Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the technological and pedagogical constructs underlying Turkish preservice teachers’ behavioral intentions to use interactive whiteboard based on UTAUT model and TPACK using three structural equation models; technological framework, pedagogical framework, and integrated model. Within this scope, preservice teachers’ behavioral intentions to use IWB was defined as the dependent variable. Performance expectancy, effort expectancy, IWB self-efficacy, and technological knowledge were technological independent variables while individual innovativeness, technological pedagogical knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and constructive and traditional teaching beliefs were pedagogical independent variables. Nine hypotheses were formulated based on the causal relationships between behavioral intentions to use IWB and independent variables. The proposed model was tested through SEM based on maximum likelihood estimation method using LISREL v.8.71 software. The significance of X2, the ratio of X2/df and other goodness of fit indices were used in the evaluation of the models’ fit. For hypothesis tests, path coefficients (β) and t values for each hypothesis were used. The findings showed that performance expectancy and technological pedagogical knowledge were the variables that significantly influenced the behavioral intention to use IWB in technological and pedagogical frameworks, respectively. Moreover, performance expectancy was the sole variable that significantly and positively influenced the preservice teachers’ behavioral intentions to use IWB in the integrated model. The main conclusion of this study was the revelation of teachers’ beliefs that IWB use would help them be better teachers by improving their performance independent from all other variables examined in the study.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
Aldunate, R., & Nussbaum, M. (2013). Teacher adoption of technology. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 519–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.017.
Altun, M. (2016). The influence of using interactive whiteboard on learner achievement in the language classroom: A case study. Journal of Humanity Science, 20(4), 231–237.
Angeli, C. (2005). Transforming a teacher education method course through technology: effects on preservice teachers’ technology competency. Computers & Education, 45(4), 383–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.06.002.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248–287.
Bardakcı, S., & Keser, H. (2017). Integration of information technologies into education. Ankara: Nobel Yayınevi.
Batiibwe, M., & Bakkabulindi, F. (2016). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) as a theory on factors of the use of ICT in pedagogy: A review of literature. South Africa International Conference on Education: Proceedings (s. 228–241). South Africa: African Academic Research Forum.
Baydaş, Ö., & Yılmaz, R. M. (2017). A model for preservice teachers’ intention to use interactive whiteboards in their future lessons. Journal of Higher Education and Science, 7(1), 59–66. https://doi.org/10.5961/jhes.2017.184.
Becit İşçitürk, G., & Kabakçı Yurdakul, I. (2014). Examining pre-service teachers’ use and acceptance of information and communication technologies in terms of certain variables. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 10(3), 684–702.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.
Bhatiasevi, V. (2016). An extended UTAUT model to explain the adoption of mobile banking. Information Development, 32(4), 799–814. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666915570764.
Birch, A., & Irvine, V. (2009). Preservice teachers’ acceptance of ICT integration in the classroom: Applying the UTAUT model. Educational Media International, 46(4), 295–315.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research, 17, 303–316.
Brenner, A., & Brill, J. (2016). Investigating practices in teacher education that promote and inhibit technology integration transfer in early career teachers. TechTrends, 60(2), 136–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0025-8.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: The Guilford Press.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park: Sage.
Bunch, J. C., Robinson, S., & Edwards, C. (2012). Measuring the relationship between agriculture teachers’ self-efficacy, outcome expectation, interest, and their use of interactive whiteboards. Journal of Agricultural Education, 53(1), 67–80. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2012.01067.
Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modelling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York: Routledge.
Carlsson, C., Carlsson, J., Hyvönen, K., Puhakainen, J., & Walden, P. (2006). Adoption of mobile devices/services – searching for answers with the UTAUT. Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Hawaii.
Chan, F.-M. (2002). ICT in Malaysian schools: Policy and strategies. Workshop on the Promotion of ICT in Education to Narrow the Digital Divide, (s. 15–22). Tokyo, Japan.
Chen, C.-H. (2008). Why do teachers not practice what they believe regarding technology integration? The Journal of Educational Research, 102(1), 65–75. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.102.1.65-75.
Chen, H.-R., Chiang, C.-H., & Lin, W.-S. (2013). Learning effects of interactive whiteboard pedagogy for students in Taiwan from the perspective of multiple intelligences. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 49(2), 173–187. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.49.2.c.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2005). Research methods in education (5th ed.). Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
Deryakulu, D. (2000). Constructivist learning. In A. Şimşek (Ed.), Democracy in classroom (pp. 53–77). Ankara: Eğitimsen Yayınları.
Drossel, K., Eickelmann, B., & Gerick, J. (2017). Predictors of teachers’ use of ICT in school – the relevance of school characteristics, teachers’ attitudes and teacher collaboration. Education and Information Technologies, 22(2), 551–573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9476-y.
Duru, S. (2006). Pre-service elementary education teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning in Turkey. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Curriculum and Instruction (Elementary Education) in the School of Education, Indiana University.
Erbas, A. K., Ince, M., & Kaya, S. (2015). Learning mathematics with interactive whiteboards and computer-based graphing utility. International Forum of Educational Technology & Society, 18(2), 299–312.
Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43–71.
Ertmer, P., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59, 423–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001.
Evans, C., & Gibbons, N. (2007). The interactivity effect in multimedia learning. Computers & Education, 49, 1147–1160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.01.008.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
Gil-Flores, J., Rodríguez-Santero, J., & Torres-Gordillo, J.-J. (2017). Factors that explain the use of ICT in secondary-education classrooms: The role of teacher characteristics and school infrastructure. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 441–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.057.
Godinho, T. (2015). Portugal: Country report on ICT in education. Brussels: European Schoolnet.
Gürbüztürk, O., & Şad, N. (2009). Student teachers’ beliefs about teaching and their sense of self-efficacy: A descriptive and comparative analysis. Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 10(3), 201–226.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Heemskerk, I., Kuipert, E., & Meijer, J. (2014). Interactive whiteboard and virtual learning environment combined: effects on mathematics education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30, 465–478. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12060.
Heitink, M., Voogt, J., Verplanken, L., van Braak, J., & Fisser, P. (2016). Teachers’ professional reasoning about their pedagogical use of technology. Computers & Education, 101, 70–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.05.009.
Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G., & Miller, D. (2007). Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 213–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439880701511040.
Hoyle, R. H. (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.
Hurt, H. T., Joseph, K., & Cook, C. D. (1977). Scales for the measurement of innovativeness. Human Communication Research, 4, 58–65.
Ibieta, A., Hinostroza, E., Labbe, C., & Claro, M. (2017). The role of the Internet in teachers’ professional practice: activities and factors associated with teacher use of ICT inside and outside the classroom. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2017.1296489.
Jackson, J., Yi, M., & Park, J. (2010). Effects of individual innovativeness on physician acceptance of information technology. International Journal of Services and Standards, 6(1), 21–42.
Jackson, J., Yi, M., & Park, J. (2013). An empirical test of three mediation models for the relationship between personal innovativeness and user acceptance of technology. Information & Management, 50, 154–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2013.02.006.
Jang, S.-J., & Tsai, M.-F. (2012). Exploring the TPACK of Taiwanese elementary mathematics and science teachers with respect to use of interactive whiteboards. Computers & Education, 59, 327–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.003.
Jonassen, D. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? ETR&D, 39(3), 5–14.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1988). LISREL 7: A guide to the program and applications. Chicago: SPSS.
Karimzadeh, A., Richter, J., Basten, D., & Michalik, B. (2017). Acceptance and use of interactive whiteboards in schools: The teachers’ point of view. Thirty eighth International Conference on Information Systems, Seoul.
Kılıç, E., Güler, Ç., Çelik, E., & Tatlı, C. (2015). Learning with interactive whiteboards: Determining the factors on promoting interactive whiteboards to students by Technology Acceptance Model. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 12(4), 285–297. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-05-2015-0011.
Kılıçer, K., & Odabaşı, H. F. (2010). Individual Innovativeness Scale (IS): The study of adaptation to Turkish, validity and reliability. H. U. Journal of Education, 38, 150–164.
Kim, C. M., Kim, M. K., Lee, C., Spector, M., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and technology integration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.005.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Publications.
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.
Lee, V., & Lin, S.-J. (2008). Podcasting acceptance on campus: An extension of the UTAUT model. DIGIT 2008 Proceedings (s. 2–15). Paris: Twenty Ninth International Conference on Information Systems.
Levitt, L. (2001). An analysis of elementary teachers’ beliefs regarding the teaching and learning of science. Science Education, 86, 1–22.
Ling, L. W., Ahmad, W. F., & Singh, T. K. (2014). Effects of the smart board on students’ achievement in moral education. Computer and Information Sciences (ICCOINS). Kuala Lumpur: IEEE.
Ling, L. W., Ahmad, W. F., & Singh, T. K. (2016). Factors influencing behavioral intention to use the interactive white board among teachers. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 88(1), 145–153.
Lu, J., Yao, J., & Yu, C.-S. (2005). Personal innovativeness, social influences and adoption of wireless Internet services via mobile technology. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 14, 245–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2005.07.003.
Lumpe, A., Haney, J., & Czerniak, C. (2000). Assessing teachers’ beliefs about their science teaching context. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 275–292.
Luo, Y.-F., & Yang, S. C. (2016). The Effect of the interactive functions of whiteboards on elementary students’ learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54(5), 680–700. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633115628032.
MacCallum, R. C., & Hong, S. (1997). Power analysis in covariance structure modeling using GFI and AGFI. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32(2), 193–210.
MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Preacher, K. J., & Hong, S. (2001). Sample size in factor analysis: The role of model error. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36(4), 611–637.
Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 410, 391–410.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
MONE. (2017). FATIH Project. About Fatih Project: http://fatihprojesi.meb.gov.tr/en/?page_id=10. Accessed 3 Sept 2018.
Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3, 1–6.
Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Alstine, J. V., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C. D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 105(3), 430.
Mumtaz, S. (2000). Factors affecting teachers’ use of information and communications technology: a review of the literature. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 9(3), 319–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759390000200096.
Muraina, I., Osman, W. R., Ahmad, A., Ibrahim, H. B., & Yusof, S. A. (2016). Modeling the behavioral intention of broadband technology usage among teenagers: Application of utaut model. Asian Journal of Information Technology, 15(3), 593–601.
Öztürk, E., & Horzum, M. B. (2011). Adaptation of technological pedagogical content knowledge scale to Turkish. Ahi Evran University Journal of Education, 12(3), 255–278.
Pardamean, B., & Susanto, M. (2012). Assessing user acceptance toward blog technology using the UTAUT model. International Journal of Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 6(1), 203–212.
Pitchanadejanant, K., & Nontakao, S. (2015). Revising and extending the determinants of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model in-service upper secondary level teachers’ perspectives. Journal of Education, 26(1), 25–46.
Raman, A., Don, Y., Khalid, R., Hussin, F., Omar, M. S., & Ghani, M. (2014). Technology acceptance on smart board among teachers in Terengganu using UTAUT model. Asian Social Science, 10(11), 84–91.
Rogers, M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
Russell, M., Bebell, D., O’Dwyer, L., & O’Connor, K. (2003). Examining teacher technology use: Implications for preservice and inservice teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 297–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487103255985.
Sanders, M., & George, A. (2017). Viewing the changing world of educational technology from a different perspective: Present realities, past lessons, and future possibilities. Education and Information Technologies, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9604-3.
Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123–149.
Schrum, L., & Berge, Z. (1997). Creating student interaction within the educational experience: a challenge for online educators. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 26(3), 133–144.
Shen, C.-C., & Chuang, H.-M. (2010). Exploring users’ attitudes and intentions toward the interactive whiteboard technology environment. International Review on Computers and Software, 5(2), 200–208.
Shi, Y., Peng, C., Zhang, X., & Yang, H. H. (2017). Interactive whiteboard-based instruction versus lecture-based instruction: A study on college students’ academic self-efficacy and academic press. Blended Learning. New Challenges and Innovative Practices (s. 319–328). Hong Kong: International Conference on Blended Learning.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
Stallard, C., & Cocker, J. (2001). The promise of technology in schools: The next 20 years. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.
Steiger, J. H. (1989). Causal modeling: A supplementary module for SYSTAT and SYGRAPH. Evanston: SYSTAT.
Sumak, B., & Sorgo, A. (2016). The acceptance and use of interactive whiteboards among teachers: Differences in UTAUT determinants between pre- and post-adopters. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 602–620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.037.
Sumak, B., Pusnik, M., Hericko, M., & Sorgo, A. (2017). Differences between prospective, existing, and former users of interactive whiteboards on external factors affecting their adoption, usage and abandonment. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 733–756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.006.
Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Pearson.
Tarhini, A., El-Masri, M., Ali, M., & Serrano, A. (2016). Extending the UTAUT model to understand the customers’ acceptance and use of internet banking in Lebanon. Information Technology & People, 29(4), 830–849. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-02-2014-0034.
Teo, T., & Noyes, J. (2014). Explaining the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers: A multi-group analysis of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. Interactive Learning Environments, 22(1), 51–66.
Thomson, M., & Gregory, B. (2013). Elementary teachers’ classroom practices and beliefs in relation to US science education reform: Reflections from within. International Journal of Science Education, 35(11), 1800–1823.
Tosuntaş, Ş. B., Karadağ, 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.009.
Uluyol, Ç., & Şahin, S. (2014). Elementary school teachers’ ICT use in the classroom and their motivators for using ICT. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(1), 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12220.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G., & Davis, F. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
Vidaman, K. F., & Thompson, J. S. (2003). On specifying the null model for incremental fit indices in structural equation modeling. Psychological Methods, 8(1), 16–37.
Wang, Y.-S., & Shih, Y.-W. (2009). Why do people use information kiosks? A validation of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. Government Information Quarterly, 26, 158–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2008.07.001.
Wong, K.-T., Teo, T., & Goh, P. S. (2015). Understanding the intention to use interactive whiteboards: model development and testing. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(6), 731–747. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2013.806932.
Woolley, C. A., Benjamin, W. J., & Woolley, A. W. (2004). Construct validity of a self-report measure of teacher beliefs related to constructivist and traditional approaches to teaching and learning. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(2), 319–331.
Wu, D., Hiltz, S. R., & Bieber, M. (2010). Acceptance of educational technology: Field studies of asynchronous participatory examinations. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 26(21), 451–476.
Yi, M. Y., & Hwang, Y. (2003). Predicting the use of web-based information systems: self-efficacy, enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59(4), 431–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00114-9.
Yuen, H. K., & Ma, W. K. (2002). Gender differences in teacher computer acceptance. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(3), 365–382.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bardakcı, S., Alkan, M.F. Investigation of Turkish preservice teachers’ intentions to use IWB in terms of technological and pedagogical aspects. Educ Inf Technol 24, 2887–2907 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09904-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09904-4