IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

Beyond the Basics: Adapting an Open Textbook to Accommodate a Flipped Class
Ariana Eichelberger
University of Hawaii at Manoa,
USA
Hong Ngo
University of Hawaii at Manoa
USA

67

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

Abstract
Through a collaborative effort between an instructional design team and the Biology
Department at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, the OpenStax Biology 2e open, online
textbook was modified with new features to improve student engagement and learning
outcomes. This study investigated students’ perceptions of the customized textbook. A surveyof 22 questions was completed by 446 students using the textbook as a part of an introductory
Biology course. Changes made to the textbook were well received by the majority of students
and suggestions were made for improvements. Current and future revisions to the textbook are
discussed.
Keywords: OER, OpenStax, biology, flipped classroom68

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

Assigning university students readings to complete outside of class is not new. Outside
readings are an important way for students to learn, as undergraduate courses typically have
limited in-class time (Bergmann & Sams, 2012; Ryan, 2006). Students who complete readings
prior to class tend to understand instructional material better and are more prepared for class(Gurung, 2003; Narloch et al., 2006). Completing work outside of class may also contribute tostudent satisfaction and sense of self-determination (Sergis et al., 2018).
Completing work outside of class is a significant component of the flipped classroom model.
In a flipped classroom, “students gain first exposure to new material outside of class, usually
via reading or lecture videos, and then use class time to do the harder work of assimilating thatknowledge, perhaps through problem-solving, discussion, or debates” (Brame, 2013, p. 1). The
flipped model has been shown to improve learning performance (Bhagat et al., 2016), increase
student satisfaction (Bösner et al., 2015), engage students (Khanova et al., 2015), improvecritical thinking (van Vliet et al., 2015) and enhance application skills (Liou et al., 2016).
However, there are also challenges, including students not completing out-of-class work (Al‐Zahrani, 2015), and instructors’ inability to know if students have completed work (Fautch,
2015). Students commonly fail to spend adequate amounts of time studying outside of class(Akçayır & Akçayır, 2018; Lai & Hwang, 2016) and those students may not succeed in aflipped class (Sayeski et al., 2015). It has been suggested that engaging students during out-ofclass work and keeping them accountable are key factors for student success in the flippedmodel (Hwang et al., 2015).
While the flipped model’s effectiveness in increasing student outcomes has been wellestablished, less attention has been paid to its impact on students’ internal dispositions or
intrinsic motivation to remain engaged in the learning process (Sergis et al., 2018). A student’s
engagement and learning are influenced by their motivation (Elliot, 2019). Student motivation
to engage with the out-of-class content becomes critical in a flipped environment as students
who fail to do so are not able to fully participate in class (Aidinopoulou & Sampson, 2017) andincreasingly fall behind as a flipped course progresses (Chen et al., 2014).
Inspired by the possibilities, and aware of the challenges, the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa’s(UHM) Biology department partnered with the College of Education’s Distance Course Design
and Consulting Group (DCDC) to redesign its introductory Biology course, BIOL 171, toincorporate the flipped classroom model. Biology team members included the course professor
and lab coordinator serving as subject matter experts. DCDC team members included a project
manager, instructional designer, web developer, programmer, and graphic designer. From fall2017 to summer 2018, the OpenStax Biology 2e textbook was customized, then piloted in fall2018 with 463 students. This study examined students’ perceptions of using the customized
textbook. The questions guiding the study were:
1. How did BIOL 171 students perceive the design features added to the OpenStax
Biology 2e textbook?
2. Did the new design features influence students’ motivation and satisfaction whenparticipating in the course?
3. What improvements to the textbook did students suggest?

