S

Smart Board Technology in The IWBT or the smart board is believed to

Higher Education Institutions increase the effectiveness of teaching both quali-
tatively and quantitatively and to greatly facilitate
Nabeel Al-Qirim1, Kamel Rouibah2, the use and benefits of computers and the Internet
Mohamad Adel Serhani1, Ashraf Khalil3, for teachers (Somyürek et al. 2009). IWBT repre-
Ali Tarhini4, Mahmoud Maqableh5 and sents a tool and an environment that promotes
Marton Gergely1 dialogue and knowledge building among students
1
College of Information Technology, UAE (Warwick et al. 2010). Students can benefit from
University, Al Ain, UAE the different learning styles provided by IWBT
2
College of Business Administration, Kuwait features and software application where students
University, Kuwait City, Kuwait could see, touch, and hear the content of the
3
College of Engineering, Abu Dhabi University, lesson. Therefore, IWBT promises to elevate
Abu Dhabi, UAE teaching to new heights and represents a key
4
Department of Information Systems, Sultan enabler for the creation of student-centered col-
Qaboos University, Muscat, Oman laborative environments (Somyürek et al. 2009)
5
Faculty of Business, The University of Jordan, and hence could foster performance parity and
Amman, Jordan increase student achievement (López 2009). Sim-
ilarly, IWBT is considered an effective interactive
learning approach and is being used in teaching
and grading and expected to alter current peda-
Introduction
gogical system and means of exchanging infor-
mation with students (Stoica et al. 2011). For
There are many forms of Interactive White Board
teachers, the IWBT made their lessons more
Technologies (IWBT), but usually an IWBT com-
enjoyable, and for students, the IWBT resembled
bines an electronic touchable whiteboard
an opportunity to actively participate in a lesson
connected to a network computer and a data pro-
and to internalize inputs in a more appropriate
jector. IWBT allows teachers and students control
manner (Gursul and Tozmaz 2010).
applications by touching the screen with their
However, upon a thorough consideration of
fingers or writing digitally with a non-ink pen
IWBT literature, it was observed that many chal-
tool. The touch-sensitive nature of IWBT facili-
lenges surround the successful adoption and usage
tates more efficient presentation and more profes-
of this technology. Slay et al. (2008) found the
sional delivery of multimedia resources (Smith et
IWBT research divided into two areas: investigate
al. 2005).
the use of IWBT in particular subject areas and
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
A. Tatnall (ed.), Encyclopedia of Education and Information Technologies,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60013-0_221-1
2 Smart Board Technology in Higher Education Institutions

solicit teachers’ and learners’ perspectives on the appropriate content and assessment techniques.
IWBT technology. At the outset, although inte- They indicated that students working in teams
grating technology into teaching and learning is are more inspired and more excited where, for
growing, non-anecdotal evidence of IWBT effec- example, with the aid of the IWBT, collaborative
tiveness in teaching and how to implement a suc- students could intricate their conceptual micro-
cessful IWBT classroom is lacking (López 2009) maps more effectively.
and even controversial (Gursul and Tozmaz
2010). For example, Warwick et al. (2010) found
existing IWBT research focusing mainly on
Interactive White Board
teacher–pupil interaction and ignored pupils’ col-
laborative needs. On the other hand, other
Korucu et al. (2011) shed more light into teacher’s
researchers noted that existing IWBT research
perceptions toward IWBT usage and reported that
focused on the effective use of IWBT in the class-
teachers agreed on the positive impact of interac-
room and its impact on student’s academic
tive materials in the classroom despite its scarcity
achievement and largely ignored teachers’ opin-
and limited use in the classroom. Teachers
ions about IWBT (Gursul and Tozmaz 2010). This
reported difficulty in using IWBT and interactive
scant research (Somyürek et al. 2009) reported
materials (including visual and animation content)
limited successes with IWBT and failed to clearly
and in creating it. The same researchers found that
state the problems and solutions and the success-
although most teachers raised the importance of
ful implementation of IWBT in teaching (López
having IWBT in all classrooms, they did not pre-
2009).
fer using interactive material and viewed IWBT as
In looking at some adopted approaches, War-
not to have a positive effect on the courses they
wick et al. (2010) noted that the introduction of
teach.
new technologies in teaching did not address its
This confusion in IWBT research and in
link to pedagogy as such. This is aggravated by
appraising the outcomes of IWBT could be attrib-
the attempt to introduce new innovations like the
uted to the lack of knowledge about the effective
IWBT into old educational models (Warwick et al.
use of IWBT in the classroom. Teachers with
2010). Korucu et al. (2011) even questioned
limited knowledge in technology would refrain
whether teachers are capable of using IWBT or
from using the IWBT because portable IWBT
not.
requires adjusting its calibration settings, more
Therefore, it is not surprising that researchers
frequently (Gursul and Tozmaz 2010). In the
like Lopez (2009) asserted that innovative tech-
same vein, Korucu et al. (2011) contended that it
nologies like the IWBT must be introduced as a
is essential to strike a match between teachers and
disruptive innovation, where it should not com-
IWBT capabilities for IWBT to succeed in educa-
pete with existing current curriculum and instruc-
tion which could be bridged by in-service train-
tional practices but rather to challenge the
ing. Gursul and Tozmaz (2010) contended that
teachers’ ability to discover new features in
once IWBT is integrated correctly into the curric-
IWBT and use them to devise new ways of teach-
ulum and this process is continuously employed,
ing. Accordingly, educators should develop accu-
the IWBT could prove to be a revolutionary inven-
rate plans and strategies to integrate technology
tion for schools. To elevate the argument further,
into teaching as educators may lack a clear under-
Warwick et al. (2010) concluded that technology
standing of the pedagogical principles underlying
alone cannot change classroom teaching and
integrating these new technologies in the class-
learning but rather requires mediation by the
room (Salinas 2006; Somyürek et al. 2009). For
teacher. Hence, the teacher role is not confined
example, Stoica et al. (2011) highlighted the
to direct intervention which will scatter pupil
importance of addressing student’s cognitive
interaction at the IWB but to developing innova-
capacity and limit and that teachers must always
tive ways which employ his/her pedagogical
be alert about their objectives and in identifying
Smart Board Technology in Higher Education Institutions 3

