Students’ preferences for study materials at Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB)

Students’ preferences for study materials at Vrije

Universiteit Brussel (VUB)

Master’s thesis to obtain the degree of Master in Educational Sciences

Peykova Mirela

Academic year: 2014-2015

Promoter: Prof. Dr. Chang Zhu

Amount of words: 14 368

FACULTY OF PSYCHOLOGY AND EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES

Programme: MASTER OF SCIENCES IN EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES

Students’ preferences for study materials at VUB ii

Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences Academic year 2014/2015

SUMMARY MASTER’S THESIS

Surname and name: Peykova Mirela Student ID: 0505071

Title of the master’s thesis: Students’ preferences for study materials at Vrije Universiteit Brussel

(VUB)


Summary:

This paper was part of an ongoing research process at VUB aiming to implement e-learning and to

develop the university’s policy for the creation and dissemination of study materials. In view of the

development and the advantages of modern technology and the opportunities which the e-learning

environment provides, the research was conducted among 1175 VUB students and investigated their’

preferences for printed or digital study materials and the differences among them with regard to their

age, gender, levels of study and faculty, along with the factors which affect their choice for a certain

format of study materials. The results illustrate a general preference for paper over digital materials due

to their ease of reading, their accessibility, and the possibility to highlight and to take notes on the paper

materials. In contrast, the students from the higher level of study who are in the field of Applied Sciences

appear to be more digitally aware in relation to the possibilities which the digital materials provide. They

indicate the portability, accessibility, availability, and the possibility to browse and quickly search for

additional information and research as the top reasons for using e-materials and that they do not agree

that printed books are as accessible and as easy to store and to highlight as e-books. Furthermore,

educational costs are a major concern to most students and, as a result, they indicate that the cost

affect their choice of format. All students consider the digital materials as more cost-efficient and more

environmentally friendly than the printed materials. Nevertheless, the preference for paper materials

and for printing digital materials still prevail.

Students’ preferences for study materials at VUB iii

Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences Academic year 2014/2015

BRIEF CONTENT OF THE MASTER’S THESIS

Surname and name: Peykova Mirela Student ID: 0505071

Title of the master’s thesis: Students’ preferences for study materials at Vrije Universiteit Brussel

(VUB)


Brief content:

I. Introduction

II. Literature review

1. Paper versus digital reading

2. E-books

3. Cost

4. Environmental issues

III. Research questions

IV. Methodology

V. Results from the Dutch survey

VI. Results from the English survey

VII. Comparison of the results from the Dutch and English survey

VIII. Discussion

IX. Conclusion

Students’ preferences for study materials at VUB iv

FOREWORD

This master thesis was an edifying journey into the realms of educational sciences at Vrije Universiteit

Brussel (VUB). I had the opportunity to delve into the fountain of knowledge concerning the innovative

teaching and learning practices in education. Thus, I was captivated in particular by the advantages

which digital technology provides for supporting teaching and learning in the context of higher education

and, as a result, e-learning became my main field of interest during my academic experience.

From the very beginning of my master thesis research my supervisor Prof. Dr. Chang Zhu had the

complete confidence in me and I was entrusted with the challenging task to conduct a research, as part

of my internship, in collaboration with the department of Educational Policy and the department of

Educational Sciences at VUB. In the course of time, I was guided and supported also by my internship

supervisor Karla Groen. The two of them were the sources of my motivation, inspiration and

enlightenment for conducting the research and for gaining new learning insights and competences in the

academic and professional environment. I would like also to express my gratitude to my family, friends

and colleagues for the unceasing support during this academic endeavor.

This master thesis does not mark the end of this journey. On the contrary, this is only the beginning of

it since education is a lifelong learning process which can guide us towards the acquisition of more

knowledge, values, skills and understanding required in life. As the French philosopher Henri-Louis

Bergson has said: “To exist is to change, to change is to mature, to mature is to go on creating oneself

endlessly”.

Mirela Peykova

Brussels, June 2015

Students’ preferences for study materials at VUB v

Table of contents

List of Figures........................................................................................................................ 1

List of Tables ......................................................................................................................... 3

List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................. 4

I. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 5

1. The use of digital technology in education ............................................................................ 5

2. Research problem .............................................................................................................. 5

II. Literature Review ............................................................................................................. 5

1. Paper versus digital reading................................................................................................. 5

2. E-books ............................................................................................................................ 7

3. Cost ............................................................................................................................... 10

4. Environmental issues ........................................................................................................ 11

III. Research questions ....................................................................................................... 12

IV. Methodology .................................................................................................................. 13

1. Research context ............................................................................................................. 13

2. Research sample .............................................................................................................. 13

2.1 Socio-demographic profile of the participants who responded in the Dutch survey .................. 13

2.2 Socio-demographic profile of the participants who responded in the English survey ................ 14

3. Instruments .................................................................................................................... 16

4. Data collection ................................................................................................................. 16

5. Data analysing methods .................................................................................................... 16

V. Results from the Dutch survey ........................................................................................ 17

1.Use of e-books and e-coursebooks ...................................................................................... 17

2.Preferences for study materials ........................................................................................... 26

3.Cost ................................................................................................................................ 30

4.Environmental issues ......................................................................................................... 30

VI. Results from the English survey .................................................................................... 31



3.Cost ................................................................................................................................ 41


VII. Comparison of the results from the Dutch and English survey ..................................... 42



3.Cost ................................................................................................................................ 46


VIII. Discussion .................................................................................................................. 47

1. Results in relation to the research questions ........................................................................ 47

Students’ preferences for study materials at VUB vi

2. Implications..................................................................................................................... 48

3. Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 49

IX. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 49

References .......................................................................................................................... 50

Appendix A: Tables .............................................................................................................. 54

Appendix B: English questionnaire of the optimization of study materials at VUB ............... 73

Appendix C: Dutch questionnaire of the optimization of study materials at VUB ................. 88

Students’ preferences for study materials at VUB 1

List of Figures

Figure 1. Distribution of the participants by age (N = 824) ...................................................................................... 13

Figure 2. Distribution of the participants by continent of origin (N = 824)......................................................... 14

Figure 3. Distribution of the participants by faculty (N = 824)................................................................................ 14

Figure 4. Distribution of the participants by levels of study (N = 824) ................................................................ 14

Figure 5. Distribution of the participants by age (N = 351) ...................................................................................... 15

Figure 6. Distribution of the participants by continent of origin (N = 351)......................................................... 15

Figure 7. Distribution of the participants by faculties (N = 351) ............................................................................ 15

Figure 8. Distribution of the participants by level of study (N = 351) .................................................................. 16

Figure 9. Relationship between the use of e-books and the gender of the students....................................... 17

Figure 10. Relationship between the use of e-books and the age of the students ........................................... 17

Figure 11. Relationship between the use of e-books and the faculty division of the students .................... 18

Figure 12. Paired t-test; mean scores of the e-books’ and printed books’ features ........................................ 19

Figure 13. Independent t-test; significant difference in the mean scores of the printed books’ features

in relation to the gender ......................................................................................................................................................... 20

Figure 14. Independent t-test; significant difference in the mean scores of the e-books’ features in

relation to the gender .............................................................................................................................................................. 20

Figure 15. ANOVA test; significant difference in the mean scores of the printed books’ features in

relation to the faculty division .............................................................................................................................................. 21

Figure 16. ANOVA tests; significant difference in the mean scores of the e-books’ feature in relation to

the faculty division of the students ..................................................................................................................................... 21

Figure 17. ANOVA tests; significant difference in the mean scores of the e-books’ features in relation to

the faculty division of the students ..................................................................................................................................... 22

Figure 18. Reasons given by the students for the provision of e-coursebooks.................................................. 23

Figure 19. Reasons given by the students against the provision of e-coursebooks ......................................... 23

Figure 20. Relationship between the use of e-coursebooks and the gender of the students ....................... 23

Figure 21. Relationship between the use of e-coursebooks and the age of students ..................................... 24

Figure 22. Relationship between the use of e-coursebooks and the faculty division of the students ....... 24

Figure 23. Relationship between the desire for e-coursebooks and the gender of the students ................ 25

Figure 24. Relationship between the desire for e-coursebooks and the age of the students ....................... 25

Figure 25. Relationship between the desire for e-coursebooks and the students’ level of study ............... 26

Figure 26. Relationship between the printing of e-coursebooks and the gender of the students ............... 26

Figure 27. Preferences for study materials ...................................................................................................................... 27

Figure 28. Top reasons for the preferences for paper format of study materials ............................................. 27

Figure 29. Top reasons for the preferences for digital format of study materials ............................................ 27

Figure 30. Relationship between the desire for digital materials on PointCarré and the students’ level of

study ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 28

Figure 31. Relationship between the desire for digital materials on PointCarré and the age of the

students ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 28

Figure 32. Provision of digital materials............................................................................................................................ 29

Figure 33. Relationship between the provision of digital materials on PointCarré for every course and

the age of the students ........................................................................................................................................................... 29

Figure 34. Relationship between the provision of the digital materials on PointCarré for every course

and the gender of the students ............................................................................................................................................ 30

Figure 35. Relationship between the use of e-books and the age of students .................................................. 31

Figure 36. Relationship between the use of e-books and the faculty division of students ............................ 32

Figure 37. Relationship between the use of e-books and the students’ level of study ................................... 32

Figure 38. Paired t-test; mean scores of the printed books’ and e-books’ features ........................................ 33


Figure 39. Independent t-tests; significant difference in the mean scores of the printed books’ feature

“easy to take notes” in relation to the gender ............................................................................................................... 34

Figure 40. Independent t-tests; significant difference in the mean scores of the e-books’ features in

relation to the gender .............................................................................................................................................................. 34

Figure 41. ANOVA test; significant difference in the mean scores of the printed books’ feature in

relation to the faculty ............................................................................................................................................................... 35

Figure 42. Top reasons given by the students for the provision of e-coursebooks .......................................... 35

Figure 43. Top reasons against providing e-coursebooks .......................................................................................... 36


Figure 45. Relationship between the use of e-coursebooks and the age of the students .............................. 37

Figure 46. Relationship between the use of e-coursebooks and the students’ level of study ...................... 37

Figure 47. Preferences for printed versus digital materials ....................................................................................... 38

Figure 48. Top reasons for the preferences for paper format .................................................................................. 38

Figure 49. Top reasons for the preferences for digital format .................................................................................. 39

Figure 50. Relationship between the desire for more digital materials on PointCarré and the students’

level of study ............................................................................................................................................................................... 39

Figure 51. Provision of digital materials ............................................................................................................................ 40

Figure 52. Relationship between the way of provision of digital materials and the students’ level of

study ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 40

Figure 53. Relationship between the use of e-books and the age of students .................................................. 42

Figure 54. Relationship between the use of e-books and the faculty division of the students .................... 42

Figure 55. Mean scores of the printed books’ features ............................................................................................... 43

Figure 56. Mean scores of the-books’ features .............................................................................................................. 43

Figure 57. Difference in the mean scores of the printed books’ features in relation to the gender ........... 44

Figure 58. Difference in the mean scores of the printed books’ feature in relation to the faculty ............. 44


Figure 60. Relationship between the use of e-coursebooks and the age of the students .............................. 45

Figure 61. Way of provision of digital materials ............................................................................................................ 46


List of Tables

Table 1 .................................................................................................................................. 54

Table 2 .................................................................................................................................. 54

Table 3 .................................................................................................................................. 55

Table 4 .................................................................................................................................. 56

Table 5 .................................................................................................................................. 57

Table 6 .................................................................................................................................. 57

Table 7 .................................................................................................................................. 57

Table 8 .................................................................................................................................. 58

Table 9 .................................................................................................................................. 58

Table 10 ................................................................................................................................. 58

Table 11 ................................................................................................................................. 59

Table 12 ................................................................................................................................. 59

Table 13 ................................................................................................................................. 59

Table 14 ................................................................................................................................. 60

Table 15 ................................................................................................................................. 60

Table 16 ................................................................................................................................. 60

Table 17 ................................................................................................................................. 61

Table 18 ................................................................................................................................. 61

Table 19 ................................................................................................................................. 61

Table 20 ................................................................................................................................. 62

Table 21 ................................................................................................................................. 62

Table 22 ................................................................................................................................. 62

Table 23 ................................................................................................................................. 63

Table 24 ................................................................................................................................. 63

Table 25 ................................................................................................................................. 64

Table 26 ................................................................................................................................. 64

Table 27 ................................................................................................................................. 65

Table 28 ................................................................................................................................. 66

Table 29 ................................................................................................................................. 66

Table 30 ................................................................................................................................. 67

Table 31 ................................................................................................................................. 68

Table 32 ................................................................................................................................. 69

Table 33 ................................................................................................................................. 69

Table 34 ................................................................................................................................. 69

Table 35 ................................................................................................................................. 70

Table 36 ................................................................................................................................. 70

Table 37 ................................................................................................................................. 70

Table 38 ................................................................................................................................. 71

Table 39 ................................................................................................................................. 71

Table 40 ................................................................................................................................. 72


List of Abbreviations

df Degrees of freedom

ES Faculty of Economic and Social Sciences

F F-test or Fisher’s F ratio

GF Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy

IDLO Interfaculty Department of Teacher-Training

IES Institute for European Studies

IR Faculty of Engineering

LK Faculty of Physical Education and Physiotherapy

LW Faculty of Arts and Philosophy

M Mean

MD Mean difference

N Number of subjects in the total sample

n Number of subjects in each group or subset of the sample

OSD Overkoepelende Studentencursusdienst (VUB course shop)

p Probability value

PE Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences

RC Faculty of Law and Criminology

SD Standard deviation

Sig. Significant level

t Hypothesis test statistic

VUB Vrije Universiteit Brussel

X2 Chi-square test

WE Faculty of Science and Bio-Engineering


I. Introduction

1. The use of digital technology in education

Nowadays information is located, organized, received, evaluated, and analyzed mostly using

digital technology (Gündoğan & Eby, 2012). The technological developments have contributed

considerably to the dramatic changes in the educational sector and, as a result, e-learning has taken the

stage as “the use of digital technologies and Internet to develop the quality of learning by facilitating the

access to resources and services, as well as remote exchange and collaboration” (EC, 2001, p.2).

In the 1990s the World Wide Web (WWW) allowed the collaboration among users and virtual

services and simultaneously strengthened the exchange of information and led to today’s development

and implementation of e-learning (Bersin, 2004). According to Martins et al. (2012) “e-learning on the

Web 2.0 or e-learning 2.0 can be characterized by a greater autonomy of students in the pursuit of

knowledge, in the exercise of the contradictory and the strong and intense interaction with other students

and teachers” (p. 1244). E-learning allows accessibility because it expands the interaction of class

beyond space and time, face to face and supports semi-present teaching activities (Martins et al., 2012).

Moreover, students, who have internet connection have free access to the courses and to their

instructional materials at any time they want and from any location (Mashhadia & Kargoz, 2011).

According to FitzParick (2012) the e-learning approach is able to create an enthusiastic online

environment because of its important characteristics, such as effectiveness, learning supportive

environment, possibilities for the proper teacher-student communication, and suitable opportunity to

share materials. Due to the technological development, e-learning has become a favourable environment

for the widespread of e-books which gradually have become an essential part of the information world

within the educational context (FitzPatrick, 2012) and which have demonstrated benefits in the areas of

accessibility, functionality, and cost effectiveness due to the development of e-book technology (Leng &

Khan, 2011). With the increasing rapid knowledge transfer and the technological diversity becoming a

global phenomenon, the adoption of digital technology in the academic environment is essential for the

development of the educational sector (Leng & Khan, 2011).

2. Research problem

There are many notable advantages of e-books, such as interactivity, nonlinearity, immediacy

in accessing information, and the convergence of text, images, audio, and video (Chen & Chen, 2014).

Due to the development and the advantages of modern technology and the opportunities which the e-

learning environment provides, it is necessary to investigate the factors and the different attitudes which

lie behind these preferences before we encourage the implementation of e-learning in education.

Consequently, this research aims to explore the VUB students’ current use of study materials, their

preferences for printed or digital study materials, and the factors which affect their choice for a certain

format of study materials.

II. Literature Review

1. Paper versus digital reading

The advent of digital media and the growing amount of digital information have had a significant

impact on people’s reading behaviour and have contributed to a transformative shift in their reading and


literacy (Liu, 2005). The experimental comparison between digital reading and print reading has a long

history of research dating back to the 90s when Birkerts (1994) argue that the arrival of digital media is

threatening the sustained reading and that the younger generation lacks the ability for deep reading.

Furthermore, it has been found that reading on hard paper is approximately 20 to 30% faster than

reading on a computer screen (Dillon, 1994). Ziefle (1998) reached the conclusion that paper is superior

to computer due to the screen qualities which tire the eyes more quickly. However, according to Noyes

and Garland (2008) these early conclusions are based on the fact that the display screen technology has

not been yet advanced and that it has been taken into consideration only a partial performance indicator,

such as reading speed.

In one of their earlier studies Noyes and Garland (2003) compared reading on computer versus

reading on paper in terms of study and reading time, factual recall and comprehension by taking into

consideration the Remember-Know learning paradigm. According to the Remember-Know paradigm

there are two main types of response, such as Remember, in which “knowledge is typically recollected

in close association with related information pertaining to the learning episode” (Mangen, Walgermo &

Bronnick, 2013, p. 62); and Know, in which “knowledge is recalled, retrieved and applied without any

such contextual associations” (Mangen et al., 2013, p. 62). In other words, the Remember type of

memory is more vulnerable to disappear with time than the Know one (Mangen et al., 2013, p. 62).