69

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

Customizing the OpenStax Biology 2e Textbook
The OpenStax Biology 2e textbook is an Open Educational Resource (OER), as it resides in
the public domain and is released under an intellectual property license allowing for free useor re-purposing (Atkins et al., 2007). Educator reported benefits of OER include knowing thatall students have access to course materials (Weller et al., 2015), an increased sense of control
over curriculum, better ability to serve the needs of diverse learners, and positive changes inpedagogy (Pitt, 2015).
Students report favoring online OER textbooks over traditional print texts, finding them more
up-to-date and useful (Feldstein et al., 2012). Students have also reported satisfaction with thequality of OER materials (Gil et al., 2013; Pitt et al., 2013), and their accessibility (Weller etal., 2015). In addition, students also report that OER textbooks support their course work, andwould recommend OER to their classmates (Hilton et al., 2013). Another common reason forstudents preferring OER textbooks is low cost (Lindshield & Adhikari, 2013; Petrides et al.,2011). High prices for traditional textbooks have resulted in students choosing to not takecourses (Donaldson et al., 2012), not purchase materials while enrolled in a course (Allen, 2011)
and to be more concerned about book costs than tuition (Bonner, 2014 as cited in Pitt, 2015).
The textbook was redesigned to support a flipped classroom. A fundamental aspect of the
flipped model is students interacting with content out-of-class before engaging in learning
activities face-to face. This pre-class work provides students with a sense of ownership of theirlearning (O’Flaherty & Phillips, 2015) and has been attributed in part to the overall success ofthe flipped model (Gross, 2015). The textbook was specifically focused on to enhance students’
out-of-class experience and accountability.
Conceptual Framework
The redesign of the textbook was conceptually guided by Gagne’s Conditions of Learning andTheory of Instruction (1985) and Deci and Ryan’s (2012) Self-Determination Theory.
Considering the flipped model from an instructional design perspective, the primary functionof the textbook is to present content. However, according to the Conditions of Learning andTheory of Instruction (1985), presenting content is not enough. To effectively learn, students
must move through a series of learning events. Providing learner guidance and opportunities
for practice with feedback after content presentation are key learning events. In the absence ofsufficient learner guidance, practice, and feedback students in flipped learning environments
often lack the self-regulation to be successful with the out-of-class content (Sun et al., 2017).
A number of the features added to the textbook were designed to support Gagne’s learning
events relevant to out-of-class work including providing learner guidance, eliciting
performance and providing feedback on performance. To enhance learner guidance,
organization and navigational features were added. Additional chapters were added explaining
navigation of the textbook and providing tips on being a successful online learner. Text andfigure rollovers were included to reinforce concepts introduced. To provide opportunities forpractice, interactive flashcards and text and video quizzes were added. Immediate feedback
was provided and quizzes could be taken an unlimited number of times. Feedback on overall
progress was provided via the redesigned table of contents displaying the student’s status oneach of the quizzes.
The additional features of the redesigned textbook were also influenced by Self-Determination
Theory. Through the lens of Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2012), a learner’s
intrinsic motivation is strengthened when their actions feel autonomous and they feel70

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

competent or able to master an activity. Intrinsically motivated learners tend to persist atlearning tasks, making them more likely to achieve (Vansteenkiste et al., 2006). Therefore,
learning materials used as a part of a flipped class should enhance perceptions of autonomy
and competence to foster motivation. A number of features were added to increase feelings ofautonomy. First, the textbook was designed to be easily accessed via mobile devices allowing
access from any location at any time. Second, quiz status icons were added to give students
continual feedback on their progress. Third, the table of contents was redesigned based on due
dates rather than topics. Each of these features was designed to enhance students’ sense of
autonomy as they completed out-of-class work. To increase students’ sense of competencewith the content, practice flashcards and text and video quizzes were added to each chapter.
Text and Video Quizzes
The number of undergraduate students who do not complete textbook readings or postpone
them until immediately before an exam is increasing (Clump et al., 2004; Johnson & Kiviniemi,
2009; Sappington et al., 2002). Failure to complete reading assignments is detrimental tolearning (Johnson & Kiviniemi, 2009), and negatively impacts in-class performance (Gurung,
2003; Narloch et al., 2006). Regularly scheduled quizzes have been associated with increased
exam scores and course performance (Johnson & Kiviniemi, 2009). Flipped students needformative assessment opportunities to understand what they know and do not know (Rotellar& Cain, 2016; Slomanson, 2014) and benefit from incentives to prepare for class (Kim et al.,2014). Additionally, flipped instructors need methods for assessing students’ understanding ofmaterial (Kim et al., 2014).
To enhance student performance, engagement and accountability, quizzes were embedded ineach chapter. A portion of final grades were based on overall quiz completion. Two types ofquizzes were added, text and video. Both types used a multiple-choice format and were createdusing the H5P plugin. Figure 1 shows a text quiz.

Figure 1: Screenshot of a text quiz
Eight additional videos were added to the text. Quizzes were embedded in these videos using
the H5P interactive video feature. As seen in Figure 2, quizzes paused the video with questions
for students to answer before they could continue watching.

71

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

Figure 2: Screenshot of a video quiz
Glossary Term Practice Flashcards
Flashcards are known to increase vocabulary comprehension and retention (Fitzpatrick et al.,2008), are more likely to be used when provided by an instructor (Burgess & Murray, 2014),
and are most effective when used over time (Cepeda et al., 2006). The customized textbook
embedded interactive glossary term flashcards in each chapter using the original textbook’s
terms. Flashcards were built with Quizlet, a free, online, effective (Wright, 2016) flashcard
application. Flashcard use was optional, and not recorded.
Chapter Due Dates
Consistent pre-class assignments prepare students for a flipped class (Baepler et al., 2014) andcontribute to increased outcomes (Gross et al., 2015). Flipped classes should incorporate
preferred features of online classes including clear structure, easy navigation and schedulingmilestones (Bergstrand & Savage, 2013; Crews & Butterfield, 2014; Rabbany et al., 2011;
Wanner & Palmer, 2015). It is important for flipped students to know what they need to doprior to class (Rotellar & Cain, 2016), as self-regulation is often a challenge for students intechnology mediated environments (Shyr & Chen, 2018). This can be communicated to flippedclass students by providing a study schedule (Mason et al., 2013).
As displayed in Figure 3, the redesigned textbook used a calendar-like format that organizedchapters by their due dates rather than topic. This Due Dates page was shown upon logging
into the text.

