The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0264-0473.htm

EL
30,3 A comparison of the influence of
electronic books and paper books
on reading comprehension, eye
390
fatigue, and perception
Received March 2010
Revised October 2010
Hanho Jeong
Accepted December 2010 Department of Education, Chongshin University, Seoul, South Korea

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to assess the usability of electronic books (e-books) and paper books
(p-books) with objective measures, including user comprehension, eye fatigue, and perception.
Design/methodology/approach – A total of 56 sixth-year public school students participated in
this study. This paper was conducted in the following order: pre-CFF measurement, p-/e-book reading,
post-CFF measurement, quiz, and questionnaire. A standard CFF device, a computer with a monitor
for reading e-books, p-books, desks, and chairs were provided.
Findings – This paper found that there is a significant “book effect” on quiz scores; compared to
e-books, p-books appear to enable better reading comprehension. Regarding eye fatigue, students had
significantly greater eye fatigue after reading e-books than after reading p-books. Students were
satisfied with the e-book, but they preferred p-books.
Research limitations/implications – Students would show satisfaction with e-books and
acknowledge their usefulness, but still prefer p-books. However, a clearer understanding of this
paradox in perception is needed. Further studies should try to explore the students’ perceptions of
e-books.
Practical implications – Surprisingly, though, Korean students studied herein, who have had a
higher level of exposure to technology than those in other countries, did not show positive behavioral
intentions toward e-books. Overall, the responses from the Korean students suggest that there was
general satisfaction with reading e-books on screen. However, this study also found a discordance in
the students’ perceptions of e-books. In this study, most students grew tired of reading on the screen;
this tiredness could have an adverse effect on both reading comprehension and the perception of
e-books. In further analyzing user responses, many of the critical remarks were found to refer to the
screen/text size or clarity rather than to the e-book itself.
Originality/value – Although this study suggests that students in general are not yet ready to
entirely give up p-books, e-books are becoming increasingly common. However, great challenges
remain in terms of making e-book content more available and in enabling improved comprehension
and reducing eye fatigue.
Keywords Electronic book, E-books, Paper book, Reading comprehension, Eye fatigue,
Students’ perception of electronic books, Students, Perception, South Korea
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The Electronic Library Following the rise to prominence of electronic book (e-book) technology in the late
Vol. 30 No. 3, 2012
pp. 390-408 1990s, e-books have been a popular topic in recent years (Langston, 2003). E-books can
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited effectively support an academic mission by saving time, adding value as a collective
0264-0473
DOI 10.1108/02640471211241663 online reference, and enabling dynamic and cost-effective collection management (Cox,
2004). An e-book comprises a digital body primarily of text with a defined scope. The Influence of
term “e-book” is used to describe a text analogous to a book that is digitally displayed e-books on
on the screen of a computer, a personal digital assistant, or a specifically designed
reader; it may comprise text, graphics, video, animation, and/or sound. The e-book is a reading
new platform for accessing digital information that capitalizes on the benefits of
electronic reading while providing many of the advantages of paper books (p-books)
(Landoni and Hanlon, 2007). E-books have some advantages over printed books, such 391
as settings and particular purposes. On the positive side, two of the most popular
reasons for using e-books include their “searchability” and the fact that they are
available 24 hours a day.
E-book readers can find specific content more easily and more efficiently than in a
p-book (Shelburne, 2009). An e-book, for example, usually has fairly short articles that
can be displayed on a few screens, and reading at a computer monitor is acceptable to
most users under e-library systems (Dennis et al., 2008). By enabling individuals to find
information and to determine whether a book’s content is appropriate without having
to make a trip to the library, an e-book’s time-saving benefits are clear. In additions,
students like the lightness and portability of e-book devices, as well as navigation
capability, ease of use, storage capacity, and the use of e-ink for displaying content on
the screen (Gibson and Gibb, 2011). Futurist Kelly (2006) anticipated that, in the near
future, “all new works will be born digital” (p. 43). A 2009 study by Shelburne at the
University of Illinois found that the overall lifetime usage of the Springer e-book
collections at the University of Illinois Library as of February 2009 was 124,026
chapter downloads. This includes 3,992 chapter downloads from August 2006 through
December 2006, 26,675 for 2007, 82,622 for 2008, and 10,737 in January 2009. The
e-book has taken its place beside its print counterpart as an accepted method of
accessing the published word, and it is now seen as a normal element of any library
collection. It may be true that more and more of what we read will be digitalized.
However, despite likely improvements in e-books, there is still a debate over the
effects of this mode of reading. E-books present an exciting but also controversial topic
for users. This issue has to do with poor legibility, intrinsic complexity, and poor
design (Dillon, 1994; Nielsen, 2000). These features contribute to an increase in one’s
cognitive load because it is more demanding on an individual’s attention and
comprehension (Sweller, 1994). In most of the studies reported thus far, measurements
of reading time or the amount of errors found in proofreading tasks have been used to
assess surface legibility. Reading on a standard computer display is more error prone
and is approximately 20 percent slower than reading on paper (Nielsen, 2000).
Although inexperience with an e-book is less likely than before, there are some
concerns about using an e-book as reading material. Carlson (2002) indicated that the
difficulty of navigating through an e-book is one of the biggest complaints from its
users. After studying 27 libraries and information science students’ use and experience
with e-books, Chu (2003) indicated that the primary reason for not using e-books was
the difficulty of moving within an e-book. According to a study by Hernon et al. (2006),
moving from page to page on an e-book is tedious, and it is difficult to find specific
chapters in the text or to locate particular words. These difficulties have a negative
impact on students’ perceptions of e-books. Through previous studies, we find that
users have been hampered by poor legibility or interface difficulties while reading an
e-book on screen.
EL Of course, the proponents of e-books have commented that the move from paper to
30,3 screen is evolutionary and inevitable. In addition, the majority of prior research has
focused on the technological development of e-book systems, such as information
storage, information retrieval, and system integration, rather than on the users’
experience, such as user comprehension, eye fatigue, and perception with an e-book.
There have been some recent studies related to users, but the user experience continues
392 to receive less attention, and comprehension, eye fatigue, and perception have only been
investigated separately. In this work, we attempt to assess the usability of e-books and
p-books with objective measures including user comprehension, eye fatigue, and
perception. In this paper, our ultimate goal is to suggest improvements for e-books.

