Skip Navigation

Follow us on:

Ask A REL Response

October 2018


What research has been conducted on the use of interactive flat panels and student achievement?


Following an established REL Southeast research protocol, we conducted a search for research reports as well as descriptive study articles on the use of interactive flat panels and student achievement. We focused on identifying resources that specifically addressed the use of interactive flat panels and student achievement. The sources included ERIC and other federally funded databases and organizations, research institutions, academic research databases, and general Internet search engines (For details, please see the methods section at the end of this memo.)

We have not evaluated the quality of references and the resources provided in this response. We offer them only for your reference. These references are listed in alphabetical order, not necessarily in order of relevance. Also, we searched the references in the response from the most commonly used resources of research, but they are not comprehensive and other relevant references and resources may exist.

Research References

  1. Aktas, S., & Aydin, A. (2016). The effect of the smart board usage in science and technology lessons. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 64, 125-138.
    From the abstract: "Statement of Problem: In this study, in teaching the unit "electricity in our lives" in the 7th grade science and technology class, the effect of using smart boards to the students' retention of the information is examined and compared to the 2005 Science and Technology curriculum. Purpose of the study: The aim of the current study is to investigate the effect of smart board use on science education. Method: For this research, two 7th grade classes were selected, one a control group and the other the experimental group, at a Secondary School in Kastamonu Province. An achievement test of 25 questions was used as a means of collecting data related to the unit. For four weeks, the control group students studied the unit according to the 2005 Science and Technology curriculum, while the experimental group studied the unit with supporting smart board activities. The achievement test, prepared to measure the equivalence of the groups in terms of knowledge, was applied as the pre-test. The same test was also applied as the post-test to measure the achievement of both groups. Finally, in order to measure how much the students recalled the learned information, the same test was applied a third time as a retention success test four weeks later. The resulting data was analysed with the SPSS 20 statistical software package, and the t-test was used in the evaluation of the data. Findings: A significant difference in favour of the experimental group was determined between the achievement of the experimental group, in which the lessons were studied using the smart board, and the control group. Furthermore, according to the results of the permanence test applied four weeks after the application, the students' recall rate was higher among the students of the experimental group than of those in the control group. Results: The use of smart boards in teaching 7th grade secondary school students the unit "electricity in our lives" increased the students' achievement and retention of the information learned. As a result, students in the experimental group were more successful than the control group students."
  2. Bahadur, G. K., & Oogarah, D. (2013). Interactive whiteboard for primary schools in Mauritius: An effective tool or just another trend? International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 9(1), 19-35.
    From the abstract: "Mauritius is among the few African countries where the interactive whiteboard has been implemented in all primary schools. The interactive whiteboard is an important tool in the classroom as it changes the mode of instruction. Many researches have been carried out in many countries to investigate the effectiveness of the interactive whiteboard. This research is based on a feasibility study to determine teachers' and learners' perceptions of the potential benefits and drawbacks of using interactive whiteboards in their teaching and learning environments. In this research project, an educational resource was designed and mounted using XERTE which is an Open Source Authoring tool, to test whether interactive whiteboard can improve learning in schools. Additionally, a survey was carried out among primary school teachers to gather feedbacks on the interactive whiteboard. The outcome showed that using the interactive whiteboard does not necessarily mean getting better results in learners' assessments. Yet learners showed better engagement and enjoyment during the lessons. The survey revealed that few teachers were actually using the digital board. It is still unclear whether these teachers are making effective use of the interactive whiteboard or not. The survey also concluded that most teachers agreed that the interactive whiteboard was an effective tool as it benefited to all types of learners."
  3. Davidovitch, N., & Yavich, R. (2017). The effect of smart boards on the cognition and motivation of students. Higher Education Studies, 7(1), 60-68.
    From the abstract: "In recent years the research literature has explored technological developments in varied areas that measure change. The current study focuses on the smart board, and its purpose is to examine its effect on the school system. The study was conducted via a questionnaire completed by 130 respondents (boys and girls) in the fifth and sixth grades of two elementary schools in Jerusalem--Efrata and Tali Gilo. Smart boards were introduced in these two schools in recent years. We hypothesized that smart boards improve teaching, based on the teaching measures developed by Nira Hativa of Tel Aviv University: order and organization, level of clarity, interest, and general level of satisfaction. The study's significant finding is that the greatest improvement since the introduction of smart boards is in the variable of clarity, and a significant difference was found in the favor of sixth grade students. Additionally, a significant difference was found in the variable of interest, in favor of the girls. All four variables appear to be interrelated, and each contributes to the student's success and to improving the student's learning process. The research findings illuminate the contribution of technology to teaching, through a case study of smart boards, in the dimension of clarity, found by the study to be a significant criterion of good teaching. Examination of the various technological tools in light of their contribution to the research-proven dimensions of outstanding teaching might enhance the pedagogical contribution of technological developments to teaching."
  4. De Vita, M., Verschaffel, L., & Elen, J. (2018). The power of interactive whiteboards for secondary mathematics teaching: Two case studies, Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 47(1), 50-78.
    From the abstract: "Interactive whiteboard offers a high-potential innovative tool in mathematical educational environments, in which teachers' modeling processes and students' exploring activities can easily be executed. Nevertheless, these affordances are not self-evident. There is a gap between the potential claims of the tool and its actual use in the classrooms. This study investigated, through two parallel case studies, the interactive whiteboard potential in view of optimizing the exploitation of the interactive whiteboard, improving conceptual understanding, and fostering interactivity in secondary mathematics classrooms. Two main patterns for a productive interactive whiteboard use emerged: (a) a "problem-solving" pattern consisting of interactive whiteboard supporting problem-solving activities and (b) an "organizer" pattern consisting of using interactive whiteboard as a kind of advanced organizer and stimulating students' reflection and mathematical contributions. The two patterns were used to design and teach lessons that were analyzed through the instrumental orchestration framework elaborated by Drijvers, Tacoma, Besamusca, Doorman, and Boon. Analysis showed how the interactive whiteboard acted as a useful instrument for students' discussion and collective construction of mathematical knowledge."
  5. Linder, S. M. (2012). Interactive whiteboards in early childhood mathematics: Strategies for effective implementation in pre-k-grade 3. Young Children, 67(3), 26-32.
