The Learning Satisfaction Dispositions of Special Needs Students Regarding the Academic Effects of Exclusively Using Digital Resources

THE LEARNING SATISFACTION DISPOSITIONS OF SPECIAL NEEDS STUDENTS

REGARDING THE ACADEMIC EFFECTS OF EXCLUSIVELY USING DIGITAL

RESOURCES

A Dissertation

Presented to

The Faculty of the Education Department

Carson-Newman University

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the

Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Education

Lea Michelle Curtis Jackson

May 2020

Dissertation Approval

Student Name: Lea Michelle Curtis Jackson

Dissertation Title: THE LEARNING SATISFACTION DISPOSITIONS OF SPECIAL NEEDS STUDENTS REGARDING THE ACADEMIC EFFECTS OF EXCLUSIVELY USING DIGITAL RESOURCES

This dissertation has been approved and accepted by the faculty of the Education Department, Carson-Newman University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Doctor of Education.

Dissertation Committee:

Dr. Julia Price, Dissertation Chair

Dr. P. Mark Taylor, Methodologist Member

Dr. Samuel Hollingshead, Content Member

Approved by the Dissertation Committee Date: April 9, 2020

Abstract

The movement toward greater access to digital resources in education creates challenges for educators when determining how and when to implement the use of digital instruction particularly when using technology as the primary source for delivering content. The focus of this qualitative, phenomenological case study was to determine if special needs student literacy, including comprehension and recall, was affected by exclusively using digital textbooks as the primary source of instruction. Data were collected from four data sources, including semi- structured interviews, observations, a focus group interview, and an artifact. The participants received two units of instruction using print and digital forms of the same textbook. The instructional unit using the printed textbook served as a basis for comparison for the participants.

A thorough analysis of the data revealed three major themes that influence student satisfaction dispositions regarding using digital resources. Student ability to read and comprehend the text plays a role in their satisfaction of the medium they choose. The ability to have full access to the curriculum requires that the content be presented with consideration to student ability to fluently read and understand the text. Retention is also a factor that plays a role in student satisfaction.

Student level of focus and engagement with the material has a significant impact on their retention of the information being presented. Finally, the formatting of the medium being chosen materials. User-friendly textbooks prevent students from developing frustration and anxiety, which can limit their academic success. While there are other factors that must be considered when utilizing digital resources for classroom instruction, reading, retention, and formatting appeared to have the greatest effect on how well students believe they perform academically.

iii

I hereby grant permission to the Education Department of Carson-Newman University to reproduce this research in part or in full for professional purposes, with the understanding that in no case will it be for financial profit to any person or institution.

Signature: Lea Michelle Curtis Jackson

Date: April 9, 2020

Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of my father, Norris Dave Curtis, to my mother, Sandra Watts Curtis, and to my four biggest blessings in life, my children, Delia,

Brooke, Maggie, and Noah. This journey was not my own but one we embarked on as a family.

Mom, you and Dad raised me to be a strong and independent woman while helping me maintain humility, a heart for others, and faith in God. You have supported, encouraged, cried, and prayed with me since the start of this journey, and I know that the hours you spent offering up prayers on my behalf were filled with prayers asking God to help me have the faith of a tiny mustard seed. I could never find the words to express just how much your love and commitment have encouraged and sustained me throughout this process.

To my beautiful children, thank you for believing in me and for being patient with me during those countless hours of research and writing. Your unconditional love and support strengthened my resolve to accomplish this life-long dream. I pray that, through this journey, you have also learned that anything is possible for those who are willing to work hard and have the courage to take the first step. I’m so proud of each of you. My prayer is that you will believe in yourselves as much as I believe in you.

All my love is yours.

Acknowledgements

When I made the decision to pursue this degree, I knew I was in for some hard work, but

I had no idea exactly what that would entail. I want to thank the administration, staff, and the education department at Carson-Newman University for seeing me through this process. You are the most caring group of educators from whom I’ve had the privilege of learning and are true testaments to the Christian spirit of the university.

Completing the dissertation process requires the knowledge and expertise of a committee of professors, and I was under the care and guidance of the best! Dr. P. Mark Taylor, thank you for helping me understand the research process and for causing me to think beyond the surface of the topic. You helped me view research from many perspectives and you helped me choose an avenue that suited my needs and my personality. Dr. Samuel Hollingshead, thank you for your input, thoughtful questions and offer of support and guidance along the way. You encouraged me when I needed it the most. Dr. Price, I do not know how to thank you for the numerous ways in which you provided guidance, encouragement, patience, and unending support. I knew, from the first class I took with you, that I wanted to be one of your dissertation students. You held high expectations of me and led by example every step of the way. I want to be just like you when I grow up! I would also like to thank you, Dr. Andy Rines, for your commitment to reading and re-reading the chapters in this study and for providing helpful suggestions for improving my writing. This work is the best version of my research and observations because of your feedback.

This study would not have been possible without the help of Ms. Paige Wright, Mr.

Dalton Roberts, Mr. Steve Pence, my fellow colleagues, and the wonderful students who participated in the study. Your cooperation, collaboration, and support for the research were

vii invaluable, and this study would have never come to fruition without you.

Thank you to my brother, Christopher Curtis. You have been one of my greatest supporters and cheerleaders throughout this process. You have prayed for me and continually encouraged me all along. I love you and I am so thankful for the love and support you have given me.

I am so grateful to the many wonderful friends and family members God has placed in my life. You have lent listening ears, words of encouragement, and breaks away from this process when I needed them the most. I also extend my appreciation to Chuck Jackson, for your willingness to be flexible and accommodating with scheduling during the course of this study.

Who says you can’t divorce and remain friends?

Finally, to the Jackson family, I owe a great deal of gratitude for the numerous meals you shared, for the moments of respite on top of the mountain, and for the continued encouragement you provided every step of the way. Thank you for welcoming the kids and me into your family.

I love you dearly.

viii

Table of Contents

Dissertation Approval……………………………………………………………………………..ii

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………...iii

Signature Page…………………………………………………………………………………….v

Dedication………………………………………………………………………………………...vi

Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………vii

Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………………ix

1.Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………….1

Introduction and Background……………………………………………………………………..1

Research Problem…………………………………………………………………………………2

Purpose and Significance of the Study……………………………………………………………3

Theoretical Foundation…………………………………………………………………………....3

Technical Pedagogical Content Knowledge………………………………………………3

Information Processing Theory…………………………………………………………...4

Research Question………………………………………………………………………………...6

Rationale for the Study……………………………………………………………………………6

Positionality Statement……………………………………………………………………………7

Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions…………………………………………………….7

Definition of Terms……………………………………………………………………………….8

Organization of the study…………………………………………………………………………9

Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………10

2.Review of Literature………………………………………………………………………….11

Earliest Forms of Communication……………………………………………………………….11

Evolution of Written Communication …………………………………………………………..12

Origin of Writing Systems ………………………………………………………………………12

Token System ……………………………………………………………………………………13

Writing Systems …………………………………………………………………………………15

Classification of Writing Systems……………………………………………………………….15

Types of Writing Systems……………………………………………………………………….16

Cuneiform ……………………………………………………………………………………….16

Examples of Early Writings……………………………………………………………..19

Deciphering Cuneiform………………………………………………………………….21

Expansion of Cuneiform…………………………………………………………………22

Egyptian.…………………………………………………………………………………………22

Deciphering Egyptian……………………………………………………………………23

Chinese..………………………………………………………………………………………….24

Challenges and Limitations of Writing Systems ………………………………………………..26

Invention of Alphabetic Systems ………………………………………………………………..27

Paper and Its Effect on Civilization……………………………………………………………...28

History of the Development of Printing………………………………………………………….28

The Printing Press………………………………………………………………………………..29

The Origin of the Textbook……………………………………………………………………...30

History of the Use of Technology in the Classroom……………………………………………..31

Introduction of Computers……………………………………………………………………….33

Computers in the Classroom……………………………………………………………………..34

Digital Texts in the Classroom…………………………………………………………………..34

Development of the Electronic Book…………………………………………………………….35

E-Books in the Education System………………………………………………………………..37

Types of e-Textbooks……………………………………………………………………38

Distribution Market for Print and Digital Devices………………………………………………39

Policies and Initiatives for the Use of Technology………………………………………………41

Literacy and Technology………………………………………………………………………...43

Advantages of Using Digital Textbooks and Devices…………………………………………...44

Disadvantages of Using Digital Texts and Devices……………………………………………...45

Digital Texts for Students with Disabilities……………………………………………………...46

Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………48

3.Methodology…………………………………………………………………………………..50

Research Question……………………………………………………………………………….50

Description of the Research Approach…………………………………………………………..51

Phenomenology…………………………………………………………………………………..51

Semi-structured Interviews………………………………………………………………52

Observations……………………………………………………………………………..53

Focus Groups…………………………………………………………………………….53

Artifacts…………………………………………………………………………………..54

Triangulation……………………………………………………………………………..54

Description of the Study Participants and Setting……………………………………………….55

Data Collection Procedures………………………………………………………………………55

Ethical Considerations …………………………………………………………………………..58

Data Analysis Process……………………………………………………………………………59

Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………60

4.Presentation of Findings……………………………………………………………………...62

Descriptive Characteristics of Study Participants………………………………………………..63

Table 4.1.Summary of Demographics of Study Participants…………………………………….63

Description of the Setting………………………………………………………………………..64

Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks………………………………………………………..64

Data Sources……………………………………………………………………………………..65

Semi-structured Interviews………………………………………………………………65

Observations……………………………………………………………………………..66

Focus Group……………………………………………………………………………...66

Artifact…………………………………………………………………………………...67

Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………….67

Organizing and Familiarizing……………………………………………………………67

Coding and Reducing the Data………………………………………………………….,67

Interpreting and Representing the Data………………………………………………….68

Figure 4.1.Coding Table…………………………………………………………………………69

Emerging Themes and Study Findings…………………………………………………………..70

Reading and Comprehending…………………………………………………………….70

Retention…………………………………………………………………………………73

Formatting………………………………………………………………………………..77

Table 4.2.Student Textbook Preferences………………………………………………………...81

Trustworthiness Techniques……………………………………………………………………..82

xii

Credibility………………………………………………………………………………..82

Transferability……………………………………………………………………………82

Dependability…………………………………………………………………………….82

Confirmability……………………………………………………………………………82

Coding Table……………………………………………………………………………………..83

Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………83

5.Conclusion, Implications, and Recommendations………………………………………….86

Research Question……………………………………………………………………………….86

Conclusion and Summary of Findings…………………………………………………………...87

Relevancy of Theoretical Framework……………………………………………………87

Information Processing Theory…………………………………………………..87

Technical Pedagogical Content Knowledge Theory……………………………..88

Reading and Comprehending…………………………………………………………….88

Retention…………………………………………………………………………………89

Formatting……………………………………………………………………………….90

Limitations and Delimitations……………………………………………………………………91

Implications for Practice…………………………………………………………………………92

Recommendations for Research………………………………………………………………....93

Summary of the Study…………………………………………………………………………...93

References……………………………………………………………………………………….94

Appendices……………………………………………………………………………………..106

Appendix A – Participant Informed Consent…………………………………………...107

Appendix B – Informed Parental Consent……………………………………………...110

xiii

Appendix C – Lesson Plan Artifact…………………………………………………….113

Appendix D – Semi-structured Interview Guiding Questions………………………….117

xiv

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

“Because we literally and physiologically can read in multiple ways, how we read – and what we absorb from our reading – will be influenced by both the content of our reading and the medium we use” (Wolf, 2010).

Introduction and Background

Technology has become so prevalent in today’s society that the demand of graduating tech-savvy students has become a top priority for the public-school sector. This holds especially true with the use of digital devices. The use of technology has become a way of life in every manner of speaking, such as how or when students communicate, spend free time, and socialize.

The students in today’s society have grown up with an electronic device at their fingertips. They now expect technology to be a major part of their daily lives, including their academic achievement (Weisberg, 2011). Therefore, a significantly impactful change technology is making in the world of education is in how instructional information is communicated through electronic devices, rather than through traditional, print textbooks (Chen, 2019). As schools have sought to adopt new textbooks for certain content areas, publishers have begun including reduced-rate digital versions of the textbook along with the print versions. However, publishing companies have reported that approximately 30% of their revenue has come from digital sales, with only a minute portion coming from the sale of digital textbooks (McFadden, 2012).

Although, school districts across the country spend approximately $5 billion in curriculum and resources each year, many K-12 schools continue to utilize textbooks with instructional content that is almost a decade old. According to Fletcher, Schaffhauser, & Levin (2012), as of 2012, the choice to maintain print texts was still the norm, not the exception.

Research Problem

With textbook publishing in the United States being a multi-billion-dollar industry, and as computing devices such as tablets become more prevalent, a new debate has formed over whether K-12 school districts should switch from print textbooks to digital textbooks on tablets and e-readers (ProCon.org, 2018). However, this poses a conundrum for educators in the classrooms because most educators have not been sufficiently trained in how to identify quality digital instructional techniques and programs. The state departments of education are demanding more significant use of technology, so much so that educators are evaluated annually on their ability to effectively incorporate the use of technology into their lessons. However, regardless of the widespread use of devices in schools, there are significant gaps in the research about the effects of using devices to enhance student learning (Niccoli, 2015). Because tablets,

Chromebooks, and e-Readers are continually changing the applications used for accessing digital content, these changes are also creating numerous challenges for researches who attempt to observe them. Thus, the question is not if a technological revolution will materialize among school systems, instead, the question is when such a revolution will occur. While many students may not be impacted by which type of text they must use, other populations may struggle significantly, particularly students with an identified disability. Many factors help or hinder the ability of special education students to process, retain, and recall information such as difficulty level of the content, length of time given to complete a task, the length of the assignment, as well as how the assignment is formatted (fill-in-the-blank, short-answer, word-bank, and others). As educators have been strongly encouraged to incorporate more technology in the classroom, they must also decide what is in the best interest of the student(s), such as what type of technology is

2 used and how often it is used. Additionally, one of the main challenges with very little research is what type of text is most beneficial to students’ academic achievement – print or digital?

Purpose and Significance of the Study

Effective literacy instruction is expected to meet the constant and ever-changing demands of quality education. The expectation is that effective instruction should enhance students’ abilities to exercise critical thinking skills using various forms of texts related to the school curriculum (Alvermann, 2002). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine if students’ literacy, including reading comprehension and recall, were affected by the use of print or digital texts based on the perceptions of Eighth-Grade special education students in a social studies inclusion classroom. This study focused on how well students believed they process and retain informational text using both print and digital versions of textbooks and if the teacher’s knowledge about the use of technology in the classroom had an effect on students’ abilities to process and retain information.

Theoretical Foundation

TPACK Theory - Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. The term TPACK refers to Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge and was developed to define the different areas of knowledge teachers need to teach with technology effectively (McGraw-Hill

Education, 2017). This theory was founded in Shulman’s (1986, 1987) pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) framework because it describes the base of knowledge that teachers must have for teaching: Content knowledge, which includes content area knowledge of the teacher’s chosen field of study; Pedagogical knowledge, which is an understanding of the overall learning process and the ability to convey information effectively within a learning experience (Valtonen,

Sointu, Kukkonen, Kontkanen, Lambert, & Makitalo-Siegl, 2017). However, the TPACK theory

3 adds the technological component to Shulman’s framework, which defines how teachers’ working understanding of technology and PCK combine to create quality teaching with technology experiences (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). The technological knowledge is further categorized into three components. Technological Knowledge (TK) is the understanding of the limitations and possibilities of utilizing technology programs, software, and devices in the educational environment. Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) implies an understanding of how content knowledge and technical knowledge influence and confine one another, such as having information about the technologies used within a specified content area (math, science, and others). Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) refers to the ability to understand the nature of teaching and learning with technology, how using technology can be advantageous in the classroom, and the drawbacks of technology use with students (Valtonen et al., 2017). The

TPACK theory is considered a flexible theory because it does not provide specific methods of instructing with technology, instead it offers a variety of considerations for use in many content areas. This theory developed as a response to the need to connect knowledge of content with knowledge of technology usage. Professional developments occur annually within school systems on how to utilize a specific application or software program that has become available to educators. Likewise, professional development opportunities are also offered regarding delivering effective content instruction. However, merging technology with the content area being taught is rarely discussed in these trainings. McGraw-Hill Education (2017) stated that understanding the TPACK framework would enable educators to combine both technology and content area pedagogy to ultimately drive curriculum development and teacher professionalism.

Information Processing Theory. Information processing is not the name of one, single, identified theory. It is a term applied to several theoretical foundations that deal with cognitive

4 processes and organizing and sequencing information (Schunk, 2012). This framework utilizes a variety of different strategies that include organizational skills and adaptive skills in order for optimal performance to occur. (Juntorn, Sriphetcharawut, & Munkhetvit, 2017). Information processing deals with students’ abilities in many different areas such as perception, storage and retrieval of knowledge, both in short- and long-term memories, and the coding of skills and knowledge. It also places importance on the belief that students have different abilities of processing information. They differ in how much information they can process, store, and retrieve (Wardlow, 2016). The information processing framework includes cognitive strategies, which are methods of thinking about a topic or strategies to organize thoughts in order to achieve a specific goal (Juntorn, Sriphetcharawut, & Munkhetvit, 2017). This theory implies that students should have the ability to perform some functions automatically, like a simple math problem, so that cognitive functioning can be freed up to learn more effectively. Applications or practice that utilize skill and drill concepts are a prime example of this type of theory because they enable students to adapt more readily to ever-changing methods of applying essential skills automatically (Wardlow, 2016). However, even automatic functions can be a challenge for students with learning disabilities or other special educational needs. Effective information processing strategies are considered the most efficient and least difficult means of processing information within a given situation. Thus, they are strategies that prevent a student from having to ‘think too hard’ about a situation while trying to be an engaged participant in the activity

(Juntorn, Sriphetcharawut, & Munkhetvit, 2017). While information processing theories include varying ideas on cognition and the methods required for storing and retrieving information, a common thread among them is that the processing of information occurs in stages from receiving to storage to retrieval and application (Schunk, 2012). The information processing theory is

5 applicable to the study because it deals with how students receive and retrieve information most effectively.

Research Question

Because the search for the most effective method of delivering literacy instruction is at the forefront of the academic arena, teachers have become wary of ‘one-size-fits-all’ approaches to instruction. Educators also believe that students are to be educated with 21st Century methods to thrive in the 21st Century environment. Therefore, a qualitative study was conducted to determine students’ perceptions regarding their preferred method of receiving instruction.

Research Question: What are the learning satisfaction dispositions of special needs students regarding the academic effects of exclusively using digital resources?

Rationale for the Study

Although specific learning strategies have been studied in-depth for decades, few studies have involved technology-based learning strategies. As students utilize digital devices for social and academic pursuits, educators have come to better understand the urgency of using learning strategies with instructional activities involving the use of technology (Koc & Koc, 2016). This study can be useful in assisting educators in determining the best method or methods of instructing students. Given the strong push for technology-based academic experiences, it is important for educators to know what experiences are preferred and deemed most useful by students, particularly students with learning disabilities. Thus, this study could provide valuable insight for educators when planning lessons and deciding what type or form of curriculum to use when delivering core instruction.

Positionality Statement

This study was conducted by an educator with 11 years of teaching experience in the field of special education with a background consisting primarily of self-contained, resource, and inclusion classrooms for students with learning disabilities and behavioral disorders. The educator is currently serving as the special education inclusion teacher at the school where the study was performed. Participants of the study received the appropriate accommodations and modifications entitled to them based on their Individualized Education Plans and students’ academic grades were not negatively affected by the conducting of this study. Additionally, the study was conducted with a triangulation of data and trustworthiness techniques in order to ensure the results of the study were free from bias. The triangulation was achieved through individual interviews, observations, a focus group, and lesson-plan artifacts. Member checks and peer-debriefings throughout the data-collection and coding process ensured the credibility and the reflectivity of the study. All records pertaining to the research and the conducting of this study will be maintained for a period of seven years to serve as evidence of credibility.

Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions

The primary limitation of this study was the inability to choose the textbook being used for the study. The school system where the research was conducted adopted new social studies texts for this school year. This is a limitation because other textbooks might have had resources and tools that were more user-friendly or more conducive to the learning needs of students with disabilities; thus, the data may have produced a different outcome had a different print and digital text or publishing company been chosen.

The delimitations were primarily due to time constraints for completion of the study and the size of the sample population. If the study had included a larger sampling of students not

7 limited only to special education students, the results might have been impacted. Choosing to complete the research with only one class of students in the form of a case study and choosing to study only the perceptions of special education students, however, is more convenient for the research purpose, and the smaller sample provides opportunity for closer one-to-one observations. The difficulty level of the content area was also kept as consistent as possible.

Results might not have been reliable had the study been conducted on a math, science, or ELA class. Typically, with each of those content areas, the level of difficulty changes depending on the unit of study or the standard of focus for that week. However, with social studies, the content is heavily reading-based and rarely changes. History is factual and is not likely to change formulas or processes. Therefore, the focus was on a social studies classroom for the case-study.

Definition of Terms

Digital – Resources created, accessed, or utilized with the use of the internet or that require computers for the storing, retrieval, or analysis of data, or for the audio/visual presentation of content (Hangen, 2015).

Electronic Textbook: An instructional book formatted in digital form that can be accessed with laptops, computers, tablets, or smartphones on a daily basis (Davis, LLC, 2019).

Enhanced Print Course Materials: Digital reproductions of previously printed texts and course materials that include additional enhancements and resources for providing more customized instruction to students (McFadden, 2012).

Inclusion: The term inclusion refers to educating students with disabilities alongside their non-disabled peers within a general education classroom – in their least restrictive environment

(specialeducationguide.com, 2019).

Individualized Education Plan (IEP): A written plan based on an individual student’s needs in accordance with his/her area of identified disability allowing for specific goals, accommodations, and services tailored specifically for him/her (University of Kansas, 2019)

Literacy: The ability to write, read, comprehend, and transfer knowledge from one domain to another (Hangen, 2015).

Special Education: Refers to providing educational services in a variety of ways and settings to meet the needs of individuals with special learning needs (The Understood Team,

2019).

Organization of the Study

This study is organized into five separate chapters. Chapter One, the introduction, provides a brief overview of the background of the study. It also includes a statement of the problem, the purpose/significance of the study, the theoretical framework, the research question, the rationale, researcher positionality statement, the limitations and delimitations, definition of key terms, and the organization of the study. Chapter Two, the literature review, examines the history of communication in its earliest forms, as well as current literature regarding the use of digital versus print texts. Chapter Two also discusses recent changes in how information is communicated to students through the use of enhanced print course materials, which are digital remakes of printed texts with additional curriculum resources (McFadden, 2012). Chapter Three is the methodology section, which includes the research questions, a description of the specific research approach, a description of the study participants and setting, procedures for collecting data, ethical considerations, and data analysis procedures. Chapter Four, the presentation and findings chapter, includes a description of participants, presentation of data, and study findings.

Chapter Five finalizes the study with conclusions drawn from the study, implications of the study findings, and recommendations.

Summary

This study sought to examine special needs students’ learning satisfaction dispositions regarding the academic effects of exclusively using digital resources. The TPACK theory, which integrates technology with curriculum content and pedagogy and describes how teachers’ understanding of these three factors contributes to effective instruction, was used as one of the frameworks for this study (Shin, Koehler, Mishra, Schmidt, Baran, & Thompson, n.d.). The information processing theory, which combines a number of cognitive processes and storage retrieval methods for students, also served as a theoretical foundation for this study. The conclusions and findings will provide valuable information for educators seeking to utilize best practices for instructing students with special needs with the use of digital technology.

Chapter 2: Review of Literature

History is impossible without the written word as one would lack context in which to

interpret physical evidence from the ancient past. Writing records the lives of a people

and so is the first necessary step in the written history of a culture or civilization (Mark,

J., 2011).

Earliest Form of Communication

In antiquity, without the use of telephones, computers, or the internet, the dissemination of information depended greatly on face-to-face communication between two or more people.

Therefore, speaking and listening were the first means of communication. If one had information to share or information to retrieve, the requirement was that a personal conversation occur. This was not a difficult task, if the communicators were in proximity one with another; however, for greater distances, the task was a greater challenge. In those cases, communication depended on one’s ability to send a messenger to relay information. It seemed that only the elite members of a social group would be able to establish and maintain long-term communication over longer distances (Hezser, 2010). It can be assumed that those who had the ability to sustain such long-term communication would also be the most powerful members of their respective social circles. Additionally, it could also be assumed that long-term, sustained communication was only used for pertinent information. Sometimes problems existed due to messenger inadequacies. The messenger may leak the message or information to one’s enemies or some type of disaster or unplanned event could prevent the messenger from reaching the destination.

In like manner, the messages could easily be forgotten, changed, or falsified altogether. Thus, one had to be extremely cautious with the nature of the messages being sent.

Evolution of Written Communication

According to Hills, (2016), the earliest forms of written communication came from cave paintings dating as far back as 30,000 years ago - other researchers cite close to 40,000 years ago. Early cave paintings were primarily paintings of animals, such as rhinos, lions, deer, hyenas, etc. It is relatively understood that writing developed on the basis of earlier existing pictographs and ideographs, (Vajda, n.d.) The purpose of these paintings remains unclear as they could have been designed to communicate rituals or they could be early displays of mating

(Hills, 2016).

The emergence of writing systems is regarded as one of the most significant milestones

towards human civilization (Han, 2012). From primitive toolmaking to modern-day

technology, homo sapiens have come a long way to replace their stones and bricks with

pen and paper, or even smartphones and tablets in recent decades. With at least 3,866

developed writing systems worldwide (Ethnologue, n.d.), it is believed that the invention

of writing was the result of an improvement to ancient system of tallies and labels, where

things were depicted pictographically to reduce ambiguity and ease the process of recall.

(Fisher, 2007; Language Evolution, 2017, Chapter 17)

Origins of Writing Systems

According to the Language Evolution (2017), a writing system is a method of representing verbal communication visually, which is regarded as a much more reliable form of information storage and transfer than depending on one’s memory or translations from messengers. Schmandt-Besserat (2014) defined writing as graphic markings representing the components of a specific language organized in a systematic method. Writing, in its earliest form, was depicted with impressions or marks made on clay tablets. The Trustees of the British

Museum website (n.d.) stated that officials of the temple needed to have a method of keeping records of which cattle was purchased, how many of each, and so forth. It also became increasingly difficult to rely on one’s own memory to keep an accurate account. Researchers still question exactly what the marks represented, but there is strong evidence to suggest that writing systems evolved over time before resulting in a language with rules and conventions such as exists today. For centuries, scholars have researched the purpose for which writing came into being in ancient history. However, the only idea that is certain is that writing cannot be attributed to any one single event or factor in history (Language Evolution, 2017). For some, it might have been to display and disseminate information to the masses, whereas for others it might have been simply for the purposes of keeping track of records and figures without relying solely on one’s memory. In fact, literacy studies have grown to “embrace the idea that people read and write for a variety of culturally and contextually specific purposes; and, in turn, writing and reading activities acquire meaning from the socio-cultural context in which they are conducted” (Eidinow & Taylor, 2010). With nearly 4,000 developed writing systems worldwide, some believe that the evolution of writing was the direct result of changes and improvements made of a span of centuries to the ancient system of communication, which included pictographs and tally marks. These changes were for the purposes of simplifying the process of retention and recall and to extinguish unknown variables with which there were no pictures, symbols, or tallies associated (Fisher, 2007; Language Evolution, 2017).

Token System

Eidinow and Taylor (2010) stated that written communication is a matter of choice, which can change the overall interpretation of its meaning. The earliest known form of writing was in the form of pictographs, which were symbols that represented objects. This system began

13 around 3200 BC with the Sumerians in Southern Mesopotamia when they began impressing pictographs on clay tablets called proto-cuneiform and baking them to preserve the information

(Hills, 2016). These tablets enabled merchants to recall which sacks of grains had been distributed and to which destinations they went. It also provided a way of keeping track of how many livestock were needed for special events within the temple (Mark, 2011). For example, prior to the documentation of writing systems, many artifacts from ancient times were found to have markings that indicated a method of storing information (Language Evolution, 2017). This system primarily consisted of geometric shapes such as cones, spheres, disks, cylinders, etc. and were discovered in archaeological sites dating anywhere from 8000 – 3000 BC. Additionally, this token system of over 300 types of counters was the earliest known code used to transmit information among merchants (Schmandt-Besserat, 2014). With pictographs, one could tell how much grain was involved in a transaction but not necessarily what that transaction meant. As the historian Kriwaczek noted,

All that had been devised thus far was a technique for noting down things, items and

objects, not a [true] writing system. A record of `Two Sheep Temple’ … tells us nothing

about whether the sheep are being delivered to, or received from, the temple, whether

they are carcasses, beasts on the hoof, or anything else about them (63). (Mark, J., 2011)

Schmidt-Besserat (2014) stated that this system of writing had limiting characteristics, such as: the tokens were used for recording one type of information only, such as records of real goods; there was no use of syntax or counter order; counters were not based on phonetics; the system was used across multiple language barriers.

Writing Systems

After four millennia, the token system evolved into an early form of writing in

Mesopotamia called Sumerian (The British Museum, n.d.). Scholars believe the Sumerian system of writing was developed in Mesopotamia because most of the early tablets come from

Uruk, in Southern Mesopotamia. Scribes found it easier to trace the objects onto the clay with a reed stylus to create pictographs which referred to goods sold or purchased. These artifacts mark an important step in the evolution of writing because they were never repeated in one-to- one correspondence to express numeracy (Schmidt-Besserat, 2014). People began developing a numerical system that represented ‘more than one’ or multiples of the same token symbol.

Therefore, in its earliest history, written communication served as an enhancement to the former system.

Classification of Writing Systems

Around 3000 BC, the creation of phonetic signs, representing speech, began the second phase in the evolution of writing in Mesopotamia. With the development of writing systems and new ways of classifying these phonetic and semantic symbols around the world. Three distinctive methods of classification evolved. The first was alphabetic, which was comprised primarily of symbolic letters that represented individual sounds (phonemes) that have no meaning until they are combined with other letters to form words. The next was syllabic, which was comprised primarily of symbols that were connected to the specific syllables of words. This classification exhibited more meaning than the alphabetic symbols such as Korean. Finally, the logographic classification carried the most meaning among the three different classification systems. This classification was conceptual and did not adhere to single phoneme sounds such as those represented in Mandarin Chinese (Language Evolution, 2017). Schmidt-Besserat (2014)

15 stated that as states were formed, names of individuals who conducted or received transactions were required to be entered into the tables; therefore, personal names were transcribed using logograms, which are signs representing a word in a particular language or tongue - picture representations of a sound. For instance, the name Neil would consist of a picture of bent knees meaning to kneel.

Types of Writing Systems

The earliest forms of writing – the pictograms on clay tablets – were not examples of writing systems, they were examples of prewriting because the pictograph impressions did not involve the sounds of the Sumerian language (Vajda, n.d.). However, true writing is assumed to have been independently developed three times throughout history: in the Near East, China, and

Mesoamerica. According to Schmandt-Besserat (2014), each of the writing systems shared characteristics of their original prototypes. In fact, Finkel and Taylor (2015) noted that the writings of ancient history serve as evidence that societies’ current ideas and problems had previously been experienced by humankind for thousands of years. However, of the three writing systems, only the Mesopotamian cuneiform, which is considered to have been the earliest form, may be continuously traced back for a period greater than 10,000 years, beginning with prehistoric times to the alphabet that is used today (Schmandt-Besserat, 2014).

Cuneiform

With the use of a reed stylus to make wedge-shaped markings onto clay tablets, cuneiform writing was created. It was created by Sumerian scribes around 3200 BC for the purpose of recording transactions in the ancient city-state of Uruk (The Editors, 2016). The ancient city-state of Uruk was located in what is present-day Iraq and Kuwait, and this is where writing became used widespread. According to Mark (2011), all of the great Mesopotamian

16 civilizations used the Cuneiform writing system, including Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonians,

Elamites, and Hittites.

Finkel and Taylor (2015) described cuneiform using its derivative, which is ‘cuneus’

(Latin), meaning wedge-shaped. This meaning developed because scribes used a reed stylus to make wedge-shaped marks onto clay tablets. Most clay tablets were no larger than the cell phones used today, and they were only used for a few hours at a time, a few days at school, or a few years for a business-style account. However, Trubek (2015) further elaborated by stating that cuneiform writing resembles geometric shapes because each symbol is comprised primarily of diagonal, vertical, or horizontal marks written primarily on pieces of clay that were small enough to be held in the palm of one’s hand. According to Language Evolution (2017), a person would pat a wet clay tablet and then press the stylus into it and begin writing. Once the writing was completed, the tablet was placed in the sun to let it dry, so it would last. However, to learn how to write in this method, Sumerians attended a scribal school called ‘Eduba’ to train to be a

Scribe. Much like students in today’s contemporary society, they learned cuneiform by writing proverbs, riddles, etc. given to them by a teacher.

Cuneiform transitioned into a full writing system between 3500 and 3000 BC as more and more symbols were used for the value of their phonemic sound only (Vajda, n.d.). While pictograms were still in use, phonograms, which are symbols that represent sounds, became a widely used method of communicating because one could more easily disseminate concise meaning. For example, in the case of the two sheep, one now had the capability of clearly communicating from whence the sheep were coming and what role they would play in the temple proceedings (Mark, 2011). As a result of the complete transition from icon to sound and the ability to symbolize all of the syllables in the Sumerian language, true writing was

17 developed. Furthermore, whereas writing was initially developed as a way to maintain records and transactions, it later was used to record literature and events in history (Rutgers University, n.d.).

Around the third millennium, the cuneiform writing became simplified and more abstract with the use of fewer characters. This form of writing is known as Hittite cuneiform and includes logophonetic, consonantal alphabetic, and syllabic signs (‘Cuneiform script’, n.d.).

Logophonetic is the term applied to the two significant signs that indicate morphemes and sounds. The consonantal alphabetic symbol contains no vowels, but syllabic signs are simplistic signs that contain a consonant and a vowel (Language Evolution, 2017). Gradually, over time,

Sumerians began developing symbols for words. After 2600-2500 BC, Sumerian writing became an advanced system of ideograms mixed with phonetic symbols. The outcome further encouraged modelling writing into spoken language (Schmandt-Besserat, 2014). At first, the phonemes symbolized concrete objects, such as an image of a sheep, quite literally, meant an actual sheep.

However, another step in this evolution occurred when society began to utilize symbols to intangible ideas such as God, women, or love (Trubek, 2015). Vajda (n.d.), stated that a language such as English was not easily written with pictures for each syllable due to the complex phonemic structure. Some English words could be written by using pictures to show the meaning of sound. An example of this type of meaning would still include pictographs to show meaning – eye, can, sea, ewe. Such sound pictures are called rebuses. One could use the pictographs and derive the meaning: I can see you. However, it was impossible to write such

English words as love, thankfulness, gratify, etc. using rebuses. A scholar by the name of Ira

Spar wrote that very few examples of cuneiform existed in the years from 3200 and 3000 BC. In

18 fact, it was only used consistently after 2600 BC (Mark, J., 2011). Trubek (2015) asserted that it was important for the Cuneiform markings to become more abstract because it made the whole system more efficient. There were fewer symbols and marks to learn and it developed in complexity because society was doing so as well. Thus, the script had the capabilities of expressing any topic of human interest with an index of about 400 signs. Members of royalty, the clergy, magic, and literary entities were among some of the first to popularize this style of script (Schmandt-Besserat, 2014). Additionally, by 2000 BC, this new way of writing had become a full script, which was capable of doing much more than just recording information.

Scribes were able to record current events and religious news.

Examples of Early Writings. The earliest known writer in history is a Mesopotamian priestess who wrote her hymns to the goddess Inanna complete with her signature and a seal.

Also, a collection of four poems, Matter of Arratta, is dated approximately 2112-2004 BC

(though they were only written down between 2017-1763 BC). In the first of them, it is explained that writing developed because King Enmerkar’s messenger had too much to remember, so the King decided he should write his messages down; hence, writing was born

(Yushu, 2010).

Also, the earliest known recipes were found on three clay tablets that dated back to the

Old Babylonian period. The Editors of Archaeology magazine (2016) stated that the instructions were simple but could only have been followed by the most noble families’ chefs with the most experience. This set of tablets contained 25 different recipes for stews that included both meat and vegetarian options. While the recipes included directions, no measurements or cooking times were noted. Not only are there artifacts containing recipes, historians have evidence of literary works as well.

The Mesopotamian law codes were the most influential among those of King Hammurabi of Babylonia (r. 1792-1750 B.C.). Containing almost 300 laws covering topics ranging from marriage… to murder, it is the most comprehensive of these codes. This code has the famous reference, ‘an eye-for-an-eye,’ but it also includes much more complex issues faced by the courts at that time. The Code of Hammurabi is written in cuneiform writing on a large seven-and-a- half-foot-tall stone that is about two feet in width. It contains roughly 4,000 lines of text and was recovered from Susa, which is present-day Iran. It was taken there after being stolen sometime during the 12th Century BC. The code was, without a doubt, placed in prominent places throughout the city – where it would be seen by many populations, stated Martha Roth, an

Assyriologist at the University of Chicago (The Editors, 2016). It was also used for 1,000 years or more for the training of scribes. While the exact legal purpose of the Code of Hammurabi is not known, records do indicate that the Code addressed issues of daily life at that time and it established King Hammurabi as the judge of justice for the people.

The story of Gilgamesh is considered the longest piece of literature in the Akkadian language (Babylon and Assyria). It is also the best-known piece of literary work from ancient

Mesopotamia, and it is considered to be the first epic piece of literature in the world. Scholars believe it was composed earlier than 2150 BC (Mark, 2011). It became so popular that researchers also found other versions of the story across the ancient Near East (The Trustees of the British Museum, n.d.). However, the Assyrian version of the Old Testament flood story is the most famous cuneiform tablet from Mesopotamia. It was discovered in November of 1872 by a self-taught Assyriologist named George Smith, who was working as an assistant at the

British Museum. It was one of thousands of tablets that was excavated many decades prior at

Nineveh, in present-day Iraq. Archaeologists happened upon a fragment of a tablet that would

20 soon become the most famous cuneiform text in the world. Once Smith completed deciphering the work, it became known that it had once belonged in the library of the Assyrian king

Ashurbanipal, and it was part 11 of the 12-tablet Epic of Gilgamesh (The Editors, 2016). In addition to literature, researchers have also uncovered a work about which most common households have some knowledge.

Deciphering Cuneiform. Although cuneiform was used for millennia, and much of it remained in public view even after the language became extinct, no one was able to read it for hundreds of years. In the early 18th Century, European scholars sought proof of places and events that had been recorded in the Bible. Many archaeologists and travelers went on expeditions to the ancient Near East and uncovered numerous artifacts, including thousands of clay tablets covered in cuneiform symbols. Henry Rawlinson, a British army officer, copied down cuneiform inscriptions at Behistun in order to decipher what the writing said. This required climbing a steep cliff on a narrow ledge, in the middle of a giant mountain – no easy feat on its own. After years of studying, categorizing, and decoding, Rawlinson had finally solved the mystery of cuneiform writing. Simultaneously, other scholars were working to do the same. They knew they had succeeded in 1857 when the Royal Asiatic Society contacted four scholars: Henry Creswicke Rawlinson, Edward Hincks, Julius Oppert, and William H. Fox

Talbot to translate a clay record they had found. Rather than working together on the project, they each worked independently of one another, and returned their own translations of the record. Each translation widely agreed with the other. This was considered confirmation that cuneiform had successfully been decoded and deciphered (The Trustees of the British Museum, n.d.). While there are still elements of the writing system that have yet to be deciphered, what

21 has been learned has enlightened society to ancient trade, building and government, literature, history, religion, and everyday life in the area.

Expansion of Cuneiform. By 2000 B.C., the cuneiform writing had become a full system of writing capable of communicating in a variety of ways for a variety of purposes. This system was mimicked by complete written systems that evolved virtually simultaneously in and around Egypt, China, and pre-Columbian societies (Hills, 2016). The idea of writing diffused to people of adjacent areas and they developed their own writing systems.

