Digital textbooks are increasingly marketed and used, yet little research examines this medium. Within the limited research, even less investigates the role of digital textbooks in mathematics—a challenging content area for many students, but especially for students with visual impairments.
Methods
Through a qualitative analysis, this study sought to understand the nature of the use of a digital algebra textbook to support secondary students with visual impairments in algebra.
Results
The results suggest three main themes: (a) students’ dependence on their traditional textbook medium, (b) educators’ reactions to the technology, and (c) the benefits of using the digital textbook despite resistance. The three themes culminate in clear student preferences for traditional textbooks.
Discussion
The general resistance to use of the technology warrants caution in terms of schools moving forward with the adoption of digital textbooks, and it suggests that additional examination of the topic is needed.
Implications for practitioners
Practitioners can consider using digital textbooks, but they will need to ensure that they and their students are both properly motivated and adequately trained to use such technology.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlajarmehN., & PontelliE. (2012). A non-visual electronic workspace for learning algebra. In MiesenbergerK. (Eds.), ICCHP 2012, Part I (pp. 158–165). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
2.
AlajarmehN.PontelliE., & SonT. (2011). From “reading” math to “doing” math: A new direction in non-visual math accessibility. In StephanidisC. (Ed.), Universal access in HCI, Part IV (pp. 501–510). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
3.
ArchambaultD.CaprottiO.RantaA., & SaludesJ. (2012). Using GF in multimodal assistants for mathematics. Digitization and E-Inclusion in Mathematics and Science, 1(1), 1–10.
4.
BogdanR. C., & BiklenS. K. (2008). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.). New York: Pearson.
5.
BoltS. E., & ThurlowM. L. (2007). Item-level effects of the read-aloud accommodation for students with reading disabilities. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33(1), 15–28.
6.
BouckE. C.JoshiG. S.MeyerN., & SchleppenbachD. (2013). Accessing algebra via MathSpeak: Understanding the potentials and pitfalls for students with visual impairments. Journal of Special Education Technology, 28(1), 49–63.
7.
BouckE. C., & MeyerN. K. (2012). eText, mathematics and students with VI: What teachers need to know. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(2), 42–49.
8.
BouckE. C., & WengP.-L. (2014). Reading math: A comparison of reading and listening to algebraic problems. Journal of Special Education Technology, 29(4), 1–13.
9.
BryantD. P., & BryantB. R. (2003). Assistive technology for people with disabilities.Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
10.
CollinsA., & HalversonR. (2010). The second educational revolution: Rethinking education in the age of technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 18–27.
11.
CooperM.LoweT., & TaylorM. (2008). Access to mathematics in web resources for people with a visual impairment. In MiesenbergerK.KlausJ.ZaglerW., & KarshmerA. (Eds.), Computers Helping People with Special Needs (Vol. 5105, pp. 926–933). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
12.
DouglasG.McLindenM.McCallS.PaveyS.WareJ., & FarrellA. M. (2011). Access to print literacy for children and young people with visual impairment: Findings from a review of literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 26(1), 25–38.
13.
FichtenC. S.AsuncionJ. V.BarileM.FerraroV., & WolforthJ. (2009). Accessibility of e-learning and computer and information technologies for students with visual impairments in postsecondary education. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 103, 543–557.
JohnstonS. S., & EvansJ. (2005). Considering response efficiency as a strategy to prevent assistive technology abandonment. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20, 45–50.
19.
MardisM., & EverhartN. (2013). From paper to pixel: The promise and challenges of digital textbooks for K–12 schools. In OreyM.JonesS. A., & BranchR. M. (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook (Vol. 37, pp. 93–118). New York: Springer.
20.
NeesM. A., & BerryL. F. (2013). Audio assistive technology and accommodations for students with visual impairments: Potentials and problems for delivering curricula and educational assessments. Performance Enhancement & Health, 2, 101–109.
21.
PowerC., & JürgensenH. (2010). Accessible presentation of information for people with visual disabilities. Universal Access in the Information Society, 9, 97–119. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10209-009-0164-1
22.
PrecelK.Eshet-AlkalaiY., & AlbertsonY. (2009). Pedagogical and design aspects of a blended learning course. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(2), Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/618/1221
23.
SiuK. W. M., & LamM. S. (2012). Public computer-assisted learning facilities for children with visual impairment: Universal design for inclusive learning. Early Childhood Education Journal, 40, 295–303.
24.
SpencerC. (2006). Research on learners’ preferences for reading from a printed text or from a computer screen. Journal of Distance Education, 21(1), 33–50.
WechslerD. (2004). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children.London: Pearson Assessments.
28.
WongkiaW.NaruedomkulK., & CerconeN. (2012). i-Math: Automatic math reader for Thai blind and visually impaired students. Computers and Mathematics with Applications, 64, 2128–2140.
29.
WoodcockR. W.MatherN., & McGrewK. S. (2001). Woodcock–Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities Examiner's Manual.Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.
30.
WoodyW. D.DanielD. B., & BakerC. A. (2010). E-books or textbooks: Students prefer textbooks. Computers & Education, 55, 945–948.