knowledge to come up with appropriate learning g. The visual nature of the IWBT allows for dif-
tasks. ferent ways to presented information which
Student’s use of IWBT is also limited. For reinforce concentration and attention
example, Gursul and Tozmaz (2010) found that h. Learners pointed to their teacher’s lack of ICT
the activities carried out by students on IWBTs skills, associated cost of IWBT technologies,
were limited to using it for normal board activities and the technical reliability of the IWBT as
(solving questions, writing, etc.) (29%), and disadvantages of the technology
explaining things which would otherwise be
impossible to do so in classrooms through anima- Slay et al. (2008) highlighted six factors that
tion (23%). They reported scant use of the IWBT were consistently reported by the literature to
in carrying out interactive activities such as influence teachers’ and learners’ use of the
matching, dragging, and painting; permission to IWBT and reported the following theoretical
control the computer; and making children play implications:
games related to the subject of a lesson.
IWBT provides many benefits to teaching, a. Improved visibility of classroom content
such as offering flexibility, versatility, multimedia b. Value of multimedia content (audio/videos,
ability, efficiency, interactivity, lesson participa- online/offline content, etc.)
tion, collaboration, idea sharing, motivation, c. Motivational use of up-to-date technology
instant access to vast electronic resources, and where the contradictions here are twofold
the ability to save and post drawings and writings d. Interactive affordances
on the board (Slay et al. 2008; Smith et al. 2005). e. Lack of ICT literacy and competency
Lopez (2009) found that digital learning class- f. Cost
room promotes positive social norms and a
learner-centered pedagogy where both teacher In the same vein, Somyürek et al. (2009) found
and students are learners, which allows for the teachers, though not having a negative attitude
development of common themes and shared toward ICT, reporting the following reasons for
meanings. Teachers began sharing their direct the limited use of IWBT:
instruction with the IWBT and students interacted
with the IWBT when they were prompted by the a. Lack of technical competency on how to use
lesson unit. Smith et al. (2005) highlighted that IWBT
teacher-student interactivity is the primary benefit b. Lack of pedagogical competency on how to
of the IWBT. Slay et al. (2008) reported the fol- integrate them into classroom activities
lowing advantages from a teacher’s perspective: c. Lack of a school plan on the use of IWBs
d. Lack of both technical and pedagogical in-ser-
a. Seamlessly access one resource after another vice trainings and how to integrate IWBT into
from the board the learning processes
b. Allow teachers to support multiple needs e. Lack (number and quality) of digital educa-
within one lesson tional materials to highlight the advantages of
c. To draw from countless multimedia sources multimedia, including static and dynamic
d. Ability to face the class while teaching which images, sounds, videos, animations, web
allows teachers to maintain class control sites, presentations, and text editors
e. To be more in touch with the learners by f. Lack of support and maintenance
maintaining eye contact than when using a g. Administrative concerns: lack of measures to
laptopand from a learner’s perspective: monitor the use of IWBT and the failure of
f. Saw IWBT as effective tools for initiating and school administrations to encourage teachers
facilitating the learning process, in particular use the IWBs, scheduling of ICT installed
when they were given the opportunity to use classrooms, and sharing of digital educational
the IWBT themselves materials among the teachers
4 Smart Board Technology in Higher Education Institutions

Schmid (2008) addressed the notion of effec- presentation of the items in the questionnaire.
tive multimedia integration in IWBT-based class- The questionnaire was pilot-tested with 15
room and reported the following: teachers. Interviews were conducted with those
teachers to determine whether there was any prob-
a. Advantages: Use of multimedia in IWBT- lem with the questionnaire questions or format.
based classroom facilitates students’ learning On the basis of their comments, changes were
processes made to the questionnaire to clarify wordings
b. Challenges: teachers and learners faced in the and increase readability. Four teaching-faculty
process of multimedia integration members further revised the final version. The
pre-testing procedure is important to establish
Table 1 shows a thorough examination of these content validity. Responses from the piloted
factors alongside four main themes: advantages, teachers were not included in the survey.
complexities, management support, and compati- An online version of the survey was created
bilities. This table also shows the questionnaire and posted on the university’s web site targeting
development criteria which is explained next. all teaching-faculty and instructors. Two hundred
and twenty-eight responses were received. The
effective response rate was 35.1%. The question-
Case Study naires were coded and keyed into the SPSS statis-
tical software tool. The following tables show
UAE University (UAEU) is the first national (fed- statistical details about the sample and IWBT.
eral) university in UAE. It was established in When asked whether teaching-faculty adopt or
1976. The university’s founding mission was to not adopt IWBT, 93% were found adopters and
realize the aspirations of the society, deepen social 7% did not adopt IWBT (Table 2). Usage as a
ambitions, and consolidate the structural founda- measure provided more accurate depiction of
tions. As of 2011, the UAEU has over 12,000 IWBT penetration in UAEU. As can be seen
students, primarily based in Al Ain city. UAEU from Table 2, the majority of surveyed teaching-
has over 650 teaching-faculty members and offers faculty were frequent users of IWBT. This is an
bachelor degrees, postgraduate courses, PhD pro- indication of the large-scale diffusion of the
grams, and continuing education programs for the IWBT in the UAEU as there is no other alternative
community at large. to the IWBT in the classrooms. Interestingly, 7%
Data for the study was collected in 2011 by of the teaching-faculty did not use the IWBT and
means of a survey questionnaire based on the 21% reported using the IWBT occasionally. This
research model in Table 1. Standard measures finding could be attributed to the fact that not all
were used (where available) during the design of the classrooms were furnished with IWBT or such
the measures adopted in this study. Some of the teaching-faculty did not use any illustration tool
previously validated measures had to be adapted or saw limited uses of the IWBT in delivering
to meet the constraints of this questionnaire. Table their courses or they did not seize the full potential
1 shows the development of the different research of the IWBT. These are interesting propositions
variables in the research model and their mea- and worth further investigation.
sures. On a scale of five-point Likert scale The average age of the surveyed teachers is
(1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree), 44.5 years. On average they have been working
respondents were asked to provide their opinion in UAEU for 1.7 years. The majority of respon-
about the different characteristics of the IWBT in dents to the survey were male (80%) and holders
relation to teaching in the classroom. of PhD followed by master’s degree (Table 3).
Before the questionnaire was emailed out, it The majority of ethnicities in the sample came
went through extensive pretesting with teaching- from Arab countries followed by westerners and
faculty members. Particular attention was given to Emiratis respectively. Almost all respondents
wording, structure, sequence, and overall owned a laptop. However, the UAEU contributes
Smart Board Technology in Higher Education Institutions 5

