Electromechanical rolling whiteboard for improving posture and comfort of users in classrooms

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders is high among teachers. Poor posture when writing on whiteboards is considered among the important causes of these disorders.

OBJECTIVE:

The present study aimed to evaluate an electromechanical rolling whiteboard for educational environments as an ergonomic intervention.

METHODS:

Thirty university lecturers volunteered to take part in the study. Participants performed a 5-minute writing task on a regular board and on the newly modified whiteboard in random order. The comfort and effectiveness of the boards and the perceived physical effort and posture of the participants were evaluated and compared by applying the verbal rating scale, Borg’s rating of physical exertion scale, and rapid entire body assessment, respectively.

RESULTS:

A total of 83.2% of participants reported the new whiteboard to be comfortable or more comfortable to use than the regular whiteboard, and 76.6% of them found the new whiteboard to be higher or much higher in effectiveness and usefulness in comparison with the regular whiteboard. The comfort and posture ratings revealed that exertion was significantly less and posture improved while writing on the new board as compared to its counterpart (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION:

The new whiteboard increased user comfort, reduced physical effort, and improved posture, hopefully leading to a decreased number of work-related musculoskeletal disorders.

Keywords

Teachers ergonomics musculoskeletal disorders postural analysis REBA

1 Background

Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) arise from damage to soft tissue such as muscles, tendons, nerves, arteries, and joints [1, 2]. MSDs are responsible for over half of all work-related disorders and are the major contributing factor to lost work time and increased costs [3, 4]. Upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders (UE-MSDs) are major problems in modern life. UE-MSDs involve the neck, shoulders, arms, elbows, forearms, wrists, and hands [5 –7]. Studies have shown a gradual increase in UE-MSD in Australia, Canada, the US, and France [8 –11]. These studies suggest that improving posture would reduce the risk of MSDs, improve health, and reduce stress and discomfort while performing occupational activities, all of which would increase efficiency and job performance [9, 12].

The development of information technology and the multicultural nature of social settings have changed traditional teacher duties [13, 14]. These changes and repetitive motion expose teachers to physical and mental pressure and stress [2 , 18]. MSDs can affect different parts of the body. A literature review indicated that the prevalence of MSDs for the bodies, necks, shoulders, upper limbs, waists, and lower limbs of teachers were 40% –95%, 30% –69%, 8% –73%, 8% –72%, 5% –76%, and 2% –55%, respectively [2]. Most teacher duties are performed with the head in a forward or flexed posture (e.g., reading, correcting homework, and writing on whiteboards) [2 , 19]. The extent of neck flexion and duration of assignments contribute to neck pain. In addition, working for long periods of time while the shoulders are elevated may cause pain in the neck and shoulders [19 –21].

Few studies have been conducted on the effect of ergonomic intervention on teacher posture while writing on a whiteboard. One study used OWAS to compare the posture of Belgian teachers as they wrote on a smart board or a blackboard. The results showed that the use of a smart board did not improve teacher posture [22].

Few surveys have been conducted on ergonomic intervention for reducing MSDs in teachers [2 , 23]. Because one factor contributing to these disorders was the use of a board while teaching, designing a whiteboard which improves posture and prevents this type of disorder seems essential. The aim of this study was, therefore, to design, fabricate, and evaluate an electromechanical rolling whiteboard for use in educational environments as an ergonomic intervention.

2 Methods

2.1 Model and prototype

Before initiating the design and construction of a prototype, some teachers were interviewed and observed while working in order to determine the problems with regular boards. The characteristics of a more suitable ergonomic board were then identified. These key features were a flexible rolling plate, a remote control for moving the board up and down and to start and stop the board cleaner, and the development of a board cleaner. Figure 1 depicts the components of the modified whiteboard. The whiteboard prototype was manufactured as shown in Fig. 1(A). It was composed of two mobile parts: a rolling plate and a whiteboard cleaner (Fig. 1(B)). The movement speed of the whiteboard was set at 0.02 m/sec. A remote control was provided to start and stop the movement of the modified board (Fig. 1(C)).

