A Chromebook in Every Backpack and a Router in Every Classroom: The Pros and Cons of Learning over Screens

Introduction: The Shift to Screen Time

(For a video companion to this article, click here.)

Among the many major changes that education has witnessed in the modern era, perhaps one of the most visually apparent has been the proliferation of Chromebooks in classroom instruction. In less than 10 years, the casual classroom observer has witnessed instruction shifting from every student having a pen and pencil with one or two desktop computers in the back of the classroom to every student having their own personal Chromebook open from bell to bell. Schools across the country have embraced a 1:1 model where every student is assigned a Chromebook in the way that the students of yesteryear were assigned lockers and textbooks.

The emergence of this technology, however, is not just illustrated through anecdotal evidence. To demonstrate the boom in school-wide implementation of these devices, just look at the following two statistics. In 2020, 45% of schools reported having a Chromebook for each student with an additional 37% of schools having one for specific grades or classrooms. Six years later, in 2026, that number had risen to 88% of all schools having a 1:1 computing program, with 89% of those devices being laptops, the most common of these devices being Chromebooks.

Like most of the major education initiatives happening right now, the COVID-19 pandemic served as the main catalyst for this transformation. Kerssens & Dijck (2021) note:

The Covid-19 pandemic has served as a catalyst worldwide for the further platformization, datafication, privatization, and commercialization of educational technology... Alphabet-Google had not only become the leading provider of classroom software (G Suite for Education) for K-12 levels but also of hardware (Chromebooks). (p. 251)

Once remote learning became a long-term fixture of instruction, Chromebooks presented themselves as a low cost, highly efficient way of ensuring that students could remain connected to their instruction while performing all of the basic tasks that school requires such as reading, writing, researching, and accessing whatever learning platform their respective schools were using.

Although the pandemic has subsided and remote learning has largely been phased out due to no longer being necessary, Chromebooks have remained a central component of instruction. The reasons are multi-fold and include being “cost effective, easy to use, convenient…and allow students to build keyboarding, research, and collaborating skills which are required by state standards” while also “allow[ing] students to access all of their work through Google Suite for Education (GSFE) through one login” (Kaur, 2020, p. 28). In many ways the devices have sat at the perfect convergence of multiple movements in education including the desire for easy data tracking, frequent formative assessments, immediate feedback, and an increased media literacy. Because Chromebooks are tailor made to use many of the instructional programs, including the free ones offered by Google Classroom, schools currently use, continuing to build pedagogy around these devices seems like a no-brainer.

From a superficial level, one might say that Chromebooks are changing education; however, this is a tremendous understatement. The impact that the 1:1 model is having on classroom instruction is completely redefining it. Teachers have noted this, commenting that Chromebook integration has caused them to transition “from being the primary deliverer of content to strategic facilitators of learning, utilizing the technology to monitor student progress in real-time and provide immediate, differentiated interventions” (Albataineh et al., 2024, p. 144). Essentially, Chromebooks have delivered the death knell for teachers being “sages on the stages” and have facilitated their transition to being “guides on the side.” Although this shift predates Chromebook implementation (it was being taught to prospective teachers at least 10 years before Chromebooks were even invented), the devices have almost certainly provided the muscle to force this transition.

Of course with any major disruptor, there is going to be pushback. When the status quo is drastically changed, there are both gains and losses. With ideal change the former outweighs the latter, but this is not always the case. As Chromebooks have redefined the role of teachers, students, and learning, they have also created new challenges that teachers have noted as well as overall concerns that the revolution they have incited has not been in the best interests of students or learning. To truly make this determination, we must weigh the immediate pros and cons against a larger question: how can we utilize this technology to effect genuine, positive change?

The Analog Pushback: The Drawbacks of Digital Students

Although there has been no comprehensive study regarding the pushback against Chromebook usage as of now, there have been concerns raised from the three major stakeholder groups: teachers, students, and parents. Interestingly, each set of concerns appears unique to their vantage point, meaning there is only a general consensus regarding their concerns with no major focal point. In plainer words, although each group has pushed back against Chromebook usage, there is not one or two unifying concerns that the groups have rallied around. This is not uncommon whenever addressing a broad initiative as each group is more or less focused on the concerns that directly impact their relationship with community school and public education more generally.

From a pedagogical level, teachers’ concerns about the reliance on Chromebooks in instructional settings have been rooted in both the practicality of them as well as concerns that their presence is creating a decline in core learning skills. Regarding the former, they report that providing students with open screens and internet access has created a class management nightmare. Teachers lament that using these devices requires constant, active surveillance and that students often are able to bypass school and classroom filters to access games, social media, and other distractions during instructional time (Rowe, 2022, p. 81). Essentially teachers have found themselves having to continually divert their attention between facilitating instruction and ensuring that students are on task; Chromebooks have served as a massive distraction for some students who continually have tabs open to distractions and are adept navigating between tabs to avoid detection. This has in turn relegated teachers to playing a kind of internet version of cat-and-mouse instead of working with students to support learning.

Further compounding this issue is that while teachers are having to expend a higher amount of energy towards ensuring that students are not misusing their Chromebooks in order to avoid instruction, teachers are also noticing that a reliance on personal devices is causing a decline in core literacy skills. Educators note that over the past 10 years they have witnessed declines in long-form reading stamina and traditional handwriting; furthermore, there is a consistent worry that “the constant fragmentation of attention on digital platforms is fundamentally changing how deeply students process complex textual narratives” (Tømte et al., 2021, p. 259). Although it would be naive to overlook the fact that these concerns are not new; before Chromebooks it was cell phones, desktop computers, television, and even radios that generated similar anxieties, yet studies have been fairly consistent that screen time and mobile technology have led to a greater degree of distractibility and disengagement from deeper level thinking among students.

While teachers worry about student distractibility, students have expressed increased anxiety about having to rely on technology to access their learning. The common concerns they have raised have included frustration over slow WiFi, uncharged devices, and software updates that can become external barriers to completing already cognitively challenging assignments, and that when a Chromebook malfunctions, they are left feeling anxiety about falling behind academically for reasons that are beyond their control (Albataineh et al., 2024, p. 147). Whereas in the past, students might struggle with remembering to bring their materials to class and developing a system for their own personal organization, these were still issues that were within their sphere of control. With the 1:1 model, however, students must still address these issues (albeit to a lesser extent) while also attempting to plan for a technological infrastructure that is still far from being infallible. Coupling these fears with ageless anxieties that children and young adults face every day such as peer relationships, executive functioning, and increasing academic rigor, it is no surprise that students might feel heightened anxiety.

This ties directly into the additional concern of the seemingly relentless amount of screen time that they are experiencing. In addition to the general anxiety many have reported, students have also expressed that the demand of needing to stare at screens for 6+ hours each day has caused eye strain and headaches, in addition to reducing opportunities for cooperative learning and developing peer relationships (Nichols, 2026, p. 14). While some might dismiss these concerns as being childish and out-of-touch with the realities of the modern day work environment, it is important to note that students are still children and that the prevailing philosophy of K-12 education is not just focused on career preparation but rather developing the “whole child,” including teaching them the universal skills that go behind developing model citizens. Social-emotional learning has and will continue to remain a core component of this. Forcing students into a sterile environment and teaching them to ignore the signs of their own bodies telling them that they need a break runs counter to these goals.

Unsurprisingly parents have also noted these concerns and expressed many of their own. The worries shared by teachers and students have often served as primary motivators for them to set their own household limits on screen time and how easily students may access devices. It is not uncommon to find families who do not permit their children to have smart phones or use social media until they are in their late teens. Furthermore, families will use shared computers and have apps installed on any devices to track their children’s internet use. The widespread digitization of classrooms, however, complicates this. Not only have parents expressed dislike of their children having unfettered online access but have alsoDoc lamented the “erasure of boundaries between school time and home time” where students are required to access the internet to complete assignments that they were unable to at school (Kerssens & Dijck, 2021, p. 258). For many families, they feel as if their efforts to restrict online access is being undermined both in the classroom and at home by schools that are becoming increasingly reliant on the internet for their pedagogy.

