Nearly three-quarters of the students surveyed last fall by the National Association of College Stores said they preferred traditional print textbooks to digital texts, according to a report from the association. And just over half the students said they would not consider buying course textbooks in digital form even if they were available. The association said digital course materials now account for only 2 to 3 percent of text sales at stores that offer them, although that figure is expected to rise to 10 to 15 percent within two years. Students at 19 institutions were included in the survey.
RSS
Follow The Ticker through your favorite RSS reader.
12 Responses to Most Students Prefer Print Textbooks to Digital Versions, Survey Finds
athlwulf - May 26, 2010 at 3:52 pm
Of course, this is prior to the iPad and other slate computers that make reading ePub and PDF files far more natural than Kindle or other e-ink devices that are great for reading novels, but are not conducive to skipping around as is required in academic settings. In my doctoral program this Spring, I took the leap and bought both of my texts on my Kindle and immediately regretted it as the conversation often moved from one section of the book to another faster than I could find it on the Kindle. Then, after the iPad came out and I could suddenly read not only the Kindle books (as well as highlight and annotate) but also my PDFs which comprised a vast majority of my reading (also with highlighting and annotation with an app called iAnnotate). Even more importantly, it allowed me to flip though the material quickly in a manner far more akin to using the physical books or printouts. Another happy byproduct is the fact that I’ve reduced the number of pages that I need to print by more than 90%.
jessamyjane - May 26, 2010 at 6:27 pm
This is also an issue for libraries. Libraries have to consider not only whether or not to buy text or digital (or both), but whether the digital licence will permit networking, multiple users and off-campus access. This is not taking into account budget constraints, and other licensing permutations.
francishamit - May 26, 2010 at 9:14 pm
For copyright holders, the iasue of electronic copies in a non-profit library is the same as the copying of materials for coursepacks. Crudelly, how do we get paid for the material we originated and still own? Billions of dollars are spent every year on libary electronic databases and much of the material is simply stolen by publishers and aggregators. Librarians refuse to face up to this issue.
berkeleyprof - May 27, 2010 at 6:21 am
I’m an early innovator, Broadtexter and all. A 1000-page text I use regularly was available last Fall as a digital textbook (searchable/PDF), rental and old-school purchased paper. I had 50 grads, most digi-savvy and gave them the options. I also tried going digital myself.When books get fat, the digital format just does not work. I regret using it for fine-tuning my syllabus (been teaching that class ten years, too!), and needed adjustments/additions during the semester. Only one student went digital, and she bailed 2 weeks later. The book, printed on the page, has its place, guys! And the fat, fact-rich textbook is one of those places. Our students know what we are only learning.I love the digital stuff, make people crazy as I pull out my cell and the like – but you better make some changes to scanning books to get me back on board.
mbelvadi - May 27, 2010 at 6:47 am
#3, “Billions of dollars are spent every year on libary electronic databases and much of the material is simply stolen by publishers and aggregators.” – would you care to prove that claim? After the Tasini decision, I seriously doubt there is any content left in the licensed professional electronic databases that the formal groups representing authors’ rights doesn’t agree is legally there.And then there’s the issue of equating “copyright infringement” with “theft”, a rhetorical trick handy for spinning your angle in a public debate, but without any legal validity.
dr_redrum - May 27, 2010 at 10:35 am
It depends on how the students want to use the text, how their professors want them to use the text and how the functionality of the digital representation meets those needs. If digital texts don’t meet the potential users’ needs they won’t sell.
anitat - May 27, 2010 at 1:13 pm
Another key issue in digital adoption for students–you can’t sell back a digital text.I have to say, though, since getting my hands on an iPad, I’m quickly growing accustomed to reading on it. I’ve tried both the Kindle Reader and items downloaded via iBook. They both have their uses, but if iBook had more choices (surely that will happen), it would be my first choice. Full color illustrations and diagrams? You bet.
