Multitasking can impair learning

It is these reasons that people show impaired performance and memory when attempting to multitask. In the classroom setting, students who have attempted to multitask have not only shown impaired performance and learning, but also reduced attention span. This information is particularly important in a classroom environment with ever-changing technology bringing additional forms of communication into play.

Attention is selective and enhances processing of the attended stimulus while diminishing processing of unattended stimuli. Collectively, these theories serve to elucidate the manner in which media multitasking decreases academic performance and impacts cognition. According to the bottleneck theory of attention, attention can be allocated to only one task at a time. Thus, multitasking is a myth; instead, the mind switches between tasks. Because attentional resources are limited, filtering of stimuli must occur.

The bottleneck postpones aspects of processing of the secondary task until the primary task is completed. Van dur Schuur and colleagues van dur Schuur et al. According to the scattered attention hypothesis, long-term media multitasking may lead to disrupted cognitive control in which the individual gravitates towards the preferred task rather than maintaining focus despite attentional distractions van dur Schuur et al.

Cognitive control includes several processes, such as focusing attention on goal-relevant information, filtering irrelevant information, switching efficiently between tasks, and retaining information temporarily van dur Schuur et al.

The scattered attention hypothesis maintains the information processing theoretical approach to cognition, in which the brain is a device that employs mental resources to carry out operations and complete tasks. According to this theory, the executive system controls mental resources, allocating them where necessary. Per information processing theory, attention is a limited resource.

According to the scattered attention hypothesis, media multitasking hastens the depletion of the attentional resource, consequently diminishing performance on the primary task. If—as is the case with media multitasking—attentional demand exceeds attentional capacity, the cognitive system overloads and performance suffers. On the other hand, the trained attention hypothesis argues that frequent media multitasking could positively affect cognitive control via eventual training and improvement of control processes.

According to this theory, multitasking promotes mental flexibility that enables high-level efficiency and productivity, skills essential for success in modern work and learning environments Courage et al.

Research is more consistent with the scattered attention hypothesis than the trained attention hypothesis van der Schuur et al. This is because experimental literature to date on divided attention and dual-task performance demonstrates a limited processing system and consequential deterioration in performance and productivity when multitasking Courage et al. Heavy and low media multitaskers categorized by media multitasking index score via the Media Use Questionnaire; Ophir et al.

Students who were not frequent media multitaskers relied on top-down information to complete the experimental task, applying top-down distraction filtering to improve performance. Frequent media multitaskers, on the other hand, attended to and processed stimuli to the same degree regardless of whether or not the presented stimuli could be the target. Cain and Mitroff argue that the difference in performance on the attentional task affirm attentional differences in heavy media multitaskers; thus, frequent media multitaskers may maintain a wider attentional scope which allows attention to more visual information compared to infrequent multitaskers who maintain a narrower attentional scope.

Theories of working memory also provide insight to the cognition of media multitasking. Visual working memory is a cognitive system that holds a limited amount of visual information in a temporary storage buffer so that it may be accessed to efficiently achieve goals. Recent research points to working memory as a predictor of multitasking ability, more so than other cognitive, personality, and experience-based variables.

For example, Cain, Leonard, Gabrieli, and Finn found that frequent media multitasking was associated with poorer performance on behavioral measures of working memory capacity. However, studies like that of Cain et al. Thus, Redick examined whether working memory measures must be dual-tasks to predict multitasking performance, finding that single-task working memory measures also predict multitasking performance. Accordingly, the relationship between working memory and multitasking is independent of the method of task used to assess working memory.

This indicates that working memory is perhaps fundamental to individual multitasking ability. This paper relies on the aforementioned models to examine the cognitive impact of media multitasking within the frame of a theoretical foundation, as well as to highlight existing evidence related to academic performance that confirm or oppose the discussed theories.

Empirical studies firmly establish a significant drop in academic performance due to media multitasking. Such amounts of media use imply multitasking; further, media use was negatively related to academic outcomes after controlling for demographics and prior academics, and there were significant, indirect effects of social networking on GPA.

In-class, mobile phone multitasking during direct instruction is heavily researched, as it is the technology of choice for many university students and the most prevalent. Rosen, Lim, Carrier, and Cheever examined the impact of in-class mobile phone usage during course lecture on test performance. Students responded to messages sent by researchers at even intervals throughout a min videotaped lecture Rosen et al.

Students in the high text messaging group performed worse by one letter grade on an information post-test than the low text messaging group However, the moderate text messaging group showed no score difference compared to the other two groups. Participants who received and sent more words in their texts performed worse on the test; however, this was moderated by elapsed time between receiving and sending a text, with longer delays resulting in better performance.

