The Demonstrated Impact on Student Learning
Academic Achievement
The research evidence for IFPs’ positive impact on student achievement is substantial. A comprehensive meta-analysis examining 47 experimental studies with nearly 3,000 students found that IFP use had a positive, large, and statistically significant effect on academic achievement (effect size d = .94, p < .05). This effect held across different types of publications, school levels, subject areas, and duration of implementation, demonstrating the robustness of the findings.
Individual experimental studies corroborate these meta-analytic findings. Research comparing students learning geometry with and without IFPs found significantly higher achievement for the IFP group. Similarly, college chemistry students who spent six lessons learning with IFPs showed statistically significant improvements over control groups on post-tests. In a two-year study of elementary schools in England, students using IFPs showed improved scores on national tests in literacy, mathematics, and science, with particular benefits for weaker students in writing.
Student Motivation and Engagement
Beyond achievement gains, research consistently demonstrates that IFPs significantly increase student motivation and engagement in learning. Studies across multiple countries report that students find IFP-based lessons more interesting, enjoyable, and comprehensible than traditional instruction. Students report higher levels of attention, concentration, and willingness to participate actively in class discussions when IFPs are used.In a study examining academic self-efficacy—students’ confidence in their ability to complete learning tasks—researchers found that IFP-based instruction produced significantly higher levels of student confidence than traditional lecture-based instruction. Students in IFP classrooms also reported significantly higher academic “press,” meaning they felt more challenged to think deeply and understand material rather than simply memorize facts.
Approximately 90% of students in a two-year Israeli pilot project expressed desire to continue learning with IFPs, with studentsspecifically noting that IFPs help them understand material, make lessons more interesting, and facilitate easier comprehension of complex concepts through visual and auditory supports.
Clarity and Comprehension
One of the most significant findings across multiple studies is IFPs’ impact on clarity—how clearly students understand learning materials and can apply concepts. Research examining multiple dimensions of quality teaching found that the greatest improvement attributed to IFP use was in the variable of clarity. Students consistently report that IFPs make abstract concepts more concrete, support visual and auditory learning, and provide permanent learning through the ability to save and review materials.
The multimodal presentation capabilities of IFPs—combining text, images, video, sound, and interactive simulations—enable teachers to address diverse learning styles and make complex information more accessible. Students note that seeing data “in front of your eyes” and accessing simulations reduces cognitive load and helps their brains organize information more effectively.
The Teacher Experience: Benefits and Challenges
Reported Advantages
Teachers report multiple benefits from IFP implementation. They consistently note that instruction becomes more professional, efficient, and varied, with easier access to diverse learning materials at different levels. Teachers report enjoying teaching more with IFPs and feeling more up-to-date in their instructional practices. The ability to save and reuse materials, adapt content for different student ability levels, and present information more clearly are frequently cited advantages.
Research shows that teachers perceive IFPs as enabling them to teach topics in greater depth, provide better access to learning resources, and more appropriately match learning materials to individual student needs. The technology facilitates clearer presentation of learning material, which teachers connect to improved student understanding and engagement.
The Reality of Implementation Challenges
Despite these benefits, research reveals significant implementation challenges that can undermine IFPs’ potential impact. Teachers consistently report that preparing lessons with IFPs requires substantially more time than traditional instruction, creating a sense of being overburdened—particularly when adequate support is not provided. Studies document technical difficulties and malfunctions that disrupt lessons, and note that inadequate teacher skill in operating IFPs can lead to wasted class time and diminished teacher credibility with students.
Critically, research demonstrates that without proper support, IFPs often reinforce traditional, teacher-centered pedagogy rather than facilitating the interactive, collaborative learning they were designed to enable. Studies found that IFP lessons contained more whole-class teaching, less group work, and faster-paced instruction with more but briefer student responses—a pattern that does not fundamentally change underlying pedagogical approaches.
The Professional Development Imperative
This is where the research becomes absolutely clear: technology alone does not transform teaching and learning. The difference between IFPs as expensive presentation tools and IFPs as catalysts for meaningful pedagogical change lies entirely in the quality of professional learning provided to educators.
Why Technical Training Is Insufficient
In a comprehensive two-year pilot study, teachers reported that while they felt capable of operating IFPs after initial training, they specifically requested additional professional development focusing on pedagogical content and instructional strategies—not more technical skills. The study found that teachers primarily used IFPs to enrich existing pedagogy rather than transform it, remaining in the initial “infusion” stage where technology strengthens existing instruction but learning remains largely passive.
The Developmental Trajectory
Multiple studies document a clear developmental trajectory for effective IFP use, typically progressing through three stages:
1. Infusion/Matching: Teachers use IFPs primarily as presentation tools, matching new technology to existing pedagogy with largely passive student learning.
2. Integration/Discovery: Teachers discover new opportunities offered by the technology and begin incorporating more interactive elements, though instruction remains largely teacher-controlled.
3. Transformation: Teachers use IFPs professionally and intuitively in ways that fundamentally change pedagogy, facilitating student-centered learning where students co-construct knowledge and exercise greater autonomy.