chriskubica - May 27, 2010 at 2:38 pm
We’re trying to change all of the above at http://www.neverendmedia.com. Textbooks is an area where we hope to influence a big change for the better.Chris Kubica
golfbowl - May 27, 2010 at 5:04 pm
Hmmm! College Bookstores (who sell the books) did the survey and THEY tell us that the students prefer print. And THEY tell us that only 2-3% of their text book sales are electronic. Hmmm! I wonder if the electronic textbook publishers did a survey they would tell us the opposite? Call me sceptical. – I can understand that not every student can afford an I-Pad as well as a computer; – I can understand that a personally owned copy is easier to hi-light and underline and dog-ear; – And I can understand that not every school offers broadband access for portable/mobile units (my university claims there are security issues to be worked out.) So maybe e-textbooks need a little more time for prices to drop on mobile units, special aspects to be developed for highlighting and quick find locators and also for some universities to get up to snuff. But I think students would prefer carrying an I-Pad to a 10lb. book. Let me see the numbers in a year or two.
educationfrontlines - May 27, 2010 at 8:30 pm
College bookstores and publishers are also the source of electronic textbooks, and can make even more profit if they can eliminate the second-hand online-purchase-of-print market since e-texts vaporize at the end of the semester. So there is little reason to expect bias in this survey, which really reflects what I see on campus.The real questions that should be asked are about rates of comprehension and reading speed and quality of images and permanence of archive, etc. If comprehension etc. is 30% less as with earlier studies of e-readers a decade ago, then there are solid educational reasons for avoiding e-texts for academic work. If a recreational reader wants to take longer and remember less of a mystery or romance novel, it is not as critical as using e-texts in school, where e-text students might need to go 5 years of high school to read and comprehend what they would in 4 years in print. That research update needs to be done and will be important.In education, there are also serious concerns with on-screen text promoting skimming rather than deep reading. And there are the energy costs; while print can sequester carbon for centuries and nearly 60% of our paper is now recycled, the electronic carbon footprint is growing dramatically (exceeds the airline carbon footprint) and the equipment lifetime is terribly short with electronic wastes being among the most toxic. John Richard Schrock
francishamit - May 27, 2010 at 11:48 pm
mbelvadi: As a matter of fact copyright infringement is theft and there are criminal as well as civil penalties in the law which are poorly enforced and never against large corporations and institutions. Non-profit libraries have some shelter from such suits, so the people you go after are the aggregators and the publishers. I used to have a blog called “The Fight For Copyright” and I sued two former publishers of mine for copyright infringement and won both times. Judgements large enough that the Court sealed the verdicts. And it was over these same electronic databases you have in the libraries. So it can be done, but most authors fail to even register their copyrights, which you have to do befoe you can sue or file a criminal complaint. The law does not protect people who do not make a reasonable effort to protect themselves. I could go on, endlessly, about this, but I think you get the idea. You might try actually reading the Copyright Act. So few people do and it’s a very clear document.
mbelvadi - May 28, 2010 at 9:11 am
Francisahamit, you can keep repeating “copyright infringement is theft” all day long but it doesn’t make it so. Copyright infringement is illegal, but many things are illegal that are not labeled “theft”, like reckless driving, selling cocaine, assaulting someone with a cream pie, etc. Using the word “theft” only serves to try to cover this particular illegal behavior with a moral mantle of great cultural historical and religious tradition to which it is simply not entitled. It’s understandable why people who advocate strong copyright do it, because there is much greater moral ambiguity about an illegal behavior that has a much shorter historical tradition of being illegal at all (less than 200 years in the US in some cases) than the Biblical proscription against theft. That’s what I mean by “spin”. I have read Title 17 of the US Code thoroughly many times. Would you care to point me to the clause that says that someone who infringes copyright may be charged with the crime of “theft” in a court of law? Not just charged with a criminal offense, mind you, but specifically with the crime of “theft”?