Media multitasking

Last updated
A person using a smartphone while sitting at a computer Senado Noticias no Twitter Moments (26721094992).jpg
A person using a smartphone while sitting at a computer

Media multitasking is the concurrent use of multiple digital media streams. Media multitasking has been associated with depressive symptoms and social anxiety by a study involving 318 participants. [1] A 2018 review found that while the literature is sparse and inconclusive, people who do a heavy amount of media multitasking have worse performance in several cognitive domains. [2] One of the authors commented that while the data does not "unambiguously show that media multitasking causes a change in attention and memory," media multitasking is an inefficient practice that requires "task switching" costs. [3]

Contents

In many cases, media multitasking is made up of experiences that are not necessarily intended to be combined or coordinated. For example, a user may be browsing the Web, listening to music, playing video games, using e-mail, and/or talking on the phone while watching TV. [4] More intentionally coordinated forms of media multitasking are emerging in the form of "co-active media" and particularly "co-active TV".

Cognitive distraction

A touchstone 2009 study by Stanford University used experiments to compare heavy media multitaskers to light media multitaskers in terms of their cognitive control and ability to process information. [5] Findings from the experiment include:

  1. When intentionally distracting elements were added to experiments, heavy media multitaskers were on average 0.08 seconds slower than their lighter media multitasking counterparts at identifying changes in patterns;
  2. In a longer-term memory test that invited participants to recall specific elements from earlier experiments, the high multitaskers more often falsely identified the elements that had been used most frequently as intentional distractors;
  3. In the presence of distracting elements, high multitaskers were 0.4 seconds slower than their counterparts to switch to new activities and 0.3 seconds slower to engage in a new section of the same activity.

The researchers concluded that heavy media multitaskers are distracted by the multiple streams of media they are consuming, and that not multitasking can help with concentration. [6] In the "bottleneck theory" of cognitive performance, the slowing down seen when people multitask is called "interference." [7] According to this theory, people have only a limited amount of cognitive resources, which allow them to focus and complete one task at a time. When people try to do several things at once or multitask, their performance suffers a slowdown because of a "cognitive bottleneck," like a traffic jam in the brain.

Researchers tried to disprove this theory over several decades, and although they found a handful of activities that people can do simultaneously without slowing, these activities are relatively simple and so far removed from everyday human activities—that they cannot be used as support for people's ability to multitask. A team of researchers reviewed the extensive literature on multitasking and concluded that hundreds of studies show that slowing will happen when people try to multitask; in fact, many studies that were designed to show that people could multitask without interference in fact indicated the opposite. These researchers warned that when people attempt to multitask, especially when doing complex and potentially dangerous tasks (such as driving and using their cell phones to talk or text), they will always encounter the cognitive bottleneck, causing their performance to suffer in terms of speed or accuracy. [8]

A related article, "Breadth-biased versus focused cognitive control in media multitasking behaviors," notes that the prevalence of this phenomenon leads "to a question about the required skills and expertise to function in society. A society with its ever-increasing complexity appears to move people towards juggling among multiple tasks rather than focusing on one task for a long period." The study's author suggests that further research will be necessary as the effects on society become more pronounced: "The new technologies are gearing people, especially young people who grow up with digital technologies and wired networks, toward breadth-biased information processing behavior rather than linear in-depth study behavior. Long-term exposure to media multitasking is expected to produce both positive and negative outcomes on cognitive, emotional, and social development." [9]

By generation

Despite the research, people from younger generations report that they feel multitasking is easy, even "a way of life." They perceive themselves as good at it and spend a substantial amount of their time engaged in one form of multitasking or another (for example, watching TV while doing homework, listening to music while doing homework, or even all three things at once). By contrast, members of older generations often openly admit that they are not very good at multitasking, finding it difficult, and therefore, do not do it as often as young people. [10] [11]

In the workforce

Multitasking behavior in the workforce has been increasing steadily since the 1990s as people have easier, and therefore faster, access to information and communication through smart technologies that have become cheaper over time. Although multitasking behavior harms performance, the paradox is that organizational productivity is increasing at a high rate nonetheless. [12] Concurrent with increased multitasking in the workforce and the subsequent rise in productivity and multitasking in general, literature has witnessed progressively more reports of increased stress, loss of focus, [13] symptoms resembling attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), [14] and even a lowering of IQ. [15]