Fig. 1

(A) Final prototype; (B) Back view and location of electromotor and board cleaner; (c) Remote control where button 1 moves board upward, button 2 move plate down, button 3 starts whiteboard cleaner, button 4 stops whiteboard cleaner.

The 3D schema of the design was developed in SolidWorks (version 2016). After completion of the 3D schema, an actual-size model (1×1 m) of the modified device was created. The prototype was designed and fabricated by a team headed by an industrial design engineer.

2.2 Subjects

The subjects were 30 university lecturers aged 23–57 years (33.7±7.1) who volunteered to take part in the study and signed informed consent forms. All participants had at least one year of teaching experience in theoretical courses. Participants having physical limitations due to pregnancy, overweight, and or acute injuries at the time of the test were excluded. Subjects were assessed using a prototype of the modified device and a regular whiteboard in an ergonomic lab. All movements were monitored and supervised by an ergonomist.

2.3 Assessment

The modified and regular whiteboards were assessed under experimental working conditions and were compared. Before evaluation, subjects attended a 30-minute orientation session and were taught how to use and write on the newly modified whiteboard. They were then asked to write a predetermined set of text on each board for a 5-minute period. The experimental conditions were presented in random order to counterbalance the carry-over and order effects.

2.4 Data collection tools

In the assessment phase, the following data gathering tools were employed.

2.4.1 Demographic questionnaire

This tool collected data on the age, weight, height, work experience, and mean hours of working with a whiteboard per day of the participants.

2.4.2 Verbal rating scale (VRS)

After writing on both boards, the participants were asked to compare the comfort of the modified whiteboard versus the regular one using the VRS as being much more uncomfortable, uncomfortable, identical, comfortable, or much more comfortable. Such a comparison was also done for the effectiveness and usefulness as being much lower, lower, identical, higher, or much higher.

2.4.3 Borg’s rating of physical exertion scale

The physical exertion/stress perceived by each user while writing on each board was assessed using Borg’s scale [25]. On this scale, values of 6 and 20 denoted low and high levels of physical exertion, respectively.

2.4.4 Posture analysis using rapid entire body assessment (REBA)

The REBA technique was applied to assess user working postures. The REBA assessment is suitable for whole body evaluation and best for both static and dynamic tasks. There are five levels of actions to indicate the obtained scores [27]. Table 1 shows the action levels for REBA scores.

Table 1
REBA indication

REBA level 0 1 2 3 4

REBA score 1 2–3 4–7 8–10 11–15

Risk level Negligible Low Medium High Very high

Reqd. action None necessary May be necessary Necessary Necessary soon Necessary now

REBA level	0	1	2	3	4
REBA score	1	2–3	4–7	8–10	11–15
Risk level	Negligible	Low	Medium	High	Very high
Reqd. action	None necessary	May be necessary	Necessary	Necessary soon	Necessary now

Each participant was filmed while writing on each board for 5 minutes. A video camera was installed at the back of the workstation (board and subject in the front), and the height of the camera corresponded with the line that connected the interior scapula angle so that the subject was visible at all times while writing on the boards. The distance of the camera was kept the same when recording in both conditions.

Recorded films were used to extract five photos at 1-minute intervals over the course of the 5-minute writing session for each test condition. A total of 300 photographs were obtained and analyzed in ErgoIntelligence (version 1.8.0). There was a 5-minute rest period between the two experimental conditions. All movements were monitored and supervised by an ergonomist.

2.5 Statistical methods

Data was analyzed in SPSS (version 20). To compare the mean values of the Borg scale, a paired t-test was conducted, because the data was normally distributed. The Wilcoxon signed rank sum test was used for the data with an abnormal distribution between tests. A p-value of at least 0.001 was deemed to be significant.

