You are on page 1of 14

Technology, Pedagogy and Education

ISSN: 1475-939X (Print) 1747-5139 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtpe20

Perceptions of art and design faculty on the


instructional value of iPads
Nicos Souleles, Stefania Savva, Hilary Watters & Angela Annesley
To cite this article: Nicos Souleles, Stefania Savva, Hilary Watters & Angela Annesley (2016):
Perceptions of art and design faculty on the instructional value of iPads, Technology, Pedagogy
and Education, DOI: 10.1080/1475939X.2016.1199390
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2016.1199390

Published online: 20 Jun 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at


http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtpe20
Download by: [Cyprus University Of Technology]

Date: 22 June 2016, At: 03:50

Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 2016


http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2016.1199390

Perceptions of art and design faculty on the instructional value of


iPads

Downloaded by [Cyprus University Of Technology] at 03:50 22 June 2016

Nicos Soulelesa*, Stefania Savvaa, Hilary Wattersb and Angela Annesleyc


a
Department of Multimedia and Graphic Arts, Cyprus University of Technology, Limassol,
Cyprus; bWidening Participation Educational Development, Falmouth University, Falmouth,
UK; cSchool of Film & Television, Falmouth University, Falmouth, UK

(Received 29 March 2014; nal version received 3 November 2015)


The widespread use of iPads in higher education brings to the forefront questions
about the contribution of these computer tablets towards teaching and learning.
However, there is a noticeable gap in research on the educational potential of
iPads in higher education. This article describes the second stage of a research
project on the use of iPads in undergraduate art and design disciplines, and in
particular the views and experiences of faculty in two different art and design
schools over a period of one semester. The rst stage of the project investigated
the perceptions of art and design students about the educational value of iPads.
For the second stage, the unied theory of acceptance and use of technology
model was used to gauge adoption of the iPad for teaching and learning, and the
participants provided qualitative data that was used for this phenomenographic
study. The outcomes of this investigation provide an overview of challenges and
obstacles from the perspective of art and design faculty in embedding the use of
iPads in teaching and learning.
Keywords: iPad; art and design; perceptions; faculty; phenomenography;
technology acceptance models

Introduction
There has been a noticeable increase in the use of tablet computers in higher
education and in particular iPads. However, only relatively recently educational
institutions have begun to research the use of iPads for teaching and learning, and
the number of related studies remains small (Churchill, Fox, & King, 2012;
Ifenthaler & Schweinbenz, 2013; Johnson, Adams, & Cummins, 2012, pp. 1415).
The signicance of this for art and design education, i.e. the current research lacuna
on the use of iPads in higher education, is compounded when one considers that
overall elearning in art and design disciplines is under-researched (Souleles, 2012).
The purpose of phenomenographic studies is to describe variations of conceptions that people have of a particular phenomenon, i.e. their conceptual meanings of
the phenomenon of interest. Such studies are suited for under-researched areas
because they open up the spectrum of perceptions for further more focused studies.
This article describes the second stage of a research project on the use of iPads in
undergraduate studio-based art and design disciplines. It is a collaboration between
*Corresponding author. Email: nicos.souleles@cut.ac.cy
2016 Association for Information Technology in Teacher Education

Downloaded by [Cyprus University Of Technology] at 03:50 22 June 2016

N. Souleles et al.

the research lab Art + Design: elearning lab at Cyprus University of Technology,
and academics from Falmouth University in the UK.
The rst stage of the project was completed in the rst half of 2013, and it
entailed the investigation of the perceptions of undergraduate art and design students
on the educational potential of the iPad (Souleles, Savva, Watters, Bull, & Annesley,
2014). In brief, this study concluded that the use of iPads for teaching and learning
in art and design should consider that the learning affordances associated with these
tablets are not as evident. From the perspective of the students, the benets identied for teaching and learning focus mostly on the communicative potential of these
devices. In addition, the use of iPads for teaching and learning requires consideration of a range of differing student attitudes, not all of which are supportive in the
context of teaching and learning (Souleles et al., 2014).
Prosser and Trigwell (2000) argued that teaching and learning are closely related,
and the required alignment is between the students and the lecturers perception of
teaching and learning. This article deals with the second part of this dictum, which
is to identify the different ways art and design faculty consider the iPad for teaching
and learning.
The literature review section of this article examines the main technology acceptance models (TAMs) and their characteristics, and argues that the unied theory of
acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) provides a relatively reliable framework
to assess the behavioural intention of users when considering the adoption of technologies. The literature review section is followed by a description of the teaching
and learning characteristics of art and design; it is within this academic milieu and
the distinctiveness that permeates it that faculty engage with instructional practices.
The methodology section describes the research design and limitations and delimitations of this phenomenographic investigation. Data was collected through semistructured interviews with faculty from both institutions listed above. This study
concludes with the presentation and analysis of outcomes. Finally, the implications
for art and design education are elaborated upon, as well as directions for future
research on the use of iPads for teaching and learning in art and design.

