In phase one, a quantitative approach is employed to collect numerical data. Research questions one, two and three were concerned with determining the use of the Internet, eBook and computer among students in primary schools in Libya. Data can be collected by employing different methods such as interviews, questionnaire, observations, etc. The choice between these techniques depends on the research philosophy and the aim of the study or research questions; thus, questionnaire was selected as the collecting method in this phase which is defined as a list of carefully structured questions (Collis, 2009).
The most appropriate questionnaire type to use was a collective administration questionnaire (Kumar, 2011). Collective administration questionnaire was used because it has been widely used as a primary data collecting method in usability research and applying the Internet in education process studies in particular. The opportunity to analyse a large amount of information, the limited time and resource available to the researcher, allows for personal contact with the study population. This in turn makes it easy to explain the purpose and difficult terms, to collect the completed questionnaires within a short time, and get a very high response rate wherein no one refuses to participate.
1.1 Questionnaire Design
The design of the questionnaire can have a huge impact on many aspects of the research conducted. It provides a framework for the collection and analysis of data, while a poor design will fail to provide accurate answers to questions under investigation. Thus, several researchers recommend a number of considerations that should be taken into account when building a questionnaire such as the questions’ order, type, and length (Boynton & Greenhalgh 2004; Bell, 2007).
Therefore, careful attention was given in this study to improving the questionnaire through focusing on the principles of questionnaire design that are effective in the case of paper questionnaires (Phillips, 2008). In addition, it was crucial to ensure that the format of the questionnaire was clear, with the use of sub-headings, clearly defined sections, and bold text where appropriate, and the use of simple language to facilitate answering. Moreover, clear instructions were given about how the questionnaire should be completed to avoid any confusion that could lead to wrong answers; thus, students answer the questionnaire in class under the teacher’s control in order to clarify and explain questions to students in addition to ensuring that all students answer all questions.
In applying the feedback from the pilot study, the final version of the questionnaire was designed. This final version was divided into two main parts. The first part was designed to collect information about the participants regarding individual variables, whereas Q1 and Q2 were devoted to collecting demographic information about the students [age & gender]. While in Q3, students were asked to provide information about their level of education.
In addition, part 2 aims to addresses the use of the computer, eBook and internet by young students who study in Libyan schools, both at school and at home. Sections A involves 13 questions (7 closed questions and 6 open questions), while section B focused on using e- book for learning proposes. The section contains seven questions. The final section (section D) focused on collecting data about using a schoolbook and defined the process used when reading schoolbooks (as seen in Table 1).
Table 1. Constructor of the questionnaire
| Questionnaire’s Parts | Section | Address of the Part | Number of Questions |
| Part 1 | | Participant’s regarding individual variables | 3 |
| Part 2 | Section A | the use of the computer, and internet | 13 |
| Section B | The use of the eBook | 7 |
| Section D | Using a schoolbook | 6 |
However, most of the questions were closed with predetermined answers that simply required a box to be ticked or questions with two and four points, while a ranked response was avoided because of the difficulty of selection and the ability to determine the difference between those choices.