2.6 Ethics committee approval

The ethics committee of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences approved the research (IR.SUMS.REC.1395.023).

3 Results

3.1 Assessment

The demographic characteristics of the 30 participants (15 male and 15 female) in the assessment phase of the present study are detailed in Table 2. Figures 2 and 3 show the results obtained from assessing the comfort and effectiveness/usefulness, respectively, of writing on the modified whiteboard in comparison with the regular whiteboard. The majority (83.2%) of users perceived the new board to be comfortable or more comfortable than the regular whiteboard. In addition, 76.6% of users considered the new whiteboard to be higher or much higher in terms of effectiveness and usefulness for training.

Table 2
Demographic characteristics of users (n = 30)

Characteristic Mean SD Min Max

Age (year) 33.7 7.1 23 57

Height (cm) 170.5 9.96 156 194

Weight (kg) 70.97 12.89 53 105

Work experience (year) 7.55 5.06 1.5 16

Mean time using whiteboard per day (hour) 1.83 1.26 0.2 4

Characteristic	Mean	SD	Min	Max
Age (year)	33.7	7.1	23	57
Height (cm)	170.5	9.96	156	194
Weight (kg)	70.97	12.89	53	105
Work experience (year)	7.55	5.06	1.5	16
Mean time using whiteboard per day (hour)	1.83	1.26	0.2	4

Fig. 2

User ratings of comfort of modified versus regular whiteboards (n = 30).

Fig. 3

User ratings of usefulness and effectiveness of modified versus regular whiteboards (n = 30).

The mean perceived physical effort while writing on the regular whiteboard was 13.67 (a little difficult) and on the modified whiteboard was 9.23 (very convenient). The comparison of the means of perceived physical effort for the two cases showed a significant difference (p < 0.001).

The highest mean total REBA score was seen in Action Category 2 and occurred during the first minute of use of the regular whiteboard (Table 3). The highest mean total REBA score for the modified whiteboard fell into Action Category 1. Figure 4 shows the frequency of REBA action categories (AC) for the regular whiteboard and the modified whiteboard. In 49.3% of cases, the action category during use of the regular whiteboard was 2 (final REBA score 4 to 7), which is medium risk for MSDs. The results of the Wilcoxon test indicated that the total REBA score for the regular whiteboard was higher than that for the modified whiteboard (p < 0.001). This suggests that the posture of users was better while writing on the modified whiteboard than on the regular whiteboard. Figure 5 shows the posture of one user while writing on the regular whiteboard (A) and on the modified whiteboard (B). As shown, the posture of the person was better while writing on the modified whiteboard than when writing on the regular whiteboard.

Table 3

REBA score based on photograph per minute (n = 30)

Posture (Photo/Min)	Mean	SD	Max	Min	AC
W^*1	4.60	1.06	6	2	2
W2	3.13	1.04	5	1	2
W3	3.00	0.90	5	1	1
W4	3.43	1.35	5	1	2
W5	3.53	1.07	5	2	2
D^**1	1.76	0.67	3	1	1
D2	1.20	0.48	3	1	1
D3	1.13	0.34	2	1	1
D4	1.13	0.34	2	1	1
D5	1.06	0.25	2	1	1

^*writing on typical whiteboard; ^**writing on modified whiteboard.

Fig. 4

Percentage of participants in each REBA action category (n = 30).

Fig. 5

User posture while writing on: (A) regular board; (B) modified board.

4 Discussion

The advantages and disadvantages of existing whiteboards as well as the requirements of the users, workplace and space, as revealed during the interviews and observation sessions, were considered in the design of the modified board. The board was modified so that the user did not need to start writing from the upper part of the board. The user could start writing at shoulder height, and the written content could rise to provide more space for writing. A remote control was developed to move the board up and down (Fig. 1C).