2. Research questions
Although e-books are a popular topic that has grown more prominent in recent
literature, limited data are available regarding how students actually read, understand,
and perceive e-books. Additionally, many studies have examined students’ e-book use
and nonuse without focusing on school students who are regular users. Consequently,
the present study assessed the usability of e-books and p-books with objective
measures including reading comprehension, eye fatigue, and perception. The research
questions are as follows:
RQ1. Are the comprehension scores of students different when reading an e-book
vs a p-book?
RQ2. Is the eye fatigue of students different when reading e-books vs p-books?
RQ3. How do students perceive an e-book’s usefulness; what is their satisfaction
with e-books; and what are their behavioral intentions regarding future
e-book use?

3. Literature review
3.1 Reading comprehension
A number of research studies have used reading comprehension, accuracy, and speed
to investigate the effect of e-books and p-books on reading performance. The debate
has been largely fueled by the seemingly irreconcilable differences between critics such
as Birkerts (1994) and Sanders (1994), who believe that e-books ultimately diminish the
personal growth of individuals, and advocates such as Spiro and Jehng (1990), who
believe that navigating online texts can build cognitive flexibility.
A study by Macedo-Rouet et al. (2003) presented findings from 47 undergraduate
university students. It revealed that e-book readers obtained slightly lower
comprehension scores than p-book readers. Interestingly, the researchers found that
the comprehension decrease was limited to questions concerning complementary
documents, or documents that were not immediately visible on the computer screen but
had to be selected through a menu. They reported that e-book readers needed time to
perform mouse clicks to go from one page to another and needed to use the scroll bar
while reading (Macedo-Rouet et al., 2003). In a more recent UK study, Grimshaw and
Dungworth (2004) investigated 9-10 year-old students’ use of e-books and compared it
to their use of p-books. The researchers found no significant difference between the
reading comprehension scores of children reading the electronic versions and those
reading the printed versions. In a study by Kang et al. (2009), the reading accuracies for Influence of
both book types were similar. Although the reading efficiency of the p-book users was e-books on
somewhat higher than that of the e-book readers, there was no significant “book effect”
on reading performance. In concentration and reading rates, Grzeschik et al. (2011) reading
indicate that users do not suffer from reading texts on e-book. Another study has
shown that paging and scrolling increase reading time and decrease information
memory when combined (Van Oostendorp and Van Nimwegen, 1998). 393
On the negative side, prior studies have reported a loss of comprehension when
reading online and impaired information visibility on screen. Nielsen (2000), who has
been studying e-book reading habits for two decades, asserted that e-book “reading” is
not even the correct terminology because of the poor legibility, intrinsic complexity,
and inadequate design of current e-books. According to a study by Mayes et al. (2001),
who collected data from 50 students from the University of Bristol, reading from a
p-book is significantly faster, and slower on-screen reading was a strategy conducted
by participants to ensure that the content was comprehended. According to a study by
Carusi (2006), readers’ concentration becomes increasingly fragmentary when reading
e-books, and the readers studied were easily distracted by surface features.
However, Egan et al. (1989) reported that students using digital hypertext to find
specific information had a greater accuracy than students using a paper text. Dillon and
Gabbard (1998) also affirmed that reading was better with an e-book than a p-book when
performing substantial searches or manipulating and comparing visual details among
objects. Matthew (1997) carried out experiments with elementary school students in the
US to study the influence of electronic texts on reading comprehension. She compared
students who read stories on a CD-ROM and students who read the print versions of the
same books. She found that “students who read the CD-ROM versions of the books had
significantly higher mean comprehension scores” (p. 269), as measured by their ability to
retell the story. In a second experiment, she found that “when the same students read
both electronic and print texts, the students’ comprehension scores were higher when
reading the electronic texts” (p. 270). Her work confirmed that of earlier researchers,
including Miller et al. (1994). According to Prensky (2001), the changing propensities and
cognitive abilities of young people, or “digital natives,” predisposed them to
engagements with the screen rather than lengthy perusals of static texts. In summary,
previous studies of user comprehension comparing e-books and p-books have found that
overall comparable performance between the two can be achieved, especially when the
contents of an e-book are carefully designed to support students’ use. As noted in Table I,
given the great interest in this topic, there have not been vast numbers of e-book user
studies conducted. However, in the last few years, several studies have been undertaken
on this topic. In this study, we investigated the reading comprehension of students when
reading e-books and p-books.

3.2 Eye fatigue

Human eyes may suffer physical injury from a reading environment that is not
optimized for their benefit. Although computer screens do not damage vision, eye
fatigue can still be experienced by e-book users. One of the disadvantages of reading an
e-book on a backlit computer screen or other LCD or OLED device is that, over time, it
places stress on the eyes and becomes fatiguing. For example, the longer one stares at a
monitor, the slower the blinking rate. The failure to blink reduces the moisturization of
EL
Results Reference
30,3
Comprehension
e-book . p-book Dillon and Gabbard (1998), Egan et al. (1989), Prensky (2001)
p-book . e-book Van Oostendorp and Van Nimwegen (1998), Nielsen (2000), Martin and Platt
(2001), Mayes et al. (2001), Bonham et al. (2003), Macedo-Rouet et al. (2003),
394 Carusi (2006), Doctorow (2004)
Not different Gordon et al. (1988), Macedo-Rouet et al. (2003), Kang et al. (2009)
Eye fatigue
e-book . p-book Cushman (1986), Dillon (1994), Nielsen (2000), Kang et al. (2009)
Students’ perception
Table I. e-book . p-book Anuradha and Usha (2006), Carlock and Perry (2008), Shelburne (2009)
Results of previous p-book . e-book Eveland and Dunwoody (2001), Martin and Platt (2001), Hernon et al. (2006),
studies comparing Levine-Clark (2006), Gregory (2008)
e-books and p-books Not different Chu (2003), Macedo-Rouet et al. (2003)

the eyes and leads them to be more easily subject to irritation. Cushman (1986) found
that visual fatigue is significantly higher when reading texts on a screen than on paper.
In the current stage of technological development, the display of text on computer
screens has been found to have a negative impact on surface legibility (Dillon, 1994).
Texts and documents on screen have a lower surface legibility than printed documents.
Macedo-Rouet et al. (2003) noted that students felt much more tired when reading on
screen; this may be because of the display contrast and resolution of an e-book. Kang
et al. (2009) conducted an experiment to measure students’ eye fatigue and found that
reading a p-book caused less eye fatigue than reading an e-book. In their study, the
authors concluded that the eye fatigue from an e-book was due mainly to the low
display contrast and resolution of the on-screen text.