72

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

Figure 3: Chapters organized by due dates with quiz status icons
Each chapter was displayed as a single webpage. Groups of chapters due on the same date weredisplayed as circular icons at the top and bottom of each chapter page. As displayed in Figure
4, rolling over a chapter icon displayed the chapter’s title and quiz status. Clicking on a chapter
icon would take a student to that chapter.

Figure 4: Rollover feature displaying chapter title and individual student’s quiz status
Quiz Status Icons
Students are often not aware of how they are doing in a course until it is too late (Pistilli &Arnold, 2010). An online student dashboard “provides a visual display of the important
information needed to achieve one or more goals, consolidated and arranged on a single screen
so the information can be monitored at a glance” (Teasley, 2017, p. 378). Quiz status icons
were displayed with each chapter depicting student progress. As seen in Figures 3 and 4, eachquiz was represented by a circle. At a glance, a student could see their quiz status.
Figure and Text Rollovers
In the original textbook, when clicking on a figure reference would take readers back to theoriginal figure’s location. To reduce clicks and keep readers in their location, the redesigned

73

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

textbook added a rollover feature that popped a figure up in place any time it was referred toin the text. The figure rollover feature is seen in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Figure rollover feature
As seen in Figure 6, a glossary term in-text rollover feature was also added. Terms appeared
as underlined text, indicating that they could be rolled over to display their definition.

Figure 6: Text rollover feature
Chapter Feedback
At the end of every chapter, students were able to provide comments and ratings on a 1 to 5
“star” scale, see Figure 7. Feedback could be given a descriptive tag to identify it as acompliment, fix or recommendation. The feedback was then displayed to instructors in their
dashboard.

Figure 7: Student feedback feature74

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

Additional Chapters
A comprehensive course orientation may help reduce confusion for online students regarding
course layout and expectations (Morris & Finnegan, 2008). For flipped students it may
additionally reduce fear or resistance to a new method (Lee et al., 2017). To orient students
and provide tips on being a successful online learner, two additional chapters, Start Here andOnline Learning Success, were added. Start Here included a video detailing logging in, taking
quizzes and monitoring progress. Online Learning Success provided online learning tips.
MethodThe purpose of this study was to examine students’ perceptions of the customized textbook.
All methods and instruments were approved by the University’s institutional review board on
human subjects research. Data were collected using an anonymous, online survey consistingof 16 Likert scale, three open-ended, and three demographic questions. As the textbook’s
redesign had been conceptually guided Gagne’s Theory of Instruction and the SelfDetermination Theory, the survey asked students to rate the features added to provide learnerguidance, practice with content, and feedback as well as questions about satisfaction andmotivation with the text. The survey was distributed in week 14 of the 16-week fall 2018semester. Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS 25.0. Qualitative data were quantified
for frequency of favored features and improvement suggestions.
Findings
Participants
The majority, 96.3% (n = 446) of the 463 fall 2018 BIOL 171 students invited to participate
completed the survey. Students ranged from 17 to 38 years old, 70% (n = 312) were female,
29% (n = 131) were male and 3 opted to not identify gender.
Students’ Perceptions of the Design Features
Text and video quizzes. Students were positive about the text and video quizzes. As
summarized in Table 1, the overall mean score (M) for quizzes was 3.8, above the midpoint on
a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) with a standard deviation of .870.
Specifically, 59% found the quizzes engaging, 62.3% agreed that the questions in the videos
helped them learn the content in the video, and 68.6% agreed that the text quizzes reinforced
the chapter content. In addition, 16.6% listed the embedded quizzes as the feature they liked
best about the customized textbook. Student 327 explained, “the quizzes encouraged me toreview and study the information being taught.” Student 345 said, “the textbook had...video
quizzes so that I could be engaged in my homework.”

75

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

Table 1: Text and video quizzes
Text and Video
1-2 (%)3 (%)
4-5 (%)
Quizzes (M =3.8, SD = .870)
1. The text and
10.7
30.3
59
video quizzes in
the online
textbook were
engaging.
2. The questions
11.5
26.2
62.3
embedded in thevideos helped
me learn thevideo content.
3. The text
8.1
23.3
68.6
quizzes
reinforced thechapter content.
(1-2: strongly disagree - disagree; 3: neutral; 4-5: agree - strongly agree)

M (SD)
3.72 (1.008)

3.78 (1.042)

3.94 (0.980)

The results also revealed students with neutral or negative perceptions toward the quizzes. As
seen in Table 1, 23.3% to 30.3% of the students indicated neutrality about the benefits of thetext and video quizzes to their learning, and 8.1% to 11.5% indicated negative perceptions of
the quizzes. Some students suggested adding more questions to the text and video quizzes. For
example, Student 372 wrote, “More content on the quizzes that better reflect exams questions
i.e actual questions from the exams.” Student 137 said, “the quizzes more in depth because
they were very easy and i feel quite a few of them didn’t cover main ideas of certain sections.”
Student 159 suggested fixing the questions saying, “Some of the quizzes had answers that did
not make sense.”
Glossary term practice flashcards. As displayed in Figure 8, slightly over half (52.9%) of
the students reported using the flashcards in most, or every chapter while 28.1% of the students
did not use them in any, or in very few chapters.