The results of previous studies have shown that the mismatch between the tool/equipment and the anthropometric dimensions of users can contribute to MSDs. Few studies have focused on ergonomic interventions for teachers [26]. An examination of the comfort of writing on a regular or a modified whiteboard showed that 83.2% of participants perceived using the modified whiteboard to be more comfortable than using the regular whiteboard (Fig. 2). The mechanized feature of whiteboard control, which obviates the need to raise the arm while writing on the upper part of the board or bend at the waist to write on the lower part of the board, increased comfort when writing.

It was found that 76.6% of users perceived the usefulness and effectiveness of the modified whiteboard to be greater than that of the regular whiteboard (Fig. 3). Because the use of technological devices is an aspect of teaching that teachers prefer, the modified board could satisfy teacher requirements and improve progress in assisting education.

The results also indicated that the perceived intensity of physical effort required to use the modified whiteboard was less than that for the regular board, and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.001). The absence of a need to reach up while writing on the upper part of the board or to bend at the waist while writing on the lower part of the board reduced the perceived pressure and physical activity. It can be concluded that using the modified whiteboard is more convenient and requires less physical effort than using a regular whiteboard.

In their observational study, Bogaert et al. reported that the use of an electronic school-board does not improve the posture of teachers when compared to a chalkboard [22]. They used the OWAS method to analyze posture. The results of the analysis of user posture while conducting the suggested tasks in the current research showed that the mean total REBA score during the first and last minutes of writing on a regular whiteboard were higher than those for the moments between them, because users began at the top of the board, which caused a deviation in posture. In the middle of the tasks, the shoulder height of the user when writing caused the posture to be closer to a natural posture, and the REBA score decreased. Because writing on the modified whiteboard occurs at shoulder height throughout the activity, the mean total REBA scores were similar and of a lower value throughout the writing than those for writing on a regular whiteboard (Table 3). The comparison of the frequency of action categories in both cases indicated that the posture of users while using the modified whiteboard improved (p < 0.001; Fig. 4).

This study encountered a number of limitations which must be taken into account if it is to be generalized to other conditions. Although practicing whiteboard activities is a common daily task, university lecturers were selected to be participants in this study because of their more convenient accessibility and cooperation. Their work conditions might differ from those of school teachers. The working sessions for each board was limited to 5 minutes. The test also was carried out in a simulated class because of administrative limitations. Future tests could be done on an electro-mechanical whiteboard for a longer period and in an actual class atmosphere for a less-biased evaluation.

5 Conclusion

The results of the present study indicate that users are more comfortable and satisfied in general with writing on the modified rolling whiteboard than using a regular whiteboard. Writing on the modified whiteboard requires less physical effort for users. Reasons for this could be the lack of a need to raise the arm while writing on the upper part of the board or to bend at the waist to write on the lower part of the board. When used over a long period of time, the modified whiteboard could reduce the risk of musculoskeletal disorders.

Conflict of interest

None to report.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

This article was extracted from the thesis written by Zahra Khosravi, MS student of Ergonomics, and was financially supported by Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (grant number: 95-01-04-11382).

References

Dilont

, Sanders

. Diagnosis of work-related musculoskeletal disorders. In: KarwowskiW, editor. International encyclopedia of human factors and ergonomics. 1. Second Ed. London and New York: Tailor and Francis; 2006. pp. 2584-8.

Erick

, Smith

. A systematic review of musculoskeletal disorders among school teachers. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2011;12(1):260.

Kemmlert

. Prevention of occupational musculo-skeletal injuries. Labor Inspectorate investigation. Scand J Rehabil Med Suppl. 1996;35:1–34.

Ojukwu

, Anyanwu

, Eze

, Chukwu

, Onuchukwu

, Anekwu

. Prevalence, pattern and correlates of work-related musculoskeletal disorders among school teachers in Enugu, Nigeria. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics. 2018 Aug 24:1-1.

Huisstede

, Bierma-Zeinstra

, Koes

, Verhaar

. Incidence and prevalence of upper-extremity musculoskeletal disorders. A systematic appraisal of the literature. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2006;7(1):7.