3.3 Students’ perception

In assessing the effectiveness of e-books, researchers have studied students’ perception
of e-books and p-books with mixed findings. In general, readers tended to feel
disoriented when they read texts on screen. For example, e-book readers have trouble
estimating the length of sentences, and they perceive that graphics or tables are harder
to read on screen than on paper (Eveland and Dunwoody, 2001). Consequently,
students tend to prefer to read from p-books rather than from e-books (Martin and
Platt, 2001). Several studies have pointed out that there are difficulties with reading
from a screen, navigation issues, and problems related to locating materials and
searching in general with e-books, so students still prefer a paper copy that they can
mark up with a pencil or marker. Hernon et al. (2006) examined “e-book use patterns”
and found that students do not view an e-book in the same way that they viewed a
p-book – something to read from cover to cover. A study by Levine-Clark (2006), with
data collected from 2,067 university students, faculty, and staff, indicated that,
although e-books are heavily used, students still report issues with reading materials
on a screen for a prolonged period of time. Using a survey of 105 students in four
undergraduate core courses, Gregory (2008) found that the students’ perceptions of
e-books were mixed; 66 percent indicated a preference for p-books, whereas 44 percent
had a positive feeling toward both types of books.
 In contrast, Macedo-Rouet et al. (2003) indicated that, even though the visibility of Influence of
complementary documents is poorer in an e-book than in a p-book, there is a strong e-books on
motivation for e-book use; in particular, satisfaction with e-books is generally very
high. Several studies have also indicated that the positive perception of e-books is reading
associated with accessibility and availability (Anuradha and Usha, 2006; Carlock and
Perry, 2008). According to Shelburne (2009), the growing availability of e-books has
begun to affect students’ perceptions and attitudes toward them, and students consider 395
e-books to be better than p-books. The growing availability of e-books to users has
begun to affect user perceptions and attitudes toward e-books, especially as libraries
have reached a critical mass in e-book collection numbers, creating more access and
usage opportunities. Table I shows the results of this literature review.

4. Methods
4.1 Participants
A total of 56 sixth-year public school students participated in this study. A total of 29
of the students were male, and 27 were female (see Table II); the age range was 10-12
years (M ¼ 11.35, SD ¼ 0.62). All participants had at least one personal computer that
was shared with either a brother or sister. Additionally, they used more than one e-mail
account. Approximately 7 percent of them used e-mail every day, and 85 percent used
e-mail at least once a week. Approximately 80 percent had mobile phones and
exchanged text messages with their friends and/or family. The participants had no
physical or mental problems and had at least 20/20 visual acuity (VA) with corrective
lenses. VA is a quantitative measure of one’s ability to identify black symbols on a
white background at a standardized distance as the size of the symbols is varied. It is
the most common clinical measurement of visual function; 20/20 vision can be
considered nominal performance for human vision. Because tiredness may affect VA,
the participants were instructed not to stay up late and not to take medication or any
other substances that might affect the test results. The data were collected in the spring
of 2008.

4.2 Instrument
4.2.1 Reading instrument. In the current study, we used children’s stories that the
participants had not previously read. The reading materials were prize-winning
entries in the children’s story category of the annual spring literary contest of the
Dong-A Daily Newspaper, the largest popular Korean daily newspaper. We selected
a collection of five stories (A, B, C, D, and E) that were first-place entries from 2004
to 2008 (www.donga.com/docs/sinchoon/2008/). We used both e-books and p-books
for a total number of ten books (five e-books and five p-books). Each e-book was
prepared in the same format as the p-book so as to minimize differences between
the two. For each story, there was an average of 700 Korean words over four pages.
The font was Arial, which is one of the most frequently used typefaces for Korean
textual information. The size of each character in the e-books was about
4.25 mm £ 4.25 mm, which was similar to the character size of the p-books. The
reading material used in this study is illustrated in Figure 1. The contents of the
e-book were displayed on a LG L1732S-SF monitor (see Table III). The p-books
displayed reading passages in black and white. The aspect ratio and size of the
p-books were similar to the viewing screen of the e-books. However, interface
EL
n %
30,3
Gender
Male 29 51.79
Female 27 48.21
Experience of computer usage
396 1-3 years 5 8.93
3-5 years 38 67.86
6 years or more 13 23.21
The number of computers in home
1 11 19.64
2 27 48.21
3 or more 18 32.14
The number of e-mail accounts
1 21 37.50
2 28 50.00
3 or more 7 12.50
Frequency of e-mail use
Never 2 3.57
Monthly 6 10.71
Weekly 39 78.57
Daily 9 7.14
Mobile phone
Yes 45 80.36
No 11 19.64
Frequency of text message use by mobile phone (if you have it)
Never 0 0.00
Monthly 0 0.00
Weekly 3 6.67
Daily 42 93.33
Table II.
Participants Note: n ¼ 56

manipulation differed between the two book types. The participants used their
fingers to turn the pages of the p-books, while they used a keyboard and mouse to
go to the next page or scroll up/down within the e-books.
4.2.2 Eye fatigue. Participants’ eye fatigues were measured by critical flicker/fusion
frequency (CFF) threshold. CFF is defined as the frequency at which a flickering light is in
distinguishable from steady, non-flickering light; it is the lowest frequency of flickering
light that is required to produce an appearance of steady light to an observer. However,
temporal resolution quantified by the CFF must undergo a mathematical conversion if it
is to be a predictor of visual acuity. Inevitably, the precision of the conversion will
influence of the prediction. Despite this limitation, CFF is widely used as highly sensitive
measurement to evaluate retina functionality and it is an effective for assessing the eye
fatigue (Wang and Haung, 2004). In this study, the participants watched with both eyes
separately through a binocular optic system and they should decide whether the target is
flickering or steady. All participants’ CFF scores were measured at the beginning of each
reading session. After reading the p-book/e-book, their CFF scores were gauged again for
 Influence of
e-books on
reading

