Exploring users' attitudes and intentions toward the interactive whiteboard technology environment

International Review on Computers and Software

Volumn 5, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 200-208

  Shen, Chia Cheng ^a   Chuang, Huan Ming ^a  

^a NATIONAL YUNLIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

E learning; Human computer interaction; Interactive whiteboard technology (IWT); Interactivity; Technology acceptance model (TAM)

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL INTENTION; COMMUNICATION BEHAVIOR; ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS; EXTRINSIC MOTIVATION; INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS; INTERACTIVITY; INTERACTIVITY LEVEL; INTRINSIC MOTIVATION; KEY CHARACTERISTICS; MANAGEMENT PRACTICES; PERCEIVED EASE OF USE; PERCEIVED SELF-EFFICACY; PERCEIVED USEFULNESS; STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING; SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS; TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL; TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL (TAM); THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK; USER'S ATTITUDES;

E-LEARNING; HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION; KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT; MOTIVATION; RESEARCH;

TECHNOLOGY;

EID: 78951475565     PISSN: 18286003     EISSN: 18286011     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. J. C. Rivera, M. K. McAlister, A comparison of student outcomes and satisfaction between traditional and Web based course offerings, 2001 Information Resources Management Association International Conference(Page:770 Year of Publication: 2001 ISSN 1082-9873).
2. C.-S. Ong, J.-Y. Lai, Y.-S. Wang, Factors affecting engineers' acceptance of asynchronous e-learning systems in high-tech companies, Information & Management, Vol. 41, pp. 795-804, 2004.
3. S. Kennewell, G. Beauchamp,The features of interactive whiteboards and their influence on learning, Learning, Media & Technology, Vol. 32, pp. 227-241, 2007.
4. J. Branzburg, Whiteboards at Your Service, Technology & Learning, Vol. 28, pp. 38-39, 2007.
5. S. W. Draper, M. I. Brown, Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, Vol. 20, pp. 81-94, 2004.
6. D. W. Stewart, P. A. Pavlou, From Consumer Response to Active Consumer: Measuring the Effectiveness of Interactive Media, Academy of Marketing Science Journal, Vol. 30, n. 4, pp. 376-396, 2002.
7. K. Chen, D. C. Yen, Improving the Quality of Online Presence through Interactivity, Information & Management, Vol. 42, pp. 217-226, 2004.
8. R. Sims, Interactivity: A Forgotten Art?, Computer in Human Behavior, Vol. 13, n. 2, pp. 157-180, 2002.
9. H. H. Teo, L. B. Oh, C. Liu, K. K. Wei, An Empirical Study of the Effects of Interactivity on Web User Attitude, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 58, pp. 281-305, 2003.
10. S. J. McMillan, J.-S. Hwang, Measures of Perceived Interactivity: An Exploration of the Role of Direction of Communication, User Control, and Time in Shaping Perceptions of Interactivity, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 31, n. 3, pp. 29-41, 2002.
11. F. D. Davis, Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13, n. 3, pp. 319-340, 1989.
12. F. D. Davis, User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user perception and behavioral impacts, International Journal of Man-Machine studies, Vol. 38, pp. 475-487, 1994.
13. S. Davis, S. Wiedenbeck, The mediating effects of intrinsic motivation, ease of use and usefulness perceptions on performance in first-time and subsequent computer users, Interacting with Computers, Vol. 13, pp. 549-580, 2001.
14. A. Bandura, Reflections on self-efficacy, Advances in behavioral research and therapy, Vol. 1, pp. 237-269, 1978.
15. A. Bandura, Social foundations of thought and action (Prentice Hall, 1986).
16. A. Bandura, Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change, Psychological Review, Vol. 84, n. 2, pp. 191-215, 1997.
17. D. R. Compeau, C. A. Higgins, Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure initial test, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 19, pp. 189-211, 1995.
18. G. Piccoli, R. Ahmad, B. Ives, Web-based virtual learning environments: a research framework and a preliminary assessment of effectiveness in basic IT skills training, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25, pp. 401-426, 2001.
19. K. Pituch, Y. Lee, The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use, Computers & Education, Vol. 47, pp. 222-244, 2006.
20. I. Hall, S. Higgins, Primary school students' perceptions of interactive whiteboard, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, Vol. 2, pp. 102-117, 2005.
21. E. C. Schmid, Investigating the use of interactive whiteboard technology in the language classroom through the lens of a critical theory of technology, Computer Assisted Language Learning, Vol. 19, pp. 47-62, 2006.
22. K. Wall, S. Higgins, H. Smith, The visual helps me understand the complicated things': pupils views of teaching and learning with interactive whiteboards, British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 36, pp. 851-867, 2005.
23. E. C. Schmid, Using a voting system in conjunction with interactive whiteboard technology to enhance learning in the English language classroom, Computers & Education, Vol. 50, pp. 338-356, 2008.
24. T. Goodison, Enhancing learning with ICT at primary level, British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 33, pp. 215-228, 2002.
25. D. Glover, D. Miller, Running with technology: the pedagogic impact of the large-scale introduction of interactive whiteboards in one secondary school, Journal of Information Technologies for Teacher Education, Vol. 103, pp. 257-278, 2001.
