Going screen-free and reducing the use of technology in classrooms for both students and professors offers promising benefits to all.
Since Queen’s does not have a “university-wide prohibition on AI use,” instructors must determine whether and how students can use AI in their courses. However, some are taking their “not permitted” stance a step further by going old school to optimize learning in our digital era.
By removing screen distractions, these classrooms are returning to university’s purpose of being a community.
Tamara de Szegheo Lang, an associate professor in the Film and Media department, takes a “screen-minimal” approach. Although this learning style remains an experimental process, de Szegheo Lang is starting to see the difference “in terms of feeling a little bit connected.”
“There are so many incidental social experiences that technology is kind of getting rid of, and I don’t like that in a classroom because all of my classrooms rely on participation,” de Szegheo Lang said in an interview with The Journal.
The rise of AI in universities is producing distrust between students and faculty, leading professors to construct syllabi “with the idea that many students are going to use generative AI.”
“That’s not the way you want to enter a class, thinking, how am I gonna catch my students cheating?” de Szegheo Lang said. “Trust is also dissolving a little bit among students because if someone is doing it, then you think you’re gonna be left behind. That’s not a good way to be in a community with your classmates either.”
She hopes that reducing technology overall will reduce the ways AI is most often used in assignments, letting students and professors alike focus on community building and developing skills that AI puts at risk.
“Critical thinking skills are going to end up being important in the long run because anyone can prompt an AI, but not everyone will be able to do the critical thinking, decision making, and problem solving that AI really gets rid of,” de Szegheo Lang noted.
Dr. Molly Wallace, an associate professor in the English department, will instruct the senior-level seminar ENGL 486 with a screen-free approach.
“I find it really develops people’s ability to be present, to reflect, and to listen to each other, in a way that devices tend to disrupt,” Wallace said in an interview with The Journal.
Wallace cited studies conducted by Yale and Cornell in her decision to remove technology from the classroom.
“A vital part of participation is giving people your sustained attention, and it really helps with building that sense of shared purpose and community in a classroom,” Wallace said.
After teaching at Queen’s for almost 20 years, Wallace remembers when laptops were first introduced.
“What became clear early on is that laptops and computers encourage a very different kind of engagement with the course material,” Wallace said. “People are [or can be] in the room, but not actually in the room.”
In the seminar, Wallace uses physical books, course journals, and handwritten exams to work against the machine and prioritize community experiences.
“If I make it clear to them what constitutes honesty in the classroom, then I have to believe that they will follow through,” Wallace said. “As part of that community sense that we have to all have, that we have a common project in the classroom, I have to believe in that.”
Lee Airton, an associate professor in the Faculty of Education, has removed technology completely in one of their courses to facilitate open dialogues and decenter their own leadership.
“The students co-facilitate the class, so they take so much ownership of what we do together. […] Everyone is so present. They can’t have their phones out. They feel very connected to each other, and they feel a lot of ownership over what happens there, because it’s theirs as well, it’s not just mine,” Airton said.
As students build relationships in the classroom, their active listening makes screen distractions a low priority.
“They are all on a journey of becoming comfortable without a phone, and for some it’s harder than others, but the quality of their listening to each other […] means that the relationships they build are so strong,” Airton explained.
As students build trust with each other during class, Airton builds trust with them by designing assessments that focus on themselves as individuals — a connection AI cannot generate.
“I build trust with my students because I don’t put them in a position where they would feel pressured to cheat by using AI. There are high-stakes assessments, [but] they’re very intimately driven by their own interests,” Airton explained. “I never have reason to question it because of the way I’ve designed assessments is so intrinsically motivated and personal.”
It’s not just professors who believe these classrooms encourage connection and higher engagement.
Tessa McMillan, ArtSci ’27, is enrolled in PSYC 333 this semester. Instead of presentation slides and laptops, Professor Sari van Anders teaches old-school with chalkboards and notebooks.
“It is forcing me to talk to people, instead of just sitting there and playing games on my computer. I’ve actually made friends in this class,” McMillan said in an interview with The Journal. “I think it’s promoting a social environment, and I remember those lectures more than any of my other ones.”
Alex Kearn, ArtSci ’29, enrolled in PHIL 263, said his professor, John Miller, “gently but firmly implements a no screen approach” with in-person work, physical notetaking, and minimal use of OnQ.
“The most pronounced effect I’ve experienced is being less distracted by people in front and beside me scrolling or watching videos,” Kearn wrote in a statement to The Journal.
For Kearn, distrust between students and faculty are worst case scenarios, but trust remains a concern.
“Only in the worst of cases do I feel there’s actual distrust; most of the time, faculty recognize that AI usage by students is an incentive and discipline problem,” Kearn stated. “Where I feel there is distrust, I think the only way forward is to allow fewer opportunities for AI to undermine trust. For example, reducing the frequency or weighting of take-home assignments, quizzes, and written work.”
Although professors and students alike have been receptive to these classroom changes, tech-free teaching approaches have yet to be implemented across all university courses.
When it comes to classes that can prioritize participation and discussion-based learning, these classrooms encourage higher engagement as screen distractions are removed and, as a result, students are less distracted.
When classrooms focus on connection, courses become communities. While it’s challenging to implement these changes in non-seminars, supportive learning environments are beneficial for any classroom, so all involved can optimize their learning.
Tags
Classroom, Generative AI, learning, Professors, Student life, Technology
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to eic@queensjournal.ca.