Multiple Writing Surfaces¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 2 claims (1 for, 1 against) · 9 studies (5 causal, 3 quant-synthesis, 1 theoretical), q2–q4 · 3 of 9 report an effect size

Description¶

Multiple writing surfaces involve providing learners with a variety of spaces where they can write and express their ideas — walls, tables, windows, portable whiteboards, or adhesive dry-erase films. The strategy makes writing a public, movable, and shared activity rather than a private one confined to notebooks, supporting brainstorming, collaborative problem-solving, and visible thinking. Because work is externalized on shared surfaces, it can be compared, annotated, revised, and discussed by the whole group.

Design Implications¶

Writable surfaces enact Active Learning by converting learners from recipients to producers of visible work, and they support Collaborative Learning by giving groups a joint workspace where ideas can be simultaneously viewed and edited Active learning improves exam performance and reduces failure rates. [+S]. Their distinctive value is publicity: when thinking is written large, instructors can monitor understanding in real time and peers can critique and build on one another's ideas. Surfaces also lower the social cost of drafting — writing on a whiteboard feels provisional, which encourages risk-taking and revision.

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Writable surfaces (whiteboards, dry-erase paint, windows, adhesive films such as Post-it Dry Erase Surface) and appropriate tools (markers, erasers, magnets)
• Prompts or tasks structured so that surface writing serves a purpose — brainstorming, comparison, problem-solving — not just novelty (Annotating, Application)
• Norms and routines for use: who writes, when, and how shared work is discussed (Class Discussion)
• A follow-on step that harvests surface work — photographing, consolidating, or transferring ideas into durable artifacts

Constraints¶

• Without a structured task, surface writing becomes decorative activity; engagement does not guarantee learning Active learning improves exam performance and reduces failure rates. [~S] — the effect comes from the cognitive work, not the furniture
• Highly visual or cluttered wall displays can distract young learners and reduce attention to instruction Visual environment, attention allocation, and learning in young children. [-M] — surfaces near the teaching zone should be kept clear during direct instruction
• Group work on shared surfaces can allow unequal participation, with one writer dominating while others watch
• Handwritten surface work is ephemeral; ideas lost to erasing can undermine learners who need a record for review
• Cost and maintenance: dry-erase paint and films vary in durability; permanent-marker damage and ghosting are common failure modes

Implementation Variability¶

• Vertical non-permanent surfaces (VNPS) — groups of 2–3 standing at wall-mounted whiteboards, one marker per group, rotating roles; popularized by Peter Liljedahl's "Building Thinking Classrooms" work in mathematics
• Gallery configurations — groups write on separate surfaces, then rotate to read, question, and annotate peers' work
• Window and glass writing — low-cost adaptation using existing glass surfaces
• Digital hybrids — smart boards, document cameras, or apps (e.g., Jamboard successors, Padlet) that replicate shared-surface affordances for remote or blended settings

Target Learners¶

• K–12 learners, who benefit from the kinesthetic and spatial aspects of standing, moving, and large-motor writing
• Adolescents and adults in problem-based or discussion-heavy courses where visible group reasoning supports accountability
• Reluctant writers, for whom the provisional, low-stakes nature of whiteboard writing reduces apprehension
• Less suitable when learners need a permanent, searchable record of their work unless surfaces are photographed or transcribed

Target Learning Goals¶

• Collaborative problem-solving and group reasoning in mathematics and science
• Brainstorming, idea generation, and conceptual comparison across groups
• Formative assessment: making learner thinking visible for real-time instructor diagnosis (Assessment for Learning)

Instructions¶

1. Define the task and group the learners (2–3 per surface), assigning one marker per group to force shared authorship.
2. Position groups at distributed vertical surfaces so all work is visible across the room.
3. Launch the task with a prompt that requires externalized reasoning — a problem, a comparison, a diagram to build (Application).
4. Circulate to monitor, question, and give hints rather than confirm answers; use surface work as real-time formative assessment.
5. Orchestrate a consolidation phase: groups compare surfaces, annotate peers' work, and discuss differences (Class Discussion).
6. Preserve valuable work by photographing or transferring it into durable notes or portfolios (Practice).

Related Strategies¶

• Think-Pair-Share — surface writing extends the "share" phase into a public, inspectable artifact
• Gallery Walk — a structured rotation over multiple writing surfaces for peer review
• Jigsaw — surface work gives expert groups a shared space to prepare their segment
• Use prototyping tasks to help students unfamiliar with design-mode thinking share incomplete ideas

Examples¶

• Building Thinking Classrooms (Peter Liljedahl) — mathematics classrooms using vertical non-permanent surfaces with one marker per group; documented increases in persistence and engagement across hundreds of observed classrooms (Liljedahl's site).
• Dry-erase wall paint in elementary classrooms — schools applying products such as IdeaPaint or Postit Super Sticky Dry Erase Surface to walls and tables so students can write anywhere during group work.
• University active-learning classrooms — rooms such as those at the University of Minnesota's Active Learning Classrooms program pair round tables with multiple whiteboards so student teams draft and display work during class.

Key Sources¶

• Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. PNAS, 111(23), 8410–8415. doi:10.1073/pnas.1319030111
• Liljedahl, P. (2021). Building Thinking Classrooms in Mathematics, Grades K–12: 14 Teaching Practices for Enhancing Learning. Corwin.
• Fisher, A. V., Godwin, K. E., & Seltman, H. (2014). Visual environment, attention allocation, and learning in young children: When too much of a good thing may be bad. Psychological Science, 25(7), 1362–1370. doi:10.1177/0956797614533801
• Mueller, P. A., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard: Advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychological Science, 25(6), 1159–1168. doi:10.1177/0956797614524581