While driving

Research in media multitasking in real-world settings focused mostly on using cellphones while driving. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence to show that talking on a phone while driving is very dangerous, often leading to crashes, including those fatal to both drivers and pedestrians. Just one hour of talking on a cellphone per month while driving makes a person between four and nine times more likely to crash. [16] Meanwhile, people who text while driving are 23 times more likely to be involved in some kind of accident. [17] A large review of studies on driving while media multitasking showed that using a hands-free phone while driving is just as dangerous as using a hand-held version, and that both can result in many different driving mistakes including missing stop signs, forgetting to reduce speed when necessary, and following too closely, among many others. Also, media multitasking while driving with other technologies, including MP3 players, voice-based email, a car's music system, and even the GPS, is just as distracting as using a phone. [18] Talking to a person on a cellphone while driving is not the same as having a conversation with a passenger, as adult passengers (but not children) often warn the driver of possible dangers, or at least stop talking when the driving conditions are tough, to let the driver focus on the road. [19]

Learning

Students commonly use multiple portable digital technologies, including laptops, tablets and smartphones with wireless access to the Internet. [20] Students can use technologies in the classroom to multi-task in two specific ways when given the choice: For on-task purposes that supplement learning and ease the learning task, or for off-task purposes such as entertainment or social interaction. [21] Overall, research shows that digital technologies can enhance learning when used as educational tools, as they are affordable and extremely portable. However, research consistently shows that inappropriate multitasking with digital technologies is harmful to student performance.

On-task multitasking

Students use technology for many diverse on-task purposes including taking notes, conducting literature searches, viewing video/audio files, creating and viewing spreadsheets and PowerPoint slides, completing online tests and assignments, and even texting friends to ask questions about course material. [22] Outside of the classroom, students frequently use technology such as instant messaging to communicate with other students, coordinate group work, share important files and homework, and form peer support groups to vent and improve motivation. [23] Students in grade school [24] and high school [25] benefit most from on-task use of technology. This is largely because at the grade school and high school levels, technology is integrated into the design of the course, and teachers provide the necessary structure and supervision. Such conditions allow students to process information more deeply and apply the newly learned information to new contexts, as well as improve collaboration among students. [26] However, university students do not generally benefit from technology. The results of one study showed no benefits to using laptops for improving student GPA (grade point average) in comparison to students who did not use laptops. [27] Two further studies showed that students who did not use laptops outperformed those who did use laptops. [28] [29] Overall, there is a pattern of decreasing the effectiveness of using technology for on-task purposes from the grade school level to the university level. This appears to be due to increased freedom of use of technology, combined with lower levels of integration of specific technology in the design of specific course material. [30] Additionally, younger students and students from financially disadvantaged backgrounds who have high levels of Internet use are at an especially high risk of under-performing. [31]

Off-task multitasking

A large portion of students use digital technologies for off-task purposes during classroom lectures, with social networking (especially Facebook), instant messaging, texting, emailing, and web-browsing being used most commonly [22] [32] Moreover, young adults multitask more than older adults [32] [33] and males multitask more than females [21] for off-task purposes. The results of numerous studies show that high Internet use for off-task purposes is associated with lower GPA. [34] [35] [36] One experimental study compared the impact of using 4 different technologies for off-task purposes including MSN, email, texting, and Facebook, to three control groups during real classroom lectures. The three control groups included one group of students who were free to use any amount of technologies as they wished including any on-task or off-task purposes. The other two groups were on-task note-takers who took notes either on paper, or on a laptop. The results showed that students in the MSN and Facebook conditions scored lower on a memory test than the paper notes control group. When examining the amount of multitasking instead of specific technologies, the results showed that greater levels of multitasking led to progressively lower grades. [37] While all studies show that any kind of off-task multitasking lowers performance, some tasks impair performance more than others. Specifically, social networking is particularly bad for student performance as it leads to higher levels of unfinished assignments and lower GPAs. [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] Moreover, off-task multitasking distracts not only the user but also neighboring students. [22] [43]

