# Interactive whiteboard
An interactive whiteboard (IWB) is a large touch-sensitive display surface connected to a computer and a projector, on which the computer's desktop is projected and users control applications and write digital notes directly with a finger, pen, or stylus[1](https://education.umd.edu/interactive-whiteboard-smartboard). The board itself is typically mounted on a wall or floor stand, and everything written or touched on it can be saved, printed, or shared[1](https://education.umd.edu/interactive-whiteboard-smartboard). The category was created by SMART Technologies, which introduced the first commercial interactive whiteboard in 1991[2](https://downloads.smarttech.com/media/sitecore/en/pdf/smart_publications/articlesfromtheceo/2008/2008_one_million_smart_board_interactive_whiteboards_nov27a.pdf).
| Key fact | Detail |
|---|---|
| Definition | Touch-sensitive board connected to a computer and projector; users control the computer from the board's surface with a pen, finger, or stylus[1](https://education.umd.edu/interactive-whiteboard-smartboard) |
| First product | SMART Technologies introduced the first commercial interactive whiteboard in 1991; the concept began in 1986 as a whiteboard that connected to and controlled a computer[2](https://downloads.smarttech.com/media/sitecore/en/pdf/smart_publications/articlesfromtheceo/2008/2008_one_million_smart_board_interactive_whiteboards_nov27a.pdf) |
| Touch sensing | Usually infrared scanning and/or a resistive touch-based surface, displayed via a projector[3](https://go.smarttech.com/hubfs/FY24%20Education%20Interactive%20Display%20Buyers%20Guide%20-%20SMART%20Technologies.pdf?_hsmi=96349212) |
| Scale of adoption | SMART shipped its one millionth board on August 12, 2008, with a 57.4% global market share in Q3 2008, and over 1.6 million boards shipped by 2010[2](https://downloads.smarttech.com/media/sitecore/en/pdf/smart_publications/articlesfromtheceo/2008/2008_one_million_smart_board_interactive_whiteboards_nov27a.pdf) • [4](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1489147/000119312510145745/df1.htm) |
| File standard | The 1EdTech (formerly IMS Global) Interactive Whiteboard Common File Format (IWB/CFF) v1.0, finalized 1 February 2012, defines the .iwb lesson package for exchange between whiteboard applications[5](https://www.imsglobal.org/IWBCFF/iwbcffv1p0/imsIWBspecv1p0.html) |
| Learning impact | A 2021 meta-analysis of 23 peer-reviewed studies found IWB-based instruction positively influenced students' cognitive learning outcomes versus traditional lecture-based instruction[6](https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1292440) |
| Main successor | Interactive flat panels (IFPs), self-contained 55–110 inch 4K LCD touchscreens with built-in Android or slot-in Windows (OPS) computing, have largely displaced projector-based IWBs in new installations[7](https://smart-boards.com/blogs/news/smart-board-vs-interactive-whiteboard-which-does-your-organisation-need) |
## How it works
A conventional IWB system has three parts: a touch-sensitive whiteboard panel, a projector (often ultra short throw, mounted above the board), and an external computer[8](https://dreamsourcegroup.com/a/337.html). The projector casts the computer's display onto the board, and the board's sensing layer registers where a finger or pen touches the surface, translating that position into mouse clicks, drags, or digital ink[1](https://education.umd.edu/interactive-whiteboard-smartboard). [Touch sensing](https://www.edgepedia.org/touch-sensing) is usually done by infrared scanning or a resistive surface; resistive technology is pressure-based and stable, and early SMART boards required no special tools to operate[3](https://go.smarttech.com/hubfs/FY24%20Education%20Interactive%20Display%20Buyers%20Guide%20-%20SMART%20Technologies.pdf?_hsmi=96349212) • [2](https://downloads.smarttech.com/media/sitecore/en/pdf/smart_publications/articlesfromtheceo/2008/2008_one_million_smart_board_interactive_whiteboards_nov27a.pdf).
The board itself does not illuminate; it acts only as a projection screen and sensing surface[8](https://dreamsourcegroup.com/a/337.html). This makes image quality dependent on classroom lighting, and projector-based systems suffer from shadows, hot spots, and reduced performance in bright light[3](https://go.smarttech.com/hubfs/FY24%20Education%20Interactive%20Display%20Buyers%20Guide%20-%20SMART%20Technologies.pdf?_hsmi=96349212). Installation also constrains placement: the board must face the projector, and improper alignment or a surface that is not flat significantly degrades touch tracking[3](https://go.smarttech.com/hubfs/FY24%20Education%20Interactive%20Display%20Buyers%20Guide%20-%20SMART%20Technologies.pdf?_hsmi=96349212) • [9](https://channels.boxlight.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/AGuideToWholeClassLearningSolutions.pdf).
