Do Interactive Panels Actually Improve Learning? What the Research Says — and What Schools Should Know
An evidence-based guide for South African schools, colleges and training institutions.
A new interactive display can look impressive on a classroom wall. But for principals, teachers and school governing bodies, the more important question is simple: will it help students learn?
There is encouraging research, including studies specifically examining interactive whiteboards, showing that well-designed interactive teaching can improve learning outcomes. There is also research showing that installing the technology alone is not enough. What matters is what teachers and students actually do with it.
That distinction is important. It is also good news for schools: it means the decision should be based on useful teaching practices, not just the number of features on a specification sheet.
The short answer: yes, interactive teaching can improve learning — when it is used well
Research on interactive whiteboards and educational technology points towards three principles:
- Interaction matters more than simply displaying information. A screen becomes more valuable when students answer questions, move objects, test predictions, explain their thinking or receive feedback.
- The lesson design matters more than the hardware. A powerful interactive panel used only to show static slides may deliver little more educational benefit than an ordinary display.
- Training and support matter. Teachers need time and practical examples to make effective use of interactive tools.
The distinction between an interactive whiteboard and a modern interactive flat-panel display matters too. Many published studies examined earlier projector-based interactive whiteboards, not today’s integrated 4K touchscreens. They provide evidence about touch-enabled teaching practices, rather than direct proof that any particular modern panel will raise examination results.
What independent studies have found
1. Interactive whiteboards and mathematics achievement: a positive effect
A 2022 evidence synthesis by Hamad Al Halaibi and Allen Thurston, published in Scholarum, examined research on interactive whiteboards and mathematics attainment among students aged 5–18.
The researchers reported a mean effect size of d = +0.32, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.15 to 0.50, favouring interactive whiteboard use over the comparison teaching methods in the included studies. This is generally considered a small-to-medium positive effect.
What that means: there is credible evidence that interactive whiteboard-based approaches can improve mathematics learning. It does not mean that pupils’ marks rose by 32%, or that any school installing a panel should expect the same result.
Read the 2022 study via Queen’s University Belfast
2. A broader analysis of 23 interactive-whiteboard studies also found benefits
A 2021 meta-analysis in *Interactive Learning Environments***, by Yinghui Shi and colleagues, combined results from **23 peer-reviewed studies of interactive-whiteboard-based instruction. It reported an overall positive effect on students’ cognitive learning outcomes compared with traditional lecture-based instruction.
Importantly, the researchers found that teaching approach influenced the results. In other words, how educators used the interactive board helped determine its educational value.
Read the study abstract in the US Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)
3. More interaction and feedback can help, even beyond whiteboards
A 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis examined real-time classroom interactive activities, such as digital response and quiz systems. Across 23 experimental studies involving 3,642 students, academic performance favoured the groups using these interactive activities.
This research was not a test of interactive flat panels. It supports a teaching method that panels can facilitate: asking students to respond, checking understanding immediately and discussing answers while the lesson is in progress.
Read the 2023 review on PubMed
4. Active learning works in lecture halls, too
A major 2014 meta-analysis of 225 studies in university science, technology, engineering and mathematics education found that active-learning approaches improved examination and concept-test performance by an average of 0.47 standard deviations. The average failure rate was 21.8% in active-learning classes versus 33.8% under traditional lecturing.
This is powerful evidence for active learning in higher education, but it is not evidence that a particular brand of interactive panel produced those gains. Rather, panels can be one practical tool for making active-learning techniques easier to use in classrooms and lecture halls.
Read the original study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
5. Visual explanations work — but digital is not automatically better
A 2024 meta-analysis of 41 mathematics studies, involving 10,562 participants, found that using visual representations helped mathematics learning, with an average effect size of g = 0.504. However, the authors also reported that technology-based visualisations were not superior to comparable non-digital visualisations.
That is an important lesson for purchasing decisions. A large touchscreen can make diagrams easier to manipulate and revisit, but it is the quality of the explanation, not the mere presence of a screen, that contributes to understanding.
Read the 2024 mathematics visualisation review
What about research closer to home in South Africa?
A 2020 study published in *Perspectives in Education*** investigated interactive-whiteboard use in **nine schools in Gauteng, drawing questionnaire responses from 129 primary and secondary teachers. Teachers described benefits for saving work, making lessons more visual and encouraging students to participate. The research also identified barriers such as technical difficulties, training and support.
This was research into teacher experiences and reported classroom use, not a controlled test showing an increase in examination marks. Nevertheless, it makes the findings relevant to the practical realities of South African classrooms.
