IWB lessons produced greater engagement and enthusiasm but not better performance¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr1·q2
Currency · newest study 2013 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? Observationally, IWB classes generated more enthusiasm and attention, which did not translate into performance gains. → Bahadur 2013
Evidence¶
Bahadur 2013¶
Bahadur, G. K. & Oogarah, D. (2013). Interactive whiteboard for primary schools in Mauritius: An effective tool or just another trend? IJEDICT, 9(1), 19-35. http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu//viewarticle.php?id=1559
q2 · i? · causal · r1
Authors' classroom observation during the three-class experiment; they attribute the enthusiasm to a "novelty factor" and note it "did not translate into any significant improvements in performance".
"From an observational perspective, the IWB classes generated more enthusiasm and attention from the students. This could be the result of their novelty factor, however, and as shown, this did not translate into any significant improvements in performance."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Pupils taught with the IWB and XERTE resource scored no better on post-tests than pupils taught traditionally — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- Pre-test scores showed no difference between IWB and traditional groups — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-02 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.