Egyptian

The most notable of these secondary scripts was found in Egypt where writing appeared to have emerged from the Sumerians shortly after 3000 BC, when the Egyptians created their own fully developed phonetic system, without any gradual transition from pictographic writing”

(Vajda, n.d.). Some of the earliest Egyptian inscriptions date back to the late 4th millennium BC.

These inscriptions were on royal tombs, and the phonetic signs used to transcribe individual names made way for writing to diffuse outside of Mesopotamia, thus explaining why Egyptian script was instantaneously phonetic, and it also explains why the Egyptians never borrowed

Sumerian signs.

The term hieroglyph came from the Greek hiero meaning ‘holy’ and from the Greek glypho which means writing (Language Evolution, 2017). Egyptian hieroglyphs consist of syllabic symbols or alphabetic symbols which represent individual sounds like [t] or [m] (Vajda, n.d.). Additionally, a pictograph type of element was included in the language to clarify the meaning. However, the sentences were not constructed with one individual symbol after another. Instead, the words created a quadrangular shape otherwise known as the square principle where symbols were literally placed in the form of a square, and the upper symbols

22 took importance above the lower (Rutgers, n.d.). Egyptian writing evolved into two different versions over the course of its history. Hieratic writing evolved primarily for the use of deciphering religious texts only. This style of writing enabled quicker transcriptions by the scribes as compared to hieroglyphs. Demotic script, however, replaced hieratic and was used by priests up until the 3rd Century AD (Language Evolution, 2017).

Deciphering Egyptian. Some have argued that the meaning of hieroglyphics was lost in the latter periods of Egyptian history. Scholars assumed that people forgot how to read and write hieroglyphics; however, while there may have been lapses throughout the country's history in the use of hieroglyphics, the art was not lost completely until Coptic script took over; leaving hieroglyphics a distant memory. By the time of the Arab Invasion of the 7th century CE, no one living in Egypt knew what the hieroglyphic inscriptions meant. True attempts at deciphering the

Egyptian system of writing were made with the uncovering of the Rosetta Stone in 1798 CE by

Napoleon’s Army. This stone was a Greek proclamation from a time during Ptolemy V’s reign

(204-181 BCE). However, this proclamation not only included the Greek writing, it also included hieroglyphics and demotic. All three of these texts relayed the same information in order to maintain the Ptolemaic multi-cultural society; therefore, regardless of if one read Greek, hieroglyphic, or demotic, one would have the ability to understand the message of the stone.

While many attempted to decode the stone, none were successful until the 1820s when Jean-

Francois Champollion continued the work of previous scholars by identifying the name, Ptolemy

V, which was written on the Rosetta Stone, hence solving the mystery of the stone. He compared the hieroglyphs with those of the Greek nation; thus, also indicating that Egyptian hieroglyphic writing was, indeed, a language that was syllabic. Today, the Egyptian writing system is no

23 longer used, with the exception of Coptic, which is generally reserved for use by members of the

Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria (Takla, n.d.; Language Evolution, 2017).

Chinese

Scholars have said that Chinese is the oldest writing system of all East Asian scripts, and it is also noted as being the only one seemingly to have arisen quite literally from nothing. No evidence exists of other fully developed writing systems anywhere in East Asia that could have served as an influence for the evolution of the Chinese writing system prior to its discovery

(Language Evolution, 2017). However, others believe that the rebus principle was borrowed by way of the trade routes going from Sumeria to China. This is yet another example of stimulus diffusion (The Invention of Writing, n.d.).

It is not known the exact date when writing was first used in China because most writing was done on perishable materials such as silks, bamboo, etc. (Mark, 2016). The earliest evidence of true writing in China is dated between 1200 BC – 1045 BC, during the Shang dynasty (The

Invention of Writing, n.d.). This was considerably later than the Sumerian writing system. In fact, Chinese origins are most closely associated with the transition from the Neolithic period to the Bronze Age – roughly in the second millennium BC. Scholars are particularly interested in the origins of Chinese because rarely do civilizations join literacy and the ability to study classical literature with the ability to paint calligraphy so that ornate designs can be made with the writing of the Chinese language. Calligraphy is more highly regarded than any other artform in China. The idea is that one’s writing and ability to paint ornately determined one’s moral worth, learning status, temperament, and overall individual character. This influence was a result of China’s early start with developing a civilization. According to Five Original Writing

Systems (n.d.) China developed an advanced civilization well ahead of the surrounding areas. Its

Bronze Age evolved around the middle of the second millennium B.C.

While Chinese is believed to be a completely independent writing system, much like

Sumeria, syllables of sound were depicted by pictograms and ideograms (The Invention of

Writing, n.d.). Around 1200 BC, the earliest evidence of full sentences was found in what the

Chinese refer to as oracle bones, which were the shoulder blades of oxen or the plastrons of turtles. The Chinese believed that if a person inscribed a question on the bones, once touched with fire, if it cracked, the lines formed would then be interpreted as a diviner (Mark, 2016). The script used on the oracle bones was called Jiaguwen and is dated 1600 – 1000 BC.

The next form of writing Chinese characters was developed during the Zhou dynasty

(1066-256 BC) – Jinwin – bronze inscription. These characters were inscribed, not on oracle bones, but on bronze vessels. These were primarily used for ceremonial or worship purposes.

According to Chan (2016), this form of writing was more consistent in size, position, and format, thus allowing for a more rounded shape with thicker but smoother strokes (Zhao & Baldauf,

2008; Language Evolution, 2017). However, by the end of the Zhou dynasty and into the Qin dynasty (221 BC – 206 BC), all states in China became unified. At that time, the seal script became the official writing script of China. The characters of this script were more complicated as they had more curves, were longer, and were primarily used for inscribing names on seals, bamboo, silk, rocks, and precious stones (Chan, 2016; Language Evolution, 2017).

Because the seal scrips turned out to be too tedious for writing large amounts of information, a clerical script, Lishu, was developed around 500 BC. However, it was used almost exclusively during the Qin dynasty (221 – 206 BC) and the Han dynasty (206 BC – 220

CE). Lishu script became recognized as the official method of formal writing, and it is known as

25 the turning point in the evolution of modern-day written Chinese from ancient Chinese script

(Language Evolution, 2017). This style of script was the point when Chinese writing moved away from the pictographs and symbols to the characters used in modern Chinese writing today.

The evolution of the Chinese script was vastly different from that of cuneiform or Egyptian hieroglyphics – the writing system evolved from pictures of objects representing sounds and concepts to signs that represented complete concepts on their own. Although the Chinese script is more logographical and phonetic, that is merely an unintended consequence of its evolution.

Mark (2016) stated that because Chinese logography failed to change to account for differences in sounds and pronunciation only the elite who were of the most literate could associate with others’ writings. As a matter of fact, it is a rare occurrence to have the writing system of an entire civilization that closely linked to social status within a culture. Those who could read and write and were a part of the elite group and were considered more valuable as human beings than those who could not.

Challenges and Limitations of Writing Systems

As researchers have uncovered actual physical evidence of ancient writing systems, they have been able to form a fragmented history of how writing systems evolved over time.

However, limitations continue to create challenges for scholars as they continue to fill in the gaps of how writing systems evolved. One such challenge is in the act of preserving the evidence.

Numerous artifacts exist that can be traced all the way back to what is assumed to be the origin of writing in 5000 BC. However, complications arise when researchers’ viewpoints do not agree. There is a considerably lesser amount of agreeing research on the origins of writing systems. Multiple scholars might study the same style of writing but may deduce a completely different viewpoint. This makes concrete explanations difficult as the only choice scholars have

26 is to hypothesize about the origins of writing systems. Writing systems can be seen as part of the evolutionary process for the invention of language because they provided people with a method of communicating that aided referencing and visual recall, which was virtually unattainable by speech (The Invention of Writing, n.d.).

Invention of Alphabetic Systems

The influence from the Egyptians went well beyond writing systems by extending to the alphabet as well. There is some debate over who is credited for the invention of the alphabet system. Some historians believe the Canaanites had prior knowledge of the Egyptian system of writing and used their knowledge to invent a writing system suitable for their own language.

However, other scholars believe that Canaanites could not have possibly known about Egyptian writing because of the vast differences in the two systems (Schniedewind, 2013). The age-old belief that the Greek alphabet was borrowed from the Phoenicians is the generally accepted school of thought; however, the time period is not so widely embraced. Most scholars are of the mindset that the 9th or 10th Century is when the invention of the alphabet occurred, but others believe it was around 1313 BC (Ullman, 1927; Archaeological Institute of America, 2019).

While there is evidence of the evolution of the alphabet, it is sporadic at best. What is certain is that the Greeks invented a system of alphabet reducing the number of symbols to 24 characters

(Hills, 2016). The Greeks took the completely consonantal form of the alphabet and substituted vowels, thus creating a truly alphabetic script. According to Ullman (1927), this was a tremendously important step because the Romans, then borrowed this alphabet either from the

Greeks directly or indirectly from the Eutruscans and gave the modern world the alphabet that is used today.

Paper and Its Effect on Civilization

Papyrus, an ancient Egyptian material was produced from the plant, Cyperus papyrus

(papyrus), which was a reed plant used for the production of boats, houses, jewelry, and wall paintings. However, the Egyptians were also able to use the reed plant to make paper, which had been a near impossible feat with the grass reed, produced in Mesopotamia (Gaudet, 2019). Paper did not begin as a key element within civilization – it began primarily in the Mediterranean, but also in Asia and Middle America - three areas of the world that were geographically separate one from the other (Von Hagen, 1943; American Association for the Advancement of Science,

2019). This development turned out to be a great advancement for Egypt, in particular, because it provided a method of recording, storing, and transporting that was much easier than clay tablets, and it could be produced in larger quantities for exportation purposes. Additionally, in addition to paper, the papyrus stems were used to make rope, so Egypt could earn a great deal of foreign trade over an extended period of time. Gaudet (2019) noted that papyrus paper was made in mass quantity sufficient enough to supply all of Egypt’s needs from 3,000 BC to approximately AD 900 when the modern form of pulp paper was introduced to society. The invention of papyrus affected civilization in an undeniable way because it gave a whole new and more reliable medium for the knowledge of men to be penned in a permanent record. Thus, with advances in surfaces on which to write - clay, wax, Egyptian papyrus, and paper - writing became more readily available, more permanent, and easier to disseminate to the masses, and even greater opportunities for the advancement of the written word were created (Hills, 2016).

History of the Development of Printing

By the mid-1400s, Europe was experiencing extreme cultural changes and rapid growth.

Two main factors assisted in the acceleration of the spread of the Renaissance cultural revolution

28 after 1450; growth in prosperity and the invention of the printing press (Kreis, 2016). This newfound prosperity fueled the growth of academic learning institutions. Paper had become plentiful and less expensive due to the expansion of literacy. Therefore, the two factors influenced each other’s growth. Also, around the 13th Century, paper money that had been block-printed in China arrived on the European scene. However, since the block-printing method was done with each letter and number printed on a separate sliding block, the job of printing currency was tedious, costly, and time-consuming. Additionally, Scribes had spent centuries hand-copying sacred texts until the emergence of writing shops where clerics copied the texts professionally for wages. However, despite the growth of the writing shops, clerics and scribes were unable to supply the demands for the copied texts. Even the church had a demand for printed paper slips called indulgences, which were “written dispensation from sin that the

Church sold to fund crusades, new buildings and other projects devoted to expanding its dominance” (Rubinstein, n.d.).

The Printing Press

Johannes Gutenberg foresaw a large, profitable potential for a type of printing press that was equipped to use movable type-setting. Because he was a former stonecutter and goldsmith,

Gutenberg made an alloy of lead, tin, and antimony that melted at low temperatures, be castable within the die, and that would be durable to withstand the press (Kreis, 2016). He then manufactured the press with existing technologies such as textiles, papermaking, and wine presses. Furthermore, Gutenberg invented a molding and casting type of movable metal where each individual letter was carved into the end of a piece of steel and then hammered into a piece of blank copper. This enabled the alloy to cool down quicker resulting in a more expedient method of printing. In 1440, Johannes Gutenberg completed his innovative printing press, which

29 housed a press with movable type printing that was easier to change, thus making mass production possible (Bean-Mellinger, 2018). By 1452, Gutenberg had secured a loan to mass- produce 200 copies of a 2-volume Bible, known as The Gutenberg Bible. They were sold at a book fair for the cost of the equivalent of approximately three years’ wages for clerics. Thus, the intended consequence of the printing press was to increase mass production at a fraction of the cost. It made information more readily available to the citizens of European cities that had acquired a printing press. More libraries were established as they could now store great quantities of information. In fact, the invention of the printing press spawned an ‘information revolution’ which is similar to the Internet revolution society is experiencing today (Kreis,

2016).

The Origin of the Textbook

The original textbook preceded the printing press. This type of book consisted of notes scribed onto parchment. Students listened to their teacher discuss the text at hand, and students would annotate the notes that had been passed down to them from previous students. They would add additional notes given to them by the instructor. This became the process for learning. Once the text was handed down to the next student, that student would copy the original and annotate the text with the additional notes. These texts that were handed down became known as ‘textbooks,’ i.e., the standard scholarly method of treating a subject. The heart of the textbooks was the ability to customize and add to the information that was passed down.

This model of textbook continued from ancient history into the print era when mass production of a text became possible. The ability to mass produce at a quicker rate also led to the ability to teach more varied subjects as opposed to the classical texts previously taught. It was at this point that the customizable text was left behind. Now, instead of the lecturer teaching and the students

30 taking notes, lecturers were teaching the printed text and customizing their lectures to meet the demands of the textbook already in print. Textbooks were no longer individualized; they were the product of one or more experts who shared their knowledge in such a manner that it defined what students were meant to learn about a topic (Smith, 2000).

The Modern American textbook was devised in the latter half of the 19th Century. The public-school movement began to create a large need for textbooks, and with the creation of new canals and roadways, transporting the texts was more affordable nationwide. Thus, the textbook became used extensively as early as 1931 and was at the helm of the contemporary educational scene by 1955. No other academic tools were as universal amongst preschool through college classrooms as the textbook, with the exception of a teacher, a chalkboard, and writing utensils.

The development of textbooks was an indicator of the priorities of the nation. For example, some publishers, in preparation of a post-Civil War southern text, avoided mentioning Abraham

Lincoln and slavery, thus indicating that the market was being swayed from the beginning

(Heider, Laverick, & Bennett, 2009).

History of the use of Technology in the Classroom

Though technology is not what shapes the lives of people, it is the use of various forms of technology that have a lasting impact on people’s lives (Verhoeven, 2015). Technology, in one form or another, has been at the forefront of education from the earliest forms of Cuneiform to today when most students are assigned a technological device from which to learn, complete assignments and tasks, take tests, and learn about the world around them.

The use of technology has pushed educational boundaries for centuries, including the primitive classroom in the Colonial years. Hundreds of years ago, school-teachers in one-room schoolhouses used ‘Horn-Books’ - wooden paddles with printed lessons for assisting students in

31 learning their verses, yet 200 years or more later, in 1870, technological advances brought the invention of the Magic Lantern, which was an early likeness to a slide projector that displayed images on glass plates (Purdue University, 2019). Simultaneously, in 1870, Emile Baudot established the first popular digital code and keyboard that eventually led to the International

Telegraph Alphabet (ITA2) which was used with all teletype machinery for producing telegrams until a new system was devised in 1963 (Bloom, n.d.). This was yet another example of a technological advancement that fostered greater means of communication. Additionally, the chalkboard became the ‘tool to have’ around the 1890’s, as did the pencil in 1900, thus indicating that students and teachers sought to attain more tools for the advancement of education. The 1900’s saw an influx of various means of disseminating information to students, such as the overhead projector (1930), the ballpoint pen (1940), videotapes (1951), the photocopier (1959), the handheld calculator (1972), and the Scantron system of testing, invented by Michael Sokolski in 1972. Each of these developments enhanced and broadened the learning experiences for students and teachers alike; however, the projector, handheld calculator, and

Scantron are of particular importance because they sped up certain elements of the teaching process by giving immediate responses, thus making the activities more expedient under a time constraint.

Technology, though a constant development over the last several decades, has struggled to make its way into the classroom. Projectors, televisions, computer labs, and laptops were used in an effort to improve the way students were being taught (Wright, nd). These educational developments in the 1900’s saw a dramatic rise in school attendance. “The U.S. Department of

Education report[ed] that high school enrollment was only 10% in 1900, but by 1992 had expanded to 95%” (Purdue University, 2019).

Introduction of Computers

The concept of the computer in contemporary society was originally devised by Charles

Babbage in 1812. Originally, computers known as first generation computers were quite massive in size. They were machines made up of hundreds of thousands of vacuum-style tubes, weighed approximately 30 tons, and occupied space on several floors of office buildings.

However, the current computers in use in today’s society are among the fifth generation of computers, and with each generation, computers have become smaller, lighter in weight, equipped with greater speed, and contain more powerful applications (Mukalele, 2018).

However, computers began their greatest and most rapid advancements when Steve Jobs and

Steve Wozniak started Apple Computers on April Fool’s Day in 1976, which was the year of the

Bicentennial Birthday for the United States. It was the first computer with a single-circuit board.

Not long after, in 1977, Radio Shack introduced the TRS-80 computer with only 3,000 of these devices in production. By 1981, the first IBM personal computer (PC) was introduced to the world and just two years later, in 1983, Apple introduced the Macintosh (Zimmerman, 2017).

Technology began advancing exponentially with the introduction of new and better computers every few years, along with the introduction of new software programs to enhance the overall digital experience. Even Time magazine saw this exponential growth and named The Computer its “Man of the Year” in 1982 because the computer had begun to lay the foundation for the idea of immediate learning. Time argued that its decision was the end result of a technological revolution that had been on the cusp for nearly four decades. Finally, the World Wide Web made a dramatic entrance when a British researcher developed the Hyper Text Markup Language

(HTML) in 1993, though it was not until the National Science Foundation (NSF) removed the restrictions on using the internet for commercial use only in 1993. Compounding this event was

33 the fact that Apple Computer, Inc. brought the first Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) onto the scene in 1993 and made computers an everyday household item.

Computers in the Classroom

By 2009, 97% of classrooms had at least one computer and at least 93% had access to the internet, which has influenced education more than it has any other facet of life. The presence of the internet permanently impacted how people learn (Morgan, 2019). In fact, in less than 50 years, computers have evolved so rapidly that they influence virtually every aspect of daily life and activity (Mukalele, 2018). Computers were welcomed with a warm embrace in the educational arena, and for approximately every five students, there was a minimum of one computer in the classroom or through the use of computer labs, and interactive white boards were not far behind (Purdue University, 2019). However, with the arrival of such a discovery, also came the ability for internet users to falsify information in the form of a ‘socialbot.’

‘Socialbots’ posed a very serious security risk, so the need for fact-checking and security programs on the internet rose considerably. Teachers even had to be trained on acceptable use of the internet and which websites were reliable sources. Likewise, social media became a daily part of the lives of both educators and students, with many schools having embraced social media as a tool to communicate important information with their parents and students

(Verhoeven, 2015).

Digital Texts in the Classroom

As a result of the Gutenberg Project, the world of education first saw digital texts enter the classroom in the mid 1990’s in the form of accompanying Compact Discs (CDs) that were inserted in the back of a textbook. These CDs were added because personal computers had entered the classroom, and textbook companies wanted their books to seem more attractive and

34 as if they had an added learning tool to accompany the instructional textbook. While some of the

CDs truly were beneficial and offered dynamic additions to the lessons, most were just worksheets for the instructor to print and assign. Prior to digital texts in the classroom, worksheets were printed and then shipped to the consumer; however, with the arrival of digital technology, worksheets were now being shipped and then printed by the consumer. This concept fostered great interest among publishing companies as well as larger consumers such as public education entities because the shipping costs would be greatly reduced, and school systems could get more bang for their bucks. During this period, computer companies began marketing large-scale student computing programs, and teachers began the daunting task of learning how to incorporate these programs into their educational plans (Chesser, 2012).

Development of the Electronic Book

By the year 2010, the Electronic Book (e-Book) was emerging from its state of infancy, which refers to the earliest books printed by the Gutenberg Press from 1454 to 1501, though the transition had not yet been completed. The earliest books were originally considered inferior to those written by scribes and were even considered to be dangerous as they posed a threat to the livelihood of monks, and they represented the beginnings of a loss of control to the elites of the era (Warren, 2010).

The e-Book was originally developed in 1971 when Michael Hart created Project

Gutenberg where he used a computer to store, retrieve, and search for information. The term e-

Book stemmed from this project. While numerous varied definitions exist for the term, many scholars define e-Book as “[…] any piece of electronic text regardless of size or composition (a digital object), but excluding journal publications, made available electronically… for any device… that includes a screen” (Embong, Noor, Hashim, Ali, & Shaari, 2012).

Project Gutenberg is considered to be among the first steps in digitizing printed works; however, the real appeal of e-Books developed in 2007 when companies such as Amazon and

Sony began creating devices such as the Kindle and the e-Reader, which were specifically for the purpose of reading content digitally (Maxim & Maxim, 2012). By December of 2009, Amazon had devised three devices, Sony had released a total of seven devices, including three in 2009 alone, and both companies had already begun releasing updates and upgrades to their existing devices. Furthermore, by the year 2010, various companies had released a combined dozen or more new electronic reading devices (Warren, 2010). By the year 2011, Amazon, the leader in the e-Book market, reported that it sold 105 e-Books for every 100 printed books (Gabbatt, 2011;

Maxim & Maxim, 2012). According to Trachtenberg (2010), e-Books have impacted traditional publishing companies and have changed the rules of the book industry by overturning the established publishers that have dominated the industry for decades.

Furthermore, the future business plans of textbook publishing companies became obsolete with the popularity of e-Books. This rapid decline of physical books caused traditional publishers to formulate new marketing strategies to remain competitive in the publishing world.

Thus, major book store chains were greatly affected. The largest chain in the United States,

Barnes & Noble was forced to acknowledge a vast decrease in sales of physical books and offered up the company for sale by August of 2010. Trachtenberg (2010) stated that Barnes &

Noble had to succumb to the intense pressure from stakeholders who believed e-Book sales were eroding the traditional book retailer’s business (Martinez-Estrada & Conaway, 2012). However, while e-Book sales had increased exponentially, they still represented a very small portion of most revenue for major publishing companies. Most publishers reported that only 1-2% of their total revenue from book sales came from the sale of e-Books (Warren, 2010).

E-Books in the Education System

As demand for student e-Textbooks increased, publishers experienced an increased demand to formulate products that could be easily accessed on laptops, tablets, and smartphones.

Companies were forced to examine their textbook imprints and scale them to platforms that would allow their digital business to increase across multiple titles and courses (Chesser, 2012).

In 2007, the Virginia State Department of Education and the Department of Technology collaborated with NASA to spearhead the state’s first free, current textbook. Project engineer,

Jim Batterson, wanted the textbook to be modeled on the CK-12 ‘Flexbook’ platform, meaning a dozen or more physics teachers volunteered to write chapters and develop lab experiments for fields that were emerging in the sciences arena, such as biochemistry, biophysics, and quantum mechanics and relativity. The flexbook was reviewed by college professors for accuracy and students for usability and was posted online for other physics educators to post corrections or suggestions. The book was deemed to have met state curriculum standards with current and accurate information. The process took roughly three months to complete. The flexbook was available for download through various websites on the Internet, including CK-12’s webpage

(Brown, 2012). Aside from free textbooks and downloadable materials online, other schools, such as Clearwater High School in Clearwater, Florida, partnered with Amazon and Kindle in

2010 to obtain Kindles for all 2,100 of its students and 100 teachers. The principal, Keith

Mastorides, organized the project in Clearwater in an effort to shift to digital classrooms. The

Kindle enabled teachers and students to search for definitions of unfamiliar words, bookmark pages, type notes, and highlight sections of the text (Embong et al, 2012). Clearwater High

School is reportedly the first school in the United States that has totally incorporated the Kindle for each of its students. Additionally, in 2011, Florida state education officials devised a plan to

37 have all students in Florida use all electronic materials from digital handheld devices (Brown,

2012).

Types of e-Textbooks. Three basic components of e-Textbooks became the norm for digital texts. They were hardware or reader, software, and e-Book files. Hardware-based e-

Book readers were portable digital devices that were designed primarily for simply reading e-

Books. The price range depended on the quality portrayed by the readers. Software-based e-

Book readers were digitized programs that displayed the data from an e-Book on the device itself. Software e-Books allowed access on personal computers, laptops, or any other digital devices. It was advantageous that in addition to reading capabilities, a keyboard was accessible, and users could customize the wider display screens. The e-Book files contained an embedded signature that communicated with the operating system telling it how to display the file. Users could determine the file type by referring to the file name. Each had an extension identifying the type of file at the end of the file name (Embong et al., 2012).

Three types of e-Textbooks evolved over the course of time: Page-fidelity, Reflowable, and Open (Flexbook). Each type of textbook has different characteristics with advantages and disadvantages. Page-fidelity textbooks are the most common of the three. It is an exact screen representation of the printed textbook. It was familiar to teachers and students and came in a

PDF format. However, this type of digital textbook was fairly static because it did not have the capabilities to click on different links for further information and did not make use of the many attributes that made learning from a computer so interesting. Conversely, the reflowable textbook maintained the content from the printed text; however, it had many more capabilities.

The screen could be re-sized and colorized, which was useful for individuals with visual impairments. This type of textbook also included links for definitions, videos, or further

38 information, thus making it more interesting for the reader in addition to helping with comprehension for struggling learners. The primary disadvantage of this type of text was the cost of production. It was generated from XML files and required more extensive time and investment to have a product that was able to maintain all user-friendly qualities (Chesser, 2012).

Lastly, the Flexbook was comprised of the knowledge of several professionals in a given field who desired to create their own personalized versions of course materials. This style of e-Text was easily edited by teachers because it was an open-access product that was put online for anyone to use, download, edit, or share (Brown, 2012). The primary disadvantage of this type of e-Textbook was that the facts were difficult to verify, which made the validity of the course content questionable. Furthermore, it was difficult to copyright the material since it was open to the public for free (Chesser, 2012).

Distribution Market for Print and Digital Devices

Until the mid-1980s, the print textbook distribution market was relatively stable.

Textbook publishers updated their texts every 4-5 years, and the cost of the textbooks continued to climb. The distribution process was simple: the authors delivered the text to the publishers, the publishers delivered the texts to the schools, and the schools delivered the books to the students (Acker, 2011). Depending upon the subject matter, one K-12 textbook ranged in price from $30-$100. Such texts included several hundred pages of information per book. States could spend close to $400 million on textbooks in a K-12 school system (Brown, 2012). In the

United States, textbook publishing is roughly an $11 billion industry, with five major companies,

Cengage Learning, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Scholastic, McGraw-Hill, and Pearson

Education, securing about 80% of the market (ProCon.org, 2018). For years, e-Books were expected to gain widespread usage as an educational tool. All the necessary elements were in

39 place for the digital textbook to make the printed text obsolete, much like the mimeograph machine when copiers and printers became the standard for school systems; however, that had not yet occurred (Simon, 2001). The e-Book was considered a ‘radical innovation’ for classroom usage because it had a widespread impact on the traditional textbook industry.

Conversely, though e-Book sales had expanded drastically from 2008-2009 when sales increased 210%, most publishers reported that their e-Book sales still only comprised 1-2% of their revenue (Warren, 2010). Although the first expansion of e-Books did not garnish many consumers to adopt them as the primary textbook, a burst of accelerated growth occurred within the industry in 2009. E-Texbook sales with CourseSmart, the United States leading distributor, were up by 400% from the year before (Estrada & Conaway, 2012). In an increasingly technological world, computers had become commonplace in many facets of daily life. The

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reported that by 2009 at least 97% of U.S. teachers were equipped with a computer in their classroom, which served as evidence of the rapid growth and transformation the educational arena was experiencing via technology use

(Mercer, n.d.). However, yet another major shift occurred a mere three years later. The year

2012 marked the first time in history that more people accessed the Internet with a smartphone or tablet rather than a desktop or laptop computer. In that same year, Amazon’s revenue for e-

Books exceeded that of its hardcover books for the first time ever. Furthermore, by 2012, 22 states had launched funding flexibility programs for the purposes of reimagining the current textbook initiatives and providing more digitized instructional materials (Fletcher, Schaffhauser,

& Levin, 2012). By 2017, approximately 163 million tablets were shipped worldwide, and 83% of the e-Books that were sold in the US were purchased from Amazon at a rate exceeding one million downloads per day. Amazon also reported that from February of 2016 to February of

2017, 487,298,000 e-Books were sold in the US, comprising 42% of its total book sales. Tablets were an $18 billion industry as of 2018, with 81% of tablet owners being children aged 8-17 years. Furthermore, a joint report by McKinsey and the Groupe Speciale Mobile Association

(GSMA) predicted that the market for digital education could be worth $70 billion worldwide by the year 2020, thus making the demand for digital devices worth an additional $32 billion by the same year (ProCon.org, 2018).

Policies and Initiatives for the Use of Technology

In years past, the majority of schools in the U.S. operated in direct opposition to the world in which students were growing. There was a marked disconnect when students entered their schools due to a lack of engagement, a lack of relevance, and a lack of authenticity in available learning opportunities. Sheninger (2015) stated that to create schools that work for students in today’s contemporary society, digital leaders who are bold visionaries for change would need to address the status quo that is cemented in the traditional school model under which schools were being directed.

Early in 2010, The Obama Administration urged policymakers and educators to embrace numerous digital-learning approaches in an effort to improve K-12 schools, which included placing a digital device in the hands of every student in the nation (Ash, 2010). In November of

2010, the U.S. Department of Education made available to the public an in-depth blueprint for how schools could improve learning through the use of technology (ProCon.org, 2018). This plan was known as the National Education Technology Plan (NETP), and it established a nationwide vision for learning, which was enabled by technology through expanding the work of leading educational researchers; district and school leaders; classroom teachers; small businesses; entrepreneurs; and not-for-profit organizations; though it was intended to be of use to

41 any individual or group of individuals who considered themselves stakeholders in education.

Furthermore, the NETP focused on utilizing technology to transform valuable learning experiences with the goals of providing greater accessibility and greater equity for all students

(U.S. Department of Education, 2016).

In response to numerous calls for educational reform regarding technology, the Federal

Communications Commission (FCC) devised and issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM) in July of 2013. The NPRM was created for the purpose of gathering input on ways to improve and modernize the E-rate program, which is the term applied to digitization reforms, in an effort to help schools and libraries meet the needs of the 21st Century (Kehl, Morris, & Tepe,

2014). This was a five-year project which gave rise to President Obama’s ConnectEd program, which sought to provide high-speed internet connections to all schools and libraries in order to foster improvements with technology-based learning. Obama stated that society is currently living in a digital age, and in order to help the nation’s students get ahead, it is imperative that they have cutting-edge technology access (ProCon.org, 2018).

However, in 2015, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was reauthorized by

President Obama and was given the name Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The ESSA represented a significant shifting of power from the federal government to the states and local school districts while also giving birth to a much larger concept involving increased academic achievement (Mesecar, 2015). Furthermore, the ESSA funded a grant program authorizing $1.6 billion annually for local school districts to allocate specifically for digital learning. Schools were allowed to utilize the grant funds for a variety of activities, such as providing resources to students in under-privileged communities, teacher-training programs, as well as funding digital learning opportunities. Several states have introduced virtual learning programs for under-served

42 communities so students will have the opportunity to take classes that were not currently offered in their schools (ProCon.org, 2018). Educational Technology is no longer a luxury and no longer has an elective focus. It is a necessity in order to close the large gap that remains between the past and the future of the education in public school education (Mesecar, 2015).

Literacy and Technology

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) funded literacy programs that focused primarily on PreK-

3rd grade; however, the NCLB Act of 2002 also required that students in grades 4-12 make

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) towards meeting the state standards for reading. In addition, the Reading First initiative of NCLB dictated that students who were not making AYP in the middle grades be offered effective research-based interventions to enhance and accelerate their learning (Pearson, Ferdig, Blomeyer, & Moran, 2005). Therefore, the act of reading has undergone some radical recent changes with regards to technology. More materials have become available in digital formats through a variety of devices, such as a laptop computer, a tablet, a smart phone, an e-Reader, or one can simply print the material and read from a printed version

(Foasberg, 2014). In fact, several organizations have included this shift as a part of their academic focus. For instance, the National Reading Conference (NRC) commissioned a paper on Effective Literacy Instruction for Adolescents that implicitly recognized the complex nature of reading as it relates to writing and oral language through a variety of current technology- oriented mediums as well as a simpler printed version. A noticeable shift in the way the youth of

America have been engaging in learning has occurred. In recent years, they have increasingly utilized the Internet for their primary textbook source than any other single activity involving their learning. As much as 71% of students have turned to the Internet for their primary help

43 with homework, and they regarded the Internet as being more relevant and current in today’s contemporary society.

Thus, with this vast Internet usage by students, educators have experienced a need to purposefully cause students to have more diverse experiences with digital literacy tools within school systems (Pearson, et al., 2005). These diverse experiences included new expectations for readers using digital formats, innovative text formats, and activities that were designed for use with technology and the Internet. They combined traditional reading experiences with the ability to comprehend information from the Internet; more effective abilities to locate information utilizing search engines; the ability to evaluate Internet sources for validity; learning to communicate effectively using email, texts, and chats; and a greater use of word processing programs. Furthermore, the Internet caused teachers to address new issues relating to technology because previous technological innovations had never been adopted at such a rapid pace in so many places at the same time (Barone & Wright, 2008). More widespread usage of the Internet in schools provided an effective alternative that focused on changing student learning behaviors and patterns and gave teachers more autonomy in choosing supplemental materials for their classroom (Smith, 2000).

Advantages of Using Digital Textbooks and Devices

Despite society’s comfort with the conventional use of traditional printed textbooks, adopters began to notice that electronic texts could offer some benefits that the printed text could not. The e-Book fostered positive motivation for students to read, it was more accessible for student usage at home, and enabled students to make notations within the text as they read.

Additionally, the e-Book had a ‘go green’ benefit by saving trees, gas, and time making the texts more affordable and portable for the consumer (Estrada & Conaway, 2012). Furthermore, e-

Books provide a limitless number of copies and generally cannot be lost, unlike printed textbooks, which can also become outdated years before a new adoption occurs. E-Books ensure that all students are learning from the same textbook and that it is continually updated with the latest facts as they are released. While the e-Books can be costly to implement up front, they are ultimately less expensive than printed texts and require students to carry fewer books, which is healthier for students long-term (Poland, n.d.).

E-Books have also been deemed more interactive and engaging for the learner (Alvarez,

2013). E-textbooks enable students to highlight information, click on key words to get definitions of specific terminology, adjust font size, copy and paste information, as well as listen to audio recordings within the text. Having an online textbook also saves students time from endless searches through hundreds of printed pages. Furthermore, e-Books have the capability of note-taking applied to them, so students are not fearful of losing their information. Many e-

Books offer quizzes and tests for students to practice and study the chapters they just read. This provides opportunities for students to take ownership of their own learning (Lynch, 2017).

Students may also benefit from learning games, tutorials, simulations, and problem-solving activities. E-books offer many benefits that the printed textbook cannot, and they are increasingly becoming more popular in the educational arena (Lachner, n.d.).

Disadvantages of Using Digital Texts and Devices

Digital technology has proven to be somewhat of a double-edged sword in the educational setting as it has garnished several unintended consequences and pitfalls (Lynch, n.d.). Critics of the e-Textbook say digital devices are expensive to repair, easy to break, and are often lost due to theft. Rarely are printed textbooks the objects of thievery. Also, because e-

Books rely on usage of the Internet, it is not uncommon for the Internet to be overloaded and for

45 teachers to have to choose alternative means of educating students on any given day. In order to prevent such a problem, schools must have the proper infrastructure in place to support such heavy Internet usage; however, most have not made that change in their systems (Alvarez, 2013).

Furthermore, although the push for digitization was intended to improve learning outcomes, it is possible that students who are learning from e-Textbooks are learning less because of reduced attention spans, opening tabs during instruction that are not connected to the text, and students depending so largely on the e-Book to read for them and research for them that they lose the ability to think for themselves (Delzotto, n.d.). Additionally, digitization in the classroom has also lent itself to increased cheating. Students can quickly locate answers to any questions for tests, they can copy and paste information directly from the internet to answer a question or write an open response. These types of behaviors have led to plagiarism, academic fraud, and increased ability to cheat, thus limiting students’ ability to grow with an appropriate work ethic. They tend to want instant gratification while doing a minimal amount of work

(Lynch, n.d.).

Digital Texts for Students with Disabilities

As school systems continue to use printed textbooks as their main source of academic achievement, many students are continually denied access to learning. Struggling learners and students with learning disabilities often cannot read the textbook. Some may be able to read the actual words on the page but cannot construct meaning from the words. Additionally, students with a visual impairment often can neither read the print nor see the illustrations. Printed textbooks have been as inaccessible to these students as buildings were to individuals with wheelchairs many years ago. An increasingly large number of students have physical access to

U.S. school buildings now, but an unacceptably large number of students are incapable of

46 learning from the curriculum being presented to them by their own schools (Pisha & Coyne,

2001). The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) made reading and comprehension vital to academic success for students in K-12 schools and beyond, yet the number of students lacking the required skills in literacy to be successful is alarming as there are over eight million struggling readers in grades K-12 in the U. S. (Rupley, Paige, Rasinski, & Slough, 2015).

The term, Universal Design for Learning (UDL) was coined around 1997 and changed the trajectory of how students could access the curriculum. It was a new paradigm that encompassed teaching, learning, and curriculum development, and it was developed by CAST,

Inc., the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), and others. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics (1998), print versions of textbooks were denying access to the curriculum to a wide range of students who did not have the capability to read or interpret the texts due to disabilities such as blindness, learning disabilities, or problems with comprehension.

UDL was based on the works of Vygotsky (1978, 1986), who stated that in order for learning to occur, three conditions must be met: (a) the learner must be able to recognize patterns among sets of sensory data, (b) have a storage bank of strategies to handle the perceived patterns, and

Therefore, because the three conditions could not be met by numerous students, a strategic system was devised to present the textbook material through a different medium in order to provide text to speech features for visually impaired individuals or students with a decoding deficit. This system greatly increased students’ access to the curriculum. The system enabled learners to formulate a course of action and to work through that plan of action. Thus, the primary outcome of the project was a set of guidelines by which publishers could develop curriculum that incorporated a digital text with modifications or assistive features to increase

47 students’ ability to access the curriculum. The guidelines provide publishers with detailed explanations of how to implement UDL when developing new curriculum (Pisha & Coyne,

2001). Prior to implementation of the UDL, teachers read content aloud to students, related pictures to the content, used supplementary videos or recordings, provided students with outlines and chapter summaries, teachers slowed the pace of the lessons, reduced the numbers of items for activity completion, taught note-taking skills, and introduced key vocabulary terms prior to reading the text. However, with the publishing of digital textbooks, students had the capability of having the text read to them, could click on links to see supplementary visuals such as videos, pictures, or other recordings, key vocabulary could be selected to hear a definition, content could be modified and adjusted for struggling learners, and teachers had access to abridged materials so that the reading levels of the texts could be adjusted to students’ reading levels (Boone &

Higgins, 2003).

Summary

The methods humankind has used for communicating and transmitting information has evolved across centuries and continues to be ever-changing. The youth of today will be the first generation to grow up in a world surrounded by technology like smartphones, tablets, and e-

Readers. Because of this rapidly growing phenomenon, teacher, parents, and policymakers have responded with more investments toward placing digital devices into the hands of every student.

