## Key Ideas > [!abstract] Core Concepts > > - **See ALL Students Immediately**: Unlike any other participation method, shows every student's thinking instantly > - **The Pen Trilogy**: Test pens, lids on top when writing, lids back on when finished - essential for smooth operation > - **Hover Face-Down Protocol**: Students hold boards between chin and chest, face down until signal to show ## Definition **Mini-Whiteboards**: Individual student response boards that allow teachers to see responses from ALL students to ANY question type IMMEDIATELY, enabling reliable checking for understanding and strategic response selection. ## Connected To [[Participation]] | [[Check For Understanding]] | [[Cold-Call]] | [[Turn and Talk]] | [[Responsive Teaching]] | [[Culture of Error]] --- ## Why mini-whiteboards? Traditional classroom questioning suffers from unequal participation. Teachers give some students encouragement and praise whilst others are largely ignored (Brophy & Good, 1970), resulting in feedback from a small number of students. Mini-whiteboards allow teachers to see responses from all students, to any question type, immediately (Rosenshine, 2012). This universal visibility improves checking for understanding. Instead of inferring class understanding from confident volunteers, teachers can see whether 80% or 40% of students understand. All students know they may be called upon to share their response, which removes the option of mental disengagement. Introverted students gain equal opportunity to participate and receive recognition that might otherwise go only to vocal students. Teachers can select which answers to discuss based on what they observe across the class, addressing misconceptions directly. The technique supports other strategies such as [[Cold-Call]] and [[Turn and Talk]]. Teachers can move on quickly when understanding is secure or spend more time when students struggle. Studies show mini-whiteboards and similar response cards increase active student responding (Heward, 1994; Lambert et al., 2006), engagement (Narayan et al., 1990), and vocabulary acquisition (Cavanaugh et al., 1996), and support students with disabilities (Randolph, 2007). ## Setup and equipment Mini-whiteboards are simple tools, but equipment selection and management systems affect implementation success. ### Purchasing decisions Three features are essential when purchasing mini-whiteboards. Rigid boards prevent wobbling that distracts students with bendy boards. Blank boards on both sides provide more versatility than lined or squared boards. Different coloured boards enable visual contrast and organisation. Two upgrades help: A3 size boards give older students more space for working or bigger writing, and J-cloths instead of erasers are less likely to become projectiles and cheaper to replace. Three practical tips improve longevity. Keep lids from discarded pens to prevent working pens from drying out when students lose lids. Ensure pen compatibility, as incompatible pens make boards dirty and unusable. Train students not to press hard, making pens last longer. ### Storage and distribution systems Implementation requires decisions about storage location (individual folders versus shared boxes), distribution timing (as students enter versus when needed), distribution method (self-service versus designated distributors), inactive storage (where boards go when not in use), and end-of-lesson protocol (who collects and how to check equipment). One system uses folders containing board, pen, and cloth at stations between pairs of desks, with designated students distributing to their area in silence. ## Core routines ### The pen trilogy Three pen management steps help operation run smoothly. First, test pens immediately: "Test your pens now, silent hand up if not working". Second, keep lids on top when in use to prevent lids flying around and getting lost. Third, put lids back on when finished to reduce doodling temptation. ### Getting started routine Front-load the process by stating "We will answer this next question on our mini-whiteboards", then "Get your boards and pens ready now", then ask the question: "What is 0.4 - 0.03?" ### During use protocol Students must write big enough to see from across the room. Show examples and non-examples of appropriate size, stating "If I can't see it from here, it's too small" and modelling what "big enough" looks like. When finished writing, students hover boards between chin and chest, face down. This shows who has finished, prevents copying from fast finishers, and gives a visual indicator for timing. Students show boards on signal, not before - "Show me your boards in 3, 2, 1..." This prevents copying cascade, ensures all responses are seen simultaneously, and maintains control of information flow. Establish clear expectations for uncertainty. Students who don't know the answer write a question mark rather than leaving the board blank, distinguishing lack of understanding from lack of effort: "If you don't know, write a question mark". Everyone must show their board, even if blank, helping identify non-engagement versus confusion: "Everyone shows their board, even if blank". ### After showing Students must not rub out immediately. Give this instruction in advance: "When I ask you to lower boards, don't rub out yet". This allows for board collection, [[Turn and Talk]], or corrections. Check understanding by asking "What do I NOT want you to do when you lower boards?... Tom?" ## Checking for understanding techniques ### Basic techniques Standardise response format by specifying exactly how you want work set out: "Method on left, answer circled on right" or "Show all three steps clearly". Model the expected format. Control information flow through three techniques. Back-to-front showing makes all rows easier to see. Filtering by answer - "Lower your board if you got 42" - enables