Figure 8. Reported frequency of use of glossary term practice flashcards.
Additional design features. The majority of students were positive about the additional design
features. The overall mean score for these 5 questions was 4.2 with an SD of .653. As shown76

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

in Table 2, the quiz status icons (item 6) were rated most highly (approximately 90%) with amean value of 4.59 and an SD of .781. Organization of the textbook (item 5) was second, with
82.5% (M = 4.35, SD = .894). The remaining questions regarding redesign elements (rollovers,
chapter due dates, and feedback option) received a smaller number of positive responses. In
order of highest to lowest, 78.7% of the students liked the rollover feature (M = 4.27, SD =.880), 76.2% preferred the text organized by chapter due dates (M = 4.26, SD = 1.062) and thefeedback option scored lowest with 33.6% of the students neutral and 13.5% negative on thisitem (M = 3.64, SD = 1.112).
Table 2: Additional design features of the customized OpenStax Biology textbook
Additional
Design Features(M = 4.2, SD =.653)
5. Theorganization of
the online
textbook was
logical and easy
to follow.
6. The online
textbook quizstatus icons(checkmarks incircles
representing
each quiz in achapter) helpedme track myprogress.
7. I liked therollover featurethat allowed me
to see the figuresin a chapter.
8. Given the
choice, I would
rather have theonline textbook
chapters
organized bywhen chaptersneed to be readversus a
traditional tableof contents.
9. Having theoption to

1-2 (%)3 (%)

4-5 (%)

M (SD)

3.2

14.3

82.5

4.35 (0.894)

2.7

7.6

89.8

4.59 (0.781)

2.7

18.6

78.7

4.27 (0.880)

6.1

17.7

76.2

4.26 (1.062)

13.5

33.6

52.9

3.64 (1.112)

77

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

providefeedback at theend of each bookchapter made me
feel more
involved in mylearning process.
(1-2: strongly disagree - disagree; 3: neutral; 4-5: agree - strongly agree)
Additional chapters. The Start Here and Online Learning Success chapters added to the
textbook were rated positively by approximately 60% of students. The overall mean for thetwo chapters was 3.8 with an SD of 1. As displayed in Table 3, 63.2% of students agreed that
the Start Here chapter helped them navigate the textbook, and 61.2% found the Online Learning
Success chapter helpful.
Table 3: Additional chapters
Additional
1-2 (%)3 (%)
4-5 (%)
Chapters (M =3.8, SD = 1.000)
10. The Start
10.8
26
63.2
Here: Textbook
Orientation
chapter helped
navigate thetextbook.
11. I found the
11
27.8
61.2
information in
the Online
Learning
Success chapter
helpful andwould advocate
keeping it in the
online textbook.
(1-2: strongly disagree - disagree; 3: neutral; 4-5: agree - strongly agree)

M (SD)
3.84 (1.111)

3.78 (1.112)

Format. As displayed in Table 4, 90.8% of students reported that they preferred an online, freeversion of the text over a hard copy for purchase (M = 4.7, SD of .918). Fewer than 10% of
students indicated otherwise.
When asked specifically about the customized textbook (item 13), a smaller number of students(70.4%) indicated their preference for the online version (M = 4.09, SD = 1.253). More students(15.9%) indicated their neutrality on item 13 and 13.7% reported not preferring the online
textbook over a hard copy. Agreement dropped 20.4% between item 12 and 13 when students
were asked about a general preference for a free online textbook and this textbook in particular.

78

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

Table 4: Free online vs hard copy format
Format (M =1-2 (%)3 (%)
4-5 (%)
4.4, SD = .918)
12. I preferred
3.6
5.7
90.8
having a free
online textbook
over a hard copy
book I have topurchase.
13. I preferred
13.7
15.9
70.4
having thisonline textbook
over a hard copy
textbook.
(1-2: strongly disagree - disagree; 3: neutral; 4-5: agree - strongly agree)

M (SD)
4.7 (0.805)

4.09 (1.253)

Favorite features. To the optional, open-ended question, “What did you like best about the
textbook?”, “No cost” and “Online” were the two most frequently given answers, mentioned
by 31.6% and 24.9% students respectively. Student 298 said “It was easy to access anywhere
I was because I found myself forgetting to do my reading but I could still do it in my sparetime when I was out just on my phone!” Student 430 commented:
Having easy access to this textbook was amazing. I could complete readings and hw on
the bus which helped me stay on top of my work. Also, the interface was intuitive andvery organized. Not having to pay and carry around a textbook was very nice. I wish
all my classes adopted this system. Having the hw integrated into the textbook mademy life much easier.
Student 250 reported:
I love this book! It is the best bio book I have ever read! I really like how easy it is tokeep track of assignments and to know if I turned them in or not. I also like how at thestart of every assignment, there was a learning objective center for me to know what tofocus on. Above all else, I LOVED the flashcards, quizzes and matching game. I wish
all my classes used books like this. BEST BOOK EVER!
In referring to no cost, student 345 said, “I like that this textbook was free especially because
biology textbooks are very expensive.” Student 154 stated that a no cost textbook “lowers thecost of going to school for the student” and Student 353 said “even students like me who
struggle financially could still have the opportunity to use it.”
Other favorite aspects cited included organization (21.7%) ease of access (10.1%), practice
flashcards (4.5%), chapter due dates (3.4%), glossary (2.9%), and chapter summaries (1.1%).
A few students, 2.7%, mentioned the search feature with Student 181 saying “There is also a“search” button, where I could look-up topics whenever I don’t know what chapter they belong
to.”