A trend has also begun with the use of e-Textbooks as stakeholders make the assumptions that students’ fascinations with technology will automatically equate to improved outcomes for learning (Alexander & Trakhman, 2017). However, learning can be affected by both the medium and the format through which the text is presented. Most research has focused on the devices used to present texts and on the format of the texts; however, very little has been done to

48 determine the preferences of students in the middle K-12 grades. A call for more research in this area is warranted prior to widespread adoption of exclusively digital texts for students in grades

K-12. Furthermore, as students’ use of digital texts increases, research is going to be needed on the changing perceptions of students regarding the efficacy of using primarily digital media

(Rockinson-Szapkis, Courduff, Carter, & Bennett, 2012).

CHAPTER THREE – METHODOLOGY

Over the past decade, school systems have invested millions of dollars to supply classrooms with the necessary technology to prepare students to compete in an ever-changing society and workforce. This push for technology began with equipping every classroom with a few desktop computers and shifted to equipping every student with a Chromebook or some type of laptop/tablet device that he/she can tote from class-to-class (Murray, n.d.). However, a new trend is emerging in school systems with the development of digital textbooks. They are less cumbersome to transport and less expensive for the district. They have text features in much the same manner as a print text, but are they an effective learning tool for all students? The purpose of this study was to research special needs students’ perceptions of learning with digital textbooks as opposed to their perceptions of learning with print texts. The methodology used to conduct the research is described in this chapter, including the research question, a description of the study participants and setting, data collection procedures, ethical considerations, and data analysis procedures.

Research Question

The research method for this study is a qualitative method because qualitative inquiry allows students’ behaviors within a specific social and educational setting to be interpreted (Ary,

Jacobs, Sorensen, & Walker, 2014, p. 447). Qualitative research, in a broad definition, means any type of research that does not produce findings or assumptions based on statistical means or procedures. However, it does produce findings contrived from real-life settings where interest and inquiry occur naturally among the participants in the study (Golafshani, 2003). To conduct this study, qualitative research was used by gathering data over a specified period of time to answer the following question:

What are the learning satisfaction dispositions of special-needs students regarding the academic effects of exclusively using digital textbooks?

Description of the Research Approach

“Qualitative case study methodology provides tools for researchers to study complex phenomena within their contexts” (Baxter & Jack, 2008). Furthermore, when applied correctly, qualitative case study can serve as a valuable method for informing professional practices or making informed decisions based on evidence. The case study method was chosen for this study, so the focus would be on one group of students interacting with digital textbooks and print textbooks. The study detailed each participant’s behaviors and dispositions. Brantlinger,

Jimenez, Klingner, Pugach, and Richardson (2005) stated that the purpose of qualitative research is not to generalize the research. It is done to elicit evidence based on individuals’ experiences within specific parameters. The qualitative case study method kept the focus from being explored through only one point of view but through a variety of aspects, allowing for multiple phenomena to be explored and interpreted.

Phenomenology

In addition to being classified as a case study, this study is also a study of phenomenology, which is designed as a method of inquiry based on both philosophical and psychological processes. With phenomenology, participants describe their experiences about a particular phenomenon such as the specified area of investigation (Creswell, 2014).

Phenomenology describes the lived experiences of the individuals in the group with regards to the focus of the research, which was digital texts versus print texts (Groenwald, 2004). To obtain the triangulation of data needed for this qualitative analysis, four types of data were chosen: semi-structured individual interviews, observations, artifacts, and a focus group.

Semi-structured interviews. Semi-structured Interviews (SSI) were developed to determine participants’ thoughts and feelings about a particular research topic based on their own, personal experiences. The SSI is most commonly characterized by the unique structure of the interview process because interview questions are open-ended, thus allowing participants an opportunity to respond freely based on their experiences with the research topic. Conducting interviews enabled one to delve further into the topic of each question based on the respondents’ answers. From an analytical stance, the SSI provided an opportunity for a comparison to be made with each participant’s responses for each question. Because all questions were presented to each participant in the same order, the analysis process was less complex since each response could be analyzed on an item-by-item basis (McIntosh & Morse, 2015). Therefore, the SSI served as a unique, but common method for collecting data for this phenomenological research study.

Prior to conducting individual interviews, an informed consent form was provided to each participant and was returned with the appropriate signature (see Appendix A). Participants also consented to allow the interview to be audiotaped. Interview questions were devised from research gleaned from the theoretical models that serve as the foundation for the Information

Processing Theory framework. The review of the literature about best-practices for utilizing digital resources in the classroom also served as a basis for interview questions. Ten, consenting individuals participated in the semi-structured interviews, which were audiotaped to ensure fidelity in the transcription process. The data collection process began with individual interviews which were repeated mid-way through the study. The interview transcriptions were considered complete after notes of reflection were added in preparation for coding.

Observations. Observational data or fieldnotes served as the next form of data collected for the study. Polkinghorne (2005) stated that observational data is often used in conjunction with interview data because the observer can make fieldnotes about the participants facial expressions, behaviors, gestures, body posture, or other nonverbal forms of communication. For this research study, observational data provided a deeper understanding of the comments or responses of the participants throughout the interview process. In addition to observational data taken during the interviews, the research setting also served as a basis for fieldnotes. The position of the desks around the room, where the interactive board was located, and how many students were seated in each group are just a few examples of the data collected about the setting.

Furthermore, the behaviors of the participants when utilizing the two different mediums of textbooks to complete the given tasks. Important elements that were noted in the observational data were body posture, facial expressions, time on task, as well as work completion. One key element of observational data was that multiple settings and experiences could be observed to provide a more accurate picture of the perceptions of the participants about the research topic

(Jamshed, 2005).

Focus groups. Upon the completion of the two, planned units of instruction, the students participated in one final interview session; however, this session did not consist of individual interviews. A focus group, which is a form of interview, was the method of choice for the last phase of the data collection process. The group-style interview was chosen so participants’ responses would generate discussions about the open-ended questions with which they were presented; thus, providing varied evidence and responses to the same questions. The purpose of this style of interview was to enable the participants the opportunity to clarify their thoughts on the given topic through discourse and elaboration on others’ responses. Kitzinger (1995) stated

53 that focus groups enable one to gain access to varied forms of communication among the participants, which is useful in qualitative research because participants’ feelings and perceptions are not always immediately known with their individual responses to direct questions.

Therefore, the final focus group interview, which consisted of the ten participants for the study, allowed for students to elaborate on one another’s responses to the open-ended questions about the research topic.

Artifacts. Qualitative studies utilize artifacts to determine how artifacts can increase student achievement. The term artifact entails that human knowledge is inscribed in a material object and that the object can be used as a meaning potential within a collaborative effort”

(Linell, 2009; Ludvigsen, Stahl, Law, & Cress, 2015). Therefore, the artifacts that were used in this study included the lesson plans for each unit. This helped ensure that the assignments and format of the lessons were similar in complexity as well as in the length of time needed to complete each task. In addition to the lesson plan artifacts, work samples from each unit were presented to serve as evidence of the findings of the study, such as which version of the textbook proved to be most beneficial for the students based on their academic performance.

Triangulation. Triangulation of data involves the inclusion of a variety of methods, which are utilized to collect, analyze, and code the data. The purpose of triangulating data for a research study is to ensure the validity of the results. It is the process of verifying that the results are accurate across different data collection methods. Fusch and Ness (2015) ascertained that data within a study must be thick and full of detail so triangulation and data saturation can be achieved.

Description of the Study Participants and Setting

For this case study, seven special education students were studied in an 8th grade, social studies inclusion classroom. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 defined a person with disabilities as having any physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a person’s ability to participate in one or more major life activities (Lynch & Gussel, 1996). Of the seven participants, four were males and three were females. All participants were between 13 and 14 years of age, were non-Hispanic, White students, and had an identified area of disability that resulted in the need for an Individualized Education Plan (IEP). The special education identification of disabilities among the participants was as follows: two students had a specific learning disability in reading fluency, one student had learning disabilities in reading fluency and reading comprehension, one student had a learning disability in reading fluency with a secondary disability in math calculation, one student had a learning disability in math calculation and problem-solving, and two students had a disability that was classified as Other Health

Impairment (OHI). The classroom being studied consisted of a total of 21 students and two teachers, one of whom was a special education inclusion teacher. The students sat in individual desks that were grouped into a total of 5 groups, with four students per group for 4 groups and five students in one group. All desks faced the same general direction, which was facing the interactive board in the front of the classroom. The social studies inclusion class was chosen for this study because the district adopted new social studies textbooks this year, which included a digital version as well as a print version of the text.

Data Collection Procedures

Prior to beginning the data collection process, the research proposal was presented to the faculty of Carson-Newman University. The plan for the study was to devise two parallel units of

55 instruction for the class involved in the study. Both units were planned with similar assignments and activities; however, for one unit of instruction, the students completed all of the assignments with the use of the print version of the textbook only. They completed the next unit of instruction using only the digital version of the textbook. The assignments included “Checks for

Understanding” at the end of each section of the chapter and a comprehensive chapter assessment. Additionally, the assignments were carefully planned to require students to utilize the resources provided by each version of the text such as: the glossary, pictures and captions within the chapters, added information in the side bar, the highlighting feature, the read-aloud feature, and others. The units of instruction were planned so the students could experience both versions of texts with similar assignments, and so they could develop their own opinions about which medium they preferred to use on a daily basis.

This proposal provided a cohesive snapshot of the details of the entire study (Creswell,

2014, p. 77). It included a thorough discussion of the topic, the purpose of the study, the research question, methods and procedures, and details about the participants of the study and how they were selected. In addition to the selection process, the number of individuals involved in the study, who would be allowed to view data gathered from the study, how parent permission would be obtained, and how all research information would be stored once the study was completed, were also presented in the proposal. Once the proposal document was submitted, a formal meeting was held with the dissertation committee to analyze the methodology and procedures outlined for the study and to gain permission to continue based on the plan presented.

The next step in the process included obtaining permission from the principal of the school where the study occurred and from the school system involved. The principal also granted permission for the parents of the participants to be contacted by phone or in person and by

56 sending home permission forms requesting parent or guardian signatures indicating approval for their student to anonymously participate in the study. Approval was also obtained from the content area teacher of the class involved in the study. Additionally, because the participants in the study were students with disabilities, the issue of confidentiality was critical; thus, obtaining the trust and confidence of the participants was of the utmost importance (Lazovsky, 2008).

Finally, approval was requested and received from the Carson-Newman University Institutional

Review Board (IRB).

The first step in the data collection process was to determine the population of students involved in the study. The students were not randomly selected but were chosen because they have an identified disability and an Individualized Education Plan (IEP). Once the participants were selected, individual interviews with the students involved in the study were conducted in a semi-structured fashion. Specific questions were asked of each participant with enough flexibility to ask other questions as needed based on the respondent’s answers. Each interview was recorded to better achieve accuracy in the transcription of the data. The students participated in the interviews again at the midway point of the study to determine if the perceptions about their preferred type of text had changed. The interview data were then transcribed for ease of organization. Once the transcriptions were completed, the core of the qualitative analysis process, which is the coding and reducing process, began (Ary et al, 2014, p.

515). Coding is the term given to a method of organizing information in chunks and applying a categorical label to the data (Creswell, 2014). The types of coding utilized were open, axial, and selective coding to determine various themes and reduce the data set. The observation phase was the next step in data collection for this study. This phase was the longest phase as it covered two units of instruction. To maintain reliability of the study, each unit of instruction was comparable

57 in interest, level of difficulty, variety of textbook assignments and activities used to serve as formative or summative assessments for each unit, and length of time spent on each unit. One unit of instruction was delivered using only the printed version of the textbook, and one unit was delivered using the digital version of the text. A notebook was maintained with specific observation dates and times, the given assignment for that day, and general notes about participants’ behaviors, body language, and questions regarding the assignment. This information was also transcribed and coded. The focus group was recorded in its entirety and notes were taken to indicate which participants were speaking during the group interview. The lesson plan artifacts were obtained for the units of instruction involved in the study to serve as examples of the types of assignments students were asked to complete during each unit.

Ethical Considerations

Ethical issues regarding the rights of individuals, as well as the collection and analysis of data, must be taken into consideration when conducting any type of research project (Roberts,

2010). Participants of the study were informed about the data that would be collected about them, how it would be maintained, and who would have access to the information. Therefore, all participants of the study were fully informed, in writing, about the research process and their individual roles throughout the course of the study. Informed consent was obtained and was signed by each participant. The students, who were asked to participate did so freely and without coercion, and anonymity was maintained through the duration of the study. Additionally, special education law was also followed to maintain the confidentiality of the students with an

Individualized Education Plan. As identified in the procedural safeguards for special education, students’ records may only be viewed by the parent and individuals who work directly with that student (Tennessee Department of Education, 2016). Therefore, significant caution was taken to

58 ensure that all data remained confidential and no identifying information was documented in the process. A number code was assigned for each participant in the study and maintained throughout the data collection and reporting process.

Data Analysis Process

Creswell (2014) stated that one of the strengths of a qualitative study is the trustworthiness of the study, which was achieved through triangulating the data. Throughout the data analysis process, each data source contributed to a deeper understanding of the phenomenological experiences of the participants (Baxter & Jack, 2008). Furthermore, because this was a qualitative study, the data was collected, organized, and analyzed throughout the research process. This allowed for a greater understanding of students’ experiences about their perceptions of the learning tools they preferred. Once data was gathered from each source, a transcript of the data was created, being mindful to organize the data collectively to gain further insight into the case study as a whole. The transcripts included interview recordings, observation notes, and the focus group recording. To ensure the credibility of the research, trustworthiness techniques were crucial and were incorporated into the data analysis process (Golafshani, 2003).

Therefore, the findings of the data were transcribed as realistically and accurately as possible based on the study participants’ experiences. Additionally, during the focus group interview, member checks were conducted to determine if the research findings were accurate by asking the participants to clarify the transcriptions up to that point to ensure that their responses were understood and conveyed as intended. To further maintain validity, a professional educator was chosen to serve as a peer reviewer to examine the raw data and the transcription of the data. The reviewer then assessed if the interpretation of the data was reasonable by determining if the findings actually occurred and if participants’ experiences were accurately reflected in the report.

The purpose of peer debriefing was to ensure that the qualitative study would be understandable and relatable to individuals not connected with the study (Creswell, 2014). The debriefing process ensured the transcriptions were free from bias and further validated the findings.

Coding and reducing the raw data were then completed by attempting to identify common themes, such as phrases, words, and ideas and by combining the information. Coding the data enabled ideas and concepts to be developed from the raw data set and was used as a method of reducing the amount of data collected throughout the course of the study. Once open coding was completed, axial coding occurred to delve into the data set more specifically. Axial coding made it possible to develop more specific categories around the broader themes identified during open coding. Finally, selective coding was the last step in the process, and it was used to show how the categories were related and to bring the overall categories together to create one common theory (Ary et al., 2014, p. 495).

Summary

This phenomenological case study was more than merely conducting research on one event, situation, or individual. Rather, it was an approach that enabled one to delve further into a phenomenon and how it influences participants’ lives (Baxter & Jack, 2008). The actual study of the participants occurred over the course of two months, but the transcribing and coding were performed continually throughout the data collection process. This coding process ensured that the research was being interpreted with accuracy. Triangulation of data, which is the utilization of multiple methods of recording and interpreting data to improve the analysis process, was achieved by using four sources of data: interviews, observations, a focus group, and artifacts. In addition to the data analysis process, anonymity and confidentiality of the study participants was maintained throughout (Golafshani, 2003). Peer researchers and investigators were involved in

60 the analyzing process. However, because this study was qualitative in nature, students’ thoughts, feelings, and perceptions about digital and print texts were the central focus of data collection. A qualitative method was chosen because this study sought to determine participants’ thoughts and feelings about which types of textbooks facilitated their abilities to learn the most effectively.

This type of method aligned with the theoretical framework of the study because this concept is often influenced by the teacher’s knowledge of the content and the ability to deliver the instruction using technology. Furthermore, it is also influenced by students’ perceptions about how they learn best. Therefore, this information will be useful to the district in which the study occurred as it proceeds with textbook adoptions and seeks ways to maintain the best interest of the student; whether it is the print version of the text, the digital version of the text, or a combination of the two.

Chapter Four: Presentation of Findings

Chapter Four presents an analysis of findings from the data collected for this phenomenological case-study, which sought to identify how well special needs students believe they process and retain informational text using exclusively digital resources. For this case- study, the digital textbook was the primary resource utilized in the data collection process.

However, to have an accurate reflection of students’ perceptions, a printed textbook was also utilized to provide the participants a non-digital resource to use as a comparison. The study consisted of a teacher utilizing the printed textbook exclusively for a unit of instruction, followed by a unit of study exclusively from the digital textbook. No other resources were used during the two units of instruction as this study focused solely on which resource students believe help them learn and retain information most effectively. Therefore, in keeping with the purpose and significance of the study, the research was focused on the following question:

What are the learning satisfaction dispositions of special needs students regarding the academic effects of exclusively using digital resources?

The research question examines if using exclusively digital resources is the most effective medium for supporting special needs students’ abilities to learn and retain informational text.

The research model for this study was a qualitative, phenomenological case-study.

Roberts (2010) stated that qualitative studies are based on the idea of phenomenology, which focuses on personal experiences and the participants’ perspectives. The case-study method of research was used to allow for observations and interviews over a sustained amount of time.

This chapter is comprised of nine sections, which are as follows: descriptive characteristics of study participants, description of the setting, conceptual and theoretical

62 frameworks, data sources, data analysis, emerging themes, trustworthiness techniques, coding table, and summary.

Descriptive Characteristics of Study Participants

This case-study occurred in a rural middle school located in the eastern portion of

Tennessee. To preserve anonymity, the school will be referred to as Tennessee Middle School

(TMS). TMS has a population of approximately 220 students in grades 6-8. The population is approximately 98% white, and the remainder are Hispanic or of mixed origins.

The study occurred in an 8th grade social studies inclusion classroom consisting of 21 students. Seven special needs students served as the study participants, who were assigned a number to maintain confidentiality (Table 4.1).

Table 4.1

Summary of Demographics of Study Participants ______

Participants as Assigned by Number

Study Participants 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ______

Gender F M M M F M F

Race / Ethnicity W W W W W W W

Age 14 14 14 14 13 14 14

Area of Disability RF MC/P RF/C RF/MC RF OHI OHI ______

Note. Area of Disability: RF = Reading Fluency, RF/C = Reading Fluency and Comprehension, RF/MC = Reading Fluency and Math Calculation, MC/P = Math Calculation and Problem Solving, OHI = Other Health Impairment

All students and their parents or guardians signed Informed Consent documents and were advised that their participation was not required and was entirely voluntary. Both the students and the parents/guardians were given opportunities to ask questions and to contact the school if they had any concerns (see Appendices A and B).

Description of the Setting

The study was designed to conduct individual semi-structured interviews, observations, and a focus group with the participants. The classroom teacher agreed to allow the study to occur in his classroom and he agreed to conduct a unit of study utilizing only the printed textbook and a unit utilizing only the digital textbook. An artifact was used to serve as evidence that both units of study were parallel in length, design, and level of difficulty (see Appendix C).

This particular inclusion classroom was chosen because the school district adopted new social studies textbooks for the 2019-2020 school year. The textbook adoption included a printed version and a digital version of the text. Having the new books presented an opportune time to conduct a study about students’ learning preferences regarding the type of textbook used.

The class period in which the study occurred was the first class of the day, and it was 50 minutes in duration. The first half of the period, the teacher gave his lecture, and students completed “fill-in-the-blank” notes as he spoke. The second half of the period was reserved for independent learning. Therefore, the textbooks were primarily utilized during the independent learning segments of the class periods.

Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks

The concept for this study was developed in response to the need to connect one’s knowledge of the content with knowledge of the usage of technology. This concept is supported by the Technical Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) theory, which seeks to define

64 different areas teachers need to know to utilize technology effectively in the classroom

(McGraw-Hill Education, 2017). It is also supported by the Information Processing Theory, which is the term applied to several theories dealing with cognitive processing, organizing, and sequencing information (Schunk, 2012). Both of these theories were key factors in influencing how the data were coded and analyzed.

Data Sources

Semi-structured interviews, classroom observations, a focus group, and an artifact were used to collect data. The analysis of the data contributed to determining three key factors that students believe affect their academic achievement. Those three factors are: the ability to read the material, the ability to retain the information, and the formatting of the type of book being used.

