Professor: I Banned Laptops from the Lecture Hall

Students were not only distracted by their screens, but they no longer knew what was the most important thing to write down from lectures

  • Share
  • Read Later
Getty Images

In this brave new world of twenty-first century higher education, it is now axiomatic that professors must employ every possible digital device in order to engage their students. This has led to the common practice of allowing students to use their laptops in the classroom. And use them they do. All you have to do is stand at the back of a crowded campus lecture hall to see the screens crowded with multiple windows open to everything from news sites to Facebook to YouTube. If you’re lucky, you might even catch a glimpse of typed notes underneath the social media bling. When I finally got tired of playing Internet policeman last year, I decided to ban laptops in my Modern Jewish History class.

(MORE: Forget the Marshmallow Test: What Kids Really Need is Cognitive Control)

At first, the students resisted. There was quiet grumbling. Eyes rolled. Some students visibly panicked. I told them that to study distant lands and ages past, you can’t be floating around in cyberspace. To venture afar in your imagination, you have to begin by rooting yourself in the present. Flattening the world into an online babel of competing voices is a poor strategy for improving one’s own ability to listen to and digest complex ideas.

The problem is not just that laptops provide an outlet for boredom. After all, distraction was just as much a problem in Aristotle’s day as in ours. Laptops also have a negative effect on the more attentive students, many of whom compulsively transcribe every utterance out of my mouth onto their keyboards. I’ve even had some students who type notes and use a digital voice recorder to make sure they don’t miss a word. While this flatters the professorial ego, it risks ruining the whole point of the lecture format. Since we can type faster than we write, this completist exercise in documenting lectures simply becomes a mindless form of data acquisition. The essential skill of discernment, of determining what is important and what is not, gets lost in a world of students turned secretaries, dutifully taking dictation.

(MORE: Highlighting is a Waste of Time: The Best and Worst Learning Techniques)

To be fair, technology is an invaluable teaching aid. Students in my lecture classes have come to expect detailed powerpoints that take full advantage of the web’s digital bounty of maps, images, and sounds. I’ve experimented with alternatives to conventional writing assignments, allowing students to curate their own online exhibitions with documents from digital archives. Course forums add significantly to class participation in courses without dedicated discussion sections. But these online advances are complementary instruments to the main work of student-teacher interaction. In the humanities and social sciences, our goal is not to teach students how to remix the culture or instantly connect classroom content to the world outside. It is to teach them how to think.

I’ve now gone on to ban laptops in several courses. And the result? Many students are relieved. Instead of burying their heads in their screens, they ask more big-picture questions. To be sure, at the beginning of each term, some complain that they’re not sure what to write down as the most important take-away facts from lectures. I tell them that this is precisely the point. In a world of data overload, their job as students is to learn how to determine what is important.

(MORE: Need to Remember Something? Make it Rhyme)

To remain attractive and viable, universities will need to think hard about how to integrate technology into the classroom. But my vote is for less, not more. Today’s students enter college as digital natives, already more literate and fluent than their professors will ever be. What they need from us is not tutelage in information management but intellectual challenge and core knowledge. Laptops may make us better at multitasking, but they undermine the radically simple mission of higher education: learning.

James Loeffler is Associate Professor of History at the University of Virginia and 2013-2014 Dean’s Visiting Scholar at Georgetown Law School. He is the author of The Most Musical Nation: Jews and Culture in the Late Russian Empire. The views expressed are solely his own. 


My grades say otherwise. 

This past semester was a first for me.  All of my professors allowed me to use a laptop; I made the Dean's List for the first time. I was actually one point from making the President's List.

Simply put, I suffer from massive hand pain when I have to write. Allowing me to take notes with my laptop (Evernote) rid myself of this pain. Also, I was able to synch my notes across multiple devices. Being able to do this allowed me to read over my notes on any device from anywhere. Coffee shop, fast food restaurant or the bathroom, it didn't matter because I had a phone, tablet, desktop or laptop with me.  Speaking for myself, being able to use a laptop means a full letter grade improvement across classes. 

Bottom line, it is my education. How I choose to record and organize data is my choice. Tuition or as I like to put it, your salary, is paid by me. 


I disagree we write faster then we type. We may draw faster than we write but typing is mostly faster than we write. !


Well done, Prof Loeffler! I applaud your stand on this matter. Listening, thinking and engaging are absolutely invaluable to learning. Concentrating on what's going on and being truly present are eternal abilities that need very serious reinforcement with the current crop of undergraduate students.


So....where is the evidence for grade improvement? Better composition? This article seems to promote a certain strategy without offering an alternative to what laptops provide.

My Google books and Amazon Kindle library is quite simply filled with links to relevant info, highlights (that can be removed or changed later), searchable notes and so forth. The teacher eliminated an immensely valuable resource to students, and then fails to change how she delivers content to match that elimination...then the article fails to mention if there was an improvement in class participation, note taking ability and so on. On top of that, stating that "many students" are relieved, while trying to maintain the credibility of that statement by stating something to the effect that the students will get used to it is a biased and one sided decision that may have hidden consequences. 

Has there been marked improvement in overall grade performance, salient detail retention and class participation in this specific example?