Encyclopedia of Education and Information Technologies

Living Edition
| Editors: Arthur Tatnall

Smart Board Technology in Higher Education Institutions

  • Nabeel Al-QirimEmail author
  • Kamel Rouibah
  • Mohamad Adel Serhani
  • Ashraf Khalil
  • Ali Tarhini
  • Mahmoud Maqableh
  • Marton Gergely
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60013-0_221-1

Introduction

There are many forms of Interactive White Board Technologies (IWBT), but usually an IWBT combines an electronic touchable whiteboard connected to a network computer and a data projector. IWBT allows teachers and students control applications by touching the screen with their fingers or writing digitally with a non-ink pen tool. The touch-sensitive nature of IWBT facilitates more efficient presentation and more professional delivery of multimedia resources (Smith et al. 2005).

The IWBT or the smart board is believed to increase the effectiveness of teaching both qualitatively and quantitatively and to greatly facilitate the use and benefits of computers and the Internet for teachers (Somyürek et al. 2009). IWBT represents a tool and an environment that promotes dialogue and knowledge building among students (Warwick et al. 2010). Students can benefit from the different learning styles provided by IWBT features and software application where students could see, touch, and...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Baek Y, Jung J, Kim B (2008) What makes teachers use technology in the classroom? Exploring the factors affecting facilitation of technology with a Korean sample. Comput Educ 50:224–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barak M (2007) Transition from traditional to ICT-enhanced learning environments in undergraduate chemistry courses. Comput Educ 48:30–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gursul F, Tozmaz G (2010) Which one is smarter? Teacher or board. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 2:5731–5737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Korucu O, Aktaş C, Katrancioğlu S (2011) Adaptation problems and attitudes of teachers towards technological material using in courses. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 28:311–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. López O (2009) The digital learning classroom: improving English language learners’ academic success in mathematics and reading using interactive whiteboard technology. Comput Educ.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Salinas M (2006) From Dewey to gates: a model to integrate psychoeducational principles in the selection and use of instructional technology. Comput Educ.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.08.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Schmid E (2008) Potential pedagogical benefits and drawbacks of multimedia use in the English language classroom equipped with interactive whiteboard technology. Comput Educ 51(4):1553–1568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Slay H, Siebörger I, Hodgkinson-Williams C (2008) Interactive whiteboards: real beauty or just “lipstick”? Comput Educ 51(3):1321–1341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Smith HJ, Higgins S, Wall K, Miller J (2005) Interactive whiteboards: boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. J Comput Assist Learn 21(2):91–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Somyürek S, Atasoy B, Özdemir S (2009) Board’s IQ: what makes a board smart? Comput Educ 53(2):368–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Stoica D, Paragin F, Paragin S, Mirona C, Jipa A (2011) The interactive whiteboard and the instructional design in teaching physics. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 15:3316–3321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Warwick P, Mercer N, Kershner R, Staarman J (2010) In the mind and in the technology: the vicarious presence of the teacher in pupil’s learning of science in collaborative group activity at the interactive whiteboard. Comput Educ, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 6 February 2010Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nabeel Al-Qirim
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kamel Rouibah
    • 2
  • Mohamad Adel Serhani
    • 1
  • Ashraf Khalil
    • 3
  • Ali Tarhini
    • 4
  • Mahmoud Maqableh
    • 5
  • Marton Gergely
    • 1
  1. 1.College of Information TechnologyUAE UniversityAl AinUAE
  2. 2.College of Business AdministrationKuwait UniversityKuwait CityKuwait
  3. 3.College of EngineeringAbu Dhabi UniversityAbu DhabiUAE
  4. 4.Department of Information SystemsSultan Qaboos UniversityMuscatOman
  5. 5.Faculty of BusinessThe University of JordanAmmanJordan

Section editors and affiliations

  • Bill Davey
    • 1
  1. 1.RMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia