Talk:Blackboard

Comments

I venture to offer an early reference to a 'new invention' in respect of the blackboard: In a prospectus for an undated: MATHEMATICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL LECTURES, ... Mathematical and philosophical lectures, by Mr.$Dowling, at his establishment, No. 23, Devonshire Street, Queen Square. ... The lectures commence on the 10th of September, and they will be continued on Tuesday and Friday evenings, during the winter season. ... - London: E.$Blackader, printer, [1813?] [4] p. (three blank)

This carries the statement: 'Mr. Dowling performs all the problems, and demonstrates them with a piece of chalk on a board painted black, and made for that purpose; and the rapid improvement that his pupils have made since he has adopted this mode of instruction, is the strongest proof he can offer in favor of it'.

Stephen Massil (Library, Sir John Soane's Museum)

That's not an eraser.

That's a regular kitchen sponge. If sponges are ever used for chalkboard erasers it is so rare as to be invisible in all popular media from the time period in which chalkboards were common. Most of my public school attendence was during chalkboard usage and I didn't see anyone use a sponge to erase a chalk board even once. Erasers were made of blocks of thick felt cut into layers and bound together. They appear in every depiction of chalkboards in media, one example is the Simpsons opening titles. Stopchewingyourcuticles (talk) 12:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Right you are; I've changed the image to show a more typical felt eraser as used in 20th century US classrooms. It was not uncommon for a wet sponge to be used at the end of the day, or as needed, to clear the chalk dust off the board. Just plain Bill (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@Just plain Bill Thanks very much! Stopchewingyourcuticles (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Health issues

I have hard before that chalk may cause asthma and came here looking for a reference, but the source cited does not seem to talk about chalk and/or blackboards at all. Could a better reference be provided? Wazdra (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

One of the edit has now removed this text, and source indeed did not talk about chalk, But at least one of the removed reference did seem on the topic and should have been retained. Let me see if i can find some sources Nisingh.8 (talk) 10:17, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

@Wazdra have added one more reference Nisingh.8 (talk) 10:38, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I don’t think that reference (Effect of Chalk Dust Exposure on PEFR and CAT in School Teachers) stands up to scientific scrutiny.

Specifically:

1.) The “comparative study was conducted in 40 School teachers and 40 normal healthy individuals”. In my opinion, that is much too small of a sample size for epidemiological research.

2.) Exposure to chalk dust is considered only as the following binary category: “Teachers using chalk and blackboard as their primary teaching aid for an average of 15 hours in a week for at least 1 year”. I would’ve expected the study to test for a dose / response correlation instead.

3.) The study measures health outcomes only as COPD, and it does not compensate for other risk factors: “The data for this study was collected using mini Bell’s PEFR device and the COPD Assessment test (CAT). An analysis of the data showed that the mean CAT score of group A (teachers) was significantly higher (p=0.001) than group B (normal individuals). The mean PEFR for group B was higher than group A, although the difference was not statistically significant”

4.) The authors did not actually claim to find a correlation between exposure to chalk particles from blackboard usage and COPD. Instead, they describe to have found:

”Hence, the study concluded that respiratory symptoms significantly impacted the health of school teachers. They also showed signs of airway obstruction as compared to normal individuals” ~2026-29121-62 (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey, it’s me that made that edit. I respect your choice to revert the changes, but would like to explain better why I didn’t trust the systematic literature review (in particular):

1.) It was only referenced 4 times in other publications, as far as I’m aware. I think that’s suspiciously little for a systematic review.

2.) It provided particulate measurements from a couple of case studies, but didn’t discuss the health effects at these concentrations or the biomechanics of how chalk particles actually cause health damage. I think that’s relevant because for e.g. silica or asbestos particles that has been part of the academic discussion.

3.) It makes a distinction between ‘dusty’ and ‘non-dusty’ chalk sticks. The article describes that the latter has a 5-10x higher price. More specifically, the article says “The quality of chalk is dependent on the amount of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) and carboxyl methylcellulose (CMC), and chalks containing less than 6% CMC are dusty; thus, they release more PM when used (Maruthi et al. 2007)”

This is discussed in the context of improving indoor air quality in India, where the public education system has severe economic constraints. This may not be representative for all contexts.

4.) In the research methodology section, the authors don’t describe their rationale for excluding studies with enough scientific vigor. They instead describe finding consensus trough undocumented discussion with colleagues (not peer researchers from another institution)

“Retrieved articles were transferred to a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (Redmond, Washington, USA), where they were independently reviewed by two authors (S.J.M. and R.M.). Disagreements between the two authors on which articles to exclude or include were resolved by extensive discussion, and where an agreement could be reached, the third author (J.S.J.) was consulted for further discussion and a final decision. Filters were applied to detect duplicate studies, which were then removed. The remaining articles were reviewed by reading their titles and abstracts to determine whether they met the inclusion criteria shown in . For articles without abstracts, the full text was downloaded to reach a consensus” ~2026-29121-62 (talk) 02:07, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Advantages of chalkboards

To balance the "Issues with use" section, we need an additional section that highlights the advantages of chalkboards. It was here a long time ago, but someone removed it for whatever reason. Djoel76 (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

It was likely removed because of a lack of sources, not because it was wrong. Nerd271 (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Shouldn’t it be restored, with a warning about insufficient references / evidence? ~2026-29121-62 (talk) 03:12, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Some editors will add a "Citation Needed" tag whereas others will delete anything that lacks proper citations. In any case, bring that back or write it anew if you have reliable sources. Nerd271 (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Here are some starter references and key advantages:

https://thisvsthat.io/blackboard-vs-whiteboard more affordable in terms of board, chalk, and erasers.

https://www.bwbr.com/2018/04/25/blackboards-vs-white-the-choice-lies-in-a-grey-zone/ tactile feedback for the writer.

https://discountmagnet.com/blackboard-vs-whiteboard-which-material-should-i-use/ chalk is environmentally neutral; plastic can last in the environment anywhere from 400 to 1,000 years, depending on the type [citation needed].

https://nyblackboard.com/blogs/news/chalkboards-vs-whiteboards-which-is-better-for-you chalkboards typically get better with age while whiteboards need to be replaced periodically.

Don't have time to write it up right now, but someone is welcome to take a shot at it. Djoel76 (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2026 (UTC)