Technology acceptance models


With the growing technology needs of the 1970s, there was a parallel interest to produce reliable measures that could explain acceptance or rejection of technologies
(Chuttur, 2009, p. 1). One of the early TAMs, known as the theory of reasoned
action, emphasised the motivation of the user, and proposed that the combination of
perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness can inuence attitudes towards
acceptance and usage of a technology (Chuttur, 2009, pp. 12). In more recent studies, neither perceived ease of use nor the perceived usefulness of the technology
emerged as signicant determinants of intention (Li, 2010, pp. 1112). In recent
years researchers are confronted with a plethora of different TAMs that consider a
greater number of factors (Anderson, Schwager, & Kerns, 2006, p. 430). Of interest
to this article are studies on the adoption and use of technologies in education. In
this respect, there are some studies that agree that a signicant motivation for teacher adoption in teaching and learning is the extent to which a technology can
enhance instruction (Churchill et al., 2012; Waycott, Bennett, Kennedy, Dalgarno, &
Gray, 2010, p. 1203). For example, in a study by Lofstrom and Nevgi (2008,

Downloaded by [Cyprus University Of Technology] at 03:50 22 June 2016

Technology, Pedagogy and Education

pp. 104105), the instructional use of technologies is associated with student-centred


pedagogies and constructivist viewpoints of learning.
Other studies on TAMs in educational environments argue that, owing to contextual factors that function as constraints, the potential to improve instruction is not
sufcient for teachers to adopt the use of new technologies. Such constraints include
curricula restrictions, social pressures exerted by peers and administrators (Ertmer,
2005, p. 29), the perception that workloads can increase, usability and technical
issues, the possible loss of face-to-face interaction with learners, and the belief that
the adoption of new technologies implies that teachers will always be available to
answer student enquiries (Waycott et al., 2010, p. 1208).
Lefoe, Olney, Wright, and Herrington (2009) argued for a TAM that consists of
ve strategies to support the incorporation of new technologies into teaching and
learning. These are: a) a common understanding among faculty of the philosophy of
the endeavour; b) an understanding of some of the affordances of the technologies,
and sufcient time for faculty to develop relevant skills before using them with students; c) participation in authentic tasks to move from theory to practice; d) sharing
a common language and understanding of the implications for teaching and learning;
and e) a cycle of reection based on the four previous points.
Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, and Davis (2003) reviewed a number of TAMs for the
purpose of developing an integrated framework, known as UTAUT. This framework
suggests that acceptance of technological innovations can be explained through four
key determinants that are: a) effort expectancy (the extent to which the use of a technological innovation is perceived as free of effort); b) performance expectancy (the
extent to which the technology is perceived as improving work performance); c)
social inuence (the extent to which peers consider that the user ought to adopt the
technology); and d) facilitating conditions (the extent to which it is perceived that a
technological infrastructure exists to support the technology).
Anderson et al. (2006) used the UTAUT model to examine faculty acceptance of
tablet computers in a college. The authors concluded that the main factor for adoption was the perceived effect upon teaching and learning (performance expectancy),
and additional contributing factors were the availability of support (facilitating conditions) and the voluntary nature of participation in the technology adoption scheme.
In another study that used the UTAUT framework, Lewis, Fretwell, Ryan, and Parham (2013) investigated adoption of established and emerging technologies among
business faculty members, and concluded that performance expectancy, effort expectancy and social inuence played signicant roles in predicting intentions to use
technology in the classroom.
UTAUT is generally accepted as a robust model that provides a relatively reliable instrument to determine user adoption and use of information technologies
(Lewis et al., 2013, p. 23; Sundaravej, 2010). The use of UTAUT for this study does
not imply that this model is without problems, but rather that at this stage and in
comparison to other models it provides a well-entrenched model that carries a lot
of salience. In brief, critique of this TAM highlights the reliance of the model upon
too many variables that are not generic or universal. Certainly more research is
needed to address the inconsistencies that the various TAMs cannot easily explain
(Li, 2010, p. 14), and future research may uncover new predictors of user behaviour
(Bagozzi, 2007, p. 245). For example, a recent study by Kreijns, Vermeulen,
Kirschner, Buuren, and Acker (2013) proposed a theoretical model that incorporates
individual psychological processes (attitude, subjective norm and self-efcacy).

N. Souleles et al.

Downloaded by [Cyprus University Of Technology] at 03:50 22 June 2016

According to the authors, this model is parsimonious and less technology informed,
but its relevance needs to be tested further.
The art and design context
The prevailing teaching and learning practices in art and design are of relevance
because they provide a context that inevitably informs faculty attitudes towards
instructional technology in general. Firstly, it is important to draw an overarching
distinction between disciplines of high and low paradigmatic development.
Paradigmatic development refers to the degree to which there is agreement among
the members of an academic discipline about theory, methods and techniques. For
example, biology, chemistry, physics and the sciences represent disciplines of high
paradigmatic development, in contrast to history, sociology and psychology, which
are considered low paradigmatic disciplines (Braxton, Olsen, & Simmons, 1999,
p. 301). Owing to the open-ended nature of most art and design outcomes, related
programmes of study inevitably fall within the group of low paradigmatic disciplines; the curriculum tends to be uid (Shreeve, Sims, & Trowler, 2010, p. 135).
Subsequently, teaching and learning practices emphasise the development of a set of
intellectual skills and competencies which the Art and Design Subject Benchmark
Statement lists as intellectual maturity, curiosity, personal innovation, risk-taking,
independent enquiry, and effective management and planning skills (Kennedy &
Welch, 2008, p. 9).
A study by Shreeve et al. (2010, pp. 130133) identied the characteristics of
the signature pedagogies that underpin art and design education. Learning has a
material and physical dimension. The former entails sketching, recording and reecting upon process, as well as working and experimenting with materials. The physical dimension can include the involvement of the body itself in performance-based
subjects. Learning involves living with uncertainty and unknown outcomes, and
making judgements about ideas, practices and values in order to inform actions. In
addition, learning has a visible dimension; outcomes manifest as artefacts that are
open to debate and scrutiny. Learners increasingly learn to incorporate critical feedback and to function with a decreasing amount of support and feedback. Thus,
teaching and learning aims to promote the development of independent and creative
practitioners. Learners become accustomed not merely to what needs to be done, but
what it is to be part of a community of practice. Learning is fundamentally social,
that is learning practices are visible and discussed often in an informal manner and
in the presence of peers. Lastly, process and development are important because they
support the ongoing exploration and renement of outputs. Consequently, assessment focuses on process as well as the nished artefact.
The predominant teaching and learning practices in art and design tend to be
student-focused rather than teacher-centred. However, there are a number of factors
not unique to art and design education that increasingly impede the signature pedagogies of the related disciplines. These include the increase in student numbers in
recent years owing to the widening participation agenda, the increase in international
students, the modularisation of curricula and the regime of quality assurance. To
these factors can be added continued technological, social and economic pressures
upon higher education in general. As Shreeve (2011, p. 123) argued, owing to these
impeding factors, art and design education is in a state of ux and teaching and
learning in these disciplines is increasingly adapting to new realities.