Student metacognitive self-reports reflected test results. Nearly three-fourths of participants felt that receiving and sending text messages during class was disruptive to learning. Similar studies comparing test performance found the non-texting group outperformed regardless of gender and G. Ellis et al. Participants listened to a class lecture in a texting or no-texting condition.

Scores on a post-lecture assessment indicated that exam scores of texting students were significantly lower. In a similar lecture format, Froese et al. Participants in three groups non-multitasking, low-distraction, and high-distraction watched a video lecture while taking notes and completed two post-lecture assessments. Further analysis found that message content influenced effect on class performance.

These results point to the purpose of usage, rather than multitasking itself, as the culprit for the negative effects of media multitasking on classroom performance. Thus, distinguishing on-task from off-task multitasking redefines the pragmatics of the in-class technology debate. McDonald assessed the effect of three different in-class texting behaviors on course grade: 1 mild texting policy; "cell phones are to be turned off and not used during class.

McDonald found a negative correlation between in-class texting and final grade score, regardless of texting condition. However, the higher the levels of in-class texting behavior by a student, the lower their final grade. This points to the potential of classroom policy to diminish, but not eliminate, the negative effects of in-class media multitasking.

A similar experiment examining in-class media multitasking with classroom performance expanded the experimental variables to reflect individualized preferences for both media use and notetaking Wood et al.

The study compared multitasking activities of various mediums to three methods of notetaking during a direct instruction lecture. All media use was for off-task purposes. Note-taking conditions were paper-and-pencil, word-processing, and a natural use of technology condition in which participants were allowed to use any technology they wished.

The natural use of technology condition served to determine whether students choose to multitask during lectures, what technologies students tend to use, and how the choice to multitask affected learning. Across all sessions, only seven participants did not use technology at all. Almost half of participants used technology for every class when permitted. The experiment was conducted over three consecutive lectures. Results indicated that participants who did not use any technologies outperformed students who did multitask—regardless of medium— on a item multiple-choice test.

Participants in the Facebook and Instant Messaging conditions performed more poorly than those in the paper-and-pencil control. Wood et al. Repeated practice with the various technologies did not improve performance over time in any condition.

Downs, Tran, McMenemy, and Abegaze manipulated the multitasking environment rather than the note-taking method, finding that participants performed worst on a post-lecture exam when distracted with social media.

Two-hundred and four university students were randomly assigned to one of six classroom conditions: 1 Facebook distracted; 2 paper note-taking; 3 no media use control group; 4 mixed distraction; 5 laptop note-taking; and 6 distracted combination.

Participants in the Facebook condition used laptops to join a Facebook chat group created for the study through which they received questions to respond to at two-minute intervals. Participants in the note-taking condition received a sheet of notebook paper and instructions to take notes as they normally would during a lecture.

Participants in the no media use control group were instructed to only watch the documentary. The mixed distraction group approximately half of the participants every other seat were asked to join the aforementioned Facebook chat group, while the other half watched the documentary without an additional distraction.

Participants in the laptop note-taking group used a word processing program to take notes. Participants in the distracted combination condition followed the Facebook protocol for condition one while simultaneously taking notes on their laptop during the video. In all conditions, participants viewed a documentary video for 25 min and completed a subsequent, question, multiple-choice exam assessing lecture content. Brooks further examined mobile phone multitasking in a natural classroom setting.

Participants completed a pre-task survey before watching a min video lecture. Participants received no instructions or study regarding social media or mobile phone usage prior to observing a min video lecture. Following the video, participants completed a quiz over video content and a survey regarding social media use, attentional control, multitasking computer self-efficacy, technostress, and happiness.

Participants were instructed to complete the tasks on their own time so that they would have access to their personal machines. Like prior studies, this study found that social media usage on mobile phones negatively affected performance. Attentional control and multitasking computer self-efficacy did not yield significant effect on this relationship.

Thus, students are not as skilled at multitasking as they perceive themselves to be. Conard and Marsh examined the effect of interruptions via Instant Messaging and situational interest on learning during multitasking. Participants viewed a video presentation in a simulated environment meant to emulate a standard working environment such as a business meeting, a training presentation, or a classroom lecture. During the min video, participants responded to eight Instant Messages sent at specific times by research assistants.

Following the video, participants completed a item multiple choice test assessing lecture comprehension and responded to measure of situational interest. Multitasking interruptions reduced learning; furthermore, interest level was as strong a predictor of learning as being interrupted. However, interest did not moderate the effect of interruptions. This indicates a need for further research examining individual difference factors, such as interest levels, when assessing the effects of multitasking on learning.

