. (2005). The emergence of the

contextual role of the e-book in cognitive processes through an ecological and

functional analysis. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 62(3),

329-348.

Murray, M. C., & Perez, J. (2011). E-textbooks are coming: Are we ready? Issues in

Informing Science and Information Technology, 8, 49-60.

National Reading Panel. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

(2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific

research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction.

Retrieved from website:

http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/upload/smallbook_pdf.pdf

104
Navarez, D. (2002). Individual differences that influence comprehension. In C.C. Block

& M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension Instruction: Research-based best practices

(pp. 158-175). New York: Guilford.

Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2011). Learning in the age of mobilism. District

Administration, 47(8), 96.

Noyes, J. M., & Garland, K. J. (2008). Computer- vs. paper-based tasks: Are they

equivalent?. Ergonomics, 51(9), 1352-1375.

O’Flahavan, J., Gambrell, L. B., Guthrie, J., Stahl, S., Baumann, J., & Alvermann, D.

(1992). Poll results guide activities of research center. Reading Today, 10(1), 12.

Osnos, P. (2011, March 29). Public libraries take on e-books. The Atlantic, Retrieved

from http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/03/public-libraries-

take-on-e-books/73163/.

Pallant, J. (2011). SPSS survival manual. Crows Nest, Australia; Allen and Unwin.

Pardo, L. S. (2004). What every teacher needs to know about comprehension. The

Reading Teacher, 58(3), 272-280.

Paris, S. G., & Oka, E. R. (1986). Self-regulated learning among exceptional children.

Exceptional Children, 53, 103-108.

Pearson Education, Inc. (2009). Developmental reading assessment®, 2nd edition

(DRA2 ) technical manual. Retrieved from

http://s7ondemand7.scene7.com/s7ondemand/brochure/flash_brochure.jsp?compa

ny=PearsonEducation&sku=DRA2_TechMan&vc=instanceName=Pearson&confi

g=DRA2_TechMan&zoomwidth=975&zoomheight=750

105
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: International

Universities press.

Pitcher, S. M., Albright, L. K., Delaney, C. J., Walker, N. T., Seunarinesingh, K., Mogge,

S., & Dunston, P. J. (2007) ssessing adolescents’ motivation to read. Journal of

Adolescent & Adult Literacry, 50(5), 378-396.

Polanka, S. (2011). University of Washington Kindle study: Results in. Retrieved from

http://www.libraries.wright.edu/noshelfrequired/2011/05/04/university-of-

washington-kindle-study-results-in/.

Pressley, M. (2003). Time to revolt against reading instruction as usual: What

comprehension instruction could and should be. Presentation at the annual

meeting of the Michigan Reading Association, Grand Rapids, MI.

Putallaz, M. (2011). Duke university talent identification program. Retrieved from

http://www.tip.duke.edu/node/11.

RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward a research

and development program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Office

of Education Research and Improvement.

Reynolds, R. (2011, March). Digital textbooks reaching the tipping point in U.S.. higher

education: a revised five-year forecast. Retrieved from

http://info.xplana.com/report/pdf/Xplana_Whitepaper_2011.pdf

Rhodes, J. A., & Milby, T. M. (2007). Teacher-created electronic books: Integrating

technology to support readers with disabilities. Reading Teacher, 61(3), 255-259.

Rivero, V. (2010). E is for explosion. Multimedia & Internet@Schools, 17(4), 8-14.

106
Riverside Publishing Company. (2012). Gates-Macginitie reading tests® online.

Retrieved from

http://www.riversidepublishing.com/products/gmrtOnline/details.html

Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. J., & Holder, D. E. (2011). Discovering the potential of e-books

as effective learning tools. Retrieved from

http://isteconference.org/conferences/ISTE/2011/handout_uploads/KEY_6063863

5/RockinsonSzapkiw_2011_ISTE_ebook_RP.pdf?referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwork

s.bepress.com%2Famanda_rockinson_szapkiw%2F36%2F

Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. J., Holder, D. E., & Dunn, R. (2011). Motivating students to

learn: Is there a difference between traditional books and e-books?. Proceedings

of Global Learn Asia Pacific 2011, 235-239.

