Student sits at a table looking at a laptop screen.

Devices in the Classroom: Balancing Student Engagement and Accessibility

How to design intentional classroom device policies that support engagement and access.

At a Glance

Some key takeaways on device classroom policies:

  • Concerns about student disengagement, distraction, and reliance on AI have led faculty to consider policies that prohibit or limit device use in classrooms.
  • Some studies show that limiting device use increases student participation and assessment performance and reduces multitasking. However, other research shows device restrictions alone do not guarantee better learning outcomes.
  • Strict device policies can create “access friction,” forcing students with disabilities to negotiate for accommodations or publicly disclose their needs, thereby creating additional barriers to participation.
  • Effective classroom device policies intentionally align device use with learning and pedagogical goals, as well as the needs of the classroom community.

“Device Free Policies”

Benefits 

Limitations/Challenges

Recommendations 

Examples

References and Resources 

“Device Free” Policies

Amid growing concerns about student distraction, disengagement, and reliance on AI, faculty are increasingly implementing policies that restrict or prohibit “unauthorized device use” in the classroom, reflecting broader scholarly and public debates about the role of technology in learning (Bailly, 2026; Emmanuel, 2025; Mowreader, 2025; Murray, 2026). Instructors may encourage or require students to take notes by hand instead, or bring printed copies of materials, rather than using laptops, phones, or tablets. The debate over whether faculty should discourage device use in the classroom is not new (Brown, 2020; Lang, 2016; Letchford, 2009; Supiano, 2019), nor is it limited to higher education, as K-12 educators are having similar conversations (Bellafante, 2026; Rock, 2026). 

Research suggests that limiting unauthorized device use during class can increase participation, attention, and the quality of discussion. However, the evidence is mixed, with some studies finding no clear improvements in learning outcomes when devices are prohibited. Also, if we discourage the use of devices in classrooms, we could create barriers for students who rely on them to gain equal access to their learning. This can create what is called “access friction,” a term that refers to the challenges disabled people face when navigating environments that were not built with them in mind, or when they are provided access in a way that is unhelpful (Silverman, 2024). For example, if an instructor prohibits the use of devices to record notes or lectures, a disabled student will now need to spend extra time or effort researching other solutions, negotiating with Student Accessibility Services and the instructor, or using a method that could delay access to notes. Even when faculty make case-by-case accommodations for students, this can obligate students to disclose their disability not only to the instructor but also to the rest of the class (e.g., only one student using a laptop during a class with a device-free policy communicates that this student has a disability).

These guidelines are intended to help you thoughtfully consider the pedagogical and accessible implications of device policies and to provide recommendations for creating intentional approaches to technology use that support engagement and equitable learning.

Benefits

  • Restricting unauthorized device use in the classroom can increase student participation, attention, and performance on assessments (Carter et al., 2017; Glass & Kang, 2019; Quesenberry, 2022; Rhinehart et al., 2022). However, other studies dispute these benefits, finding no significant differences in engagement, participation, or assessment outcomes between students who used devices and those who did not (Elliott-Dorans, 2018; Hutcheon et al., 2019).
  • Students themselves have acknowledged that devices can make it harder to focus in the classroom (George, 2025; Nissley, 2025). Using a laptop or phone in class can lead to distracted multitasking and students believing they are not comprehending important course material (Fried, 2008; Kraushaar & Novak, 2010). Even if a student chooses not to use their device, seeing other students scroll on their phones or browse on their laptops in class can make them feel overstimulated or lose focus.
  • Unintentional device use can be a major deterrent in classroom formats such as seminars, which rely heavily on student-led discussions. A student might not only be distracted, but also less eager to have a meaningful conversation if they sense others are not paying attention. A sense of social trust can be eroded if devices are not used purposefully to support learning and if instructors do not acknowledge that these behaviors are distracting. Implementing guidelines on when to use devices and when not to can help instructors and students maintain that trust.
  • Mueller & Oppenheimer (2014) found that when students handwrote their notes rather than using a device to record or type, they were more likely to process the information in their own words, which led to a better understanding of conceptual questions. However, when attempting to directly replicate this study, Morehead, Dunlosky, and Rawson (2019) were unable to reproduce the results, as their findings showed no significant advantage for students who handwrote their notes compared with those who used a device. Costa (2019) contends that when instructors allocate class time to teaching effective note-taking and how students can use notes to support their learning, the medium of note-taking becomes less consequential. 