## History and adoption
**Origins at SMART.** The concept began in 1986 as an idea for a whiteboard that connected to and controlled a computer; the product went through numerous hardware and software development cycles before the first commercial interactive whiteboard shipped in 1991[2](https://downloads.smarttech.com/media/sitecore/en/pdf/smart_publications/articlesfromtheceo/2008/2008_one_million_smart_board_interactive_whiteboards_nov27a.pdf). SMART co-founder David Martin is credited as the inventor of the product category[2](https://downloads.smarttech.com/media/sitecore/en/pdf/smart_publications/articlesfromtheceo/2008/2008_one_million_smart_board_interactive_whiteboards_nov27a.pdf).
**Growth through the 2000s.** The technology matured through the 2000s and became common in education, with the United States and UK the two countries with the largest numbers of interactive whiteboards in classrooms[2](https://downloads.smarttech.com/media/sitecore/en/pdf/smart_publications/articlesfromtheceo/2008/2008_one_million_smart_board_interactive_whiteboards_nov27a.pdf) • [7](https://smart-boards.com/blogs/news/smart-board-vs-interactive-whiteboard-which-does-your-organisation-need). On August 12, 2008, SMART built and shipped its one millionth board; in Q3 2008 it held a 57.4% global share of the category, almost three times its closest competitor, and shipped more than 100,000 boards in that quarter alone[2](https://downloads.smarttech.com/media/sitecore/en/pdf/smart_publications/articlesfromtheceo/2008/2008_one_million_smart_board_interactive_whiteboards_nov27a.pdf). By the time of its 2010 securities filing, SMART reported over 1.6 million SMART Board interactive whiteboards shipped worldwide[4](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1489147/000119312510145745/df1.htm). The brand became so identified with the category that "smartboard" is often used generically for any interactive whiteboard[10](https://www.avnetwork.com/news/why-smartboards-are-smart-thinking).
## The Common File Format
Lesson content created in one vendor's whiteboard software was long locked to that platform. The Interactive Whiteboard/Common File Format (IWB/CFF), first developed under the UK agency Becta and finalized as version 1.0 by 1EdTech (then IMS Global Learning Consortium) on 1 February 2012, defines an open package so teaching content can be exchanged between establishments and applications[5](https://www.imsglobal.org/IWBCFF/iwbcffv1p0/imsIWBspecv1p0.html) • [11](https://sourceforge.net/projects/iwbcff/files/techspec_whiteboard_common_file_format_v1_1_1.pdf/download).
An .iwb file is a zip archive containing a required content.xml file that describes the document, plus optional folders for images, videos, audio, flash, thumbnails, and additional files[5](https://www.imsglobal.org/IWBCFF/iwbcffv1p0/imsIWBspecv1p0.html). Content is represented largely in a simplified subset of SVG, with IWB-specific tags for properties such as locked elements and backgrounds[5](https://www.imsglobal.org/IWBCFF/iwbcffv1p0/imsIWBspecv1p0.html). Applications including SMART Notebook, Promethean ActivInspire, BenQ EZWrite, and Mimio Studio support the format, though advanced platform-specific features are stripped when a file is exported to IWB[12](https://www.file-extension.info/format/iwb).
## Educational effectiveness
Research on whether IWBs improve learning has been mixed. In a systematic review of sixteen studies, A. Kyriakou and Steven Higgins, Emeritus Professor of Education at [Durham University](https://www.edgepedia.org/durham-university), found that IWBs had failed to lift pupils' achievement and did not always improve the quality of learning in classrooms[13](https://durham-repository.worktribe.com/output/1370084/systematic-review-of-the-studies-examining-the-impact-of-the-interactive-whiteboard-on-teaching-and-learning-what-we-do-learn-and-what-we-do-not). An earlier review cited in the literature found that while students and teachers were positive about IWB use, no evidence could be provided for a positive effect on learning[14](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103833).
A 2021 meta-analysis reached a more favorable conclusion. Shi, Zhang, Yang, and Yang identified 23 high-quality peer-reviewed studies and found that IWB-based instruction positively influenced students' cognitive learning outcomes compared with traditional lecture-based instruction; moderator analysis showed the pedagogical approach and year of publication significantly moderated effectiveness, and the instruction was most effective when instructors applied an independent learning approach[6](https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1292440).
Practice studies point to a consistent condition for value: teachers often fail to use the interactive functions and treat the board as a normal whiteboard or presentation tool[14](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103833). A study of a NATE/Becta training program for Secondary English teachers found all participating teachers benefited, but schools provided insufficient support for developing fully confident practice[15](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1754-8845.2008.00022.x).
## Interactive whiteboards versus interactive flat panels
The projector-based IWB now competes with the interactive flat panel (IFP), an all-in-one unit integrating an LCD display, touch frame, and built-in Android operating system, with an optional slot-in Windows PC (OPS module)[8](https://dreamsourcegroup.com/a/337.html) • [7](https://smart-boards.com/blogs/news/smart-board-vs-interactive-whiteboard-which-does-your-organisation-need). IFPs are typically 55 to 110 inches, support 20 to 50 touch points, and output 4K resolution with a self-illuminated backlight, so no projector is required[7](https://smart-boards.com/blogs/news/smart-board-vs-interactive-whiteboard-which-does-your-organisation-need) • [8](https://dreamsourcegroup.com/a/337.html).
The comparison turns on cost structure and operating conditions. A projector-based IWB has a lower initial purchase price, but lamp projector bulbs need replacing every 3,000 to 5,000 hours (eco-mode) and energy usage is almost 4 times higher than an interactive display; SMART's buyer guide puts the 10-year total cost of ownership at $8,219 for an interactive whiteboard plus projector versus $4,449 for an interactive display[3](https://go.smarttech.com/hubfs/FY24%20Education%20Interactive%20Display%20Buyers%20Guide%20-%20SMART%20Technologies.pdf?_hsmi=96349212). A backlit touchscreen can last up to 50,000 hours, and IFPs can be wall-mounted or placed on a mobile stand rather than fixed facing a projector[3](https://go.smarttech.com/hubfs/FY24%20Education%20Interactive%20Display%20Buyers%20Guide%20-%20SMART%20Technologies.pdf?_hsmi=96349212). Projector-based systems retain advantages of their own: an interactive projector can create a collaborative touch area as large as 115 inches, beyond the size of most flat panels, at a comparable budget[9](https://channels.boxlight.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/AGuideToWholeClassLearningSolutions.pdf).
Recent school modernization projects have largely deployed interactive panels as the standard classroom technology, and the technology remains common in education projects where projector infrastructure is already installed[7](https://smart-boards.com/blogs/news/smart-board-vs-interactive-whiteboard-which-does-your-organisation-need).
## References
1. [Interactive Whiteboard: Smartboard, University of Maryland College of Education](https://education.umd.edu/interactive-whiteboard-smartboard)
2. [Nancy Knowlton (2008). 1,000,000 SMART Board Interactive Whiteboards. SMART Technologies.](https://downloads.smarttech.com/media/sitecore/en/pdf/smart_publications/articlesfromtheceo/2008/2008_one_million_smart_board_interactive_whiteboards_nov27a.pdf)
3. [SMART Technologies, FY24 Education Interactive Display Buyers Guide](https://go.smarttech.com/hubfs/FY24%20Education%20Interactive%20Display%20Buyers%20Guide%20-%20SMART%20Technologies.pdf?_hsmi=96349212)
4. [SMART Technologies Form 10 filing, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (2010)](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1489147/000119312510145745/df1.htm)
5. [1EdTech GLC IWB/CFF Specification Version 1.0 Final (1 February 2012)](https://www.imsglobal.org/IWBCFF/iwbcffv1p0/imsIWBspecv1p0.html)
6. [Shi, Y., Zhang, J., Yang, H., Yang, H. (2021). Effects of Interactive Whiteboard-Based Instruction on Students' Cognitive Learning Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis. Interactive Learning Environments 29(2), 283–300.](https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1292440)
7. [Smart Board vs Interactive Whiteboard: 2026 Buyer's Comparison, Smart-Boards.com](https://smart-boards.com/blogs/news/smart-board-vs-interactive-whiteboard-which-does-your-organisation-need)
8. [Are interactive whiteboards and interactive flat panels the same product? Dreamsource Technology Group](https://dreamsourcegroup.com/a/337.html)
9. [Which Interactive Solution Is Right for My School? Boxlight guide](https://channels.boxlight.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/AGuideToWholeClassLearningSolutions.pdf)
10. [Why Smartboards Are Smart Thinking, AVNetwork](https://www.avnetwork.com/news/why-smartboards-are-smart-thinking)
11. [Becta Common File Format for Interactive Whiteboards technical specification v1.1.1, SourceForge](https://sourceforge.net/projects/iwbcff/files/techspec_whiteboard_common_file_format_v1_1_1.pdf/download)
12. [IWB File Format, File-Extension.info](https://www.file-extension.info/format/iwb)
13. [Kyriakou, A., Higgins, S. Systematic Review of the Studies Examining the Impact of the Interactive Whiteboard on Teaching and Learning, Durham University](https://durham-repository.worktribe.com/output/1370084/systematic-review-of-the-studies-examining-the-impact-of-the-interactive-whiteboard-on-teaching-and-learning-what-we-do-learn-and-what-we-do-not)
14. [Formative assessment with interactive whiteboards: A one-year longitudinal study of primary students' mathematical performance, Computers & Education (2020)](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103833)
15. [Smith, L. (2008). An investigation into the effect of a NATE/BECTA training programme on the use of interactive whiteboards in teaching and learning in Secondary English. English in Education 42(3), 269–282.](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1754-8845.2008.00022.x)
---
*Topic: Encyclopedia › Technology and the built world › Computing and digital systems › Computer hardware › Boards, peripherals & form factors › Peripherals & expansion hardware › Input devices*
*Initially written Sep 17, 2026 · Reviewed: Sep 17, 2026; Oct 15, 2026 · Edited: Oct 15, 2026 · Last review: Oct 15, 2026*
*Copyright 2026 EdgeChat AI, a subsidiary of Biostate AI.*
License: Edgepedia Community License 1.0, https://www.edgepedia.org/edgepedia/license