Feedback from lecturing staff in STEM subjects in particular has highlighted that projected slides work well for prepared content but poorly for live, step-by-step working, where a large classroom whiteboard lets an idea build visibly in front of students rather than appearing complete on a slide. Mathematics, physics and engineering departments have been especially vocal, since these subjects rely heavily on worked examples that are difficult to replicate convincingly on a static slide.

Where a lecture hall refurbishment brief once treated the whiteboard as an afterthought behind a projection screen, some briefs now specify writing surface area and visibility as a primary requirement, sized and positioned before the projection setup rather than around it. New-build lecture theatres are following the same logic, increasingly specifying writing surface area as a fixed requirement in the architectural brief from the outset rather than adding it once seating and projection are finalised. For universities not undertaking a full refurbishment or new build, retrofitting a larger or better-positioned whiteboard into an existing lecture hall is often a lower-cost way to address the same feedback without redesigning the whole room around projection and seating.

Feedback driving this change comes from more than one direction. Beyond staff in technical subjects, some institutions are now also gathering informal student feedback on lecture hall visibility, which in several cases has reinforced staff observations about the value of a larger, better-positioned writing surface over relying on projection alone. As more institutions publish outcomes from these changes, lecture hall specifications are likely to keep weighting visibility and writing space more heavily relative to digital display than they did over the previous decade, particularly as clearer guidance emerges on the ratio of writing surface to projection area that works best for different subjects and room sizes.

Not every institution has budget for a full lecture hall refurbishment, and this shift doesn’t require one. A single academic department piloting the change in one lecture hall, then gathering feedback before extending the approach further, gives an institution a lower-risk way to validate the benefit before committing to a wider rollout. Smaller institutions can apply the same principle at a smaller scale too, incrementally upgrading writing surfaces room by room as budget allows, moving toward the same standard gradually rather than waiting for one large capital project.

Facilities teams increasingly frame writing surface upgrades as part of a broader estates strategy around teaching quality, rather than a standalone furniture decision, which helps secure ongoing budget for further rooms over time. Compared with major digital infrastructure investment, upgrading to a large classroom whiteboard is a relatively low-cost change, which is part of why several institutions have prioritised it as an early, visible improvement within a broader estates plan. Whatever pace an institution moves at, the underlying evidence points the same direction: writing surfaces sized and positioned for genuine visibility support teaching in ways projection alone has not fully replaced.

Before presenting this shift to leadership or a budget committee, prepare a short case built on the specific feedback your own teaching staff have given, rather than a general trend argument. A concrete example, such as a lecturer describing a specific lesson that suffered from poor writing space, tends to move a budget conversation forward faster than a general observation about industry direction.

Reviewing a lecture hall specification? Chameleon’s large classroom whiteboards are sized and positioned around how the room is actually taught in.