3
Our school library, taken by author
By Alyssa C
The school library has always been an essential space for students who seek quiet, focus, collaboration, and academic spaces. However, technology has transformed these spaces in past years. The digital devices such as laptops, tablets, and smartphones have become necessary devices for research, assignments, and group projects. While technology has benefited access to learning, it has also contributed to new challenges.
At our school, the back corners of some of our library’s hidden areas began to change into spots for students to no longer engage with devices for classroom purposes but instead, students played video games, accessed social media, or were otherwise distracted online, making a big noise and distractions for the library’s intended purpose of a quiet, academic space. To support students’ efforts to learn, our school implemented a tech-free zone policy, creating two areas in the library. One is a carpeted space where tech use was allowed for classroom work and a back area for which tech use is not permitted.
The school sought to question this policy to reduce distractions and reestablish a space of serious study. However, despite these admirable goals, the reality of this policy has been more complicated, and at times problematic. Many students, including myself, view the division as inconvenient for what was once a big space where we can collaborate.
Librarian Ms. Meisa Wu spoke for many when she said, “It’s a little bit strange for us,” which illustrates how the space that was once collective and functional is now partitioned and divided. Before this policy was in place, students were allowed to use technology anywhere in the library as long as it was for academic reasons. The technology area is now full of students crammed into the carpeted area.
Ms. Meisa noted, “That will make the carpet area more crowded… mostly the 6th graders sit on the floor to use their computers since they were sitting normally on floor in elementary school.” This has shown significant stress, diminished open spaces for studying, and restricted students’ access to technology at the very times they are needed most such as at the end of a quarter or during summative weeks when most projects and tests come at the same time.
In my opinion, the technology-free zone policy aims to solve disruption from technology misuse but does not make a sufficient effort to balance students’ needs. The issue here is that technology is no longer an added benefit. It has become part of how students learn, interact with, and work in a collaborative way. Group projects are completed with shared digital documents or presentations. Research is conducted through digital databases and academic research sites. Note-taking and presentations are mostly made on digital formats.
By not allowing students to use devices in a quite large amount of area in the library, the policy threatens to take away the very access students need to be academically successful. The policy creates this outcome for students with advanced courses like International Baccalaureate Diploma Program(IBDP) or students with greater amounts of work. Ms. Meisa’s thoughts about crowding and limited access to computers is a reflection of this larger equity issue. Ultimately, the policy places students in competition with limited spots to use devices that are permitted, which compromises focus and productivity.
Moreover, I find myself in agreement with grade 10 student Maria N., who has strong assertions about the policy’s efficacy in limiting gaming and misuse, “You can’t stop kids from playing games unless you take their devices away.” This approach is addressing the symptoms of misuse such as a group of students that games in the corner below the teacher’s line of sight, not the causes of that behavior, or supervision.
Therefore, I would argue that the question of the fundamental effect of the tech-free zone will have to come into question. Restrictions alone will not reduce distractions, they will simply displace behavior, move it offsite to different places around the schools. This will create frustration for people in the restricted space and as a result, not having access to devices or a quiet study place.
From the viewpoint of the leadership, Secondary Assistant Principal Ms. Eileen Rueth, the tech-free zone policy is a careful attempt to encourage moderate technology use and support wellness. She noted technology “is allowed in the library for educational purposes. It is not meant for gaming, video watching or social media.” She believes that students “should have the ability to disconnect from devices and have personal interactions with each other.” She is concerned about not only mental health, but social interaction, with a focus on academics.
However, this view misses some serious, practical challenges. Even with the leadership’s attempts to improve the issue of overcrowding and limited space by adding more technology places, it continues to be an issue. The policy placed a divide between where students can and cannot choose to study. If a student had to study in a tech-allowed space, this could increase additional stress and reduce productivity. It may be true that there are students who can be productive in low technology quiet spaces, but there are others who would do better with regular access to a device in their learning environment.
Grade 6-7 school counselor Ms. Addie Parker, for example, noted, “The trend for modern education and academic research continues to be dependent upon technology like laptops, mobile tablets and online resources,” and they caution that “policies that completely remove digital devices from the classroom may unintentionally add barriers for many students.”
Ignoring the reality noted by Ms. Parker could risk not addressing learning preferences and needs which can cause more stress during few weeks before the report card comes out.
Notwithstanding the above-mentioned issues, some students expressed the benefits of the policy. Grade 8 Anna K., showed her support and said, “I personally support the decision … it keeps the library quiet with no distractions so I can concentrate.” She stated that the policy has enhanced their time management and focus, allowed for face-to-face social interactions with her friends, and promoted more relaxation. These benefits serve as evidence that for some students in shared educational spaces, the limited use of technology creates opportunities for greater focus and engagement in a positive way. It is important to acknowledge that these benefits such as limited distractions and increased interaction can make a significant difference for learning.
However, simply acknowledging these positives doesn’t change the overall outcome of the current policy. The process with which devices are so restricted in a learning environment carries the potential for exclusion and inequality of use of technology. Students depending on technology to complete assignments or collaborate with others have their efforts decreased as they are forced to occupy over-crowed areas with limited resources. The positives for some need to be considered against the negatives for others in order to reach a productive, equitable place.
Developing from Ms. Meisa’s practical suggestions, creating other options would involve environmentally designed involvement as opposed to a direct exclusion of technological devices. For example, rearranging bookshelves or having small exhibitions so that they block back corners that foster gaming.
Still, environmental redesign is only part of the solution. If we do not want to deal with the distractions and misuse of technology, it will be critical to have increased adult supervision and consistent reinforcement of the behavioral expectations for students using devices in or out of the classroom. In addition to the physical environment, establishing an educational focus on appropriate behavior in shared spaces can encourage self-regulation amongst students and help support a positive library culture. Involving students in the development of library policy and processes for providing feedback on the experience can help them to take ownership and keep the policy.
Importantly, establishing the tech-free zone has added pressures. Some older students, with their more difficult workloads associated with IBDP, feel they are at a disadvantage due to the loss of space and access to technology. In attempting to balance the space with the individuality of student learning preferences, we must remember that learning preferences are not uniform.
Some students like when opportunities to learn are presented in a quiet or mostly device-free library. Others may need to have a continuous opportunity to engage with their devices as they engage in collaboration, research, or constructing knowledge through digital devices. Therefore, Ideal policy and practice ought to have multiple differentiated spaces within the library, where students could use devices with guidelines or a quiet space where devices are either minimized or silent.
In considering these concerns, I still think that while a tech-free zone policy deals with the very real concern of distractions, the reality of the tech-free zone doesn’t quite get it right. It emphasizes spatial separation and exclusion without fully addressing supervision, and expectations for behaviors. The outcome is a library space that not only restricts important access to technology but also does not effectively mitigate distractions at the same time. By creating context and learning objectives around responsible use of devices and a culture of engagement and learning, change would create a better environment result rather than just limiting technology.
By employing a more measured and adaptive approach through intentional space arrangement, engaged active supervision, explicit expectations on usage, and participation of the students we can foster a library environment that has focus, social engagement, and academic success.
Share
Print