Like mobile phone use, laptop use is commonplace in the university setting, yet presents unique issues concerning multitasking. Laptops provide a convenient means to connect with the lecture while simultaneously providing a major source of distraction.

Self-report data by Fried showed that students using laptops in class spent considerable time multitasking. In a study by Hembrooke and Gay , laptop use during lecture resulted in significantly lower recall and recognition test scores. Students in two conditions laptop multitasking or no multitasking condition listened to a lecture and completed a comprehension exam. Exam results indicated that multitasking students suffered memory decrements.

According to information processing theory, humans process stimuli, rather than merely responding, employing attention mechanisms such as working memory. Thus, laptops provide additional stimuli for students to process, distracting them from the academic task. This accounts for the decrements in performance seen as a result of in-class laptop multitasking. Because most technological mediums serve as a gateway to both productive and unproductive tasks, students are likely to engage in both over the course of a class period and struggle to resist temptation.

These distractions prevent processing and learning of material. Fried administered surveys to a university course, assessing various aspects of class such as class attendance, classroom experiences, and laptop use, finding that students frequently cited personal and external laptop use as major sources of classroom distractions and hindrances of learning. Experimental evidence affirms this: Sana et al.

Participants who multitasked on a laptop during lecture scored lower on the test than non-multitaskers. Distractions due to movement of images and laptop screen lighting, as well as multitasking activities, may cause involuntary shifts of attention among students in close proximity to laptop users.

Thus, proximity to a multitasker—and not solely active multitasking—can be detrimental to academic performance. Understanding the effects of multitasking on others is an area of research deserving replication and further investigation.

Overall, this body of research regarding in-class multitasking affirms ideas purported by the bottleneck theory of attention as well as the scattered attention hypothesis, and presents evidence against the trained attention hypothesis.

The literature indicates that attempting to attend to class material mostly lectures and engage in technologies simultaneously can have a detrimental impact on learning, likely due to inattention to course information. These negative effects on academics were demonstrated with varied outcomes-- test performance, grades, comprehension, recall, and note-taking.

Yet, many of these studies involved measuring the impact of media multitasking during a short time span, so longer follow-up studies are needed to more fully investigate the claims of the trained attention hypothesis which states that repeated practice of media multitasking will improve performance over time. Laptops and mobile phones are particularly distracting while studying or doing coursework outside of class, as students can easily access alternate media sources such as email, Facebook, or Instant Messaging IM on them.

Much of the research to date primarily assessed the impact of media multitasking on in-class activities, such as test performance. Few studies have examined the role of media multitasking on assignments outside of class, such as homework or studying.

A survey study of students revealed that using Facebook while doing schoolwork was negatively predictive of overall semester GPA. Junco, According to one experimental study, the more time participants reported spending on IM in class, the lower self-reported GPA.

Outside of the classroom, mobile phone use is negatively associated with academic performance. Amount of texting and texting while multitasking was negatively predictive of overall GPA for U. Students who did not text while studying had a higher GPA than those who did text.

Furthermore, GPA was higher for those who spent fewer minutes texting per day compared to increased levels of texting. Similar effects are elicited by other digital media technologies. Students who used fewer forms of media multitasking 0—2 mediums outperformed students who used more forms 7 or more mediums on exam scores Patterson, Yet, the amount of studying time between the two groups of students did not differ.

An experimental paradigm comparing the effect of laptop multitasking on reading comprehension and task performance cited differential effects Subrahmanyam et al. The study comprised of two paradigms. In the first, participants read two passages of low and high difficulty on paper, a laptop, or on a tablet, in a multitasking or non-multitasking condition. The students who were verbally distracted, group 2, performed the poorest, recalling only 5. The undistracted students recalled an average of 7.

In all groups, students were five times more likely to recall a point word than a 1-point word, demonstrating that they could prioritize important information even with distractions. For more information, please see our University Websites Privacy Notice. A UConn researcher says multitasking hurts college students more than they think.

Scan a college classroom these days and you are just as likely to see students texting and surfing the Web as taking notes. Many students feel there is nothing wrong with sending out a few quick texts or jumping on Facebook during class, and many are proud of their self-perceived ability to keep abreast of classroom discussion while their attention is divided.

But a new study by researchers at the University of Connecticut shows multitasking is hurting college students more than they think. In a survey that probed the multitasking habits of more than college students, UConn researchers found that students who multitasked while doing homework had to study longer, and those who frequently multitasked in class had lower grades on average than their peers who multitasked less often.

It did not. Texting was far and away the most frequent multitasking distraction, followed by logging on to Facebook, checking email, and surfing the Web. While taking longer to complete homework due to a lack of focus may be an inconvenience and a sign of bad study habits, missing classroom discussion due to multitasking is particularly troublesome.