Year 2019, Volume 6 , Issue 2, Pages 93 - 102 2019-12-01

The New Generation of Interactive Whiteboards: How Students Perceive and Conceptualize?

Fatih Saltan [1]

The aim of the study was to investigate high school students’ perceptions of the new generation of IWBs.  At the same time, the question was examined of whether there are differences in perception with regard to certain variables which are gender, and frequency of  IWB use by teachers and by students. To achieve this aim, a parallel mixed method design was used.  A total of 877 high school students participated in the study, comprising 410 females and 467 males. The data were collected through an “Interactive Whiteboard Student Survey” and by open- ended questions. The quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS 20.0 for descriptive statistics and multivariate analysis of variance. Nvivo8 qualitative data analysis software was utilized for coding. Appropriate themes were developed from the related codes. The qualitative analysis revealed that about half of the students thought that IWBs were useful and effective tool for learning. There were seven themes and sub-themes which explain the contribution of IWBs to students’ learning. The results of the MANOVA revealed no significant effect of gender and frequency of IWB use by teacher on high school students’ perception of IWBs. On the other hand, there was a statistically significant difference in students ‘perception of IWBs based on frequency of IWB use by himself/herself, F (6, 1662) = 3.11, p>0.5.

Interactive whiteboard, teaching/learning strategies, , perception
  • Akgün, M., & Koru Yücekaya, G. (2015). Teachers’ Perceptıons And Students’ Attıtudes Towards Usage Of Smart Board(Ankara Cıty Sample). Qualitative Studies, 10(3), 1-11.
  • Al-Qirim, N. (2016). Smart board technology success in tertiary institutions: The case of the UAE University. Education and Information Technologies, 21(2), 265-281. doi: 10.1007/s10639-014-9319-7
  • Ateş ̧ M. (2010). Ortaöğretim coğrafya derslerinde akıllı tahta kullanımı[The Using of Active Board at Secondary School Geography Lessons]. Marmara Coğrafya Dergisi[The journal of Marmara geography ], 22, 409-427.
  • Aiken, E. (1988). Moving into the Age of Computer-Supported Education: A Regional Experience in Nursing Education. Atlanta: Southern Regional Education Board.
  • Balta, N., & Duran, M. (2015). Attitudes of Students and Teachers Towards The Use of Interactive Whiteboards in Elementary and Secondary School Classrooms. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14(2), 15-23.
  • Bax, S. (2000). Putting technology in its place: ICT in modern foreign language teaching. In K. Field (Ed.), Issues in modern foreign languages teaching (pp. 199-210). London, England: Routledge Falmer.
  • BECTA. (2004). Getting the most from your interactive whiteboard: A guide for secondary schools. Coventry, UK: Becta. Date of Access: Jun 13, 2016, Retrieved from
  • Bull, G., & Bull, G. (2005). Looking At Display Technologies. Learning & Leading with Technology, 32(6), 40-43.
  • Bulut, İ., & Koçoğlu, E. (2012). Sosyal Bilgiler Öğretmenlerinin Akıllı Tahta Kullanımına İlişkin Görüşleri (Diyarbakır İli Örneği)[ Social Studies Teachers’ Views About Use Of Smart Board (Diyarbakır City Sample)]. Dicle Üniversitesi Ziya Gökalp Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi[The journal of Dicle University Educational Faculty], 19, 242-258.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Greiffenhagen, C. (2004). Interactive whiteboards in mathematics education: possibilities and dangers. In H. Fujita, Y. Hashimoto, B. R. Hodgson, P. Y. Lee, S. Lerman, T. Sawada (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress on Mathematical Education.Date of Access: Feb 16, 2016. Retrieved From:
  • Haldane, M. (2007). Interactivity and the digital whiteboard: weaving the fabric of learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 257–270.
  • Higgins, S. (2010) The impact of interactive whiteboards on classroom interaction and learning in primary schools in the UK. In M. Thomas & E. C. Schmid (Eds.), Interactive Whiteboards for Education: Theory, Research and Practice (pp. 86-101). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
  • Holmes, K. (2009). Planning to teach with digital tools: Introducing the interactive whiteboard to pre-service secondary mathematics teachers. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(3), 351-365.
  • Kennewel, S., (2006). Reflections on The Interactive Whiteboard Phenomenon: A Synthesis of Research from The U.K. Paper presented at The AARE Conference, 26-30 November, Adelaide, Auistralia.
  • Koenraad, T., Çelik, S., Higgins, A., & Hillier, E. (2015). Promoting Interactive Whiteboard Use in Language and Vocational Education: a Tale of iTILT and SmartVET EU Projects. Žmogus ir žodis, 17(3), 146-154.
  • Lee, M. (2010). Interactive whiteboards and schooling: the context. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2), 133-141. doi: 10.1080/1475939X.2010.491215
  • López, O. S. (2010). The digital learning classroom: Improving English language learners’ academic success in mathematics and reading using interactive whiteboard technology. Computers & Education, 54(4), 901-915. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.019
  • Mathews-Aydinli, J., & Elaziz, F. (2010). Turkish students’ and teachers’ attitudes toward the use of interactive whiteboards in EFL classrooms. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(3), 235-252. doi: 10.1080/09588221003776781
  • Marshall C., Rossman G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publication.
  • McIntyre-Brown, C. (2011). Understanding the next wave of technology innovation in education: UK. Date of Access: Jun 13, 2016,
  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
  • MoNE (2010). FATIH Project: Movement of enhancing opportunities and improving technology. Retrieved from
  • İpek, İ., & Sözcü, Ö. F. (2016). Preferences and Attitudes for Using Interactive Whiteboards in Different Courses and Learning. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 15(1), 173-184. doi: 10.13187/ejced.2016.15.173
  • Jewitt, C., Moss, G., & Cardini, A. (2007). Pace, interactivity and multimodality in teachers’ design of texts for interactive whiteboards in the secondary school classroom. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 303–317. doi: 10.1080/17439880701511149
  • Öz, H. (2014). Teachers' and students' perceptions of interactive whiteboards in the English as a foreign language classroom. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 13(3). 126-147.
  • Saltan, F. & Arslan, K. (2009). A New Teacher Tool, Interactive White Boards: A Meta Analysis. In I. Gibson, R. Weber, K. McFerrin, R. Carlsen & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2009, 2115-2120.
  • Saltan, F., & Arslan, K. (2013) Teachers’ Perception of Interactive White Boards: A Case Study. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 9(2), 353-365.Şad, S. N. (2012). An attitude scale for smart board use in education: Validity and reliability studies. Computers & Education, 58(3), 900-907. doi: :10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.017
  • Şad S. N., Özhan, U. (2012) Honeymoon with IWBs: A qualitative insight in primary students’ views on instruction with interactive whiteboard. Computers & Education, 59(4), 1184–1191. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.010
  • Schmid, E. C. (2006). Investigating the use of interactive whiteboard technology in the English language classroom through the lens of a critical theory of technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1), 47-62. doi: 10.1080/09588220600804012
  • Schmid, E. C. (2007). Enhancing performance knowledge and self-esteem in classroom language learning: The potential of the ACTIVote component of interactive whiteboard technology. System, 35(2), 119-133. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2007.01.001
  • Schmid, E. C., & Schimmack, E. (2010). First Steps Toward a Model of Interactive Whiteboard Training for Language Teachers. In M. Thomas & E. C. Schmid (Eds.), Interactive Whiteboards for Education: Theory, Research and Practice (pp. 197-214). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
  • Slay, H., Siebörger, I., & Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2008). Interactive whiteboards: Real beauty or just “lipstick”?. Computers & Education, 51(3), 1321-1341. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.12.006
  • Smith, H. J., Higgins, S., Wall, K., & Miller, J. (2005). Interactive whiteboards: boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2), 91-101. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00117.x
  • Somyürek, S., Atasoy, B., & Özdemir, S. (2009). Board’s IQ: What makes a board smart? Computers & Education, 53(2), 368–374. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.02.012
  • Swan, P., & Marshall, L. (2010). Revisiting mathematics manipulative materials. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 15(2), 13–19.
  • Thomas, M., & Schmid, E. C.(2010). Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
  • Turel, Y. (2010). Developing Teachers’ Utilization of Interactive Whiteboards. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010, 3049-3054.
  • Türel, Y. K. (2011). An interactive whiteboard student survey: Development, validity and reliability. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2441-2450. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.005
  • Türel, Y. K., & Johnson, T. E. (2012). Teachers' belief and use of interactive whiteboards for teaching and learning. Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 381-394.
  • Warwick, P., Hennessy, S., & Mercer, N. (2011). Promoting teacher and school development through co-enquiry: Developing interactive whiteboard use in a ‘dialogic classroom’. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 17(3), 303–324. doi: 10.1080/13540602.2011.554704
  • Wong, K. T., Teo, T., & Goh, P. S. C. (2015). Understanding the intention to use interactive whiteboards: model development and testing. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(6), 731-747. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2013.806932
  • Yang, K. T., Wang, T. H., & Kao, Y. C. (2012). How an interactive whiteboard impacts a traditional classroom. Education as Change, 16(2), 313-332.
  • Yildiz, C., & Tufekci, A. (2012). A study on the smart board usability in-classroom applications. Journal of Engineering and Natural Sciences, 30(4), 381-391.
  • Yorgancı, S., & Terzioğlu, Ö. (2013). Matematik Öğretiminde Akıllı Tahta Kullanımının Başarıya ve Matematiğe Karşı Tutuma Etkisi[The Effect Of Usıng Interactıve Whıteboard In Mathematıcs Instructıon On Achıevement And Attıtudes Toward Mathematıcs]. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi[Kastamonu Educational Journal], 21(3), 919-930.
Primary Language en
Subjects Education, Scientific Disciplines
Journal Section Research Articles

Orcid: 0000-0002-9806-3514
Author: Fatih Saltan (Primary Author)
Country: Turkey


Publication Date : December 1, 2019

APA Saltan, F . (2019). The New Generation of Interactive Whiteboards: How Students Perceive and Conceptualize?. Participatory Educational Research , 6 (2) , 93-102 . DOI: 10.17275/per.