Downloaded by [Cyprus University Of Technology] at 03:50 22 June 2016

Technology, Pedagogy and Education

Methodology and research design


The aim of this phenomenographic study is to identify the range of perceptions that
art and design faculty have on the educational potential of iPads. It is an investigation that unpacks the different ways in which people experience, conceptualise, realise and understand aspects of the world around them. In phenomenographic studies,
the structure and content of an experience are not separated from each other
(Marton, 1981, p. 180). The aim of such studies is to nd and categorise how
aspects of phenomena are interpreted (p. 180). A core feature of phenomenography
is that the qualitative different understandings of the phenomenon experienced are
logically related to one another by way of hierarchically inclusive relationships
(Akerlind, 2005, pp. 322323). Recent phenomenographic studies (Pang, 2003)
focus not only on what the different ways are of experiencing a phenomenon, but
also on what a way is of experiencing a phenomenon. The former is referred to as
the referential aspect (what) of the variations of perception, and the latter as the
structural (how). The fundamental assumption of phenomenography is the existence of a nite number of qualitatively different ways of perceiving a particular
phenomenon; in the case of this article, the variations in ways of considering the
instructional potential of iPads by art and design faculty.
Thirty-two faculty members from both participating institutions were interviewed. They teach in different undergraduate programmes and in different years
of study. The breakdown of subjects they represent is: Creative Writing, Computer Graphics and Visualisation, Drawing, Fashion Design, Fashion Photography,
Fine Arts, Graphic Design, HumanComputer Interaction, Illustration, Information
Design, Interior Design, Multimedia Design, Performance, Print Making, Product
Design, Semiotic Theory, Sportswear Design, Textile Design, Web Design and
3D Design.
Some of these subjects entail more practical (hands-on) teaching and learning,
for example Fine Arts, Print Making and Drawing, while others such as Semiotic
Theory and Creative Writing are of a theoretical nature. There was an effort to balance the sex of participating faculty (17 male, 15 female), although this was not possible owing to the voluntary nature of interviewee participation. Thus the gender of
participating faculty comprises a sample of convenience. It needs to be noted that
although the literature on how female users engage with tablets is not extensive,
studies indicate some differences. Male users tend to be early adopters and use
tablets for a wider range of activities (Snyder Bulik, 2011, p. 12).
Each participating faculty member was handed an iPad and a stylus, with the
pre-installed software (apps) limited to the default factory settings. However, faculty
members were allowed to download their own apps without restriction. Lastly, participants were not provided with instructions on how to use their iPad; this was
deliberate, because the focus of the investigation was to capture their unimpeded
perception of the value of iPads for teaching and learning based on the use of the
tablets over a period of one academic semester (1315 weeks).
Data was gathered through open-ended questions that were developed based on
the UTAUT model (Table 1). The interview questions sought to elicit answers about
effort expectancy, performance expectancy, social inuence and facilitating conditions. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and Atlas.ti (qualitative software) was
used to identify emerging themes.

N. Souleles et al.

Table 1. Interview questions based on the UTAUT model.


1. Performance
expectancy
2. Effort expectancy
3. Social inuence

Downloaded by [Cyprus University Of Technology] at 03:50 22 June 2016

4. Facilitating
conditions

Do you think that the iPad can inuence the academic performance of
students?
How easy do you consider it is to use the iPad for teaching and
learning?
Would inuence from peers and/or students affect your decision to use
the iPad for teaching and learning?
Do you consider that you have access to the right institutional
infrastructure to support your use of the iPad for teaching and
learning?

The main limitation of phenomenographic analysis relates to the generalisability


and utility of ndings, i.e. the ability to draw descriptive or inferential conclusions
from the sample data about the wider group of art and design faculty members,
vis--vis their perceptions about the instructional potential of the iPad. Causal relationships and associations may be established about the perceptions of the instructional value of iPads, but it is also possible that there are different causes for
different contexts. An additional limitation of this study is that, since it was critical
to capture the unimpeded experience of faculty, a prescriptive approach on how to
use the iPads was avoided, and subsequently little is known about the different
contexts of use.
Data presentation
During the rst stage of the analysis of the responses, discrete categories were identied corresponding to each set of questions (Table 1). These are the referential
aspects of the analysis (what). The second stage focused on identifying the structural
aspects of each category (how).
Performance expectancy
Four distinct categories were identied (Table 2). Category A consists of views that
the iPad can affect positively the academic performance of students. An indicative
statement is:
It [the iPad] could be used for audiovisual recordings, as a portfolio, there are many
ways it can be used [by the students], and this in essence facilitates learning.
(Interviewee 8)

Category B comprises views that the iPad has the potential for both positive and
negative inuences on academic performance. An indicative statement is:
Table 2. Do you think that the iPad can inuence the academic performance of students?
Categories
A
B
C
D

Referential (What)
Positive inuence
Both positive and negative
inuences
Doubtful if it can inuence
Negative inuence

Structural (How)
Practical ways to facilitate learning
Signicance of good instruction versus
distracting potential
Unawareness of potential inuence
Emphasis on potential obstructions to
performance

Technology, Pedagogy and Education

[If] each student has their own iPad and they start using social media then it can
become distracting it can be hidden from the teacher The point is that pedagogy
is what makes the difference [for example] the teacher can encourage students to
use new technologies to comment on something regarding the lesson. (Interviewee 1)

In Category C, the view of the iPad vis--vis inuence on student academic performance is expressed in doubtful terms. A characteristic statement is:
I am not sure if it actually helps their learning. I cannot tell for sure. (Interviewee 9)

Downloaded by [Cyprus University Of Technology] at 03:50 22 June 2016

Lastly, Category D comprises views that the iPad can have a negative inuence
on the academic performance of students.
I dont see the iPad as enhancing the [learning] experiences of students it could lead
them to become isolated from the rest of the group it can harm [their] creative
thinking students can get lost in this enthusiasm for technology. (Interviewee 10)

From the emerging themes, it is obvious that there are divergent perceptions among
faculty members on the performance expectancy of iPads. Some interviewees identied ways that this tablet can support practical learning tasks (Category A), but none
stated that it could enhance intellectual skills and competencies or student-centred
learning. The latter may have to do with the parameters of the methodology design
as faculty members were not provided with instructions on how to use their iPad.
Unawareness of how more complex learning can be supported (Category C) with
the use of this tablet could indicate a lack of appropriate instructional design.
Indeed, it is noteworthy that in Category B, one interviewee emphasised the signicance of having appropriate pedagogies in place to enhance academic performance,
otherwise the iPad may have distracting potential (Category D).
Effort expectancy
Three distinct categories were identied (Table 3). Category A consists of perceptions that the iPad is easy to use for certain teaching and learning tasks. An indicative statement is:
the physicality of drawing almost demands that you touch a surface [the iPads
enable] a very quick way of drawing something without any pretence. (Interviewee 36)

Category B comprises views that effort expectancy varied depending upon the
required tasks. An indicative statement is:
It has its pros and cons. Its easy from the point of view of illustration tasks You
cant use it [for presentations] as all the documents that youve got are in a memory
stick. (Interviewee 25)

Lastly, in Category C the focus is on the obstacles in terms of effort expectancy


vis--vis teaching and learning. For example:
Table 3. How easy do you consider it is to use the iPad for teaching and learning?
Categories
A
B
C

Referential (What)

Structural (How)

Very easy
Depends upon the task
Not easy

Effortless completion of certain tasks


Some tasks require more effort than others
Time-consuming to properly complete task

N. Souleles et al.
I felt like it might be time-consuming to teach using the iPad. You must spend time to
nd the right apps that will suit your learning objectives and of course, you must test it
to see if it works. (Interviewee 23)

Downloaded by [Cyprus University Of Technology] at 03:50 22 June 2016

The main inference from the above is that the different views on effort expectancy
with regard to incorporating the iPad into teaching and learning depend upon the
perceived degree of effort required to complete specic instructional tasks. Some
interviewees considered the task of drawing with an iPad to be easy (Category A),
while others stated that the search for apps to address specic learning outcomes is
a complex and time-consuming task (Category C). Lastly, high effort expectancy
was associated with the technical limitations of the tablet (Category B).
Social inuence
Four distinct categories were identied (Table 4). Category A comprises views that
social inuence from peers and students would affect the adoption and use of the
iPad for teaching and learning. An indicative statement is:
I would say it did had an impact on me that someone else was using it [the iPad]
around the department I guess we were kind of inspired by each other, hence probably why I went on board with using it I had seen a colleague starting to use [it] and
I wanted to try it and see if it works And then, you have the students who are so
excited about new technologies [the students] expect you to use these tools nowadays. (Interviewee 15)

In Category B, the level of social inuence was dependent upon how the instructional value of the iPad was presented. If peers argued for the educational benets
of this tablet, then the degree of social inuence would be greater. A characteristic
statement is:
I would listen to someones opinion, like a colleague or student to use it if I nd productivity gains. (Interviewee 24)

It is indicative of Category C that interviewees expressed doubts as to the potential to be inuenced by peers or students on the use of the iPad for teaching and
learning. For example:
I am not sure if I am inuenced by others because we do not actually discuss these
issues. (Interviewee 9)

Lastly, Category D comprises views that social inuence from peers or students
would not affect their decision to adopt the iPad for teaching and learning. For
example:
Table 4. Would inuence from peers and/or students affect your decision to use the iPad for
teaching and learning?
Categories
A
B
C
D

Referential (What)
Social inuence is a factor
Social inuence is conditional
The impact of social inuence is
doubtful
Social inuence is not a
determinant

Structural (How)
Peer and student views matter
Peer views on instructional value
Lack of discussion on the use of new
technologies
Preference for own experience with the
technology

Technology, Pedagogy and Education

I dont think it would affect me, this is not a criterion I believe that each person is
entitled to his own opinion and I would want to try something and decide for myself if
it is useful or not. (Interviewee 8)