Parent concerns about safety have not just centered on students’ emotional well being but also their physical as well. As long as students are online, they will continue to be potential targets for bullying, abuse, and even grooming. Furthermore, nearly every platform, program, and app that they use is likely being tracked by corporations for marketing purposes. Kerssens et al., (2023) describes this worry:

Parents expressed discomfort with the reality that private corporate ecosystems are tracking their children’s keystrokes, search histories, and learning paces from early elementary school onward, creating permanent digital footprints without explicit parental consent. (p. 486)

Although many corporations have attempted to assuage these fears, reiterating that the data they are collecting is aggregated, impersonal, and to help improve the effectiveness of their programs, the emergence of the 1:1 model has raised new issues regarding student privacy, and many parents feel as if they deserve to have more input regarding this.

The Rubicon Has Been Crossed and We Must Accept It

With all of these concerns, as valid as they might be, it is important to note that they are centered less around any inherent flaws regarding the technology but rather how it is being implemented. Despite the many concerns that the 1:1 model is presenting, it is important to ensure that the issues that have emerged do not turn into a convenient excuse for the past to attack the future. The fact of the matter is that we now live in a digital world and educational technology is now a permanent part of it. When looking at the benefits that Chromebook use brings to instruction, it becomes clear why this is the case.

From a practical lens, 1:1 Chromebook models simply make more sense. Studies show that they operate 63% faster than traditional operating systems through their cloud-native management, greatly simplifying administration of these devices (About Chromebooks, 2025, para. 5). If students are going to need to use devices to access their learning, it makes sense for schools to use a unified platform that greatly simplifies the process in terms of access, settings, and monitoring. Furthermore, because Chromebooks serve as a kind of tablet/computer hybrid, school IT departments have the ability to particularly streamline and tailor them to meet the schools’ specific curricular needs. Thus, if there needs to be a device that schools use, Chromebooks offer the most cost efficient and practical option.

Of course, critics will likely dismiss this argument by stating that their objection is not to Chromebooks specifically but rather the 1:1 model being used that is essentially supplanting analog instruction. As mentioned previously, there are a number of concerns and challenges that student device usage raises; however, to simply discontinue them entirely also risks losing the inherent benefits that they bring. Perhaps this is most apparent in their ability to allow for differentiation. When utilizing Chromebooks, teachers are able to personalize learning with an ease that is simply not possible in an analog setting. Teachers can use settings that allow students to move at their own pace, experience instruction that is customized to their unique learning styles and needs, all while “enhancing their engagement, retention, and overall academic performance” (IT for Education, 2024, para. 5). This can mean not only adjusting assignments but also content for students who have disabilities, are English learners, or even are advanced and require higher levels of rigor. To ignore these possibilities would not only be shortsighted but also ignoring the very real needs of specific student populations.

It should be noted that these are not just unrealized potentials. There is concrete evidence that 1:1 Chromebook use has already had these impacts on learners. It should be noted, however, that the success of these models lies in how Chromebooks are used. When 1:1 programs focus on teacher support and practical applications, there has been up to a 30% improvement in student engagement and a 25% increase in assignment completion, with the most significant improvement happening with previously underserved student populations (as cited in Bluum, 2025, p. 3). Much like any instructional tool, Chromebooks can have a truly meaningful impact on supporting student learning when done correctly. Just like TVs, digital projectors, and PowerPoint do not replace instruction, the same can be said about Chromebooks. Teachers would not simply play a PowerPoint or documentary and expect students to learn; adopting this approach with Chromebooks is equally fallacious. If used deliberately, however, with teachers still retaining the primary role of facilitating instruction, Chromebooks can be a powerful tool.

Ultimately, for Chromebooks to be successful, the role of the teacher must be preserved. Sadly, this notion has been openly questioned to the point of First Lady Melania Trump even questioning whether teachers could simply be phased out in favor of AI-powered robots. In addition to this creating a whole different set of issues that would make such a solution impractical, it also ignores the underlying reality that educational technology, including Chromebooks, are tools that must serve human intelligence, not the other way around.

To do this, teachers must first be selective about when Chromebooks are used and when analog is best. Too often it is easy for students to inherently open their Chromebooks from the very moment they sit down in class, meaning that their attention is never fully anywhere else. In addition to this, certain assignments lend themselves better to analog learning. Although technology has become ubiquitous in today’s world, this relationship is not absolute. Students still need to be able to learn and apply skills offline as well, meaning that these skills should not be ignored. This is not just for academic skills either but also for social emotional learning.

Although the future of education is likely to remain digital, this does not mean that analog learning has no place in it. Technology has changed the world and redefined some of our deepest core concepts, but it has not redefined what it means to be a human being. Students will continue to require balanced and pragmatic instruction, and highly trained and competent teachers continue to be the best resource for providing this. In the ever-changing world of instruction, continuing to trust our classroom teachers and empower them through meaningful professional development and support is the evergreen solution in the world of K-12 instruction.

References

About Chromebooks. (2025, October 10). Classroom 15x: Complete guide to modern educational transformation (EdTech Strategy Report). https://www.aboutchromebooks.com/classroom-15x/

Albataineh, M., Warren, B., & Al-Bataineh, A. (2024). The effects of Chromebook use on student engagement. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science, 8(1), 138–151. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijtes.530

Bluum. (2025, December 9). Impact of 1:1 device programs in K-12 educational settings: A literature review. Bluum Educational Resources. https://www.bluum.com/resources/impact-of-1-on-1-device-programs-in-k-12-educational-settings

Gray, L. (2020). Use of educational technology for instruction in public schools: 2019–20 (NCES 2021-017). National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2021017

IT for Education. (2024, March 11). The rise of Chromebooks in education: Transforming teaching and learning. IT for Education Insights. https://www.itforedu.com/2024/03/chromebooks-the-future-of-teaching/

Kaur, D. (2020). Post-positivist approach to factors that influence K-12 teachers’ use of iPads and Chromebooks. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science, 4(1), 26–36. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijtes.v4i1.30

Kerssens, N., & Dijck, J. van. (2021). The platformization of primary education in The Netherlands. Learning, Media and Technology, 46(3), 250–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2021.1876725

Kerssens, N., Nichols, T. P., & Pangrazio, L. (2023). Googlization(s) of education: Intermediary work brokering platform dependence in three national school systems. Learning, Media and Technology, 49(4), 478–491. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2023.2258339

Monster Math Blog. (2026, February 21). How many U.S. schools use online learning? (2026) (National K-12 EdTech Dataset Report). https://www.monstermath.app/blog/how-many-us-schools-use-online-learning-2026

Nichols, T. P. (2026, March 10). Logged in, tuned out: Fifteen years and billions of dollars later, what has learning tech accomplished? Education Next, 26(2). https://www.educationnext.org/logged-in-tuned-out-fifteen-years-billions-of-dollars-later-what-has-learning-tech-accomplished/

Rowe, A. M. (2022). Teacher perceptions of pedagogical change using 1:1 Chromebooks in classrooms (Doctoral dissertation, Nova Southeastern University). NSUWorks. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1439&context=fse_etd

Tømte, C. E., Bugge, M. M., Wollscheid, S., & Vennerød-Diesen, F. F. (2021). A balancing act – Perceptions of how teachers combine digital and analogue devices. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 16(3-4), 250–263. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1891-943x-2021-03-04-02