Semi-structured interviews. A semi-structured interview was conducted with each participant individually during a study hall period prior to the beginning of the two experimental units of instruction. The interviews took occurred in a conference room to allow for a quiet space so they could be recorded. The interviewer and the interviewee sat across from one another at the conference table so eye contact could be maintained. The purpose of the semi- structured interviews was to assess students’ prior experiences and knowledge of digital textbooks. Each initial interview consisted of an open-ended set of questions (see Appendix D) with one additional question, “If you could choose which version of textbook you utilized in class, which would it be and why?” The interviews were recorded and transcribed by the Temi application using a smart phone. Additionally, one other semi-structured interview was conducted with each participant after the printed textbook unit of instruction had been completed. This enabled the participants an opportunity to speak about their experience using

65 that medium of textbook immediately following the unit. The interviews were conducted individually, in the conference room of the school, during the study hall period.

Observations. Classroom observations were conducted throughout the two units of study. Four 30-minute observations and one 50- minute observation was completed for each unit of study, for a total of 10 observations. All seven students were observed for on-task and off- task behaviors, as well as verbal behaviors about the assignments given or the textbook being used for each unit of instruction. Data collection for each observation was recorded with hand- written field notes. Each observation was dated, labeled print or digital, and included students’ assigned numbers with their behaviors noted. The field notes were coded manually as a part of the data analysis process.

Focus group. Upon completion of the both units of study, all seven students participated in a focus group interview. There was not a pre-determined set of questions for this interview; however, the participants were asked to discuss their experiences using the digital text in comparison to their experiences using the printed text. Most students spoke freely without prompting. Others had to be prompted with questions such as, “What about you? How do you feel about what he/she just said?” Once students spoke without being questioned, the following questions were posed because they had not been addressed in the conversations, and the information was relevant to the findings: “Were there any features of the digital book that you found helpful?” “Were there any features about the printed textbook that helped you?” “If you could choose which medium you utilized during in-class instruction, would you prefer print or digital, and why?” The focus group interview was also recorded and transcribed by the Temi application using a smart phone.

Artifact. One artifact was obtained to serve as evidence that the social studies teacher planned comparable lessons for both units of study. This lesson plan artifact ensures that the assignments given for each unit of instruction were parallel in the type of assignment given, the number of items to be completed in each assignment, and the level of difficulty for each assignment.

Data Analysis

Ary, Jacobs, Sorensen, and Walker (2014) presented a hierarchical approach to the data analysis process. This process served as the model for analyzing the data for this study. The authors further stated that the analysis method serves as a means of applying meaning to the data.

Organizing and familiarizing. Upon completion of data collection, the information obtained from the observations, interviews, and artifacts was organized by the following groups: initial interviews, printed text interviews and observations, and digital text interviews and observations.

To develop a deeper understanding of the collected data, the groups of data were thoroughly examined several times, making notes of recurring statements or observations and possible emerging themes throughout each analysis. A peer reviewer was consulted at this stage of the process to ensure the accuracy of the identified themes. The reviewer noted possible points to consider when coding the data and one more possible theme to be considered.

Coding and reducing the data. Roberts (2010) stated that the description of the coding process should include specific details about how the large quantity of data was managed to achieve the qualitative analysis. To begin the data-reduction phase of the analysis process, the data were coded manually using note cards, colored pens, post-it notes, and a highlighter.

During open coding, the interview transcripts and the observations were examined, and key

67 statements were highlighted on the transcripts that would lend themselves to answering the research question. To organize the data, the highlighted statements were written onto notecards in a specified color designated for each category. Four categories for the raw data were assigned as follows: printed text pros, printed text cons, digital text pros, and digital text cons. The printed text data were written in one ink color and were labeled “pro” or “con” at the top of the index cards. The digital text data were written in a different color of ink and labeled “pro” or

“con” at the top of the cards as well. The data reduction process continued by examining the data further to determine open codes. The open codes were assigned based on commonalities among the pros and cons for the two types of texts. The following six open codes were assigned: reading fluency, reading comprehension, searching for information, answering questions, user friendly format, and text features. The codes were noted by using post-it notes that were labeled to create new groups.

Axial coding was the next step in the process. Axial coding is designed to create connections from the open codes that were assigned from the raw data (Ary, Jacobs, Sorensen, &

Walker, 2014). This process involved examining the data from the newly formed groups and chunking the data into themes that draw meaning from the open codes. Three prevalent axial codes were identified: reading and comprehension, retention, and formatting.

Interpreting and representing the data. Selective coding indicates that an interpretation about the themes has been developed. The selective coding process indicated that the learning satisfaction dispositions of special needs students regarding the academic effects of exclusively using digital resources is influenced by their ability to read and comprehend the material, their ability to retain the information, and the formatting of the text (see Figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1. Example of coding answering the research question: What are the learning satisfaction dispositions of special needs students regarding the academic effects of exclusively using digital resources?

Raw Data and Source – Digital Text O p en Axial Selective

Cons (Focus. Group) It was hard for me to read because of Reading fluency having to stop and click on words I didn’t understand Reading and .(Observation) Student asked teacher to read isolated comprehending words but did not utilize the read aloud feature. Reading (Focus. Group) I didn’t read any of it. Comprehension

(Focus Group) You don’t really learn anything because

you can just do a Google search for your answer. (Observation) Copying and pasting answers without Searching for reading. Information Retention (Focus Group) I don’t learn as much because I get Students’

distracted and visit other websites. learning Answering Questions satisfaction . dispositions regarding the

academic (Focus Group) There were no hints about where to find effects of using the answers in the chapters. Was it user exclusively (Observation) Students were unable to submit their friendly? - Formatting digital resources chapter tests. Did text features was influenced (Focus Group) We had to scroll up and down a bunch of help? - by their ability times to find what we were looking for. to read and

Pros comprehend, Reading Fluency (Interview) I felt like it was easier to understand retain the

Reading information, and because If I didn’t know a word, I could click on it and Comprehension the format of get the definition. Reading and the book. (Observation) Students were not requesting to have the Comprehending passages read to them and they said they didn’t need to use the read aloud feature. Easier reading level?

(Focus Group) I didn’t use the read aloud but I like

knowingit it is there if I need it.

(Focus Group) I liked the digital book best because I

like working on the computer, so I pay better attention. Searching for (Observation) Students exhibited more time on task. Information Retention (Focus Group) It wasn’t as boring, it was more fun. Answering

being on the digital textbook. Questions

(Focus Group) I liked using the split screen so I could see Was it user friendly? Formatting the book and my answer document. Did text features

(Observation) The assignments were formatted the same Help?

as in the printed book. (Focus Group) The digital book told us when we missed a question.

Emerging Themes and Study Findings

Gu, Wu, and Xu (2014) stated that the digital textbook is the equivalent of the printed textbook and has become an integral component of students’ learning resources. Therefore, the research question that guided this case-study is as follows: What are the learning satisfaction dispositions of special needs students regarding the academic effects of exclusively using digital resources. An analysis of the data for this case-study revealed that three major themes have an effect on students’ use of digital resources: reading and comprehending, retention, and formatting.

Prior to gathering data by observing students’ behaviors and conducting interviews during the two units of instruction, all students were interviewed individually using a semi- structured approach to gain an understanding of their knowledge of digital texts. The interview questions revealed that six of the seven participants had previously utilized a digital textbook and had some knowledge of the difference between using a digital textbook and completing assignments for a class on their digital devices. When asked which style of textbook they would prefer to use when learning content, four participants said they would choose a digital textbook.

Three of the four participants felt that the digital textbook would be easier to use; however, the remining student noted that “we use Chromebooks every day in all of our classes, so we wouldn’t forget our books as often if we used the digital textbooks.” The remaining three participants indicated that they would prefer the printed textbook over the digital because they are more familiar with that type of book, and the digital screen gets blurry after a while.

Reading and Comprehending. Students’ ability to read and comprehend requires that they are able to gather, synthesize, analyze, interpret, and evaluate information (Kong, 2014). In this study, students’ behaviors were observed while completing lessons utilizing both a digital

70 text and a printed text. Semi-structured interviews and a focus group interview provided further details and provided an opportunity to utilize member checking to clarify confusion or misconceptions with students.

Printed textbook observations. Students were observed utilizing the printed textbook for four 30-minute class periods and one 50-minute session. They were required to complete the

“Checks for Understanding,” which included a total of eight questions and the comprehensive chapter assessment, which included 10 short answer questions and four multiple choice questions. The first two 30-minute sessions included students completing the “Checks for

Understanding” while the last two 30-minute sessions and the 50-minute session were utilized completing the chapter assessment. During the sessions utilizing the printed textbook, observations indicated that students exhibit more off task behaviors, such as getting out of their seat, talking, tapping their pencils, and staring at the same page for more than 10 minutes.

During the first 30-minute class period, three students completed three of eight questions, two students completed two of eight questions, one student completed only one question, and one student’s paper was blank. After the second 30-minute session, four participants had completed six of eight questions, two students had completed two questions, and one student had completed only one question. Two students requested their read aloud accommodation for the entire text material, and one student requested the read aloud accommodation for the questions only. The chapter assessment took considerably longer to complete for most students. Two students were observed working diligently throughout the first two sessions and did not require the use of the

50-minute session to complete their assessment. Neither student asked for a read aloud accommodation. When completing member checks, both students stated that the assessment was difficult, but they felt like they did “ok.” The remaining students exhibited behaviors that

71 suggested they were struggling with reading the material. They labored over each question for approximately 15 minutes before writing down an answer. Five of the remaining students required the full length of both 30-minute sessions and the 50-minute session to complete their assessment. One participant did not complete the task.

Digital textbook observations. Students were observed working with the digital textbook for a duration of four 30-minute class periods and one 50-minute session. Two of the 30-minute sessions required students to complete “Checks for Understanding” throughout the chapter, which consisted of a total of eight questions. The remaining sessions were spent completing a comprehensive chapter assessment with 10 short answer questions and four multiple choice questions. The participants were observed reading the questions and searching for answers.

Two participants asked the teacher to read isolated words periodically, but they did not utilize the read aloud feature that was available within the digital textbook. The teacher reminded the students that they could utilize that feature, yet both declined, stating that they did not need it.

The remaining participants were observed to be on-task while working on the assignment. The participants required two 30-minute sessions and one 50-minute session to complete the chapter assessment.

Printed Textbook Interviews. Upon completion of the printed textbook unit of study, an individual semi-structured interview was conducted. The initial guiding question asked students to describe their experience using the printed textbook. Student 2 stated, “I had to have help like someone reading it to me, but it was ok I guess.” Student 3 said, “It was really hard. It had a bunch of confusing questions. I went back in the chapter and read it again and again and I still didn’t understand them.” Student 4 indicated that it had very hard words to understand. Student

5 stated, “There were some words I didn’t know how to read and didn’t understand. I tried using

72 my context clues to help me figure them out.” Student 5 also stated that having to go back and read the chapter again helped him because he understood features and details he second time that he did not understand the first time. Student 8 did not like the printed textbook at all because it was too much to read and took too long to complete the assignments.

Digital Textbook Focus Group. Upon completion of both units of study utilizing the print and digital texts, students participated in a focus group interview in a semi-structured fashion. The initial interview question asked students to describe their experience using the digital textbook. Participant 6 stated, “It seemed easier to me because I could click on a word and it would tell me what it meant, so I was able to figure out some of the questions that way.”

Five of the participants agreed with that statement. Their overall consensus was that reading in the digital textbook seemed easier because the participants could comprehend the meaning of unfamiliar words, which enabled them to comprehend the questions. However, Students 2 and 4 stated that they preferred reading from the printed book. When asked how reading from the digital textbook was any different from the other activities on their digital devices, one of them said it was easier for her to read the book because the digital screen made her eyes hurt after a while. The other participant stated that he enjoys being on the Chromebook, but not for reading a lot of information. He stated it was too difficult for him to understand trying to read it on the digital device. He was unable to explain why it seemed more difficult.

Retention. Student retention of informational text was the second theme that had an effect on students’ learning satisfaction dispositions. Retention is often linked to student engagement. Some educators believe using digital technology in the classroom can retain students’ focus and improve student achievement (Picton, 2019).

Printed Textbook Observation. Participants were instructed to read the chapters and answer the “Checks for Understanding” questions after each section. Most students were observed reading the questions first and then skimming the chapter for the answers. They were turning the pages back and forth reading the questions again while continually searching for answers. One student commented out loud, “This is too hard. I can’t remember all of this stuff.”

However, only two students were observed with their pencils down reading the entire section of information in the textbook. Neither student answered any questions during the first 30-minute class period. During the second 30-minute class period, one of the two students skimmed back over the chapter before answering any of the questions. The other student immediately began answering questions by looking back in the sections. By the end of the second class, one of the two students had completed all eight questions, and the other student had completed six. The remaining five students had completed approximately half of the questions. They were instructed to take the assignment home and do it for homework. Student retention became an emerging theme because students were not taking the time to read the chapter. When asked why they were not reading the material first, the majority replied that it takes too long to read it, and they would prefer to just read the question and try to find the answers. The chapter assessment took both of the remaining 30-minute class periods and the 50-minute class to complete. It had considerably more questions and the assessment was comprehensive, whereas the first assignment only covered a few sections of the chapter. Most students exhibited effort in completing the task initially; however, after the second day, three of the participants were showing frustration and began guessing at their answers for the purpose of finishing the assignment more quickly. It is important to note that those three students completed the

74 assessment within 10-15 minutes of the others. One of the participants exhibited minimal effort and did not complete the task.

Digital Textbook Observation. The observations of the students utilizing the digital textbook revealed that students attempted to complete the tasks assigned to them by reading the questions and scrolling up or down through the chapter to find their answers. Throughout each session, all students “appeared” to be on task the majority of the class period; however, upon further inspection, three out of seven participants had minimized the textbook tab and were searching for videos and music. When the teacher approached them, they quickly re-opened the textbook tab. When conducting member checks regarding this behavior, each student admitted to being off task much of the time. While students were completing the “Checks for

Understanding,” other behaviors noted were students hunched over their Chromebooks scrolling up and down, using the search bar within the textbook to search for information, and copying and pasting questions and answers to their documents. Member checks further revealed that the search bar within the textbook only produced a listing of information about where that word or topic was mentioned throughout the entire textbook. Therefore, they began copying and pasting the questions onto the Google search bar without reading them first. This produced, what students perceived to be, complete answers, so they copied and pasted the answers onto their answer documents having no idea if the answers were correct. Member checks revealed that all of the students admitted to searching, copying, and pasting their answers for that assignment.

This practice proved to be a problem when they completed the assessment at the end of the chapter. The questions to the assessment could not be copied, nor could the answers be pasted.

The assessment answers had to be posted directly onto the digital textbook answer document.

The entire group spent a lengthy amount of time trying to determine a way around the copy and

75 paste issue instead of learning and retaining the information. When the teacher questioned the class about the unit and the assessment, only two participants in the study could state the topic of the unit and only one student in the group was able to correctly answer a question from the assessment.

Printed Textbook Interviews. Students were asked how well they believed they learned and retained information while using the printed textbook. Student 2 stated that she learned more from the printed textbook because she had to take the time to read the information. She said the reading was difficult for her, but she learned more because she had to try. Student 4 indicated that he learned best using the printed textbook because he was forced to read the information. Student 5 stated, “The fact that I had already read the chapter helped me a lot, but there was so much reading that by the time I got to the questions, I couldn’t remember a lot of what I read. It was very confusing some of the time.” However, Student 7 stated that he did not put any effort into learning the material because reading books is boring. He further stated that the questions were not hard, but he was not interested in trying to find the answers in the book, so he wrote down what he knew and guessed at the remainder of the questions. Students 3, 6, and 8 commented that the questions were somewhat easy, and they knew some of the answers, but they guessed at the remainder of the questions.

Digital Text Focus Group. A portion of the focus group discussion centered around students’ retention of the material presented to them and their active engagement with the digital textbook. Student 2 believes she did not learn much from the digital book because it was hard for her eyes to focus on the words on the screen. She stated that she also lost focus using the digital textbook because she opened other tabs and played games when the teacher was not watching her. Student 3 stated that the digital textbook was much easier because all he had to do

76 was copy and paste his answers, so he was able to finish quickly and play games afterward.

However, he believes he learns best from the printed textbook because although he must flip through the pages, he is still reading the information and learning the answers. Student 4 commented, “You don’t really learn anything from the digital book because you just like search it up on Google and copy it to your document. You don’t have to like work for it and then try to find the answer like you do in the printed textbook. I think I learned better using the printed book, but I think the digital book was easier and more fun.” Participant 5 replied, “I still think I learn more using the digital textbook because I like doing my work on the computers, and if I don’t understand a word I can click on it and it will show me the definition. That way when I go back to the paragraph to read it again, I will understand it better.” Participant 6 believes she learns best from the printed book because it is what she has always used, so it seems easier to her. Conversely, Student 7 stated that the digital textbook was annoying because staring at the screen made him want to doze off, so he could not stay focused on the information.

Formatting. The formatting of the textbook was the final theme that emerged from the analysis of the data. Woody, Daniel, and Baker (2010) stated that the design of a text, regardless of whether it is digital or printed, can influence student motivation, willingness to be engaged, and the overall effectiveness of the book.

Printed Textbook Observations. As students read the printed textbooks and completed their assignments, observations were made about how the book was formatted and text features included within the book. The chapter in which the students were working included the following features: pictures with captions relative to the material being presented, highlighted content-area vocabulary words, definitions of the highlighted words in the margin of the text, headings and sub-headings for the sections and sub-sections, “Checks for Understanding”

77 questions at the end of each section within the chapter, a chapter assessment, and a grid at the bottom of the assessment indicating in which section of the chapter each answer can be found.

The “Checks for Understanding” questions had a guiding word typed in front of each question indicating what type of question students were to answer, such as describing, analyzing, inferring, etc. These individual words were confusing to the students. They asked the teacher what the words meant, so he explained that feature to the whole class. Students were observed utilizing all of the aforementioned features while completing their unit assignments. One of the participants exclaimed out loud, “Hey ya’ll the book tells you where to find the answers at the bottom of the page!” Each participant immediately turned to the back page of the assessment to find the answer grid. One participant commented to her neighbor, “This makes it so much easier!” Six of the seven participants completed the assessment within the two 30-minute class periods and a portion of the 50-minute class period. They did not need all of the last day of observation to complete the task. The remaining student completed three questions on the assessment through the duration of all three class periods.

Digital Textbook Observations. Observing the formatting of the digital textbook also occurred while participants were working on their chapter assignments. The following features were noted on the digital textbook: a speaker for the read aloud option, highlighted vocabulary words, the ability to click on unfamiliar words to see a definition, a search bar within the textbook, pictures with captions, links to videos for further information and enrichment, and the ability to utilize a split screen option for ease of answering questions onto a google document.

The “Checks for Understanding” questions also included the guiding words to indicate the type of question the students were answering. Students could copy and paste questions into a Google search bar to retrieve an answer for the questions within the chapter; however, they were unable

78 to copy and paste the questions and answers to the chapter assessment. The assessment required students to answer the questions on the assessment page of the text. After each question, students were to click “save.” There was not a “submit” button for students to click to turn in the assessment. The teacher and the students assumed that the assessment would be automatically sent to the teacher’s textbook account for scoring. The participants asked the teacher how they were to turn in the test, and he replied, “I believe the computer program will send your tests to my login.” However, once all assessments were completed, the teacher was unable to score them because no tests had been automatically submitted. He spent another class period doing research on how students were to submit their tests. He found a tab within the teacher resources that would have enabled him to assign the tests for scoring. He did not re-assign the tests to the students because they had already utilized three class periods taking the assessment and they would have had to start from the beginning.

Printed Textbook Interviews. During the individual interviews, students were asked if the book had any features that helped them or hindered them while they were trying to complete their tasks, and why. Student 2 suggested that the book made it easy to find the answers because the chapter questions were printed below the section of the chapter to which they pertained.