Student multitasking

An observational study of how students study at home examined their study habits and strategies. The results showed that most students prefer to task-switch a lot and focus for only approximately 6 minutes before reaching for their favorite digital device. Moreover, the students who enjoyed task-switching did so more often and with more technologies in comparison to students who preferred to focus on a single learning task, and who therefore did not have as many technologies readily available. Consistent with previous studies, students with a preference for focusing and those who used proper study strategies had higher GPAs than students who preferred to task-switch. [42] Karpinski and colleagues (2013) compared multitasking behaviors of students from Europe to those of students from the U.S. They found that only the students from the U.S. were distracted by multitasking to the point that their GPA suffered. This was due to two main reasons: the U.S. students multitask more than European students and the European students, when engaging in multitasking, were more strategic in their multitasking behavior as they delayed replying to incoming messages. [44] The concept of "digital meta cognition"—awareness of one's usage of and the effects of digital devices—has been proposed as a construct for providing a way to avoid problems with media multitasking while learning. [45]

See also


Related Research Articles

Instructional scaffolding is the support given to a student by an instructor throughout the learning process. This support is specifically tailored to each student; this instructional approach allows students to experience student-centered learning, which tends to facilitate more efficient learning than teacher-centered learning. This learning process promotes a deeper level of learning than many other common teaching strategies.

Collaborative learning is a situation in which two or more people learn or attempt to learn something together. Unlike individual learning, people engaged in collaborative learning capitalize on one another's resources and skills. More specifically, collaborative learning is based on the model that knowledge can be created within a population where members actively interact by sharing experiences and take on asymmetric roles. Put differently, collaborative learning refers to methodologies and environments in which learners engage in a common task where each individual depends on and is accountable to each other. These include both face-to-face conversations and computer discussions. Methods for examining collaborative learning processes include conversation analysis and statistical discourse analysis.

Distraction is the process of diverting the attention of an individual or group from a desired area of focus and thereby blocking or diminishing the reception of desired information. Distraction is caused by: the lack of ability to pay attention; lack of interest in the object of attention; or the great intensity, novelty or attractiveness of something other than the object of attention. Distractions come from both external sources, and internal sources. External distractions include factors such as visual triggers, social interactions, music, text messages, and phone calls. There are also internal distractions such as hunger, fatigue, illness, worrying, and daydreaming. Both external and internal distractions contribute to the interference of focus.

In cognitive psychology, cognitive load refers to the amount of working memory resources used. However, it is essential to distinguish it from the actual construct of Cognitive Load (CL) or Mental Workload (MWL), which is studied widely in many disciplines. According to work conducted in the field of instructional design and pedagogy, broadly, there are three types of cognitive load: intrinsic cognitive load is the effort associated with a specific topic; extraneous cognitive load refers to the way information or tasks are presented to a learner; and germane cognitive load refers to the work put into creating a permanent store of knowledge. However, over the years, the additivity of these types of cognitive load has been investigated and questioned. Now it is believed that they circularly influence each other.

Educational technology is the combined use of computer hardware, software, and educational theory and practice to facilitate learning. When referred to with its abbreviation, "EdTech," it often refers to the industry of companies that create educational technology. In EdTech Inc.: Selling, Automating and Globalizing Higher Education in the Digital Age, Tanner Mirrlees and Shahid Alvi (2019) argue "EdTech is no exception to industry ownership and market rules" and "define the EdTech industries as all the privately owned companies currently involved in the financing, production and distribution of commercial hardware, software, cultural goods, services and platforms for the educational market with the goal of turning a profit. Many of these companies are US-based and rapidly expanding into educational markets across North America, and increasingly growing all over the world."

Media richness theory (MRT), sometimes referred to as information richness theory, is a framework used to describe a communication medium's ability to reproduce the information sent over it. It was introduced by Richard L. Daft and Robert H. Lengel in 1986 as an extension of information processing theory. MRT is used to rank and evaluate the richness of certain communication media, such as phone calls, video conferencing, and email. For example, a phone call cannot reproduce visual social cues such as gestures which makes it a less rich communication media than video conferencing, which affords the transmission of gestures and body language. Based on contingency theory and information processing theory, MRT theorizes that richer, personal communication media are generally more effective for communicating equivocal issues in contrast with leaner, less rich media.

An intelligent tutoring system (ITS) is a computer system that imitates human tutors and aims to provide immediate and customized instruction or feedback to learners, usually without requiring intervention from a human teacher. ITSs have the common goal of enabling learning in a meaningful and effective manner by using a variety of computing technologies. There are many examples of ITSs being used in both formal education and professional settings in which they have demonstrated their capabilities and limitations. There is a close relationship between intelligent tutoring, cognitive learning theories and design; and there is ongoing research to improve the effectiveness of ITS. An ITS typically aims to replicate the demonstrated benefits of one-to-one, personalized tutoring, in contexts where students would otherwise have access to one-to-many instruction from a single teacher, or no teacher at all. ITSs are often designed with the goal of providing access to high quality education to each and every student.

Attention management refers to models and tools for supporting the management of attention at the individual or at the collective level, and at the short-term or at a longer term.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Clifford Nass</span> American academic

Clifford Ivar Nass was a professor of communication at Stanford University, co-creator of The Media Equation theory, and a renowned authority on human-computer interaction (HCI). He was also known for his work on individual differences associated with media multitasking. Nass was the Thomas M. Storke Professor at Stanford and held courtesy appointments in Computer Science, Education, Law, and Sociology. He was also affiliated with the programs in Symbolic Systems and Science, Technology, and Society.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Educational video game</span> Video game genre

An educational video game is a video game that provides learning or training value to the player. Edutainment describes an intentional merger of video games and educational software into a single product. In the narrower sense used here, the term describes educational software which is primarily about entertainment, but tends to educate as well and sells itself partly under the educational umbrella. Normally software of this kind is not structured towards school curricula and does not involve educational advisors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Digital native</span> Person who has grown up in the digital age

The term digital native describes a person who has grown up in the information age. The term "digital native" was coined by Marc Prensky, an American writer, speaker and technologist who wrote several articles referencing this subject. This term specifically applied to the generation that grew up in the "digital age," predominantly regarding individuals born after the year 1980.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human multitasking</span> Ability to perform activities simultaneously

Human multitasking is the concept that one can split their attention on more than one task or activity at the same time, such as speaking on the phone while driving a car.

E-learning theory describes the cognitive science principles of effective multimedia learning using electronic educational technology.

The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) is a technology acceptance model formulated by Venkatesh and others in "User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view". The UTAUT aims to explain user intentions to use an information system and subsequent usage behavior. The theory holds that there are four key constructs: 1) performance expectancy, 2) effort expectancy, 3) social influence, and 4) facilitating conditions.

Social presence theory explores how the "sense of being with another" is influenced by digital interfaces in human-computer interactions. Developed from the foundations of interpersonal communication and symbolic interactionism, social presence theory was first formally introduced by John Short, Ederyn Williams, and Bruce Christie in The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. Research on social presence theory has recently developed to examine the efficacy of telecommunications media, including SNS communications. The theory notes that computer-based communication is lower in social presence than face-to-face communication, but different computer-based communications can affect the levels of social presence between communicators and receivers.

Interruption science is the interdisciplinary scientific study concerned with how interruptions affect human performance, and the development of interventions to ameliorate the disruption caused by interruptions. Interruption science is a branch of human factors psychology and emerged from human–computer interaction and cognitive psychology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gamification of learning</span> Educational approach aiming to promote learning by using video game design and game elements

The gamification of learning is an educational approach that seeks to motivate students by using video game design and game elements in learning environments. The goal is to maximize enjoyment and engagement by capturing the interest of learners and inspiring them to continue learning. Gamification, broadly defined, is the process of defining the elements which comprise games, make those games fun, and motivate players to continue playing, then using those same elements in a non-game context to influence behavior. In other words, gamification is the introduction of game elements into a traditionally non-game situation.

Games and learning is a field of education research that studies what is learned by playing video games, and how the design principles, data and communities of video game play can be used to develop new learning environments. Video games create new social and cultural worlds – worlds that help people learn by integrating thinking, social interaction, and technology, all in service of doing things they care about. Computers and other technologies have already changed the way students learn. Integrating games into education has the potential to create new and more powerful ways to learn in schools, communities and workplaces. Games and learning researchers study how the social and collaborative aspects of video gameplay can create new kinds of learning communities. Researchers also study how the data generated by gameplay can be used to design the next generation of learning assessments.

