The Smartboard in Chemistry Classrooms: What is Its Effect on Chemistry Teaching and Learning in Selected Topics in Grade 11?


  • Abdou L. J. Jammeh
  • Claude Karegeya
  • Savita Ladage


academic achievement; chemistry teaching and learning; smartboard learning


The study aimed to investigate the effect of using the smartboard on teaching and learning acid-base reactions by applying qualitative and quantitative calculations. The effect of the smartboard on knowledge retention of the concept application was examined and compared to traditional teaching methods. A quasi-experimental design with experimental and control groups using the pretest and posttest design was adapted for the study. A convenient sampling technique was used to select 284 Grade 11 students from an urban region of The Gambia. We prepared an achievement test with 15 questions to collect data. While the experimental group studied the topics using the smartboard, the control group studied using traditional teaching methods. The achievement test was prepared to measure the groups’ differences in knowledge retention and application. The same test was applied to compare the pretest and posttest to measure group differences. The independent t test results showed a significant difference (= .000) between the experimental group (M = 34.30, SD = 18.971) and the control group (M = 28.01, SD = 13.853). Furthermore, the results of the knowledge-retention rate were higher among the experimental group participants (M = 29.23, SD = 14.232) than in the control group (M = 26.72, SD = 12.673). This leads to the conclusion that using the smartboard provides an educative contribution to technology integration in the classroom, especially innovation in teaching and learning.


Akar, H. (2020). SMART board uses on academic achievement: A meta-analytical and thematic study. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology (IJEMST), 8(3) 261–273.

Aktas, S., & Aydin, A. (2016). The effect of the smartboard usage in science and technology lessons. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 125–138.

Akyol, S., & Fer, S. (2010). Effects of social constructivist learning environment design on 5th Grade learners’ learning. Social and Behavioral Sciences. 3(9), 948–953.

Aldalalah, O. M. (2021). The effectiveness of infographic via interactive smart board on enhancing creative thinking: A cognitive load perspective. International Journal of Instruction., 4(1), 345–364.

Aldosari, S. S., Ghita, B., & Marocco, D. (2022). The gestured-based educational system integrates simulation and molecular visualization to teach chemistry. International Journal of Emerging Technology, 17(4), 192–211.

Bayram-Jacobs, D., Wieske, G., & Henze, I. (2019). A chemistry lesson for citizenship: Students use different perspectives in decision-making about using and selling laughing gas. Education Science, 9(2), 2–16. https://doi:10.3390/educsci9020100

Blonder, R., & Mamlok-Naama, R. (2019). Factors affecting chemistry study in different countries around the world: Findings from an international survey. Israel Journal of Chemistry, 59(6-7), 625–634.

Cutrim, E. S. (2008). Using a voting system in conjunction with interactive whiteboard technology to enhance learning in the English language classroom. Computer and Education, 50(1), 338–356.

Davidovitch, N., & Yavich, R. (2017). The effects of smart board on the cognition and motivation of students. Higher Education Studies, 7(1), 60–68.

Dugard, P., & Todman, J. (1995). Analysis of pre-test-post-test control group design in educational research. Educational Psychology, 15(2), 181–198.

Goodman, R., Satterfield, R., & Waldech, R. (2013). Report on the April 2013 New Jersey Centre for Teaching and Learning (NJCTL) training mission to The Gambia.

Graham, R. D. (2013). Smart clickers in the classroom: Technolust or the potential to engage students. Canadian Journal of Action Research, 14(1), 3–20.

Hanover Independent Research (HIR). (2016). 2015 Gambia program evaluation (WASSCE outcomes). Prepared for New Jersey Centre for Teaching and Learning.

Hanover Research. (2014). Progressive math and science initiatives in The Gambia: Program evaluation. Prepared for the Centre for Teaching and Learning.

Hennessy, S., Deaney, R., & Tooley, C. (2010). Using the interactive whiteboard to stimulate active learning in school science. In M. Thomas, & E. Cutrim Schmid (Eds.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (pp. 102–117). IGI Global.

Higgins, S. (2010). The impact of an interactive whiteboard on classroom interaction and learning in primary schools in the United Kingdom: Interactive whiteboards for education. In In M. Thomas, & E. Cutrim Schmid (Eds.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (pp. 86–101). IGI Global.

Hinton, P. R., McMurray, I., & Brownlow, C. (2004). SPSS explained. Routledge.

Igharo, K., Adjivon, A., & Oyelakin, O. (2011). Adapting the study of chemistry in senior secondary schools in The Gambia to cost-reducing strategies. African Journal for Chemical Education, 1(2), 13–18.

Jammeh A. L. J., Karegeya, C., & Ladage, S. (2022). Technological pedagogical content knowledge application and its challenges in smart classrooms, The Gambia. World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues (Accepted for publication).

Kafyulilo, A., Fisser, P., & Voogt, J. (2016). Factors affecting teachers’ continuation of technology use in teaching. Education Information Technology, 21, 1535?1554.,1007/s10639-015-9398-0

Kirbas, A. (2018). Student views on using smart boards in Turkish education. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 6(5), 1040–1049. http://doi:10.13189/ujer.2018.060525

Krajcik, J. S., & Mun, K. (2014). Promises and challenges of using learning technologies to promote student learning of science. In N. G. Lederman, & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (vol. II; pp. 351?374). Routledge.

Lopez, O. S. (2010). The digital learning classroom: Improving English language learners’ academic success in mathematics and reading using interactive whiteboard technology. Computer and Education, 54(4), 901?915.

Mehtela, K. (2021). Smart learning environments.

Mihindo, W. J., Wachanga S. W., & Anditi, Z. O. (2017). Effects of computer-based simulations teaching approach on students’ achievement in the learning of chemistry among secondary school students in Nakuru sub county, Kenya. [Masters Dissertation]. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(5) 65–75.

Ministries of BSE and HERST (Ministries of Basic Education and Higher Education Research Science and Technology). (2016). Education Sector Policy 2016–2030.

Moore, K. A. (2021). Considering the emotional needs of students in a computer based learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development 69, 63–66.

Moussa, P. B., Ousman, G., Solomon, O., Ryoko T., & Yanbin, X. (2020). Technology in the classroom and learning in secondary schools. Policy research working paper no. WPS9288. World Bank.

Phoong, S. Y., Phoong, S. W., Moghavvemi, S., & Sulaiman, A. (2019). Effect of smart classroom on student achievement in higher education. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 42(2), 291–304.

Republic of The Gambia. Department of State for Education. (2004). Education Policy 2004–2015.

Rosmansyah, Y., Putro, B. L., Putri, A., Utomo, N. B., & Suhardi. (2022). A simple model of smart learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments.

Ryoko, T., & Tanya, S. (n.d.). Improving education performance in math & science in The Gambia: An overview of progressive science initiative and progressive math initiative (PSI-PMI) and its implementation in The Gambia. World Bank Group.

Sorokoumova, E. A., Puchkova, E. B., Cherdymova, E. C. & Temnova, L. V. (2021). The risks and threats of digital educational technologies and products. World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues, 13(4), 852–863.

Tabor, J. W. (2021). Chaos: Exposing an engaging online model for rapid application during the pandemic. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69, 97–100.

Tall, M., Herscovitz, O., & Judy-Dori, Y. (2021). Assessing teachers’ knowledge: Incorporating context-based learning in chemistry. Chemistry Education and Practices, 22(4), 1003–1019.

Tekin, S., & Kolomuc, A. (2011). Chemistry teachers’ misconceptions concerning concept of chemical reaction rate. International Journal of Physics & Chemistry Education, 3(2), 84–101.

Tekin, Y. (2013). Investigate the effects of using the smart board in physics education on students’ achievements and attitudes towards physics. [Master’s thesis]. Van Yuzuncuyi University, Van, Turkey.

Tyagi, R., Jejurkar, S., Bhattacharya, S., & Tiwari, S. (2020, ). Impact of smart classroom learning environment on secondary school students and teachers [Conference proceedings]. International Conference on Contemporary Researches in Engineering, Science, Management & Arts.

Usak, M., Ozden, M., & Eilks, I. (2011). A case study of the beginning of science teachers’ subject matter knowledge (SMK) and pedagogical content knowledge of teaching chemical reactions in Turkey. European Journal of Teacher Education, 34(4), 407–429. https://doi.10.1080/02619768.2011.592977

West Africa Examination Council (WAEC). (2019). Chief Examiner’s Report on Regional Examinations results-WASSCE.

Zhu, Z., Sun, Y., & Riezebos, P. (2016). Introducing the smart education framework: Core elements for successful learning in a digital world. International Journal of Smart Technology and Learning, 1(1), 53–78.