Barron (2011) discusses the concerns of using e-readers, rather than physical books, as the main medium for reading and interacting with academic texts in examining issues experienced by actual college students and groups. Main concerns relate to versatility, universal accessibility, and the risk of data loss. Barron (2011) examines student test groups in determining the concerns of replacing physical texts with digital texts as accessed on an e-reader.
The most prominent of concerns is the lack of usability and versatility with e-readers when using them for academic study and reference. One e-reader manufacturer, Amazon, partnered with Princeton University to conduct a study that allotted Kindle E-readers to fifty current students with the intention of using it as their primary source of academic texts and material (Barron, 2011, p. 134). Ultimately, the test group concluded that more features were needed before the transition to e-readers would occur regularly and be preferable to physical texts (p. 135). Students wanted to see improvements in, “highlighting and annotating functions, folder structures (for grouping similar texts), and text navigation functions” (Barron, 2011, p. 135).
Assuming a student does choose to use an e-reader as their main medium for interacting with academic texts during the course of a semester or college career, a consideration must be made for the risk of losing data either through physical damage to the device rendering the data unreachable or internal malfunctions in the device erasing the data (Barron, 2011, p. 136). Barron (2011) refers to this side effect as the “hidden cost” (p. 136) of using an e-reader as the main source of academic information. While troubleshooting is possible for most digital devices, including e-readers, many options whittle down to completely wiping the device and restoring content in its new format minus all alterations made by the user (p. 136). Digital malfunctions aside, the construction of an e-reader is often more vulnerable than most physical texts making them less durable than a bound textbook of paper. Essentially, dropping a book will not render it useless while dropping an e-reader may do just that (p. 136).
Finally, Barron (2011) highlights the lack of universal access provided by many e-readers that ultimately leave parts of the population unserved, namely, blind students (p. 136). While many Android and iOS devices (such as phones or computer apps) allow for text-to-speech, e-readers largely do not have this feature causing them to be completely inaccessible by blind individuals (p. 137). Therefore, universities with blind students must consider this limitation when considering a full switch to e-readers from physical texts and computer-accessible documents.
Having weighed the concerns Barron (2011) discusses, the course of action I would take in integrating e-readers into the school library would consist of the following practices: granting students permission to use their own e-readers, make leisure and academic digital content available when possible, and insure that all needed academic material is available in multiple formats to reach all student needs. Ideally, the library would provide material in a format most preferred by the student population. Depending on the specific needs of my student population and my budget, I will include appropriate amounts of digital and physical content. If my budget allows, I think it would be ideal to have e-readers available for check-out in the library for student use. Should e-readers be available for check-out, I would lead tutorials for students and teachers alike so they can effectively use the device. While our society is certainly making a drastic shift to digital content, it’s important to recognize the varying needs of students and the population as a whole. Providing new technologies and constantly striving to improve them through examination and training will make them most useful and beneficial.
Barron, P. (2011). E-readers in the classroom. Transformations: The Journal of Inclusive Scholarship & Pedagogy, 22(1), 133-138.
No comments:
Post a Comment