Limitations/Challenges

Students with disabilities may use assistive technologies and devices to:

  • Access, record, transcribe, annotate, or organize course materials
  • Record or transcribe content using speech-to-text tools in class
  • Navigate a document or learning management system
  • Download course materials in alternative, accessible formats
  • Communicate with other students or faculty

We all have different access needs. What one student may need to fully participate in their learning may be different from what another student needs. Access friction can also look like what happens when those needs are in opposition to one another (Silverman, 2024). Using devices can make it harder for some students to focus or engage in the classroom, but for others, they might find them essential for accessing and supporting their learning. With this in mind, the goal is not to prioritize one student’s needs over another’s, or to provide a “one-size-fits-all” solution (e.g., a total device restriction in response to unauthorized use, or a lack of any policy addressing distracting device use). Instead, instructors should lean into the friction and use this as an opportunity for collaboration, flexibility, and creative problem-solving with their students. 

There are many reasons students may be disengaged or reluctant to participate, and device distraction is only one of them. Sustaining attention during a 50-minute lecture without interactive elements can be challenging, particularly for students facing personal challenges or adjusting to university life. Emerging research on generative AI use among university students further suggests a shift toward seeking support from AI tools rather than peers during class time, reducing opportunities for collaboration, mentorship, and informal learning communities (Hou et al., 2025). These findings suggest that instructors may benefit from exploring pedagogical approaches that intentionally foster interaction and community, rather than relying solely on device restrictions that may cause access barriers. 

Here are some recommended pages from our Teaching Resource Library to help you further reflect and brainstorm on student engagement. We also recommend talking to your students about these approaches or discussing how they would like to meaningfully engage with one another.

Flanigan et al. (2022) found that blanket device bans can undermine students’ autonomy and willingness to connect in the classroom, and that many faculty reported that more nuanced, pedagogically grounded approaches to devices were more effective than outright prohibitions. Here are some recommendations when trying to design an intentional device classroom policy: 

Recommendations

When thinking about creating a device policy for your course, it’s important to start with your learning goals: 

  • Are there instances where devices support student learning (e.g., research, collaborative note-taking, polls, social annotation, preparing for tech-dependent professional fields, etc.)?
  • Are there instances where devices hinder student learning? (e.g. distracting during lecture, discussion, reflection, etc.)? 

It can also be helpful to consider how device use varies by classroom activity. This could look like: 

  • During the lecture, students may only access devices for note-taking purposes or to take quizzes
  • For discussions, students will need to put away all devices
  • If students are writing in class, they may have the choice to use a device or handwrite

Think about ways you can build in flexibility so that all students can still equally participate. Some approaches instructors have taken to this include: 

  • Having technology vs. technology-free zones in the classroom where students can choose to sit based on whether they wish to use a device or not.
  • Providing opportunities when technology is encouraged and when technology is discouraged (e.g., devices out during lectures, devices put away during discussions or Q&A).
  • Limiting the type of devices that can be used in class (e.g., tablets to write notes, but not laptops, prohibiting cellphones unless using them for polls, etc.). 
  • Students have access to their devices, but as a community agree to turn off Wifi during certain parts of class. 
  • Allowing students who need or prefer a device to discuss with the instructor or TF without requiring an official accommodation letter. 

To decide between these suggestions, it could be helpful to survey your students before or early in the semester to determine their access needs and any feedback they have on your device policy.

Students respond better to a policy when they are transparent. It’s important to explain not only what the policy is, but why you’ve made certain choices about devices. Some recommendations on how to do this are:

  • Being explicit about what technology is acceptable to engage/disengage with in the classroom (e.g., refrain from browsing on the internet, scrolling through your phone, responding to a text unless it’s an emergency, etc.)
  • Ensuring your teaching team (co-instructors, TFs, ULAs, etc.) is on the same page about your policy.
  • Communicating why you believe it’s beneficial to use or not use a device during class. 
    • What does the research say?
    • What does your discipline/field say? (Different disciplines may have different objections or exceptions to device use.)
    • What are your learning goals or pedagogical rationale? (e.g., this is a class that deals with sensitive topics, collective discussion, sustained engagement, etc.)
  •  Cultivating trust by naming distracting device behaviors and student autonomy
    • “I notice people using their laptops to browse the internet, which is preventing us from having an engaging discussion. How can we address this distraction as a class?”
    • “I can see when you are focusing during my lecture and asking questions, and when you might be tuned out while using your phones.”
    • “I trust that you can use your devices when needed if it supports your learning, and put away your devices when it prevents you from learning.”
    • “During class, I try not to access my devices unless necessary so I can stay present in our classroom discussions. I invite you to extend the same courtesy to one another and to me. If you need to access your device for an emergency or personal situation, please let me know.”
  • Communicating your device policy in your syllabus, your Canvas course site, and in class.