79

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

Motivation and Satisfaction
As shown in Table 5, the mean value for the textbook motivating students to study was 3.38
(SD = 1.213), slightly above the midpoint.
Table 5: Influence of the textbook on student motivation
1-2 (%)

3
(%)
32.7

4-5 (%)

M (SD)

14. The online
21.7
45.6
textbook
motivated me to
study for thiscourse.
16. Other
6.7
11
82.3
courses should
adopt similar
onlinetextbooks.
(1-2: strongly disagree - disagree; 3: neutral; 4-5: agree - strongly agree)

3.38 (1.213)

4.27 (1.016)

Item 16 asked students to respond to the statement: “Other courses should adopt similar online
textbooks.” The majority of students (82.3%) agreed or strongly agreed with this statement (M= 4.27, SD = 1.016).
Suggested Improvements
Sixty three percent of students made suggestions for improvements, summarized in Figure 10.
Frequencies are based on the number of times a suggestion was made, one student often had
more than one suggestion.

Figure 10. Student suggestions for improvement.
Eight students recommended having more visuals and the same number suggested having a
traditional table of contents. Student 371 stated that “More pictures would be helpful.” Student

80

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

366 preferred to “have a table of contents available for the chapters for easy navigation while
studying, looking back over content, etc.” Six students made suggestions about the searchfeature.
Students also suggested four features to add to the textbook: 1) audio in addition to text (2students), 2) a PDF download for the textbook (7 students), 3) due date notifications sent via
email (8 students), and 4) adding a highlight/annotation feature (10 students).
Discussion and Recommendations
The elements added to the textbook intended to provide learner guidance, practice with content
and feedback on performance were all well received by students. The textbook appears to haveaddressed students’ need for autonomy and competence as evidenced by their overallsatisfaction with the book and their motivation to use it to study for the course.
The two most favored aspects of the text were no cost and the affordances of it being online.
Others have also found no cost and online to lead to student satisfaction with OER (Feldstein
et al., 2012; Hilton et al., 2013; Petrides et al., 2011). The majority, (90.8%) agreed with thestatement: “I preferred having a free online textbook over a hard copy book I have to purchase.”
This aligns with previous studies in which students reported preferring OER texts due to low
or no costs (Lindshield & Adhikari, 2013; Petrides et al., 2011). Students may not purchasecostly textbooks when enrolled in a course, despite decreased learning outcomes (Allen, 2011).
No cost textbooks address equitability and students may feel more competent when they canequally access learning materials. Online access may also have contributed to feelings ofautonomy given that students appreciated anywhere, any time access.
While using unmodified OER resources has proven successful, customized OER has also beenshown to increase student learning outcomes (Mathew & Kashyap, 2019). The redesigned
textbook customizations were cited as favorite aspects of the text. Students were positive whenrating features incorporated to enhance learner guidance including the chapters viewed by due
dates, glossary term practice flashcards and the new rollover feature. The majority of students(89.8%) felt the quiz status icons helped them monitor their progress. The ability to monitor
progress is an important part of self-regulated learning (Zimmerman, 2002) and students havebeen shown to be more self-regulated when they feel more autonomous in their learning(Sierens et al., 2009).
The text and video quizzes in particular were the third most favored aspect of the text. This isencouraging as ungraded test-enhanced learning has been shown to have learning benefits. In
particular, completing ungraded tests prior to an exam can increase active information retrieval
on exams (Karpicke & Roediger, 2008; McDaniel & Masson, 1985) which has been associatedwith higher final exam scores (Khanna, 2015).
Students also had suggestions for improving the quizzes. These included more quizzes, morequestions, and better alignment with the exams. That students highly rated the quizzes andwanted more may have been due to them supporting feelings of competence with the course
content, perhaps because quizzes have been found to be more beneficial to students in contentfocused courses versus skills-focused courses (Khanna & Cortese, 2016). Aligning quizzes
more closely to exams may also improve student confidence with the content.

81

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

Requests for additional and more comprehensive quizzes suggests that students are willing toengage even further with the textbook. This is significant as out-of-class work is a key factor
in students’ success in flipped classes (Hwang et al., 2015) and students typically do not spend
enough time on out-of-class work (Akçayır & Akçayır, 2018; Lai & Hwang, 2016).
The two new chapters were less well received by students. Over a third of students, 36.8%,
disagreed or were neutral that the Start Here chapter was helpful. Additionally, 38.8% were
neutral or disagreed that the Online Learning Success chapter was helpful. Specific features ofthese chapters may have led to students’ attitudes toward them. First, neither were directly
related to the course content. Second, while encouraged, they were not required and did nothave quizzes that impacted students’ grades.
Student response to the chapter feedback feature was also mixed. Only half agreed that “Having
the option to provide feedback at the end of each book chapter made me feel more involved in
my learning process.” This may have been due to instructors not reading or responding tostudent feedback. It may also have been due to lack of student use of the feature. Despite theopportunity, students often do not provide feedback. Common reasons include skepticism
about the possibility for change or a lack of skill in how to provide meaningful feedback(Svinicki, 2001). If receiving feedback is a goal, it should be more thoroughly incorporated
into the teaching and learning process because “giving feedback is a skill that can be learned”(Svinicki, 2001, p. 1). The design team suggests that future instructors emphasize feedback’s
importance and respond to it more regularly. Enhanced communication with the instructor may
also increase students’ intrinsic motivation to use the textbook. When looked at through thelens of SDT, in addition to competence and autonomy, learners also have a need for relatedness
or the feeling of being connected to others (Deci & Ryan, 2012). Students that engage in moredialog with their instructor may feel more connected to them.
Other suggestions for improvement included the ability to download an offline copy of the text
to reduce eye strain and enable highlighting and annotation. This result is not surprising as thelack of annotation ability and eye strain associated online texts were complaints in a study
using the original OpenStax Biology textbook (Watson et al., 2017) and “computer vision
syndrome” (Akinbinu & Mashalla, 2014) is a known effect of increased screen time. In fact,
almost a third (29.6%) of the students in this study disagreed with or were neutral on thisstatement: “I preferred having this online textbook over a hard copy textbook.” The complaints
regarding eye strain and lack of ability to highlight and annotate may be associated with thisresult. In response, students are now provided with a PDF file of the textbook upon request but
are still encouraged to use the online version in order to have their quiz results recorded.
In conclusion, implementing the new features to the textbook enhanced students’ experienceand supported the efforts to incorporate the flipped learning model into the course. Students
appreciated the customized text, specifically cost reduction, online availability, and theembedded quizzes. However, the new features added complexity to the implementation
process, which in turn led to additional development time and increased need for technicalsupport. Institutions considering similar endeavors should be prepared to provide ongoingsupport to students and instructors, and to be responsive to technical and performance issues
that may arise.
Viewing future textbook developments through the lens of motivation theory may also prove
beneficial to retain focus on student engagement, especially if part of a flipped classroom
design. While this textbook development and study focused primarily on students’ need for82

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

competence and autonomy, future textbook developments might benefit from also
incorporating features that foster students’ need for relatedness. Features to enhance
relatedness might include increased student-to-student or student-to-instructor communication
directly in the textbook platform or leveraging the inherent social affordances of mobile
devices to encourage collaborative learning through student sharing, peer assessment, andintentional community building activities.
Limitations
The scope of this study presents limitations to transferability of the results. Only one textbook
in the specific field of Biology was redesigned and tested with students enrolled in a single
semester. Additional textbooks in various fields, tested with a larger pool of students would
result in more transferable results. In addition, a goal of the textbook was to motivate students
to engage in out-of-class content. However, only one survey question specifically asked if theredesigned textbook motivated them to study. Future research by the authors on redesigned
textbooks will address student motivation and satisfaction on a more comprehensive level.
Conclusion
In conclusion, implementing the new features to the textbook enhanced students’ experienceand supported the flipped learning model in the course. Students appreciated many aspects ofthe customized text, specifically cost reduction, online availability, and the embedded quizzes.
However, the new features added complexity to the implementation process, which in turn led
to additional development time and increased need for technical support. Institutions
considering similar endeavors should be prepared to provide ongoing support to students andinstructors, and to be responsive to technical and performance issues that may arise.
Viewing future textbook developments through the lens of motivation theory may also prove
beneficial to retain focus on student engagement, especially if part of a flipped classroom
design. While this textbook and study focused on students’ need for competence and autonomy,
future textbook developments might benefit from incorporating features that foster students’
need for relatedness. Features to enhance relatedness might include increased student-tostudent or student-to-instructor communication directly in the textbook or leveraging theinherent social affordances of mobile devices to encourage collaborative learning throughstudent sharing, peer assessment, and intentional community building activities.