    From the abstract: "Teachers are using technological innovations--including interactive whiteboards--in pre-K-grade 3 classrooms across the country. An IWB is a wall-mounted, touch-sensitive flat screen. When connected to a computer (or another electronic device) and a projector, it displays enlarged instructional content (such as a math word problem, pictures or graphics, or an excerpt from a story). Teachers and children can manipulate this content. Many early childhood teachers are incorporating this technology in their mathematics instruction. This article will help educators use IWBs and other technologies in ways that coincide with best practices in early childhood math instruction. It also shares examples of how to integrate other digital tools into mathematics instruction. (Contains 7 online resources.)"
  6. Min, K., & Siegel, C. (2011). Integration of smart board technology and effective teaching. Journal on School Educational Technology, 7(1), 38-47.
    From the abstract: "The proposed paper reports on the results of a study conducted to explore the influence of SMART Board technology on student engagement in and perception of classroom activities. Using momentary time-sampling procedures, this study examined differences in second grade students' on-task and off-task behaviors during 30-minute math and science lessons that did and did not include the use of a SMART Board. Student perceptions were measured via questionnaire. Observation results revealed that (a) effective teaching, without technology, can promote above-average levels of student engagement, (b) the integration of SMART Board technology can further increase on-task behavior, and (c) the combination of effective teaching and SMART Board technology can maintain high levels of student engagement throughout a multi-component lesson. Questionnaire results provided modest support for the use of the SMART Board to engage students. While none of the participants favored lessons without the SMART Board, only half rated their attention and participation higher in classes that included the SMART Board compared to those that did not. Further research is needed to determine if the integration of SMART Board technology and effective teaching enhances the engagement of students at other grade levels, of other demographic backgrounds, and in other subject areas."
  7. Onder, R., & Aydin, H. (2016). The effect of the use of smart board in the biology class on the academic achievement of student. Journal on School Educational Technology, 12(1), 18-29.
    From the abstract: "The objective of this study is to reveal the effect of the use of smart board in the biology class at the tenth grade of the secondary education on the academic achievements of students. The study used the quasi-experimental model with pre-test and post-test control groups and semi-structured interviews were made with the students. The study group of the research consists of the 50 students at the tenth grade in an Anatolian High School in the Buca District of the Izmir province. The lessons with the students in the test group included the contents which were prepared by the methods and techniques based on the constructive learning approach and taught by using the smart board. The students in the control group were instructed with the activities that were specified in the current curriculum. As a result of the study, a significant difference was found between the achievements of the test group and control group students. The achievement of the test group students was found to be higher than the control group students. In addition, the interviews with the test group students provided comprehensive opinions on the use of smart boards."
  8. Shepley, C., Lane, J. D., & Gast, David L. (2016). Using SMART board technology to teach young students with disabilities and limited group learning experience to read environmental text. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 51(4), 404-420.
    From the abstract: "A multiple probe design across behaviors was used to evaluate the effectiveness of a SMART Board used in conjunction with teacher delivered constant time delay (CTD) to teach environmental text to three young students with disabilities and minimal group learning experience during small group direct instruction. Observational learning, instructive feedback, and generalization were also assessed. Initially, reinforcement was presented to the group via the SMART Board, but was modified to a token economy to address challenging behavior and non-responding in some students. Results suggest that using a SMART Board and CTD was effective for one participant when group reinforcement was used and effective for all participants when an individualized token economy was added to sessions. Teachers should be cautious when using group reinforcement strategies with young students who may not have extended learning histories with small group instruction and reinforcement other than token economies. Suggestions for future research and implications for practice are provided."
  9. Shi, Y., Peng, C., Yang, H. H., & MacLeod, J. (2018). Examining interactive whiteboard-based instruction on the academic self-efficacy, academic press and achievement of college students. Open Learning, 33(2), 115-130.
    From the abstract: "The study reported here examined college students' academic self-efficacy, 'academic press' and learning achievement, as well as the association between these three variables within learning contexts using interactive whiteboard-based instruction. A quasi-experimental study was conducted using a sample (n = 103) of first-year college students in China. Participants were taught English by either an interactive whiteboard-based or traditional lecture-based instructional approach for three months. The results showed that the interactive whiteboard-based instructional intervention cultivated higher levels of academic press and academic self-efficacy among students and a significant, positive correlation was identified between these two variables. Students' learning achievement was not affected by the instructional intervention. These results indicate that interactive whiteboard-based instruction offers some distinct benefits. In future work, additional research is needed to clarify how the instructional model relates to understanding learning achievement."
  10. Soydan, S. (2015). Analyzing efficiency of two different methods involving acquisition of operational skills by preschool children. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(1), 129-138.
    From the abstract: "This study, an education program was developed to improve addition-subtraction skills of 6-year old children using educational toys and smart boards. The program was implemented with children, and its effects on their operational skills were analysed. The study group of the research is composed of 90 children who attended preschool classes in Konya during the 2011-2012 academic year; 30 of them (13 females and 17 males) attended an educational program using smart boards, 30 of them (16 females and 14 males) attended a program using educational toys and 30 of them attended an educational program using traditional methods. The results of the study suggest that children acquire operational skills at a higher degree through using the smart boards and educational toys methods when compared to traditional teaching. On the other hand, there is no meaningful difference between the smart boards and educational toys methods in terms of acquiring addition skills. Yet, in terms of acquisition of subtraction skills, there is a meaningful difference in favour of the educational toys method."
  11. Tunaboylu, C., & Demir, E. (2017). The effect of teaching supported by interactive whiteboard on students' mathematical achievements in lower secondary education. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(1), 81-94.
    From the abstract: "The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of using the interactive whiteboard in mathematics teaching process on the 7th-grade students' achievement. This study was conducted as experimental design. Experimental and control groups were composed of 58 7th-grade students from one school in the 2015-2016 educational year in Ankara. As a measurement tool, an achievement test developed by the researchers was used as the pre-test and post-test. An education program which included the activities with the interactive whiteboard was developed by researchers. And, this program was implemented to the experimental group 12 hours over 3 weeks. On the other hand, activities for the control group were limited to the blackboard usage. In the analysis of the data, "analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)" was used by defining the pre-test scores as "covariate" variable. According to the findings, it was observed that there was a significant difference between experimental and control groups pre-test average scores. When the difference of pre-test scores under control, it was observed the significant difference between the average post-test scores in favor of the experimental group. These findings show that using the interactive whiteboard in mathematics teaching process has positive effects on the students' mathematical achievement. These results are supported by some other researchers' findings."


