Librarian's eBook Newsletter

eBooks for e-Reserves

During the Spring 2001 semester at the University of Rochester's Rush Rhees Library, a small study was conducted in order to assess the practicality of using the ebook format for monographs on course reserve. The following is a short summary of the findings.

Methodology: In January, a list of monographs on course reserve at the Rush Rhees Library, University of Rochester, for the Spring 2001 semester was compared with a list of currently available netLibrary titles. A total of 17 titles from ten different courses were found in common. These titles were purchased with funds from the River Campus Libraries collection budget and fund from the LSTA Electronic Book Evaluation grant. The average cost of perpetual access for the titles was $70.68. The MARC records for these titles were added to the Libraries' Voyager catalog and the titles were listed in the Course Reserve module along with the paper format of the titles. The circulation periods of the ebooks were set to mirror the circulation periods of the paper versions of the book. Therefore, students were provided with the option of either the paper or ebook version of some of their course reserve titles, which had identical circulation periods.

The students in each of the ten classes received a handout (pdf download) during the first week of classes which detailed their option of the ebook format and explained how netLibrary titles were located and accessed. At the end of the semester, the students were asked to complete a survey (pdf download). 36 completed surveys were received. In addition, usage stats for the ebook and paper formats of each title were compiled on a weekly basis.

Findings & Conclusions: When given the choice, 3 to 1 (66 to 183 circulations) students opted for the ebook over the paper version of their course reserve readings. Of the 36 returned surveys, 44% (16 of 16) reported reading from the ebook version of their course reserves. Of those who did use the ebooks, only three reported any difficulties (slow connectivity and title always checked out). Surprisingly, only four of the 16 found it uncomfortable to read their course materials from a computer screen. This would suggest that the assigned readings were no more than a chapter or two.

When asked whether they preferred their course reserve material in paper or ebook format, 17 selected paper and 14 indicated ebook. Reasons for the paper preference included 1) having a personal copy in class for quick reference; 2) not as harsh on the eyes; and 3) does not require ownership of a computer and Internet connection. Several students also indicated that they preferred the paper format in order to highlight and annotate the text. This suggests these students were unaware of the annotation features in netLibrary's off-line Reader. Perhaps netLibrary should include details or a teaser about the annotation tools in their off-line Reader on their homepage and the "Reading Room" section of their website.

In spite of a slight majority indicating a preference for paper books, an overwhelming 25 out of 26 respondents believe the Libraries should continue to purchase ebooks for use on course reserves. Although they personally might not want to read an ebook, the students seemed to see the value of ebooks for other students. Unfortunately, when the students explained the reasons why they preferred or supported the Libraries' additional ebook purchases, it became apparent that the students did not fully understand the limitations of netLibrary. For instance, more than once a student cited the benefit of not having to wait if a title is already checked out. In actuality, no more than one user can view a netLibrary title at any given time. In addition, students liked ebooks because "it saves the students money." What these students are actually referring to is the fact that the University of Rochester Libraries do not charge for printing, but do charge for photocopying. Therefore, if a student could print out his/her reserve reading from a computer rather than photocopy it, he/she would save money. However, netLibrary's copyright protection system limits printing to less than 50,000 characters at a time. Therefore, the printing of most reading assignments would be very time consuming. Students incorrectly assumed that netLibrary ebooks had the same accessibility and functionality as the scanned articles in pdf format on reserve. If the students better understood the limitations to netLibrary's printing and accessibility, they might not be as enthusiastic about netLibrary ebooks on course reserve.

This is not to say that all of the students favorable comments about ebooks were based on misconceptions. Many students commented on the convenience of ebooks which are accessible online when the library is closed and do not require a physical visit to the library.

An ideal ebook system for use with course e-reserves would be one that would allow for simultaneous users or had a pricing model that would permit multiple copies to be affordably rented for the semester. In addition, printing must be possible to allow students to have a personal copy (for educational purposes) that they could annotate and carry to class. An alternative would be a system that could support the downloading of the texts onto portable ebook devices. Such an ebook system does not yet exist, although elements can be found scattered throughout the combined models of netLibrary, Questia and ebrary.



	Table of Contents > Main Articles

	eBooks for e-Reserves During the Spring 2001 semester at the University of Rochester's Rush Rhees Library, a small study was conducted in order to assess the practicality of using the ebook format for monographs on course reserve. The following is a short summary of the findings. Methodology: In January, a list of monographs on course reserve at the Rush Rhees Library, University of Rochester, for the Spring 2001 semester was compared with a list of currently available netLibrary titles. A total of 17 titles from ten different courses were found in common. These titles were purchased with funds from the River Campus Libraries collection budget and fund from the LSTA Electronic Book Evaluation grant. The average cost of perpetual access for the titles was $70.68. The MARC records for these titles were added to the Libraries' Voyager catalog and the titles were listed in the Course Reserve module along with the paper format of the titles. The circulation periods of the ebooks were set to mirror the circulation periods of the paper versions of the book. Therefore, students were provided with the option of either the paper or ebook version of some of their course reserve titles, which had identical circulation periods. The students in each of the ten classes received a handout (pdf download) during the first week of classes which detailed their option of the ebook format and explained how netLibrary titles were located and accessed. At the end of the semester, the students were asked to complete a survey (pdf download). 36 completed surveys were received. In addition, usage stats for the ebook and paper formats of each title were compiled on a weekly basis. Findings & Conclusions: When given the choice, 3 to 1 (66 to 183 circulations) students opted for the ebook over the paper version of their course reserve readings. Of the 36 returned surveys, 44% (16 of 16) reported reading from the ebook version of their course reserves. Of those who did use the ebooks, only three reported any difficulties (slow connectivity and title always checked out). Surprisingly, only four of the 16 found it uncomfortable to read their course materials from a computer screen. This would suggest that the assigned readings were no more than a chapter or two. When asked whether they preferred their course reserve material in paper or ebook format, 17 selected paper and 14 indicated ebook. Reasons for the paper preference included 1) having a personal copy in class for quick reference; 2) not as harsh on the eyes; and 3) does not require ownership of a computer and Internet connection. Several students also indicated that they preferred the paper format in order to highlight and annotate the text. This suggests these students were unaware of the annotation features in netLibrary's off-line Reader. Perhaps netLibrary should include details or a teaser about the annotation tools in their off-line Reader on their homepage and the "Reading Room" section of their website. In spite of a slight majority indicating a preference for paper books, an overwhelming 25 out of 26 respondents believe the Libraries should continue to purchase ebooks for use on course reserves. Although they personally might not want to read an ebook, the students seemed to see the value of ebooks for other students. Unfortunately, when the students explained the reasons why they preferred or supported the Libraries' additional ebook purchases, it became apparent that the students did not fully understand the limitations of netLibrary. For instance, more than once a student cited the benefit of not having to wait if a title is already checked out. In actuality, no more than one user can view a netLibrary title at any given time. In addition, students liked ebooks because "it saves the students money." What these students are actually referring to is the fact that the University of Rochester Libraries do not charge for printing, but do charge for photocopying. Therefore, if a student could print out his/her reserve reading from a computer rather than photocopy it, he/she would save money. However, netLibrary's copyright protection system limits printing to less than 50,000 characters at a time. Therefore, the printing of most reading assignments would be very time consuming. Students incorrectly assumed that netLibrary ebooks had the same accessibility and functionality as the scanned articles in pdf format on reserve. If the students better understood the limitations to netLibrary's printing and accessibility, they might not be as enthusiastic about netLibrary ebooks on course reserve. This is not to say that all of the students favorable comments about ebooks were based on misconceptions. Many students commented on the convenience of ebooks which are accessible online when the library is closed and do not require a physical visit to the library. An ideal ebook system for use with course e-reserves would be one that would allow for simultaneous users or had a pricing model that would permit multiple copies to be affordably rented for the semester. In addition, printing must be possible to allow students to have a personal copy (for educational purposes) that they could annotate and carry to class. An alternative would be a system that could support the downloading of the texts onto portable ebook devices. Such an ebook system does not yet exist, although elements can be found scattered throughout the combined models of netLibrary, Questia and ebrary.

	Comments, Questions & Suggestions		Last Updated: