An Empirical Examination of the Educational Impact of Text Message-Induced Task Switching in the Classroom: Educational Implications and Strategies to Enhance Learning

Today´s Net Generation university students multitask more than any prior generation, primarily using electronic communication tools (Carrier et al., 2009). In addition, studies report that many students text during class (Tindell & Bohlander, 2011). This research examines the impact of receiving and sending text messages during a classroom lecture. Recent laboratory research (Ophir, et al., 2009) reported that multitasking impaired performance, particularly among heavy multitaskers. Further, experimental research has shown that "technologically induced" interruptions can be disruptive, causing increased errors and decreased performance (Monk, et al., 2008). This study is the first to experimentally examine the direct impact of text message interruptions on memory recall in a classroom environment. Participants viewed a 30-minute videotaped lecture during which they were interrupted by receiving text messages requiring responses. Participants in four classrooms were randomly assigned to three groups receiving no text messages, four text messages or eight text messages. Based on the actual number of texts received and sent— including those not sent by the experimenter—three comparison groups were defined: No/Low Texting Interruption (zero to 7 text messages sent and received), Moderate Texting Interruption (eight to 15 texts), and High Texting Interruption (16 or more texts). Following the videotaped lecture, a recall test assessed the impact of text message interruptions on memory. In addition, participants were asked about their typical monthly texting and their attitudes toward classroom texting behaviors. Results indicated that the High Texting group scored significantly worse (10.6% lower) than the No/Low Texting Interruption group although there was no significant difference between No/Low Texting Interruption and Moderate Texting Interruption group nor was there a significant difference between the Moderate Texting Interruption group and the High Texting Interruption group. In addition, while nearly three fourths of the participants felt that receiving and sending text messages during class was disruptive to learning, 40% felt it was acceptable to text in class. Results also indicated that those participants who received and sent more words in their texts performed worse on the test although this was moderated by the elapsed time between receiving (or sending) a text with longer delays resulting in better performance. The results of these studies are discussed in terms of Salvucci et al.´s (2009) Unified Theory of the Multita sking Continuum plus the potential use of metacognitive strategies when faced with potentially disruptive multitasking. Educational implications are highlighted and strategies outlined for maximizing performance in media-rich multitasking environments.

[1]  Russell A Poldrack,et al.  Modulation of competing memory systems by distraction. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[2]  Gregor E. Kennedy,et al.  Measurement and evidence of computer-based task switching and multitasking by 'Net Generation' students , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[3]  Michael S. Gendron,et al.  Can students really multitask? An experimental study of instant messaging while reading , 2010, Comput. Educ..

[4]  Kay Wijekumar,et al.  Interrupted cognition in an undergraduate programming course , 2006, ASIST.

[5]  Robin H. Kay,et al.  Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: A review of the literature , 2009, Comput. Educ..

[6]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[7]  E. M. Altmann,et al.  Task Interruption: Resumption Lag and the Role of Cues , 2004 .

[8]  Carrie B. Fried,et al.  In-class laptop use and its e V ects on student learning , 2006 .

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

[10]  James N. Danziger,et al.  IM = Interruption Management? Instant Messaging and Disruption in the Workplace , 2007, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[11]  Leanne Bowler,et al.  The self-regulation of curiosity and interest during the information search process of adolescent students , 2010 .

[12]  Antti Oulasvirta,et al.  Surviving task interruptions: Investigating the implications of long-term working memory theory , 2006, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[13]  Niels Taatgen,et al.  Toward a unified theory of the multitasking continuum: from concurrent performance to task switching, interruption, and resumption , 2009, CHI.

[14]  John R. Anderson.  How Can the Human Mind Occur in the Physical Universe , 2007 .

[15]  Dario D. Salvucci,et al.  Threaded cognition: an integrated theory of concurrent multitasking. , 2008, Psychological review.

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

[17]  L. Otten,et al.  Neural correlates of task and source switching: Similar or different? , 2010, Biological Psychology.

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

[19]  Larry D. Rosen.  Me, MySpace, and I: Parenting the Net Generation , 2007 .

[20]  Gloria Mark,et al.  The cost of interrupted work: more speed and stress , 2008, CHI.

[21]  Ray Dawson,et al.  Reducing the effect of email interruptions on employees , 2003, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[22]  Larry D. Rosen,et al.  Multitasking across generations: Multitasking choices and difficulty ratings in three generations of Americans , 2009, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[23]  Douglas J. Hacker,et al.  Metacognition in educational theory and practice. , 1998 .

[24]  Annalise Friend.  Rewired: Understanding the iGeneration and the way they learn , 2010 .

[25]  J. Trafton,et al.  The effect of interruption duration and demand on resuming suspended goals. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[26]  Niels Taatgen,et al.  The Multitasking Mind , 2010, Oxford series on cognitive models and architectures.

[27]  Antti Oulasvirta,et al.  Long-term working memory and interrupting messages in human – computer interaction , 2004, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[28]  Raj M. Ratwani,et al.  The Effect of Interruption Modality on Primary Task Resumption , 2008 .

[29]  J. Gregory Trafton,et al.  Memory for goals: an activation-based model , 2002, Cogn. Sci..

[30]  Dario D. Salvucci,et al.  Multitasking and monotasking: the effects of mental workload on deferred task interruptions , 2010, CHI.

[31]  Jonathan Rosen,et al.  Distractions, Distractions: Does Instant Messaging Affect College Students' Performance on a Concurrent Reading Comprehension Task? , 2009, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[32]  Spencer Rugaber,et al.  Resumption strategies for interrupted programming tasks , 2009, ICPC.