Inviting student feedback shifts the conversation from a policy being enforced to something collectively agreed upon within the classroom community. Ways to have students participate in this discussion can look like: 

  • Making time for a class conversation with students about using devices for learning.
  • Co-creating community agreements on when and when not to use devices.
  • If there is access friction (one student finds it distracting vs. another who finds it helpful), make space to hear from each student and, together, come up with a solution.
  • Having students complete written reflections on how they want to improve their participation in class with or without devices (e.g., speaking up in class, posting to the discussion board, leading discussions, attending office hours, sharing annotated notes, etc.)
  • Having students complete a survey mid-semester on the device policy and whether any adjustments are needed.

Adding structure and variation to in-class activities can reduce barriers to student engagement. It’s important to think about: 

  • How do we want students to actively engage/participate in our courses? What does that look like? (talking in groups, taking notes, individual reflections, asking instructor questions, analyzing case studies, etc.)
  • What structures, strategies, or resources in your course currently support that engagement? What could you add?

Integrating devices in the classroom can also promote student engagement so long as it is intentionally structured, aligned with learning goals, and actively used to facilitate specific tasks or interactions (Baron et al., 2016; Godsk & Møller, 2025; Martín-Sómer et al., 2024). Instructors might use shared collaborative documents, live polling tools, or discussion boards that allow students to contribute ideas, respond to prompts, or ask questions during class.

Examples of Device Policies

Do you have a policy regarding devices that you would like to share as an example? Please email faculty.teaching@yale.edu. We can also keep your name anonymous if you prefer.

Electronics: Screens threaten to distract us from active and critical listening. Disability and media scholar Jonathan Sterne writes of “avoiding an atmosphere of “ambient computing” and “availability to apps and social media”: “the classroom should be a space of focused discussion, a place to come together” rather than “multitasking.”[1] Toward that end, please use printed sources whenever possible. Laptops, tablets, and phones are allowed only with prior agreement (i.e. for accessibility reasons, thoughtful notetaking practices, and occasionally group work / looking things up briefly).

Students who require or strongly prefer the use of laptops or other electronic devices for reading and note-taking should consult with the professor to devise a mutually acceptable plan. A formal SAS accommodation is not necessary, but an individual conversation about the proper use and limits of technology in the classroom is required.

Like a theatrical performance, a seminar meeting is a live, collaborative event, and one that involves both preparation and improvisation.  Both plays and seminars require and reward the full presence and attention of those in attendance:  the moment to take in and respond to what is unfolding is fleeting and unrepeatable, and those moments are cumulative, requiring continuous and unbroken attention.

Because recent studies as well as student and instructor testimony have established that laptops frequently detract from the sustained attention that allows for the collective inquiry of seminars, we will experiment this term with a classroom without laptops and phones, except when either is needed for a particular class purpose or because of particular student needs.  This means that we will use print texts in class, some in texts to be purchased and others in photocopies that the instructor will supply.  If the purchase of print texts poses a financial hardship for you, I encourage you to apply for the funds Yale College makes available for this purpose, or to contact me and I will supply you with the assigned texts.  If digital texts better accommodate your reading or visual needs, please let me know that and we will arrange a plan.

We are all adults in this classroom community, and I trust you to know when you need to use technological support such as laptops or cell phones during class. Feel free to use these devices if/when it feels appropriate to you, but know that I will expect you to be on task throughout the class session. Use of technology for non-class-related activities is prohibited.

You are welcome to use a laptop or tablet in this class as long as it contributes to your learning. This class, once again, is discussion-based. This means that all students are expected to actively listen to one another in order to participate in classroom activities. If you are unable to contribute to the discussion or are otherwise distracted by your computer, cell phone, or tablet, I will ask that you refrain from using it in class. There will be some class sessions where we will use technology together, and in those instances, all students should make arrangements to bring a laptop or tablet to class. If you have any questions or concerns, please be in touch with me.

References and Resources

Bailly, S. (2026, February 10). To solve the student-attention problem, professors turn to pencils and paper. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/to-solve-the-student-attention-problem-professors-turn-to-pencils-and-paper

Baron, D., Bestbier, A., Case, J., & Millard, S. (2016). Investigating the effects of a backchannel on university learning. Computers & Education, 94, 192–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.009

Bellafante, G. (2026, February 25). The Yondr pouch and the school phone ban. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/25/style/yondr-pouch-school-phone-ban.html

Brown, K. (2020, January 27). Why I take students’ cellphones. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2020/01/28/professor-gives-three-reasons-why-he-doesnt-allow-cellphones-his-classes-opinion