Rocky Mount Academy. (2011). RMA profile. Retrieved from

http://www.rmacademy.com/157510417133212570/blank/browse.asp?a=383&B

MDRN=2000&BCOB=0&c=54968&157510417133212570Nav=|&NodeID=762

Rosenblatt, L.R. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of

literary work. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Rosenblatt, L. R. (1995). Literature as exploration (5th ed.). New York: Appleton-

Century-Crofts Modern Language Association (Original work published 1938).

Rumelhart, D. E. (1982). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In J. Guthrie

(Ed.), Comprehension and Teaching: Research Reviews (pp. 3-26). Newark, NJ:

International Reading Association.

Sachs, J. (2001). A path model for adult learner feedback. Educational Psychology, 21,

267-275.

107
Sankaran, S. R., & Bui, T. (2001). Impact of learning strategies and motivation on

performance: A study in web-based instruction. Journal of Instructional

Psychology, 28, 191-198.

Scarborough, H. S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading

(dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In S.B. Neuman & D. Dickenson

(Eds.), Handbook of Early Literacy Research (pp. 97-110). New York: The

Guilford Press.

Schallert, D. L., & Martin, D. B. (2003). A psychological analysis of what teachers and

students do in the language arts classroom. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J.R. Squire, &

J.M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teaching the English Language

Arts (pp. 31-45). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meese, J. (2007). Motivation in education: Theory,

research, and applications (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Schell, L. E., Ginanni, K., & Heet, B. (2010). Playing the field: Pay-per-view e-journals

and e-books. Serials Librarian, 58(1-4), 87-96.

Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002).Experimental and

quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton-

Mifflin.

Shaffer, D. R. (2002). Developmental psychology. (6 ed.). Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Shamir, A. (2009). Processes and outcomes of joint activity with e-books for promoting

kindergarteners’ emergent literacy. Educational Media International, 46(1), 81-

96.

108
Shamir, A., & Korat, O. (2007). Developing an educational e-book for fostering

kindergarten children’s emergent literacy. Computers in the Schools, 24(1/2),

125-143.

Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality,

Biometrika, 52, 591-611.

Shelburne, W.A. (2009). E book usage in an academic library: User attitudes and

behaviors. Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services, 33(2/3), 59-

72.

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.

Sherman, C. (2012, February 28). Texas district embarks on widespread ipad program.

Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/US/wirestory/texas-district-embarks-

widespread-ipad-program-15804858

Smith, B.A. (2008). A quantitative analysis of the impact of e-book format on student

acceptance, usage, and satisfaction (Doctoral Dissertation). Capella University,

Minneapolis, MN.

Smith, S. D., & Caruso, J. B. (2010, October). The ECAR study of undergraduate

students and information technology, 2010. key findings. Retrieved from

http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EKF/EKF1006.pdf

Snedecor, G. W., & Cochran, W. G. (1989). Statistical methods (8th ed.), Ames, IA:

Iowa State University Press.

Soper, D. (2011). Statistics calculators. Retrieved from

http://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc/calc47.aspx

109
Sparrowhawk, A. (2005). Electronic books -- What are they, and how can I use them?.

English 4--11, (24), 20-22.

Sprinthall, R. C. (2003). Basic statistical analysis. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Swanson, J. L. (2009). Chasing Lincoln’s killer: The search for John Wilkes Booth. New

York: Scholastic Press.

Swanson, R. A., & Holton III, E. F. (2005). Research in organizations: foundations and

methods of inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. (5th ed.). Boston,

MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.

Tajilli, H., & Opheim, C. (2005). Strategies for closing the gap: Predicting student

performance in economically disadvantaged schools. Educational Research

Quarterly, 28(4), 44-54.

Tebes, J. K. (2000). External validity and scientific psychology. American Psychologist,

55 (12), 1508-1509.

Tees, T. (2010). Ereaders in academic libraries: A literature review. Australian Library

Journal, 59(4), 180-186.

Torres, C. (2012, April 11). E-reader wars: Does the iPad’s retina display measure up to

e-ink?. Retrieved from http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2012/04/why-the-

new-ipads-retina-display-loses-the-battle-in-the-e-reader-wars.ars

Tracey, D. H., & Morrow, L. M. (2002). Preparing young learners for successful reading

comprehension. In C C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension Instruction:

Research-Based Best Practices (pp. 319-333). New York: Guilford.

110
Ugaz, A. G., & Resnick, T. (2008). Assessing print and electronic use of reference/core

medical textbooks. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 96(2), 145-147.

Unrau, N., & Schlackman, J. (2006). Motivation and its relationship with reading

achievement in an urban middle school. Journal of Educational Research, 100,

81-101.

U. S. Census Bureau¸ (2010). State and county quick facts Washington, DC: Retrieved

from http://quickfacts.census.gove/qfd./states/47/47179.html

Vacca, R. T., & Vacca, J. L. (2005). Content area reading: literacy and learning across

the curriculum. (8 ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

van den Broek, P. (1994). Comprehension and memory of narrative texts: Inferences and

coherences. In M.A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 539-

588). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Whitehurst, G. J., & Longian, C. J. (2001). Emergent literacy: Development from

prereaders to readers. In S. B. Neuman & D. Dickenson (Eds.), Handbook of

Early Literacy Research (pp. 11-30). New York: The Guilford Press.

Wiederholt, J., & Bryant, B. (2001). Gray oral reading tests: Examiner’s manual (4th

ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S.G. (2005). Research methods in education: An introduction.

Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., & Rodriguez, D. (1998). The development of children’s

motivation in school contexts. In a. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of

Research in Education (Vol. 23). Washington, DC: American Educational

Research Association.

111
Wigfield, A. & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading to the

amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 420-

432.

Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., Perencevich, A. T., Klauda, S. L., Mcrae, A., & Barbosa, P.

(2008). Role of engagement in mediating effects of reading comprehension

instruction on reading outcomes. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 432-445.

Williams, M. G., & Dittmer, A. (2009). Textbooks on tap: Using electronic books housed

in handheld devices in nursing clinical courses. Nursing Education Perspectives,

30(4), 220-225.

Winne, P. (1985). Steps toward promoting cognitive achievements. Elementary School

Journal, 85, 673-693.

Woody, W. D., Daniel, D. B., & Baker, C. A. (2010). E-books or textbooks: Students

prefer textbooks. Computers & Education, 55, 945-948.

Wu, A., & Mitchell, A. M. (2010). Mass management of e-book catalog records:

Approaches, challenges, and solutions. Library Resources & Technical Services,

54(3), 164-174.

Young, J. R. (2010, October 24). To save students money, colleges may force a switch to

e-textbooks. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from

http://chronicle.com/article/The-End-of-the-Textbook-as-We/125044/

Zhang, C. (2010). The teaching of reading comprehension under the psychology

schemata theory. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(4), 457-459.

112
Zucker, T. A., Moody, A. K., & McKenna, M. C. (2009). The effects of electronic books

on pre- kindergarten-to-grade 5 students’ literacy and language outcomes: A

research synthesis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 40(1), 47-87.

113
 APPENDIX

APPENDIX A

IRB Approval Letter

September 6, 2012

Casey Wells

IRB Exemption 1395.090612: Do Students Using Electronic Books Display Different Reading
Comprehension and Motivation Levels than Students Using Traditional Print Books?

Dear Casey,

The Liberty University Institutional Review Board has reviewed your application in
accordance with the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) and Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) regulations and finds your study to be exempt from further IRB
review. This means you may begin your research with the data safeguarding methods
mentioned in your approved application, and that no further IRB oversight is required.

Your study falls under exemption category 46.101 (b)(2), which identifies specific
situations in which human participants research is exempt from the policy set forth in 45
CFR 46:

(2) Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude,
achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures or observation of public behavior,
unless: (i) information obtained is recorded in such a manner that human subjects can
be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects; and (ii) any
disclosure of the human subjects’ responses outside the research could reasonably place the
subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects’ financial standing,
employability, or reputation.

