Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An empirical investigation of smart board innovations in teaching in UAE University

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This research investigates Teaching Faculty’s (TF) adoption and usage of the Interactive or Smart White Board Technology (SB) in UAE University (UAEU). The developed theoretical framework is based on the technological innovation theories and is made of different socio-technical factors. Using survey research targeting UAEU’s TF, the research findings suggested that the model was partially supported but posited interesting insights pertaining to TF’s adoption and usage of SB. Contrasting findings pertaining to certain factors across both adoption and usage provided both absorbing and challenging insights. Implications arising from significant and insignificant factors lead to a conclusion that SB usage is still evolving amongst TF in UAEU.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baek, Y., Jung, J., & Kim, B. (2008). What makes teachers use technology in the classroom? Exploring the factors affecting facilitation of technology with a Korean sample. Computers & Education, 50(2008), 224–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barak, M. (2007). Transition from traditional to ICT-enhanced learning environments in undergraduate chemistry courses. Computers & Education, 48, 30–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gursul, F., & Tozmaz, G. (2010). Which one is smarter? Teacher or Board. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 5731–5737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate data analysis with readings (5th ed.). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, D., Mykytyn, P., & Rienenschneider, C. (1997). Executive decisions about IT adoption in small business: theory and empirical tests’. Information Systems Research, 8(2), 171–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korucu, O., Aktaş, C., & Katrancioğlu, S. (2011). Adaptation problems and attitudes of teachers towards technological material using in courses. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 28(2011), 311–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • López, O. (2009). The digital learning classroom: Improving english language learners’ academic success in mathematics and reading using interactive whiteboard technology. Computers & Education. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.019.

  • Moore, G., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, G., & Benbasat, I. (1996). Integrating Diffusion of Innovations and Theory of Reasoned Action Models to Predict Utilisation of Information Technology by End-Users. In K. Kautz & J. Pries-Heje (Eds.), Diffusion and adoption of information technology (pp. 132–146). London: Chapman & Hall.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Premkumar, G., & Roberts, M. (1999). Adoption of new information technologies in rural small businesses. The International Journal of Management Science (OMEGA), 27, 467–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Premkumar, G., Ramamurthy, K. & Nilakanta, S. (1994). Implementation of electronic data interchange: An innovation diffusion perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 11(2), 157–187.

  • Rogers, E. (1983). Diffusion of Innovation. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of Innovation. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sad, S. N., & Ozhan, U. (2012). Honeymoon with IWBs: a qualitative insight in primary students’ views on instruction with interactive whiteboard. Computers & Education, 59, 1184–1191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmid, E. (2008). Potential pedagogical benefits and drawbacks of multimedia use in the English language classroom equipped with interactive whiteboard technology. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1553–1568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slay, H., Siebörger, I., & Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2008). Interactive whiteboards: real beauty or just “lipstick”? Computers & Education, 51(3), 1321–1341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, H. J., Higgins, S., Wall, K., & Miller, J. (2005). Interactive whiteboards: boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2), 91–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Somyürek, S., Atasoy, B., & Özdemir, S. (2009). Board’s IQ: what makes a board smart? Computers & Education, 53(2), 368–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoica, D., Paragin, F., Paragin, S., Mirona, C., & Jipa, A. (2011). The interactive whiteboard and the instructional design in teaching physics. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 3316–3321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models’. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thong, J. (1999). An integrated model of information systems adoption in small business. Journal of Management Information Systems, 15(4), 187–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tingling, P., & Parent, M. (2002). Mimetic isomorphism and technology evaluation: does imitation transcend judgment’. Journal of the Association for Information Systems (JAIS), 3, 113–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tosuntas, S. B., Karadag, E., & Orhan, S. (2015). The factors affecting acceptance and use of interactive whiteboard within the scope of FATIH project: a structural equation model based on the Unified Theory of acceptance and use of technology. Computers & Education, 81, 169–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warwick, P., Mercer, N., Kershner, R. & Staarman J. (2010). In the mind and in the technology: the vicarious presence of the teacher in pupil’s learning of science in collaborative group activity at the interactive whiteboard, Computers & Education, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 6 Feb 2010

  • Warwick, P., Mercer, N., & Kershner, R. (2013). ‘Wait, let’s just think about this’: using the interactive whiteboard and talk rules to scaffold learning for co-regulation in collaborative science activities. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 2(2013), 42–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhuang, Y., & Ledere, A. (2003). An instrument for measuring the business benefits of E-Commerce retailing, International Journal of Electronic Commerce. Spring, 7(3), 65–99.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Information Technology, United Arab Emirates University, P.O Box 15551, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates

    Nabeel Al-Qirim

Authors
  1. Nabeel Al-Qirim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nabeel Al-Qirim.

Appendix 1. The survey questions

Appendix 1. The survey questions

Advantages

  1. 1.

    SB offers better features

  2. 2.

    SB offers more visualized content (graphics, colors, web sites, etc.)

  3. 3.

    SB provides better exercises and assessments

  4. 4.

    SB provides more variety of teaching methods

  5. 5.

    SB provides easy access to different resources at the same time in the classroom

  6. 6.

    SB allows the instructor to satisfy multiple learning needs within the one lesson

  7. 7.

    SB offers more flexibility

Complexity

  1. 1.

    SB fails more frequently during the class session

  2. 2.

    SB face more hardware problems in the classroom

  3. 3.

    SB face more software problems in the classroom

  4. 4.

    SB takes longer time to repair

  5. 5.

    SB requires more specialized technical expertise to fix it

Top management support

  1. 1.

    The management put measures and procedures for the effective use of the SB in the classroom

  2. 2.

    The management supports the effective use of the SB in the classroom

  3. 3.

    The management is involved in the effective use of the SB in the classroom

  4. 4.

    The management leads the effective use of the SB in the classroom

Compatibility

  1. 1.

    The SB fits with the way I like to teach in the classroom

  2. 2.

    Using the SB in the classroom attracts positive attention to me

  3. 3.

    I am motivated to use the SB in the classroom

  4. 4.

    Using the SB in the classroom motivates my students to learn

  5. 5.

    The SB allows me to face the class while teaching which allows me to maintain class control

  6. 6.

    the SB allows me to be more in touch with students by maintaining eye-contact

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Al-Qirim, N. An empirical investigation of smart board innovations in teaching in UAE University. Educ Inf Technol 21, 1895–1911 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9425-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9425-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation