In Spring, 2009, Associate Professor Charles Crowell began laying out the parameters for a Kindle 2.0 research project.  Professor Crowell had been using the new Kindle 2.0.  Based on some of his earlier research in the pedagogy of complex inquiry in virtual environments, he hypothesized the that Kindle e-Reader could be used to not only enhance learning outcomes but also significantly lower textbook costs to learners.  In June, 2009, he published an article (“The Kindle Factor”, Inside Higher Education, 15 June 2009) to that effect.  Crowell proposed to begin this research in Fall, 2009, at the same time six other colleges and universities were initiating Kindle DX research projects.

Our Kindle Project largely diverged from the broad goals of the Kindle DX pilots at the University of Virginia, Case Western Reserve University, Reed College, Arizona State University, Princeton University, the University of Washington, and Pace University to the extent that it eschewed any focus on reductions in volumes of course-related printing and photocopying and focused primarily on pedagogical applications of the Kindle 2.0.  Professor Crowell’s premise was that examining the Kindle, or any other e-Reader, in the context of conventional instruction missed the real potential of an e-Reader.  Further, while reductions in course-related printing and photocopying were readily plausible, the net cost benefits are more elusive.  (For example, the break-even cost of the $489.00 Kindle DX would require eliminating 16,300 pages of photocopying at $.03/sheet.)

Professor Crowell received funding for his research project from the Edwin R. Webster Foundation, which allowed Southern Vermont College to buy 18 Kindles.  Three courses were selected for our initial examination of the Kindle 2.0, which captured one faculty member (Crowell) and 15 learners.¹  The strategy in this initial phase of our Kindle Project was designed to test (A) the efficacy of digital textbooks and imported Word and .pdf documents in the classroom, (B) different pedagogical applications of the Kindle 2.0, and (C) measure the prospective cost savings to learners of Kindle use.

All three goals of our initial inquiry into the use of Kindles in the classroom were successfully achieved.  Indeed, some surprisingly, deeper learning outcomes arose as learners in one course independently experimented with Kindle uses.

One significant limitation, which has been noted in other recent studies (Virginia, Princeton), was identified: the note-taking capabilities of the Kindle significantly reduced the breadth of its utility as a singular, free-standing educational device.  On the other hand, as Crowell (2010) has argued elsewhere, that critique smacks of a fallacy of extension to the extent that it attributes a failure in capacity which was never intended to be attributed to the Kindle.  Further, Crowell argues that the Kindle, or other e-Reader, and more multi-faceted Mid-sized Internet Devices (MID), like the Apple iPad, are only one critical part of three essential, contemporary knowledge acquisition devices: a laptop, a MID, and the iPhone or similar device.  (See Crowell, 2009, 2010.)

Informal assessments by learners were consistently favourable. The Kindle 2.0 was considered to be a surprisingly easy and comfortable reading experience.

(The longer version of our Interim Report is available here.)


____________________
¹ The 3 courses in this initial phase were Ecological Economics, Working & Learning in Virtual Environments, and The Networked Enterprise.