quick sorting. Row-by-row checking - "Back row first, then middle, then front" - ensures systematic checking. Use both sides of the board. Students work on one side and write the final answer on the other, allowing quick checking of final answers before examining working if needed: "Working on side A, final answer only on side B". ### Advanced techniques Step-by-step assessment works better than requesting complete multi-step solutions. Ask "Show me just the first step", check, correct, and confirm, then "Now show me the second step". This allows precise diagnosis of where students struggle. Confidence scoring adds diagnostic information. Students add a number 0-10 in the corner showing their confidence level. This helps decide which students to call upon: high confidence with wrong answers indicates misconceptions to address, low confidence with right answers provides opportunities to boost confidence, and no response signals checking effort versus understanding. Check one answer at a time. Resist the temptation to check multiple answers at once - errors get missed if boards are too busy. Multiple quick checks work better than single complex ones. Pay attention to key students. If lower attainers are correct, everyone probably is. If higher attainers are struggling, everyone probably is. Previously struggling students reveal whether they now understand. ### The tick trick After students solve multi-step problems, go through the solution step by step whilst students tick each line that matches exactly what you want. Ask "Count your ticks - who got all 5? Who missed one?" This helps students self-diagnose. ## Book-to-board strategies Five strategies extract key information from students' book work without full book collection. During circulation, ask students to copy their final answer for each question onto their board and leave it visible on the desk. Quick comparison as you circulate identifies discrepancies. Investigate books only when you spot differences. For "Do Now" assessment, students complete work in books, then copy answers to their boards one question at a time. Say "Copy your answer to Question 1 onto your board", see all responses, respond appropriately, and repeat for each question. Quick checks during practice require stopping the class after a few minutes and asking "Show me your answer to Question 3". The responses inform whether to continue, support a small group, or address the whole class. Critical question focus works before self-assessment. Pick one or two key questions from the exercise and say "Before we mark, show me your answer to Question 7". Focus on questions identified as crucial or where students struggled. Step-by-step extraction diagnoses working method. Ask "Show me your first step for Question 4", check and confirm, then "Now show me your second step". ## Show call - using student work Show call involves borrowing student boards to display their work to the class. Four types of work are useful for show call. Perfect working models excellent presentation: "Look at how clearly Sarah set this out". Common misconceptions create learning opportunities: "This is a mistake I see often". Different correct methods enable comparison of efficiency: "Three different ways to solve this". Critical errors within correct methods show thinking process: "Right method, small error". Do not show call completely wrong work with no value for learning or work that would humiliate the student. Discussion prompts include "What do you notice about how Sarah set out her work?", "Compare these three methods - which is most efficient?" and "What would you tell this student to help them?" ## Managing challenges ### Preventing copying Four strategies prevent copying. Hovering face-down until the signal is given prevents copying cascade. Clear messaging - "I need to know what YOU know" - emphasises individual thinking. Stating "These aren't being marked" removes pressure. A [[Culture of Error]] makes it safe to be wrong. ### Maintaining standards Do not let routines decay through the lesson. Address non-compliance immediately: "I can see 5 people haven't shown boards yet". Praise good participation: "Excellent hovering, Table 3". Re-teach when necessary - if routines break down, stop and practise. ### Responses to objections The objection "Not enough evidence in books" misunderstands the purpose. Few students review their exercise books. Ofsted does not require written evidence if consistent checking for understanding is observed. Copying things down is overrated (Kiewra et al., 1991). The focus should be on learning, not appearance of work. The concern "Takes too much time" overlooks efficiency gains. Routines become automatic with practice (Ericsson & Kintsch, 1995). Time invested in setup improves understanding. Mini-whiteboards are more efficient than individual questioning (Rosenshine, 2012). Worry about "Behaviour management issues" reduces with preparation. Start with classes where you have good relationships. Establish routines gradually. Set clear expectations and enforce them consistently. Students engage more when they cannot hide (Heward, 1994). ## When not to use mini-whiteboards Three task types are unsuitable for mini-whiteboards. Equipment-required tasks such as compass or protractor work need tools that boards cannot accommodate - use peer checking instead, with students swapping work and marking with tick or question mark. Extended explanations with multiple sentences and diagrams are too complex for the format - follow up with [[Turn and Talk]] discussion. Detailed working exceeds the small board space - use show call under visualiser for this work. ## Integration with other strategies ### With cold-call Use mini-whiteboards before [[Cold-Call]] to see all responses. Selection based on observation enables targeted questioning: "I can see three different answers, let me ask..." ### With turn and talk Students write answers first, then discuss. Place boards between partners during discussion for annotation and shared reference. Students can swap and annotate each other's work. ### With responsive teaching Mini-whiteboards provide instant data for the three-scenario framework in [[Responsive Teaching]]. Teachers see the percentage correct immediately, make responses visible for discussion, and guide next teaching decisions based on evidence. ### With warm call Mini-whiteboards provide preview information. Teachers see who has correct or incorrect answers, choose who to call on, and can build confidence or address misconceptions. ## Implementation strategy ### Starting out Implementation follows a four-week progression. In week one, begin with non-academic content such as favourite foods to establish routine. Expect initial struggle, as routines take weeks to establish. Practice repeatedly. Constant reinforcement is needed until routines become automatic. Week two introduces academic integration. Start with simple academic questions. Focus on routine compliance over content complexity. Address non-compliance immediately. Week three adds advanced techniques. Introduce step-by-step assessment. Use mini-whiteboards for response selection. Integrate with other participation strategies. By week four, use mini-whiteboards throughout different lesson phases. Students self-monitor routine execution. The focus shifts to learning rather than procedure. ### Building the habit Start small with one class and simple questions. Praise good participation and presentation. Be patient - initial inefficiency leads to long-term gains. Stay consistent and do not abandon the approach when it feels difficult. ### Department implementation A department mini-whiteboard policy can cover equipment specifications and storage, core routines and language, response formats for different subjects, and behaviour expectations. Example department rules include: when using whiteboards, we are silent; we do not doodle; when we finish writing, we hover face down; we show our boards after 3, 2, 1. Turn these into call and response statements for reinforcement. ## Troubleshooting common issues ### Low participation Check whether a [[Culture of Error]] is established (Kapur, 2008). Ensure adequate wait time before showing (Rowe, 1986). Start with easier questions (Rosenshine, 2012). Address individual non-compliance directly. ### Copying concerns Reinforce the hovering protocol. Emphasise learning over being right. Use different coloured boards for struggling students. Adjust physical classroom setup to reduce sight lines. ### Routine breakdown Stop and re-teach expectations. Practise with non-academic content. Check consistency across all uses. Do not let standards slip mid-lesson. ### Time concerns Initial investment has long-term benefits. Focus on efficiency of established routines (Ericsson & Kintsch, 1995). Compare time spent establishing routines to time lost through poor understanding (Black & Wiliam, 2009). Track improvement in engagement and learning. ## References Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. *Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability*, 21(1), 5-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5 Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1970). Teachers' communication of differential expectations for children's classroom performance: Some behavioral data. *Journal of Educational Psychology*, 61(5), 365-374. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029908 Cavanaugh, R. A., Heward, W. L., & Donelson, F. (1996). Effects of response cards during lesson closure on the academic performance of secondary students in an earth science course. *Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis*, 29(3), 403-406. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1996.29-403 Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. *Psychological Review*, 102(2), 211-245. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.211 Heward, W. L. (1994). Three low-tech strategies for increasing the frequency of active student response during group instruction. In R. Gardner III et al. (Eds.), *Behavior analysis in education: Focus on measurably superior instruction* (pp. 283-320). Brooks/Cole. Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. *Cognition and Instruction*, 26(3), 379-424. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000802212669 Kiewra, K. A., DuBois, N. F., Christian, D., McShane, A., Meyerhoffer, M., & Roskelley, D. (1991). Note-taking functions and techniques. *Journal of Educational Psychology*, 83(2), 240-245. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.83.2.240 Lambert, M. C., Cartledge, G., Heward, W. L., & Lo, Y. (2006). Effects of response cards on disruptive behavior and academic responding during math lessons by fourth-grade urban students. *Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions*, 8(2), 88-99. https://doi.org/10.1177/10983007060080020701 Narayan, J. S., Heward, W. L., Gardner, R., Courson, F. H., & Omness, C. K. (1990). Using response cards to increase student participation in an elementary classroom. *Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis*, 23(4), 483-490. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1990.23-483 Randolph, J. J. (2007). Meta-analysis of the research on response cards: Effects on test achievement, quiz achievement, participation, and off-task behavior. *Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions*, 9(2), 113-128. https://doi.org/10.1177/10983007070090020201 Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know. *American Educator*, 36(1), 12-19. Rowe, M. B. (1986). Wait time: Slowing down may be a way of speeding up! *Journal of Teacher Education*, 37(1), 43-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248718603700110