Tech-free teaching: how to get it right

Technology can be a valuable tool in university teaching. Anonymous polling gives reserved students a voice, collaborative tools extend discussion beyond the classroom and assistive resources improve access for many. 

However, devices can become a crutch for some students. When a laptop is open, a student uncertain about the content might be tempted to look something up without thinking about it or to simply scroll. 

The device provides cover that works against learning objectives in classes specifically designed to build oral argument and peer-to-peer debate skills. I’ve found carefully designed tech-free sessions effective in cultivating ideas and helping students articulate their thoughts.

On my third-year optional economics of crime module, the first set of tutorials take place in a desk-free space with no screens. I design these sessions to encourage discussions and help students develop the brainstorming skills they will need for their summative group debate assessment. While I use online polling tools in many sessions, the goal in these sessions is different: to have students debate actively with each other. 

In my experience, removing devices serves that aim more directly than any digital tool. These tutorials have been consistently well received over the past three years: 96 per cent of students surveyed expressed satisfaction and 87 per cent left feeling prepared for their assessments. 

Several students have commented that being away from their laptops even for one session made them realise how much they rely on them, which in itself is a useful reflection. Here’s how to make this approach work.

Prepare the environment and structure the discussion 

I run these sessions in a flexible teaching space where there are no desks on which to rest a laptop even if a student has brought one. Instrumental music plays on entry: a low-cost signal that this will be a different kind of class. Preparation is essential. I distribute pre-reading and debate prompts five to seven days in advance. Without that, a device-free session may become a content-free one. Students arrive with prompts to encourage thinking; the absence of a screen stops them outsourcing that thinking once they are in the room.

An open discussion prompt thrown at about 25 students in each session will likely produce silence. A four-phase structure prevents this:

• An icebreaker connects to the tutorial content and the assessment, getting students speaking before the stakes feel high. 
• A whole-group debate on the first prompt shows them how to think and brainstorm together. 
• Breakout groups of three to four students remove the ability to hide: they are too small for silence, so they encourage genuine exchange. 

Finally, the facilitator synthesises the debate and connects it explicitly to the module’s learning outcomes. Unstructured discussion must always close with key takeaways from the sessions.

Resist rescuing students from silence 

Without keyboards, students need time to process their thoughts before they can articulate them. The initial instinct for many less experienced tutors is to fill the gap. Resist it. Research by scholars at the University of Oxford shows that students given longer to think produce more substantive responses in discussion-based learning. Tell students explicitly at the start that this is a safe space for half-formed thoughts, then wait. This is also one of the most important things to model when training teaching assistants during the session.

• Spotlight guide: Reframe assessment as part of learning
• Spotlight guide: Soft skills for hard times
• Five considerations for effective group work

Make the approach accessible 

Removing devices entirely from a course may raise real accessibility concerns. Anonymous polling helps students who struggle to speak publicly, and many students rely on devices for note-taking, processing time or assistive technology. A few well-signposted sessions are more suitable than entirely device-free courses. Share the session structure in advance so students with specific needs can prepare. 

Build in genuine opt-out paths for students who find spontaneous open discussion challenging. These may include a simultaneous written task for students who prefer not to speak aloud, or an observer role that involves tracking arguments and contributing a closing synthesis rather than participating in the live debate. 

And finally, make sure the session closes with a clear academic synthesis. The move from open debate to structured conclusion is itself a scaffold for students who find unstructured environments challenging.

One caveat worth acknowledging is that my module is optional, which may make an unconventional format easier to run. However, students in any module, optional or required, are more likely to engage in an unusual format if they understand the reasons behind it.

You do not need to redesign your whole module. Design a few device-free brainstorming or reflective sessions and keep the rest of your teaching as device-rich as it needs to be. The contrast itself is pedagogically useful: students who move between device-supported and device-free discussion-only formats may develop a clearer sense of the benefits of each mode.

AI Declaration: The author used Claude Sonnet 4.6 to support the editing process. All the ideas are from the author’s personal practice and experience. 

Arpita Ghosh is a lecturer in economics at the University of Exeter.

If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Attendance in an age of attention dispersion: the critical role of device-free classrooms

A critical analysis of the role of wait time in classroom interactions and the effects on
student and teacher interactional behaviours

‘Dare to be silent’: re-conceptualising silence as a positive pedagogical approach in schools