397

Figure 1.
An example of e-book (up)
and p-book (down) in a
story

comparison. In this study, the gap in CFF scores between before and after reading the
p-book/e-book means that a drop in the sensory perception function.
4.2.3 Reading quiz. In this study, reading comprehension was assessed using
reading quiz questions. Two teachers who majored in reading education developed
EL
General Display type (flat panel display/TFT active matrix)/width (39 cm)/depth
30,3 (23.2 cm) height (40.6 cm)/weight (4.1 kg)
Display Diagonal size (17“)/dot pitch/pixel pitch (0.294 mm)/max resolution
(1280 £ 1024) color support (up to 16.2 million colors)/max sync rate
(V £ H) (75 Hz £ 83 kHz) response time (8 ms)/signal input (VGA)
398 Image Brightness (300 cd/m2)/image contrast ratio (600:1) image max H-view
angle (160)/image max V-view angle (160)
Video input Analogue video signal (GGB)
Expansion/connectivity Interfaces (1 £ VGA-15 pin HD D-Sub, HD-15)
Miscellaneous Flat panel mount interface (built-in)/compliant standards (TCO’03, FCC
Class B certified, CE, UL, TUV GS, cUL, ISO 13406-2, SEMKO)
Power Form factor (internal)/voltage required (AC 120/230 V, 50/60 Hz) power
consumption operational (35 watt)/power consumption stand by/sleep (1
Table III.
Watt)
Technical details of the
e-book monitor Environmental standards EPA energy star compliant (yes)

multiple-choice questions whose answers could be found in the reading passages. A

total of ten questions per story were developed for a total of 50 questions covering five
story quizzes for stories A, B, C, D, and E. Three other teachers who taught some of the
participants ensured the content validity of the five story quizzes. In the current study,
a pre-test was conducted to examine whether the level of difficulty varied among the
five story quizzes. The pre-test results showed no difference in the level of difficulty
among the five story quizzes. In other words, each story quiz had the same level of
difficulty compared to the others.
4.2.4 Feedback questionnaire. The questionnaire assessed three variables:
satisfaction, usefulness, and behavioral intention. The items in the questionnaire
were adapted from previous studies related to e-books (see Table IV). The participants’
feedback on e-book use was measured using four items concerning satisfaction
(reading tools, assisted learning tools, function, and colors), five items concerning
e-book usefulness (font size and typeface, ease of using the menu, clarity of reading on
the screen, and ease of finding important information), and five items concerning the
participants’ behavioral intentions related to the future use of e-books (increase in
reading e-books, using e-books to assist learning, using e-books for information, and
preference for e-books or p-books). The variables of usefulness, satisfaction, and
behavioral intention were each assessed using a five-item list that the participants
evaluated using a five-point Likert scale.

4.3 Procedure
This study was conducted after the purpose of the experiment was explained to the
participants. A standard CFF device, a computer with a monitor for reading
e-books, p-books, desks, and chairs were provided. To ensure data reliability, an
e-book manual was provided to the participants. All of the participants completed
both the p-book and e-book reading experiments. The p-book experiment was
conducted first, and the e-book experiment was scheduled for one week later. The
 Influence of
Construct Question Source
e-books on
Satisfaction I am satisfied with the functions of the e-book Murphy et al. (2003) reading
I am satisfied with using an e-book as a learning Hernon et al. (2006)
assisted tool
I am satisfied with using an e-book as a reading Appleton (2004)
tool 399
I am satisfied with the colors used in the e-book Macedo-Rouet et al. (2003)
Usefulness The font size and typeface in the e-book were Murphy et al. (2003)
easy to read
The sequence of the e-book on the screen was Thong et al. (2002)
clear
It was convenient to scroll up/down within the Thong et al. (2002)
e-book
It was easy to turn the pages in the e-book Appleton (2004)
It was easy to find important information in the Macedo-Rouet et al. (2003)
e-book
Behavioral intention I intend to increase my use of e-books Thong et al. (2002)
I intend to use e-books to assist my learning Hernon et al. (2006)
I will read e-books to look for information I need Macedo-Rouet et al. (2003)
In five years, I will do most of my reading from Ebrary (2007)
e-books
If given a choice between an electronic or print Langston (2003)
version of a particular book, I will choose the Table IV.
electronic version Questionnaire items

experiment was conducted in the following order: pre-CFF measurement, book

reading, post-CFF measurement, administration of the quiz, and administration of
the feedback questionnaire regarding the e-book. First, the participants’ CFF scores
were measured as a baseline for comparison at the beginning of each reading
session. Second, the participant was seated to begin reading. In each experiment, a
sequence of stories was randomized for each participant. Each participant randomly
chose two stories among the five for each book type. However, the participants were
not able to choose the same story twice to prevent the participants from reading the
same story for the p-book and e-book steps. The participants read two different
stories in p-book format and in e-book format. Third, after completing the reading
portion, the participants’ CFF scores were gauged again. Fourth, each participant
answered the quiz questions for the two stories that were read. After completing the
e-book quiz, the participants were asked to complete the e-book questionnaire (see
Figure 2). The administration of the each experiment was heavily standardized. For
example, all e-book readings were done with the same standardized desktop and the
same e-book software. Additionally, all participants read the e-books in the same
classroom in which they had read the p-books a week earlier.

5. Results
5.1 Participants’ reading comprehension
Table V shows the means and standard deviations of the quiz scores for each
experimental condition. The students had a higher score after reading the p-books
EL
30,3

400

Figure 2.
Experiment procedure

95 percent
Confidence
interval of
mean
n Mean Stand deviation Stand error Lower Upper Minimum Maximum

Table V. p-book 56 86.33 7.10 0.94 84.43 88.24 70.00 100.00

The distribution of the e-book 56 82.94 8.07 1.07 80.78 85.10 65.00 100.00
participants’ quiz scores Total 112 84.64 7.76 0.73 83.18 86.09 65.00 100.00

(M ¼ 86.23, SD ¼ 7.10) than after reading the e-books (M ¼ 82.94, SD ¼ 8.07).

One-way analysis of variance was used to determine whether the quiz scores of the
participants were significantly different after reading the p-book and after reading the
e-book. Table VI shows that there was a significant difference between the scores for
the two experimental conditions (F ¼ 5.572, p , 0.05). This result reveals that there is
a significant “book effect” on quiz scores; compared to e-books, p-books appear to
enable better reading comprehension. As with the previous studies mentioned, this
result could possibly be attributed to two main factors: the display contrast and
resolution of the e-books and the participants’ more extensive experience with p-books.

5.2 Eye fatigue

In this study, the participants’ eye fatigue was measured by CFF. The participants
showed a decrease in CFF scores after reading both p-books and e-books. Table VII
Table VI.
One-way ANOVA Sum of square Df Mean square F Sig.
comparing quiz scores
obtained after reading the Between groups 322.321 1 322.321 5.572 0.020
p-book and after reading Within groups 6363.393 110 57.849
the e-book Total 6685.714 111
shows the means and standard deviations of the participants’ CFF reduction for each Influence of
experimental condition. After reading the p-book, the participants’ CFF was reduced e-books on
by 1.63 Hz on average. In contrast, after reading the e-book, the participants’ CFF was
reduced by 3.04 Hz on average. One-way analysis of variance was used to determine reading
whether this difference in CFF reduction was statistically significant. Table VIII shows
a significant difference between the two experimental conditions (F ¼ 180.622,
p , 0.001). This result reveals a significant “book effect” on CFF changes for both book 401
types. It seems that participants had significantly greater eye fatigue after reading
e-books than after reading p-books. This may be explained by previous studies
suggesting that lower luminance contrast in e-books may contribute to greater eye
fatigue (Chi and Lin, 1998; Kang et al., 2009; Martin and Platt, 2001; Wang and Haung,
2004).

5.3 Participants’ perception of e-books

The feedback questionnaire’s reliability was evaluated using the inter-item consistency
measure of Cronbach’s alpha (a). The alpha reliability was 0.80. The participants’
perceived satisfaction, usefulness, and behavioral intentions regarding the e-book are
presented in Table IX. The participants expressed only mid-level positive attitudes
toward e-books in perceived usefulness (M ¼ 3.51, SD ¼ 0.63), perceived satisfaction
(M ¼ 3.33, SD ¼ 0.65), and perceived behavioral intention (M ¼ 2.97, SD ¼ 0.62). For
example, approximately 47 percent of the students agreed (agreed or strongly agreed)
with the statement “I am satisfied with using an e-book as a reading tool”; only 19.64
percent disagreed (disagreed or strongly disagreed) with the same statement. In
addition, approximately 52 percent agreed that “the font size and typeface in the e-book
were easy to read,” and 11.96 percent disagreed. However, only 7.98 percent of the
students agreed with the statement “if given a choice between an electronic or print
version of a particular book, I would choose the electronic version,” whereas around 50
percent disagreed with this statement. In summary, the students were generally
satisfied with the e-book. Nevertheless, they preferred p-books to e-books. Although

95 percent
Confidence
interval of
mean
n Mean Stand deviation Stand error Lower Upper Minimum Maximum
Table VII.
p-book 56 1.63 0.53 0.07 1.49 1.77 0.78 2.62 The distribution of
e-book 56 3.04 0.57 0.07 2.88 3.19 1.79 4.32 participants’ CFF
Total 112 2.33 0.89 0.08 2.17 2.50 0.78 4.32 reduction

Sum of square Df Mean square F Sig.

Table VIII.
Between groups 55.253 1 55.253 180.622 0.000 One-way ANOVA
Within groups 33.649 110 0.306 comparing participants’
Total 88.902 111 CFF scores
EL
1 2 3 4 5
30,3 Items (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) M SD

Satisfaction 3.33 0.65

I am satisfied with the functions of the e-book 3.57 19.64 41.07 19.64 16.07 3.25 1.06
I am satisfied with using an e-book as a learning
402 assisted tool 1.79 16.07 39.29 30.36 12.50 3.35 0.96
I am satisfied with using an e-book as a reading tool 0.0 19.64 33.93 32.14 14.29 3.41 0.96
I am satisfied with the colors used in the e-book 3.57 12.50 44.64 28.57 10.71 3.30 0.95
Usefulness 3.51 0.63
The font size and typeface in the e-book were easy to read 1.79 10.71 35.71 32.14 19.64 3.57 0.98
The sequence of the e-book on the screen was clear 3.57 14.29 30.36 35.71 16.07 3.46 1.04
It was convenient to scroll up/down within the e-book 1.79 12.50 33.93 33.93 17.86 3.53 0.99
It was easy to turn the pages in the e-book 1.79 16.07 32.14 28.57 21.43 3.51 1.06
It was easy to find important information in the e-book 5.36 14.29 30.36 26.79 23.21 3.48 1.15
Behavioral intention 2.97 0.62
I intend to increase my use of e-books 3.57 19.64 46.43 25.00 5.36 3.08 0.90
I intend to use e-books to assist my learning 8.93 10.71 51.79 21.43 7.14 3.07 0.98
I will read e-books to look for information I need 7.14 17.86 44.64 17.86 12.50 3.10 1.07
Table IX. In five years, I will do most of my reading from e-books 5.36 25.00 42.86 23.21 3.57 2.94 0.92
Percentage of agreement If given a choice between an electronic or print version
and disagreement with of a particular book, I will choose the electronic version 12.50 32.14 39.29 10.71 5.36 2.64 1.01
the feedback items for
e-books Note: From 1 which means “strongly disagree” to 5 which means “strongly agree”

the students recognized e-books as useful reading material, they seemed to have no
immediate intention to replace p-books with e-books.

6. Discussion
The purpose of this paper was to compare e-books with p-books in terms of students’
reading comprehension, eye fatigue, and perceptions. First, this study investigated
whether sixth-grade students’ comprehension was different after reading e-books and
p-books. Although previous studies have reported no significant differences between
e-books and p-books (Macedo-Rouet et al., 2003; Kang et al., 2009), the current study
shows that the students performed better with p-books than with e-books. We found some
possible reasons for this result: reading on a screen might require more concentration than
on paper, and e-book reading is more error prone than p-book reading.
Second, reading from a screen is not the same as reading from a p-book. This study
found that the students’ CFF scores were different for e-books and p-books. We found
that the students experienced more eye fatigue when reading e-books than when reading
p-books. Eye fatigue can cause students to grow tired and may even cause nervousness.
We found that sustained or intentional reading of digital texts on screen displays was
difficult in part because of hardware limitations and ergonomics: stationary computer
screens require static reading positions, and poor type representation impedes reading
and causes eye fatigue. We found that eye fatigue can reduce concentration, which may
also affect comprehension. Therefore, special glasses may be the best way to help e-book
users. The time spent in front of a screen is a factor in determining whether special
glasses are required. Special lenses can save an e-book user from eyestrain problems. We
suggest placing the screen about 10-15 degrees below the e-book users’ horizontal line of Influence of
vision. The screen should be 18-30 inches from the user’s eyes, and the eyes should be e-books on
level with the top of the monitor (Reeves, 1992).
Third, the students expressed that e-books are useful reading devices. Most reading
students reported that the e-book was easy to read. For example, regarding the e-books’
usefulness, they found that the font size and type were easy to read, that the screen
sequence was clear, and that the tasks of scrolling up and down, moving pages, and 403
finding information were easy and convenient. The current study also found that most
students were satisfied with e-books as a reading or learning tool. The results from this
paper partially support those of previous studies showing that students have a positive
perception of e-books (Anuradha and Usha, 2006; Carlock and Perry, 2008).
However, this paper provides interesting insights into user satisfaction with the
usefulness of e-books and behavioral intentions that were not observed in previous
studies. Based on the results of the current study, we suggest that, although most
students are satisfied with using an e-book and perceive it as a useful reading tool, they
do not intend to choose e-books if given a choice between an electronic or print version
of a particular book. It might seem paradoxical that students would show satisfaction
with e-books and acknowledge the usefulness of e-books but still prefer p-books to
e-books. Of course, by studying students who have grown up with print on paper, we
can understand such a phenomenon. As mentioned by Brown (2001), the students in
the current study are also users of print on paper who enjoy their freedom in
navigating the text. They dominate the text, with a simple overview, scanning at will
any portion or section, leafing through pages, setting down to read at any point
significant to mind and eye, randomly coursing through footnotes and bibliographic
citations.
The current study heavily supports the general belief that most people still prefer to
read lengthy texts on paper. Today’s commonly used digital equipment and software
cannot compete with printed paper as a medium for sustained reading. This paper
finds that there are barriers to e-book adoption. Still, although this study suggests that
students in general are not yet ready to entirely give up p-books, e-books are becoming
increasingly common. There are increasing signs that print on demand will become
much more popular and economical. Schools continue to respond to the changing needs
of students who are increasingly comfortable with technology. We are guardedly
positive about the future of e-books, arguing that, “in time”, perhaps not very much
time, the problems of the presentation of text on screen may be solved, and e-books
may become as easy and pleasant to read as p-books (Blades, 2005). We feel that the
future of reading will involve e-books and that this will bring some interesting changes
to the manner in which we read. E-books provide us with new ways to read; this is not
necessarily a welcome novelty for all, as our habits from the past often subvert the
inventions that move us to the future. We strongly believe that we will see a migration
toward e-books over the next ten years, given the power that comes with the ability for
digital content to be updated in real time. Ultimately, there will be more choices for
information users.