The critical finding: reaching the transformational stage requires sustained pedagogical support, not just technical training. Research demonstrates that teachers need explicit instruction on facilitating student collaboration, orchestrating classroom features with intentional pedagogical purpose, and using IFPs to develop higher-order thinking skills.
What Effective Professional Learning Looks Like
Year-long comparative studies reveal that teachers need adequate time—across an entire academic year or longer—to gradually incorporate technology into classroom practices. Significant increases in the variety and sophistication of IFP use were observed only after sustained implementation with ongoing support.
Effective professional development must focus on:
• Pedagogical frameworks for interactive teaching that emphasize student collaboration, dialogue, and co-construction of knowledge
• Explicit instructional strategies for facilitating student-to-student interaction and moving beyond teacher-dominated discourse
• Subject-specific applications that help teachers leverage IFP features for their particular content areas
• Ongoing coaching and support that extends well beyond initial training sessions
• Shared resource development to reduce the burden on individual teachers and build collaborative professional communities
Research examining dimensions of quality teaching identified that effective IFP implementation requires teachers to orchestrate classroom features—including technology, student prior knowledge, and instructional goals—with sophisticated pedagogical purpose. This level of professional practice does not emerge from learning which buttons to push.
The Hidden Costs of Inadequate Support
Districts that purchase IFPs without investing in comprehensive, research-based professional learning face
substantial risks that undermine their technology investment:
• Unsustained Achievement Gains: Large-scale evaluations found that while IFPs initially showed positive effects on student achievement, these gains were not sustained over two years when pedagogical practices did not evolve beyond traditional teacher-centered instruction. The “halo effect” of new technology faded without corresponding pedagogical development.
• Underutilization and Teacher Frustration: Without adequate pedagogical support, teachers report feeling overburdened by the time required to prepare lessons, leading to abandonment of the tools or minimal use as simple presentation devices. Students in focus groups noted that even when IFPs were installed in classrooms, many teachers did not use them, representing wasted resources.
• Missed Opportunities for Deep Learning: Case studies reveal that without proper pedagogical framing, students perceive learning goals as task completion rather than knowledge construction. Research found that when teachers did not provide explicit structure and prompts for collaboration, students used IFPs in ways that met production goals (getting correct answers) but failed to achieve learning objectives (developing strategic thinking and understanding).
• Reinforcement of Ineffective Pedagogy: Perhaps most concerning, studies document that inadequate professional development can actually reinforce less effective teaching practices. IFPs can make teacher-centered, transmission-model instruction more efficient and attractive without improving its pedagogical quality, potentially making it harder to shift toward more interactive, student-centered approaches later.
Conclusion: Expertise as Essential Partnership
The research literature demonstrates unequivocally that interactive flat panels can significantly impact student achievement, motivation, engagement, and understanding. These benefits are real, substantial, and documented across multiple studies and contexts. However, the same research makes equally clear that these positive outcomes depend entirely on how teachers use the technology—and that depends on the quality of professional learning they receive.
Districts must recognize that purchasing IFPs represents an investment not just in hardware, but in pedagogical transformation. This requires partnering with vendors who demonstrate:
• Deep knowledge of educational research on effective IFP implementation, interactive pedagogy, and teacher development
• Expertise in adult learning and professional development design that goes far beyond product training
• Commitment to sustained support extending across years, not weeks
• Understanding of pedagogical frameworks that help teachers progress from presentation to transformation
• Evidence-based curricula and resources specifically designed to support interactive, collaborative, student-centered learning
The alternative—purchasing hardware from vendors focused solely on technical features and installation—represents a substantial risk to districts’ technology investments. Research shows that without comprehensive professional learning, IFPs become expensive digital chalkboards that may produce initial enthusiasm but fail to deliver sustained improvements in teaching and learning.
References
Akar, H. (2020). The effect of smart board use on academic achievement: A meta-analytical and thematic study. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology (IJEMST), 8(3), 261-273.
Beucher, B., Arya, D., & Wang, C. (2019). Interactive whiteboard (IWB) use during student collaborative reading practices: A year-long
comparison of instructional approaches. Education 3-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2019.1649292
Davidovitch, N., & Yavich, R. (2017). The effect of smart boards on the cognition and motivation of students. Higher Education Studies, 7(1), 60-67. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v7n1p60
Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G., & Miller, D. (2007). Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards. Learning, Media and Technology,
32(3), 213-225. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439880701511040
Kennewell, S., Tanner, H., Jones, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2008). Analysing the use of interactive technology to implement interactive teaching. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(1), 61-73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00244.x
Manny-Ikan, E., Dagan, O., Tikochinski, T. B., & Zorman, R. (2011). Using the interactive white board in teaching and learning—An evaluation of the SMART CLASSROOM pilot project. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 7(1), 249-273.
Shi, Y., Peng, C., Zhang, X., & Yang, H. H. (2017). Interactive whiteboard-based instruction versus lecture-based instruction: A study on college students’ academic self-efficacy and academic press. In S. K. S. Cheung et al. (Eds.), Blended learning: New challenges and innovative practices (pp. 319-328). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59360-9_28
