MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2938427167 · doi:10.21432/cjlt27641

Exploring Perceptions of E-Books Among CEGEP Students and Faculty | Exploration des perceptions relatives aux livres électroniques chez les étudiants et enseignants au cégep

2019· article· en· W2938427167 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Learning and Technology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLibrary Collection Development and Digital Resources
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCredibilityPerceptionReading (process)Higher educationPsychologyInstitutionPedagogyLibrary scienceSociologyPolitical scienceSocial scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Because they are believed to be able to lower the costs of an education, e-books have been factored into the technology plans for community colleges and CEGEPs during the current decade. But adoption is a function of perceptions, which this study explored: (1) General perceptions of the CEGEP (collège d'enseignement général et professionnel, a community college-like institution in Quebec) students and faculty towards e-books and (2) the factors that drive those perceptions. Previous studies found that users generally had neutral and positive impressions of e-books and that the following factors drive overall perceptions of e-books: (a) previous experience, (b) reading preferences and tasks; (c) reading habits; (d) convenience; (e) costs; and (f) ownership issues. A survey of the 2,260 faculty and students at a CEGEP in Quebec was conducted, with 247 students and 19 faculty responding. Results indicated wide awareness of e-books and at least some experience with them. Results validated that previous experience drove perceptions, that printed materials generally had more credibility than digital ones (this was more pronounced for books), that many students read online but do not take notes when doing so, users perceive e-books to be more convenient than printed ones, that e-books become attractive when their price is 50% that of print, and that most users think that they own e-textbooks even though most publishers merely rent e-textbooks. The results suggest adoption barriers beyond technology and general perceptions that need to be addressed to increase general use and that designers of zero-cost (Z-degrees or Zed-Cred) degrees should consider.Parce qu’on croit qu’ils peuvent diminuer les coûts associés à l’éducation, les livres électroniques ont été pris en compte dans les plans technologiques des collèges communautaires et des cégeps au cours de la dernière décennie. L’adoption, cependant, est fonction des perceptions, que la présente étude a explorées : (1) perceptions générales des étudiants et enseignants du cégep (collège d’enseignement général et professionnel) quant aux livres électroniques et (2) facteurs qui motivent ces perceptions. Des études antérieures avaient conclu que les utilisateurs avaient des impressions neutres et positives sur les livres électroniques, et que les facteurs suivants déterminaient les perceptions globales quant aux livres électroniques : (a) expérience préalable, (b) préférences et tâches de lecture, (c) habitudes de lecture, (d) commodité, (e) coût et (f) questions de propriété. Un sondage de 2260 étudiants et enseignants d’un cégep québécois a été réalisé, et des réponses ont été obtenues de 247 étudiants et 19 membres du corps professoral. Les résultats ont indiqué une vaste conscience de l’existence des livres électroniques et, à tout le moins, une certaine expérience avec eux. Les résultats ont confirmé que l’expérience préalable déterminait les perceptions, que les documents imprimés ont en général une plus grande crédibilité que les documents numériques (cela était plus prononcé pour les livres), que de nombreux étudiants lisent en ligne, mais sans prendre de notes, que les utilisateurs perçoivent les livres électroniques comme étant plus pratiques que les livres imprimés, que les livres électroniques deviennent attrayants quand leur prix est à 50 % du prix de l’imprimé, et que la plupart des usagers croient posséder leurs manuels électroniques, même si la plupart des éditeurs ne font que les louer. Les résultats suggèrent qu’il existe des obstacles à l’adoption autres que la technologie et les perceptions générales, qu’il faudrait régler pour augmenter l’utilisation générale et dont les concepteurs de programmes sans frais devraient tenir compte.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it