American Scientist

To the Editors:

Many thanks to Brian Hayes for his review of Do Not Erase (“Chalkophilia,” Nightstand, September–October). I had an exceptional lecturer in college who insisted on having a chalkboard in her classroom for three reasons. First, although slides were good for presenting results, they did not show the process of working through a problem. Second, dry-erase markers were smelly, quick to dry out, and wasteful. She also thought that the markers were “just too colorful,” and found that the whiteboards were inevitably ruined by improper usage. Third, chalkboards were immense. On the 1-meter by 3-meters surface, she could start from the far left and work her way through the entire organogenesis of the human ear. By the end of a period, her students had a collective map of their odyssey to understanding. Students rarely got completely lost in her class, because the map was always there, slowly unrolling.

Although interactive whiteboards, referred to as smart boards, stand as heir apparent, they are essentially just adding complexity and watts to an already near-perfect design. Even without “smart” technology, every student with a phone (that is, every student) could create their own Do Not Erase log for the year through photographs of their instructors’ chalkboards. I hope classroom designers will resist adopting tech for tech’s sake and consider the merits of a blackboard revival.

Justin Vaughn
Athens, GA