Please note that this exemption only applies to your current research application, and that
any changes to your protocol must be reported to the Liberty IRB for verification of
continued exemption status. You may report these changes by submitting a change in
protocol form or a new application to the IRB and referencing the above IRB Exemption
number.

114
If you have any questions about this exemption, or need assistance in determining whether
possible changes to your protocol would change your exemption status, please email us at
irb@liberty.edu.

Sincerely,

Fernando Garzon, Psy.D.

Professor, IRB Chair
Counseling

(434) 592-4054

Liberty University | Training Champions for Christ since 1971

115
 APPENDIX B

Parental Consent Form

DO STUDENTS USING ELECTRONIC BOOKS DISPLAY DIFFERENT READING

COMPREHENSION AND MOTIVATION LEVELS THAN STUDENTS USING
TRADITIONAL PRINT BOOKS?
Casey L. Wells, Doctoral Candidate
Liberty University, School of Education

Your child is invited to participate in a research study designed to explore the effect of
electronic books on the reading comprehension and motivation levels of middle and high
school students. They were selected as a participant because of their enrollment in an
English course at the research school. We ask that you read this form and ask any
questions you may have before agreeing to participate in this study.
This study is being conducted by: Casey L. Wells, Doctoral Candidate at Liberty
University.

Background Information

The purpose of this study is to determine if there is a statistically significant difference in

the reading comprehension and reading motivation levels of middle and high school
English students when using eBooks versus traditional print books. Given the increasing
popularity of tablet computers and eReaders, there is a significant shift from the
traditional print book format to the electronic book format occurring in our society. As
these devices are increasingly incorporated in middle and high school settings, their
effect on reading comprehension and motivation requires further examination.

Procedures
If you allow your student(s) to participate in this study, their participation will require
two sessions and a total of 55-60 minutes. Both sessions will occur during their regularly
scheduled FLEX period. During session one, students will be administered the Gates-
MacGinitie Reading tests, a 35 minute test of reading comprehension. Students will be
randomly assigned to take the test using either the paper format, or through an online
version accessed using a Lenovo X220 tablet computer. During session two, all students
will take the Motivations for Reading Questionnaire, a 15-20 minute survey to determine
their level of reading motivation.

Risks and Benefits of the Study

116
The risks involved in this study are no more than what any participant would encounter
during a normal school day. If your student participates, the assessments will occur
during a normal FLEX period, thus no additional time is required, and no other classes
will be interrupted.
The benefits of this study include the opportunity to help establish the effect of the
electronic book format on academic performance at the middle and high school levels.
Few studies have attempted to make this determination, and this research will begin to
address how this technological transition is affecting student performance at this level.

Compensation
Students will not be compensated for participation in the study.

Confidentiality
The records of this study will remain private. All data will be collected anonymously,
and published reports will include no information that makes it possible to identify a
subject. Research records will be stored securely and only the researcher will have
access to the records. Names of participants will not be used. Summaries of findings
will use only group designations, noting the comparisons between the traditional print
group and the electronic group. Upon completion of the study, the researcher will make
results available if requested.

Voluntary Nature of the Study

Participation in this study is voluntary. Your decision will not affect your student’s
current or future relations with the researcher, Liberty University, or the Research
School. If you decide to allow participation, your student is free to not answer any
question or withdraw at any time without affecting those relationships.

Contacts and Questions

Provided below are the names of the committee members overseeing this project:
Dr. Amanda Rockinson-Szapkiw, Committee Chair aszapkiw@liberty.edu
Assistant Professor, Liberty University
Dr. David E. Holder, Committee Member deholder@liberty.edu
Assistant Professor, Liberty University
Dr. Daphne O’Brien, Committee Member dobrien@liberty.edu
Teacher, Research School
If you have any questions or concerns regarding this study, please contact the researcher
at clwells2@liberty.edu, or any of the committee members at the email addresses listed
above.

117
If you have any questions or concerns regarding this study and would like to talk to
someone other than the researcher, you are encouraged to contact the Institutional
Review Board, Dr. Fernando Garzon, Chair, 1971 University Blvd, Suite 1582,
Lynchburg, VA 24502 or email at fgarzon@liberty.edu.

Parent Consent/Student Assent Forms

Please sign and return this form to the student’s homeroom teacher.

