Laptop Multitasking in the Classroom
1
Nozari ,
2
Dianat
Mohammad
Pouya
(1) College of Art and Sciences, Chemistry Department
(2) Electrical and Computer Engineering Department
Abstract
99% of incoming freshmen own a laptop [5]
65% of students bring their laptop to class [6]
42% of class time students are busy multitasking [7]
•
•
•
Introduction
Multitasking has been part of our daily lifestyle. It is intended to
increase efficiency, but there are limitations. Multitasking
requires considerable attention and degrades not only the
performance of task in isolation but also the overall
performance. It affects both user and nearby viewers in the
classroom. This is a growing concern for education. By focusing
on one task, our attentional resources are not interrupted, and
the information is processed and stored well for later
retrieval.[1] By adding a secondary task, Consequently attention
is divided, and the quantity and quality of stored information
will decrease.[2] Definitely doing two or more tasks will require
lots of attention and attentional resource are finite[3]. In
classroom settings multitasking students shift back and forth
between academic and non-academic tasks, and this causes a
concern for learning. Multitasking results in overall lower level
of encoding primary information into long term memory.[4]
•
•
•
•
•
Experiment 1:The Effects of
Multitasking
40 Undergraduate students
(25 females; M age = 18.9
years, SD = 2.0)
multitasking (n = 20)
no multitasking (n = 20)
A 45-min PowerPoint lecture on
meteorology
Multitasking participants
(M = 0.55, SD =0.11, n = 20)
Non multitasking participants
(M =0.66, SD = 0.12, n = 20)
Simple factual questions
(M = 0.60, SD = 0.13, n = 20)
Complex apply-your-knowledge
questions
(M = 0.56, SD = 0.13, n = 20)
Fig. 1 [8]
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Experiment 2 :The Effects of Peer
Distraction
38 undergraduate students
(26 females; M age =20.3 years, SD
=4.2)
In view of multitasking peers
(n = 19)
Not in view of multitasking peers
(n =19)
36 undergraduate students were
recruited to be confederates.
Participants in view of multitasking
scores on test (M=0.56, SD = 0.12,
n = 19)
Participants not in view of
multitasking peers scores
(M = 0.73, SD = 0.12, n = 19)
Participants’ scores on simple
questions (M = 0.69, SD = 0.14,
n = 20)
Participants scores on complex
questions (M =0.60, SD = 0.15, n
=20)
Fig. 2 [8]
Verifying data from observed classes in
Drexel:
Electronic Devices ECEE-302, Analog
Electronics ECEE-352, Lab 3 ECEL-303
General Chemistry: CHEM 101, 102
The Effect of Peer Distraction on
Comprehension of Lecture Content
The Effect of Multitasking on Comprehension of
Lecture Content
Proportion Correct
Computers have become an inseparable part of any modern
classroom; however, their usefulness in the in-class learning
process is yet debatable. Multitasking on computers in class has
been studied by Sana et al. It is shown that the scores of the
students using these tools have been negatively affected.
Moreover, it has been a source of distractions for other students
who were in direct view of the same computer. Here we have
verified the finding of this study by using the data from our
previously taught classes. Additionally, we present applied
solution to enhance the benefits and remove the negative
impacts of smart devices in the classroom
Results and Discussion
Methods and Materials
1
1
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
0
View to Multitasking
Multitasking
No View to Multitasking
No Multitasking
Fig. 1. Proportion correct on the comprehension test as a
function of condition .
Multitasking lowered test performance by 11%
Fig. 2. Proportion correct on the comprehension test as
a function of condition. Being in view of multitasking
peers lowered test performance by 17%
Results
• Participants’ comprehension was impaired when they
performed multiple tasks during learning
• Comprehension was impaired for participants who were
seated in view of peers engaged in multitasking.
Suggestions :
 Teachers to discuss the consequences of laptop use with
their students at the outset of a course.
 Discourage laptop use in courses where technology is not
necessary for learning.
 Provide educators with resources to help them create
enriching, informative, and interactive classes that can
compete with the allure of non-course websites
 Class mode app for cell phones and laptops
 Laptops should remain a tool of the modern classroom,
perhaps with some sensible constraints
References
[1] Posner, M. (1982). Cumulative development of attentional theory. American Psychologist, 37, 168–179
[2] Naveh-Benjamin, M., Craik, F. I. M., Perretta, J. G., & Tonev, S. T. (2000). The effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes: the resiliency of
retrieval
processes. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53A, 609–625
[3] Konig, C. J., Buhner, M., & Murling, F. (2005). Working memory, fluid intelligence, and attention are predictors of multitasking performance, but polychronicity and
extraversion
are not. Human Performance, 18, 243–266.
[4] Ophira, E., Nass, C., &Wagner, D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 15583–15587
[5] UVa first year student computer inventory. Retrieved from. http://itc.virginia.edu/students/inventory/2009/.
[6] Fried, C. B. (2008). In-class laptop use and its effects on student learning. Computers & Education, 50, 906–914
[7] Kraushaar, J. M., & Novak, D. C. (2010). Examining the effects of student multitasking with laptops during the lecture. Journal of Information Systems Education, 21,
241–251
[8] Sana, F., Weston, T., Cepeda N., (2013). Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both users and nearby peers, Journal of Computers & Education 62, 24–
31