In their experiment Noyes and Garland (2003) found that in the computer group the Remember

frequencies are twice than that of the Know frequencies, while Remember and Know levels were similar

in the paper group. Noyes and Garland (2003) conclude that “the characteristics of the computer screen

(refresh rate, high levels of contrast and fluctuating luminance) interfere with cognitive processing for

long-term memory” (p. 420) and that the knowledge transition from the episodic memory to the long-

term memory is dependent on the nature of the format (screen versus paper).

Another research study based on the same paradigm was conducted by Mangen et al. (2013)

regarding reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen in which they conclude that reading

linear narrative and expository texts on a computer screen leads to a poorer reading comprehension

than reading the same texts on paper. Furthermore, they give several explanations: the difference in

the navigation within the document, at the metacognitive level, and at the visual ergonomics (Mangen

et al., 2013).

First, in terms of navigation, when reading on screen, scrolling “hampers the process of reading,

by imposing a spatial instability which may negatively affect the reader’s mental representation of the

text and, by implication, the comprehension” (Mangen et al., 2013, p. 65). According to Baccino and

Pynte (1994) having a good spatial mental representation of the physical layout of text supports reading

comprehension. Therefore, the fixity of the text printed on paper and the immediate access to the text

help the learner to construct easier the spatial representation of the text on the basis of the visual and

physical senses, in contrast with the computer readers who are restricted to sensing one page of the

text at any given time of reading (Mangen et al., 2013). Kerr and Symons (2006) state that difficulties

in reading from computers may be due to “the disrupted mental maps of the text, which may be reflected

in poorer understanding and ultimately poorer recall of presented material” (p. 5).


Second, regarding the metacognition, i.e. the ability to monitor one’s cognitive performance, a

poorer performance has been observed in screen reading than in paper reading (Mangen et al., 2013).

Ackerman and Goldsmith (2011) conclude that the medium of print is more suitable for effortful learning,

whereas the electronic medium is more suitable for fast or superficial reading of short texts.

Third, as far as the visual ergonomics (lightning conditions) are concerned, LCD computer

screens cause visual fatigue and, more specifically, computer vision syndrome (Mangen et al., 2013;

Yan, Hu, Chen & Lu, 2008). According Yan et al. (2008) the computer vision syndrome is ‘‘the complex

of eye and vision problems related to near work which are experienced during or related to computer

use’’ (p. 2028). Mangen et al. (2013) explain that LCD screens as found in most computers and surf

tablets (such as the iPads) are emitting light, whereas e-book technologies which are based on electronic

ink (such as the Kindle) are reflecting ambient light. Garland and Noyes (2004) elaborate that certain

features of the LCD, such as refresh rate, contrast levels and fluctuating light have an impact on cognitive

processing and damage long-term memory.

Liu (2005) concludes that there will be a co-existence of paper and digital materials in the future

because each medium tends to support certain features that are not easily replaced by the other. Digital

media tend to be more useful for searching due to the non-linearity and immediacy of accessing

information, while paper-based media are preferred for actual consumption of information (Liu, 2005).

2. E-books

E-books have been considered as the greatest publishing revolution since the invention of the

printing machine by Johann Gutenberg in 1445 which made books more widely accessible, more

shareable and less expensive (JISC, 2003). According to Embong et al. (2012) the advent of e-books

dates back to 1971 when Project Gutenberg was started by Michael Hart and thousands of free texts and

copies of books have been created in order to be downloaded or be accessed online.

Some researchers refer to e-book as a text which is available in the electronic format (Saurie &

Kaushik, 2001). It has been indicated that e-book is the combination of electronic text and electronic

reading device (the medium used to read the document content) (Letchumanan & Tarmizi). Chen (2003)

defines e-book in terms of four perspectives; the media used to preserve the books; the content; the

device used to read the content; and the delivery channel. Armstrong, Edwards and Lonsdale (2002)

come up with a definition accepted by many scholars and defines the e-book as “any piece of electronic

text regardless of size and compositions (a digital object), but excluding journal publications, made

available electronically (or optically) for any device (handheld or desk-bound) that includes a screen” (p.

217).

The e-books have become an alternative format to print books due to their availability and the

development of the e-book reading devices (Pledger, 2010). According to Pledger (2010) the e-books

have a lot of benefits. First, e-books can be read not only on the computer but also on e-book readers,

such as Kindle, iPad, Kobo and Nook, which have a number of useful features: (1) the audio function,

which allows the user to hear the text; (2) the dictionary, which allows to look up unknown words; (3)

the ability to take notes on it; (4) the ability to convert pdf files into a file for Kindle and to synchronize

the book on Kindle and read it on several devices; (5) the ability to change the size of the font, especially


for people with poor eyesight and for dyslexic readers (Pledger, 2010). A survey by Briddon et al. (2009)

at the University of West England found 88% of their respondents indicated that 24/7 availability was

the most appealing feature of e-books, which was followed (77%) by the instant online access (Briddon

et al., 2009). At the University of Illinois, Shelburne (2009) describes similar findings, such as the

instant, access (27%), the ability to browse (25%), the access from anywhere (17%), portability (15%)

and being environmentally better (7%).

Although the e-books have many advantages, research shows that the acceptance rate of e-

book is not as high as expected (Chong, Lim & Ling, 2008; ebrary, 2008; Letchumanan & Tarmizi;

Noorhidawati & Gibb; Roesnita & Zainab; Schomisch and Mayr, 2013; Spencer, 2006; Springer, 2010;

Tosun, 2014). Spencer (2006) finds that the convenience of paper for reasons of portability, reliability,

annotation, highlighting, and ergonomics consistently made it the preferred form for printed text for

both the younger and older age groups. Spencer (2006) states that although each successive generation

has spent more time using computers for personal and educational purposes, there is not yet a new

generation that has learned to read and study exclusively in an online environment. Despite the fact that

once we have moved from an oral tradition to a literate one with its dependence on alphabetic linear

text, we have not yet learned to take advantage of the new paradigm of online learning with its nonlinear

mixture of letters, symbols, graphics, and pictures (Spencer, 2006).

In line with it, Taipale (2014) investigated the impact of digital technologies on the education in

Finland while comparing the results from the study made in Italy by Fortunati and Vincent (2014). He

explored that 50% of 15-year-olds in Finland had used a computer more than five years in the early

2000s, whereas in Italy the same figure was just above 20%. Taipale (2014) discussed that given their

longer experience of using computer, the Finnish students have become more rooted in the world of

digital technology than the Italian students due to the different cultural dissimilarities from country to

country and the unsynchronized adoption of digital technology between the two countries. The study

concludes that repetitive habitual use of a technology does reinforce the same technology-in-practice

over time and leads to the students’ gradual adoption of digital reading (Taipale, 2014).

Roesnita and Zainab (2005) conducted a study in Malaysia among 250 undergraduate students

of Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology and the research results showed that only

39% of the respondents have used e-book before their study. Another survey was conducted by Chong

et al. (2008) in Malaysia in the Multimedia University which showed that the acceptance rate of e-book

has increased slightly to 52.3%. Ching et al. (2008) conclude that there is 13.0% increase in e-book

usage among university students in Malaysia in comparison to the earlier study, conducted by Roesnita

and Zainab (2005), which is not enough.

Furthermore, Noorhidawati and Gibb (2008) conduct a research among the students in Scottish

Higher Education Institute which revealed that around 60% of their respondents are not using e-book

and that the rest of the percentage mainly use them to find material for a project or essay. Letchumanan

and Tarmizi (2010) explored the utilization pattern of e-book among mathematics students of University

Putra Malaysia (UPM) and came up with the conclusion that only 37.1% of the respondents have used

e-book mainly for finding materials for their assignments and for doing their research work. Findings


show that the students prefer to read through a chapter of an e-book rather than read the entire e-book

(Springer, 2010). Schomisch and Mayr (2013) found in their study that essential parts of e-books texts

are printed out rather than read on screen.

A recent study tried to determine the student preferences for printed or online materials in terms

of departments (Tosun, 2014). The findings reveal that a large part of students do not read e-books and

that only the students from the departments of Computer Education and Instructional Technology, and

Polymer Science and Engineering have a higher rate of e-book reading than the students from the other

departments. Tosun (2014) concludes that this preference is a result of the program they study, or the

areas they have special interest in, and their ability to find more e-books for their development compared

to other students.

The ebrary (2008) conducted a global survey to better understand students’ usage, needs, and

perceptions regarding e-books. Ebrary (2008) reported that nearly half of the participants did not use

e-books due to the difficulty to read and use them as well as due to the lack of their availability in the

certain subject courses. The top features of the printed books which they identified were ease of reading,

possibility to take notes and to highlight. In contrast, the features selected most for e-books were their

environmental friendliness, the anytime, anywhere accessibility, and their searching, sharing, and

storing possibility. The top feature for both types of books were the clear graphs and images. Ebrary

(2008) concludes that books, print or electronic, are holding their ground as a preferred resource – e-

books are mainly used a resource for research and class assignments, whilst printed books are preferable

for studying and reading the entire work.

A similar research was conducted by Gregory (2008) aiming to investigate the undergraduates’

usage and attitudes toward electronic books in an American college. The findings showed that students

had mixed feelings about using e-books – students would use e-books but they would prefer using

traditional print books if they were given the freedom of choice. Gregory (2008) discusses that the

student responses revealed a desire for the physical aspect that a printed book provides which indicates

that “our human love of the book as a cuddle object remains quite strong in the digital age” (p. 270).

Furthermore, some students reported a preference for printed books because of the possibility to

highlight and take notes as well as the better reading comprehension. While they prefer using printed

books, students reported seeking e-books for specific purposes, such as research, reference, and

homework. In contrast, the reasons against the use of e-books were: lack of awareness, followed by

preference for print, eyestrain, no need, and ease of access. The only reasons that they outlined if they

use e-books are: convenience and portability, cost efficiency and ability to print (Gregory, 2008).

Gregory (2008) concludes that the most frequent reason which students reported for not using

an e-book is the lack of awareness and, therefore, she underlines the need for ongoing marketing of

library services. In line with this, Noorhidawati and Gibb (2008) identified the lack of awareness on e-

book availability and publicity on e-book availability as the key reasons which contributed to the low

utilization rate of e-book. A Springer survey (2010) conducted at the University of Liverpool showed that

more than 80% of respondents knew that they had access to e-books through the library and had actually


used them. Moreover, the majority of graduate students, surveyed at York University in Toronto, were

aware of e-books and 76% had used them (Nariani, 2009).

Even though library catalogues are often used as an access point to identify e-books, librarians

should still effectively promote, take advantage and make available their e-book collections (Walters,

2013). Librarians and the faculty need to be pro-active and further promote the use of e-books to their

students as their encouragement is often a prerequisite for motivating student use (Mulholland & Bates,

2014). Mulholland and Bates (2014) state that technological innovations have driven libraries in recent

years and e-books have received an increasing amount of attention and compelled many libraries to

review their collections and how they provide information services.

From a global point of view e-books have become an integral part of libraries within educational

establishments, and that librarians, publishers and platform providers still face challenges as e-books

develop (Springer, 2010). E-books have the possibility to be significant for libraries and learners because

of the enduring importance of textbooks for learning (Vasileiou, Hartley & Rowley, 2012).

3. Cost

An important factor which has an impact on the choice of format of reading is the cost. Tosun

(2014) conducted a study in order to determine their preferences on reading printed books or e-books

and the reasons for these preferences. The findings revealed that 79.1% of the student-teachers do not

read e-books and among the reasons behind it were the cost-efficiency of the printed books, the eyes

protection and the tangibility of the printed books. Letchumanan and Tarmizi (2010) state that factors

such as cost, the non-familiarity with the e-books, and the difficulty in accessing and browsing, are

referred to hinder utilization of e-books among the participants.

It appears that the cost and economic efficiency are marked as key factors influencing the

readers’ preferences for printed reading (Letchumanan & Tarmizi, 2010; Tosun, 2014). Although earlier

studies conducted 20 years ago show that centralized duplication and distribution of hardcopies, and the

provision of all students with the published hardcopy is more socially and economically efficient (Besen,

1986), the more contemporary research studies show paradoxical results. Annand (2008) compared the

costs per student provided by an e-text versus a printed version of the same textbook and concluded

that if students read and study an assigned e-text online, this saves production, duplication and

distribution costs by reducing the paper and the duplication sale of the hardcopy coursepack, i.e. the

provided e-texts online avoid duplication and distribution costs of the hardcopies.

Furthermore, Ji, Michaels and Waterman (2014) conducted a study and their findings confirm

the statement mentioned above. They found that that two-thirds of their respondents printed at least

some readings and reported an overall preference for freely available electronically accessed readings

via electronic reserve system in the academic libraries because they lower the overall printing costs and,

thus, are more cost effective to students (Ji et al., 2014).

Educational costs are a major concern to most undergraduates (Gregory, 2008). In her research

Gregory (2008) furthermore discusses that students assumed that e-coursebooks would cost less than

traditional college coursebooks, especially if free access were offered through the library. Along the same

lines, numerous comments focused on the cost of printing portions of e-books. Additionally, despite the


students’ predilection for printing e-book pages, the responses show a concern about wasting paper both

as a resource and an expense when printing e-book pages (Gregory, 2008).


Sustainable development has been the search for protection and preservation of the environment

not only for current generations but for the future ones as well (Gündoğan & Eby, 2012). “To sustain is

not only about keeping up, supporting or maintaining continuity but also is about nourishing, cultivation

and acknowledgement” (Gündoğan & Eby, 2012, p. 789). Thus, Gündoğan and Eby (2012) underline

that the education planning and design has to be green and has to integrate sustainability by focusing

on efficient use of resources and provisions for reducing waste with the ultimate goal of eliminating it as

a necessity for meeting the current and future needs. According to Embong et al. (2012) the adoption

of e-books can both reduce the numbers of trees cut down for the production of printed books and can

maximize the availability of knowledge.

The lifecycle of a print book starts with growing and harvesting a tree, followed by transporting

the wood to a paper mill, where the material is ground into paper pulp, dried, and cut into sheets, and

ends when these sheets are transported to a publisher in order to be printed and bound into a book and

sent to warehouse, or a retailer (Embong et al., 2012). This process is the same for every new physical

book that is produced and every step is accompanied by producing carbon emissions (Embong et al.,

2012). In 2009 Cleantech Group LLC compared the lifecycle of print books with that of e-readers and

found that almost 75% of the publishing industry’s carbon footprint comes from paper since they produce

11.3 billion kilograms worth of carbon emissions per year (Cleantech Group LLC, 2009). Another study

found that a single paper textbook creates four times the carbon emissions of a single e-reader, and that

the print books consume three times the amount of raw materials and 78 times more water than e-

books (Engelhaupt, 2008).

Cleantech Group LLC (2009) estimated that e-readers would prevent 8.7 billion kilograms of

carbon emissions in 2012 based on their estimate of three books read per month and they conclude that

e-books prevent transportation-related emissions not only in shipping and distribution but also when

consumers purchase them. Purchasing books at a bookstore produces double the emissions of e-book

purchases (Cleantech Group LLC, 2009). Embong et al. (2012) state that the shift to using e-books as

textbooks would reduce the usage of paper and would also ensure sustainable resources of knowledge.

According to Thompson (2012) it is arguable that both print books and e-readers support

sustainability. On the one hand, books are made of renewable material and can last for decades; on the

other hand, e-readers are an alternative to print books which have the advantage to greatly reduce the

environmental impacts of books. Thompson (2012) conclude that the sustainability could be improved if

the print books continue to be published and printed on recycled paper and if e-readers could be made

with sustainably, non-toxic and recyclable materials.

In conclusion, Kozak (2003) states that from an environmental standpoint, it is difficult to argue

against the integration of e-readers into a school’s curriculum. He outlines several observations: (1)

environmental burdens, as far as the electronic book storage (i.e. server storage) are concerned, are

small in comparison to the physical storage of books (i.e. bookstore); (2) e-readers reduce personal


transportation-related burdens since they allow instant accessibility to digitized texts (i.e. anywhere

there is Internet access); (3) e-readers are more compact and are less material intensive than the

number of printed books; and (4) electricity generation for e-reader use had less of an environmental

impact than did paper production for the conventional book system (Kozak, 2003).

III. Research questions

(RQ1) What are the students’ preferences for study materials?

o Are there any differences among the students regarding the use and preferences

for a certain choice of a format of study materials?

(RQ2) How does the cost affect their preference for study materials?

(RQ3) How do the environmental issues affect their preference for study materials?


IV. Methodology

1. Research context

This paper was part of an ongoing research process at VUB which aimed to explore the VUB

students’ current use of materials, their preferences for printed or digital study materials, and the factors

which affect their choice for a certain format of study materials. The research was a joint project between

the Department of Education (Onderwijsbeleid), the Department of Student Policy (Studentenbeleid) and

the Department of Educational Sciences. It started in August 2014 and ended in January 2015. By having

an overall picture and a better understanding of students’ needs and preferences for study materials,

the research aims to contribute to the development of the university’s policy for the creation and

dissemination of study materials.

2. Research sample

The target group of this research was all the students who studied at VUB. In general, 1175

VUB students from all the faculties and levels of study participated in the main research, 824 of which

participated in the Dutch survey and 351 in the English survey. The idea behind the dissemination of the

questionnaire not only in Dutch but also in English was to analyse the VUB international students’ use

and the preferences for study materials as well.

2.1 Socio-demographic profile of the participants who responded in the Dutch survey

The survey included responses from 824 VUB students, 512 (62%) of whom were female and

312 were male students (38%). The average age of the students from the Dutch sample was 23.45 (Fig.

1). The large part of the participants originated from Belgium (90%, 750) and only 10% (74) originated

from other countries (Fig. 2). Students from almost all faculties (Fig. 3) and levels of study (Fig. 4)

participated in the research.

Figure 1. Distribution of the participants by age (N = 824)

311338

88 83

40

100

200

300

400

38% 41% 11% 10% 0.1%

17 – 20 21 – 25 26 – 30 31 – 55 56 – 80

Num

ber

of stu

dents

Age


Figure 2. Distribution of the participants by continent of origin (N = 824)

Figure 3. Distribution of the participants by faculty (N = 824)

Figure 4. Distribution of the participants by levels of study (N = 824)

2.2 Socio-demographic profile of the participants who responded in the English

survey

The English survey included 351 VUB students, 189 (54%) of whom were female and 162 (46%)

were male. The average age of the English sample was 25.9 (Fig. 5). Less than half of the participants

originated from Belgium (42.7%, 150) and the rest originated from other countries (58.3%, 201) (Fig.

6). The students from almost all faculties (Fig. 7) and levels of study (Fig. 8) participated in the research.

806

13 3 1 10

200

400

600

800

1000

98% 1.5% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1%

Europe Asia Africa North America South America

Num

ber

of stu

dents

Continents

152130

111 105 9987 76

51

7

0

50

100

150

200

18% 16% 13% 13% 12% 11% 9% 6% 0.8%

GF ES PE LW RC WE IR LK IDLO

Num

ber

of stu

dents

Faculties

201

11087 75

155

79

11 21

62

0

50

100

150

200

250

24% 13% 11% 9% 19% 10% 1.3% 2.5% 7.5%

1-year

BA

2-year

BA

3-year

BA

Prep

program

1-year

MA

2-year

MA

3-year

MA

Adv MA PhD

Num

ber

of stu

dents

Levels of study


Figure 5. Distribution of the participants by age (N = 351)

Figure 6. Distribution of the participants by continent of origin (N = 351)

Figure 7. Distribution of the participants by faculties (N = 351)

59

139

90

3825

0

50

100

150

17% 40% 26% 11% 7.1%

17 – 20 21 – 25 26 – 30 31 – 55 56 – 80

Num

ber

of stu

dents

Age

241

6626 11 7

0

100

200

300

67% 19% 7% 3% 1.9%

Europe Asia Africa South America North America

Num

ber

of stu

dents

Continents

112

48 46 4331 30

238 8 2

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

31% 14% 13% 12% 9% 8.5% 7% 2% 2% 0.6%

ES IR WE PE GF LW RC LK IES IDLO

Num

ber

of stu

dents

Faculties


Figure 8. Distribution of the participants by level of study (N = 351)

3. Instruments

An electronic questionnaire in English (Appendix B) and in Dutch (Appendix C) was specifically

designed for the purpose and was distributed to the students via the online survey application

“LimeSurvey”. It consisted of 50 questions and was divided into four parts: (1) “Personal information”

(2) “Use of e-books”; (3) “Use of e-coursebooks”; and (4) “Personal preferences for paper versus digital

materials”.

4. Data collection

First of all, a pilot test was conducted in September which involved 15 students from the Faculty

of Psychology and Educational Sciences. It was followed by the online distribution of the questionnaire

in English and Dutch in October among the VUB students from all the levels of studies and faculties of

VUB. The results were analysed in November and December 2014.

5. Data analysing methods

Both a quantitative and qualitative research methods have been used in this research since the

research was oriented towards the exploration of the different choices of study materials, and the factors

and reasons which affect those choices. Thus, the questionnaire consisted of descriptive and open-ended

questions as well as questions which employed the Likert scale from 1 to 10. In the course of the analysis

the chi-square test was used in order to find if there are differences regarding the students’ choice of

study materials in terms of gender, age, levels of study and faculty division. The chi-square test was

used for the analysis of the differences among the students regarding their use and preferences for study

materials. Furthermore, the independent t-test and the ANOVA-test were used for the analysis of the

differences among the students regarding the features of the e-books and printed books.

3723 28

10

79

56

420

8

79

0

20

40

60

80

100

10.5% 7% 8% 3% 22.5% 16% 11% 6% 2% 22.5%

1-year BA 2-year BA 3-year BAPrep program1-year MA 2-year MA 3-year MA Adv MA Postgraduate PhD

Num

ber

of stu

dents

Levels of study


V. Results from the Dutch survey

1. Use of e-books and e-coursebooks

52% (432) of the participants graded themselves as having a good level of awareness of

electronic resources. The results show that 91% (748) of the participants have heard of e-books but

only 29.7% (245) use them.

A chi-square test was performed in order to investigate if there is a significant difference between

the use of e-books and certain characteristics of the students. A significant relationship was found

between the use of e-books and the gender of the students, X2 (2, N = 824) = 8.232, p = .01 (p < .05).

The male students (35.6%) use e-books more than female students (26.2%) (Fig. 9, Table 1).

Figure 9. Relationship between the use of e-books and the gender of the students

Furthermore, a significant relationship was found between the use of e-books and the age of the

students, X2 (8, N = 824) = 33.267, p = .00. The percentage of the students who use e-books at the

age between 17 and 20 (19.9%) was lower than those at the age between 21 and 25 (33%), between

26 and 30 (43.2%) and at the age between 31 and 55 (37%) (Fig. 10, Table 2).

A significant relationship was also found between the use of e-books and faculty division of the

students, X2 (18, N = 824) = 45.639, p = .00. The use of e-books by the students from the Faculty of

Science and Bio-Engineering (37.9%) was higher than the use of e-books by the students from the

Faculty of Engineering (35.5%), the Faculty of Economic and Social Sciences and Solvay Business School

(33.8%), the Faculty of Arts and Philosophy (37.9%), the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences

(27.9%), the Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy (24.3%) and the Faculty of Law and Criminology

(21.2%) (Fig. 11, Table 3).

36%

26%

0%

20%

40%

Perc

enta

ge o

f

stu

dents

Male Female

20%

33%

43%

37%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Perc

enta

ge o

f

stu

dents

17-20 21-25 26-30 31-55

Figure 10. Relationship between the use of e-books and the age of the students


Figure 11. Relationship between the use of e-books and the faculty division of the students

No significant difference was found among the students’ levels of study regarding the use of e-

books, X2 (20, N = 824) = 38.822, p = .07.

The reasons which the students identified for not using e-books are due to their preference for

printed books (50.7%, 418), the lack of an e-book reader (27.8%, 229) and the difficulty to read (20.9%,

172) and to use (11.4%, 94) e-books.

A reliability analysis test was conducted. The reliability of the scale of printed books’ features

(Cronbach’s alpha = .644) and the reliability of the scale of e-books’ features (Cronbach’s alpha = .826)

were satisfactory. Consequently, a paired t-test was conducted in order to compare the features of the

printed books and the e-books (Fig. 12, Table 4).

The mean of the feature “easy to read” was higher for printed books (M = 8.55, SD = 1.766) in

comparison to e-books (M = 5.00, SD = 2.606) (t = 30.619, p = .00). The results showed that the two

means are significantly different (p < .05).

The mean of the feature “easy to highlight” was higher for printed books (M = 8.20, SD = 2.339)

in comparison to e-books (M = 5.05, SD = 2.494) (t = 24.384, p = .00). The results showed that the

two means are significantly different (p < .05).

The mean of the feature “easy to take notes” was higher for printed books (M = 7.79, SD =

2.441) in comparison to e-books (M = 4.58, SD = 2.379) (t = 24.597, p = .00). The results showed that

the two means are significantly different (p < .05).

The mean of the feature “environmentally friendly” was higher for e-books (M = 8.09, SD=

1.969) in comparison to printed books (M = 4.39, SD = 2.595) (t = -29.878, p = .00). The results

showed that the two means are significantly different (p < .05).

The mean of the feature “searching and browsing possibilities” was higher for e-books (M = 8.22,

SD = 1.971) in comparison to printed books (M = 6.50, SD = 2.163) (t = -15, 418, p = .00). The results


The mean of the feature “easy to store” was higher for e-books (M =7.82, SD = 1.862) in

comparison to printed books (M = 5.96, SD = 2.674) (t = -15.337, p = .00). The results showed that


38%35% 34%

30%28%

24%21%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%Perc

enta

ge o

f stu

dents

WE IR ES LW PE GF RC


The mean of the feature “clear graphs and images” was higher for printed books (M = 7.53, SD

= 1.784) in comparison to e-books (M = 7.47, SD = 1.828) (t = .749, p = .45). The results showed that

the two means are not significantly different (p ≤ .05).

The mean of the feature “cost-efficient” was higher for e-books (M = 7.24, SD = 1.993) in



The mean of the feature “anytime, anywhere access” was higher for e-books books (M = 7.05,

SD = 2.217) in comparison to printed books (M = 6.87, SD = 2.313) (t = -1.397, p = .16). The results

showed that the two means are not significantly different (p >.05).

Figure 12. Paired t-test; mean scores of the e-books’ and printed books’ features

Independent t-tests were conducted in order to investigate if there is a difference among the

gender of the participants and their mean scores of the printed books’ and the e-books’ features.

The results show that mean score of the female students (M = 7.94, SD = 2.386) regarding the

feature of the printed books “easy to take notes” is significantly higher than the male score (M = 7.55,

SD = 2.512) (t = 2.116, p < .01) (Fig. 13, Table 5).

There was also a significant difference of the mean scores of the printed books’ feature “anytime,

anywhere access” among the gender of the students. The mean score of the female students (M = 7.06,

SD = 2.255) is higher than the mean score of the male students (M = 6.56, SD = 2.377) (t = 2.860, p

< .01) (Fig. 13, Table 5).

8,68,2

7,8

4,4

6,56,0

7,5

5,2

6,9

5,0 5,14,6

8,1 7,9 7,87,5 7,2 7,1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Mean s

core

Printed books E-books


Figure 13. Independent t-test; significant difference in the mean scores of the printed books’ features in

relation to the gender

As far as the e-books’ features are concerned, it was found that there is a significant difference

among the gender of the students regarding the mean scores of the e-books’ feature “searching

possibilities” (t = -2.293, p < .05). The mean score of the female students (M = 8.10, SD = 1.891) is

higher than the mean score of the male students (M = 7.76, SD = 1.978) (Fig. 14, Table 6).

There was also a significant difference among the gender of the students, regarding the mean

scores of the e-books’ feature “anytime, anywhere access”, (t = -2.214, p < .05). The mean score of

the male students (M = 7.27, SD = 2.216) is higher than the mean score of the female students (M =

6.90, SD = 2. 209) (Fig. 14, Table 6).

No other differences were found regarding the printed books’ and e-books’ features and the

gender of the students.

Figure 14. Independent t-test; significant difference in the mean scores of the e-books’ features in


ANOVA tests were conducted in order to investigate if there is a difference among the levels of

study as well as the faculty division of the participants and their mean scores of the printed books’

features. The ANOVA results show that there was a significant difference of the mean scores of the

printed books’ feature “anytime, anywhere access” among the faculty division of the students (F (8) =

7,556,56

7,947,06

0

2

4

6

8

10

Easy to take notes Anytime, anywhere access

Mean s

core

Printed books

Male Female

7,76

7,27

8,1

6,9

6

6,5

7

7,5

8

8,5

Searching possibilities Anytime, anywhere access

Mean s

core

E-books

Male Female


2.082, p < .05) (Table 7). Tukey post-hoc test shows that that the mean score of the students from the

Faculty of Arts and Philosophy (M = 7.37) is significantly higher in comparison to the score of the students

from the Faculty of Science and Bio-Engineering (M = 6.28) (SD = 1.096, p < .05) (Fig. 15, Table 8).

No other differences were found regarding the students’ levels of study and faculty division of

the students in relation to the rest of the printed books’ features.

Figure 15. ANOVA test; significant difference in the mean scores of the printed books’ features in relation

to the faculty division

ANOVA tests were conducted in order to investigate if there is a difference among the

participants’ mean scores of the е-books’ features. The results show that there are significant differences

of the mean scores of the e-books’ feature “possibility to highlight” among the faculty division of the

students (F (8) = 1.968, p < .05) (Table 9). Tukey post-hoc test shows that the mean score given by

the students from the Faculty of Science and Bio-Engineering (M = 6.01) is higher than the mean score

given by the students from the Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy (M = 4.90, p < .05), the Faculty of

Psychology and Educational Sciences (M = 4. 85, p < .05), the Faculty of Arts and Philosophy (M = 4.84,

p < .05), and the Faculty of Economic and Social Sciences and Solvay Business School (M = 4.78, p <

.05) (Fig. 16, Table 10).

Figure 16. ANOVA tests; significant difference in the mean scores of the e-books’ feature in relation to

the faculty division of the students

There is also a significant difference among the faculty division of the students, regarding the

mean scores of the feature “cost-efficient” (F (8) = 1.956, p < .05) (Table 11). The mean score of the

7,37

6,28

5

6

7

8

Mean s

core

Anytime, anywhere access

Printed books

LW WE

6,014,9 4,85 4,84 4,78

0

2

4

6

8

Mean s

core

Possibility to highlight

E-books

WE GF PE LW ES


students from the Faculty of Science and Bio-Engineering (M = 7.76) is higher than the mean score

given by the students from the Faculty of Arts and Philosophy (M = 6.75) (MD = 1. 018, p < .05) (Fig.

17, Table 12).

A significant difference was also found among the faculty division of the students, regarding the

mean scores of the feature “possibility to store” (F (8) = 2.805, p < .01) (Table 13). The mean score of

the students from the Faculty of Science and Bio-Engineering (M = 8.45) is significantly higher than

mean score of the students from the Faculty of Arts and Philosophy (M = 7.33) (MD = 1.114, p < .01)

(Fig.17, Table 14).

Furthermore, there is a significant difference among the faculty division of the students,

regarding the mean scores of the feature “clear graphs and images” (F (8) = 2.212, p < .05) (Table,

15). The mean score of the students from the Faculty of Science and Bio-Engineering (M = 7.99) is

higher than the mean score given by the students from the Faculty of Psychology and Educational

Sciences (M = 7.07) (MD = .92, p < .05) (Fig. 17, Table 16).

No other differences were found regarding the students’ level of study and faculty division in

relation to the rest of the e- books’ features.

Figure 17. ANOVA tests; significant difference in the mean scores of the e-books’ features in relation to

the faculty division of the students

More than half of the participants (70%, 583) responded that they do not use e-coursebooks.

And almost half of the participants (59%, 489) do not want to be provided with e-coursebooks. Students

were asked to give reasons for (Fig. 18) and against the provisions of e-coursbooks (Fig. 19)

7,76 8,45 7,996,75 7,33 7,07

0

5

10

Cost-efficient Possibility to store Clear graphs and images

Mean s

core

E-books

WE LW PE


Figure 18. Reasons given by the students for the provision of e-coursebooks

Figure 19. Reasons given by the students against the provision of e-coursebooks

A chi-square test was again performed in order to investigate if there is a significant difference

among the students who use e-coursebooks. A significant relationship was found between the use of e-

coursebooks and the gender of the students, X2 (1, N = 748) = 10.840, p = .01. The male students

(28.4%) used e-coursebooks more than the female students (18.1%) (Fig. 20, Table 17).

60

44

41

32

21

17

12

11

10

10

8

4

4

3

2

2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Cost-efficient

The possibility to print them

Easy to carry

Environmentally friendly

Easy to browse

Easy to store

Time-saving

Easy to mark

Convenient and compact

Availability

Accessibility

Easy to share with others

Useful

Easy to use

Easy to read

Less routine work

Number of students

Reasons for

pro

vid

ing e

-cours

ebooks

60

47

35

23

15

13

10

10

8

5

5

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Difficult to study

Difficult to read

Difficult to take notes

Eye strain (headache)

More print work

Difficult to highlight

Difficult to concentrate

I prefer paper

Difficult to use

Not convenient in class

I don’t have an e-book reader

Number of students

Reasons a

gain

st

pro

vid

ing e

-cours

ebooks

28%

18%

0%

10%

20%

30%

Male Female

Figure 20. Relationship between the use of e-coursebooks and the gender of the students


Furthermore, a significant relationship was found between the use of e-coursebooks and the age

of the students, X2 (8, N = 824) = 27.160, p =.00. The percentage of the use of e-coursebooks by the

students at the age between 31 and 55 years old (37.3%) was higher than those at the age between 26

and 30 (27.3%), between 21 and 25 (22.5%) and between 17 and 20 (12.9%) (Fig. 21, Table 18).

Figure 21. Relationship between the use of e-coursebooks and the age of students

A significant difference was also found among the faculty division of the students who use e-

coursebooks, X2 (9, N = 748) = 33.646, p = .00. The percentage of the use of e-coursebooks by the

students from the Faculty of Science and Bio-Engineering (39.5%) was higher than the percentage of

the students from the Faculty of Engineering, the Faculty of Economic and Social Sciences and Solvay

Business School (24.2%), the Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy (22.2%), the Faculty of Arts and

Philosophy (16.7%), the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences (15.2%) and the Faculty of Law

and Criminology (11.9%) (Fig. 22, Table 19).

Figure 22. Relationship between the use of e-coursebooks and the faculty division of the students

No significant difference was found among the students’ levels of study regarding the use of e-

coursebooks, X2 (10, N = 748) = 16.493, p = .08.

Another chi-square test was performed in order to investigate if there is a significant difference

among the students who would like to be provided with e-coursebooks. A significant relationship was

found between the students’ desire to be provided with e-coursebooks and their gender, X2 (1, N = 824)

= 15.427, p = .00. The percentage of the male students (50.6%) who want to be provided with e-

coursebooks was higher than the female students (36.7%) (Fig. 23, Table 20).

13%

22%

27%

37%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Perc

enta

ge o

f

stu

dents

17-20 21-25 26-30 31-55

39%

25% 24%22%

17%15%

11%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Perc

enta

ge o

f stu

dents

WE IR ES GF LW PE RC


Figure 23. Relationship between the desire for e-coursebooks and the gender of the students

Furthermore, a significant relationship was found between the students’ desire to be provided

with e-coursebooks and their age, X2 (8, N = 824) = 54.536, p = .00. The percentage of the students

at the age between 17 and 20 (27.7%) who would like to be provided with e-coursebooks was lower

than the percentage of those at the age between 31 and 55 (62.7%), between 26 and 30 (54.5%) and

between 21 and 25 (46.4%) (Fig. 24, Table 21).

Figure 24. Relationship between the desire for e-coursebooks and the age of the students

A significant relationship was also found between the students’ desire to be provided with e-

coursebooks and their level of study, X2 (10, N = 834) = 56.333, p = .00. The percentage of the PhD

students (64.5%) and the second-year master students (62.0%) who want to be provided with e-

coursebooks was higher than the percentage of the preparatory programme students (46.7%), the first-

year master students (42.6%), the third-year bachelor students (36.8%), the second-year bachelor

students (36.4%) and the first-year bachelor students (26.9%) (Fig. 25, Table 22).

51%

37%

0%

20%

40%

60%Perc

enta

ge o

f

stu

dents

Male Female

28%

46%

54%

63%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Perc

enta

ge o

f stu

dents

17-20 21-25 26-30 31-55


Figure 25. Relationship between the desire for e-coursebooks and the students’ level of study

No significant difference was found among the faculty division of the students regarding their

desire to be provided with e-coursebooks, X2 (9, N = 824) = 5.529, p = .786.

Furthermore, the results show that the percentage of the participants who print e-coursebooks

(49%, 407) is almost the same as the percentage of the participants who do not print e-coursebooks

(51%, 417). A chi-square test was performed in order to investigate if there is a significant difference

among the students regarding the printing of e-coursebooks. A significant relationship was found

between the printing of e-coursebooks and the gender of the students, X2 (1, N = 748) = 3.373, p =

.03. The percentage of the female students (46.9%) who print e-coursebooks was higher than those of

the male students (40%) (Fig. 26, Table 23).

Figure 26. Relationship between the printing of e-coursebooks and the gender of the students

Furthermore, no significant difference was found among the age of the students, X2 (3, N = 748)

= .74, p = .864, the students’ levels of study, X2 (10, N = 748) = 6.624, p = .76, and the faculty

divisions of the students, X2 (9, N = 748) = 5.542, p = .78, who print e-coursebooks.

2. Preferences for study materials

More than half of the VUB students (79%, 649) prefer the printed study materials (Fig. 27) and

the printed course (62%, 510).

27%

36% 37%

47%43%

62% 64%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%Perc

enta

ge o

f stu

dents

1-year BA 2-year BA 3-year BA Prep 1-year MA 2-year MA PhD

40%

47%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Perc

enta

ge o

f

stu

dents

Male Female


Figure 27. Preferences for study materials

Those who preferred both materials had to identify under which circumstances they prefer the

paper over the digital format (Fig. 28) and the digital over the printed format (Fig. 29).

Figure 28. Top reasons for the preferences for paper format of study materials

Figure 29. Top reasons for the preferences for digital format of study materials

The most preferred devices for reading digital materials are laptop (61%, 500) and tablet (17%,

143). 80% (657) agree that the printed material eases the comprehension of the text they read and that

the digital material has a negative impact on the comprehension of the text they read (368, 44%). As

far as the speed of reading, 76% (628) agree that the different format of material affects the speed of

79%

25%18%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Printed materials Digital materials Both

Perc

enta

ge o

f

stu

dents

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

For taking notes

Studying

For difficult courses

Highlighting

Number of students

Pre

fere

nce for

paper

form

at

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

For additional information

On the road

There are a lot of images

Quickly to search

Long texts

Studying

Number of students

Pre

fere

nce for

dig

ital fo

rmat


reading and 73% (606) admit that they read the printed material faster than the digital material. Half

of the participants (50%, 409) agree with the statement that the more experience they have, the more

digital materials they prefer to read.

66% (546) need to be provided with more digital materials on PointCarré. A chi-square test was

performed in order to investigate if there is a significant difference among the students who would like

more digital materials on PointCarré. A significant relationship was found between the students’ desire

for more digital materials on PointCarré and the students’ level of study, X2 (10, N = 824) = 21.727, p

= .01. The percentage of the PhD students (79.0%) was higher than percentage of the second-year

master students (75.9%), the third-year bachelor (71.3%), first-year master students (69.0%) the

second-year bachelor students (62.7%), the preparatory programme students (58.7%) and the first-

year bachelor students (57.7%) (Fig. 30, Table 24).

Figure 30. Relationship between the desire for digital materials on PointCarré and the students’ level of

study

A significant difference was also found among the age of the participants who would like to be

provided with digital materials on PointCarré, X2 (4, N = 824) = 16.352, p = .00. The percentage of the

students at the age between 26 and 30 (79.5%) was higher than that the percentage of the students at

the age between 31 and 55 (66.3%), between 21 and 25 (69.5%) and between 17 and 20 (58.8%) (Fig.

31, Table 25).

Figure 31. Relationship between the desire for digital materials on PointCarré and the age of the students

58%63%

71%

59%

69%76%

79%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Perc

enta

ge o

f stu

dents

1-year BA 2-year BA 3-year BA Prep 1-year MA 2-year MA PhD

59%70%

79%66%

0%

50%

100%

Perc

enta

ge o

f

stu

dents

17-20 21-25 26-30 31-55


No significant difference was found among the faculty division of students, X2 (9, N = 824) =

10.634, p = .302, and among the gender of the students, X2 (1, N = 824) = .905, p = .191, regarding

the students’ desire for more digital materials on PointCarré.

272 (33%) would like to be provided with digital course materials for every course and 250

(30.3%) of the students leave it to the choice of the teacher (Fig. 32).

Figure 32. Provision of digital materials

A chi-square test was performed in order to investigate if there are significant differences among

the students regarding the provision of digital materials for each course. There was a significant

relationship between the provision of digital materials and the age of the students, X2 (9, N = 824) =

17.305, p = .04. The percentage of the students at the age between 21 and 25 (37.7%) who would like

to be provided with digital materials for each course on PointCarré was higher than the percentage of

the students at the age between 26 and 30 (31.0%) and at the age between 17 and 20 (26.7%) (Fig.

33, Table 26)

Figure 33. Relationship between the provision of digital materials on PointCarré for every course and the

age of the students

There was a significant relationship between the provision of digital materials for every course

and the gender of the students, X2 (3, N = 824) = 7.806, p = .05. The percentage of the female students

who would like to be provided with digital materials on PointCarré for each course (38.5%) was higher

than the percentage of the male students (29.7%) (Fig. 34, Table 27).

33%

3%

30%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

For each course For half of the courses Let it be the choice of theteacher

Perc

enta

ge o

f

stu

dents

27%

38%

31%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Perc

enta

ge o

f

stu

dents

17-20 21-25 26-30


Figure 34. Relationship between the provision of the digital materials on PointCarré for every course and

the gender of the students

There were no significant differences among the faculty division of the students, X2 (27, N =

824) = 27.540, p = .435, among the students’ levels of study, X2 (30, N = 824) = 34.438, p = .264,

and among the gender of the students, X2 (3, N = 824) = 7.806, p = .05, regarding the provision of

digital materials for every course.

Furthermore, the results show that the VUB students use mainly the paper-based resources for

studying, such as their own course notes (61%, 506), printed books (58%, 477) and printed coursebooks

(47%, 387), followed by e-journals (9.2%, 76), e-references (7.6%, 63), free online courses (2.8%, 23)

and video channels (2.4%, 20) which are less preferred for studying.

3. Cost

The cost does play a significant factor for the students’ choice of study material format. 55%

(368) of the students’ choice of format is affected by the cost and 78% (644) agree that the digital

materials are more cost-efficient than the printed materials. Furthermore, as the cheapest places for

printing are identified Crazy Copy Centre (28%, 232), home (26%, 211) and work (25%, 206).


The findings show that the environmental sustainability does not have a significant impact on

the students’ preferences for a study material format. Although 84% (692) agree that the digital

materials are more environmentally friendly than the printed materials, and despite the fact that the

high mean score of the environmentally sustainable importance of the e-books (M = 8.09, SD = 1.969)

is higher in contrast to that of the printed books (M = 4.39, SD = 2.595), the preference for the printed

materials prevails over the sustainable digital materials.

30%

38%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%Perc

enta

ge o

f

stu

dents

Male Female


VI. Results from the English survey


52.7% (185) of the participants graded themselves as having a good level of awareness of

electronic resources. But 95.4% (335) of the participants have heard of e-books and more than half of

them (57.5%, 202) actually use them. The rest (37.9%, 133) identify the preference for printed books

(31.6%, 111), the lack of e-reader (16.8%, 59) and the difficulty to read e-books (7.1%, 25) as the

reasons against using e-books.

A chi-squared test was performed in order to investigate if there is a significant difference

between the use of e-books and the students. A significant relationship was found between the use of

e-books and the age of the students, X2 (8, N = 351) = 31.275, p = .00. The percentage of the students

at the age between 17 and 20 (28.8%) who use e-books was lower than those at the age between 31

and 55 (73.7%), between 26 and 30 (63.6%) and between 21 and 25 (59.7%) (Fig. 35, Table 28).

Figure 35. Relationship between the use of e-books and the age of students

A significant relationship was also found between the use of e-books and the faculty division of

the students, X2 (18, N = 351) = 33.881, p = .01. The percentage of the use of e-books by the students

from the Faculty of Engineering (77.1%) was higher than the percentage of using e-books by the

students from the Faculty of Science and Bio-Engineering Sciences (65.1%), the Faculty of Economic

and Social Sciences and Solvay Business School (63.4%), the Faculty of Arts and Philosophy (53.3%),

the Faculty of Law and Criminology (47.8%), the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences(41.3%)

and the Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy (38.7%) (Fig. 36, Table 29).

29%

60% 63%

73%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Perc

enta

ge o

f stu

dents

17-20 21-25 26-30 31-55


Figure 36. Relationship between the use of e-books and the faculty division of students

Furthermore, a significant relationship was found between the use of e-books and the students’

level of study, X2 (20, N = 351) = 42.501, p = .00. The percentage of the advanced master students

(75.0%), the PhD students (70.9%) and the first-year master students (65.8%) was higher than that of

the second-year master students (53.6%), the third-year bachelor students (39.3%), the second-year

bachelor students (39.1%) and the first-year bachelor students (27.0%) (Fig. 37, Table 30).

Figure 37. Relationship between the use of e-books and the students’ level of study

No significant difference was found among the gender of the students regarding the use of e-

books, X2 (2, N = 351) = 2.079, p = .35

A reliability analysis test was conducted. The reliability of the scale of printed books’ features

(Cronbach’s alpha = 0.721) and the reliability of the scale of e-books’ features (Cronbach’s alpha =

0.831) were satisfactory. Consequently, a paired t-test was conducted in order to compare the features

of the printed books and the e-books (Fig. 38, Table 31).

The mean of the feature “easy to read” was higher for printed books (M = 8.185, SD = 2.288)

in comparison to e-books (M = 5.74, SD = 2.708) (t =12.824, p = .00). The results showed that the

two means are significantly different (p < .05).

The mean of the feature “easy to highlight” was higher for printed books (M = 7.86, SD = 2.708)

in comparison to e-books (M = 5.36, SD = 2.605) (t = 8.903, p = .00). The results showed that the two

means are significantly different (p < .05).

77%

65% 63%

53%48%

41% 39%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%Perc

enta

ge o

f stu

dents

IR WE ES LW RC PE GF

27%

39% 39%

66%

54%

75%71%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Perc

enta

ge o

f

stu

dents

1-year BA 2-year BA 3-year BA 1-year MA 2-year MA Adv MA PhD


The mean of the feature “easy to take notes” was higher for printed books (M = 7.56, SD =

2.754) in comparison to e-books (M = 5.36, SD = 2.638) (t =10.639, p = .00). The results showed that


The mean of the feature “clear graphs and images” was higher for e-books (M = 7.59, SD =


showed that the two means are not significantly different (p > .05).

The mean of the feature “anytime, anywhere access” was higher for e-books (M = 7.65, SD =

2.275) in comparison to printed books (M = 6.40, SD = 2.861) (t = -6.325, p = .00). The results showed

that the two means are significantly different (p < .05).

The mean of the feature “easy to store” was higher for e-books (M = 8.40, SD = 1.907) in

comparison to printed books (M = 6.35, SD =2.789) (t = -10.909, p = .00). The results showed that


The mean of the feature “searching and browsing possibilities” was higher for e-books (M = 7.98,

SD = 1.984) in comparison to printed books (M = 6.17, SD = 2.632) (t = -9.657, p = .00). The results


The mean of the feature “environmentally friendly” was higher for e-books (M = 8.17, SD =



The mean of the feature “cost-efficient” was higher for e-books (M = 7.57, SD = 2.065) in



Figure 38. Paired t-test; mean scores of the printed books’ and e-books’ features

8,2 7,9 7,6 7,5

6,4 6,4 6,2

5,3 5,15,7 6,0

4,6

7,6 7,78,4

8,07,6

8,2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Mean s

core

Printed books E-books


Independent t-tests were conducted in order to investigate if there is a difference among the

gender of the participants and their mean scores of the printed books’ and e-books’ features. The results

show that there is a significant difference among the gender of the students in relation to the printed

books’ feature “easy to take notes” (t = 2.595, p < .01). The mean score of the female students (M =

7.92, SD = 2.680) is significantly higher than the male score (M = 7.12, SD = 2.790) (Fig. 39, Table

32).

Figure 39. Independent t-tests; significant difference in the mean scores of the printed books’ feature

“easy to take notes” in relation to the gender

As far as the e-books’ features are concerned, there is a significant difference of the mean scores

of the e-books’ feature “easy to highlight” among the gender of the students (t = -2.352, p < .01). The

mean score of the male students (M = 6.41, SD = 2.610) is higher than the female students (M = 5.74,

SD = 2.592) (Fig. 53, Table 38). Furthermore, there is also a significant difference of the mean scores

of the e-books’ feature “easy to take notes” among the gender of the students (t = -2.120, p < .05).

The mean score of the male students (M = 5.70, SD = 2.660) is higher than the female students (M =

5.09, SD = 2.590) (Fig. 40, Table 33).

Figure 40. Independent t-tests; significant difference in the mean scores of the e-books’ features in


ANOVA tests were conducted in order to investigate if there is a difference among the

participants’ mean scores of the printed books’ and e-books’ features. The results show that there is a

significant difference among the faculty division of the students, regarding mean scores of the printed

books’ feature “anytime, anywhere access”, (F (8) = 2.914, p <.05) (Table 34). The mean score of the

students from the Faculty of Science and Bio-Engineering (M = 5.08) is lower than the mean score of

7,12

7,92

6,5

7

7,5

8

Mean s

core

Easy to take notes

Printed books

Male Female

6,415,75,74

5,09

0

2

4

6

8

Easy to highlight Easy to take notes

E-books

Male Female


the students form the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences (M = 7.68) (MD = -2.601, p <

.01) (Fig. 41, Table 35).

No other differences were found regarding the rest of the printed books’ features and no

differences whatsoever were found among the participants regarding the e-books’ features.

Figure 41. ANOVA test; significant difference in the mean scores of the printed books’ feature in relation

to the faculty

More than half of the participants (53%, 151) responded that they do not use e-coursebooks

They were asked to specify the reasons for the provision of e-coursebooks (Fig. 42) and against them

(Fig. 43).

Figure 42. Top reasons given by the students for the provision of e-coursebooks

5,08

7,68

0

2

4

6

8

10


Mean s

core

Printed books

WE PE

45

23

21

17

15

14

13

11

9

9

8

5

5

5

3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Cost-efficient

Easy to carry

Accessibility

The freedom of choice to print

Easy to store

Easy to search

Easy to use

Environmentally friendly

More convenient

Easy to study

I want to try

Easy to read

For additional reference

They are practical

Time-saving

Number of students

Reasons for

pro

vid

ing e

-cours

ebooks


Figure 43. Top reasons against providing e-coursebooks

A chi-squared test was performed in order to investigate if there is a significant difference among

the students regarding the use of e-coursebooks. A significant relationship was found between the use

of e-coursebooks and the gender of the students, X2 (1, N = 335) = 6.418, p = .01. The rate of the use

of e-coursebooks by the male students (52.6%) was higher than the rate of the female students (38.8%)

(Fig. 44, Table 36).

A significant relationship was also found between the use of e-coursebooks and the age of the

students, X2 (4, N = 335) = 22.743, p = .00. The percentage of the students at the age between 17 and

20 (19.3%) who use e-coursebooks was lower than the percentage of the students at the age between

31 and 55 (57.9%), between 21 and 25 (47.3%), and between 26 and 30 (47.1%) (Fig. 45, Table 37).

26

8

8

7

6

5

5

5

4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Preference for reading on paper

Difficult to study

I don’t like reading on screen (eyestrain)

Difficult to take notes

Hard to read

Lack of e-book reader

Difficult to use

I will print them

Difficult to highlight

Number of students

Reasons a

gain

st

pro

vid

ing e

-cours

ebooks

53%

39%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Perc

enta

ge o

f stu

dents

Male Female



A significant relationship was found between the use of e-coursebooks and the students’ level of

study, X2 (19, N = 335) = 45.931, p = .00. The percentage of the advanced master students (65.0%),

first-year master students (64.9%), and second-year master students (55.8%) was higher than that of

the PhD students (37.3%), the second-year bachelor students (36.4%), the third-year bachelor students

(22.2%) and the first-year bachelor students (11.1%) (Fig. 46, Table 38).

Figure 46. Relationship between the use of e-coursebooks and the students’ level of study

No significant difference was found among the faculty division of the students, X2 (9, N = 335)

= 15.778, p = .07, regarding the use of e-coursebooks.

More than half of the participants (61.3%, 215) responded that they want to be provided with

e-coursebooks. A chi-square test was performed in order to investigate if there is a significant difference

among the students who would like to be provided with e-coursebook. No significant relationship was

found between the desire for e-coursebooks and the age of the students, X2 (4, N = 351) = 3.498, p =

.47, between the desire for e-coursebooks and the gender of the students, X2 (1, N = 351) = 1.099, p

= .17, between the desire for e-coursebooks and the faculty division of the students, X2 (9, N = 351) =

14.481, p = .106, and between the desire for e-coursebooks and the students’ level of study, X2 (10, N

= 351) = 12.451, p = .25.

19%

47% 47%

58%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%Perc

enta

ge o

f stu

dents

17-20 21-25 26-30 31-55

11%

36%

22%

65%

56%

65%

37%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Perc

enta

ge o

f stu

dens


Figure 45. Relationship between the use of e-coursebooks and the age of the students


Only 43% (151) of the participants responded to the question of printing. The percentage of the

participants who print e-coursebooks (20.8%, 73) is almost the same as the percentage of the

participants who do not print e-coursebooks (22.2%, 78). A chi-square test was performed in order to

investigate if there is a significant difference among the students who print e-coursebooks. No significant

relationship was found between the printing of e-coursebooks and the age of the students, X2 (4, N =

351) = 1.517, p = .824, between the printing of e-coursebooks and the gender of the students, X2 (1,

N = 351) = 1.438, p = .23, between the printing of e-coursebooks and the faculty division of the

students, X2 (8, N = 351) = 13.042, p = .11, and between the printing of e-coursebooks and the

students’ level of study, X2 (10, N = 351) = 5.517, p = .85.


53.3% (187) of the participants prefer the printed materials (Fig. 47) and the printed course for

studying. (55.6%, 195).

Figure 47. Preferences for printed versus digital materials

Those who preferred both materials had to identify under which circumstances they prefer the

paper over the digital format (Fig. 48) and the digital over the printed format (Fig. 49).

Figure 48. Top reasons for the preferences for paper format

53%

9%

38%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Printed materials Digital materials Both

Perc

enta

ge o

f stu

dens

26

24

16

15

12

8

7

5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Taking notes

Studying in depth

Reading carefully

Reading a lot of materials

Highlighting

Being tired of the screen

Being in class

Being at home

Number of students

Pre

fere

nce for

paper

form

at


Figure 49. Top reasons for the preferences for digital format

The most preferred devices for reading digital materials are laptop (55.6%, 195) and tablet

(23.1%, 81). 80.9% (284) agree that the different format affect the speed of reading and, as a result,

67% (235) of the students read the printed material faster than the digital material (16.2%, 57). More

than half of the students (65.5%, 230) agree that the printed materials eases the comprehension of the

text they read but 57.8% (163 out of 282 students) disagree that the digital material has a negative

impact on the comprehension of the text they read. 53.6% (188) agree that the preference for a certain

format of material depends of the length of exposure to digital technology.

More than half of the students (60.1%) need to be provided with more digital materials on

PointCarré. A chi-square test was performed in order to investigate if there is a significant difference

among the students who would like to be provided with more digital materials on PointCarré. A significant

relationship was found between the desire for more digital materials on PointCarré and the students’

level of study, X2 (10, N = 351) = 20.276, p = .02. The rate of the first-year master students (72.2 %)

was higher than that of the second-year bachelor students (65.2%), advanced master students (65.0%),

second-year master students (62.5%), PhD students (58.2%) the third-year bachelor (50%) and first-

year bachelor students (37.8%) (Fig. 50, Table 39).

Figure 50. Relationship between the desire for more digital materials on PointCarré and the students’

level of study

11

11

9

6

6

4

3

3

3

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Travelling

Searching/ Browsing

Reading quickly

Having to carry a lot of books

Doing a research

Having a lot to read

Writing resume

Reading e-journals

Studying outside

Number of students

Pre

fere

nces for

dig

ital fo

rmat

37%

65%

50%

72%62% 65%

58%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Per

cen

tage

of

stu

den

ts



No significant difference was found among the age of the students, X2 (4, N = 351) = 1.821, p

= .76, among the gender of the students, X2 (1, N = 351) = 0.327, p = .56, and among the faculty

division of the students, X2 (9, N = 351) = 15.665, p = .07, regarding the desire for more digital materials

on PointCarré.

Only 39.3% (140) of the students responded to the question how they would like to be provided

with digital study materials (Fig. 51). 35% of them would like to be provided for every course.

Figure 51. Provision of digital materials

A chi-square test was conducted in order to investigate if there is a significant difference

among the students regarding the provision of digital materials. A significant relationship was found

between the provision of digital materials for every course and the students’ level of study, X2 (30, N =

351) = 50.479, p= 0.01. The percentage of the first-year master students (54.4%) who prefer to be

provided with digital materials for every course was higher than the second-year master students

(42.9%) the second-year bachelor students (30.4%), the PhD students (25.3%), the first-year bachelor

students (16.2%) and the third-year bachelor students (10.7%) (Fig. 52, Table, 40).

Figure 52. Relationship between the way of provision of digital materials and the students’ level of

study

No significant difference was found among the age of the students, X2 (12, N = 351) =

15.898, p = .19, among the gender of the students X2 (3, N = 351) = 2.862, p = .41, and among the

faculty division of the students X2 (27, N = 351) = 32.743, p = .20, regarding the provision of digital

materials for every course.

35%

6%

20%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

For every course For half of the courses Let it be the choice of heteacher

Perc

enta

ge o

f

stu

dents

16%

30%

11%

54%

43%

35%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Perc

enta

ge o

f stu

dents

1-year BA 2-year BA 3-year BA 1-year MA 2-year MA Adv MA


Furthermore, the results show that the VUB students use mainly the Google search engine

(56%, 197), printed books (53.%, 187) and their own coursenotes (38%, 133) for studying in contrast

to the printed e-coursebooks (25%, 89), e-journals (23%, 82), e-coursebooks (20%, 72) and e-books

(18%, 62) which are less preferred by the students.

3. Cost

Cost plays a significant factor for the choice of study material. 62.4% of the students’ choice of

study material format is affected by the choice of format. This is confirmed by the percentage of the

students who agree that the digital materials are more cost-efficient (79.2%, 278). Furthermore, as the

cheapest places for printing services have been identified “Crazy Copy Center” (37.3%, 131), followed

by work (29.1%, 102), home (26.8%, 94) and VUB library (12.5%, 44).


Although the results show that the students identify the digital materials as more

environmentally friendly (85.2%, 299) than the printed materials, and despite the fact that the mean

score of the e-books’ feature of the environmental friendliness is higher (M = 8.17, SD =1.992) than

that of the printed books (M = 5.13, SD = 3.168), the environmental sustainability does not have a

significant impact on the students’ preferences for a study material format.


VII. Comparison of the results from the Dutch and English survey


More than half of the participants in both surveys graded themselves as having a good level

of awareness of electronic resources. However, the results show a difference in the use of e-books in the

two surveys. Only 30% of the students from the Dutch survey actually use e-books in comparison to the

English survey in which more than half of the respondents (58%) gave a positive answer.

The performed chi-squared tests showed similarities in both surveys regarding the use of e-

books among the students in terms of age and faculty. The percentage of the students at the age

between 17 and 20 who use e-books was lower than those at the other age groups (Fig. 53).

Figure 53. Relationship between the use of e-books and the age of students

Furthermore, the percentage of the students from the Faculty of Science and Bio-Engineering,

the Faculty of Engineering, and the Faculty of Economic and Social Sciences and Solvay Business School

who use of e-books was higher than the rest of the faculties in both surveys (Fig. 54).

Figure 54. Relationship between the use of e-books and the faculty division of the students

No other similarities between the two surveys were found regarding the use of e-books. Only

the Dutch survey shows that more than half of the percentage of the students who use e-books are male

students (64%), whereas in the English survey mainly the percentage of the advanced master students

(75.0%), the PhD students (70.9%) and the first-year master students (65.8%) was higher than the

rest of the students.

Similar results between the two surveys were found regarding the features of the printed books

and e-books. As far as the printed books are concerned, the lowest mean scores were given to the

features “cost-efficient” and “environmentally friendly” in contrast to the features “easy to read”, “easy

29%60% 63% 73%20%

33% 43% 37%

17-20 21-25 26-30 31-55

Perc

enta

ge o

f

stu

dents

English survey Dutch survey

77% 65% 63% 53% 48% 41% 39%

38%35% 34%

30% 28% 24% 21%

WE IR ES LW PE GF RC

Per

cen

tage

of

stu

den

ts



to highlight”, “easy to take notes” and “clear graphs and images” which were with the highest printed

books’ mean scores (Fig. 55).

Figure 55. Mean scores of the printed books’ features

Regarding the e-books’ features, the highest mean scores were given to the features

“environmentally friendly” and “cost-efficient”, in contrast to the lowest mean scores of the e-books

features “easy to take notes”, “easy to highlight” and “easy to read” (Fig. 56).

Figure 56. Mean scores of the-books’ features

In both surveys a specific attention received the printed books’ features “easy to take notes”

and “anytime, anywhere access” in the conducted independent t-tests and ANOVA tests. According to

the results the male students give lower mean scores to the printed books’ feature “easy to take notes”

in comparison to the female students (Fig. 57).

8,2 7,9 7,6 7,5 6,4 6,4 6,2 5,3 5,1

8,6 8,2 7,8 7,56,9 6 6,5

5,2 4,4

Mea

n s

core

s

Printed books


8,2 7,6 8 8,4 7,7 7,64,6 6 5,7

8,1 7,2 7,9 7,8 7,1 7,5

4,65,1 5

Mea

n s

core

s

E-books



Figure 57. Difference in the mean scores of the printed books’ features in relation to the gender

Additionally the students from the Faculty of Science and Bio-Engineering gave lower mean

scores’ to the printed books’ feature “anytime, anywhere access” in comparison to the Faculty of

Psychology and Educational Sciences and the Faculty of Arts and Philosophy (Fig. 58).

Figure 58. Difference in the mean scores of the printed books’ feature in relation to the faculty

As far as e-coursebooks are concerned, more than half of the participants in both surveys

indicated that they do not use e-coursebooks. Only 30% of the students from the Dutch survey and 47%

of the participants in the English survey actually use e-coursebooks.

The top reasons which were outlined against using e-coursebooks in both surveys were because

the e-coursebooks were difficult to study and to take notes, and due to the eyestrain which they cause.

However, both surveys confirm that the advantages of the coursebooks are their cost-efficiency, and

that they are easy to carry and to browse.

Both surveys show similar results regarding the differences among the students who use e-

coursebooks. There was a significant relationship between the gender of the students and use of e-

coursebooks (Fig. 59) as well as between the age of the students and the use of e-coursebooks (Fig.

60). The results show that predominantly the male students as well as the students from the age between

31 and 55 use e-coursebooks in their studies.

7,12 7,92

7,55 7,94

Male Female

Mean s

core

sEasy to take notes


5,08 7,68

6,28

7,37

WE PE LW

Mean s

core

s





Figure 60. Relationship between the use of e-coursebooks and the age of the students

The only difference between the two surveys was that the use of e-coursebooks is higher for the

students from the higher levels of study in the English survey and for the students from the Faculty of

Science and Bio-engineering in the Dutch survey.

As far as the desire for e-coursebooks is concerned, only the participants in the English survey

(61%) a give positive attitude towards it in contrast to the participants in the Dutch survey (59%) who

do not show a desire for e-coursebooks in their studies.

Furthermore, the results in both surveys show that one half of the participants print e-

coursebooks in comparison to the other half of the participants who do not print e-coursebooks.


The results in both surveys indicate the preference for printed materials. 79% of the students

from the Dutch survey and 53% of the students from the English survey prefer printed materials. The

only difference is seen in the English survey which shows that there is an increase preference for both

printed and digital materials (38%) which is lower in the Dutch survey (only 18%).

The feedback received in both surveys confirms that the preference for paper over digital

materials is due to the reasons such as the ease of taking notes, of studying and of highlighting on

paper. Whereas the digital materials are preferred over paper materials when additional information is

needed, for quick browsing and reading.

Both surveys confirm the desire for more digital materials on PointCarré for every course (Fig

61).

53%39%

28%

18%

Male Female

Perc

enta

ge o

f stu

dents


19%

47% 47% 58%13%

22% 27%

37%

17-20 21-25 26-30 31-55

Perc

enta

ge o

f

stu

dents



Figure 61. Way of provision of digital materials

In both surveys the most preferred devices for reading digital materials are the laptop and the

tablet. 80% of the participants in both surveys agree that the printed material eases the comprehension

of the text they read and that the digital material has a negative impact on the comprehension of the

text they read. As far as the speed of reading, more than half of the participants in each survey agree

that the different format of material affects the speed of reading and admit that they read the printed

material faster than the digital material. Moreover, half of the participants in each survey also agree that

the preference for a certain format of material depends of the length of exposure to digital technology

with the statement that the more experience they have, the more digital materials they prefer to read.

Additionally, the results show that the VUB students in both surveys use mainly the paper-based

resources for studying, such as their own course notes, printed books and printed coursebooks in

contrast to the printed e-coursebooks , e-journals, e-coursebooks, e-books, e-references, free online

courses and video channels which are less preferred for studying by the students. The only difference is

found in the English survey participants who also use the Google search engine for studying.

3. Cost

The cost does play a significant factor for the students’ choice of study material format in both

surveys. More than half of the percentage of the students in the Dutch (55%) and in the English (62%)

give positive answer and 78% of them in both surveys agree that the digital materials are more cost-

efficient than the printed materials.


The findings show that the environmental sustainability does not have a significant impact on

the students’ preferences for a study material format. Despite that, more than half of the students in

both surveys (around 84%) admit that the digital materials are more environmentally friendly than the

paper materials.

35%

6%

20%

33%

3%

30%

For every course For half of the courses Let it be the choice of the

teacher

Perc

enta

ge o

f stu

dents



VIII. Discussion

1. Results in relation to the research questions

The students’ responses to the two surveys both confirm and contradict our expectations

regarding the use and preferences for study materials. On the one hand, the use and preference for the

printed study materials in general is still at hand. According to the results the advantages of the printed

books over the e-books seem to be the ease of reading, their accessibility, and the possibility to highlight

and to take notes on the paper materials, which confirms the findings reported in the research conducted

by ebrary (2008), Gregory (2008) and Spencer (2006). Besides, almost all students indicated that the

format affects the speed of reading and that the digital materials have a negative impact on their reading

comprehension because they were identified as difficult for studying, reading and taking notes, and as

causing eyestrain. This is related to the fact that the most preferred devices for reading digital materials

among the students are the laptop and tablet. It is known that computer screen interfere with the

cognitive processing for long-term memory which causes poor reading comprehension due to the spatial

instability and the visual fatigue that screen reading causes (Mangen et al., 2013; Noyes & Garland,

2003).

On the other hand, the results show that there is an overall desire for the provision of more

digital materials on PointCarré in both surveys. What is more, there is a difference in the use and

preference for study materials in relation to the students’ gender, age, levels of study and faculty.

Predominantly the male students from the age between 31 and 55 who have a higher level of study, and

are from the Faculty of Science and Bio-Engineering, the Faculty of Engineering, and the Faculty of

Economic and Social Sciences and Solvay Business School appear to use more digital materials than the

rest of the students. Tosun (2014) conducts a similar research and reports that mainly the students from

the departments of Computer Education and Instructional Technology, and Polymer Science and

Engineering have a higher rate of e-book reading than the students from the other departments.

Apparently, the students who study in the field of Applied Sciences appear to be more digitally aware in

relation to the possibilities which the digital materials provide as a result of the programme they study

and their abilities to use and take advantage of the e-materials for their studies. Moreover, as far as the

age and the higher levels of studies are concern, when students are given the longer experience of using

computers, they become more rooted in the world of digital technology (Taipale, 2014). This is confirmed

by the fact that most of the VUB students admit that the preference for a certain format depends on the

length of exposure to the digital technology. Besides, those who prefer the digital format over the print

format are aware and know how to take advantage of e-learning. They indicate the portability,

accessibility, availability, and the possibility to browse and quickly search for additional information and

research as the top reasons for using e-materials and that they do not agree that printed books are as

accessible and as easy to store and to highlight as e-books, especially for the students from the Faculty

of Science and Bio-Engineering.

Furthermore, it is not surprising that educational costs are a major concern to most students

and the cost affects their choice of format. The feedback received from students in our study reflected

this concern in relation to e-books since all students consider the digital materials as more cost-efficient


than the printed materials especially if they have free access to them through the VUB library or the VUB

e-learning environment PointCarré. Along the same lines, several comments focused on the cost of

printing digital materials - students noted that they like the possibility to print e-book pages. It seems

that the free access to e-materials does make the digital materials cost-efficient since they reduce

printing costs (Ji et al. 2014).

The responses show another concern about wasting paper both as an expense and as a resource

when printing e-book pages. The digital materials have been identified as more environmentally friendly

than the printed materials which shows that the students at VUB are ecologically aware of the

environmental impacts which the printed books cause (Cleantech Group LLC, 2009).

In conclusion, the two surveys showed similar research results – the students who participated

in the English survey share the same general preferences and use of printed materials. Additionally, they

show similar concern related to the cost and environmental issues no matter their students’

internationality. The only difference between the two surveys is that the international students of VUB

who participated in the English survey appear to use more e-books and have more positive attitude

towards the provision of e-coursebooks for studying than those from the Dutch survey. The explanation

for these findings lies in the research sample. The reason for the differences found between the two

surveys related to the students’ use and desire for e-coursebooks is because the majority of the

participants in the English survey was predominantly master and PhD students whilst the students who

participated in the Dutch survey were from lower levels of study. Therefore, these findings lead us to

consider the length of exposure to digital technology as a key factor which influences that students’

preferences and use of study material. We may conclude that the students from the higher levels of

study are gradually moving towards the world of more digitally augmented reading and consequently to

higher need for digital materials for their studies given the longer exposure to digital technology.

2. Implications

There is still a co-existence of paper and digital materials among the VUB students because each

format tends to support certain features and needs that are not easily replaced by the other (Liu, 2005).

Printed materials are mainly preferred for actual consumption and comprehension of information in

comparison to the digital materials which tend to be more useful for searching due to the non-linearity

and immediacy of accessing information, as well as for the freedom of choice to print only the necessary

parts of the materials, which makes them more cost-efficient and more environmentally friendly.

Given these mixed messages that the students in this survey have sent about their preference

for study materials, the VUB library should still effectively promote, take advantage and make available

their e-book collections to the students since their encouragement is often a prerequisite for motivating

the student use (Mulholland & Bates, 2014). What is more, as it has been above-discussed, the more

the students are exposed to digital technology, the better rooted in it they will become which eventually

may lead to the gradual transition towards the need for more digital study materials among the students

(Taipale, 2014).

The VUB students have already formed an awareness of the advantages which e-learning

provides and the promotion of the availability of digital study materials will lead the university one step


closer to the adoption of e-learning. Fortunately, VUB has three separate working units for provision of

study materials, i.e. PointCarré, VUB library and VUBtiek, which have the potential to work in

synchronization for the promotion of e-learning and for the dissemination of digital materials to all VUB

students.

Furthermore, in order to interpret these results in a further detail and to take actions towards

the development of the university’s policy, the preferences and attitudes of the VUB teachers and their

recommendations for study materials to their students should be investigated. Teachers’ current

practices and their perceived need and views for innovation are important factors to be considered when

adopting the relevant innovations.

3. Limitations

The present study has several limitations. First, the number of the students from the Faculty of

Physical Education and Physiotherapy, the Interfaculty Department of Teacher-Training and the Institute

for European Studies as well as the number of the third-year master students and postgraduate students

was limited and their preferences for study materials could not be taken into consideration. Second, as

it was abovementioned, this research focused mainly on the students’ preferences for study materials

and did not include the teachers’ current practices and preferences. And third, this research brought to

attention mainly the students’ different preferences for study materials as well as the impact of cost and

environmental issues on their choices. This is why it is of high importance to be conducted a follow-up

research which will investigate other important factors, such as their teachers’ current practices for

recommendation of study materials, the digital literacy of the students and teachers, and the availability

of digital materials for certain programmes.

IX. Conclusion

This research illustrate a general preference for paper over digital materials due to their ease of

reading, their accessibility, and the possibility to highlight and to take notes. In contrast, the students

from the higher level of study and in the field of Applied Sciences appear to be more digitally aware in

relation to the possibilities which the digital materials provide. They indicate the portability, accessibility,

availability, and the possibility to browse and quickly search for additional information and research as

the top reasons for using e-materials and do not agree that printed books are as accessible and as easy

to store and to highlight as e-books. Furthermore, educational costs are a major concern to most

students and, as a result, they indicate that the cost affect their choice of format. All students consider

the digital materials as more cost-efficient and more environmentally friendly than the printed materials.

Nevertheless, the preference for paper materials and for printing digital materials still prevails.

In conclusion, this research contributed to the findings that VUB students have already formed

an awareness of the advantages which e-learning and digital materials provide. Therefore, the promotion

of the availability of digital study materials is of high importance. Due to the development of modern

technology and the opportunities which the e-learning environment provides, it is necessary to further

investigate all aspects and factors which lie behind the preferences for study materials before we

encourage the implementation of e-learning.


References

Ackerman, R., & Goldsmith , M. (2011). Metacognitive regulation of text learning: on screen versus on

paper. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(1), 18-32.

Annand, D. (2008). Learning efficacy and cost-effectiveness of print versus e-book instructional material

in an introductory financial accounting course. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 7(2), 152-

164.

Armstrong, C., Edwards, L., & Lonsdale, R. (2002). Virtually there: E-books in UK academic libraries.

Program: Electronic Library and Informaion System, 36(4), 216-227.

Baccino, T., & Pynte, J. (1994). Spatial coding and discourse models during text reading. Language and

Cognitive Processes (9), 143-155.

Bersin, J. (2004). The Blended Learning Book: Best Practices, Proven Methodologies and Lessons

Learned. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Besen, S. M. (1986). Private copying, reproduction costs, and the supply of intellectual property.

Information Economics and Policy, 2(1), 5-22.

Birkerts, S. (1994). The Gutenberg Elegies: The Fate of Reading in an Electronic Age. Boston, MA: Faber

and Faber.

Briddon, J., Chelin, J., Inge, G., Redman, J., Sleat, A., & Williams, E. (2009). E-books are good if there

are no copies left: A survey of e-book usage at UWE Library Services. Library and Information

Research, 33(104), 45-65.

Chen, C.-M., & Chen, F.-Y. (2014). Enhancing digital reading performance with a collaborative reading

annotation system. Computers & Education, 77, 67-81.

Chen, Y. N. (2003). Applications and Development of Electronic Books in E-Gutenberg Age. Online

Information Review, 27(1), 8-16.

Chong, P., Lim, Y., & Ling, S. (2008). E-book Scenario in Malaysia Tertiary Education: A Case Study.

Knowledge Management International Conference. Langsawi.

Dillon, A. (1994). Designing usable electronic text: Ergonomic aspects of human information usage.

London: Taylor & Francis.

ebrary. (2008). Global student e-book survey. Retrieved from

http://www.ebrary.com/corp/collateral/en/Survey/ebrary_student_survey_2008.pdf

EC. (2001). Communication from the commission to the council and the European parliament. The

eLearning action plan. Brussels. Retrieved from http://www.aic.lv/bolona/Bologna/contrib/EU/e-

learn_ACPL.pdf


Embong, A., Noor, A., Hashim, H., Ali, R., & Shaari, Z. (2012). E-Books as textbooks in the classroom.

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 1802 – 1809.

Engelhaupt, E. (2008). Would you like that book in paper or plastic? Environmental Science &

Technology, 4242-4245.

FitzPatrick, T. (2012). Key Success Factors of eLearning in Education: A Professional Development Model

to Evaluate and Support eLearning. US-China Education Review, 789-795.

Fortunati, L., & Vincent, J. (2014). Sociological insights on the comparison of writing/reading on paper

with writing/reading digitally. Telematics and Informatics, 31, 39-51.

Garland, K., & Noyes, J. (2004). CRT monitors: Do they interfere with learning? Behaviour and

Information Technology, 23(1), 43-53.

Gregory, C. (2008). "But I want a real book". An investigation of undergraduates' usage and attitudes

toward electronic books. References & User Services Quarterly, 47, 266-273.

Gündoğan, M. B., & Eby, G. (2012). A green touch for the future of distance education. Procedia - Social

and Behavioral Sciences, 55, 789-798.

Ji, S., Michaels, S., & Waterman, D. (2014). Print vs. electronic readings in college courses: Cost-

efficiency and Perceived learning. Internet and Higher Education , 21, 17-24.

JISC. (2003). Promoting the uptake of e-books in higher and further education. Gold Leaf. Retrieved

from http://observatory.jiscebooks.org/files/2011/01/Promoting-the-uptake-of-ebooks.pdf

Kerr, M., & Symons, S. (2006). Computerized presentation of text: Effects on children's reading of

informational material. Reading and Writing, 19(1), 1-19.

Kozak, G. (2003). Printed Scholarly Books and E-book Reading Devices: A Comparative Life Cycle

Assessment of Two Book Options. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan.

Leng, O., & Khan, S. (2011, June). Copyright Protection in Malaysia and the End Users Perspective in E-

Book. International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning, 1, 121-

125.

Letchumanan, M., & Tarmizi, R. (2010). Utilization of e-book among University Mathematics Students.

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 8, 580-587.

Liu, Z. (2005). Reading behavior in the digital environment: Changes in reading behavior over the past

ten years. Journal of Documentation, 61, 700-712.

Cleantech Group LLC. (2009). The environmental impact of Amazon's Kindle. Retrieved from

http://www.tkearth.com/downloads/thoughts_ereaders.pdf


Mangen, A., Walgermo, B., & Bronnick, K. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen:

effects on reading comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 58, 61-68.

Martins, J., Gonçalves, R., Santos, V., & Pereira, J. (2012). Network Based Model for E-Learning 2.0.

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences(47), 1242-1248.

Mashhadia, V. Z., & Kargoz, M. R. (2011). Influences of digital classrooms on education. Procedia

Computer Science(3), 1178-1183.

Mulholland, E., & Bates, J. (2014). Use and Perceptions of E-books by Academic Staff in Further

Education. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 1-8.

Nariani, R. (2009). E-books in the sciences: If we buy it will they use it?. Issues in Science & Technology

Librarianship, 59, 1092-1206.

Noorhidawati, A., & Gibb, F. (2008). Students' attitudes towards e-books in a Scottish Higher Education

Institute: Part I. Library Review, 57(8), 593-605.

Noyes, J.M. and Garland, K.J., (2003). VDT versus paper-based text: Reply to Mayes, Sims and Koonce.

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 31, 411–423.

Noyes, J., & Garland, K. (2008). Computer- vs. paper-based tasks: Are they equivalent? Ergonomics,

51, 1352–1375.

Pledger, P. (2010). Future of the book? Challenge of the digital world. nternational Association of School

Librarianship (IASL), School Library Association of Queensland Inc. (SLAQ), Zillmere,

Queensland.

Roesnita, I., & Zainab, A. (2005). The pattern of e-book use amongst undergraduates in Malaysia: a

case to know is to use. Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science, 10(2), 1-23.

Saurie, M., & Kaushik, S. (2001). Electronic publishing. New Delhi: Pentagon Press.

Schomisch, S., & Mayr, P. (2013). Are e-readers suitable tools for scholarly work? Online Information

Review, 37(3), 388-404.

Spencer, C. (2006). Research on learners' preferences for reading from a printed text or from a computer

screen. Journal of distance education, 21, 33-50.

Springer. (2010). A survey of e-book usage perceptions at the University of Liverpool: University of

Liverpool e-book study: Part 2. The Journal for the Serials Community, 23, 126-134.

Taipale, S. (2014). The affordances of reading/writing on paper and digitally in Finland. Telematics and

Informatics, 31, 532–542.

Thompson, J. (2012). Comparing the Sustainability of Print Books and E-book Readers. Retrieved from

http://www.greendesignetc.net/GreenProducts_12/GreenProduct_Thompson_Jake_Paper.pdf


Tosun, N. (2014). A Study on reading printed books or e-books: reasons for student-teachers

preferences. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology , 13(1), 21-28.

Vasileio, M., Hartley, R., & Rowley, J. (2012). Perspectives on the future of e-books in libraries in

universities. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 44(4), 217-226.

Walters, W. (2013). E-books in academic libraries: Challenges for acquisition and collection

management. Libraries and the Academy, 13(2), 187-211.

Yan, Z., Hu, L., Chen, H., & Lu, F. (2008). Computer Vision Syndrome: A widely spreading but largely

unknown epidemic among computer users. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 2026–2042.

Ziefle, M. (1998). Effects of display resolution on visual performance. Human Factors, 40, 554-56.


Appendix A: Tables

Table 1

Chi-square test; the relationship between the use of e-books and the gender of students

Use of e-

books

Gender

Total

X2 Female Male

n % n % n %

Yes 134 26.2 111 35.6 245 29.7 8.232**

No 329 64.3 174 55.8 503 61.0

Total 512 100 312 100 824 100

**p < .01

Table 2

Chi-square test; relationship between the use of e-books and the age of students

Use of e-

books

Age Total X2

17-20 21-25 26-30 31-55

n % n % n % n % n %

33.267**

Yes 62 19.9 112 33.1 38 43.2 31 37.3 245 29.7

No 207 66.6 204 60.4 43 48.9 47 56.6 503 61.0

Total 311 100 338 100 88 100 83 100 824 100

**p < .01


Table 3

Chi-square test; relationship between the use of e-books and the faculty division of the students

Use of

e-

books

Faculty Total X2

GF ES PE LW RC WE IR

45.

639**

n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %

Yes 37 24.3 44 33.8 31 27.9 32 30.5 21 21.2 33 37.9 27 35.5 245 29.7

No 98 64.5 79 60.8 74 66.7 70 66.7 63 63.6 43 49.4 46 60.5 503 61.0

Total 152 100 130 100 111 100 105 100 99 100 87 100 76 100 824 100

**p < .05


Table 4

Paired t-test; mean scores of the e-books’ and printed books’ features (the scale of 1 to 10, where 10

is the highest score)

Scale Mean (SD) Mean df t

Easy to read Printed

books

8.55

(1.766)

3.55 30.786**

E-books 5.00

(2.606)

Easy to

highlight

Printed

books

8.20

(2.339)

3.15 24.384**

E-books 5.05

(2.494)

Easy to take

notes

Printed

books

7.79

(2.441)

3.21 24.597**

E-books 4.58

(2.379)

Environmentally

friendly

Printed

books

4.39

(1.969)

- 3.69 -29.878**

E-books 8.09

(2.595)

Searching and

browsing

possibilities

Printed

books

6.50

(2.163)

-1.38 -12.384**

E-books 7.89

(1.971)

Easy to store Printed

books

5.96

(2.674)

-1.86 -15.337**

E-books 7.82

(1.862)

Clear graphs

Printed

books

7.53

(1.784)

0.06 0.749**

E-books 7.47

(1.828)

Cost-efficient Printed

books

5.20

(2.314)

- 2.06 -17.666**

E-books 7.24

(1.993)

Anytime,

anywhere

access

Printed

books

6.87

(2.313)

-1.74 - 1.397**


E-books 7.05

(2.217)

**p < .01

Table 5

Independent t-test; significant difference in the mean scores of the printed books’ features in relation

to the gender

Printed books

Mean (M) Standard deviation (SD)

t df p

Male Female Male Female

Easy to take

notes

7.55

7.94

2.512

2.386

2.116

1

.01


6.56

7.06

2.377

2.255

2.860

1

.01

Table 6

Independent t-test; significant difference in the mean scores of the e-books’ features in relation to the

gender

E-books Mean (M) Standard

deviation (SD)

t df p


Searching

possibilities

7.76

8.10

1.978

1.891

-2.214

1

.05


7.27

6.90

2.216

2.209

2.209

1

.05

Table 7

ANOVA test; significant difference in the mean scores of the printed books’ feature “Anytime,

anywhere access” in relation to the faculty division

Anytime,

anyhere

access

Sum of

Squares

df Mean

Square

F Sig.

Between

groups

88,400 8 11,050 2,082 .03

Within

groups

3895,455 734 5,307

Total 3983,855 742


Table 8

Tukey HSD test; faculty comparison in relation to the mean scores of the printed books’ feature

“Anytime, anywhere access”

(I) Faculty (J) Faculty

Mean difference (I-J)

Std. error

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

LW ES

PE

WE

GF

IR

RC

.291

.687

1.096*

.536

7.15

- .962

.309

.320

.349

.302

.353

.365

- .67

- .31

.01

- .40

- .38

- 2.10

1.25

1.68

2.18

1.48

1.81

.17

p < .05*

Table 9

ANOVA test; significant difference in the mean scores of the e-books’ feature “Possibility to highlight”

in relation to the faculty division of the students

Possibility to

highlight

Sum of

Squares

df Mean Square F Sig.