Polanyi

, Cole

, Beaton

, Chung

, Wells

, Abdolell

, et al. Upper limb work related musculoskeletal disorders among newspaper employees: Cross sectional survey results. Am J Ind Med. 1997;32(6):620–8.

Ehsani

, Mohseni-Bandpei

, Fernández-De-Las-Peñas

, Javanshir

. Neck pain in Iranian school teachers: Prevalence and risk factors. Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies. 2018;22(1):64–8.

Ashbury

. Occupational repetitive strain injuries and gender in Ontario, 1986 to 1991. J Occup Environ Med. 1995;37(4):479–85.

Constantino

, Júnior

, Ribeiro

, de Oliveira

. Factors associated with musculoskeletal disorders and disability in elementary teachers: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies. 2019;23(3):658.

10.

Hocking

. Epidemiological aspects of “repetition strain injury” in Telecom Australia. Med J Aust.. 1987;147(5):218–22.

11.

Silverstein

, Welp

, Nelson

, Kalat

. Claims incidence of work-related disorders of the upper extremities: Washington state, 1987 through 1995. Am J Public Health. 1998;88(12):1827–33.

12.

Bernard

, Putz-Anderson

. Musculoskeletal disorders and workplace factors; a critical review of epidemiologic evidence for work-related musculoskeletal disorders of the neck, upper extremity, and low back. 1997.

13.

Scheuch

, Haufe

, Seibt

. Teachers’ Health. Deutsches Ärzteblatt International. 2015;112(20):347.

14.

Zerpa

, Lopez

, Przysucha

, Sanzo

. The effect of common teaching tools on upper extremity muscle activity. Education. 2014;4(6):160–6.

15.

Chong

, Chan

. Subjective health complaints of teachers from primary and secondary schools in Hong Kong. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2010;16(1):23–39.

16.

Burford

, Ellegast

, Weber

, Brehmen

, Groneberg

, Sinn-Behrendt

, Bruder

. The comparative analysis of postural and biomechanical parameters of preschool teachers pre-and post-intervention within the ErgoKiTa study. Ergonomics. 2017;60(12):1718–29.

17.

Leme

, Maia

. Evaluation of fatigue at work in teachers using modern resources in the classroom. Procedia Manufacturing. 2015;3:4852–9.

18.

Antonelli

, de Paula Xavier

, Oenning

, Baumer

, da Silva

, Pilatti

. Prevalence of cervicobrachial discomforts in elementary school teachers. Work. 2012;41(Supplement 1):5709–14.

19.

Chiu

, Lam

. The prevalence of and risk factors for neck pain and upper limb pain among secondary school teachers in Hong Kong. Occup Rehabil. 2007;17(1):19–32.

20.

Silva

, Almeida

. Physical and postural aspects of teachers during work activity. Work. 2012;41(Supplement 1):3657–62.

21.

Chaiklieng

, Suggaravetsiri

. Risk factors for repetitive strain injuries among school teachers in Thailand. Work. 2012;41(Supplement 1):2510–5.

22.

Bogaert

, De Martelaer

, Beutels

, De Ridder

, Zinzen

. Posture analysis among Flemish secondary school teachers: difference between the use of chalkboards and electronic school boards during classroom teaching. Ergonomics. 2016;59(11):1487–93.

23.

Choi

. The effect of exercise program on chronic low back pain in female teachers of elementary school. J Korean Acad Womens Health Nurs. 2001;7(2):169–87.

24.

Yildirim

. Opinions of Prospective Preschool Teachers about Smart Board Use for Education. Journal on School Educational Technology. 2016;12(2):34–43.

25.

Daneshmandi

, Choobineh

, Rajaee

. Validation of Borg’s RPE 0-20 Scale in Male Industrial Workers of Shiraz City Based on Heart Rate. Jundishapur Sci Med J. 2012;11(1):1–10.

26.