Statement of Consent

I have read and understood the above information. I have asked questions and received
answers. I understand that all data will be secured at all times by the researcher, and
consent to allowing my student to participate in this study. I understand that I may
withdraw my consent and discontinue my child’s participation at any time.

Signature of Parent or Guardian: ______________________ Date: __________

Signature of Investigator: ___________________________ Date: __________

Student Assent Form

I, ________________________, understand that my parents/guardians have given me

permission to participate in a study regarding the effect of electronic books on reading
comprehension and motivation. I am participating because I want to. I have been told
that I can stop at any time if I so desire. The researcher is Casey L. Wells who is
currently a doctoral candidate with Liberty University.

_____________________________ _______________

Student Signature Date

_____________________________ ________________

Researcher’s Signature Date

118
 APPENDIX C

School Approval Letter

119
 APPENDIX D

Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests

The Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests ® was used as the instrument for measuring reading

comprehension. Due to the instrument being copyrighted, the instrument was purchased

from Riverside Publishing.

Riverside Publishing Company. (2012). Gates-macginitie reading tests® online.

Retrieved from

http://www.riversidepublishing.com/products/gmrtOnline/details.html

Riverside Publishing Company. (2010). Gates-macginitie reading tests® (gmrt®) fourth

edition. Retrieved from

http://www.riversidepublishing.com/products/gmrt/index.html

120
 APPENDIX E

Motivations for Reading Questionnaire

Motivations for Reading Questionnaire

1. I like being the best at reading.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

2. I like it when the questions in books make me think.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

3. I read to improve my grades.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

4. If the teacher discusses something interesting I might read more about it.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

121
5. I like hard, challenging books.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

6. I enjoy a long, involved story or fiction book.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

7. I know that I will do well in reading next year.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

8. If a book is interesting I don’t care how hard it is to read.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

9. I try to get more answers right than my friends.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

122
10. I have favorite subjects that I like to read about.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

11. I visit the library often with my family.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

12. I make pictures in my mind when I read.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

13. I don’t like reading something when the words are too difficult.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

14. I enjoy reading books about people in different countries.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

123
15. I am a good reader.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

16. I usually learn difficult things by reading.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

17. It is very important to me to be a good reader.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

18. My parents often tell me what a good job I am doing in reading.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

19. I read to learn new information about topics that interest me.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

124
20. If the project is interesting, I can read difficult material.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

21. I learn more from reading than most students in the class.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

22. I read stories about fantasy and make believe.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

23. I read because I have to.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

24. I don’t like vocabulary questions.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

125
25. I like to read about new things.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

26. I often read to my brother or my sister.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

27. In comparison to other activities I do, it is very important to me to be a good

reader.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

28. I like having the teacher say I read well.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

29. I read about my hobbies to learn more about them.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

126
30. I like mysteries.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

31. My friends and I like to trade things to read.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

32. Complicated stories are no fun to read.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

33. I read a lot of adventure stories.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

34. I do as little schoolwork as possible in reading.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

127
35. I feel like I make friends with people in good books.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

36. Finishing every reading assignment is very important to me.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

37. My friends sometimes tell me I am a good reader.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

38. Grades are a good way to see how well you are doing in reading.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

39. I like to help my friends with their schoolwork in reading.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

128
40. I don’t like it when there are too many people in the story.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

41. I am willing to work hard to read better than my friends.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

42. I sometimes read to my parents.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

43. I like to get compliments for my reading.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

44. It is important for me to see my name on a list of good readers.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

129
45. I talk to my friends about what I am reading.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

46. I always try to finish my reading on time.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

47. I am happy when someone recognizes my reading.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

48. I like to tell my family about what I am reading.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

49. I like being the only one who knows an answer in something we read.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

130
50. I look forward to finding out my reading grade.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

51. I always do my reading work exactly as the teacher wants it.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

52. I like to finish my reading before other students.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

53. My parents ask me about my reading grade.

Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me

1 2 3 4

Copyright© 2004 by John T. Guthrie. Not for use other than research purposes.
Motivations for Reading Questionnaire (MRQ) Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997

131