Workshop summary: Low-tech teaching and accessibility

An overview with commentary

One thing I have learned during my time working as a faculty developer is that the “workshop” format is not for everyone. I do work very hard to make the workshops that I facilitate as engaging and accessible to a wide group of people, but that doesn’t mean it will be the ideal way to learn for every interested person. In that spirit, I wanted to provide a written summary of a recent workshop I lead on “Low-tech teaching and accessibility.” Through this post, I will provide a little overview of the workshop and the conversation it inspired between me and the other participants. If you are interested in looking at the materials we used in the workshop itself, both the slides and the handout/collaborative space are available on my website. I’ll review the basic discussion points of the workshop, and provide a little commentary on what I took away as I go. Before I start, I should mention that this event couldn’t have been such a success without the generous participation of nearly 70 wonderful folks who came together to think and discuss - I am sincerely grateful for each of them.

Part 1: Motivations and incoming knowledge

We began by noting that the idea of low-tech teaching has gained traction in the general discourse in higher-ed teaching over the past year for some positive and interesting reasons and for some more frustrating ones. The positives included 1) wanting to offer a classroom space that is relatively free of technological distractions or expectations of AI-assisted “perfection” and 2) Wanting to create learning spaces that encourage and offer opportunities to dabble in lost arts such as writing by hand and reading from physical books (this is exaggeration, I do not believe these are truly lost). The motivations that were viewed more negatively by participants were 1) Attempts to circumvent newer and more specific requirements for digital accessibility - a hypothetical instructor with this motivation might say “New ADA requirements? I guess I just won’t put anything online!” and 2) Feeling like absolutely banning technology is the best solution to pervasive and often inappropriate AI use among students, particularly for writing and research assignments. For some participants, these latter motivations were frustrating because they felt like a disengagement from an important conversation, rather than interest in understanding student needs and experiences.

One thing I learned from the workshop participants is that this conversation feels fresh and urgent right now on their campuses, even though there have been decades of debates about the role of technology in the classroom, and many wonderful books that could provide guidance for today even though they were written before the rise of AI. It is also worth mentioning that the idea of low-tech teaching is not only becoming popular in discussions among individual instructors, but has also appeared in high profile communications such as Yale University’s “Report of the Yale Committee on Trust in Higher Education.” One recommendation from this report suggested that “Yale affirmatively support a classroom environment conducive to full presence, focus, and interaction. That begins with a device-free policy—no phones, laptops, or tablets—as the default in classroom settings. Individual faculty may depart from this approach for compelling pedagogical, research, or practical reasons, and students with documented needs must be accommodated. Changing the default, however, will help to restore respect for the living classroom experience as a place of active interchange and focused learning” (italics added). University of Chicago Law School recently released a policy forbidding laptops in the classroom as well (again with some exceptions)¹. While these institutions may not represent the majority of students and instructors in higher ed, these institutions and policies are clearly shaping the overall conversation.

Part 2: Models of low-tech

As part of trying to unpack the different motivations for low-tech teaching, I presented three models that could help distinguish between different approaches.

1. Slow pedagogy: We might call slow pedagogy a deliberate resistance to a culture of speed and immediacy in higher ed teaching, and in higher ed more generally. I feel like an interesting reference point for the idea of slowness is the book The Slow Professor: Challenging the culture of speed in the academy, which I believe is worth a re-read in 2026 (it came out in 2017 almost a decade ago). There are certainly variants on slow pedagogy, or specific assignments or practices that integrate components of this approach. Two specific ones that I mentioned in the workshop include Lily Abadal’s in-class, hand-written term paper assignment and Ignacio M. Sanchez Prado’s notebook assignment, both detailed on their respective blogs. These are great references for carefully designed assignments which ask students to use analog methods in ways that may be unfamiliar to them.

2. Teaching Naked: This is the title of a 2012 book by José Antonio Bowen, which while eye-catching, represents a relatively simple concept: There can be benefits to reserving face-to-face classroom time for activities that are not mediated by technology while using tools like the LMS, recorded lectures, discussion boards, and more to support learning between class sessions. I think a few applications of this model to a contemporary low-tech classroom might be designating certain times of class during which devices are specifically put away or leaning on technology like AI-enabled transcripts to create a record of discussions without students needing to type.

3. Right to concentrate: This is an idea I draw from a recent paper in the journal Neuroethics by researchers Kaisa Karki and Visa Kurki. The authors define a right to concentrate as “a right against significant, non-consensual interference with a person’s concentration-requiring task.” While there is a lot of more detail in the article, we could consider viewing a classroom as what the authors call a “concentration space” - a setting in which the right to concentrate applies. This approach might ask us to consider how to balance different needs around technology and concentration rather than come up with a single blanket policy.

I will of course note that these are far from the only models of low-tech teaching, they are just a few possible models that could help frame discussions. Of these models that I introduced, the “right to concentrate” was definitely the most controversial, or at least the one that sparked the most discussion. A few participants were troubled by the idea that concentration could be framed as an individual right in the context of a classroom community: as we discussed, there is often access friction present when we attempt to maximize concentration because what enables concentration for one person may disrupt it for another. If we take the concept of a right to concentration too far, how would a neurodivergent student whose behavior is unfamiliar or less predictable to other students fare? Not likely very well. Through some conversation, we determined that a better way of framing the idea of the right to concentrate is one of collective responsibility for creating a space conducive to concentration. Put more simply, in the words of one participant, we would need to ask students to take a “conscientious approach to peers.”

Whether or not you use these models, you might be interested in the idea that the goal of your low-tech teaching is likely to also influence your approach to accessibility. For example, if you goal is more to prioritize class time for non-technology mediated activities, you might invest a lot of time up front to determine what background technologies or plans can take the pressure off of note-taking or fast reading'/processing, like recording, transcription, or a designated note-taker. If your goal is to engage in slow pedagogy or more analog activities, you might want to explore how people with different disabilities experience these, and incorporate that knowledge into your design.

Part 3: Productive dialogue on low-tech teaching and accessibility

In this part of the workshop, I presented my central working thesis about the whole topic of low-tech teaching and accessibility: That we can have this dialogue more effectively if we move away from a “pull the plug” mindset (a forced reset on all or most technologies in the classroom) to an approach that starts from goals, values, and a recognition of the role of technology in accessibility.

To begin this discussion, I encouraged participants to write down some hypothetical statements that instructors might make if they were in the “pull the plug” mindset or if they were in the “intentional design” mindset, especially with respect to accessibility. Although some of the responses in the former category were caricatures of frustrated and disaffected instructors, I personally felt it was helpful to see how their concerns could be productively re-framed by a supportive person: For example, an instructor who feels that they “highly value reading, including whole books and physical books, and want their students to get exposure to that and the benefits for learning” might in a moment of frustration say that they need to “pull the plug” to “force students to think for themselves and actually read without the help of AI summaries.” But, upon further reflection, they might realize that the plug-pull approach may introduce new complications, and try to focus on their initial goal - helping students experience and see the benefit of reading challenging texts.

After this exercise, I presented three potential ideas for how to approach conversations with faculty who are interested in going “low-tech,” whether they are currently in the plug-pull mindset or not.

1. Help to clarify what “low-tech” means to them. As I wrote in this space previously, there is a large range of what low-tech actually means for any given instructor. A few questions we can ask ourselves and our colleagues are:

What role do you want technology to play in your classroom if any?

Can moments of respite from technology balance moments when technology is needed or beneficial? Or are you imagining a more maximalist version of low-tech?

Can limiting a specific type of technology help create the foundation of the environment you want? E.g. Phones off and stored away, WiFi off on computers

2. Encourage consideration of disability and accommodations up front. Some students will require the use of technology to participate in class, including phones and laptops in some circumstances. It might be useful when planning a lower-tech classroom to accept and plan for this fact at the outset, rather than hoping that it doesn’t come into play. Some questions we can ask ourselves and our colleagues are:

If your interest in “analog” or “low-tech” classrooms is inspired by a vision of a space totally free of devices, how will students with accommodations fit into that?

If you feel strongly that devices interfere with learning, can you also learn more about the experiences of students with disabilities who may need devices for participation? Can this learning help you update your mental model of classroom technology?

3. Consider the possibility that the “plug-pull” mindset may introduce new frustrations or conflict. There is a lot of access-friction inherent in tech-policies, and a blanket policy intended to apply to all students may involve some similar trade offs. I think it is wise to consider that learning may not automatically go smoothly just because certain technologies are removed. Some questions we might ask ourselves and our colleagues are:

Do I feel prepared this semester to navigate a whole new set of challenges in an analog classroom?

These may include dramatically changing pace, expectations around content coverage, and helping to satisfy a range of emerging accessibility needs. (Different instructors may answer yes, no, or maybe).

Part 4: A case study of a colleague conversation about lower-tech teaching

The final part of the workshop offered an opportunity to apply some of these ideas to a case study of two colleagues discussing plans for lower-tech teaching in a future semester. The specifics of the case and our reactions to it are a little beyond the scope (haha) of what I’d like to cover in this summary, but you are welcome to check it out on the workshop handout.

Conclusion

Overall, I would say my main thesis for the workshop is that I think low-tech and or slow pedagogy ideas can work together with a serious approach to accessibility, but that we need to reconsider the “pull the plug” mindset, cathartic as it may feel to some instructors. This point aligns with my broader study of access friction in teaching and learning as well: there are any number of effective or appropriate teaching approaches for given situations, but any teaching approach will be improved and enriched by a serious consideration of trade-offs for different students.

I’m excited to be taking this discussion of low-tech teaching and accessibility to a few individual campuses soon, so I am certain that I’ll be revising my thinking as the semester goes on and I discuss this topic with more instructors, staff, and administrators. Feel free to contact me with any feedback or comment below!

News and events

• I am patiently awaiting the release of my book Classroom Mindscapes: An Introduction to Neurodiversity for Educators in September, which you can pre-order now on the publisher’s site - feel free to contact me as well if you would like to arrange any book talks or events!

• I’ve been doing some work to update my website with materials from past events: Please check the blog section of my website to find these and let me know if there is something you are looking for that you can’t find.

• I’m in the midst of planning an exciting Fall 2026 and Spring 2027 with both remote and on-site events. If you are interested in working together on faculty development programming, please check out my offerings on my website. These include half- and full-day neurodiversity workshops, semester-long programs on UDL and neurodiversity, and customized consulting projects.

Photo by John Moeses Bauan on Unsplash

1. Both the Yale and University of Chicago Law policies acknowledge that some students with approved accommodations won’t be subject to these policies. My perspective is that a broader discussion of accessibility is warranted beyond approved accommodations, but both statements do make clear reference to disability.