83

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

References
Akçayır, G., & Akçayır, M. (2018). The flipped classroom: A review of its advantages andchallenges. Computers & Education, 126, 334–345.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.021
Al‐Zahrani, A. M. (2015). From passive to active: The impact of the flipped classroom
through social learning platforms on higher education students’ creative thinking.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(6), 1133–1148.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12353
Baepler, P., Walker, J. D., & Driessen, M. (2014). It’s not about seat time: Blending,flipping, and efficiency in active learning classrooms. Computers & Education, 78,
227–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.006
Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every classevery day. International Society for Technology in Education.
Bergstrand, K., & Savage, S. V. (2013). The chalkboard versus the avatar: Comparing theeffectiveness of online and in-class courses. Teaching Sociology, 41(3), 294–306.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X13479949
Bhagat, K. K., Chang, C.-N., & Chang, C.-Y. (2016). The impact of the flipped classroom
on mathematics concept learning in high school. Journal of Educational Technology& Society, 19(3), 134–142. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.19.3.134
Bösner, S., Pickert, J., & Stibane, T. (2015). Teaching differential diagnosis in primary careusing an inverted classroom approach: Student satisfaction and gain in skills andknowledge. BMC Medical Education, 15(1), 1–7.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-015-0346-x
Brame, C. (2013, January 31). Flipping the classroom. Vanderbilt University website.
https://wp0.vanderbilt.edu/cft/guides-sub-pages/flipping-the-classroom/
Burgess, S. R., & Murray, A. B. (2014). Use of traditional and smartphone app flashcards in
an introductory psychology class. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 13, 1–7.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1697499938
Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practicein verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin,
132(3), 354–380. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354
Chen, Y., Wang, Y., Kinshuk, & Chen, N.-S. (2014). Is FLIP enough? Or should we use the
FLIPPED model instead? Computers & Education, 79, 16–27.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.07.004
Clump, M., Bauer, H., & Bradley, C. (2004). The extent to which psychology students read
textbooks: A multiple class analysis of reading across the psychology curriculum.
Journal of Instructional Psychology, 3(31), 228–232.
Crews, T., & Butterfield, J. (2014). Data for flipped classroom design: Using student
feedback to identify the best components from online and face-to-face classes.
Higher Education Studies, 4(3), 38–47. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v4n3p38
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Self-determination theory. In Handbook of Theories ofSocial Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 416–436). Sage Publications Ltd.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n21

84

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

Fautch, J. (2015). The flipped classroom for teaching organic chemistry in small classes: Is
it effective? Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(1), 179–186.
https://doi.org/10.1039/C4RP00230J
Feldstein, A., Martin, M., Hudson, A., Warren, K., Iii, J. H., & Wiley, D. (2012). Opentextbooks and increased student access and outcomes. European Journal of Open,Distance and E-Learning, 15(2), 1–9. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1314327088
Fitzpatrick, T., Al-Qarni, I., & Meara, P. (2008). Intensive vocabulary learning: A casestudy. The Language Learning Journal, 36(2), 239–248.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09571730802390759
Gagne, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th ed.).
Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Gross, D., Pietri, E. S., Anderson, G., Moyano-Camihort, K., & Graham, M. J. (2015).
Increased preclass preparation underlies student outcome improvement in the flippedclassroom. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14(4), 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-02-0040
Gurung, R. A. R. (2003). Pedagogical aids and student performance. Teaching of
Psychology, 30(2), 92–95. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328023TOP3002_01
Hilton, J., Gaudet, D., Clark, P., Robinson, J., & Wiley, D. (2013). The adoption of open
educational resources by one community college math department. The International
Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(4), 37–50.
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v14i4.1523
Hwang, G.-J., Lai, C.-L., & Wang, S.-Y. (2015). Seamless flipped learning: A mobile
technology-enhanced flipped classroom with effective learning strategies. Journal ofComputers in Education, 2(4), 449–473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-015-0043-0
Johnson, B. C., & Kiviniemi, M. T. (2009). The effect of online chapter quizzes on exam
performance in an undergraduate social psychology course. Teaching of Psychology,
36(1), 33–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/00986280802528972
Karpicke, J., & Roediger, H. (2008). The critical importance of retrieval for learning.
Science, 319(5865), 966–968. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1152408
Khanna, M. (2015). Ungraded pop quizzes: Test-enhanced learning without all the anxiety.
The Teaching of Psychology, 42(2), 174–178.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628315573144
Khanna, M. M., & Cortese, M. J. (2016). The benefits of quizzing in content-focused versus
skills-focused courses. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 2(1),
87–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000051
Khanova, J., Roth, M. T., Rodgers, J. E., & McLaughlin, J. E. (2015). Student experiences
across multiple flipped courses in a single curriculum. Medical Education, 49(10),1038–1048. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12807
Kim, M. K., Kim, S. M., Khera, O., & Getman, J. (2014). The experience of three flippedclassrooms in an urban university: An exploration of design principles. The Internetand Higher Education, 22, 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.04.003
Lai, C.-L., & Hwang, G.-J. (2016). A self-regulated flipped classroom approach to
improving students’ learning performance in a mathematics course. Computers &Education, 100, 126–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.05.006

