You are here:

Traditional Textbooks vs. On-line Textbooks: Comparing Two Different Methodologies in English Reading Classrooms
PROCEEDINGS

, Vanung University of Technology, Taiwan ; , China University of Technology, Taiwan

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Charleston, SC, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-67-9 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA

Abstract

This study examined two different instructional methodologies used to present English reading contents to technical university students in order to determine which methodology, traditional textbook or online textbook, benefited students better with regard to students’ achievement as well as the degree of their acceptance. Student participants (550) were selected using stratified clusters sample from a university of technology in northern Taiwan. Data were collected through the administration of a pretest prior to and a posttest after traditional and online textbook instructions. Data were also collected through a survey of subjects’ perceptions based on these two methodologies. The findings revealed (1) online textbooks helped improve learning effect, (2) over 75% students responded to agree with online textbook usage and instruction, and (3) Students of Computer Science College accepted online textbook instruction better than students of Engineering College and Management College.

Citation

Lu, J.h. & Jaw, G.y. (2009). Traditional Textbooks vs. On-line Textbooks: Comparing Two Different Methodologies in English Reading Classrooms. In I. Gibson, R. Weber, K. McFerrin, R. Carlsen & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2009--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1004-1009). Charleston, SC, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved July 20, 2019 from .

References

View References & Citations Map

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References