As Good or Better than Commercial Textbooks: Students’ Perceptions and Outcomes from Using Open Digital and Open Print Textbooks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increase in the cost of college textbooks together with the proliferation of digital content and devices has inspired the development of open textbooks, open educational resources that are free, openly licensed, and often peer-reviewed. Although several published studies have investigated the impact of open textbook adoption on educational outcomes, none have separated the effects of textbook openness and format and only two have taken place in Canada (Hendricks, Reinsberg, & Rieger, 2017; Jhangiani & Jhangiani, 2017). This study investigates the perceptions, use, and course performance of Canadian post-secondary students assigned a commercial or open textbook in either print or digital format. Results show that students using the print format of the open textbook perceive its quality to be superior to the commercial textbook. Moreover, students assigned an open textbook in either format perform either no differently from or better than those assigned a commercial textbook. These results are consistent with the existing literature and support the conclusion that the cost savings to students associated with the adoption of open textbooks do not come at the expense of resource quality or student performance. L’augmentation du coût des manuels universitaires ainsi que la prolifération du contenu numérique et des appareils électroniques ont inspiré le développement de manuels ouverts, des ressources éducationnelles qui sont gratuites, dont les licences d’exploitation sont ouvertes et qui sont souvent évalués par les pairs. Bien que plusieurs études publiées aient étudié l’impact de l’adoption de manuels ouverts sur les résultats éducationnels, aucune n’a séparé les effets du caractère ouvert des manuels et du format et seulement deux études ont été menées au Canada (Hendricks, Reinsberg & Rieger, 2017; Jhangiani & Jhangiani, 2017). Cette étude examine les perceptions, l’emploi et les résultats des étudiants dans des établissements d’enseignement supérieur canadiens à qui on avait assigné un manuel commercial ou un manuel ouvert en format imprimé ou numérique. Les résultats ont montré que les étudiants qui avaient utilisé le format imprimé du manuel ouvert avaient perçu que sa qualité était supérieure à celle du manuel commercial. De plus, les étudiants à qui on avait assigné un manuel ouvert dans l’un ou l’autre des formats avaient obtenu des résultats semblables à ceux des étudiants à qui on avait assigné un manuel commercial. Ces résultats concordent avec les publications existantes et confirment la conclusion que les économies de coûts pour les étudiants liées à l’adoption de manuels ouverts n’entraînent pas une dégradation de la qualité des ressources ni des résultats des étudiants.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".