You are here:

Enhancing Preservice Science Teachers’ Use of Text Through E-Readers

, , University of North Florida, United States

CITE Journal Volume 17, Number 4, ISSN 1528-5804 Publisher: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, Waynesville, NC USA


The future for primary and secondary school textbooks is moving to digital ones, and faculties of schools, colleges, and departments of education (SCDEs) need to prepare preservice teachers for this change.  Already, legislatures in 23 states have mandated that school systems use digital textbooks or digital resources as part of their textbook resources, thus shifting the definition and conceptions of the term textbook.  In addition to added functionality (i.e., highlighting and dictionary functions), electronic textbooks allow the teacher to choose, edit, and modify text, becoming a more active consumer of curricular materials.  This shift brings challenges as preservice teachers adapt to integrating this new technology into their practice.  They need greater opportunities to manage this technology to select and adapt text to better match the curriculum to student need and interest.  To better prepare preservice science teachers, the researchers adapted the secondary science teacher education methods class to integrate digital textbooks into coursework.  Their purpose was to investigate preservice science teachers’ views about the uses of e-readers and e-text prior to their science methods course and their views of their use of this technology when they are required to incorporate them as a resource in their lesson planning.


Zoellner, B. & Cavanaugh, T. (2017). Enhancing Preservice Science Teachers’ Use of Text Through E-Readers. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 17(4), 569-589. Waynesville, NC USA: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education. Retrieved August 18, 2018 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. Anderson, M. (2015, October). Technology device ownership: 2015. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from
  2. Apple, M., & Jungck, S. (1990). “You don’t have to be a teacher to teach this unit:” Teaching, technology, and gender in the classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 27(2), 227-251.
  3. Ball, D.L. (2000). Bridging practices: Intertwining content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 241-247.
  4. Ball, D.L., & Feiman-Nemser, S. (1988). Using textbooks and teachers’ guides: A dilemma for beginning teachers and teacher educators. Curriculum Inquiry, 18(4), 401423.
  5. Bierman, P., Massey, C., & Manduca, C. (2006). Reconsidering the textbook. Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 87(31), 306. .
  6. Budiansky, S. (2001). The trouble with textbooks. Prism, 10(6), 24–27.
  7. Carus, M. (1990). The small publisher in a national market. In D. Elliott& A. Woodward (Eds.), Textbooks and schooling in the United States: Eighty-ninth yearbook of the Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 17(4) National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 86-96). Chicago, IL: University of
  8. Council for Accreditation of Education Preparation. (2013). CAEP accreditation standards. Retrieved from
  9. Curtis, S., & Millar, R. (1988). Language and conceptual understanding in science: A comparison of English and Asian language speaking children. Research in Science& Technological Education, 6(1), 61-77.
  10. DiLaura, A. (2013, March 28). How teachers are hacking their own digital textbooks [Blog]. Retrieved from
  11. Driscoll, M.P., Moallem, M., Dick, W., & Kirby, E. (1994). How does the textbook contribute to learning in a middle school science class? Contemporary educational psychology, 19(1), 79-100.
  12. Eddy, R.M., Ruitman, T., & Marsh, B. (2011). The effects of Pearson Chemistry (2012) on student performance: Pilot study final report. Retrieved from
  13. Elliott, D. (1990). Textbooks and the curriculum in the postwar era, 1950-1980. In D. Elliott& A.Woodward (Eds.), Textbooks and schooling in the United States: Eightyninth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 42-55). Chicago,
  14. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative inquiry. Chicago, IL: Aldin.
  15. Goodlad, J. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  16. Government Accountability Office. (2005). College textbooks: Enhanced offering appear to drive recent price increases. Retrieved from
  17. Hamachek, D. (1969). Characteristics of good teachers and implications for teacher education. The Phi Delta Kappan, 50(6), 341-345. Retrieved from
  18. Hitlin, P. & Rainie, L. (2005, August). Data Memo: The Internet at School. Pew Internet& American Life Project. Retrieved from
  19. Hutchinson, T., & Torres, E. (1994). The textbook as agent of change. ELT Journal, 48(4), 315-328.
  20. International Society for Technology in Education. (2008). National educational technology standards for teachers (refreshed). Retrieved from Standards/for-educators
  21. Jackson, J. (2013, June 19). Math going digital in Henry. Henry Daily Herald. Retrieved from
  22. Jones, S. (2002). The Internet goes to college: How students are living in the future with today's technology. Pew Internet& American Life Project. Retrievedfrom
  23. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  24. Merzyn, G. (1987). Language of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 9(4), 285-295.
  25. Murray, C. (2004, September 20). Textbooks dumped in favor of laptops. ESchool News. Retrieved from
  26. National Public Radio. (2012, January 19). Apple pushes interactive textbooks on iPads. Retrieved from
  27. Niederberger, M. (2012, November 7). North Hills teachers write a textbook for online curriculum. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved from DASHDASH
  28. Rainie, L. (2012). Smartphone ownership update: September 2012. Pew Internet& American Life Project. Retrieved from Smartphone-ownership-update-september-2012/
  29. Romberg, T., & Carpenter, T. (1986). Research on teaching and learning mathematics: Two disciplines of scientific inquiry. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 850-873). New York, NY: Macmillan.
  30. Schencker, L. (2013, April 29). In Utah’s digital shift, students turning the page on traditional textbooks. The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved from
  31. Scholastic. (2013). Kids& Family reading report (5th ed.). Retrieved from
  32. Stage of Life. (2012). Teen trend summary report-books& Reading. Retrieved from
  33. Stein, M., Stuen, C., Carnine, D., & Long, R. (2001). Textbook evaluation and adoption practice. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 17(1), 5-23.
  34. Strauss, A.L., & Corbin, J.M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
  35. Thorndike, E. (1912). Education: A first book. New York, NY: The MacMillan Company.
  36. Tyson-Bernstein, H. (1988). A conspiracy of good intentions: America’s textbook fiasco. Washington, DC: Council for Basic Education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 17(4)
  37. United States Department of Education. (2010). National education technology plan 2010. Retrieved from
  38. United States Department of Education. (2016). 2016 National education technology plan: Future reading learning; Reimagining the role of technology in education. Retrieved from
  39. Williams, L. (2013, August 26). Flexbooks help Georgia district keep up with math mandates. Retrieved from
  40. Zickuhr, K. & Rainie, L. (2014). E-reading rises as device ownership jumps: Three in ten adults read an e-book last year; half own a tablet or e-reader. Retrieved from the Pew Research Center website:

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact