Undeniably Impactful: How Student Laptops Impact the Environment and High School Students

Christofer Smith • November 8, 2024 • 1316 Words

INTRODUCTION

With 63% of public high schools in the United States providing every attending student a device (Gray and Lewis), contrasting to the less technology-centric academies of other nations (Ripley 51-52), one could wonder how the influx of student devices is impacting the environment within it. With climate change’s presence, wondering such is rational - according to the United Nations, this “defining issue of our time” is attributable to human activities and will lead to the intensification of extreme weather, food and water insecurity, and costly adaptation to the affected climate (“Climate Change”). Thus, it is imperative that the environmental impacts of the devices that high schoolers receive are considered, so as to not harm the world that the students using them inhabit. Since one-to-one student device initiatives or programs similar in their nature are on the rise, as reported by the nonprofit Education Week (Bushweller), schools must be conscious of these details as they relate to the models of laptops they are considering for use. The factors that are involved in quantifying a device’s environmental impacts are varied and complex, however, and due to this, testing in multiple contexts would be required to understand such to the fullest extent. Despite this, the student laptops that high schools utilize undeniably impact both the environment and the students within it.

STUDENT LAPTOPS AND THEIR IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT

Student laptops both prevent and contribute to negative environmental impacts. The pessimistic side of this is demonstrated by an article authored by Lucas Gutterman, the director of the US PIRG Education Fund, a social welfare group that advocates for designing devices to last. Gutterman argues that Chromebooks, a prevalent choice for high schools that provide students with laptops, fail to respect the environment with their “built-in ‘death date,’ after which software support ends,” a lack of support for servicing devices, and designs that are intended to “frustrate repair and reuse” (Gutterman). His perspective aligns with that of a report constructed by a group of four authors involved in teaching and advancing knowledge in learning technologies and environmental justice, led by Scott Warren. By synthesizing numerous journals and reports, these authors concluded that “there will be some real, measurable harm related to technology adoption” that will occur at “various points along the supply chain, during transportation… and while using the device.” Additionally, they suggest there are measurable impacts beyond a device’s use, originating from its end-of-life disposal (Warren et al.). This, however, stands in contrast to a team of researchers from multiple large sustainability and engineering groups, who found that universities’ remote learning “during the COVID-19 pandemic tend[ed] to minimize the overall evaluated impacts to ten of the thirteen impact categories” that were measured (Silva et al. 1). Their findings very likely included laptops and can easily be extrapolated for high school use. Furthermore, they are supported by Leisha Du Preez, a Casual Academic of Western Sydney University. She asserts that distance and online learning “overwhelmingly demonstrates a reduction in carbon emissions” by reducing the carbon emissions of student travel and the energy consumption of campuses and residences (Du Preez). These authors, while disagreeing with certain perspectives, all mention notable points of contention that illustrate the laptops that high school students use in a mixed light, where it becomes apparent that they can simultaneously benefit and inflict damage upon the environment. This lack of cohesion between differing sources, however, reveals the necessity of more research on this topic to ensure that these laptops do not bring harm to nature. Despite this, Gutterman and Warren’s team both reveal the bleak effects of student laptops on nature. Conversely, Silva and Du Preez have shown that through online learning, the other environmental impacts of schooling can be reduced, and thus, holistically, student laptops can favor the environment.

THE ENVIRONMENT AND ITS IMPACTS ON HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

Beyond student laptops impacting the environment, the environment returns effects on the high schoolers within it. This is displayed in a systematic analysis performed by researchers from the Technical University of Munich and the University of Stavanger. Their review saw links between outdoor learning and greater communication skills, increased knowledge, and improved environmental skills that were applicable beyond their outdoor programs. Furthermore, the positive outdoor experiences they had, like gardening, formed positive associations with those activities and self-esteem (Becker et al.). This aligns closely with another meta-analysis of thirty-five papers by a team of researchers from the University of Western Ontario, in which they found that multiple papers reported “a significant positive relationship between nature and emotional well-being,” along with a beneficial correlation between experiencing nature and both overall mental health and stress (Tillmann et al.). Additionally, a team from the University of Queensland and the Zealandia Sanctuary referenced 350 papers to deduce that there are “many benefits that people receive from nature accrue through the five senses as well as at least three non-sensory avenues,” with an emphasis on natural visual benefits (Franco et al.). These narrative reviews all exhibit a correspondence between students and people experiencing their natural environment and the development of their skills and mental balance. These benefits are at the core of why climate change and the environmental impact of student devices matter. In spite of this, the 350-paper study indicates that “there is enough evidence to warrant further exploration, but not enough to draw any firm conclusions” (Franco et al.) for certain metrics, and the thirty-five paper study recorded one paper that “found a negative association between residential surrounding greenness and overall mental health” (Tillmann et al.). These three teams, while referencing a wide array of papers and documents, are all in agreement that there are certainly positive benefits for students and people to experience the natural world around them.

SOLUTIONS TO REDUCE THE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM OF THESE LAPTOPS

Contrary to the negative impacts of student devices, a variety of methods can be employed to mitigate the harmful impacts of the laptops that high schoolers use. Gutterman does provide solutions to the detriments of Chromebooks that he documented. In his article, he asserted that “Google has the power to change” the update support period’s length for Chromebooks, and he furthers that the company can “work with Chromebook manufacturers, pushing them to produce spare parts, and standardize part design” to maximize their devices’s longevity (Gutterman). Likewise to Gutterman, the research team headed by Warren recommends that existing devices can be reused to maximize their service lives, which as shown by one report, can be less than a decade (Thiébaud et al.). Moreover, they pinpoint that instructors and institutions could consider reducing the necessity of student devices, recycling unusable devices with reputable recyclers, and properly disposing of unrecyclable materials (Warren et al.). In agreement with Warren is a team originating from Circular Computing and the School of Aerospace, Transport and Manufacturing found that remanufacturing laptops is much less harmful compared to manufacturing new devices. They state that “the CO2 eq emission is calculated as 21 kg for a remanufactured laptop” and that “the impact prevented by remanufacturing is calculated as 310 kg” when compared to a newly manufactured device (Yuksek et al. 382). As these authors have expressed, a wide array of options, from software to usage and hardware, exist for both high schools and manufacturers. This does, however, imply that these pathways must be sustainable themselves to mitigate these laptops’ impacts. Regardless, advocates, researchers, and engineers alike can concur that multiple strategies to mitigate the detrimental effects of student laptops exist and allow their benefits to prevail.

CONCLUSION

While the environmental impacts of high school students’ laptops are debatable, their beneficial effects on the environment are undeniable. Therefore, it is essential that care and action are taken to ensure that the natural world that these students inhabit is not harmed by the very same laptops that their schools provide. Beyond this, studies can be conducted and metrics can be considered to develop a better understanding of the complexities involved. Combined with environmentally-conscious methods to resolve their disposal, student laptops can be improved to ensure a more ecologically friendly world for learners.

Works Cited

Becker, Christoph, et al. “Effects of Regular Classes in Outdoor Education Settings: A Systematic Review on Students’ Learning, Social and Health Dimensions.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 14, no. 5, May 2017, p. 485, https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/5/485. Accessed 28 Oct. 2024.

Bushweller, Kevin. “What the Massive Shift to 1-To-1 Computing Means for Schools, in Charts.” Education Week, 17 May 2022, https://www.edweek.org/technology/what-the-massive-shift-to-1-to-1-computing-means-for-schools-in-charts/2022/05. Accessed 19 Oct. 2024.

“Climate Change.” United Nations, 2024, https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/climate-change. Accessed 17 Oct. 2024.

Du Preez, Leisha. “What Is the Environmental Impact of Online Teaching and Learning?” Online Engagement and Teaching Hub, Western Sydney University, 2022, https://if.westernsydney.edu.au/engage/theory/what-is-the-environmental-impact-of-online-teaching-and-learning. Accessed 27 Oct. 2024.

Franco, Lara S., et al. “A Review of the Benefits of Nature Experiences: More than Meets the Eye.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 14, no. 8, Aug. 2017, p. 864, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14080864. Accessed 28 Oct. 2024.

Gray, Lucinda, and Laurie Lewis. “Use of Educational Technology for Instruction in Public Schools: 2019—20.” National Center for Education Statistics, Nov. 2021, https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2021/2021017.pdf. Accessed 9 Oct. 2024.

Gutterman, Lucas. “‘Chromebook Churn’ Report Highlights Problems of Short-Lived Laptops in Schools.” U.S. Public Interest Research Group, May 2023, https://pirg.org/edfund/resources/chromebook-churn-report-highlights-problems-of-short-lived-laptops-in-schools/. Accessed 24 Oct. 2024.

Ripley, Amanda. The Smartest Kids in the World: And How They Got That Way. 2013. Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 2014.

Silva, Diogo A. Lopes, et al. “The Environmental Impacts of Face-To-Face and Remote University Classes during the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Sustainable Production and Consumption, vol. 27, May 2021, pp. 1975–88, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.05.002. Accessed 23 Sept. 2024.

Thiébaud, Esther, et al. “Service Lifetime, Storage Time, and Disposal Pathways of Electronic Equipment: A Swiss Case Study.” Ebsco.com, Feb. 2018, pp. 196–208, https://research.ebsco.com/c/kv5dzp/viewer/pdf/ixebzn3dtj. Accessed 26 Sept. 2024.

Tillmann, Suzanne, et al. “Mental Health Benefits of Interactions with Nature in Children and Teenagers: A Systematic Review.” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, vol. 72, no. 10, June 2018, pp. 958–66, https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2018-210436. Accessed 27 Oct. 2024.

Warren, Scott, et al. Educational Technology and Its Environmental Impacts. 2023, https://doi.org/10.59668/270.12644. Accessed 23 Sept. 2024.

Yuksek, Yagmur Atescan, et al. “Sustainability Assessment of Electronic Waste Remanufacturing: The Case of Laptop.” Procedia CIRP, vol. 116, Apr. 2023, pp. 378–83, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2023.02.064. Accessed 26 Sept. 2024.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse