smart boards: a reemerging technology

194

Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 32(2):194–202, 2013Published with license by Taylor & FrancisISSN: 0276-3869 print/1540-9597 onlineDOI: 10.1080/02763869.2013.776903

© Tara J. Brigham Comments and suggestions should be sent to the Column Editors: Matthew B. Hoy (hoy.

[email protected]) and Tara J. Brigham ([email protected]). Address correspondence to Tara J. Brigham, MLIS, Librarian, Winn-Dixie Foundation

Medical Library, Mayo Clinic, 4500 San Pablo Road, Jacksonville, FL 32224. E-mail: [email protected]

EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES

Matthew B. Hoy and Tara J. Brigham, Column Editors

Smart Boards: A Reemerging Technology

TARA J. BRIGHAM Winn-Dixie Foundation Medical Library, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA

Smart boards, also known as interactive whiteboards (IWBs), are large, interactive, touch-sensitive displays that are mainly used for presentation or educational purposes. While some may not con-sider this an emerging technology today, changes in the design and capabilities challenge that line of thinking. This column will explain what a smart board is, provide a brief history about it, and describe where it is currently used and why it might be a technol-ogy to consider having in a library today.

KEYWORDS Interactive displays, smart boards

WHAT IS A SMART BOARD?

“Smart board” is a brand-name-turned-generic-term that is used to encom-pass all large, interactive, touch-sensitive displays that work in conjunction with a computer or tablet and sometimes with a projector, with the key dis-tinction in that the user can control the computer or tablet directly from the board.1–3 The boards can be mounted on the wall or placed on a separate stand and are generally 42 to 72 inches diagonally, although some manufac-turers are now making 80 inches and above available.4,5 Smart boards are mainly used for interactive teaching or presentation purposes. Although the

Emerging Technologies 195

lines are starting to blur, smart boards are not to be confused with digital signage or smart TVs. They come with software that enables users to manip-ulate what is displayed on the board, such as a text document, web page, or moving image from a DVD, with an electronic pen or finger.6,7 For example, if a text document is open, an individual could write with the electronic pen to add something to the text, or if a web browser is displayed, an individual would be able to click on any web link with his or her finger while still standing next to the smart board. Most activities, such as highlighting a sec-tion of text or circling a web page link, can be saved, printed out, and dis-tributed to viewers.1

Arguably the most common type of smart board is a whiteboard surface that interfaces with a computer and a projector. Some of the companies that produce these smart boards, also known as interactive whiteboards (IWBs), are Promethean, Hitachi, Mimio, eInstruction, eBeam, Polyvision, Panaboards, TeamBoard, Qomo Hitevision, Numonics, DEMCO, and SMART Techn ologies.2,8,9 The newest form of smart board is a self-contained LCD flat panel display. Currently, only Sharp, Samsung, DEMCO, and SMART Technologies offer an interactive, touch screen LCD smart board.5,10–12 Although there are multiple producers of smart boards, SMART Technologies is the largest. In 2011, the manufacturer held 45% of the international market for the interactive display product category.13

BRIEF HISTORY OF SMART BOARDS

The smart board’s origins can be traced back to the early 1990s when Xerox developed and used a device called Liveboard.3,14 Liveboard was described as a “large screen, pen based interactive display.”14 About the same time, SMART Technologies created “the first interactive whiteboard” in 1991.13 While researchers continued to explore innovative technologies such as multitouch systems, augmented surfaces, and smart board plasma dis-plays15,16 in the late 1990s, interactive displays were also making their way into classrooms mainly as a replacement for the blackboard.4,17 The original smart boards were front projection and rear projection models. In 1997, SMART Technologies started producing IWBs that were rear projection but could be hung on the wall. Basic capabilities were offered in these original models and did not get a noticeable upgrade until the 2000s. Models in 2001 offered greater possibilities by enabling teachers to play audio and video from the Internet as well as the capability to record and play lessons at a later date.13 Further improvement came in 2011 when both Sharp and Samsung released flat panel LCD models.5,10 This meant smart boards no longer required projectors, which enhanced viewing and writing perfor-mance. Some of the newest models also boast video conferencing and pres-ence detection.5,12

196 Emerging Technologies

The growth in use of smart boards is mirrored in the growth of sales. SMART Technologies, noted that more than “2.3 million SMART Board inter-active whiteboards have been installed globally in education, business and government settings.”13 While there is still a market for smart board technol-ogy today, some are starting to question its validity amid difficult financial times and in the age of iPads and personal tablets.18

CURRENT USES OF SMART BOARDS

Business

Smart boards started off as a tool used by corporate America. Angelo describes that the smart board market really began to shift toward education when a tough economy hit businesses in the early 2000s.19 Since that time, SMART Technologies reports that more than “175 Fortune 1000 organizations in North America” and “125 Fortune 500 companies in over 50 countries” have adopted their smart board technology.13

Education

Smart boards are prevalent in public and private K–12 schools throughout the world. This was partially driven by a paradigm shift and technology-focused funding made available to schools in the early 2000s. National education departments invested heavily in smart board technology, partic-ularly in Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.20,21 Today, SMART Technologies boasts that more than 2 million smart boards are installed in K–12 classrooms, reaching more than 40 million students and their teachers.13 The smart board resources available for primary and sec-ondary educators are extensive.22,23 There are multiple websites and online communities that offer tips and content like learning plans.13 There is also a surplus of research and literature attempting to provide evidence of the actual impact smart boards have on learning in primary and secondary schools.3,4,6,24 DiGregorio’s article includes a fairly comprehensive literature review and analysis of the smart board’s efficacy in student learning and achievement.25

Utilization of smart boards can also be found in higher education but is less prevalent in the classrooms of colleges and universities. Due to the limited size of smart boards, they are not ideal to teach lecture hall classes. Furthermore, skeptical faculty need to be convinced that smart boards make a positive difference for their students. When smart boards do appear in places of higher education, they are usually used by specific majors, such as education or engineering. Due to the popularity of smart boards in K–12 education, some universities and colleges support aspiring teachers


by offering classes on how to use them.26,27 A study at the University of Pittsburgh found that engineering students who used design tools such as smart boards were more successful at completing projects.29 While a few studies, such as the University of Pittsburgh study, have been done at the collegiate level, there is still a demand to measure the effectiveness of using smart boards.7

Libraries

If a library has a smart board, it is most likely an academic library. A 2008 survey of academic libraries in the United States and Canada reported a third of colleges sampled had purchased interactive whiteboards for library edu-cation. Institutions with doctoral and research programs were more likely to purchase them. A publication by the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) reported that “thirty institutions (49%) reported they currently offer or plan to offer interactive whiteboards [and] these collaborative tools are available elsewhere at 11 institutions (18%), but 20 others (33%) reported that they do not plan to offer this tool.”29 This correlates with the information provided about smart boards in higher education. While some colleges and universi-ties might invest in smart boards, they seem better suited in a shared, study space like a library, not a single classroom. In reviewing the literature of smart board usage in libraries only a few articles surfaced. Knight describes the basics of how to use smart boards in library instruction in the traditional lecture/demonstration mode.30 Schroeder’s study expanded on the basic lec-ture format and described how to use a smart board in library education, interactively and in a group setting.6

ISSUES WITH SMART BOARDS

Cost

The cost might be prohibitive for buying smart boards for some libraries, as they can range from $1,000 up to $10,000. If a library already has a projector or a digital TV and does not require access to some of the software found on traditional PCs, there is an option to connect a tablet device directly to a projector or digital TV without having to purchase a smart board.31,32

Technical and Educational Training Necessary

Training is necessary to fully realize the potential of a smart board. There is a risk to underutilize the smart board and primarily use it as a glorified whiteboard or blackboard. Armstrong and colleagues noted that “teachers are the critical agents in mediating the software, the integration of the


software into the subject aims of the lesson and appropriate use of the smart board to promote quality interactions and interactivity.”33 Using it improperly or inadequately turns a smart board into a very expensive toy.

WHY MORE LIBRARIES SHOULD CONSIDER SMART BOARDS

While purchases may have reached their peak in the early to mid 2000s, the convergence of recent advances in technology and educators’ understanding of learning may warrant another look at smart board technology, particularly for libraries.

Falling Smart Board Pricing and New Flat Panel Design

It is likely that flat panel LCD displays will continue to provide new innova-tions while unit cost decreases.33 As noted earlier, both Samsung and Sharp are venturing into the smart board market by offering a self-contained LCD smart board with the same functionality found in interactive whiteboards. This sort of competition between TV manufactures and traditional smart board producers may help drive down the price of smart boards in the coming years, making them more appealing to libraries. The old smart boards hardly resemble the self-contained, flat panel design of the new models of smart boards. The functionality is also improved with the new smart board design as it uses infrared sensors to track where your finger or pen is on the screen. The improved design creates a sleek and modern look that most libraries and their patrons might enjoy.

Influx of Mobile Devices

Smartphones and new mobile devices are taking on an increasing preva-lence in society. In a recent Pew Research Center report, just under half of all American adults (45%) stated owning a smartphone.35 The number of smartphone owners rises to 66% for those between the ages of 18 and 29.35 This information correlates with an EDUCAUSE report that found 62.7% of North American undergraduates have an Internet-capable handheld device.36 The impact of smartphones and new mobile devices on libraries is still being explored but cannot be ignored. Librarians will need to develop methods to educate patrons about new mobile devices. Additionally, they will need to teach patrons how to access and interact with library resources, services, and staff while on their mobile devices. The smart board could be the vehicle with which to offer these learning opportunities. For example, certain smart boards can connect to mobile devices, such as an iPad using AirPlay or a Galaxy tablet using MagicInfo Lite.37,38 This enables a group of patrons or


students to bring their own device and follow along. It would also allow them to participate in the teaching of others as well.

Growth of Electronic Content in Libraries

It is no surprise that one of the major trends in libraries is the growing com-mitment to purchase and provide access to electronic content.39 Whether it is the growing demand for e-books in public libraries40 or e-journal access in academic and medical libraries,41 libraries are spending more of their budget on electronic resources. An ARL report done between 2008 and 2009 found that “the average ARL university library now spends 56% of its materials budget on electronic materials.”42 It seems unlikely this trend will slow or even reverse in the future. While the use of e-content continues to grow, the viability of smart boards to display this content and to teach with it increases as well.

Importance of Interactive Learning

Constructivist learning theories based on the ideas of Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky have since infiltrated educational practices. These theories support new collaboration and interactive teaching and have shaped how teachers and librarians approach instructional design. The basis for incorporating these theories is substantiated by research. Numerous studies have estab-lished the importance of interaction in knowledge retention. A 2010 study by Kunz showed that when teaching evidence-based medicine courses “orga-nizers who wish to optimize knowledge gain should require learners to actively participate in the course.”43 In this context, smart boards would be ideal for teaching library instruction as long as active and collaborative approaches were incorporated into the design.6 One of the major advantages to having a smart board is that it invites and promotes interaction and col-laboration. In medical libraries, smart boards could also be used for journal club meetings, group study of cases, or board review.

CONCLUSION

Smart boards have been around since the 1990s but have been through many iterations. New models offer opportunities that previous models did not, although some can come with a heavy price tag. Training and a commit-ment to explore how best to use smart boards will help prevent them from becoming expensive blackboards. This educational tool is interactive, which could aid in knowledge retention and inspire the learner to participate more. Librarians who would like to explore options other than the typical projec-tor/screen set up should look into whether the new models of smart boards would be a good fit.


REFERENCES

1. Somyurek, S., B. Atasoy, and S. Ozdemir. “Board’s IQ: What Makes a Board Smart?” Computers & Education 53, no. 2 (2009): 368–374.

2. Kuster, J.M. “No More Chalkboards: Interactive Whiteboards.” ASHA Leader. August 30, 2011. http://www.mnsu.edu/comdis/kuster4/part100.html.

3. Sad, S.N. “An Attitude Scale for Smart Board Use in Education: Validity and Reliability Studies.” Computers & Education 58, no. 3 (2012): 900–907.

4. Beeland, W.D., Jr. “Student Engagement, Visual Learning and Technology: Can Interactive Whiteboards Help?” Action Research Exchange. 2002. http://chiron.valdosta.edu/are/Artmanscrpt/vol1no1/beeland_am.pdf.

5. Sharp, Inc. “Sharp Advances Collaborative Technology with a State of the Art Interactive Meeting Room Display.” September 29, 2011. http://www.sharpusa.com/AboutSharp/NewsAndEvents/PressReleases/2011/September/2011_09_29_70in_Whiteboard_Display.aspx.

6. Schroeder, R. “Active Learning with Interactive Whiteboards.” Communications in Information Literacy 1, no. 2 (2007): 64–73. http://www.comminfolit.org/index.php?journal=cil&page=article&op=viewFile&path[]=Fall2007AR2&path[]=49.

7. Warnock, S.H., N.J. Boykin, and W.C. Tung. “Assessment of the Impact of Smart Board Technology System Use on Student Learning, Satisfaction, and Performance.” Journal of Research in Education 21, no. 1 (2011): 1–20. http://www.eeraonline.org/journal/files/v21/JRE_v21n1_Article_1_Warnock.pdf.

8. Trekles, S. “SMARTBoards Bringing Classroom Lessons to Life!” January 23, 2009. http://www.slideshare.net/andella/smartboards-presentation.

9. Davis, M.R. “Whiteboards Inc.” Education Week: Digital Directions 1(2007): 24–25. http://www.edweek.org/dd/articles/2007/09/12/02board.h01.html.

10. Samsung, Inc. “Samsung Showcases 65” LCD Touchscreen Interactive Whiteboard at GITEX Technology Week.” October 27, 2011. http://www.samsung.com/ae/news/localnews/2011/samsung-showcases-65-lcd-touchscreen-interactive-whiteboard-at-gitex-technology-week.

11. Demco, Inc. “TouchIT™ Interactive Solution from Demco®.” Accessed January 31, 2013. http://www.demco.com/goto?touchit&intcmp=HT1_Feb12_TouchIT.

12. SMART Technologies, Inc. “SMART Announces Interactive Flat Panel for Education.” June 25, 2012. http://smarttech.com/About+SMART/About+SMART/Newsroom/Media+releases/English+US/Releases+by+year/2012+media+releases/2012/SMART+Announces+Interactive+Flat+Panel+for+Education.

13. SMART Technologies, Inc. “Quick Facts and Stats.” Accessed January 19, 2013. http://smarttech.com/us/About+SMART/About+SMART/Newsroom/Quick+facts+and+stats.

14. Elrod, S., R. Bruce, D. Goldberg et al. “Liveboard: A Large Interactive Display Supporting Group Meetings, Presentations and Remote Collaboration.” CHI ‘92 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (1992): 599–607.

15. Buxton, B. “Multi-touch Systems that I Have Known and Loved.” August 30, 2012. http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html.

16. Muller-Tomfeld, C., and M. Fjeld. “Tabletops: Interactive Horizontal Displays for Ubiquitous Computing.” Computer 45, no. 2 (2012): 78–81.


17. Greiffenhagen, C. “Out of the Office into the School: Electronic Whiteboards for Education. Technical Report TR-16-00.” Accessed January 30, 2013. http://www.academia.edu/283191/Out_of_the_office_into_the_school_electronic_whiteboards_for_education.

18. Quillen, I. “Battle for Whiteboard-Market Supremacy Heats Up.” Education Week: Digital Directions 5, no. 2 (2012): 33–34. http://www.edweek.org/dd/articles/2012/02/08/02whiteboard.h05.html.

19. Angelo, J. M. “Beyond the Boardroom.” University Business 5, no. 10 (2000): 47–49. http://universitybusiness.ccsct.com/page.cfm?p=197.

20. Hall, I., and S. Higgins. “Primary School Students’ Perceptions of Interactive Whiteboards.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 21, no. 2 (2005): 102–117. http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/Alhassan/2503/primery%20students%20perception%20of%20whiteboards%202005.pdf.

21. Arnott, S. “Computers to Replace School Blackboards.” Computing.co.uk. August 9, 2004. http://www.computing.co.uk/ctg/news/1860992/computers-replace-school-blackboards.

22. Nicholson, D. “65 Free Interactive Whiteboard Resources.” TeachingHub.com. Accessed January 31, 2013. http://www.teachhub.com/free-interactive-whiteboard-resources.

23. Blossom Learning. “Resources – Technology Guide.” Accessed January 18, 2013. https://www.blossomlearning.com/Resources.aspx?ty=2.

24. Smith, H.J., S. Higgins, K. Wall, and J. Miller. “Interactive Whiteboards: Boon or Bandwagon? A Critical Review of the Literature.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 21, no. 2 (2005): 91–101. http://edtech2.boisestate.edu/spechtp/551/IWB_Boon_Bandwagon.pdf.

25. DiGregorio, P., and K. Sobel-Lojeski. “The Effects of Interactive Whiteboards (IWBs) on Student Performance and Learning: A Literature Review.” Journal of Educational Technology Systems 38, no. 3 (2009–2010): 255–312. http://karsenti.ca/archives/tbi-recherches/The%20Effects%20of%20Interactive%20Whiteboards%20(IWBs)%20on%20Student%20Performance%20and%20Learning%20A%20Literature%20Review.PDF.

26. Lehman College. “Smartboard – Educational Technology.” Accessed January 19, 2013. http://www.lehman.edu/academics/education/educational-technology/smartboard-overview.php.

27. Ochoa, M., B. Walker, A. Barrett, and A. Hines. “Developing a New Librarian Role: A Plan to Prepare Teacher Education Students for Using SMART Technologies.” In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, edited by P. Resta, 4186–4171. Chesapeake, VA: AACE, 2012.

28. Jang, J., and C.D. Schunn. “Physical Design Tools Support and Hinder Innovative Engineering Design.” Journal of Mechanical Design 134, no. 4 (2012): 041001-1–041001-9.

29. Ochoa, M.N., and T. Caswell. SPEC Kit 328: Collaborative Teaching and Learning Tools. Executive Summary. Association of Research Libraries. July 2012. http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/spec-328-web.pdf.

30. Knight, E. “How Smart is a SMART Board for an Academic Library? Using an Electronic Whiteboard for Research Instruction.” Kentucky Libraries 67, no. 3 (2003): 4–7. http://cueducation201.wikispaces.com/file/view/How+Smart+is+a+SMART+Board.pdf.


31. Schmid, J. “A Better Interactive Whiteboard: an iPad and the Apple TV.” Tech Savvy Teachers (blog). June 26, 2012. http://tech.savvyteachers.com/2012/06/26/a-better-interactive-whiteboard-an-ipad-and-the-apple-tv/.

32. Fowlkes, K. “Why Tablets Will Kill Smart Boards in Classrooms.” Information Week Education. January 9, 2013. http://www.informationweek.com/why-tablets-will-kill-smart-boards-in-cl/240145886.

33. Armstrong, V., S. Barnes, R. Sutherland, S. Curran, S. Mills, and I. Thompson. “Collaborative Research Methodology for Investigating, Teaching and Learning: The Use of Interactive Whiteboard Technology.” Educational Review 57, no. 4 (2005): 457–469.

34. Suciu, P. “The Major Crisis in TV.” CNN Money. June 2, 2012. http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/02/televisions/.

35. Rainie, L. “Smartphone Ownership Update: September 2012.” Pew Internet & American Life Project 2012. September 11, 2012. http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Smartphone-Update-Sept-2012.aspx.

36. Smith, S.D., and J. Borreson. The ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2010. Center for Applied Research, EDUCASE. October 2010. http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EKF/EKF1006.pdf.

37. “iPad and Smartboard Use in Education.” https://discussions.apple.com/thread/2770983.

38. Samsung, Inc. “Samsung Smart School Solution Makes the Grade.” November 1, 2012. http://www.samsung.com/us/article/samsung-smart-school-solution-makes-the-grade.

39. Lynema, E., C. Lown, and D. Woodbury. “Virtual Browse: Designing User-Oriented Services for Discovery of Related Resources.” Library Trends 61, no. 1 (2012): 218–233.

40. Rainie, L., and M. Duggan. “E-book Reading Jumps; Print Book Reading Declines.” Pew Internet & American Life Project. December 27, 2012. http://libraries.pewinternet.org/2012/12/27/e-book-reading-jumps-print-book-reading-declines/.

41. Bosch, S., and K. Henderson. “Coping with the Terrible Twins – Periodicals Price Survey 2012.” Library Journal. April 30, 2012. http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2012/04/funding/coping-with-the-terrible-twins-periodicals-price-survey-2012/.

42. Kyrillidou, M., and S. Morriseds. ARL Statistics 2008–2009. Association of Research Libraries. 2011. http://arl.org/bm~doc/arlstat09.pdf.

43. Kunz, R., K. Wegscheider, L. Fritsche et al. “Determinants of Knowledge Gain in Evidence-Based Medicine Short Courses: An International Assessment.” Open Medicine 4, no. 1 (2010): e3-e10. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3116678/.

smart boards: a reemerging technology

Documents