Smart Board Technology in Higher Education Institutions, Table 1 Theoretical IWBT adoption framework
# Item Source
Advantages Adapted/extended
IWBT better relieves physical fatigue Baek et al. (2008)
IWBT enhances the preparation and the management of my class
IWBT offers better features
IWBT offers more visualized content (graphics, colors, web sites, etc.) (Schmid Barak (2007)
2008; Slay et al. 2008; Smith et al. 2005)
IWBT provides better exercises and assessments
IWBT provides more variety of teaching methods (Slay et al. 2008; Smith et al.
2005)
IWBT provides easy access to different resources at the same time in the classroom
(newly introduced)
IWBT allows the instructor to satisfy multiple learning needs within the one lesson
(newly introduced)
Using the IWBT in the classroom increases instructor-to-student interactions (Slay et
al. 2008)
Using the IWBT in the classroom increases student-to-student interactions
Using the IWBT’s different resources enhances the student’s conceptual
understanding
Using the IWBT’s different resources in the classroom enhances the student’s
practical understanding (newly introduced)
IWBT offers more flexibility Slay et al. (2008), Smith et
IWBT provides better lesson participation from students al. (2005)
IWBT provides better collaboration between students (also adapted from Schmid
2008)
IWBT enhances idea sharing in the classroom
Ability to save and post drawings and writings on the board
I save notes made on the IWBT for later use by me or students
I post (e.g., email) saved notes made on the IWBT to students
IWBT in the classroom promotes positive social norms and habits Lopez (2009)
IWBT promotes learner-centered teaching
IWBT enhances the facilitation of learning Schmid (2008)
IWBT in the classroom saves the instructor’s time
Compared with earlier practices and technologies, the IWBT gives me more time to
face the class (also from Slay et al. 2008)
Complexity
IWBT fails more frequently during the class session (also from Slay et al. 2008) Baek et al. (2008)
IWBT faces more hardware problems in the classroom (also from Somyürek et al.
2009)
IWBT faces more software problems in the classroom (also from Somyürek et al.
2009)
IWBT takes longer time to repair (newly introduced)
IWBT requires more specialized technical expertise to fix it (newly introduced)
Learning about the different information technology resources for me in the
classroom is difficult for me (newly introduced)
Lack of technical competency on how to use IWBT Somyürek et al. (2009)
Using the IWBT in the classroom is easier for me (newly introduced)
Integrating course-content with the IWBT is an easy task for me
Lack of digital educational materials to highlight the advantages of using the IWBT
in the classroom
Lack of support and maintenance limits my ability of using of the IWBT in the
classroom
Virus problems cause the IWBT to run inefficiently
(continued)
6 Smart Board Technology in Higher Education Institutions

Smart Board Technology in Higher Education Institutions, Table 1 (continued)

# Item Source
Management support
The university/teaching-faculty have a clear plan for the effective use of the IWBT in Somyürek et al. (2009)
the classroom
The university/teaching-faculty provide sufficient technical training on how to
integrate the IWBT technology into the teaching processes
The university/teaching-faculty provide sufficient teaching trainings on how to use
the IWBT for teaching
The management puts measures and procedures for the effective use of the IWBT in
the classroom
The management supports the effective use of the IWBT in the classroom (newly
introduced)
The management is involved in the effective use of the IWBT in the classroom
(newly introduced)
The management leads the effective use of the IWBT in the classroom (newly
introduced)
Compatibility
IWBT features are suitable to the course content that I teach in the classroom (newly
introduced)
Have enough time to use the different features of the IWBT in the classroom (also Baek et al. (2008)
from Barak 2007)
Have enough time to fix problems with the IWBT during the class session (also from
Barak 2007)
Have enough time to call a technician to fix a problem with the IWBT during the class
session (also from Barak 2007)
The IWBT fits with the way I like to teach in the classroom (newly introduced)
I am just using the basic functions of the IWBT in the classroom
Using the IWBT in the classroom could result in losing personal contacts with
students (also from Barak 2007)
I feel that I must use the IWBT in my teaching
Using the IWBT in the classroom attracts positive attention to me
I am motivated to use the IWBT in the classroom Slay et al. (2008)
Using the IWBT in the classroom motivates my students to learn (newly introduced)
The IWBT allows me to face the class while teaching which allows me to maintain
class control
The IWBT allows me to be more in touch with students by maintaining eye contact
I am comfortable dealing with the different multimedia resources accessed by the Schmid (2008)
IWBT
Using the IWBT in the classroom limits the student’s ability to practice other learning
activities during the class
I feel that using the IWBT in the classroom limits the exercise of other teaching
methods and styles
I am comfortable with the way the IWBT equipment is installed inside the classroom Somyürek et al. (2009)

Smart Board Technology in Higher Education Institutions, Table 2 Adoption versus usage
Adopt IWBT Freq. % Using IWBT Freq. %
Yes 212 93.0 I do not use the IWBT 16 7.0
No 16 7.0 I use the IWBT occasionally or sometimes 48 21.1
Using the IWBT frequently 164 71.9
Total 228 100.0 Total 228 100.0
Smart Board Technology in Higher Education Institutions 7

to this result as it grants laptops to teaching-fac- inside the classroom. It is clear from the responses
ulty in certain faculties (i.e., engineering, science, that teaching-faculty faced several technical diffi-
information technology). Teaching-faculty repre- culties in dealing with IWBT’s software and hard-
sentation in the sample came largely from the ware problems which require more specialized
teaching-faculty of science (26%) followed by technical expertise to fix it. They reported that
the teaching-faculty of humanities (18%) and the IWBT fails more frequently during the class
followed equally by both the teaching-faculty of session and it takes longer time to repair. This is
business and economics and the teaching-faculty further compounded by the lack of support and
of engineering (16%). The following section high- maintenance for IWBT which limits their ability
lights the research findings. to use the IWBT in the classroom. However, com-
puter viruses did not seem to be a problem for
IWBT usage in the classroom.
Interactive White Board Adoption Interestingly, teaching-faculty noted that using
and integrating course content with the IWBT in
The research analyses followed an approach that the classroom is an easy task for them. Also, they
classified the research findings according to did not see learning about the different informa-
respondents’ ranking of the different items tion technology resources in the classroom as
where results were discussed in the light of the difficult for them. However, given the above dis-
highly (strongly agree) and poorly ranked cussion, it was obvious that the IWBT here relates
(strongly disagree) measures. It is worth noting to using IWBT’s obvious features only, i.e., as a
here that most responses were not extreme in the projector, showing a web site, etc. The lack of
sense they were concentrated around the neutral digital educational materials to show the effective
position (between 2 and 4 Likert scale), and use of the IWBT in the classroom further endorses
hence, most responses did not highly agree nor this opinion. Also, it could be used to justify the
highly disagree with the different impacts of the low usage of the advanced features of the IWBT
IWBT in teaching in UAEU. by UAEU’s teaching-faculty.
If we look at IWBT advantages, the findings Using IWBT is a must in UAEU as there is no
are split into two parts. Table 4 shows the different alternate technology in the classrooms. Table 7
characteristics that were highly ranked by respon- shows some positive attitude toward IWBT
dents. Those advantages ranged from aspects among teaching-faculty. They are motivated to
relating to IWBT’s features (visualized content, use the IWBT and its different multimedia
easy access to different resources at the same time, resources, and they felt that IWBT fits with the
etc.) to aspects relating to the effectiveness of way they teach. However, teaching-faculty noted
using IWBT in the classroom in UAEU (enhances slight drawback on IWBT usage such as in limit-
the facilitation of learning, enhance the student’s ing their ability to exercise other teaching
conceptual and practical understanding, etc.). methods and styles inside the classroom, and this
The second part (Table 5) shows the different in turn depraved students from witnessing alter-
characteristics that were ranked lower by respon- native styles. In this regard, teaching-faculty
dents indicating having a lower impact on their seemed to be confined to using IWBT’s features
IWBT teaching. It is observed that most of the only. Toward the low-ranked items, there was a
measures in the table focused on assessing the weak support for the impact of the IWBT among
IWBT as it is integrated with pedagogy and course teaching-faculty. Teaching-faculty barely agreed
content. Respondents did not feel strongly regard- on having enough time to use IWBT’s features in
ing such aspects. Interestingly, using the IWBT in the classroom and that such features are more
the classroom did not seem to save the instructors’ suitable to the course content that they teach in
time or to give them more time to face the class. the classroom. However, they did not foresee the
As for IWBT challenges, Table 6 shows differ- IWBT to:
ent challenges confronted by teaching-faculty
 8

Smart Board Technology in Higher Education Institutions, Table 3 Demographics data about teaching-faculty
Education level (highest Own
degree) Freq. % Original nationality Freq. % laptop Freq. % Gender Freq. %
Diploma 1 0.4 Emirati 29 12.7 Yes 224 98.2 Male 183 80.3
Bachelors 4 1.8 Other Arabs 130 57.0 No 4 1.8 Female 45 19.7
Master’s 29 12.7 Westerner 56 24.6
PhD 194 85.1 Other nationalities (Indian, Pakistani, 13 5.7
etc.)
Total 228 100.0 Total 228 100.0 Total 228 100.0 Total 228 100.0
Smart Board Technology in Higher Education Institutions
Smart Board Technology in Higher Education Institutions 9

a. Attract positive attention to them found modest (23%) use of IWBT in the class-
b. Motivate students to learn room by teachers who reported using the IWBT as
c. Be comfortable to them in terms of its position a combination of computer and projection; carry-
inside the classroom ing out such interactive activities as matching,
d. Effect personal contacts with students dragging, and painting; and using it for normal
e. Allow for more time to face the class while board activities (solving questions, writing, etc.).
teaching which allows them to maintain class Other advanced uses of IWBT were minimally
control reported by the same teachers.
f. Give more time to be in touch with students by IWBT is considered a disruptive technology as
maintaining eye contact its full realization is dependent on its full integra-
tion in pedagogy. That is, pedagogy should drive
IWBT not the opposite. In reality this represents a
In looking at the supporting environment, most challenge for most educators in the world. This
of the factors in Table 8 seemed not to be was evident in this research analyses and the chal-
supported in the case of the UAEU. Although lenges faced in interpreting the research results.
some support was provided by management and Due to the lack of knowledge about the effective
in providing training on how to integrate the use of IWBT and how to integrate it in teaching,
IWBT technology into the teaching processes, the majority of responses where concentrated
none of the remaining factors elevated beyond around the neutral level. The lack of support for
the cut-off (neutral) point. Those factors need to the different factors in the research framework
be addressed by UAEU management in order to suggested the lack of IWBT integration in teach-
realize IWBT advantages. ing in UAEU. Contradicting findings in this
research further endorsed this posture.
Conducting longitudinal research could monitor
Interactive White Board Implications the progress on the impact of the different factors
in this research on IWBT success.
The research findings were in line with the litera- However, this research was delimited to the
ture. For example, Gursul and Tozmaz (2010) specified factors in this research. This research

Smart Board Technology in Higher Education Institutions, Table 4 Higher-ranked advantages

Std.
# Relative advantage Mean deviation
Relating to IWBT’s specifics
1 Using the IWBT in the classroom offers more visualized content (graphics, colors, web 3.61 1.188
sites, etc.)
2 The IWBT provides easy access to different resources at the same time in the classroom 3.50 1.140
3 The IWBT offers better features 3.48 1.159
4 The IWBT offers a better variety of teaching methods 3.36 1.120
5 Using the IWBT in the classroom offers more flexibility 3.26 1.245
IWBT’s effectiveness in the class
6 The IWBT allows the instructor to satisfy multiple learning needs within the one lesson 3.21 1.144
7 Using the IWBT in the classroom enhances the facilitation of learning 3.15 1.136
8 The IWBT enhances the preparation and the management of my class 3.13 1.129
9 Using the IWBT’s different resources in the classroom enhance the student’s conceptual 3.05 1.145
understanding
10 Using the IWBT’s different resources in the classroom enhance the student’s practical 3.01 1.124
understanding
11 The IWBT better relieves physical fatigue relating to teaching in the class 3.01 1.176
10 Smart Board Technology in Higher Education Institutions

Smart Board Technology in Higher Education Institutions, Table 5 Low-ranked advantages

# Low-ranked advantages Mean Std. deviation
1 The IWBT in the classroom provides better exercises and assessments 2.97 1.102
2 Using the IWBT in the classroom promotes learner-centered teaching 2.92 1.017
3 Using the IWBT in the classroom enhances idea sharing in the classroom 2.86 1.064
4 Using the IWBT in the classroom saves the instructor’s time 2.86 1.361
5 Using the IWBT in the classroom increases instructor-to-student interactions 2.85 1.128
Using the IWBT in the classroom provides better lesson participation from students 2.85 1.128
6 The IWBT gives me more time to face the class 2.83 1.286
7 I save notes made on the IWBT board for later use by me or students 2.79 1.149
8 Using the IWBT in the classroom promote positive social norms and habits 2.73 0.990
9 Using the IWBT in the classroom provide better collaboration between students 2.70 1.037
10 I post (e.g., email) saved notes made on the IWBT board to students 2.69 1.112
11 Using the IWBT in the classroom increases student-to-student interactions 2.63 1.043

Smart Board Technology in Higher Education Institutions, Table 6 IWBT challenges

Std.
# IWBT challenges Mean deviation
Higher rankings
Technical problems
1 The IWBT faces more software problems in the classroom 3.86 1.008
2 The IWBT requires more specialized technical expertise to fix it 3.82 1.000
3 The IWBT faces more hardware problems in the classroom 3.82 1.007
4 The IWBT takes longer time to repair 3.76 0.992
5 The IWBT fails more frequently during the class session 3.75 1.076
2 I would call a technician to fix a problem with the IWBT during the class session 3.54 1.080
6 The lack of support and maintenance limits my ability to use the IWBT in the classroom 3.29 1.071
IWBT usage and instructions
1 I am using the basic functions of the IWBT in the classroom 3.77 0.835
2 Integrating my course content with the IWBT in the classroom is an easy task for me 3.38 1.010
8 There is a lack of digital educational materials to highlight the advantages of using the 3.33 0.935
IWBT in the classroom
9 Using the IWBT in the classroom is easier for me 3.31 1.055
Lower rankings
1 Computer viruses represent a problem for IWBT usage in the classroom 2.91 0.920
2 Learning about the different information technology resources for me in the classroom is 2.32 1.032
difficult for me
16 I have enough time to fix problems with the IWBT during the class session 2.28 1.057

used standard measures where possible in devel- adoption and usage measures to assess the depth
oping the survey questionnaire. Further, most of of IWBT penetration in pedagogy in UAEU. It is
IT research looked at adoption as a proxy for IT obvious that “usage” as a measure produces more
success. However, attempting to capture the depth effective results here as mere adoption is not an
of the adoption criteria of IT or its use in business effective indication of IWBT success. Researchers
through dichotomous adoption (yes/no) measures could capitalize on this research’s framework and
is inconclusive. This research introduced both measures by adding further factors and measures
Smart Board Technology in Higher Education Institutions 11

Smart Board Technology in Higher Education Institutions, Table 7 Teaching-faculty attitude toward IWBT
Std.
# Mean deviation
Higher rankings
3 I am motivated to use the IWBT in the classroom 3.32 1.065
4 I am comfortable dealing with the different multimedia resources accessed by the IWBT 3.24 0.975
5 I feel that I must use the IWBT in my teaching 3.12 1.075
The IWBT fits with the way I like to teach in the classroom 3.10 1.114
6 I feel that using the IWBT in the classroom limits the exercise of other teaching methods 3.10 1.024
and styles
7 Using the IWBT limits the students’ ability to exercise other learning activities in the 3.09 0.920
classroom
8 I have enough time to use the IWBT features in the classroom 3.07 1.130
9 IWBT features are more suitable to the course content that I teach in the classroom 3.06 1.083
Lower rankings
10 Using the IWBT in the classroom attracts positive attention to me 3.00 1.022
11 Using the IWBT in the classroom motivates my students to learn 2.95 1.018
12 I am comfortable with the way the IWBT equipment are installed inside the classroom 2.90 1.108
13 Using the IWBT in the classroom could result in losing personal contacts with students 2.87 1.083
14 The IWBT allows for more time to face the class while teaching which allows me to 2.86 1.067
maintain class control
15 The IWBT gives me more time to be in touch with students by maintaining eye contact 2.83 1.094

which could shed more light into the IWBT phe- resources on how to integrate and use IWBT’s
nomenon in tertiary teaching in UAEU and advanced features to:
elsewhere.
If we look at IWBT advantages, the implica- a. Provide exercises and assessments
tions here are twofold. First, teaching-faculty b. Promote learner-centered teaching
commended IWBT’s most obvious and direct c. Promote idea sharing in the classroom
advantages only which represented an extension d. Increase instructor-to-student interactions
to existing technologies in the classrooms. In this e. Increase student-to-student interactions
regard, the IWBT represents a superior technol- f. Encourage lesson participation from students
ogy with its dual smart-boards and projectors, g. Provide better collaboration between students
touchable screen, and integration with a computer h. Integrate IWBT’s notes-taking into the course
and Internet to display online content. However, content
this admiration started to dwindle as the unique
and more advanced aspects of the IWBT started to From the above remarks it is obvious that the
emerge. This finding led to a conclusion that process with IWBT is not that easy in UAEU as it
IWBT is not yet integrated in teaching as such in requires the collaboration of technologists, educa-
UAEU. This conjuncture could be further tors, and students to fulfill such integrated tasks.
endorsed by the finding that using the IWBT in One possible solution here is to form a committee
the classroom did not promote positive social that includes the above stakeholders to integrate
norms and habits. Also, the lack of digital educa- IWBT’s features and curricula. Students’ involve-
tional materials to show the effective use of the ment is important as they are the end recipients of
IWBT in the classroom further endorses this opin- such integration and their acceptance and satisfac-
ion. Reasons for such attitudes and low-usage tion of the developed solution is essential.
could be attributed to lack of knowledge and To better illustrate the above insights, Fig. 1
shows the evolution of the data-show technology
12 Smart Board Technology in Higher Education Institutions

Smart Board Technology in Higher Education Institutions, Table 8 Management support

Std.
# Management support Mean deviation
1 The management supports the effective use of the IWBT in the classroom 3.18 0.898
2 The university/teaching-faculty provide sufficient technical training on how to integrate the 3.05 1.050
IWBT technology into the teaching processes
3 The university/teaching-faculty provide sufficient teaching trainings on how to use the 2.99 1.043
IWBT for teaching
4 The management is involved in the effective use of the IWBT in the classroom 2.98 0.893
5 The management leads the effective use of the IWBT in the classroom 2.95 0.918
6 The university/teaching-faculty have a clear plan for the effective use of the IWBT in the 2.94 0.998
classroom
7 The management puts measures and procedures for the effective use of the IWBT in the 2.89 0.898
classroom

across time showing the position and the strength backup or portable unit). Let’s not forget that the
of IWBT as compared to existing technologies in installed IWBT in each class in UAEU has dual
the classroom. The figure also shows the direction white boards and projectors which add some
of the industry trends and teaching strategy along redundancy and class continuity in case of a
with a depiction of the learning needs across each failure.
evolutionary phase. In this research it is suggested The positive teaching-faculty’s attitude toward
that UAEU is positioned in the middle of the IWBT represents a good starting point which
evolutionary path in Fig. 1. should not be missed out by management. Gursul
Technical mishaps that surrounded the IWBT and Tozmaz (2010) suggested that corresponding
in the classroom represent a great challenge for authorities should provide digital educational
teachers wanting to finish their classes and course materials that can be used on IWBT and qualified
material on time. The implications here are three- staff to help teachers use the IWBT more effec-
fold. Initially, the IWBT is maturing and manu- tively and IWBT should be integrated into
facturers are enhancing its features, reliability, and teachers’ lesson plans. This has led to the
availability in the classroom. This is an important research’s third implication. The adoption and
priority. Gursul and Tozmaz (2010) suggestions diffusion of IWBT in teaching in UAEU should
toward a more efficient use of IWBTs indicated not be automatic rather infused in a piece-meal
that technical staff should be available in order to fashion where it should supplement exciting
overcome technical problems. teaching preferences, approaches, tools and strat-
Secondly, teachers must be trained at least to egies first. Teaching-faculty noted that the IWBT
address most impending IWBT’s technical prob- depraved them from exercising other teaching
lems that may arise (impede) during a class ses- methods and styles inside the classroom and this
sion. The availability of technical staff on-site is would reflect negatively on students. They also
important to maintain the continued functionality noted that they did not foresee the IWBT to be an
of the IWBT inside the classroom. A better service effective management and control tool inside the
level agreement (SLA) with vendors should guar- class. Remedying such challenges is important
antee effective on-site and off-site response and before elevating to the next level. Here, plans for
repair time and putting contingency measures and supplanting existing teaching approaches with
backup plans, in case a prolonged time is needed IWBT should be drafted in the longer term pro-
to fix a faulty IWBT or server (i.e., providing a jections alongside important behavioral aspects as
Smart Board Technology in Higher Education Institutions 13

Training
Needs Evolution of Data-Show Technology

Integrated IWBT Pedagogy, i.e.,

i.e., development

using IWBT feature to deliver a

Sophisticated,

concept, teaching scenarios,

etc.

Advanced Projection
Features, i.e., IWBT advanced
Start to include

hardware features and rich

Advanced, i.e.,

software library
students

Hardware Software

Basic Projection
Features, i.e., projector
Connected to a laptop
Basic

Time

Illustratio by teacher Interactive with students Immersive IWBT pedagogy

One-way delivery by teacher Two-way delivery Two-way involvement

Smart Board Technology in Higher Education Institutions, Fig. 1 Evolution of the data-show industry across time

highlighted in this research. This entails Salinas M (2006) From Dewey to gates: a model to inte-
addressing cultural perspectives concerning grate psychoeducational principles in the selection and
use of instructional technology. Comput Educ. https://
teaching-faculty and students. Finally, IWBT doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.08.002
usage by teachers should be monitored to report Schmid E (2008) Potential pedagogical benefits and draw-
progress. backs of multimedia use in the English language class-
room equipped with interactive whiteboard technology.
Comput Educ 51(4):1553–1568
Slay H, Siebörger I, Hodgkinson-Williams C (2008) Inter-
References active whiteboards: real beauty or just “lipstick”?
Comput Educ 51(3):1321–1341
Baek Y, Jung J, Kim B (2008) What makes teachers use Smith HJ, Higgins S, Wall K, Miller J (2005) Interactive
technology in the classroom? Exploring the factors whiteboards: boon or bandwagon? A critical review of
affecting facilitation of technology with a Korean sam- the literature. J Comput Assist Learn 21(2):91–101
ple. Comput Educ 50:224–234 Somyürek S, Atasoy B, Özdemir S (2009) Board’s IQ:
Barak M (2007) Transition from traditional to ICT- what makes a board smart? Comput Educ 53
enhanced learning environments in undergraduate (2):368–374
chemistry courses. Comput Educ 48:30–43 Stoica D, Paragin F, Paragin S, Mirona C, Jipa A (2011)
Gursul F, Tozmaz G (2010) Which one is smarter? Teacher The interactive whiteboard and the instructional design
or board. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 2:5731–5737 in teaching physics. Procedia Soc Behav Sci
Korucu O, Aktaş C, Katrancioğlu S (2011) Adaptation 15:3316–3321
problems and attitudes of teachers towards technolog- Warwick P, Mercer N, Kershner R, Staarman J (2010) In
ical material using in courses. Procedia Soc Behav Sci the mind and in the technology: the vicarious presence
28:311–315 of the teacher in pupil’s learning of science in collabo-
López O (2009) The digital learning classroom: improving rative group activity at the interactive whiteboard.
English language learners’ academic success in mathe- Comput Educ, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available
matics and reading using interactive whiteboard tech- online 6 February 2010
nology. Comput Educ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compedu.2009.09.019