7. Conclusion
This paper evaluated the usability of an e-book compared with a p-book. However, the
intent of this paper was not to choose between print and electronic materials; rather, as
EL Garrod (2003) observed, new media such as e-books add to our choices rather than
30,3 substituting one form for another.
Surprisingly, though, the Korean students studied herein, who have had a higher
level of exposure to technology than those in other countries, did not show positive
behavioral intentions toward e-books. Overall, the responses from the students suggest
that there was general satisfaction with reading e-books on screen. However, we also
404 found a discordance in the students’ perceptions of e-books. In this study, most
students grew tired of reading on the screen; this tiredness could have an adverse effect
on both reading comprehension and the perception of e-books. In further analyzing
user responses, many of the critical remarks were found to refer to the screen/text size
or clarity rather than to the e-book itself. Given the results of this study, we suggest
that improvements in the legibility of e-books are critical to making them more usable
and efficient. This suggests that improvements in device capabilities could enhance
users’ overall impressions of e-books. Although the device capabilities of e-books are
the domain of e-book developers, care must be taken to incorporate the input of
behavioral scientists into the interface characteristics so that the acceptance of e-books
can increase. Therefore, we hope that those who design e-books will take our findings
into consideration. E-book designers should dedicate special attention to the issue of
eye fatigue experienced by students when reading e-books. E-book designers should
also prioritize navigational clarity.
E-book technology has a long way to go before it can equal the readability and
richness of p-books; nevertheless, e-books have characteristics that, in some ways,
supersede those of p-books, being more flexible and accessible than p-books. There is
undoubtedly a role for e-books in school library. It is likely that e-book service will
attract new users to library service and perhaps will better serve patrons with special
needs (such as mobility impairments). Libraries of the future may be hybrid
environments in which different media contribute to their evolving service and
accommodate the developing needs and expectations of patrons. Many people are
giving e-books an “A” in eco-friendliness. Indeed, e-books are better for the
environment than printed books. Printed books are shipped long distances from
warehouses to bookstores, using gasoline and creating pollution. They also use a large
number of trees. In 2008, more than 125 million trees were used by the book and
newspaper industries in the US alone (Harte, 2010). Along with environmental benefits,
e-books offer convenient reading. Using only a home computer, readers can quickly get
the e-books they desire. Inevitable technological progress promises new opportunities
for implementing e-books. E-books should allow students to understand content and
should obtain an advantage over the p-book format. Clearly, students are interested in
using more e-books, but great challenges remain in terms of making e-book content
more available and in enabling improved comprehension and reducing eye fatigue.
In this study, we did verify structural relationships among eye fatigue,
comprehension, and the perception of e-books. Of course, until we have further
studies with a larger, purposefully selected sample and perhaps a more uniform group
of students, these relationships will remain pure conjecture. Therefore, further studies
should try to uncover these complex relationships. Additionally, more qualitative
variables such as students’ culture, age, and gender are important in an educational
context and can shed light on questions that were left open-ended in this study. Such
studies might also begin to capture not only the essence of the e-book experiences but
also some of the important differences, such as how reading experiences vary based on Influence of
the purpose and style of a text. An extension of our study could compare interactive e-books on
and non-interactive versions of e-books to determine whether interactive features help
students perform better while changing their perceptions about e-books. The effects of reading
larger screens and side-by-side display conditions also merit further assessment.
Larger-scale studies focusing on the multidisciplinary uses of e-books should be
carried out to further examine how they can impact academics. 405
Indeed, to quote Shelburne:
The next few years will be an exciting time in the world of e-books (Shelburne, 2009, p. 65).

References
Anuradha, K.T. and Usha, H.S. (2006), “Use of e-books in an academic and research environment”,
Program: electronic library and information systems, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 48-62.
Birkerts, S. (1994), The Gutenberg Elegies: The Fate of Reading in an Electronic Age, Fawcett
Columbine, New York, NY.
Blades, H. (2005), “The electronic book: some thoughts on the present and the future”, Private
Library, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 148-52.
Bonham, S.W., Deardorff, D.L. and Beichner, R.J. (2003), “Comparison of student performance
using Web and paper-based homework in college-level physics”, Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, Vol. 40 No. 10, pp. 1050-71.
Brown, G.J. (2001), “Beyond print: reading digitally”, Library Hi Tech, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 390-9.
Carlock, D. and Perry, A. (2008), “Exploring faculty experiences with ebooks: a focus group”,
Library Hi Tech, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 244-54.
Carlson, S. (2002), “Students complain about devices for reading e-book, study finds”,
The Chronicle of Higher Education, 26 August.
Carusi, A. (2006), “Textual practitioners: a comparison of hypertext theory and phenomenology
of reading”, Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 163-80.
Chi, C.F. and Lin, F.T. (1998), “A comparison of seven visual fatigue assessment techniques using
three data-acquisition VDT tasks”, Human Factors, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 577-90.
Chu, H. (2003), “Electronic books: viewpoints from users and potential users”, Library Hi Tech,
Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 340-6.
Cox, J. (2004), “E-book: challenges and opportunities”, D-Lib Magazine, Vol. 10 No. 10, available
at: www.dlib.org/dlib/october04/cox/10cox.html (accessed 15 May 2008).
Cushman, W.H. (1986), “Reading from microfiche, a VDT, and the printed page: subjective
fatigue and performance”, Human Factors, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 63-73.
Dillon, A. (1994), Designing Usable Electronic Text: Ergonomics Aspects of Human Information
Usage, Taylor & Francis, London.
Dillon, A. and Gabbard, R. (1998), “Hypermedia as an educational technology: a review of the
quantitative research literature learner comprehension, control, and style”, Review of
Educational Research, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 322-49.
Doctorow, C. (2004), “Ebooks: neither e, nor books”, paper presented at the O’Reilly Emerging
Technologies Conference, San Diego, CA, available at: http://craphound.com/
ebooksneitherenorbooks.txt (accessed 16 January 2010).
Egan, D.E., Remde, J.R., Landauer, T.K., Lochbaum, C.C. and Gomez, L.M. (1989), “Behavioral
evaluation and analysis of a hypertext browser”, in Proceedings of ACM CHI’89
EL Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, User Interface System Evaluations,
pp. 205-10.
30,3
Eveland, W.P. and Dunwoody, S. (2001), “User control and structural isomorphism or
disorientation and cognitive load? Learning from the web versus print”, Communication
Research, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 48-78.
Garrod, P. (2003), “Ebooks in UK libraries: where are we now?”, Ariadne, Vol. 37, available at:
406 www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue37/garrod/ (accessed 4 October 2010).
Gibson, C. and Gibb, F. (2011), “An evaluation of second generation ebook readers”,
The Electronic Library, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 303-19.
Gordon, S., Gustavel, J., Moore, J. and Hankey, J. (1988), “The effect of hypertext on reader
knowledge representation”, in Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Human
Factors Society, Human Factors Society, Santa Monica, CA, pp. 296-300.
Gregory, C.L. (2008), “‘But I want a real book’: an investigation of undergraduates’ usage and
attitudes toward electronic books”, Reference and User Services Quarterly, Vol. 47 No. 3,
pp. 266-73.
Grimshaw, S. and Dungworth, N. (2004), “Electronic books: children’s reading practices and
comprehension”, School Libraries in View, Vol. 19, pp. 22-7.
Grzeschik, K., Kruppa, Y., Marti, D. and Donner, P. (2011), “Reading in 2110 – reading behavior
and reading devices”, The Electronic Library, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 288-302.
Harte, T. (2010), “Future reads: should e-books replace printed books?”, Owl, Vol. 35 No. 7, p. 10.
Hernon, P., Hopper, R., Leach, M.R., Saunders, L.L. and Zhang, J. (2006), “E-book use by students:
undergraduates in economics, literature, and nursing”, The Journal of Academic
Librarianship, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 3-13.
Kang, Y., Wang, M.J. and Lin, R. (2009), “Usability evaluation of e-books”, Displays, Vol. 30 No. 2,
pp. 49-52.
Kelly, K. (2006), “Scan this book!”, New York Times Magazine, Section 6, 14 May, pp. 42-3.
Landoni, M. and Hanlon, G. (2007), “E-book reading groups: interacting with e-books in public
libraries”, The Electronic Library, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 599-612.
Langston, M. (2003), “The California State University E-book Pilot Project: implications for
cooperative collection development”, Library Collections, Acquisitions and Technical
Services, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 19-32.
Levine-Clark, M. (2006), “Electronic book usage: a survey at the University of Denver”, portal:
Libraries and the Academy, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 285-99.
Macedo-Rouet, M., Rouet, J.-F., Epstein, I. and Fayard, P. (2003), “Effects of online reading on
popular science comprehension”, Science Communication, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 99-128.
Martin, L.A. and Platt, M.W. (2001), “Printing and screen reading in the medical school
curriculum: Guttenberg vs the cathode ray tube”, Behaviour and Information Technology,
Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 143-8.
Matthew, K. (1997), “A comparison of the influence of interactive CD-ROM storybooks and
traditional print storybooks on reading comprehension”, Journal of Research on
Computing in Education, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 263-75.
Mayes, D.K., Sims, V.K. and Koonce, J.M. (2001), “Comprehension and workload differences for
VDT and paper-based reading”, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 28
No. 6, pp. 367-78.
Miller, L., Blackstock, J. and Miller, R. (1994), “An exploratory study into the use of CD-ROM
storybooks”, Computers in Education, Vol. 22 Nos 1/2, pp. 187-204.
Murphy, P.K., Long, J.F., Holleran, T.A. and Esterly, E. (2003), “Persuasion online or on paper: Influence of
a new take on an old issue”, Learning and Instruction, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 511-32.
Nielsen, J. (2000), Designing Web Usability, New Riders Publishing, Indianapolis, IN.
e-books on
Prensky, M. (2001), “Digital natives, digital immigrants”, available at: www.marcprensky.com/
reading
writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%
20Part1.pdf (accessed 4 July 2007).
Reeves, P. (1992), “The response of the average pupil to various light levels”, Journal of the 407
Optical Society of America, Vol. 4, pp. 35-43.
Sanders, B. (1994), A Is for Ox: The Collapse of Literacy and the Rise of Violence in an Electronic
Age, Vintage, New York, NY.
Shelburne, W.A. (2009), “E-book usage in an academic library: user attitudes and behaviors”,
Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services, Vol. 33 Nos 2/3, pp. 59-72.
Spiro, R.J. and Jehng, J.C. (1990), “Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: theory and technology for
the nonlinear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter”, in Nix, D. and
Spiro, R. (Eds), Cognition, Education, and Multimedia: Exploring Ideas in High Technology,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 163-205.
Sweller, J. (1994), “Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design”, Learning
and Instruction, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 295-312.
Van Oostendorp, H. and Van Nimwegen, C. (1998), “Locating information in an online
newspaper”, Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, Vol. 4 No. 1, available at:
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol4/issue1/oostendorp.html (accessed 3 February 2010).
Wang, M.J. and Haung, C.L. (2004), “Evaluating the eye fatigue problem in wafer inspection”,
IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 444-7.

Further reading
Abbott, D. (2004), “Easy on the EYE”, The Safety and Health Practitioner, Vol. 22 No. 4.
Bennet, L. and Landoni, M. (2005), “E-books in academic libraries”, The Electronic Library, Vol. 23
No. 1, pp. 9-16.
Boss, R.W. (2008), “E-books; an uncertain future”, Public Library Association, available at: www.
ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/pla/plapubs/technotes/ebooks.cfm (assessed 21 May 2008).
Cox, A. and Mohammed, H. (2001), “E-books”, FreePint80, available at: www.freepint.co.uk/
issues/010201.htm#feature (accessed 8 November 2009).
Kaiser, C.P. (2007), “Informatics specialist eyes visual ills in radiologists – as average age of
radiologists rises, researchers call for optimizing reading environment to special needs”,
Diagnostic Imaging, Vol. 29 No. 9, available at: http://proquest.umi.com/
pqdlink?did¼1329739571&sid¼9&Fmt¼3&clientId¼41707&RQT¼309&VName¼PQD
(accessed 1 October 2010).
Ohene-Djan, J. and Fernandes, A. (2003), “Personalising electronic books”, Journal of Digital
Information, Vol. 3 No. 4, available at: http://journals.tdl.org/jodi/article/viewArticle/88/87
(accessed 3 November 2009).
Press, L. (2000), “From p-books to e-books”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 17-21.
Rao, S.S. (2003), “Electronic books: a review and evaluation”, Library Hi Tech, Vol. 21 No. 1,
pp. 85-93.
Rose, E. (2010), “The phenomenology of on-screen reading: university students’ lived experience
of digitised text”, British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 41, available at: www3.
interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123271709/PDFSTART (assessed 9 March 2010).
EL Rouet, J.F., Dillon, A., Levonen, J.J. and Spiro, R.J. (Eds) (1996), Hypertext and Cognition,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
30,3
About the author
Hanho Jeong was recently appointed as Professor in the Department of Education at Chongshin
University, Seoul focusing on educational technology. Prior to that he was an Adjunct Professor
408 in the Center for Teaching and Learning at Kwangwoon University, Seoul, Korea. After
obtaining an Education Doctor degree from the Department of Education at Korea University in
2008, Hanho was a research fellow in the Learning Systems Institute, Florida State University,
Tallahassee, USA, between 2008-2010. Research interests include e-learning, e-book, e-library,
ICT, and computer based tests on the web. Hanho Jeong can be contacted at:
hjeong@chongshin.ac.kr or eduok1@paran.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints