Journey to textbook affordability: An investigation of students’ use of eTextbooks at multiple campuses
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>eTextbooks have steadily and recently more rapidly penetrated the textbook market. In order to effectively support students’ learning, it is important to comprehend students’ experiences using eTextbooks. This survey study was designed to gain an understanding of students’ experiences in using eTextbooks and variables that impact their experiences, perceptions, and attitudes towards eTextbooks. In a total of 33 courses, faculty members at five state university campuses in California participated in the eTextbook pilot project during the fall of 2010. Six hundred and sixty-two student questionnaires were returned from those courses. Key findings include: 1) More than one-third of the students were satisfied with the eTextbook; 2) more than half of the students felt that the eTextbook was easy-to-use; 3) older students (22 or older) tended to have more positive experiences with the eTextbook than younger students; and 4) students most liked the eTextbook’s cost, accessibility, light weight, and keyword search features. This study implies that the eTextbook must be a high-quality, easy-to-use resource to serve as a viable textbook option for student learning.</p>
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it