Can I Have Your Attention, Please?: An Empirical Investigation of Media Multitasking during University Lectures

The growing prevalence of continuous media use among university students in lecture environments has potential for detrimental effects. In this study the focus is placed upon the implications of digital media multitasking in a university lecture context for academic performance and learning. Previous studies reveal that students frequently engage with digital media whilst in a university lecture. Moreover, research has shown that multitasking imposes a cognitive cost, detrimental to learning and task execution. We propose, accordingly, that the constant distractions created by digital media interrupt the thought and communication processes of students and, subsequently, obstruct their ability to learn. To test this proposition we conduct a survey-based empirical investigation of digital media use and academic performance among undergraduate university students. A clear negative correlation was shown between frequency of media use and academic performance. This result confirms the hypothesis that there exists a negative correlation between digital media use during lectures and academic performance. The confirmation of this negative relationship suggests that media use poses a significant distraction to students.

[1]  Steve Whittaker,et al.  The character, functions, and styles of instant messaging in the workplace , 2002, CSCW '02.

[2]  Naomi S. Baron.  Adjusting the volume: technology and multitasking in discourse control , 2016 .

[3]  R CottenShelia,et al.  Perceived academic effects of instant messaging use , 2011 .

[4]  Marika Lüders,et al.  Conceptualizing personal media , 2008, New Media Soc..

[5]  Se-Hoon Jeong,et al.  Predictors of Multitasking with Media: Media Factors and Audience Factors , 2007 .

[6]  Ruth N. Bolton,et al.  Understanding Generation Y and their use of social media: a review and research agenda , 2013 .

[7]  Shelia R. Cotten,et al.  A Decade of Distraction? How Multitasking Affects Student Outcomes , 2011 .

[8]  Cornelius J. Konig,et al.  Working Memory, Fluid Intelligence, and Attention Are Predictors of Multitasking Performance, but Polychronicity and Extraversion Are Not , 2005 .

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

[10]  W. Marsden.  I and J , 2012 .

[11]  Penny Thompson,et al.  The digital natives as learners: Technology use patterns and approaches to learning , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[12]  Annie Lang.  Using the Limited Capacity Model of Motivated Mediated Message Processing to Design Effective Cancer Communication Messages , 2006 .

[13]  E. Miller,et al.  An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. , 2001, Annual review of neuroscience.

[14]  Reynol Junco,et al.  Too much face and not enough books: The relationship between multiple indices of Facebook use and academic performance , 2012, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[15]  Tino Kreutzer,et al.  Internet and Online Media Usage on Mobile Phones among Low-Income Urban Youth in Cape Town , 2009 .

[16]  Faria Sana,et al.  Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both users and nearby peers , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[17]  Raquel Benbunan-Fich,et al.  Measuring multitasking behavior with activity-based metrics , 2011, TCHI.

[18]  H. J. Muller,et al.  Reflexive and voluntary orienting of visual attention: time course of activation and resistance to interruption. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[19]  Reynol Junco,et al.  In-class multitasking and academic performance , 2012, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[20]  N. Carr.  The Shallows: How the Internet Is Changing the Way We Think, Read and Remember , 2010 .

[21]  Chris Jones,et al.  Profiling university students' use of technology: where is the NET generation divide? , 2010 .

[22]  M. Mcluhan.  Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man , 1964 .

[23]  John K. Tsotsos,et al.  Modeling Visual Attention via Selective Tuning , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[24]  J. Deutsch.  Perception and Communication , 1958, Nature.

[25]  B. E. Ericson.  The relationship between student use of socially interactive technology and engagement and involvement in the undergraduate experience , 2011 .

[26]  Shelia R. Cotten,et al.  Perceived academic effects of instant messaging use , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[27]  M. D’Esposito.  Working memory. , 2008, Handbook of clinical neurology.

[28]  Glenda Morgan,et al.  ECAR Study of Students and Information Technology, 2004: Convenience, Connection, and Control , 2004 .

[29]  H. Bastian.  Sensation and Perception.—I , 1869, Nature.

[30]  Jacques Ophoff,et al.  The Use of Mobile Phones by South African University Students , 2014 .

[31]  Yoori Hwang,et al.  Does Multitasking Increase or Decrease Persuasion? Effects of Multitasking on Comprehension and Counterarguing , 2012 .

[32]  Reynol Junco,et al.  Comparing actual and self-reported measures of Facebook use , 2013, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[33]  Weiyu Zhang,et al.  Explicating multitasking with computers: Gratifications and situations , 2012, Comput. Hum. Behav..

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

[35]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Multiple resources and performance prediction , 2002 .

[36]  Robert LaRose,et al.  Unregulated Internet Usage: Addiction, Habit, or Deficient Self-Regulation? , 2003 .

[37]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Attention and Effort , 1973 .

[38]  Jung-Hyun Kim,et al.  Mobile phone distraction while studying , 2015, New Media Soc..

[39]  Karin Archer,et al.  Examining the impact of off-task multi-tasking with technology on real-time classroom learning , 2012, Comput. Educ..

[40]  R. Marois,et al.  Capacity limits of information processing in the brain , 2005, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[41]  D. Remenyi,et al.  Multitasking : the Uncertain Impact of Technology on Knowledge Workers and Managers , 2009 .

[42]  Patti M. Valkenburg,et al.  The consequences of media multitasking for youth: A review , 2015, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[43]  P. Rabbitt,et al.  Reflexive and voluntary orienting of visual attention: time course of activation and resistance to interruption , 1989 .

[44]  Megan A. Moreno,et al.  Internet use and multitasking among older adolescents: An experience sampling approach , 2012, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[45]  P. Tibbetts.  :Cognitive Neuroscience: The Biology of the Mind , 2009 .

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

[47]  B. Sparrow,et al.  Google Effects on Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having Information at Our Fingertips , 2011, Science.

[48]  Colin F. Mang,et al.  Student observations: Introducing iPads into university classrooms , 2015, Education and Information Technologies.

[49]  L. Burak.  Multitasking in the University Classroom. , 2012 .

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

[51]  Christopher L. Asplund,et al.  A Unified attentional bottleneck in the human brain , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[52]  Fareena Sultan,et al.  Tuning in and tuning out: media multitasking among young consumers , 2010 .

[53]  Fred D. Davis.  Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[54]  Jay David Bolter,et al.  Theory and practice in new media studies , 2003 .