Downloaded by [Cyprus University Of Technology] at 03:50 22 June 2016

From the above, it can be inferred that there are varied reasons that can affect social
inuence. While for some interviewees, the perceptions of peers and students can be
of signicance for the adoption of iPads in teaching and learning (Category A), in
other cases social inuence is dependent upon the appraisal of the tablet by peers
(Category B). In addition, the effect of social inuence was expressed in doubtful
terms because of the lack of exchange of views among interested parties (Category
C). Lastly, social inuence provides no replacement for ones own experience with
the technology (Category D).
Facilitating conditions
Four distinct categories were identied (Table 5). Category A consists of views that
there is appropriate technological infrastructure to support the use of iPads for teaching and learning. An indicative statement is:
We have wireless Internet so thats OK our department especially and IT [information technology] support are of a good standard. (Interviewee 16)

Category B comprises views that the facilitating conditions were restricted by


technical limitations. An indicative statement is:
when I tried to use the iPad some restrictions in the university network did not
allow actual use of the particular app I wanted there are parameters which can
undermine, slow or prevent the use of iPads. (Interviewee 15)

In Category C, there is lack of awareness of whether there is an appropriate technological infrastructure in place to support the use of the tablet. A characteristic
statement is:
I cannot really say I didnt really seek any help. (Interviewee 23)

Category D comprises perceptions that a suitable technological infrastructure


does not exist to support the use of the iPad. An indicative statement is:
its been tricky, the university network was running slow, its not been as smooth as
I would like I know it can happen but IT services did not really provide support.
(Interviewee 31)

Table 5. Do you consider that you have access to the appropriate institutional infrastructure
to support your use of the iPad for teaching and learning?
Categories

Referential (What)

Facilitating conditions exist

B
C

Limited facilitating conditions


Unawareness of the existence of
facilitating conditions
No facilitating conditions

Structural (How)
Emphasis on good IT support and
wireless Internet
Focus on some technical obstacles
Support was not sought
Lack of sufcient technological
infrastructure

10

N. Souleles et al.

Table 6. Faculty perceptions mapped against the UTAUT model.


1. Performance
expectancy

Downloaded by [Cyprus University Of Technology] at 03:50 22 June 2016

2. Effort
expectancy

3. Social
inuence

4. Facilitating
conditions

Do you think that the iPad can inuence the academic performance of
students?
Positives
Obstacles
Conditional on whether the tablet
Faculty members identied a
would be used as part of an effective
number of ways to facilitate
instructional process and the tablet
learning.
would not distract from the latter.
How easy do you consider it is to use the iPad for teaching and learning?
Positives
Obstacles
iPad easy for the completion of
Determined by the ease of
certain instructional tasks.
completing some learning tasks.
Would inuence from peers and/or students affect your decision to use the
iPad for teaching and learning?
Positives
Obstacles
Social inuence is dependent on
Social inuence from peers and
students can affect their decision to whether peers perceive some
instructional value in using the iPad.
adopt the tablet.
Do you consider that you have access to the right institutional
infrastructure to support your use of the iPad for teaching and learning?
Positives
Obstacles
Some institutions need to
Appropriate facilitating conditions
communicate what the infrastructure
can positively impact the decision
can provide, while others need to
to adopt the tablet.
address technical obstacles that
impede the use of iPads.

Table 5 indicates that for some interviewees, the facilitating conditions are sufcient
and appropriate (Category A), while for others there are limiting factors (Category
B). There is also a level of unawareness of the extent to which facilitating conditions
are in place to support teaching and learning with iPads (Category C). Finally, some
interviewees stated that they had no access to an appropriate technological infrastructure that could support their adoption of the tablet (Category D).
Discussion and conclusion
This study investigated the range of perceptions on how art and design faculty perceive the iPad and the factors that inuence their attitude towards adopting this
tablet for teaching and learning. The UTAUT model was used as a predictor of
acceptance and the art and design signature pedagogies provided an instructional
benchmark to compare potential educational benets. As expected from the phenomenographic methodology, varied themes emerged for each of the four key determinants of the model (performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social inuence
and facilitating conditions). For each determinant, there is a range of faculty perceptions that inform potential acceptance or non-acceptance of the iPad. To make explicit the contribution of this study, the range of faculty perceptions is mapped against
the UTAUT model (Table 6).
If we take a horizontal view across all the tables in the data presentation section
to identify positive attitudes for each of the four determinants as well as potential
connections with the signature pedagogies characteristic of art and design education,
we see that: (a) some faculty members identied a number of ways to facilitate

