Growing numbers of US universities are making some of their courses “device free”, drawing mixed enthusiasm from edtech experts.

In the latest move the University of Chicago is introducing a no-laptops and no-phones policy on three of its 15 required undergraduate modules, aiming to “reduce distractions and encourage face-to-face discussions”. Exceptions remain, including for students with disabilities.

New York University (NYU) earlier this year introduced its  to champion human connection on campus. The scheme provides faculty resources for device-free classroom practices and establishes zero-technology social spaces across NYU’s campuses in the US and overseas, in part inspired by the anti-screen campaigning of NYU social psychologist Jonathan Haidt.

Meanwhile, certain courses at Yale University have introduced device-free policies, with some English classes recommending the use of laptops, tablets and phones only be allowed with “prior agreement”, after a year-long inquiry into why the public have lost trust in higher education conducted by the institution found that such policies ought to become default.

ɫ��ֱ��

And in , students on the Southern Management Leadership Programme (SMLP) lock their devices away in pouches for two hours to listen to lecturers.

Jenny Trinitapoli, master of Chicago’s Social Sciences Collegiate Division, said the new policy was about “teaching our students how to think without dependence on AI”.

ɫ��ֱ��

“This involves reading difficult texts, assessing claims and the quality of evidence, listening to other voices in the room and engaging productively with perspectives that are different from one’s own,” she continued.

“My colleagues and I are clear about and committed to these goals as integral to general education. As technologies change and the world around us changes, these core goals need to be reaffirmed if they are to persist.”

Device-free policies appear in other countries, experts suggested, despite the trend picking up pace in the US.

Sam Illingworth, a professor of critical AI literacy at Edinburgh Napier University, said UK universities had encouraged students to bring their own devices to class for learning.

“Devices facilitate language-translation; lots of students have English as a second language,” Illingworth said. “If you’re in a group project you might want to be talking about how this [thing] relates to that [thing]; I see students sharing links to papers.

“Education has changed. And I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing. Certainly [in] the instances I have seen students using devices, it’s been a very good thing.”

Illingworth said that universities should “ask the students what they want”, noting that if an institution had evidence that students were “using technology to reduce their cognitive load and the students themselves say they don’t want devices in the classroom, that’s a very different situation”.

ɫ��ֱ��

Paul Ashwin, a professor of higher education at Lancaster University, said he suspected device-free policies were ultimately attempts to respond “to a real educational issue with AI”.

ɫ��ֱ��

But even if removing devices from classrooms might reduce the temptation for students to look to generative chatbots for answers, Ashwin was not convinced they were the answer: “I don’t think blanket bans are a useful way of approaching this. It’s broadly symbolic, it’s broadly a way of institutional positioning.”

For Ashwin, American universities might be looking to characterise themselves as “pro-critical thought” at a time of significant scrutiny from the government.

US education secretary Linda McMahon , as well as emphasising the need for “free speech” on campus. The Trump administration’s approach has not been without controversy, with  that do not fall in line with his government’s more conservative values.

“I think partly it’s a response to the political climate and context that institutions are in. I wouldn’t read it as an educational commitment, it’s part of a wider institutional conversation about how they’re positioning themselves as a particular kind of university,” Ashwin said of device-free policies in the US.

Steve Jones, professor of higher education at the University of Manchester, was more in favour of the policy, although still far from convinced it was foolproof. “My general view is that teaching students how to think without dependence on AI seems like a sensible way forward,” he said.

“Whether device-free classrooms are practical, or take this line of thinking too far, I’m not sure – the ideal outcome is surely graduates who are comfortable with technology but still able to apply rigorous, independent critical thinking.”

Nevertheless, Jones thought if the move was about counteracting AI dependence, the US was streets ahead of the UK.

“UK university management teams have so far struggled to take a principled position on AI, often embracing the technology uncritically and seeking to ‘partner’ with AI providers rather than consider its longer-term impact on pedagogy. There’s a growing divide between institutional rhetoric and academic thinking,” he said.

ɫ��ֱ��

georgia.luckhurst@timeshighereducation.com