Preference, Challenges, and Satisfaction with Using E-Books: Is There a Gender Difference among Omani Nursing Students?

1Citations
Citations of this article
8Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

With the growing popularity of technology among millennial nursing students and the shift in publishers' focus toward electronic textbooks (ebooks), there is a need to understand students' perceptions, preferences, and satisfaction related to e-books in nursing education, particularly in Oman, a country in the Gulf region with a lack of studies on this subject. This study examined the perceived usefulness, challenges, and satisfaction with e-books compared to printed textbooks, among Omani nursing students. A descriptive cross-sectional design was employed, and data were collected from a convenience sample of 77 students who used e-books in a community health nursing course. A valid and reliable survey was administered during the fall 2020 semester. The findings revealed that despite identifying more challenges associated with printed textbooks, the majority of students (74%) preferred them to e-books. Additionally, 71.4% of students reported a low level of satisfaction with e-books. Female students demonstrated a higher preference for printed textbooks and lower satisfaction with e-books compared to male participants. These results highlight the need to address students' concerns and preferences when implementing e-books in nursing education. This study contributes to the understanding of nursing students' preferences and satisfaction with e-books, as well as the gender differences observed in this context. Further research is needed to investigate interventions to improve the adoption and effectiveness of e-books in nursing education.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Thanka, A. N., Natarajan, J., & Joseph, M. A. (2023). Preference, Challenges, and Satisfaction with Using E-Books: Is There a Gender Difference among Omani Nursing Students? International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 17(13), 133–147. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v17i13.39409

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free