Are Interactive Displays Worth It?

I attended a classroom display expo for my district recently at which a colleague posed the question,

Do we need large interactive displays at the front of the room if every student will soon have their own device?

He went on to suggest that since we are moving toward a 1:1, personalized learning instructional model, a large display in the front of the room would be unnecessary.  Students and teachers could simply mirror their screens to each other if they wanted to collaborate and share.  The money saved from not purchasing the interactive displays could be better spent on these devices or perhaps other initiative such as virtual reality equipment or makerspaces.

Thinking about this question, I have to respectfully disagree with my colleague.  There is still a place in the classroom for a large, interactive display mounted on the wall for students and teachers to create, collaborate, and communicate with each other despite each student having a device.

I recall a geometry game that I conducted in class in which I would split my students into two teams (girls v. boys, perhaps) and a team member would go up to the interactive whiteboard, drag a figure from behind a black bar, and place it under the appropriate column heading (see image below).

Next, they would “tag” another student on their team to place the next one until all figures were placed in a column.  Their teammates could help the person at the board and fix mistakes made by someone else.  The team who finished in the least amount of time (wrong answers incurred a time penalty) would earn the victory.  The energy and pure raucousness of the room was fantastic!  It was a simple review game that brought the class together and made learning fun!   Students within each team would discuss and even argue about the responses.  They were arguing about math!  Finally, at the end of each round, I could review the figures in each column, correct mistakes, clarify misunderstandings, address questions, and highlight common errors.

I think that it is hard to duplicate such an activity when everyone is staring at their own device.  There is a value to having a way for students to demonstrate and interact with something live in front of an audience who is paying attention to them rather than their own screen.  And now with the advent of multi-touch point displays, several students can interact with the display at the same time.  This opens up myriad opportunities for game-ified lessons that foster a community-of-learners atmosphere in the classroom.  In my experience, competition can energize a stagnant lesson and ignite even the most recalcitrant learners.

Secondly, today’s innovative businesses all seem to have whiteboards at which employees gather together to sketch out plans and share ideas.  There is an intangible, communal sense to the sausage making process, if you will, that would be absent if students were simply mirroring a shared screen and displaying it via a projector. The interactive whiteboard allows students to integrate images, freehand drawings, manipulate flowcharts, activate interactive hotspots, embed videos and more.  They could annotate a diagram, explore a 360° video, or create a review game that leverages the multi-touch capabilities of the interactive display.

For these reasons, I think a large interactive display is worth the expense.  Teachers and students would benefit greatly from having these opportunities to collaborate and create.

Related News: Looks like interactive flat panel displays (IFPDs) are slowly replacing old, glitchy, high maintenance interactive whiteboard (IWB) displays.