Keywords and Search Strings
The following keywords and search strings were used to search the reference databases and other sources:

  • Interactive flat panels, instructional tool, student achievement
  • Educational technology, smart boards

Databases and Resources
We searched ERIC for relevant resources. ERIC is a free online library of over 1.6 million citations of education research sponsored by the Institute of Education Sciences. Additionally, we searched Google Scholar and PsychInfo.

Reference Search and Selection Criteria

When we were searching and reviewing resources, we considered the following criteria:

  • Date of the publication: References and resources published for last 15 years, from 2003 to present, were include in the search and review.
  • Search Priorities of Reference Sources: Search priority is given to study reports, briefs, and other documents that are published and/or reviewed by IES and other federal or federally funded organizations, academic databases, including ERIC, EBSCO databases, JSTOR database, PsychInfo, PsychArticle, and Google Scholar.
  • Methodology: Following methodological priorities/considerations were given in the review and selection of the references: (a) study types - randomized control trials,, quasi experiments, surveys, descriptive data analyses, literature reviews, policy briefs, etc., generally in this order (b) target population, samples (representativeness of the target population, sample size, volunteered or randomly selected, etc.), study duration, etc. (c) limitations, generalizability of the findings and conclusions, etc.

This memorandum is one in a series of quick-turnaround responses to specific questions posed by educational stakeholders in the Southeast Region (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina), which is served by the Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast at Florida State University. This memorandum was prepared by REL Southeast under a contract with the U.S. Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences (IES), Contract ED-IES-17-C-0011, administered by Florida State University. Its content does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of IES or the U.S. Department of Education nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.