Multiple Display Boards/Screens¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 4 claims (4 for) · 13 studies (8 causal, 3 quant-synthesis, 2 review), q2–q4 · 3 of 13 report an effect size

Description¶

Multiple Display Boards/Screens is a strategy in which a learning space is equipped with several simultaneous display surfaces — whiteboards, writable walls, projectors, or networked screens — so that instructional content, group work products, and shared artifacts can all be visible at once. Screens may be mirrored (one source to many displays), split (many sources side by side), or dedicated to distinct functions (one for instruction, one for group work in progress). The goal is to make thinking and work publicly visible and to reduce the bottleneck of a single shared display.

Design Implications¶

Multiple displays support learning primarily by making collaboration and work-in-progress visible to the whole group, enabling comparison, feedback, and shared attention [~M]. They also allow instructors to manage cognitive load by separating persistent reference material (kept on one board) from transient content (on another), reducing the need for learners to hold information in working memory while it is erased or scrolled away Chunking reduces working memory load. [+M]. However, additional displays add visual competition; content that is decorative or unattended does not improve learning and can fragment attention Decorative illustrations do not improve learning. [+S].

Context¶

Requirements¶

• At least two display surfaces with distinct, purposeful roles (e.g., reference vs. working surface)
• Mirroring or screen-sharing software when displays are digital (e.g., AirPlay/Reflector, AirServer, SMART Board multi-board mode)
• A deliberate plan for what appears on each surface; displays without assigned functions become noise
• Line-of-sight and legibility checks from all learner positions

Constraints¶

• Cost and setup burden: hardware, mounting, and syncing software require investment and technical fluency [-W]
• Splitting attention across competing displays can degrade learning when learners must integrate spatially separated information themselves [~S] — the split-attention effect means multiple sources are only beneficial when integration is handled by design, not left to the learner
• Mirroring a single small screen (e.g., an iPad) enlarges visibility but does not by itself improve learning; the pedagogical use of the display drives outcomes [~W]
• More simultaneous content streams increase extraneous load for novices, who lack the prior knowledge to filter irrelevant displays Cognitive overload degrades learning. [+S]

Implementation Variability¶

• Writable surfaces (smart wall paint, whiteboard walls): low-cost, supports Annotating and group ideation in parallel
• Mirrored student devices: any student's work can become the focal display for Whole-Class Discussion or critique
• Split-function boards: one persistent board for goals/references, one dynamic board for live instruction, side displays for group work products
• Conjoined multi-screen walls (e.g., SMART Board multi-board): seamless large canvas for data visualization and shared manipulation

Target Learners¶

• Whole-class settings in K–12 through higher education and professional training; benefits scale with group size, since a single display becomes a bottleneck as groups grow [~M]
• Collaborative groups whose work products benefit from public comparison and critique
• Use caution with novice learners: multiple simultaneous information streams demand more filtering capacity than novices have Cognitive overload degrades learning. [+S]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Collaborative knowledge building: making group reasoning visible for peer feedback
• Conceptual comparison: juxtaposing multiple solutions or cases side by side Cognitive flexibility theory benefits from multiple cases and representations. [+M]
• Procedural modeling: keeping reference steps visible while learners practice (Demonstration)

Instructions¶

1. Assign each display a distinct, stable function (e.g., Board A: learning goals and reference material; Board B: live instruction; side screens: group work).
2. Open the session by establishing the reference display, so persistent information stays available without repetition Clear structure supports learning. [+M].
3. During group work, have groups produce their work on writable surfaces or mirrored devices so products are publicly comparable.
4. Use side displays to juxtapose group products for structured comparison and critique, supporting Collaborative Learning.
5. Close by consolidating: capture or photograph board content and transfer key artifacts to a shared digital space, since ephemeral board work is lost otherwise.

Related Strategies¶

• Think-Pair-Share — group products from pair discussion can be surfaced on side displays for whole-class comparison
• Gallery Walk — multiple writable surfaces are the physical infrastructure that makes a gallery walk possible
• Jigsaw — separate displays let expert groups work simultaneously before reconvening

Examples¶

• Writable walls via smart wall paint (e.g., Ideapaint): elementary classrooms turn walls and tables into dry-erase surfaces so multiple student groups work in parallel and the teacher can see all group reasoning at a glance.
• SMART Board multi-board mode (https://www.smarttech.com): conjoined screens create a seamless canvas for collaborative data visualization and shared annotation in professional and higher-education settings.
• iPad mirroring with Reflector/AirServer (https://www.airsquirrels.com/reflector): students' devices are projected in turn, so any learner's solution becomes the class focal point for discussion and error analysis.
• Split-function lecture rooms (e.g., MIT TEAL-style technology-enabled active learning classrooms): multiple projected screens surround collaborative tables so instruction, data, and group work are simultaneously visible.

Key Sources¶

• Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia Learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511811678
• Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-Learning and the Science of Instruction (4th ed.). Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781119239086
• Rogers, Y., & Lindley, S. (2004). Collaborating around vertical and horizontal large interactive displays: Which way is best? Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1133–1136. doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2004.07.008
• Dillenbourg, P., & Evans, M. (2011). Interactive tabletops in education. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(4), 491–514. doi:10.1007/s11412-011-9127-7