Downloaded by [Cyprus University Of Technology] at 03:50 22 June 2016

Technology, Pedagogy and Education

11

learning; (b) others found the iPad easy for the completion of certain instructional
tasks; (c) for some faculty members, social inuence from peers and students can
affect their decision to adopt the tablet; and (d) appropriate facilitating conditions
can positively impact the decision to adopt the tablet. The data indicates minimal
connection to the signature pedagogies and social learning characteristic of art and
design education. For example, interviewee 8 noted the potential of the iPad to function as a depository of audiovisual material and as a portfolio of student work, while
interviewee 36 noted how easy it is to draw something quickly. There is no explicit
or strong connection on the use of the iPad for the development of student intellectual skills and competencies associated with art and design education, such as the
promotion of competencies like innovation and risk-taking. Nor was there any use
of the tablet to support learning how to manage uncertainty, unknown outcomes and
making judgements about ideas, practices and values to inform actions. This
highlights the signicance of embedding the instructional use of iPads within welldened educational strategies that are informed by the signature pedagogies of art
and design.
Another group of faculty members consists of those who are either undecided or
sceptical about whether they would adopt the iPad for teaching and learning. In
terms of the rst three key determinants, the common denominator for this group is
that emphasis was placed on instructional matters. For example, performance expectancy is conditional on whether the tablet would be used as part of an effective
instructional process and the tablet would not distract from the latter. Effort expectancy is determined by the ease of completing learning tasks, and social inuence is
dependent upon whether peers perceive instructional value in using the iPad.
Healthy scepticism dominates this group. The inference is that within this group of
views, the need for appropriate pedagogies is the primary concern and something
that could prove decisive for the adoption of the tablet. Lastly, in terms of facilitating conditions for the same group of views, it is apparent that some institutions need
to communicate what the infrastructure can provide, while others may need to
address technical obstacles that impede the use of iPads.
Finally, it is possible for the last group of views, i.e. those who are reluctant to
adopt the iPad, to identify a common thread between performance expectancy and
effort expectancy. Here the emphasis is on the challenges associated with the iPad
per se. It is perceived as potentially obstructing the learning process, and for some
faculty members it is time-consuming to undertake instructional tasks with this
tablet. For the same group of faculty members, the common thread for the other two
key determinants, i.e. social inuence and facilitating conditions, is that attitudes are
not associated directly with the iPad. For example, for some faculty members it is
their own experience with the tablet that matters and not social pressure, while for
others the lack of appropriate technical infrastructure is a major obstacle towards
adoption.
An important inference from this study is that any notion of inherent and
obvious educational affordances associated with the use of this tablet in art and
design education is not widely evident. It is noteworthy that the challenges towards
adoption were not associated with aspects of the art and design signature
pedagogies. The varied obstacles identied by faculty (Table 6) point mostly
towards the need for appropriate and meaningful instructional design, i.e.
educational contexts that promote intellectual development, curiosity, personal innovation, risk-taking, self-directed enquiry and effective management of skills, i.e. the

12

N. Souleles et al.

signature pedagogies of art and design. The provision of strategies that attempt to
embed the use of iPads in appropriate instructional methods can be investigated
through action research that is informed by the prevalent view among students that
the iPad does have communicative potential, although such research would need to
consider the different student attitudes towards this tablet, not all of which are supportive for teaching and learning (Souleles et al., 2014).
Disclosure statement

Downloaded by [Cyprus University Of Technology] at 03:50 22 June 2016

No potential conict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Nicos Souleles is Assistant Professor at Cyprus University of Technology (Limassol) in the
Department of Multimedia and Graphic Arts, where he coordinates the research Art +
Design: elearning lab. Nicos was awarded a PhD in Educational Research from Lancaster
University (UK) and is a member of the reviewer panels for the MERLOT Journal of Online
Learning and Teaching and Higher Education Studies.
Stephania Savva is a research assistant at the Art + Design: elearning lab (http://www.
elearningartdesign.org) at Cyprus University of Technology and a doctoral student at University of Leicester in the UK.
Hilary Watters is a lecturer in Widening Participation Educational Development at Falmouth
University, Falmouth, UK.
Angela Annesley is a senior lecturer in the School of Film & Television, Falmouth University, Falmouth, UK.

