If you have a colleague who uses mini-whiteboards, you know the passion that these simple tools inspire. According to the fervent accounts I read on Twitter and hear at conferences, MWBs increase student participation, reduce teacher stress, and cure most cases of bursitis. (I might have made up that last one.)
Up to now, I’ve seen pro-MWB arguments relying on two kinds of support:
- Experience. “When I switched to MWBs in my classroom, I immediately noticed changes X, Y, and Z.”
- Common sense: “If all my students answer a question, that’s clearly better than just one of them answering a question. The participation ratio improves to 100%!”
Today, for the first time, I came across a meta-analysis looking at research into the topic. Its conclusions – and limitations – make for helpful reading.
Here’s the story.
What They Asked, What They Found
This research team, led by Dr. Robbie Marsh, identified 29 studies – including just over 400 K-12 participants — exploring the use of MWBs. (Marsh’s team also included studies looking at pre-printed response cards.) They reviewed these studies to answer four questions.
Compared to classes where students raised hands to answer questions, did MWBs
- Improve class participation?
- Reduce off-task behavior?
- Raise scores on quizzes (small, teacher created assessments soon after instruction)?
- Raise scores on tests (more substantial assessments given after more time had passed)?
The highlights – which you can find in table 2 – suggest unambiguously good news for Team MWB. On average,
- Participation was almost 60% higher in the MWB class.
- Off-task behavior fell by more than 25% (or, on-task behavior rose by more than 25%)
- Quiz scores increased 18%
- Test scores increased almost 14%
Marsh and Co. checked to see if the results were the same in both general education and special education settings. The answer: basically yes. More precisely: students in special education settings saw higher academic gains. Those in general education classes saw more behavioral improvement.
If you’re a MWB enthusiast, this meta-analysis gives you many, many reasons to celebrate.
Before We Get Carried Away…
While this meta-analysis clearly supports the use of MWBs, I don’t think its findings require us all to adopt them in our own teaching. I’ve got two stats-y reasons, and one conceptual reason, to resist any such call.
First: You might have noticed that the 29 studies included 405 people. In other words, the average sample size in each study was 15. That’s TINY. We have many studies, but not many people in those studies.
Second: While the averages noted above are compelling, Marsh’s team found a wide range around those averages. In some cases, MWBs helped A LOT. In others, they didn’t make much difference. (Almost none of the studies found that MWBs reduced good outcomes.) We don’t have enough data to know why they helped a lot in some cases and only a little in others. Simply put: your mileage may vary.
(For the stats-minded, I’m commenting on “heterogeneity” here: the I2 clocks in at 98% to 99% on these four categories I’ve listed.)
Third: These statistical cautions aside, there’s a bigger pedagogical point worth keeping in view.
Marsh’s meta-analysis shows that students do better when they respond frequently during instruction. Calling on raised hands doesn’t get that job done.
Mini-whiteboards do — but not because they’re special. They work because they make it easy to get everyone responding, all at once. And they’re not the only way to do that. Turn-and-talks, cold calling, clickers, do-nows—all of these can increase the number of students thinking and responding during a lesson.
So the real lesson here isn’t “use mini-whiteboards.” It’s this:
Move away from hand-raising and toward routines that keep everyone responding.
Once teachers make that shift, MWBs are one good option among many — not the only answer.
Marsh, R. J., Cumming, T. M., Randolph, J. J., & Michaels, S. (2023). Updated meta-analysis of the research on response cards. Journal of Behavioral Education, 32(3), 450-473.