Seductive details are often used in textbooks, lectures, slideshows, and other forms of educational content to make a course more interesting or interactive. Seductive details can take the form of text, animations, photos, illustrations, sounds or music and are by definition: (1) interesting and (2) not directed toward the learning objectives of a lesson. John Dewey, in 1913, first referred to this as "fictitious inducements to attention." While illustrated text can enhance comprehension, illustrations that are not relevant can lead to poor learning outcomes. Since the late 1980s, many studies in the field of educational psychology have shown that the addition of seductive details results in poorer retention of information and transfer of learning. Thalheimer conducted a meta-analysis that found, overall, a negative impact for the inclusion of seductive details such as text, photos or illustrations, and sounds or music in learning content. More recently, a 2020 paper found a similar effect for decorative animations This reduction to learning is called the seductive details effect. There have been criticisms of this theory. Critics argue that seductive details do not always impede understanding and that seductive details can sometimes be motivating for learners.

Competition-based learning (CBL) is a student-centered pedagogy that combines Project-based learning and competitions. This can sometimes be referred to as game-based learning as well, which is different than gamification. CBL also utilizes Team-based learning and Problem-based learning paradigms. Competition-based learning involves a team of students in an open-ended assignments or projects that resembles some problems students may face at the work place or in the real-world. However, the performance is being evaluated on the final completion of the project or task assigned in the course as a comparison to other groups. The aspiration is to create motivation in the students to come up with the best overall project. CBL learning relies on the competition results. Furthermore, CBL implements a reward system upon the completion of the task assigned to reinforce desired behaviors in learning environments.

References

  1. ↑ Becker, Mark W.; Alzahabi, Reem; Hopwood, Christopher J. (2012-11-05). "Media Multitasking Is Associated with Symptoms of Depression and Social Anxiety". Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking. 16 (2): 132–135. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0291. ISSN   2152-2715. PMID   23126438. S2CID   15469576.
  2. ↑ Uncapher, Melina R.; Wagner, Anthony D. (December 2, 2018). "Minds and brains of media multitaskers: Current findings and future directions". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 115 (40): 9889–9896. Bibcode:2018PNAS..115.9889U. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1611612115 . ISSN   1091-6490. PMC   6176627 . PMID   30275312.
  3. ↑ Huber, Jennifer (2018-10-29). "How does media multitasking affect the mind?". Scope. Retrieved 2019-05-31.
  4. ↑ Wallis, Claudia (March 2006). "genM: The Multitasking Generation". Time Magazine. Archived from the original on June 14, 2006. Retrieved 15 May 2011.
  5. ↑ Ophir, E.; Nass, C.; Wagner, A. D. (2009-08-24). "Cognitive control in media multitaskers". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 106 (37): 15583–15587. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0903620106 . ISSN   0027-8424. PMC   2747164 . PMID   19706386.
  6. ↑ "Cognitive Control in Media Multitaskers". Journalist's Resource.org. August 2011.
  7. ↑ Welford, A. T. (1967). "Single-channel operation in the brain". Acta Psychologica. 27: 5–22. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(67)90040-6. PMID   4863177.
  8. ↑ Lien, M.C.; Ruthruff, E.; Johnston, J.C. (2006). "Attentional limitations in doing two things at once: The search for exceptions". Current Directions in Psychological Science. 15: 89–93. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2006.00413.x. S2CID   30360032.
  9. ↑ Lin, Lin (2009). "Breadth-biased versus focused cognitive control in media multitasking behaviors". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. PNAS: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 106 (37): 15521–15522. Bibcode:2009PNAS..10615521L. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0908642106 . PMC   2747151 . PMID   19805207.
  10. ↑ Carrier, L. M.; Cheever, N. A.; Rosen, L. D.; Benitez, S.; Chang, J. (2009). "Multitasking across generations: Multitasking choices and difficulty ratings in three generations of Americans". Computers in Human Behavior. 25 (2): 483–489. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.10.012. S2CID   2446494.
  11. ↑ Rosen, L. D. (2007). "Me, MySpace, and I: Parenting the net generation. In Carrier, L. M., Cheever, N. A., Rosen, L. D., Benitez, S., & Chang, J. (2009). Multitasking across generations Multitasking choices and difficulty ratings in three generations of Americans". Computers in Human Behavior. 25: 483–489.
  12. ↑ Appelbaum, S. H.; Marchionni, A.; Fernandez, A. (2008). "The multitasking paradox: Perceptions, problems, and strategies". Management Decision. 46 (9): 1313–1325. doi:10.1108/00251740810911966. S2CID   17882403.
  13. ↑ Wallis, C.; Steptoe, S. (2006). "Help! I've lost my focus". Time. Vol. 167. pp. 42–7.
  14. ↑ Hallowell, E. M. (2005). "Overloaded circuits: Why smart people underperform". Harvard Business Review. 83 (1): 54–62, 116. PMID   15697113.
  15. ↑ Freedman, D. H. (2007). What's Next? Tasks Interruptus, Mansueto Ventures LLC, Inc.Com, New York, NY.
  16. ↑ McEvoy, S. P.; Stevenson, M. R.; McCartt, A. T.; Woodward, M.; Haworth, C.; Palamara, P.; Cercarelli, R. (2005). "Role of mobile phones in motor vehicle crashes resulting in hospital attendance: a case-crossover study". BMJ. 331 (7514): 428–430. doi:10.1136/bmj.38537.397512.55. PMC   1188107 . PMID   16012176.
  17. ↑ Olson, R. L., Hanowski, R. J., Hickman, J. S., & Bocanegra, J. (2009). Driver Distraction in Commercial Vehicle Operations. U.S. Department of Transportation, 146.
  18. ↑ Caird, J. K.; Willness, C. R.; Steel, P.; Scialfa, C. (2008). "A meta-analysis of the effects of cell-phones on driver performance". Accident Analysis and Prevention. 40 (4): 1282–1293. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2008.01.009. PMID   18606257.
  19. ↑ Charlton, S. G. (2004). "Perceptual and attentional effects on drivers' speed selection at curves". Accident Analysis and Prevention. 36 (5): 877–884. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2003.09.003. PMID   15203365.
  20. ↑ Weaver, B. E.; Nilson, L. B. (2005). "Laptops in class: What are they good for? What can you do with them?". New Directions for Teaching and Learning. 2005 (101): 3–13. doi:10.1002/tl.181.
  21. 1 2 Kay; Lauricella (2011). "Kay, R. H., & Lauricella, S. (2011). Gender differences in the use of laptops in higher education: A formative analysis". Journal of Educational Computing Research. 44 (3): 361–380. doi:10.2190/ec.44.3.f. S2CID   145162115.
  22. 1 2 3 Hammer, R.; Ronen, M.; Sharon, A.; Lankry, T.; Huberman, Y.; Zamtsov, V. (2010). "Mobile Culture in College Lectures: Instructors' and Students' Perspectives". Interdisciplinary Journal of e-Learning and Learning Objects. 6: 293–304. doi: 10.28945/1316 .
  23. ↑ Timmis, S. E. (2012). "Constant Companions: Instant Messaging Conversations as Sustainable Supportive Study Structures amongst Undergraduate Peers". Computers & Education. 59 (1): 3–18. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.09.026.
