Abstract
This research is part of a research trilogy that investigated issues impacting Interactive White Board Technology (IWBT) adoption and use in a higher education institution. The other two research studies in this trilogy used (1) focus group approach and (2) survey research to identify such impacting factors. One major insight from these two studies suggested that aspects concerning IWBT limited use and integration in the classroom. By capitalizing on this major finding, this research addresses such IWBT integration by developing different teaching prototypes or scenarios. This is done through using IWBT’s more advanced features to showcase specific IT concepts in seven IT departments in the College of Information Technology (CIT) in UAE University. The objective here is to increase teaching-faculty’s (TF) awareness about IWBT’s advanced features, the proximity of these features to TF’s course-content, and how these features could be used to implement a teaching scenario. To further increase the success of the development of the different scenarios, both teaching faculty and students were involved in the development. It is believed that adopting such an approach here could further promote and integrate IWBT in teaching and showing its effective use to TF more specifically.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Al-Qirim, N. (2011). Determinants of interactive white board success in teaching in higher education institutions. Computers & Education, 56(3), 827–838.
Al-Qirim, N. (2014). Determinants of interactive white board technology success in UAE university. Education and Information Technologies. doi:10.1007/s10639-014-9319-7.
Al-Qirim, N. (2015). An empirical investigation of smart board innovations in teaching in UAE University. Education and Information Technologies. doi: 10.1007/s10639-015-9425-1.
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, 224–234.
Barak, M. (2007). Transition from traditional to ICT-enhanced learning environments in undergraduate chemistry courses. Computers & Education, 48, 30–43.
Delialioglu, O., & Yildirim, Z. (2007). Design and development of a technology enhanced hybrid instruction based on MOLTA model: Its effectiveness in comparison to traditional instruction. Computers & Education, ARTICLE IN PRESS.
Gallivan, M. (1997). Value in triangulation: A comparison of two approaches for combining qualitative and quantitative methods. In A. Lee, J. Liebenau, & J. DeGross (Eds.), Information systems and qualitative research (pp. 417–443). London: Chapman & Hall.
Lowerison, G., Sclater, J., Schmid, R., & Abrami, P. (2006). Student perceived effectiveness of computer technology use in post-secondary classrooms. Computers & Education, 47, 465–489.
Persson, J., Hornyánszky Dalholm, E., Wallergård, M., & Johansson, G. (2014). Evaluating interactive computer-based scenarios designed for learning medical technology. Nurse Education in Practice, 14(6), 579–585.
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.
Salinas, M. (2006). From Dewey to gates: a model to integrate psychoeducational principles in the selection and use of instructional technology. Computers & Education. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.08.002. ARTICLE IN PRESS.
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.
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, 55, 350–362.
Winer, L., & Cooperstock, J. (2002). The “Intelligent Classroom”: changing teaching and learning with an evolving technological environment. Computers & Education, 38, 253–266.
Yakovleva, N., & Yakovlev, E. (2014). Interactive teaching methods in contemporary higher education. Pacific Science Review, 16(2), 75–80.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Al-Qirim, N., Mesmari, A., Mazroeei, K. et al. Pedagogy and interactive white board technology integration in higher education institutions: Computer-based teaching scenario protoypes. Educ Inf Technol 22, 355–368 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9448-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9448-7