Read the South African study: The use of interactive whiteboards in urban Gauteng classrooms
A separate 2024 Gauteng study involving public high-school teachers highlighted the importance of giving teachers a say in decisions about adopting interactive whiteboards. A practical takeaway for school leaders is to involve educators in technology decisions from the start.
Read the Gauteng research on teacher involvement in ICT decisions
Five ways an interactive panel can change an ordinary lesson
1. Make difficult ideas easier to see and explain
Instead of talking through a static diagram, a teacher can display a large image, magnify an important section, write directly over it, move between examples and invite students to explain what they notice.
In a science lesson: label the parts of a cell on a diagram, compare two examples and annotate the differences in real time.
In mathematics: move shapes to demonstrate symmetry or show each step in solving an equation, keeping earlier working visible for discussion.
2. Turn students from spectators into participants
Rather than having every answer come from the teacher, students can take turns interacting with content: sorting words, completing diagrams, manipulating shapes, solving problems or explaining an answer at the front of the room.
The educational benefit does not come from touching a screen for its own sake. It comes from thinking, explaining, attempting and receiving feedback.
3. Check understanding while there is still time to respond
Teachers can pose a short question, invite responses through compatible teaching software, display or discuss different answers and immediately clarify misconceptions.
This can be more useful than discovering during a test that students misunderstood a concept weeks earlier. The interactive panel is the shared surface for the activity; the real learning mechanism is timely feedback.
4. Save work, revisit explanations and reduce unnecessary repetition
Where the device and chosen software support it, teachers can save annotated diagrams, worked examples and lesson notes. They can return to a previous explanation, share materials with absent students or use yesterday’s work as the start of today’s lesson.
This is a practical benefit, although the time saved depends on how the school organises its teaching resources and workflows.
5. Support the computer and software teachers already prefer
Not every school wants exactly the same setup. Some educators prefer to work from a Windows or Mac laptop with their existing teaching applications. Others value apps and whiteboarding tools built into the display.
Both approaches can support interactive teaching. The best choice is the one that fits the school’s teachers, software, IT policies and lesson requirements.
A fair question: if the benefits are real, why hasn’t every school seen better marks?
Because a piece of equipment is not a teaching strategy.
The UK’s Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) reviewed a large-scale English primary-school interactive-whiteboard programme and reported no clear evidence of better attainment relative to a matched comparison group, even though some aspects of teaching practice changed.
UNESCO’s 2023 Global Education Monitoring Report similarly cautioned that interactive whiteboards can support visual, auditory and hands-on learning, but have sometimes been used mainly as replacements for ordinary blackboards.
These findings do not cancel out the positive studies. They explain why results vary: well-designed interactive activities can help, but schools do not gain those benefits automatically by purchasing hardware.
The EEF’s 2025 review of educational technology, which drew on 189 studies, again stressed the importance of connecting technology to established teaching practices, feedback, accessibility and effective implementation.
Read the EEF’s practical guidance · Read its 2025 evidence update · Read UNESCO’s 2023 report
Common questions schools ask before investing
“We already have a projector. Why change?”
A projector may still be an excellent solution for showing slides, video or other teaching materials. An interactive panel becomes attractive when a school wants direct touch interaction, live annotation, student participation and reusable digital work on the display itself.
The question is not simply which device has the better picture. It is whether the added interaction would be used frequently and meaningfully.
“Will every teacher need to learn a new system?”
Not necessarily. A panel designed for a connected computer can provide a familiar environment: teachers open the same software on their own laptop and use the large touchscreen to interact with it. Other panels provide built-in Android-based teaching tools. Neither approach is inherently better; each suits different teaching and IT requirements.
“Will it increase screen time without improving learning?”
It might, if lessons become passive viewing sessions. A better approach is to keep the teacher–student interaction central, using the display for specific activities such as worked examples, discussion, practice and feedback — alongside books, writing, experiments and other effective methods.
“What if the internet goes down?”
Many basic teaching activities can be prepared for offline use, depending on the computer, software and display selected. Schools should check which functions depend on the cloud, Wi-Fi or external devices and keep offline lesson materials available.
“How do we know we’ll get value for money?”
Start with the expected teaching use, then calculate the full cost over the equipment’s service life. Consider the display, mounting, installation, any connected PC, teacher training, support, electricity and future maintenance. Compare that with your existing equipment and the educational goals you want to achieve.
How to measure the return on an interactive panel — without inventing statistics
No credible study can promise that buying one panel will raise your school’s results by a fixed percentage. But a school can measure its own outcomes.
Before installation, identify two or three problems worth solving. For example:
- Students struggle to follow certain visual explanations.
- Too few students participate in classroom problem-solving.
- Teachers spend time recreating diagrams and lesson materials.
- Misunderstandings are discovered too late.
Then run a simple six-to-eight-week classroom pilot. Record how often teachers use meaningful interactive activities, gather student and teacher feedback, and compare suitable short assessments with earlier results. Where possible, use similar classes or topics for comparison and recognise that test scores can be influenced by many factors other than the panel.
A useful school-level scorecard could track student participation, frequency of feedback, lesson-preparation time, teacher confidence, device reliability and performance on carefully chosen learning assessments.
The aim is not to prove that the touchscreen is magical. The aim is to discover whether the school is teaching more effectively with it.
Choosing the right interactive display for your school
There is no single correct configuration for every classroom. These three displays illustrate different ways of bringing interactive teaching into a school.
Hikvision WonderHub 65″ — The Value Option
A 65-inch 4K display with built-in Android 14 and Google EDLA certification. Teachers can write and annotate on the screen, share supported content wirelessly and use compatible educational apps. It is worth exploring for schools looking for a compact, feature-rich solution.
Explore the Hikvision WonderHub 65-inch interactive display
Clevertouch Pro Series 3 Lite 75″ — The Familiar Option
Designed for use with an external computer, the Pro Series 3 Lite provides a large 4K interactive touchscreen for the laptop, applications and teaching materials educators already know. Its OS-free approach is a deliberate design choice, well suited to schools that prefer to manage their own computers and software.
Explore the Clevertouch Pro Series 3 Lite 75-inch display
Clevertouch X5 86″ — The All-in-One Option
An expansive 86-inch 4K interactive display with Android 14, Google EDLA support and Clevertouch’s LYNX lesson-building tools. Teachers can create and save lessons, annotate materials and involve students in interactive activities.
Explore the Clevertouch X5 86-inch interactive display
A practical tip: compare the displays in the context of your actual classrooms — room dimensions, viewing distances, existing devices, software, network policies and teacher preferences — not just their specifications.
The conclusion: an interactive panel is most valuable when students do more than watch
The independent research provides good reasons to take interactive teaching seriously. Reviews of interactive-whiteboard instruction have found positive learning effects, including in mathematics. Broader research supports active participation, well-designed visual explanations and timely feedback.
But the evidence also offers a warning: technology is an enabler, not a guarantee. A classroom does not become more effective merely because it has a touchscreen. The improvement comes when teachers use that technology to make explanations clearer, invite more student thinking and respond to misunderstandings.
For schools considering a purchase, that is the most useful question of all: what could our teachers and students do better with this display than they can do today?
Ready to explore interactive panels for your school?
At Smart Lifestyle, we can help you compare interactive display sizes, built-in software, computer connectivity and practical classroom requirements — whether you’re equipping one classroom, a lecture hall or several school buildings.
Explore our interactive panel range or contact Smart Lifestyle for advice or a quotation.
Independent research and further reading
- Al Halaibi & Thurston (2022) — The Effects of IWB Use on Mathematical Attainment: An Evidence Synthesis of the Literature. Direct interactive-whiteboard evidence; positive average effect on maths attainment.
- Shi et al. (2021) — Effects of Interactive Whiteboard-Based Instruction on Students’ Cognitive Learning Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis. Direct interactive-whiteboard evidence; 23 studies, positive average cognitive outcomes.
- Mihai (2020) — The use of interactive whiteboards in urban Gauteng classrooms. South African classroom experience; teacher-reported benefits and implementation issues, not a test of exam-score gains.
- Jurado-Castro et al. (2023) — Effectiveness of real-time classroom interactive competition on academic performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Broader interactive-teaching research; not panel-specific.
- Freeman et al. (2014) — Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Higher-education active-learning evidence; not panel-specific.
- Schoenherr, Strohmaier & Schukajlow (2024) — Learning with visualizations helps: A meta-analysis of visualization interventions in mathematics education. Broader visual-learning evidence; digital visuals did not outperform non-digital ones.
- Education Endowment Foundation (2019) — Using Digital Technology to Improve Learning. Evidence-informed implementation guidance, including an interactive-whiteboard case study without clear attainment gains.
- Education Endowment Foundation (2025) — Harnessing the potential of EdTech: a new review. Review drawing on 189 studies of education-technology interventions.
- UNESCO (2023) — Global Education Monitoring Report: Technology in Education. Independent international synthesis of benefits, risks and evidence limitations.
Research note: Many studies assessed earlier interactive whiteboards or wider digital teaching techniques, not the three modern flat panels featured here. Their findings help explain how interactive teaching can work; they should not be interpreted as brand-specific performance guarantees.