Carter, S. P., Greenberg, K., & Walker, M. (2017). The impact of computer usage on academic performance: Evidence from a randomized trial at the United States Military Academy. Economics of Education Review, 56, 118–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2016.12.005 

Costa, K. (2019, July 29). Why professors shouldn’t ban laptops and other note-taking devices in classrooms. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2019/07/30/why-professors-shouldnt-ban-laptops-and-other-note-taking-devices-classrooms

Elliott-Dorans, L. R. (2018). To ban or not to ban? The effect of permissive versus restrictive laptop policies on student outcomes and teaching evaluations. Computers & Education, 126, 183–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.008 

Emanuel, E. J. (2025, August 21). I banned phones in my college classroom. Students loved it. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/21/opinion/mobile-phones-college-classrooms.html 

Flanigan, A. E., & Babchuk, W. A. (2022). Digital distraction in the classroom: exploring instructor perceptions and reactions. Teaching in Higher Education, 27(3), 352–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1724937

Fried, C. B. (2008). In-class laptop use and its effects on student learning. Computers & Education, 50(3), 906–914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.09.006 

George, S. (2025, November 10). More professors should ban technology. The Duke Chronicle. https://dukechronicle.com/article/more-professors-should-ban-technology-20251110 

Glass, A. L., & Kang, M. (2019). Dividing attention in the classroom reduces exam performance. Educational Psychology, 39(3), 395–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2018.1489046 

Godsk, M., & Møller, K. L. (2025). Engaging students in higher education with educational technology: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies, 30(3), 2941–2976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12901-x

Hou, I., Man, O., Hamilton, K., Muthusekaran, S., Johnykutty, J., Zadeh, L., & MacNeil, S. (2025). “All Roads Lead to ChatGPT”: How Generative AI is Eroding Social Interactions and Student Learning Communities. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2504.09779 

Hutcheon, T. G., Lian, A., & Richard, A. (2019). The impact of a technology ban on students’ perceptions and performance in introduction to psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 46(1), 47–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628318816141

Kraushaar, J. M., & Novak, D. C. (2010). Examining the effects of student multitasking with laptops during the lecture. Journal of Information Systems Education, 21(2), 241–252 

Letchford, J. (2009, January 28). Doing away with in-class Web surfing. Yale Daily News. https://yaledailynews.com/articles/doing-away-with-in-class-web-surfing

Lang, J. M. (2016, September 11). No, banning laptops is not the answer. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/no-banning-laptops-is-not-the-answer/

Martín-Sómer, M., Casado, C., & Gómez-Pozuelo, G. (2024). Utilising interactive applications as educational tools in higher education: Perspectives from teachers and students, and an analysis of academic outcomes. Education for Chemical Engineers, 46, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2023.10.001

Mowreader, A. (2025, December 18). How excessive phone use can hinder student success. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/student-success/health-wellness/2025/12/18/how-excessive-phone-use-can-hinder-student-success

Morehead, K., Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2019). How much mightier is the pen than the keyboard for note-taking? A replication and extension of Mueller and Oppenheimer (2014). Educational Psychology Review, 31, 753–780. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09468-2

Mueller, P. A., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard: Advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychological Science, 25(6), 1159–1168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614524581

Murray, S. (2026, February 3). Can classroom cell phone bans boost grades? Knowledge at Wharton. The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/can-classroom-cell-phone-bans-boost-grades/

Nissley, A. (2025, October 27). Ban laptops from seminars. Yale Daily News. https://yaledailynews.com/articles/nissley-ban-laptops-from-seminars

Nowak, Z. (2019, October 18). A truce in the laptop wars. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2019/10/18/truce-laptop-wars-opinion 

Quesenberry, K. A. (2022). Engaging the disengaged: Implementing a no-tech policy after years of adding tech to the classroom. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator. 

Rhinehart, L., Vazquez, S. R., & Greenfield, P. M. (2022). The Impact of Screen-Free Zones in an Undergraduate Psychology Classroom: Assessing Exam Performance and Instructor Evaluations in Two Quasi-Experiments. Teaching of Psychology, 49(4), 323-328. 

Rock, A. (2026, January 20). Which states have banned cell phones in schools? Campus Safety Magazine. https://www.campussafetymagazine.com/insights/which-states-have-banned-cell-phones-in-schools/161286/

Silverman, S. (2024, May 23). Navigating “access friction” in teaching. Beyond the Scope. https://beyondthescope.substack.com/p/navigating-access-friction-in-teaching

Supiano, B. (2019, February 6). Should you allow laptops in class? Here’s what the latest study adds to that debate. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/should-you-allow-laptops-in-class-heres-what-the-latest-study-adds-to-that-debate/