Interactive whiteboards: boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature
Open accessAbstract
Abstract This article reviews the literature concerning the introduction of interactive whiteboards (IWBs) in educational settings. It identifies common themes to emerge from a burgeoning and diverse literature, which includes reports and summaries available on the Internet. Although the literature reviewed is overwhelmingly positive about the impact and the potential of IWBs, it is primarily based on the views of teachers and pupils. There is insufficient evidence to identify the actual impact of such technologies upon learning either in terms of classroom interaction or upon attainment and achievement. This article examines this issue in light of varying conceptions of interactivity and research into the effects of learning with verbal and visual information.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
ICT per se cannot improve learning outcomes unless it is accompanied by an underlying pedagogy.
“However, studies have stressed that ICT per se cannot improve learning outcomes unless it is accompanied by an underlying pedagogy (OECD, 2015;Passey et al., 2004;Smith, Higgins, Wall, & Miller, 2005;Watson, 2001).”
From Taking a future perspective by learning from the past – A systematic review of assessment instruments that aim to measure primary and secondary school students' ICT literacy (2016) · cites this paper as Smith et al., 2005
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Šumak, B., & Šorgo, A. (2016) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.037 · Cited by 295 · see citing works
Siddiq, F., Hatlevik, O. E., Olsen, R. V., Throndsen, I., & Scherer, R. (2016) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2016.05.002 · Cited by 269 · see citing works
Kühl, T., & Wohninsland, P. (2022) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-022-11004-9 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
- Authors
- Smith, H. J., Higgins, S., Wall, K., & Miller, J.
- Affiliations
- Newcastle University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Smith, Heather J.
- Venue
- Journal of Computer Assisted Learning
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-04
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 91-101
- ISSN
- 0266-4909 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2729
- OpenAlex
- W2121261427
- Cited by
- 518
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 48 · 2014: 47 · 2013: 49 · 2012: 41
- FWCI
- 86.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Locations
- Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (publishedVersion)
- Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Education and Technology Integration
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Interactive and Immersive Displays
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
- Keywords
- interactive whiteboards, educational technology, classroom interaction, academic performance, teacher perceptions, student perceptions, technology adoption in schools
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
