Acceptance Analysis of IWB Systems in Education using UTAUT2 Model: The Moderating Role of Perceived Technological Innovations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interactive Whiteboard (IWB) Systems are increasingly being used to replace traditional whiteboards in educational activities, making them more efficient and interesting for both teachers and students. However, no studies have been conducted to investigate how age, educational level, and employment status can impact the adoption and usage of IWB systems in the educational setting. The study aims to analyze the acceptance and the influencing factors on faculty members’ intention and usage behavior towards IWB systems in teaching, utilizing the Modified-Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 (UTAUT2) model. 135 faculty members from various colleges and departments across Batangas State University ARASOF-Nasugbu Campus were surveyed and data was analyzed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) through SmartPLS software for hypotheses testing. The results of the study indicate that faculty members’ behavioral intention to use interactive whiteboard systems in teaching is positively influenced by performance expectancy and social influence. Moreover, facilitating conditions and habit positively impact usage behavior. This study, therefore, concludes that there is significant roles of performance expectancy and social influence as well as the moderating effect of age on the behavioral intention to use interactive whiteboard (IWB) systems in education. Furthermore, the study confirms that effort expectancy, hedonic motivation, and status as moderating variables significantly influence faculty members’ usage behavior when using IWB systems in teaching.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".