  24. ↑ Lowther, D. L.; Ross, S. M.; Morrison, G. M. (2003). "When each one has one: The influence on teaching strategies and student achievement of using laptops in the classroom". Educational Technology Research and Development. 51 (3): 23–44. doi:10.1007/bf02504551. S2CID   55497617.
  25. ↑ Siegle, D.; Foster, T. (2001). "Laptop computers and multimedia and presentation software: Their effects on student achievement in anatomy and physiology". Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 34 (1): 29–37. doi:10.1080/15391523.2001.10782331. S2CID   220273635.
  26. ↑ Lowerison, G.; Sclater, J.; Schmid, R. F.; Abrami, P.C. (2006). "Students perceived the effectiveness of computer technology use in post-secondary classrooms". Computers & Education. 47: 465–489. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2004.10.014.
  27. ↑ Wurst, C.; Smarkola, C.; Gaffney, M. A. (2008). "Ubiquitous laptop usage in higher education: Effects on student achievement, student satisfaction, and constructivist measures in honors and traditional classrooms". Computers & Education. 51 (4): 1766–1783. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.05.006.
  28. ↑ Hembrooke, H.; Gay, G. (2003). "The laptop and the lecture: The effects of multitasking in learning environments". Journal of Computing in Higher Education. 15 (1): 46–64. doi:10.1007/bf02940852. S2CID   1853680.
  29. ↑ Martin, L. R. (2011). Teaching business statistics and a computer lab: Benefit or distraction? Journal of Education for Business, 86, 326–331. DOI: 10. 1080/08832323. 2010. 529958
  30. ↑ Mueller, J.; Wood, E. (2012). "Patterns of beliefs, attitudes, and characteristics of teachers that influence computer integration". Education Research International. 2012: 1–13. doi: 10.1155/2012/697357 .
  31. ↑ Wainer, J.; Dwyer, T.; Dutra, R. S.; Covic, A.; Magalhaes, V. B.; Ferreira, L. R. R.; Claudio, K. (2008). "Too much computer and internet use are bad for you, especially if you are young and poor: Results from the 2001 Brazilian SAEB". Computers and Education. 51: 1417–1429. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.12.007.
  32. 1 2 Zivcakova, L., & Wood, E. (2012). Students' natural use of technologies during a real-time classroom lecture. Athens: ATINER'S Conference Paper Series, No: SOC2012-0066.
  33. ↑ Winter, J.; Cotton, D.; Gavin, J.; Yorke, J.D. (2010). "Effective e-learning? Multitasking, distractions and boundary management by graduate students in an online environment". ALT-J. 18 (1): 71–83. doi: 10.1080/09687761003657598 .
  34. ↑ Grace-Martin, M.; Gay, G. (2001). "Web browsing, mobile computing, and academic performance". Educational Technology & Society. 4 (3): 95–107.
  35. ↑ Junco, R (2012). "In-class multitasking and academic performance". Computers in Human Behavior. 28 (6): 2236–2243. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.031.
  36. ↑ Kraushaar, J. M.; Novak, D. C. (2010). "Examining the effects of student multitasking with laptops during the lecture". Journal of Information Systems Education. 21 (2): 241–251.
  37. 1 2 Wood, E.; Zivcakova, L.; Gentile, P.; Archer, K.; De Pasquale, D.; Nosko, A. (2011). "Examining the impact of distracting multitasking with technology on real-time classroom learning". Computers & Education. 58: 365–374. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.029. S2CID   206927604.
  38. ↑ Junco, R.; Cotton, S. R. (2011). "Perceived academic effects of instant messaging use". Computers & Education. 56 (2): 370–378. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.020.
  39. ↑ Junco, R.; Cotton, S. R. (2012). "No A 4 U: The relationship between multitasking and academic performance". Computers & Education. 59 (2): 505–514. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.023. S2CID   9271176.
  40. ↑ Kirschner, P. A.; Karprinski, A. C. (2010). "Facebook® and academic performance". Computers in Human Behavior. 26 (6): 1237–1245. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.024. hdl: 10818/20216 . S2CID   206611975.
  41. ↑ Paul, J. A.; Baker, H. M.; Cochran, J. D. (2012). "Effect of online social networking on student academic performance". Computers in Human Behavior. 28 (6): 2117–2127. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.016.
  42. 1 2 Rosen, Larry D.; Mark Carrier, L.; Cheever, Nancy A. (2013). "Facebook and texting made me do it: Media-induced task-switching while studying". Computers in Human Behavior. Elsevier BV. 29 (3): 948–958. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.001. ISSN   0747-5632. S2CID   4643981.
  43. ↑ Fried, C. B. (2008). "In-class laptop use and its effects on student learning". Computers and Education. 50 (3): 906–914. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.09.006. S2CID   2904689.
  44. ↑ Karpinski, A. C.; Kirschner, P. A.; Ozer, I.; Mellott, J. A.; Ochwo, P. (2013). "An exploration of social networking site use, multitasking, and academic performance among the United States and European university students". Computers in Human Behavior. 29 (3): 1182–1192. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.011. S2CID   28695992.
  45. ↑ Carrier, L. Mark; Rosen, L. D.; Cheever, N. A.; Lim, A. F. (2015). "Causes, effects, and practicalities of everyday multitasking". Developmental Review. 35: 64–78. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2014.12.005.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.