Between

groups

97,366 8 12,171 1,968 .05

Within

groups

4539,791 734 6,185

Total 4637,157 742

Table 10

Tukey HSD test; faculty comparison in relation to the mean scores of the e- books’ feature “Possibility

to highlight”



Std. error


Lower Bound

Upper Bound

WE ES

PE

LW

GF

IR

RC

1.233*

1.166*

1.170*

1.109*

.821

-.180

.363

.375

.377

.357

.408

.346

.10

.00

.00

.00

-.45

-1.25

2.36

2.33

2.34

2.22

2.09

.90

p < .05*


Table 11

ANOVA test; significant difference in the mean scores of the e-books’ feature “Cost efficiency” in

relation to the faculty division of the students

Cost

efficiency

Sum of

Squares


Between

groups

61,589 8 7,699 1,956 ,049

Within

groups

2888,287 734 3,935

Total 2949,876 742

Table 12

Tukey HSD test; faculty comparison in relation to the mean scores of the printed e-books’ feature

“Cost-efficiency”



Std. error


Lower Bound

Upper Bound

WE ES

PE

LW

GF

IR

RC

.267

.401

1.018*

.645

.681

-.167

.289

.299

.301

.284

.325

.276

-.63

-.53

.08

-.24

-.33

-1.02

1.17

1.33

1,95

1.53

1.69

.69

p < .05*

Table 13

ANOVA test; significant difference in the mean scores of the e-books’ feature “Possibility to store” in

relation to the faculty division of the students

Possibility to

store

Sum of

Squares


Between

groups

76,353 8 9,544 2,805 ,005

Within

groups

2497,386 734 3,402

Total 2573,739 742


Table 14


“Possibility to store”



Std. error


Lower Bound

Upper Bound

WE ES

PE

LW

GF

IR

RC

,683

,800

1,114*

,633

,461

-.304

,269

,278

,280

,265

,302

.256

-,15

-,06

,24

-,19

-,48

-1.10

1,52

1,66

1,98

1,46

1,40

.49

p < .05*

Table 15

ANOVA test; significant difference in the mean scores of the e-books’ feature “Clear graphs and images”

in relation to the faculty division of the students

Clear graphs

and images

Sum of

Squares


Between

groups

58,263 8 7,283 2,212 ,025

Within

groups

2416,975 734 3,293

Total 2475,238 742

Table 16


“Clear graphs and images”


Mean difference

(I-J)

Std. error


Lower Bound

Upper Bound

WE ES

PE

LW

GF

IR

RC

.605

.920*

.683

.276

.370

.259

.265

.273

.275

.260

.297

.290

-.22

.07

-.17

-.53

-.55

-.64

1.43

1.77

1.54

1.09

1.30

1.16

p < .05


Table 17

Chi-square test; the relationship between the use of e-coursebooks and the gender of students

Use of e-

coursebooks

Gender Total X2

Female Male

n % n % n %

Yes 84 18.1 81 28.4 165 22.1 10.840**

No 379 81.9 204 71.6 583 77.9

Total 463 100 285 100 748 100

**p <.01

Table 18

Chi-square test; relationship between the use of e-coursebooks and the age of students

Use of e-

coursebooks

Age Total X2

17-20 21-25 26-30 31-55

n % n % n % n % n % 27.160**

Yes 40 12.9 76 22.5 24 27.3 23 37.3 165 20.0

No 229 73.6 240 71.0 57 64.8 55 56.6 583 70.8

Total 311 100 338 100 88 100 83 100 824 100

**p < .05

Table 19

Chi-square test; relationship between the use of e-coursebooks and the faculty division of the students

Use of e-

coursebooks

Faculty Total X2

GF ES PE LW RC WE IR

33.

646**

n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %

Yes 30 22.2 30 24.2 16 15.2 17 16.7 10 11.9 30 39.5 18 24.7 165 22.1

No 105 77.8 93 75.6 89 84.8 85 83.3 74 88.1 46 60.5 55 75.3 583 77.9

Total 135 100 123 100 105 100 102 100 84 100 76 100 73 100 748 100

**p < .01


Table 20

Chi-square test; relationship between the desire for e-coursebooks and the gender of students

Desire for e-

coursebooks

Gender

Total

X2 Female Male

n % n % n %

Yes 188 36.7 158 50.6 346 42.0 15.427**

Total 512 100 312 100 824 100

**p < .01 Table 21

Chi-square test; relationship between the desire for e-coursebooks and the age of students

Desire for e-

coursebooks

Age Total X2

17-20 21-25 26-30 31-55

n % n % n % n % n %

54.536**

Yes 86 27.7 157 46.4 48 54.5 52 62.7 346 42%

No 183 58.8 159 47.0 33 37.5 26 31.3 402 48.8

Total 311 100 338 100 88 100 101 100 824 100

**p < .01

Table 22

Chi-square test; the relationship between the desire for e-coursebooks and the students’ level of study

Desire for e-

coursebooks

Level of study

Total

X2

PhD First-year

BA

Second-year

BA

Third-year

BA

Prep.

program

First-year

MA

Second-

year MA

56.

333**

n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %

Yes 40 64.5 54 26.9 40 36.4 32 36.8 35 46.7 66 42.6 49 62.0 346 42.0

Total 62 100 201 100 110 100 87 100 75 100 155 100 79 100 824 100

**p < .01


Table 23

Chi-square test; relationship between the printing of e-coursebooks and the gender of students

Printing e-

coursebooks

Gender

Total

X2 Female Male

n % n % n %

Yes 217 46.9 114 40.0 331 44.3 3.373*

No 246 53.1 171 60.0 417 55.7

Total 463 100 285 100 748 100

*p < .05

Table 24

Chi-square test; relationship between the desire for digital materials on PointCarré and the students’ level of study

**p < .01

Desire for

digital

materials

on

PointCarré

Level of study

Total

X2

First-year

BA

Second-

year BA

Third-

year BA

Prep.

Program

First-year

MA

Second-

year MA

PhD

21.

727

**

n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %

Yes 116 57.7 69 62.7 62 71.3 44 58.7 107 69.0 60 75.9 49 79.0 546 66.3

Total 201 100 110 100 87 100 75 100 155 100 79 100 62 100 824 100


Table 25

Chi-square test; relationship between the desire for digital materials on PointCarré and the age of the

students

Desire for

digital

materials

on

PointCarré

Age Total X2

17-20 21-25 26-30 31-55

n % n % n % n % n %

16.352**

Yes 183 58.8 235 69.5 70 79.5 55 66.3 546 66.3

No 128 41.2 103 30.5 18 20.5 28 33.7 278 33.7

Total 311 100 338 100 88 100 101 100 824 100

**p < .01

Table 26

Chi-square test, relationship between the provision of digital materials on PointCarré and the age of

the students

Way of

provision

of digital

materials

Age Total X2

17-20 21-25 26-30 31-55

n % n % n % n % n %

17.305*

For every

course

83 26.7 170 37.7 18 31.0 1 25.0 272 33.0

For half of

the courses

10 3.2 13 2.9 1 1.7 0 0 24 2.9

Teacher’s

choice

90 28.9 140 31.0 18 31.0 2 50.0 250 30.3

Total 311 100 451 100 58 100 4 100 824 100

*p < .05


Table 27

Chi-square test; relationship between the provision of the digital materials on PointCarré for every course

and the gender of the students

Way of

provision of

digital

materials

Gender

Total

X2 Female Male

n % n % n %

For every

course

152

29.7 120 38.5 272 33.0 7.806*

For half of the

courses

18 3.5 6 1.9 24 2.9

Teacher’s

choice

163 31.8 87 27.9 250 30.3

Total 512 100 312 100 824 100

*p < .05


Table 28

Chi-square test; the relationship between the use of e-books and the age of students

Table 29

Chi-square test; the relationship between the use of e-books and the faculty division of students

Use of

e-

books

Faculty Total X2

ES IR WE PE GF LW RC

33.881**

n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %

Yes 71 63.4 37 77.1 28 65.1 19 41.3 12 38.7 16 53.3 11 47.8 202 57.5

No 38 33.9 9 18.8 11 25.6 26 56.5 17 54.8 12 40.0 11 47.8 133 37.9

Total 112 100 48 100 43 100 46 100 31 100 30 100 23 100 351 100

**p < .01

**p < .01

Use of e-books

Age

Total

X2 17-20 21-25 26-30 31-55 56-80

n % n % n % n % n % n %

Yes 17 28.8 83 59.7 57 63.3 28 73.3 17 68.0 202 57.5

31.275**

No 40 67.8 48 34.5 28 31.1 10 26.3 7 28.0 133 37.9

Total 59 100 139 100 90 100 38 100 25 100 351 100


Table 30

Chi-square test; relationship between the use of e-books and the students’ level of study

Use of

e-

books

Level of study Total X2

First-year

BA

Second-

year BA

Third-year

BA

First-year

MA

Second-

year MA

Advanced

MA

PhD

42.501**

n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %

Yes 10 27.0 9 39.1 11 39.3 52 65.8 30 53.6 15 39.1 56 70.9 202 57.5

No 26 70.3 13 56.5 16 57.7 22 27.8 22 39.3 5 56.5 19 24.1 133 37.9

Total 37 100 23 100 28 100 79 100 56 100 20 100 79 100 351 100

**p < .01


Table 31

Paired t-test; Comparison between the e-books and printed books’ mean scores of features (The scale

of 1 to 10, where 10 is the highest score)

Scale Mean

(SD)

Mean df t Sig.

Easy to read Printed

books

8.18

(2.288)

2.44 12.824 0.00

E-books 5.74

(2.708)

Easy to highlight Printed

books

7.86

(2.708)

1.83 8.903 0.00

E-books 6.03

(2.605)

Easy to take notes Printed

books

7.56

(2.754)

2.19 10.639 0.00

E-books 4.58

(2.638)

Clear graphs and

images

Printed

books

7.53

(2.123)

- 0.59 -0.421 0.67

E-books 7.59

(2.012)

Anytime, anywhere

access

Printed

books

6.40

(2.861)

-1.25 -6.325 0.00

E-books 7.65

(2.275)

Easy to store Printed

books

6.35

(2.789)

-2.05 -10.909 0.00

E-books 8.40

(1.907)

Searching/Browsing

Possibilities

Printed

books

6.17

(2.632)

-1.80 -9.657 0.00

E-books 7.98

(1.984)

Cost-efficient Printed

books

5.30

(2.811)

- 2.26 -11.393 0.00

E-books 7.57

(2.065)

Environmentally

friendly

Printed

Books

5.13

(3.168)

-3.04 -14.757 0.00

E-books 8.17

(1.992)


Table 32

Independent t-tests; significant difference in the mean scores of the printed books’ feature “easy to

take notes” in relation to the gender

Printed books

Mean (M) Standard deviation (SD)

t df p


Easy to take notes

7.12

7.92

2.790

1.680

2.595

1

.01**

** p < .01

Table 33

Independent t-tests; significant difference in the mean scores of the e-books’ features in relation to

the gender

E-books Mean (M) Standard deviation (SD)

t df p


Easy to highlight

6.41

5.74

2.610

2.592

-2.352

1

.01**

Easy to take notes

5.70

5.09

2.660

2.590

-2.120

1

.05*

p < .05*, p < .01**

Table 34

ANOVA test; significant difference in the mean scores of the printed books’ feature “Anytime,

anywhere access” in relation to the faculty

Anytime,

anywhere

access

Sum of

Squares


Between

groups

173,982 8 21,748 2,742 ,006

Within

groups

2442,706 308 7,931

Total 2616,688 316


Table 35

Tukey HSD test; faculty comparison in relation to the mean scores of the printed books’ feature

“Anytime, anywhere access”



Std. error


Lower Bound

Upper Bound

WE ES

PE

LW

GF

IR

RC

-1.311

-2.601*

-1.880

-1.812

-.828

.702

,537

,628

,721

,705

,628

.813

-2.99

-4.56

-4.13

-4.02

-2.79

-1.84

.37

-.64

.37

.39

1,13

3.24

p < .05

Table 36

Chi-square test; relationship between the use of e-coursebooks and the gender of the students

Use of e-

coursebooks

Gender Total X2

Male Female

n % n % %

Yes 80 52.6 71 38.8 151 45.1 6.418**

No 72 39.1 112 61.2 184 54.9

Total 152 100 183 100 335 100

**p < .01

Table 37

Chi-square test; the relationship between the use of e-coursebooks and the age of the students

**p < .01

Use of e-

coursebooks

Age Total X2

17-20 21-25 26-30 31-55

n % n % n % n % n %

Yes 11 19.3 62 47.3 40 47.1 22 57.9 151 45.1

22.743**

No 46 80.7 69 52.7 45 52.9 16 42.1 184 54.9

Total 57 100 131 100 85 100 38 100 335 100


Table 38

Chi-square test; the relationship between the use of e-coursebooks and the students’ level of study

Use of e-

coursebooks


First-year

BA

Second-

year BA

Third-year

BA

First-year

MA

Second-

year MA

Advanced

MA

PhD

42.501**

n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %

Yes 4 11.1 8 36.4 6 22.2 48 64.9 29 55.8 13 65.0 28 37.3 151 45.1

No 32 88.9 14 63.6 21 77.8 26 35.1 23 44.2 7 35.0 47 62.7 184 54.9

Total 36 100 22 100 27 100 74 100 52 100 20 100 75 100 335 100

**p < .01

Table 39

Chi-square test; the relationship between the desire for more digital materials on PointCarré and the students’ level of study

Desire for

digital

materials

on

PointCarré


First-year

BA

Second-

year BA

Third-year

BA

First-year

MA

Second-

year MA

Advanced

MA

PhD

20.276*

n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %

Yes 14 37.0 15 65.2 15 50.0 57 72.2 35 62.5 13 65.0 46 62.5 211 57.5

Total 37 100 23 100 28 100 79 100 56 100 20 100 79 100 351 100

*p < .05


Table 40

Chi-square test; the relationship between the way of provision of digital materials and the students’ level of study

Way of

provision

of digital

materials


First-year

BA

Second-

year BA

Third-

year BA

First-year

MA

Second-

year MA

Advanced

MA

PhD

50.479

**

n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %

For every

course

6 16.2 7 30.4 3 10.7 43 54.4 24 42.9 7 35.0 10 25.3 122 34.8

For half

of the

course

1 2.7 2 8.7 4 14.3 2 2.5 2 3.6 1 5.0 8 10.1 21 6.0

Teacher’s

choice

7 18.9 6 26.1 7 25.0 12 15.2 9 16.1 5 25.0 18 22.8 68 19.4

Total 28 100 23 100 28 100 79 100 56 100 20 100 79 100 351 100

**p < .01


Appendix B: English questionnaire of the optimization of study materials at VUB

Survey on the optimization of study materials at VUB

Dear participants,

We are kindly asking you to participate in the survey research project on the optimization of study

materials conducted by Prof. Dr. Chang Zhu, Karla Groen, Steph Feremans and Mirela Peykova at Vrije

Universiteit Brussel (VUB).

Purpose

This study aims to investigate the students’ preferences for printed versus digital study materials, the

reasons which lie behind them, and the current use of e-books. By having an overall picture and a better

understanding of students’ needs and preferences for study materials and their exposure and experience

in using e-books, the research will contribute to the development of the university’s policy for the creation

and dissemination of study materials.

Anonymity

The responses will be kept anonymous and the data will be accessible to those working in the study only.

Voluntary nature of the study

Participation in the study is entirely voluntary. You may choose not to take the survey, to withdraw at

any point, or to refuse to answer to questions that you feel uncomfortable with. There are no risks

involved in your responding to the survey questions.


Personal Information

1 Age:

2 Gender:

Female

Male

3 Country of origin:

4 Faculty:

Faculty of Law and Criminology

Faculty of Economic and Social Sciences and Solvay Business School

Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences

Faculty of Arts and Philosophy

Faculty of Science and Bio-engineering Sciences

Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy

Faculty of Engineering

Faculty of Physical Education and Physiotherapy

IDLO

IES

5 Level of study:

First-year Bachelor

Second-year Bachelor

Third-year Bachelor

Preparatory programme

First-year Master

Second-year Master

Third-year Master


Advanced Master

Postgraduate programme

PhD

Other

6 Student status:

Full-time

Part-time

7 Do you have a working-student status:

Yes

No

8 Would you like to be contacted for a focus group/an interview on this research study later

this year?

Yes

No

9 Please fill in your first name only if you want to be contacted for a focus group/an

interview.

10 Please fill in your last name only if you want to be contacted for a focus group/an

interview.

11 Please fill in our e-mail address only if you want to be contacted for a focus group/an

interview.

12 Please fill in your phone number only if you want to be contacted for a focus group/an

interview.

Use of E-books

13 Have you heard of e-books (also known as digital books or electronic books)?

Yes

No

14 Do you use e-books?

Yes


No

15 If no, why? Choose maximum 3 answers which you consider as the most important to

you:

I don't know where to find e-books.

I prefer printed books.

My library does not offer e-books.

E-books are too difficult to read.

E-books are not available in subject areas relevant to my program.

E-books are too difficult to access remotely.

E-books are too difficult to use.

E-books are not portable.

My instructor requested not to use e-books.

I do not trust e-books. They are not a reliable source.

I do not have access to a computer and/or Internet.

I don't have an e-book reader.

Other:

16 How did you learn about e-books?

Google or other search engine

Media

Teachers

Peers

Library

Other

17 How often do you use e-books?

More than 10h per week

5-10h per week


1-5h per week

Less than 1h per week

Never

Other

18 How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements concerning printed

books?

Please indicate your answers by using the scale below:

1= Strongly disagree

10= Strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Easy to read

Easy to take

notes

Easy to

highlight

Anytime,

anywhere

access

Easy to store

Clear graphics

and images

Easy to search

and find

information

Environmentally

friendly

Cost-efficient

19 How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements concerning e-books?


1= Strongly disagree


10= Strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Possibility of

printing

Possibility to

highlight

Possibility to take

notes

Searching/Browsing

possibilities

Clear graphics and

pictures

Cost-efficient

Environmentally

friendly

Downloadable to a

computer, a laptop

or a hand-held

device

Anytime, anywhere

access

Possibility to store

Easy to read

20 How important to you are the following features of e-books?


1= Not important

10= Very important

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Possibility of

printing

Possibility to

highlight


Possibility to take

notes

Searching/Browsing

possibilities

Clear graphics and

pictures

Cost-efficient

Environmentally

friendly

Downloadable to a

computer, a laptop

or a hand-held

device

Anytime, anywhere

access

Possibility to store

Easy to read

Use of E-coursebooks

21 Do you use e-coursebooks (digital or electronic coursebooks) for studying?

Yes

No

22 Would you use them if they are available in a different reading format (pdf, epub, etc.)?

Yes

No

I don't know

23 Are there e-coursebooks available on "PointCarré"?

Yes

No

I don't know

24 Do you print the e-coursebooks?


Yes

No

25 What do you print from e-coursebooks?

I print the whole e-coursebook.

I print only parts of the e-coursebook.

It depends on the course.

26 Would you like to be provided with e-coursebooks?

Yes, because

No, because

Preferences for printed vs. digital study materials

27 Which format of study materials do you prefer to read?

Printed/ Paper-based materials

Digital/ Electronic materials

Both

28 If you prefer printed materials, how important to you are the following statements?


1= Not important

10= Very important

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Easy to read

To protect my

eyes

Possibility to

take notes

Possibility to

highlight


Easy to search

and find

information

Environmentally

friendly

Cost-efficient

Clear graphics

and images

To hold the

printed material

in my hands

29 If you prefer digital materials, how important to you are the following statements?


1= Not important

10= Very important

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Cost-efficient

Environmentally

friendly

Anytime,

anywhere

access

Possibility to

find and search

information

Possibility to

store

Possibility of

printing

Clear graphics

and images

Possibility to

highlight

Possibility to

take notes


30 If you prefer both, under which circumstances do you prefer the one format to the other?

I prefer paper format to digital format when

I prefer digital format to paper format when

31 How important to you is the possibility to choose the format (printed/digital) of your

study materials?

Please indicate your answer by using the scale below:

1= Not important

10= Very important

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Possibility to choose the format

of study materials

32 How would you like your materials to be printed?

One-sided, loose

One-sided, bundle

Two-sided, loose

Two-sided, bundle

33 Does the cost affect your choice of format?

Yes

No

I don't know

34 To what extent does the cost affect your choice of format?

1= To a great extent

2 = To some extent

3 = To a moderate extent

4 = To a low extent

5 = Not at all


1 2 3 4 5

Choice of format impact

35 In your opinion, what is the cheapest place for printing services?

VUB library

"Crazy Copy Center"

At the department

At work

At home

I don't know

Other:

36 If you can choose a printed course or an electronic course, which one would you prefer

to study?

Printed course

Electronic course

Both

I don't know

37 Do you agree that the different format of material (printed/digital) affects the speed of

reading?

Yes

No

I don't know

38 Which format of material do you read faster?

Printed material

Digital material

I don't know

39 Do you think that the printed material eases the comprehension of the text you read?


Yes

No

I don't know

40 Do you think that the digital material has a negative impact on the comprehension of the

text you read?

Yes

No

I don't know

41 Do you agree that the preference for a certain format of material (printed/digital)

depends on the length of exposure to digital technology (e.g. the more experience you have

with digital tools, the more you prefer digital materials for reading)?

Yes

No

I don't know

42 Do you agree that the digital materials are more cost-efficient than the printed

materials?

Yes

No

I don't know

43 Do you agree that the digital materials are more environmentally friendly than the

printed materials?

Yes

No

I don't know

44 Do you need to be provided with more digital materials on "PointCarré"? And, why?

Yes, because

No, because


45 How would you like to be provided with digital reading materials?

For every course

For half of the courses would be perfect

Let it be the choice of the teacher

46 Where do you prefer to get your study materials from?

Choose maximum 3 answers which you consider as the most important to you:

"PointCarré"

"Crazy Copy Center"

VUB library

VUBtiek

OSD

Bookshops

Second-hand bookshops

Alumni students

Social media networks

Online

Other:

47 How would you describe your level of awareness of electronic resources by using the

scale below?

1= Poor

2= Good

3= Fair

4= Excellent

1 2 3 4

Level of awareness of electronic resources


48 What type of resources do you use for studying?

Choose maximum 3 answers which you consider as the most important to you:

Google and/or other search engines

E-books

Printed books

E-coursebooks (pdf)

Printed coursebooks

E-journals

Printed journals

E-newspaper

Printed newspaper

Free online courses

Video channels

Course notes from other student

Your own course notes

Printed references (dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc.)

E-references (online dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc.)

All of the above

Other:


49 Which devices do you prefer for reading digital materials?

Computer

Laptop

Tablet

E-book reader

Other

50 What other factors affect your preference for a certain format of reading materials

Thank you for taking your time to fill out our survey!

Your input is greatly appreciated!


Appendix C: Dutch questionnaire of the optimization of study materials at VUB

Bevraging rond de optimalisatie van studiemateriaal aan de VUB

Beste deelnemer,

Graag willen we je uitnodigen om deel te nemen aan ons onderzoek rond de verbetering van

studiemateriaal aan de VUB. Dit onderzoek wordt uitgevoerd door prof. dr. Chang Zhu, Karla Groen,

Steph Feremans en Mirela Peykova.

Doel

Met dit onderzoek willen we de mening en kennis van studenten onderzoeken over gedrukt

studiemateriaal versus digitaal studiemateriaal, de redenen voor het gebruik ervan en het gebruik van

e-boeken. De resultaten van het onderzoek zullen ons helpen om een beter beeld te krijgen van de

noden en voorkeuren van de studenten en om een beter beleid te voeren rond de aanmaak en

verspreiding van studiemateriaal aan de VUB.

Anonimiteit

We garanderen volledige anonimiteit van de deelnemers. De verzamelde data zullen enkel toegankelijk

zijn voor de medewerkers van het project.

Vrijwillige deelname

Het staat iedereen vrij om aan de bevraging deel te nemen. Je kan ook op elk moment van de bevraging

stoppen of beslissen om bepaalde vragen niet in te vullen.


Persoonlijke gegevens

1 Leeftijd:

2 Geslacht:

Vrouw

Man

3 Geboorteland:

4 Faculteit:

Faculteit Recht en Criminologie

Faculteit Economische en Sociale wetenschappen en Solvay Business School

Faculteit Psychologie en Educatiewetenschappen

Faculteit Letteren en Wijsbegeerte

Faculteit Wetenschappen en Bio-ingenieurswetenschappen

Faculteit Geneeskunde en Farmacie

Faculteit Ingenieurswetenschappen

Faculteit Lichamelijke opvoeding en Kinesitherapie

IDLO

IES

5 Hoofdinschrijving:

bachelor 1e jaar

Bachelor 2e jaar

Bachelor 3e jaar

Voorbereidingsprogramma/Schakelprogramma

Master 1e jaar

Master 2e jaar

Master 3e jaar (geneeskunde)


Master-na-master

Postgraduaat

PhD

Andere

6 Statuut:

Voltijds student

Deeltijd student

7 Werkstudent statuut:

Ja

Nee

8 Mogen we je later dit jaar contacteren om deel te nemen aan een focusgroep rond dit

onderzoek?

Ja

Nee

9 Als je wil deelnemen aan een focusgroep, vul hier je voornaam in.

10 Als je wil deelnemen aan een focusgroep, vul hier je naam in.

11 Als je wil deelnemen aan een focusgroep, vul hier je e-mailadres in.

12 Als je wil deelnemen aan een focusgroep, vul hier je telefoonnummer in.

Gebruik van e-boeken

13 Heb je al eens gehoord van e-boeken (of: digitale boeken of elektronische boeken)?

Ja

Nee

14 Gebruik je e-boeken?

Ja

Nee

15 Waarom niet? Wat zijn de belangrijkste redenen voor jou om geen e-boeken te gebruiken

(maximaal 3 antwoorden)


Ik weet niet waar ik e-boeken kan vinden.

Ik verkies een gedrukt boek.

Mijn bibliotheek biedt geen e-boeken aan.

E-boeken zijn niet leesvriendelijk.

Er zijn geen e-boeken over onderwerpen die relevant zijn voor mijn studie.

De toegang tot e-boeken is moeilijk op afstand.

E-boeken zijn te moeilijk in gebruik (algemeen).

E-boeken zijn niet draagbaar.

Mijn docent heeft me afgeraden om e-boeken te gebruiken.

Ik vertrouw e-boeken niet. Ze zijn geen betrouwbare bron.

Ik heb geen toegang tot een computer of internet.

Ik heb geen e-boek-reader.

Andere reden:

16 Hoe heb je e-boeken leren kennen?

Google of een andere zoekmachine

Media

Leerkrachten/docenten

Studiegenoten/collega’s

Bibliotheek

Andere bron.

17 Hoe vaak gebruik je een e-boek

Meer dan 10 uur per week

5 tot 10 uur per week

1 tot 5 uur per week

Minder dan 1 uur per week


Nooit

Ander

18 In welke mate ga je akkoord met de aanwezigheid van onderstaande eigenschappen in

gedrukte boeken?

Geef aan op een schaal van 1 tot 10

1= Sterk oneens

10= Absoluut akkoord

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Gemakkelijk te

lezen

Gemakkelijk om

nota’s te nemen

Gemakkelijk om

te markeren

Overal en altijd

toegang

Gemakkelijk op

te slaan

Duidelijke

afbeeldingen

Gemakkelijk om

informatie te

vinden

Milieuvriendelijk

Kosten-efficiënt

19In welke mate ga je akkoord met de aanwezigheid van onderstaande eigenschappen in e-

boeken?


1= Sterk oneens

10= Absoluut akkoord


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Mogelijkheid om af

te drukken

Mogelijkheid om te

markeren

Mogelijkheid om te

noteren

Zoekmogelijkheden

Duidelijke

afbeeldingen

Kosten-efficiënt

Milieuvriendelijk

Downloadbaar op

een pc, laptop of

ander toestel

Overal en altijd

toegang

Mogelijkheid om op

te slaan

Gemakkelijk om te

lezen

20 Hoe belangrijk zijn de onderstaande kenmerken van e-boeken voor jou?

Duid aan op een schaal van 1 tot 10.

1= Absoluut niet belangrijk

10= Zeer belangrijk

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Mogelijkheid om af

te drukken

Mogelijkheid om te

markeren

Mogelijkheid om te

noteren


Zoekmogelijkheden

Duidelijke

afbeeldingen

Kosten-efficiënt

Milieuvriendelijk

Downloadbaar op

een laptop, pc of

ander toestel

Overal en altijd

toegang

Mogelijkheid om op

te slaan

Gemakkelijk om te

lezen

Gebruik van E-cursusboeken

21 Gebruik je elektronische cursusboeken (e-cursusboeken) tijdens je studie?

Ja

Nee

22 Zou je ze gebruiken als ze beschikbaar zouden zijn in een ander formaat (pdf, epub,

etc.)?

Ja

Nee

Ik weet het niet

23 Zijn er e-cursusboeken beschikbaar op "PointCarré"?

Ja

Nee

Ik weet het niet

24 Druk je e-cursusboeken af?


Ja

Nee

25 Wat druk je af uit e-cursusboeken?

Ik druk het hele cursusboek af.

Ik druk enkel delen van een e-cursusboek af.

Het hangt af van de cursus.

26 Zou je graag je materiaal krijgen in de vorm van e-cursusboeken?

Ja, omdat

Nee, omdat

Voorkeur gedrukt versus digitaal studiemateriaal ?

27 In welk formaat leer je het liefst?

Gedrukt studiemateriaal

Digitaal/elektronisch materiaal

Beide

28 Als je het liefst leert uit gedrukt materiaal, hoe belangrijk zijn de onderstaande

eigenschappen voor jou?

Geef aan op een schaal van 1 tot 10.


10= Zeer belangrijk

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Gemakkelijk om

te lezen

Beter voor mijn

ogen

Mogelijkheid om

nota’s te nemen


Mogelijkheid om

te markeren

Gemakkelijk om

informative te

vinden

milieuvriendelijk

Cost-efficient

Duidelijke

afbeeldingen

Gemakkelijk om

vast te houden

29 Als je digitaal studiemateriaal verkiest, hoe belangrijk zijn onderstaande eigenschappen

voor jou?



10= Zeer belangrijk

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Cost-efficient

milieuvriendelijk

Altijd en overall

toegang

Mogelijkheid om

informative te

vinden

Mogelijjkheid

om op te slaan

Mogelijkheid om

aft e drukken

Duidelijke

afbeeldingen

Mogelijkheid om

te markeren


Mogelijkheid om

notities te

nemen

30 Als je geen specifieke voorkeur hebt, in welke omstandigheden gebruik je toch liever het

ene format boven het andere?

Ik verkies gedrukt materiaal als

Ik verkies digitaal materaal als

31 Hoe belangrijk vind je het dat je een keuze hebt tussen de twee formaten: papier of

digitaal?

Duid aan op een schaal van 1 tot 10:


10= Zeer belangrijk

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Mogelijkheid om het format

(papier vs digitaal te kiezen)

32 Hoe wil je het liefst je cursusmateriaal als ze worden gedrukt?

een kant bedrukt, losbladig

een kant bedrukt, gebonden

Twee kanten bedrukt, losbladig

Twee kanten bedrukt, gebonden

33 Heeft de prijs een invloed op je keuze van het format (papier vs digitaal)?

Ja

Nee

Ik weet het niet

34 In welke mate beïnvloedt de prijs je keuze?

1= In zeer grote mate


2 = In grote mate

3 = In enige mate

4 = Een beetje

5 = Helemaal niet

1 2 3 4 5

Invloed van de kostprijs

35 Wat is volgens jou de goedkoopste plaats om te printen?

VUB bibliotheek

"Crazy Copy Center"

Op de faculteit of vakgroep

Op het werk

Thuis

Ik weet het niet

Ander:

36 Als je kan kiezen tussen gedrukt en digitaal materiaal, wat zou je kiezen voor je studie?

Gedrukt studiemateriaal

Elektronisch studiemateriaal

Beide

Ik weet het niet

37 Ga je ermee akkoord dat de vorm van het materiaal (gedrukt vs digitaal) je leessnelheid

beïnvloedt.

Ja

Nee

Ik weet het niet

38 Welk type studiemateriaal lees je het snelst?

Gedrukt materiaal


Digitaal materiaal

Ik weet het niet

39 Denk je dat het gemakkelijker is om gedrukt materiaal te lezen dan digitaal materiaal.

Ja

Nee

Ik weet het niet

40 Denk je dat digitaal materiaal een negatieve impact heeft op je tekstbegrip tijdens het

lezen.

Ja

Nee

Ik weet het niet

41 Ga je ermee akkoord dat de voorkeur voor een formaat (gedrukt vs digitaal) afhangt van

iemands ervaring met digitale technologie (m.a.w. hoe meer ervaring met digitale middelen,

hoe groter de voorkeur voor digitaal leesmateriaal)?

Ja

Nee

Ik weet het niet

42 Ga je ermee akkoord dat digitaal materiaal kosten-efficiënter is dan gedrukt materiaal?

Ja

Nee

Ik weet het niet

43 Ga je ermee akkoord dat digitaal materiaal milieuvriendelijker is dan gedrukt materiaal?

Ja

Nee

Ik weet het niet

44Vind je dat er meer digitaal materiaal moet worden aangeboden via PointCarré? En

waarom?


Ja, omdat

Nee, omdat

45 Hoeveel studiemateriaal moet er digitaal worden aangeboden, volgens jou?

Voor elk opleidingsonderdeel

Voor de helft van alle opleidingsonderdelen

Laat het de keuze zijn van elke docent

46 Waar haal je het liefst je studiemateriaal?

Duid maximaal drie bronnen aan die voor jou de belangrijkste zijn

"PointCarré"

"Crazy Copy Center"

VUB Bibliotheek

VUBtiek

OSD

Boekenwinkel

Tweedehands boekenwinkel

Alumni

Social media networken

Online

andere


47 Hoe zou je je kennis van elektronische middelen inschatten op een schaal van 1 tot 4?

1= slecht

2= niet zo slecht

3= goed

4= Uitstekend

1 2 3 4

Kennis van elektronische middelen

48 Welke type bronnen gebruik je voor je studie?

Kies maximaal drie bronnen die voor jou de belangrijkste zijn.

Google of andere zoekmachines

E-boeken

Gedrukte boeken

E-cursusboeken (pdf)

Gedrukte cursusboeken

E-journals

papieren tijdschriften

E-kranten

Gedrukte kranten

Gratis online cursussen

Videokanalen

Notities van andere studenten

Je eigen notities

Gedrukte naslagwerken (woordenboeken, encyclopedie, etc.)

Elektronische naslagwerken (woordenboeken, encyclopedie, etc.)

Al het voorgaande

102

andere:

49 Welk type toestel gebruik je het liefst om elektronisch materiaal te lezen?

Computer

Laptop

Tablet

E-boek reader

Ander

50 Welke andere factoren beïnvloeden jouw keuze voor een bepaald formaat van

lees/leermateriaal?

Hartelijk dank voor je deelname aan de enquête!

Students’ preferences for study materials at Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB)

Documents