References
Akerlind, G. (2005). Variation and commonality in phenomenographic research methods.
Higher Education Research & Development, 24, 321334.
Anderson, J. E., Schwager, P. H., & Kerns, R. L. (2006). The drivers for acceptance of tablet
PCs by faculty in a college of business. Journal of Information Systems Education, 17,
429440.
Bagozzi, R. (2007). The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a proposal for a
paradigm shift. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8, 243254.
Braxton, J., Olsen, D., & Simmons, A. (1999). Afnity disciplines and the use of principles
of good practice for undergraduate education. Research in Higher Education, 39,
299318.
Churchill, D., Fox, B., & King, M. (2012). Study of affordances of iPads and teachers
private theories. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 2,
251254.
Chuttur, M. Y. (2009). Overview of the technology acceptance model: Origins, developments
and future directions. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems, 9(37). Indiana
University.
Ertmer, P. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The nal frontier in our quest for technology
integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 2539.
Ifenthaler, D., & Schweinbenz, V. (2013). The acceptance of tablet-PCs in classroom instruction: The teachers perspectives. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 525534.
Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Cummins, M. (2012). NMC Horizon Report, 2012 higher education edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
Kennedy, G., & Welch, E. (2008). Subject benchmark statement, art and design. Gloucester:
The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.

Downloaded by [Cyprus University Of Technology] at 03:50 22 June 2016

Technology, Pedagogy and Education

13

Kreijns, K., Vermeulen, M., Kirschner, P. A., Buuren, H. V., & Acker, F. V. (2013). Adopting
the Integrative Model of Behaviour Prediction to explain teachers willingness to use
ICT: A perspective for research on teachers ICT usage in pedagogical practices. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 22, 5571.
Lefoe, G., Olney, I., Wright, R., & Herrington, A. (2009). Faculty development for new
technologies: Putting mobile learning in the hands of the teachers. In J. Herrington, A.
Herrington, J. Mantei, I. Olney, & B. Ferry (Eds.), Faculty development for new technologies: Putting mobile learning in the hands of the teachers (pp. 1527). Wollongong:
Faculty of Education, University of Wollongong.
Lewis, C. C., Fretwell, C. E., Ryan, J., & Parham, J. B. (2013). Faculty use of established
and emerging technologies in higher education: A unied theory of acceptance and use
of technology perspective. International Journal of Higher Education, 2(2), 2234.
Li, L. (2010). A critical review of technology acceptance literature. Retrieved from Southwest Region of the Decision Sciences Institute: http://www.swdsi.org/swdsi2010/
SW2010_Preceedings/papers/PA104.pdf
Lofstrom, E., & Nevgi, A. (2008). University teaching staffs pedagogical awareness displayed through ICT-facilitated teaching. Interactive Learning Environments, 16, 101116.
Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography Describing conceptions of the world around us.
Instructional Science, 10, 177200.
Pang, M. (2003). Two faces of variation: On continuity in the phenomenographic movement.
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47, 145156.
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (2000). Understanding learning and teaching. The experience in
higher education. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and
Open University.
Shreeve, A. (2011). The way we were? Signature pedagogies under threat. In E. Bohemia, B.
Borja de Mozota, & L. Collina (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium
for Design Education Researchers (pp. 112125). Paris: Cumulus.
Shreeve, A., Sims, E., & Trowler, P. (2010). A kind of exchange: Learning from art and
design teaching. Higher Education Research and Development, 29, 125138.
Snyder Bulik, B. (2011). A survey on how women are using technology today. New York: Ad
Age Insights. Retrieved from http://gaia.adage.com/images/bin/pdf/1114WP.pdf
Souleles, N. (2012). Phenomenography and elearning in art and design. In V. Hodgson, C.
Jones, M. de Laat, D. McConnell, T. Ryberg, & P. Sloep (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th
International Conference on Networked Learning (pp. 466473). Maastricht: Maastricht
School of Management.
Souleles, N., Savva, S., Watters, H., Bull, B., & Annesley, A. (2014). A phenomenographic
investigation on the use of iPads among undergraduate art and design students. British
Journal of Educational Technology. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.
1111/bjet.12132/abstract
Sundaravej, T. (2010). Empirical validation of unied theory of acceptance and use of technology model. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 13, 527.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G., & Davis, F. (2003). User acceptance of information
technology: Toward a unied view. MIS Quarterly, 27, 425478.
Waycott, J., Bennett, S., Kennedy, G., Dalgarno, B., & Gray, K. (2010). Digital divides?
Student and staff perceptions of information and communication technologies. Computers
& Education, 54, 12021211.

You might also like