85

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

Lee, J., Lim, C., & Kim, H. (2017). Development of an instructional design model for
flipped learning in higher education. Educational Technology Research andDevelopment, 65(2), 427–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9502-1
Lindshield, B. L., & Adhikari, K. (2013). Online and campus college students like using an
open educational resource instead of a traditional textbook. Journal of Online
Learning and Teaching, 9(1), 26–38. Retrieved from http://krex.kstate.edu/dspace/handle/2097/16660
Liou, W.-K., Bhagat, K. K., & Chang, C.-Y. (2016). Beyond the flipped classroom: A
highly interactive cloud-classroom (HIC) embedded into basic materials science
courses. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(3), 460–473.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9606-8
Mason, G. S., Shuman, T. R., & Cook, K. E. (2013). Comparing the effectiveness of an
inverted classroom to a traditional classroom in an upper-division engineeringcourse. IEEE Transactions on Education, 56(4), 430–435.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2013.2249066
Mathew, S., & Kashyap, U. (2019). Impact of OER Materials on Students’ Academic
Performance in Undergraduate Astronomy Course. Journal of STEM Education:
Innovations and Research, 20(1), 46–49.
McDaniel, M. A., & Masson, M. E. (1985). Altering memory representations throughretrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,
11(2), 371–385. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.11.2.371
Morris, L., & Finnegan, C. (2008). Best practices in predicting and encouraging student
persistence and achievement online. Journal of College Student Retention: Research,
Theory & Practice, 10(1), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.2190/CS.10.1.e
Narloch, R., Garbin, C. P., & Turnage, K. D. (2006). Benefits of prelecture quizzes.
Teaching of Psychology, 33(2), 109–112.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top3302_6
O’Flaherty, J., & Phillips, C. (2015). The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A
scoping review. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 85–95.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.02.002
Petrides, L., Jimes, C., Middleton‐Detzner, C., Walling, J., & Weiss, S. (2011). Opentextbook adoption and use: Implications for teachers and learners. Open Learning:
The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 26(1), 39–49.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2011.538563
Pistilli, M. D., & Arnold, K. E. (2010). Purdue signals: Mining real-time academic data toenhance student success. About Campus, 15(3), 22–24.
https://doi.org/10.1002/abc.20025
Porcaro, P. A., Jackson, D. E., McLaughlin, P. M., & O’Malley, C. J. (2016). Curriculum
design of a flipped classroom to enhance haematology learning. Journal of Science
Education and Technology, 25(3), 345–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-0159599-8
Rabbany, R., Takaffoli, M., & Zaïane, O. R. (2011). Analyzing participation of students inonline courses using social network analysis techniques. Proceedings of Educational
Data Mining, 21–30.

86

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

Rotellar, C., & Cain, J. (2016). Research, perspectives, and recommendations on
implementing the flipped classroom. American Journal of Pharmaceutical
Education, 80(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe80234
Ryan, T. E. (2006). Motivating novice students to read their textbooks. Journal of
Instructional Psychology, 33(2), 136–140. Retrieved fromhttp://eres.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.asp
x?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=21597697&site=ehost-live
Sappington, J., Kinsey, K., & Munsayac, K. (2002). Two Studies of Reading Compliance
Among College Students. Teaching of Psychology, 29(4), 272–274.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328023TOP2904_02
Sayeski, K. L., Hamilton-Jones, B., & Oh, S. (2015). The efficacy of IRIS STAR legacy
modules under different instructional conditions. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 38(4), 291–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406415600770
Sergis, S., Sampson, D. G., & Pelliccione, L. (2018). Investigating the impact of flippedclassroom on students’ learning experiences: A self-determination theory approach.
Computers in Human Behavior, 78, 368–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.011
Shyr, W.-J., & Chen, C.-H. (2018). Designing a technology-enhanced flipped learning
system to facilitate students’ self-regulation and performance. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 34(1), 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12213
Sierens, E., Vansteenkiste, M., Goossens, L., Soenens, B., & Dochy, F. (2009). The
synergistic relationship of perceived autonomy support and structure in theprediction of self-regulated learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
79(1), 57–68. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709908X304398
Slomanson, W. R. (2014). Blended learning: A flipped classroom experiment. Journal of
Legal Education, 64(1), 93–102. Retrieved fromhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/24716075
Sun, J. C.-Y., Wu, Y.-T., & Lee, W.-I. (2017). The effect of the flipped classroom approach
to OpenCourseWare instruction on students’ self-regulation. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 48(3), 713–729. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12444
Svinicki, M. D. (2001). Encouraging your students to give feedback. New Directions for
Teaching and Learning, 2001(87), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.24
Teasley, S. D. (2017). Student facing dashboards: One size fits all? Technology, Knowledge
and Learning, 22(3), 377–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-017-9314-3
van Vliet, E. A., Winnips, J. C., & Brouwer, N. (2015). Flipped-class pedagogy enhances
student metacognition and collaborative-learning strategies in higher education but
effect does not persist. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14(3), 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-09-0141
Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal contents in
self-determination theory: Another look at the quality of academic motivation.
Educational Psychologist, 41(1), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4101_4
Wanner, T., & Palmer, E. (2015). Personalising learning: Exploring student and teacher
perceptions about flexible learning and assessment in a flipped university course.
Computers & Education, 88, 354–369.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.008

87

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

Watson, C. E., Domizi, D. P., & Clouser, S. A. (2017). Student and faculty perceptions ofopenstax in high enrollment courses. The International Review of Research in Openand Distributed Learning, 18(5), 288–304.
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i5.2462
Wright, B. A. (2016). Transforming vocabulary learning with Quizlet. In P. Clements, A.
Krause, & H. Brown (Eds.) Transformation in Language Education. JALT.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into
Practice, 41(2), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2
Corresponding author: Ariana Eichelberger
Contact email: ariana@hawaii.edu

88