Students 3 indicated that it was difficult to find the answers to the questions. He said the

“Checks for Understanding” questions were just as difficult as the chapter test at the end of the chapter. He also stated that the headings in the sections helped him find what he was looking for some of the time, but it was more difficult when he had to refer to the beginning of the chapter to look for information. Student 4 stated, “I used the captions on the side and the titles of the chapter sections… there was thing at the bottom of the chapter test that helped me a lot too. It told me where to find the answers to the questions.” Participant 5 replied, “It was kind of easy

79 because like the questions were at the place where the answers were, so all I had to do was look right above the questions to find the answers. He provided an example of how the section headings helped him: “The question might be about farming, so I could find the title ‘Farming’ above the section where I could find the answer. It was kind of complicated though because it was easy to lose your place flipping back and forth between pages.” Participant 7 stated, “It was boring and annoying. I didn’t like flipping through all the pages and it was harder looking back to find the answers. It didn’t interest me having to try to read the book. I like Social Studies, but

I didn’t like using the book.” Student 8 commented, “I used the little paragraphs near the pictures to help me understand the information… It was kind of annoying because the pages kept flipping up and I kept losing my place.”

Digital Focus Group Interview. Students were presented with the same question for the focus group when discussing their experiences utilizing the digital textbook. Participant 2 responded that she liked using the digital book because she could search for the question in the search bar, and the search feature would take her to the answer to her question. She clarified that she was using the search bar within the textbook instead of a Google search. Participant 3 said he liked the digital textbook because it was easier to find the answers. A follow-up question was posed: Were there any helpful hints in the digital textbook to help you find the answers like the ones included in the printed textbook? He replied, “No, it only gave you the question. We had to figure out where to find the answers. I didn’t like scrolling up and down to over and over, so I copied and pasted the question and did a Google search for the answers. Student 4 stated that he did not like scrolling up and down on the digital textbook because it was difficult to find what he was searching for, and he kept losing his place. He also stated that he liked the printed book better because he could look at more than one page at a time and skim the information to

80 locate his topic. Participant 6 commented that the digital textbook showed them the correct answers to questions they missed; therefore, she felt she did not learn anything using the digital book because she just scrolled down and clicked any answer she wanted to, knowing that it would correct her. Participant 8 stated that she preferred the digital textbook because she did not like flipping the pages in the printed book, and she preferred using a Google document to answer on her Chromebook. She was asked how she used the Google document with the digital textbook, and she said she used a split screen where one half of the screen was the textbook and one half of the screen was her answer document. She said that was easier for her than flipping through the book and answering the questions on paper. One final question was posed to each participant during the focus interview. Each participant was asked, “Now that you have used both a printed textbook and a digital textbook, which one do you feel helps you perform better academically?” Some of the participants’ answers changed from when the question was initially presented to them, while others’ opinions stayed the same. Their responses can be found in

Table 4.2.

Table 4.2

Student Textbook Preferences ______Study Participants Before Data Collection After Printed Textbook After Study Completion ______

2 Print Print Digital 3 Print Digital Print 4 Digital Print Print 5 Digital Digital Print 6 Print Print Print 7 Digital Digital Print 8 Digital Digital Digital

Trustworthiness Techniques

To ensure the validity of the data collection, triangulation of data, member checking, and peer debriefing was implemented.

Credibility. A peer reviewer was consulted during the study. The reviewer viewed the data, the methods of organizing the data, and the codes that had been identified from the raw data. The educator suggested that the raw data could be categorized by the type of textbook that was used and by pros and cons for each book to assist in data reduction and to identify possible emerging themes.

To ensure credibility with the data collection process, multiple sources of data were obtained to reach triangulation. The data sources obtained were semi-structured interviews, observations, a focus group interview, and an artifact of lesson plans for the units of instruction.

Transferability. A rich and sufficiently thick description of the participant characteristics, setting of the study, observed behaviors, and interview responses was presented so the findings of the study can be generalized to other groups or within other contexts.

Dependability. Member checks were used throughout to support the dependability of the study. Participants were asked to clarify or validate the impressions obtained through observations.

Confirmability. To obtain confirmability, an audit trail was maintained, which included transcripts of interviews, field notes from observations, cards utilized for coding, and the coding tables. Data transcription occurred throughout the study as interviews were conducted.

Organizing and coding occurred following the completion of the data collection. To further enhance confirmability, data triangulation and peer review were utilized.

Coding Table

Figure 4.1 provides an example of the coding process beginning with the raw data to answer the following research question: What are the learning satisfaction dispositions of special needs students regarding the academic effects of exclusively using digital resources?

Summary

The purpose of this study was to determine if students’ literacy, including reading comprehension and recall, were affected by the use of print or digital texts based on the perceptions of 8th grade special education students in a social studies inclusion classroom.

Therefore, the research question was answered by using a phenomenological case study so students’ perceptions and personal experiences could be better understood and documented. The conceptual framework evolved because of the need to connect knowledge of content with the knowledge of technology. Therefore, the TPACK theory (McGraw-Hill Education, 2017) and the Information Processing Theory (Schunk, 2012) served as the theoretical frameworks for this study. The following three factors emerged that influence the learning satisfaction dispositions of special needs students regarding academic achievement effects or exclusively using digital resources: reading and comprehending, retention, and formatting.

Reading and comprehending emerged as a theme, indicating that special needs students who struggle with reading disabilities are greatly affected by the inability to fluently read the text. Content area vocabulary poses a significant challenge for students with a disability in reading fluency or comprehension. Participants reported that having the content-specific vocabulary words highlighted and the definitions readily available to them impacted their ability to read and comprehend the material. Participants also reported that having a ‘read aloud’ feature on the book could be helpful when the information became too difficult for them to read.

Retention is closely related to the ability to read and comprehend; therefore, it also emerged as theme affecting students’ satisfaction dispositions. Students reported that their inability to read and comprehend caused them to give up and quit trying to learn the information presented to them. Students began answering questions with guesswork rather than knowledge about the subject being taught. When using the digital textbook, they did not attempt to read the information, and copied and pasted the questions and answers in order to complete the assignment. It is not uncommon for special needs students to work toward assignment completion rather than retention because the latter is so difficult to attain.

Finally, the formatting of the textbook was identified as a key theme in affecting students’ learning satisfaction dispositions. Observations throughout this study revealed that students were more apt to be engaged when the format of the textbook did not serve as a barrier for them. Special needs students are faced with many educational challenges. The format of the text, whether it is print or digital, has a great bearing on student motivation, engagement, and ability to process and retain information. A task as simple as scrolling up and down on a digital device can prove to be a distraction for some students; likewise, the flipping back and forth of pages in a textbook are also frustrating to some. Students are less likely to be engaged in the lesson if the medium from which they are being taught is not ‘user-friendly.’

At the onset of this study, four out of seven participants stated they would prefer to learn from a digital textbook, and the remaining three participants preferred to learn from a printed textbook. However, by the conclusion of the study, only two participants identified the digital textbook as their preferred medium for learning instruction. The others chose the printed textbook in spite of the difficulties they experienced reading the material. One participant said,

“The digital textbook may have been easier for me to complete my assignments, but I learned more using the printed textbook because I was forced to work for it and read the material.”

Chapter 5: Conclusion, Implications, and Recommendations

Technological innovation is the moving force of fundamental changes in all facets of daily life. This is especially true with the use of digital content for the purpose of educating students in an ever-changing society. The benefits of using digital resources are plentiful. They can be continuously maintained and kept current, are cost-effective, can be made available anytime and anywhere, including both on- and offline, and can be far more engaging than the traditional print texts (Fletcher, Schaffhauser, & Levin, 2012). However, are digital texts the most effective means of improving academic achievement for all students? While some students’ academic achievement may not be affected by the type of text presented to them, others, like the special education population, might be greatly affected. Therefore, the purpose of this qualitative phenomenological case study was to determine if special needs students’ perceptions of their academic achievement were affected by the medium from which their instruction was delivered. The study involved seven special needs 8th grade students and served as the basis for the conclusions, implications, and recommendations for the study. This chapter is presented in six sections: research question, conclusions and summary of findings, limitations and delimitations, implications for practice, recommendations for research, and summary of the study.

Research Question

The research question supported the conceptual and theoretical frameworks for the study, as well as the purpose of the study. It considers how well students believed they process and retain informational text using both the print and digital versions of the same textbook and if the teacher’s knowledge about the use of the digital version of the text had an effect on students’ abilities to process and retain information. Therefore, the following research question guided

86 this study: What are the learning satisfaction dispositions of special needs students regarding the academic effects of exclusively using digital resources? A thorough analysis of the data revealed that special needs students’ learning satisfactions dispositions are affected by their ability to read and comprehend the information, their ability to retain the information, and the formatting of the textbook.

Conclusion and Summary of Findings

As participants experienced both print and digital textbooks for the duration of this study, three core themes emerged as factors that contribute to the academic achievement and learning satisfaction dispositions of the students. Throughout the data collection process, all participants revealed that the ability to read and comprehend the text, their ability to retain the information in the text, and the formatting of the text are contributing factors to their ability to learn effectively.

This section of the chapter will discuss the relevancy to the theoretical framework and the three main themes in more detail.

Relevancy of theoretical framework. The Information Processing Theory and the

Technical Pedagogical Content Knowledge Theory (TPACK) were referenced as the frameworks for this study.

Information Processing Theory. Information processing is not the name of a particular theory. It is a generic term applied to several different theoretical ideas relative to the sequencing and execution of cognitive processes. The perspectives that comprise these theories are as follows: “Humans are processors of information. The mind is an information-processing system. Cognition is a series of mental processes. Learning is the acquisition of mental representations” (Mayer, 1996; Schunk, 2020, p. 164). Information processing is relevant to this study because special needs students’ perceptions about how they learn best is greatly influenced

87 by their abilities to process and retain information. Students with learning disabilities have typical cognitive functioning; however, their ability to apply their cognition to learning is assumed to be affected by their specific learning disorder (Juntorn, Sriphetcharawut, and

Munkhetvit, 2017).

Technical Pedagogical Content Knowledge Theory. Three core attributes lend themselves to what is considered “good teaching:” content, pedagogy, and technology, along with the relationship connecting them (Koehler and Mishra, 2009). Teaching with technology is a complicated process given the ever-changing challenges that newer forms of digital devices and content resources present. While teachers are inundated with ongoing trainings relative to their knowledge about the content area in which they specialize, minimal training is offered with how to connect that knowledge with the use of present-day technology. Furthermore, when trainings are offered, they usually consist of a few hours or one day, but rarely provide ongoing trainings or support for the digital content or devices with which they are asked to convey information. TPACK Theory is relevant to this study because the teacher involved in the study presented instructional content with new resources, both in print and digitally.

Reading and comprehending. The participants in this study were exposed to units of instruction, both with a printed textbook and a digital textbook. Their perceptions about their abilities to read and comprehend the information were somewhat varied. When utilizing the printed textbooks, students expressed frustration with the inability to read the material because it contained several key terms with which the students were unable to read and unable to understand the meanings. While the printed textbook highlighted and defined several key terms, there were other terms that the students did not know how to read. Some students asked for assistance with reading isolated words, while others needed the entire passage read aloud to them

88 to increase their ability to comprehend the material. Additionally, there was a significant amount of off-task behaviors when students were using the printed textbook. Overall, students stated that the reading level was too difficult for them, so they gave up in many instances and began guessing to complete their assignments.

However, when the students interacted with the digital textbook, the text was equipped with a read aloud option to help students with learning needs to have full access to the curriculum. Those same students did not take advantage of that feature within the digital textbook, stating that the digital book seemed easier for them to read. Overall, the students stated that when they took the printed textbook home to work on their homework, they had no supports at home to assist with reading the material, but if they had to complete an assignment with the digital textbook, they had the read aloud option if they need it, regardless of whether they were at school or at home. Schunk (2020) stated that both good and poor readers can locate key information within a text; however, what distinguishes one from the other is the ability to process the information and comprehend it to the fullest extent.

Retention. One of the stages of information processing includes planning, organizing, and problem solving, which is required for students to learn to solve more complex problems and to be able to learn independently. Furthermore, the last stage of information processing involves processing output and feedback. Research shows that students with learning disabilities often have problems with these stages of processing, which cause great difficulty with being able to self-instruct (Juntorn, Sriphetcharawut, & Munkhetvit, 2017). This inability to process information and learn independently also inhibits students’ ability to retain information.

Additionally, poor readers are often more concerned with decoding words, so they become easily distracted and do not process it adequately for retention and retrieval to occur (Schunk, 2020).

During this study, students noted great difficulty with the reading levels of the text to the point that they became distracted or frustrated. Subsequently, they began answering the questions in the assignments without having read the material. This was particularly true when they interacted with the printed textbook. The reading was so laborious that by the time the students were ready to answer the questions, they had been unable to retain any of the information from the reading passage. Several students stated that they had to go back and re-read the information numerous times, but still had difficulty remembering what they had read. However, when students interacted with the digital textbook, they experienced some of the same issues with the inability to read the text; however, they learned to copy the questions into a search engine and paste the answers to their answer document. This practice eliminated the need to read the material altogether. When questioned by the teacher about the assignment, participants had great difficulty discussing the topic of the information in the unit because they had failed to read the information in the passages. Their primary goal was assignment completion, rather than information retention. During the focus group interview, students stated that they felt like they learned more from the printed textbook because they did not have the option to copy and paste their information. They were forced to attempt to read the passages so they could complete the required tasks. Some stated that although the printed textbook was more difficult, they felt they learned more during that unit of instruction.

Formatting. Learning may be impacted by both the medium through which text is presented and the format of the text (Rockinson-Szapkiw, et al, 2012). For example, the design of the textbook, whether it is in digital or printed format, can influence its effectiveness with the learner. Formatting can also have an effect on student motivation and engagement (Woody,

Daniel, & Baker, 2009). Throughout the course of this study, students experienced the same

90 subject matter through two different mediums. The formatting of the text became a key factor in the participants’ learning satisfaction dispositions. When interacting with the digital format, students expressed a liking for the search bar within the text, but they favored using a search engine for their information instead. Students felt negatively about the fact that they could only scroll up and down to look for information. They could not see more than one page of text at a time, which required them to continually scroll up and down through the textbook to locate the information for which they were searching. In addition to their frustrations with scrolling up and down within the text, participants also expressed dissatisfaction with their inability to submit their documents with the chapter assessment to the teacher without having to copy and paste the entire assessment to an answer document. The assessment allowed them to save their answers but gave no indication of how the assessment should be submitted to the instructor of the class.

Furthermore, when compared to the printed textbook, the digital textbook did not have the guiding features that provided hints or clues about where the information for the assigned questions could be located within the text. The students found that feature to be helpful when completing the assigned tasks in the printed textbook. They cited a much greater length of time for task completion with the digital text because there were no clues to assist them. Therefore, participants resorted to using the copy and paste feature due to the time-consuming nature of the assigned work. Upon completion of both units, five of the seven participants stated that they would prefer to learn from a printed textbook due to the frustrations they experienced during the digital textbook unit of instruction.

Limitations and Delimitations

The limitation that was identified with this study was the inability to choose the textbook that was utilized during the two units of instruction. The school district in which the study

91 occurred adopted new social studies textbooks for the 2019-2020 school year. This was a limitation because textbooks published by other companies might have included different features and resources that could have affected the participants’ opinions about the two different mediums of the text.

The delimitations considered the time constraints for completion of the study and the size of the sample population. If the study had included a larger sampling, including students with and without learning disabilities, the findings might have been different.

Implications for Practice

Many school systems are making sizeable investments into 1:1 technology initiatives that will place digital devices into the hands of each student. While these initiatives are welcomed and necessary, it is important to consider that the investments of technology must also be paired with strong implementation if the use of technology is going to improve learning outcomes for students (Sheninger, 2015). Many educators have chosen to shift their methods of educating students to an exclusively digitized classroom. However, when considering how and when to use digital textbooks as the primary source of delivering instruction in the classroom, educators should seek to meet the needs of all learners, including those with learning disabilities. Because the needs and accommodations of special needs students are so varied, digital implementation should serve as a support to classroom instruction, rather than the primary source of delivering instruction. Additionally, student attention and engagement is critical for learning to occur.

School systems, seeking to move away from printed textbooks to a digitized version, should consider the various learning differences and needs of students. Educators could be encouraged to allow students to choose which medium of text they utilize for learning content in the classroom so that increased student engagement and motivation will lead to improved academic

92 achievement. Requiring all students to learn from exclusively digital resources does not provide full access to the curriculum for everyone.

Recommendations for Research

According to the participants in this study, the digital textbook used to deliver the instruction was not “user-friendly,” creating confusion and frustration for learners who struggle to comprehend and retain information. Therefore, as more schools participate in textbook adoptions and consider the need for printed texts, digital texts, or both, more relevant research is needed to determine the reliability of each medium of text to meet the needs of special needs students in today’s classrooms.

Summary of the Study

The purpose of this qualitative, phenomenological case study was to determine if student literacy, including comprehension and recall, were affected by the exclusive use of digital resources. The following research question guided this study: What are the learning satisfaction dispositions of special needs students regarding the academic effects of exclusively using digital resources? To answer the research question, the study was conducted by comparing students’ perceptions of their academic achievement when learning exclusively from a digital textbook and from a printed textbook. Data were obtained from four sources: semi-structured interviews, observations, a focus group interview, and artifacts. After a thorough analysis of the data, the following three themes emerged: reading and comprehending, retention, and formatting. These themes are indicative of their influence on students’ learning satisfaction dispositions when using exclusively digital resources. This study was important because it addressed the need for educators to consider the learning abilities and disabilities of all students when determining how, when, and to what extent digital resources should be used to increase student achievement.

References

Acker, S. R. (2011). Digital textbooks: A state-level perspective on affordability and

Improved learning outcomes. The No Shelf Required Guide to E-book Purchasing.

Retrieved from https://www.journals.ala.org/index.php/lts/article/view/4420/5131

Alexander, P. A. & Trakhman, L. M. S. (2017). The enduring power of print for learning

in a digital world. The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/the-

enduring-power-of-print-for-learning-in-a-digital-world-84352

Alvarez, B. (2013). As more schools embrace tablets, do textbooks have a fighting chance?

neaToday. Retrieved from neatoday.org/2013/07/31/as-more-schools-embrace-tablets-

do-textbooks-have-a-fighting-chance-2/

Alvermann, D. E. (2002). Effective literacy instruction for adolescents. Journal of Literacy

Research, 34(2). Retrieved from journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1207/s15548430

jlr3402_4

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Sorensen, C., & Walker, D. A. (2014). Introduction to research in

Education, 9th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Ash, K. (2010). U.S. ed-tech plan prods K-12 to innovate. Education Week. Retrieved from

https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/03/05/24edtech.h29.html?print=1

Barone, D. & Wright, T. E. (2008). Literacy instruction with digital and media technologies.

The Reading Teacher, 62(4), 292-302. doi: 10.1598/RT.62.4.2

Baxter, P. & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and

implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559.

Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol13/iss4/2

Bean-Mellinger, B. (2018). Introduction of print media. A History of Inventions. Retrieved

From http://www.localhistories.org/communications.html

Bloom, Z. (2019). A quick history of digital communication before the internet. Retrieved from

https://eager.io/blog/communication/pre-internet//

Boone, R. & Higgins, K. (2003). Reading, writing, and publishing digital text. Remedial and

Special Education, 24, 132-140. doi: 10.1177/07419325030240030201

Brantlinger, E., Jimenez, R., Klingner, J., Pugach, M., & Richardson, V. (2005). Qualitative

studies in special education. Exceptional Children 71(2), 195-207. Retrieved from

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/001440290507100205

Brown, G. (2012). Replacing paper textbooks with e-Books and digital devices. The Journal

of Education, Community, and Values, 12, 15-18. Retrieved from http://commons/

pacific.edu/inter12

Chen, G. (2019). The advent of the digital textbook: Boon or bust? Public School Review.

Retrieved from https://www.publicschoolreview.com/blog/the-advent-of-the-digital-

textbook-boon-or-bust

Chesser, W. D. (2012). Chapter 5: The e-textbook revolution. In S. Polanka (ed.), The No-Shelf

Required Guide to E-book Purchasing. Retrieved from

https://www.journals.ala.org/index.php/ltr/article/view/4426/5143

Creswell, J. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAFE Publications, Inc.

Delzotto, N. (n.d.). What is the effect of computer technology in education? It Still Works.

Retrieved from https://itstillworks.com/effect-computer-technology-education-1607.html

Embong, A. M., Noor, A. M., Hashim, H. M., Ali, R. M., & Shaari, Z. H. (2012). E-books as

textbooks in the classroom. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 47(2012), 1802-

1809. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.903

Five original writing systems. (n.d.). Laboratory of Kuang Yu Chen, Rutgers University.

Retrieved from chemsites.chem.rutgers.edu/-kyc/Five Original Writing Systems.html

Fletcher, G., Schaffhauser, D., & Levin, D. (2012). Out of print: Reimagining the K-12

textbook in a digital age. Washington, DC: State Educational Technology Directors

Association (SETDA).

Foasberg, N. M. (2014). Student reading practices in print and electronic media. College and

Research Libraries. doi: 10.5860/crl.75.5.705

Fusch, P. I., Ph.D & Ness, L. R. (2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative

research. The Qualitative Report, 20(9), 1408-1416. Retrieved from http://nsuworks.

Nova.edu/tqr/vol20/iss9/3

Gaudet, J. (2019). The pharaoh’s treasure: When papyrus ruled the world. Ancient Egypt.

Retrieved from https://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer gho007. (2017, March 22). Chapter 17 – Origins and evolution of writing systems. Language

Evolution [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://blogs.ntu.edu.sg/hss-language-

evolution/wiki/chapter-17/

Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The

Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597-606. Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/

vol8/iss4/6

Groenwald, T. (2004). A phenomenological research design illustrated. International Journal

of Qualitative Methods. Retrieved from journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/16094069

0400300104

Gu, X., Wu, B., & Xu, X. (2014). Design, development, and learning in e-Textbooks: What

we learned and where we are going. Journal of Computer Education. doi: 10.1007/

s40692-014-0023-9

Hangen, T. (2015). Historical digital literacy, one classroom at a time. The Journal of American

History. doi: 10,1093/jahist/jav062

Heider, K., Laverick, D., & Bennett, B. (2009). Digital Textbooks: The next paradigm shift in

higher education? Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education Journal,

17(2), 103-112. Retrieved from https://learntechlib.org/p/27054/

Hezser, C. (2010). Oral and written communication and transmission of knowledge in ancient

Judaisim and Christianity. Center for Studies in Oral Tradition, 25(1). Retrieved from

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/402426/summary

Hills, T., Ph. D. (2016). The evolution of the written word. Psychology Today. Retrieved from

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/statistical-life/201612/the-evolution-the-

written-word

History of tablets v. textbooks. (2018). ProCon.org. Retrieved from https://tablets-textbooks.

procon.org/view,resource.php?resourceID=006584

Jamshed, S. (2014). Qualitative research method-interviewing and observation. Journal of

Basic and Clinical Pharmacy, 5(4), 87-88. doi: 10.4103/0976-0105.141942

Juntorn, S., Sriphetcharawut, S., Munkhetvit, P. (2017). Effectiveness of information processing

strategy training on academic task performance in children with learning disabilities:

A pilot study. Occupational Therapy International. doi: 10.1155.2017/6237689

Kehl, D., Morris, S., & Tepe, L. (2014). Connected communities in an age of digital learning:

A vision for a 21st century E-rate program. New America – Education Policy Program

and the Open Technology Institute. Retrieved from static.newamerica.org/attachments/

775-connected-communities-in-an-age-of-digital-learning/ERate_Brief_NAF.pdf

Kitzinger, J. (1995). Introducing focus groups. BMJ 1995, 311, 299-302. Retrieved from

s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/38631248/bmj00603-0031.pdf

Koc, D. K. & Koc, S. E. (2016). Understanding learner autonomy through cognitive,

metacognitive and social strategies used by English language learners in a

computer-based classroom. The Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 2016(2),

58-69. Retrieved from https://0-search-ebscohoa5e2/1?st com.library.acaweb.org

/login.aspx?Direct=true&db=ufh&AN=133646434&site=eds-live

Kong, S. C. (2014). Developing information literacy and critical thinking skills through

domain knowledge learning in digital classrooms: An experience of practicing

flipped classroom strategy. Computers and Education, 78, 160-173. doi: 10.1016/

j.compedu.2014.05.009

Kreis, S. (2016). Lectures on modern European intellectual history: The printing press.

The History Guide. Retrieved from www.historyguide.org/intellect/press.html

Lachner, D. (n.d.). Software used in education. It Still Works. Retrieved from

https://itstillworks.com/software-used-education-7815997.html

Lazovsky, R., Dr. (2008). Maintaining confidentiality with minors: Dilemmas of school

counselors. ASCA Professional School Counseling. Retrieved from pdfs.semantic

scholar.org/5c0a/082808e8/ccadeae9f9ff049

Ludvigsen, S., Stahl, G., Law, N., Cress, U. (2015). From the editors: Collaboration and the

Formation of new knowledge artifacts. International Society of the Learning

Sciences, 10, 1-6.

Lynch, M. (2017). What are the benefits of digital textbooks? The Tech Edvocate.

Retrieved from https://www.thetechedvocate.org/benefits-digital-textbooks/

Lynch, R. T. & Gussel, L. (1996). Disclosure and self-advocacy regarding disability-

related needs: Strategies to maximize integration in postsecondary education.

Journal of Counseling & Development, 74. Retrieved from searchproquest.com/open

view/0013f8067c13aded4c74c0c029e8

Lynch, W. (n.d.). Negative effects of internet in education. It Still Works. Retrieved from

https://itstillworks.com/negative-effects-internet-education-2002.html

Mark, E. (2016). Chinese writing. Retrieved from https://www.ancient.eu/writing/

Mark, J.M. (2011). Writing. Retrieved from https://www.ancient.eu/writing/

Mark, J.M. (2016). Ancient Egyptian writing. Retrieved from https://www.ancient.eu/Egyptian_

Writing/

Martinez-Estrada, P. D. & Conaway, R. N. (2012). Ebooks: The next step in educational

innovation. Business Communication Quarterly, 75(2), 125-135. doi: 10.1177/

1080569911432628

Maxim, A. & Maxim, A. (2012). The role of e-books in reshaping the publishing industry.

Social and Behavioral Sciences, 62(2012), 1046-1050. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.

09.178

McFadden, C. (2012). Are textbooks dead? Making sense of the digital transition. Springer

Science+Business Media, LLC. doi: 10.1007/212109-012-9266-3

McGraw-Hill Education. (2017). What is TPACK theory and how can it be used in the

classroom [Web log post]? Retrieved from https://www.mheducation.ca/blog/what-

is-tpack-theory-and-how-can-it-be-used-in-the-classroom/

McIntosh, M. J. & Morse, J. M. (2015). Situating and constructing diversity in semi-structured

interviews. Global Qualitative Nursing Research, 1(12).

doi: 10.1177/2333393615597674

Mercer, E. (n.d.). What is computer-based instruction in education? Uses of computers in

education. It Still Works. Retrieved from https://itstillworks.com/uses-computers-

education-1300.html

Mesecar, D. (2015). Education technology in the Every Student Succeeds Act.

AmericanActionForum.org. Retrieved from AmericanActionForum.org/wp-content/

uploads/files/insights/Education_Technology_in_the_Every_Student_Succeeds_Act_

-_Final_-_12.17.pdf

Morgan, L. (2019). Internet effects on learning. What is Computer Based Instruction in

Education? Retrieved from https://itstillworks.com/internet-effects-learning-

6375006.html

Mukalele, R. (2018). Importance of computer aided learning and computer studies in schools.

ICT Teachers’ Association of Uganda. Retrieved from https://www.ictteachersug.net/

Importance-of-computer-aided-learning-and-computer-studies-in-schools/

Murray, J. (n.d.). Technology in the classroom: Print vs. Digital Textbooks. TeachHUB.com.

Retrieved from https://www.teachhub.com/technology-classroom-print-vs-digital-

textbooks

Niccoli, A. (2015). Paper or tablet? Reading recall and comprehension. Educause Review.

Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2015/9/paper-or-tablet-reading-recall-

and-comprehension

100

Pearson, D. P., Ferdig, R. E., Blomeyer, Jr., R. L., & Moran, J. (2005). The effects of

technology on reading performance in the middle-school grades: A meta-analysis with

recommendations for policy. Learning Point Associates. Retrieved from files.eric.ed.

gov/fulltext/ED489534.pdf

Picton, I. (2019). Teachers use of technology to support literacy in 2018. The National Literacy

Trust. Retrieved from www.literacytrust.org.uk

Pisha, B. & Coyne P. (2001). Smart from the start: The promise of universal design for

learning. Remedial and Special Education, 22(4), 197-203. doi: 10.1.1.1019.9013

Polkinghorne, D. E. (2005). Language and meaning: Data collection in qualitative research.

Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 137-145. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.522.137

Poland, A. (n.d.). The effects of technology and the internet on students. It Still Works.

Retrieved from https://itstillworks.com/effects-technology-internet-students-19377.html

ProCon.org. (2018). History of tablets v. textbooks. ProCon.org. Retrieved from https://

tablets-textbooks.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=006584

Purdue University. (2019). A history of classroom technology. The Evolution of Technology in

the Classroom. Retrieved from https://online.purdue.edu/ldt/learning-design-technology/

resources/evolution-technology-classroom

Research and Development Team. (2019). Orientation Handbook for General Education

Teachers to Special Education. Kingston, TN: Roane County Schools, Special

Education Department.

Roberts, C. M. (2010). The dissertation journey: A practical and comprehensive guide

to planning, writing, and defending your dissertation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin,

A SAGE Company.

101

Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. J., Courduff, J., Carter, K., & Bennett, D. (2012). Electronic versus

traditional print textbooks: A comparison study on the influence of university students’

learning. Computers & Education. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.022

Rubenstein, G. (n.d.). Printing: History and Development. Retrieved from https://

www.karmak.org/archive/2002/08/history_of_print.html

Rupley, W. H., Paige, D. D., Rasinski, T. V., & Slough, S. W. (2015). Multi-touch tablets,

e-books, and an emerging multi-coding/multi-sensory theory for reading science

e-Textbooks: Considering the struggling reader. Journal of Education and Training

Studies, 3(4). doi: 10.11114/jets.v3j4.790

Schmandt-Besserat, D. (2014). The evolution of writing. Retrieved from https:// utexas.

edu/dsb/tokens/the-evolution-of-writing

Schniedewind, W. M. (2013). Early Hebrew writing. In A Social History of Hebrew (pp. 51-

72). (Accession No. 67.44.209.158)

Schunk, D. H. (2020). Learning theories: An educational perspective (8th ed.). New York, NY:

Pearson.

Sheninger, E. (2015). Leading future-ready schools. International Center for Leadership

in Education. Retrieved from https://leadered.com/FutureReadySchools.pdf

Shin, T. S., Koehler, M.J., Mishra, P., Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., & Thompson, A. D. (n.d.).

Changing technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) through course

experiences. Retrieved from pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b797/76bac8e13c5f1455b4854a

99cbd3f.430f41e.pdf

102

Simon, E. J., Dr. (2001). Electronic Textbooks: A pilot study of student e-Reading habits.

Future of Print Media Journal. Retrieved from http://www.futureprint.kent.edu/articles/

Simon01.htm

Smith, R. (2000). The purpose, design, and evolution of online interactive textbooks:

The digital learning interactive model. History Computer Review, 43-59. Retrieved from

https://Go.gale.com/ps/i.do?v=2.1&it=r&sw=w&id=GALE%7CA66677509&proid=

AONE&sid=googleScholarFullText&userGroupName=an&1371

Tennessee Department of Education (2016). Notice of procedural safeguards: Individuals

with Disabilities Education Act. Division of Special Populations and Student Support.

Retrieved from http://tn.gov/education/topic/special-education-legal-services

The Editors. (2016). The world’s oldest writing. Archaeology. Retrieved from

https://www.archaeology.org/issues/214-features/cuneiform/4361-cuneiform-warfare

The Invention of Writing. (n.d.) Linguistics 201. Retrieved from

http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/vajda/ling201/test4materials/Writing2.htm

The Understood Team. (2019). Understanding special education. Understood – for Learning

and Attention Issues. Retrieved from https://www.understood.org/en/school-learning/

special-services/special-education-basic/understanding-special-education

The Trustees of the British Museum. (n.d.). Cuneiform. Retrieved from

https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ancient-art-civilizations/ancient-near-

east1/the-ancient-near-east-an-introduction/a/cuneiform

Trubek, A. (2015). What the heck is cuneiform, anyway? Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved

from https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-heck-cuneiform-anyway-

180956000/

103

Ullman, B. L. (1927). The origin and development of the alphabet. American Journal of

Archaeology, 31(3), 311-328. Retrieved from Archaeological Institute of America

Database. (Accession No. 497822)

U. S. Department of Education (2016). Future ready learning: reimagining the role of

technology in education. 2016 National Education Technology Plan. Retrieved from

files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED571884.pdf

University of Kansas. (2019). Advice for classroom teachers: Your students with IEPs.

University of Kansas Special Education Department. Retrieved from https://

educationonline.ky.edu

Valtonen, T., Sointu, E., Kukkonen, J., Kontikanen, S., Lambert, M.C., Mukitalo-Siegl, K.

(2017). TPACK updated to measure pre-service teachers’ twenty-first century

skills. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(3), 15-31. Retrieved

from https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3518

Verhoeven, D. (2015). Short history of the digital communication trap. Commonworks.

Retrieved from https://niepleuen.wordpress.com/2015/02/27/digital-communication-

debunked/

Von Hagen, V. W. (1943). Paper and civilization. The Scientific Monthly, 57(4), 301-314.

Retrieved from American Association for the Advancement of Science. (Accession No.

18117)

Wardlow, L., Ph.D. (2016). 3 Theories why digital learning access is good for students.

PreK-12 Education. Retrieved from https://www.pearsoned.com/digital-learning-

access-resources/

104

Warren, J. W. (2010). The progression of digital publishing: Innovation and the E-volution

of E-books. The International Journal of the Book, 7(4). Retrieved from eds.b.

ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=c0495915-7216-4432-b07d-d3110a5

cec47%40pdc-v-sessmgr02

Weisberg, M. (2011). Student attitudes and behaviors towards digital textbooks. Springer

Science+Business Media, LLC. Doi: 10.1007/s12109-011-9217-4

Wolf, M. (2010). Our ‘deep reading’ brain: Its digital evolution poses questions. Nieman

Reports. Retrieved from https://niemanreports.org/articles/our-deep-reading-brain-

Its-digital-evolution-poses-questions/

Wright, J. (2019). Importance of computer education to students. What is Computer Based

Instruction in Education? Retrieved from https://itstillworks.com/importance-computer-

Education-students-1837.html

Yushu, G. (2010). The Sumerian account of the invention of writing – A new interpretation.

Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 7446-7453. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.05.

110

105

Appendices

106

Appendix A

Participant Informed Consent Form

107

Participant Informed Consent Document

PROJECT TITLE-The Learning Satisfaction Dispositions of Special Needs Students Regarding the Academic Effects of Exclusively Using Digital Resources

INTRODUCTION You are invited to join a research study to look at students’ preferences in the type of textbook from they are taught. Please take whatever time you need to discuss the study with your family and friends, or anyone else you wish to. The decision to join, or not to join, is up to you. By participating in this study, you have indicated that you understand this informed consent document and have agreed to participate within the terms noted. In this research study, I am investigating/evaluating the learning satisfaction dispositions of special needs students regarding the academic effects of exclusively using digital resources.

WHAT IS INVOLVED IN THE STUDY? If you decide to participate you will be asked to participate in an open ended semi-structured interview. This will take approximately 10 minutes.

The investigator may stop the study or remove you from the study at any time she judges it is in your best interest. You can stop participating at any time. If you stop, you will not lose any benefits.

RISKS There are no risks involving this study. The IRB (International Review Board) of Carson-Newman University has given permission for this study. Additionally, the school system involved has granted permission for the study to take place.

BENEFITS TO TAKING PART IN THE STUDY? It is reasonable to expect that you will gain a better understanding of what type of textbook you are most comfortable using. I cannot guarantee that you will personally experience any benefit from participating in this study. However, others may benefit in the future from the information I find in this study.

CONFIDENTIALITY We will take the following steps to keep information about you confidential, and to protect it from unauthorized disclosure, tampering, or damage: Names will not be used in the study. Data files will be kept in a locked fireproof box for no less than 7 years.

INCENTIVES No incentives will be used in this study

YOUR RIGHTS AS A RESEARCH PARTICIPANT? Participation in this study is voluntary. You have the right not to participate at all or to leave the study at any time. Deciding not to participate or choosing to leave the study will not result in any penalty or loss of benefit to which you are entitled, and it will not harm your relationship with the researcher or anyone

108 involved in the study.

CONTACTS FOR QUESTIONS OR PROBLEMS? Call Lea Michelle Jackson at 865-765-6688 or by email at [email protected] if you have questions about the study, any problems, unexpected physical or psychological discomforts, any injuries, or think that something unusual or unexpected is happening. The chair of this study may also be contacted: Dr. Julia Price, Director of the Carson-Newman University Advanced Programs, [email protected]

CONSENT You are making a decision about whether or not to participate in a research study. Your signature below indicates that you have decided to participate in the study after reading all the information above and you understand the information in this form. In addition, any questions you may have were answered and you have received a copy of this form to keep.

Signature ______Date ______Research Participant

Signature ______Date ______Researcher

109

Appendix B

Informed Parental Consent

110

Informed Parental Consent

You are invited to include your child as a volunteer in a research study being conducted by Lea Michelle Jackson, Doctoral student, in the Education program at Carson-Newman University. The study will begin in February and continue for approximately 4 weeks. Please read this form and indicate whether you give consent for your child to participate. Your child was selected as a possible participant because he or she is a special needs student with an identified learning disability. I ask that you read this form and ask any questions you may have before agreeing for your child to be in the study.

Researcher: Lea Michelle Jackson, Ed.D., candidate, Carson-Newman University.

Background Information The purpose of this research study is to better understand if a specific form of textbook (print or digital) has an effect on students’ perceptions about their ability to process and retain information.

Procedures: Your child will be involved in two units of study that are equal in difficulty and format in his or her social studies class. One unit will be presented using the printed textbook only, and the other unit will be presented using only the digital form of the textbook. The researcher will take precautions to protect participant identity by not using the names of participants, classrooms, or the school in her results or writing. The researcher will conduct an interview with your student individually and another with the whole group at the end. She will also make notes on observations she observes during the two units of instruction. The researcher will use the anonymous assessment results for dissertation, publication, and presentation purposes.

Participant Risks There will be no harm to participants in this study, and their grades will not be affected. You have the right to remove your child at any time.

Participant Benefits There are benefits for participating in this research project. The findings from this study may assist educators in planning effective instruction utilizing digital materials or printed texts. This information will give teachers insight as to how special needs students feel they learn best.. Also, information from this study will provide educators with valuable insight into students’ motivation, attitudes, and skills needed to be an active participant in their social studies classes.

Contacts and Questions: The principle researcher conducting this study is Lea Michelle Jackson. You may ask any questions you have now or anytime throughout the research. If you have questions later, you are encouraged to contact the researcher at 865-765-6688 or by email at [email protected]. This research project is being conducted under the direction of Dr. Julia Price, Ed.D. Carson-Newman University and has been approved by the Roane County School System..

The researcher will gladly answer any inquiries regarding the purpose and procedures of the present study. Please send all inquiries via email at [email protected].

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

111

By signing below, you are giving your child permission to participate in this study.

Parent Signature Date

112

Appendix C

Lesson Plans Artifact

113

114

115

116

Appendix D

Semi-structured Interview Guiding Questions

117

Student # ______Age______Date ______

1. Describe what past experiences you have had using digital textbooks –

include your age, grade level, and subject.

2. How did using the digital textbook affect your ability to understand and

retain information?

3. Based on your experiences, explain how you feel about using digital texts

now.

4. How do you feel about using printed textbooks in your classes and are you

using one in any of your classes currently?

5. If you were given a choice of which textbook you were able to use in class,

which would it be – Printed or Digital?

118