26. S. H. Haeckel, About the Nature and Future of Interactive Marketing, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 12, n. 1, pp. 63-71, 1998.
27. D. R. Fortin, R. R. Dholakia, Interactivity and Vividness Effects on Social Presence and Involvement with a Web-Based Advertisement, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58, pp. 387-396, 2005.
28. D. L. Hoffman, P. N. Thomas, Marketing in Hypermedia Computer-Mediated Environments: Conceptual Foundations, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 60, n. 3, pp. 50-68, 1992.
29. B. O. Szuprowicz, Interactive Communications: New Technologies and Future Directions (Computer Technology Research Corp, 1996).
30. M. B. Kinzie, M. A. B. Delcourt, S. M. Powers, Computer technologies: Attitudes and selfefficacy across undergraduate disciplines, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 35, pp. 745-768, 1994.
31. C. A. Murphy, S. V. Owen, Development and validity of the Computer Self-Efficacy Scale, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 49, pp. 893-899, 1989.
32. C. L. Hsu, H. P. Lu, Why do people play on-line games? An extended TAM with social influences and flow experience, Information & Management, Vol. 41, pp. 853-868, 2004.
33. J. W. Moon, Y. G. Kim, Extending the TAM for a World-Wide-Web context, Information & Management, Vol. 38, pp. 217-230, 2001.
34. M. T. Dishaw, D. M. Strong, Extending the technology acceptance model with task-technology fit constructs, Information & Management, Vol. 36, n. 1, pp. 9-21, 1999.
35. W. Hong, J. Y. L. Thong, W. M. Wong, K. Y. Tam, Determinants of User Acceptance of Digital Libraries: An Empirical Examination of Individual Differences and System Characteristics, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18, n. 3, pp. 97-124, 2002.
36. R. Cross, J. Smith, Consumer-focused strategies and tactics, In E. Forrest, R. Mizerski, (Ed.), Interactive Marketing: The Future Present (Chicago: NTC Business Book, 1996, 5-27).
37. M. A. Bell, Impact of the electronic interactive whiteboard on students attitudes and achievement in eighth-grade writing instruction (Baylor University, 2000).
38. C. Greiffenhagen, From traditional blackboards to interactive whiteboards: a pilot study to inform system design, 24th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Page:305 Year of Publication: 2000 ISBN 0-8058-4205-5).
39. S. Hong, P. Katerattanakul, S. Hong, Q. Cao, Usage and perceived impact of data warehouses: A study in Korean financial companies, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, Vol. 5, n. 2, pp. 297-315, 2006.
40. I. L. Wu, J. L. Chen, An extension of Trust and TAM model with TPB in the initial adoption of on-line tax: An empirical study, Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 62, pp. 784-808, 2005.
41. J. Yu, I. Ha, M. Choi, J. Rho, Extending the TAM for a t-commerce, Information & Management, Vol. 42, pp. 965-976, 2005.
42. J. Lu, C. S. Yu, C. Liu, J. E. Yao, Technology Acceptance Model for Wireless Internet, Internet Research, Vol. 13, n. 3, pp. 206-222, 2003.
43. R. Agarwal, J. Prasad, Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new information technologies?, Decision Sciences, Vol. 30, n. 2, pp. 361-391, 2006.
44. A. W. Harrison, R. K. Rainer, The influence of individual differences on skill in end-user computing, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 9, n. 1, pp. 93-111, 1992.
45. D. R. Compeau, C. A. Higgins, S. Huff, Social cognitive theory and individual reactions to computing technology: A longitudinal study, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 23, n. 2, pp. 145-158, 1999.
46. R. Agarwal, V. Sambamurthy, R. M. Stair, Research report: The evolving relationship between general and specific computer self-efficacy-An empirical assessment, Information Systems Research, Vol. 11, n. 4, pp. 418-430, 2000.
47. R. D. Johnson, G. M. Marakas, Research report: The role of behavior modeling in computer skills acquisition-Toward refinement of the model, Information Systems Research, Vol. 11, n. 4, pp. 402-417, 2000.
48. V. S. Lai, H. Li, Technology acceptance model for internet banking: an invariance analysis, Information & Management, Information Systems Research, Vol. 42, pp. 373-386, 2005.
49. H. P. Shih, Extended technology acceptance model of Internet utilization behavior, Information & Management, Vol. 41, n. 6, pp. 719-726, 2004.
50. K. G. Joreskog, D. Sorbom, LISREL 8: Users' Reference Guide (Scientific Software International, 1996).
51. A. H. Segars, V. Grover, Re-examining perceived ease of use and usefulness: a confirmatory factor analysis, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 17, pp. 517-552, 1993.
52. J. F. Hair, R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham, W. C. Black, Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings (MacMillan, 1992).
53. R. P. Bagozzi, Y. Yi, On the evaluation of structural equation models, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16, pp. 74-94, 1998.
54. C. R. Fornell, D. F. Larcker, Structural equation models with unobservablevariables and measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, pp. 39-50, 1981.
55. P. M. Bentler, D. G. Bonett, Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures (Psychological Bulletin, 1989).
56. A. H. Seyal, M. N. Rahman, M. M. Rahim, Determinants of academic use of the Internet: a structural equation model, Behaviour and Information Technology, Vol. 21, n. 1, pp. 71-86, 2002.
57. R. P. Bagozzi, Y. Yi, L. W. Philips, Assessing construct validity in organizational research - includes appendices, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 3, n. 36, pp. 421-458, 1991.
58. T. P. Novak, D. L. Hoffman, Y.-F. Yung, Measuring the Customer Experience in Online Environments: A Structural Modeling Approach, Marketing Science, Vol. 19, n. 1, pp. 22-42, 2001.