The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 1–10 | Cite as

Interactive Whiteboard Acceptance: Applicability of the UTAUT Model to Student Teachers

Article
First Online:

Abstract

A review of the literature shows that the model for the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) has received only limited validation in educational contexts. This limitation led to this study to determine the applicability of the UTAUT model with an educational perspective and to statistically explain the factors affecting student teachers’ intentions to use interactive whiteboards. The research project comprised a cohort of 159 student teachers who undertook a questionnaire designed to measure their responses to performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, facilitating condition and behavioural intention. Structural equation modelling was used as the main technique for data analysis. According to the result of the goodness-of-fit test, the findings led to the conclusion that the model was endorsed by the data. Overall, the model accounted for 59.6 % of the variance in intention of student teachers to use interactive whiteboards in their teaching. The findings also demonstrated the important distinction of performance expectancy, effort expectancy and user’s experiences in interactive whiteboard adoption amongst student teachers. The theoretical and practical implications of the model are discussed.

Keywords

Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) Interactive whiteboard Educational technology 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behaviour. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  4. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  5. Betcher, C., & Lee, M. (2009). Interactive whiteboard revolution: teaching with IWBs. Camberwell, VIC: ACER Press.Google Scholar
  6. Campbell, C. (2010). Using interactive whiteboards in pre-service teacher education: Examples from two Australian universities. Australia Journal of Educational Technology, 26(4), 447–463.Google Scholar
  7. Chan, F. K. Y., Thong, J. Y. L., Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A., Hu, P. J., & Tam, K. Y. (2010). Modeling citizen satisfaction with mandatory adoption of an e-government technology. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 11(10), 519–549.Google Scholar
  8. Cheng, B., Wang, M., Stephen, J. H. Y., Kinshuk, & Peng, J. (2011). Acceptance of competency-based workplace e-learning systems: Effects of individual and peer learning support. Computer & Education, 57(1), 1317–1333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 318–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14), 1111–1132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  12. Garland, R. (1991). The mid-point on a rating scale: Is it Desirable? Marketing Bulleting, 2, 66–70.Google Scholar
  13. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. A global perspective (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Person-Hall International.Google Scholar
  14. Harlow, A., Cowie, B., & Heazlewood, M. (2010). Keeping in touch with learning: The use of an interactive whiteboard in the junior school. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 2(19), 237–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hennessy, S., Deaney, R., Ruthven, K., & Winterbottom, M. (2007). Pedagogical strategies for using the interactive whiteboard to foster learner participation in school science. Learning, Media and Technology, 3(32), 283–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G., & Miller, D. (2007). Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards. Learning, Media and Technology, 3(32), 213–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Im, I., Kim, Y., & Han, H.-J. (2008). The effects of perceived risk and technology type on users’ acceptance of technology. Information & Management, 45(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  19. Loo, W. H., Paul, Y. H. P., & Chong, S. C. (2009). User acceptance of Malaysian government multipurpose smartcard applications. Government Information Quarterly, 26(2), 358–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marchewka, K., Liu, C., & Kostiwa, K. (2007). An application of the UTAUT model for understanding student perceptions using course management software. Communications of the IIMA, 7(2), 93–104.Google Scholar
  21. Matell, M. S., & Jacoby, J. (1972). Is there an optimal number of alternatives for Likert scale items? Effects of testing time and scale properties. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56(6), 506–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McDonald, R. P., & Ho, R. H. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7, 64–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Murica, K., & Sheffield, R. (2010). Talking about science in interactive whiteboard classrooms. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(4), 417–431.Google Scholar
  25. Rhodes, S. R. (1983). Age-related differences in work attitudes and behavior: A review and conceptual analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 93(2), 328–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Runyon, P., & Harber, A. (1991). Fundamentals of behavioral statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  27. Schaik, P. (2009). Unified theory of acceptance and use for websites used by students in higher education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 40(2), 229–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Assessing IT usage: The role of prior experience. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 561–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Teo, T. (2011). Factors influencing teachers’ intention to use technology: Model development and test. Computers & Education. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.008.
  30. Teo, T., & Noyes, J. (2011). An assessment of the influence of perceived enjoyment and attitude on the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers: A structural equation modelling approach. Computer & Technology, 57(2), 1645–1653.Google Scholar
  31. Teo, T., & van Schaik, P. (2009). Understanding technology acceptance in pre-service teachers: A structural-equation modelling approach. The Asia-Pacific Education Research, 18(1), 47–66.Google Scholar
  32. Teo, T., Wong, S. L., & Chai, C. S. (2008). A cross-cultural examination of the intention to use technology between Singaporean and Malaysia pre-service teachers: An application of the TAM. Educational Technology & Society, 11(4), 265–280.Google Scholar
  33. Terzis, V., & Economides, A. A. (2011). The acceptance and use of computer based assessment. Computer & Education, 56(4), 1032–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. A., & Howell, J. M. (1991). Personal computing: Toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Quarterly, 15(1), 124–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. A., & Howell, J. M. (1994). Influence of experience on personal computer utilization: Testing a conceptual model. Journal of Management Information Systems, 11(1), 167–187.Google Scholar
  36. Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating perceived behavioural control, computer anxiety and enjoyment into the technology acceptance model. Information System Research, 11(4), 342–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46, 186–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.Google Scholar
  39. Venkatesh, V., & Zhang, X. (2010). Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: U.S. vs. China. Journal of Global information Technology Management, 13(1), 5–24.Google Scholar
  40. Vincent, J. (2007). The interactive whiteboard in an early years classroom: A case study in the impact of a new technology on pedagogy. Australian Educational Computing, 22(1), 20–25.Google Scholar
  41. Wang, Y., & Shih, Y. (2009). Why do people use information kiosks? A validation of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 158–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Worcester, R. M., & Burns, T. R. (1975). A statistical examination of the relative precision of verbal scales. Journal of Market Research Society, 17(3), 181–197.Google Scholar
  43. Yang, K. (2010). Determinants of US consumer mobile shopping services adoption: Implications for designing mobile shopping services. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 27(3), 262–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zhou, T., Lu, Y., & Wang, B. (2010). Integrating TTF and UTAUT to explain mobile banking user adoption. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 760–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© De La Salle University 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sultan Idris Education UniversityTanjong MalimMalaysia
  2. 2.Division of Education, Art and Social Sciences, School of Education University of South AustraliaMagillAustralia
  3. 3.University of AucklandEpsom, Auckland New Zealand
  4. 4.University of South AustraliaMagillAustralia

Personalised recommendations