Measuring multitasking behavior with activity-based metrics

Multitasking is the result of time allocation decisions made by individuals faced with multiple tasks. Multitasking research is important in order to improve the design of systems and applications. Since people typically use computers to perform multiple tasks at the same time, insights into this type of behavior can help develop better systems and ideal types of computer environments for modern multitasking users. In this paper, we define multitasking based on the principles of task independence and performance concurrency and develop a set of metrics for computer-based multitasking. The theoretical foundation of this metric development effort stems from an application of key principles of Activity Theory and a systematic analysis of computer usage from the perspective of the user, the task and the technology. The proposed metrics, which range from a lean dichotomous variable to a richer measure based on switches, were validated with data from a sample of users who self-reported their activities during a computer usage session. This set of metrics can be used to establish a conceptual and methodological foundation for future multitasking studies.

[1]  Joseph S. Valacich,et al.  The Influence of Task Interruption on Individual Decision Making: An Information Overload Perspective , 1999 .

[2]  Susanne Bødker.  A Human Activity Approach to User Interfaces , 1989, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[3]  Daniel C. McFarlane,et al.  Comparison of Four Primary Methods for Coordinating the Interruption of People in Human-Computer Interaction , 2002, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[4]  Kara A. Latorella,et al.  The Scope and Importance of Human Interruption in Human-Computer Interaction Design , 2002, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[5]  G. Bedny,et al.  The Systemic-Structural Theory of Activity: Applications to the Study of Human Work , 2005 .

[6]  Victor Kaptelinin,et al.  Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design , 2006, First Monday.

[7]  Brian P. Bailey,et al.  Understanding changes in mental workload during execution of goal-directed tasks and its application for interruption management , 2008, TCHI.

[8]  Jacob P. Somervell,et al.  A model for notification systems evaluation—assessing user goals for multitasking activity , 2003, TCHI.

[9]  J. Hackman,et al.  Toward understanding the role of tasks in behavioral research. , 1969, Acta psychologica.

[10]  Hansjörg Neth,et al.  Discretionary task interleaving: heuristics for time allocation in cognitive foraging. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[11]  Gregory Z. Bedny,et al.  "Working sphere/engagement" and the concept of task in activity theory , 2008, Interact. Comput..

[12]  H. Lee,et al.  Time and information technology: monochronicity, polychronicity and temporal symmetry , 1999 .

[13]  Geri Gay,et al.  The laptop and the lecture: The effects of multitasking in learning environments , 2003, J. Comput. High. Educ..

[14]  B. Nardi.  Studying context: a comparison of activity theory, situated action models, and distributed cognition , 1995 .

[15]  Clifford Nass,et al.  Cognitive control in media multitaskers , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[16]  Víctor M. González,et al.  No task left behind?: examining the nature of fragmented work , 2005, CHI.

[17]  F. Deane,et al.  Relationship between Self-Report and Log Data Estimates of Information System Usage. , 1998 .

[18]  Allen C. Bluedorn,et al.  How many things do you like to do at once? An introduction to monochronic and polychronic time , 1992 .

[19]  C McFarlaneDaniel,et al.  The scope and importance of human interruption in human-computer interaction design , 2002 .

[20]  Susanne Bødker,et al.  Applying activity theory to video analysis: how to make sense of video data in human-computer interaction , 1995 .

[21]  Víctor M. González,et al.  "Constant, constant, multi-tasking craziness": managing multiple working spheres , 2004, CHI.

[22]  K. Gegenfurtner,et al.  Design Issues in Gaze Guidance Under review with ACM Transactions on Computer Human Interaction , 2009 .

[23]  Deborah Compeau,et al.  Understanding the Social Implications of Technological Multitasking: A Conceptual Model , 2005 .

[24]  David Meister,et al.  Activity theory: History, research and application , 2000 .

[25]  Christina Wasson.  Multitasking during Virtual Meetings , 2004 .

[26]  D. Broadbent,et al.  What makes interruptions disruptive? A study of length, similarity, and complexity , 1989 .

[27]  Peter Johnson,et al.  Towards a composite modelling approach for multitasking , 2004, TAMODIA '04.

[28]  D. Meyer,et al.  Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[29]  Steve Whittaker,et al.  Supporting Collaborative Task Management in Email Steve Whittaker Sheffield University RUNNING HEAD : SUPPORTING COLLABORATIVE TASK MANAGEMENT Corresponding Author ’ s Contact Information : Department of Information Studies University of Sheffield 211 , 2005 .

[30]  Karen Renaud,et al.  "You've Got E-Mail!" ... Shall I Deal With It Now? Electronic Mail From the Recipient's Perspective , 2006, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[31]  E. Hall,et al.  The Dance of Life: The Other Dimension of Time , 1984 .

[32]  Steve Whittaker.  Supporting collaborative task management in e-mail , 2005 .

[33]  Mary Czerwinski,et al.  Effects of instant messaging interruptions on computing tasks , 2000, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[34]  K. Kuutti.  Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research , 1995 .

[35]  V. Kaptelinin.  Activity theory: implications for human-computer interaction , 1995 .

[36]  Mary Czerwinski,et al.  A diary study of task switching and interruptions , 2004, CHI.

[37]  Waldemar Karwowski,et al.  A Systemic-Structural Activity Approach to the Design of Human-Computer Interaction Tasks , 2003, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[38]  Waldemar Karwowski,et al.  A Systemic-Structural Theory of Activity: Applications to Human Performance and Work Design , 2006 .

[39]  R. Wood.  Task complexity: Definition of the construct , 1986 .

[40]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Reconceptualizing System Usage: An Approach and Empirical Test , 2006, Inf. Syst. Res..

[41]  Gregory E. Truman,et al.  Technical opinionMultitasking with laptops during meetings , 2009, CACM.

[42]  Charles K. Crook,et al.  Ubiquitous Computing on Campus: Patterns of Engagement by University Students , 2001, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[43]  J. Reinsch,et al.  Multicommunicating: A Practice Whose Time Has Come? , 2008 .

[44]  J. McGrath.  Time, Interaction, and Performance (TIP) , 1991 .

[45]  E. Hall.  The dance of life : the other dimension of time , 1984 .

[46]  Joseph S. Valacich,et al.  The Effects of Interruptions, Task Complexity, and Information Presentation on Computer-Supported Decision-Making Performance , 2003, Decis. Sci..

[47]  Dylan M. Jones,et al.  Interruption of the Tower of London task: support for a goal-activation approach. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. General.