• Generative AI in the Classroom: Robbing Students of Their Attention
• Electronic Devices in the Classroom: Robbing Students of Their Attention
• Removing Generative AI and Electronic Devices from the Classroom?
  • Preserving and Training Students’ Attention: Defensive Measures
  • Training Students’ Attention: Active Measures
• Introducing Generative AI in the Classroom with Three Actions
• A Test: What Policy on the Use of Generative AI for a Creative Essay?
• Conclusion
• About Me

Technology in the classroom has become an urgent issue. Laptops, smartphones, and now generative AI are increasingly depriving students of one of their most precious assets: their attention. In this blog post, I argue that these challenges demand distinct responses.

Generative AI in the Classroom: Robbing Students of Their Attention

A recent article argues convincingly that generative AI in the classroom robs students of experiencing “learning”. Instead of pondering, exploring, and reflecting on a subject, students now simply write a prompt and, with one click, generate the response the teacher expects.

The authors are clear about the damage this causes: when students rely on generative AI, they focus on delivering content rather than engaging in the process of creation, imagination, and critical judgment. What they lose in the process is their ability to concentrate—their attention. They no longer truly engage with the subject or learn to focus on a task for a sustained period.

This is a serious development—not only does it undermine the mission of schools and universities to shape thoughtful, critical minds, but it also threatens vocational prospects. Graduates who never learn to focus and think independently will struggle in complex professional environments.

Electronic Devices in the Classroom: Robbing Students of Their Attention

Another article from 2019 makes a similar argument about electronic devices: using Internet-enabled devices in class divides attention and lowers academic performance. While tech is introduced in classrooms for valid reasons—note-taking, quick research—it often ends up pulling students away from the subject at hand. A recent thread on X captures this tension in a debate between a professor who banned screens and the reactions it sparked.

Removing Generative AI and Electronic Devices from the Classroom?

Now, shifting from a couple of readings to personal experience.

After 10 years doing research in the history and sociology of science, I spent another 10 as a business school professor. I now head two departments at a visual arts school focused on interactive design and video games. I’m also deeply involved in software development for text mining and network visualization and teaching about generative AI.

Preserving and Training Students’ Attention: Defensive Measures

I’ve seen firsthand how devices can derail student focus in my own classes. And once—anecdotally—I saw it happen in another. While I was teaching, I could see into the adjacent classroom through a window panel in the wall. From where I stood, I could see students’ screens—and even though the teacher was actively engaging them, pointing at the board and prompting discussion, they were quietly watching YouTube on mute.

That moment stuck with me. It made me realize how blissfully unaware we can be as teachers, believing that our energy and motivation alone are enough to keep students from getting distracted by their screens.

I’ve long banned laptops in my classes—and never went back. I would say, “Open your laptop—we’re going to do an exercise that requires accessing online resources,” and then, “The exercise is now over; please close your laptop.” This worked, though not without resistance. Sometimes I was too tired to call out students glancing at their phones in their laps. I even once scolded a student for using their phone under the desk—only to realize they were just picking their nails. Embarrassing, but the overall result was clear: students were paying attention.

In programs where laptops or desktops are essential tools—like game art or interactive design—enforcing this is more complex. You can’t just shut the computers off. Still, the effort to cultivate focus must continue. Now that I’m in an administrative role, I suggest rather than enforce. Here are a few rules of thumb:

• Enforce focused screen use: Make it clear that screens must be used only for class-related tasks—and follow through on that policy. No need for screens? Shut it down.
• Ban smartphones in class: Even if students claim they need them for notes or due to a malfunctioning laptop, stay firm.
• Accommodate disabilities: Naturally, make the appropriate exceptions for students who need devices for accessibility.

Training Students’ Attention: Active Measures

Beyond defensive strategies, we can take active steps to build students’ attention. That means helping them understand what attention is—and why it matters. One great example comes from the article I cited earlier, describing a classic art history exercise:

An exercise that compels students to become aware of the process by which they formulate responses to our prompts is one of the most traditional pedagogical exercises in the art historian’s toolkit. Drimmer [co-author of the paper] has students sit in a dim classroom, look at a work in silence for twenty minutes, and jot their thoughts.
The class then reconvenes not only to talk about their observations but also to reflect on what that process was like. They always say, “it’s hard.” Without fail, they articulate how challenging it felt to maintain their focus when they thought they had nothing left to write and then how unexpected it was to be able to work through a barrier of stultification toward discovering more to see, to think about, and to write.
– How We are Not Using AI in the Classroom by Sonja Drimmer & Christopher J. Nygren (ICMA News, 2025)

This kind of exercise shows students what attention feels like—and why it matters. And here’s where I slightly diverge from the authors: I don’t believe generative AI is inherently an attention-killer. If introduced the right way, it can actually support learning.

Introducing Generative AI in the Classroom with Three Actions

Not as a prompting machine/attention-killer, but as a tool for production

Generative AI is rapidly becoming as essential as computers in many professions. Its adoption is still evolving, but it’s already clear that tasks like writing, coding, asset creation, and research often involve AI. I use it myself—for polishing this blog post, formatting markdown quirks, and even translating this into French. What used to take an hour now takes ten minutes.

So how do we resolve the contradiction? If generative AI threatens students’ attention but is also an essential tool, how should we teach it?

We treat it as an object of study—not just a prompting machine. And we start early with three actions:

1. Introduce generative AI as a topic in culture and humanities classes.
2. Teach students how to use it thoughtfully—as one tool among many in the creative process.
3. Adjust syllabi and assignments to clarify when generative AI is appropriate and when it’s not.

In my view, actions 1 and 2 should be built into the curriculum as early as possible. Understanding generative AI is a new kind of literacy. Ignoring it only increases the risk of students using it poorly.

Action 3 is trickier. Right now, many schools ban generative AI for assignments. I understand the concern: when students delegate everything to ChatGPT, they lose the chance to learn, reflect, and focus. But AI can be a powerful creative tool—if it’s explained, examined, and practiced responsibly. Banning it outright only delays students’ ability to learn how to use it well.

In many cases, this prohibition is starting to feel out of step. Professors use AI daily—sometimes even to grade papers—while students get penalized for doing the same.

A Test: What Policy on the Use of Generative AI for a Creative Essay?

So, imagine this scenario: students are assigned a creative essay or a design brief requiring both text and visual assets. How should we approach generative AI here?

My proposal:

• Precondition 1: Generative AI has been introduced as a topic earlier in the curriculum, from a cultural / humanities standpoint.
• Precondition 2: Students have been taught how to use it effectively and responsibly.
• Assignment policy: Don’t fully allow or fully ban it. Allow specific uses, and prohibit others.

Writing a list of permitted and banned uses is tough. One pragmatic approach: specify what’s not allowed, and require students to document how they used generative AI. For instance:

• OK to use generative AI for research, ideation spell check, revision of style
• OK to use generative AI for post production on visual assets (upscaling, filters…)
• NOT OK for the drafting / writing of text or the production of the visual.

It may sound bureaucratic—but it’s more realistic than either extreme.

Conclusion

This post was inspired by conversations at my workplace and recent discussions on Bluesky and on Twitter. I’d love to continue the discussion!

About Me

I’m an academic and independent web app developer. I created nocode functions 🔎, a free, point-and-click tool for exploring texts and networks. It’s fully open source. Try it out and let me know what you think—I’d love your feedback!

• Email: analysis@exploreyourdata.com 📧
• Bluesky: @seinecle 📱
• Blog: Read more articles 👓 on app development and data exploration.