comments the first week that they became difficult to read, so the following week we
added several colors of chalk in addition to white to help keep comments from running
together visually. This helped, and it was the only modification we made to the
experiment. After staying up for the rest of the fall 2004 semester, we decided to leave it
in place for the entire spring 2005 semester as well.
Findings and Reflection
Despite initial concerns to the contrary, the board did get extensive use. In the
first weeks of the experiment a certain “buzz” prevailed. Students would make their way
to examine the latest postings on the board, and the campus newspaper offered a story
about the board. In the average week, it saw about 25 to 30 separate comments.
Usually about two-thirds were in response to earlier comments, while the rest either
started a new discussion thread or stood alone. Most weeks saw 3 to 4 main discussion
threads develop. The sign on the board specified “political” expression as its purpose,
but it also promised “no content restrictions” and, of course, we were barred from erasing
anything. Even so, about two-thirds of the comments and discussion threads were on
issues that are, broadly understood, political in nature. Comments came in the form of
questions, statements, slogans, and even diagrams and pictures. They ranged from short
to long, serious to funny, clever to dull, and insightful to incomprehensible. A digital
photo of the board is provided below.
Convention