ReviewDoes multitasking with mobile phones affect learning? A review
Introduction
Multitasking can be simply defined as doing more than one thing at a time (Wood et al., 2012). Junco and his collaborators (Junco, 2012, Junco and Cotten, 2012) further defined multitasking as “divided attention and non-sequential task switching for ill-defined tasks as they are performed in learning situations” (Junco, 2012, pp.2237). This definition is closely related to the classical selective attention research of Michael Posner, one of the eminent psychologists of attention. Posner (1990) distinguished two types of attentional task that can help to understand multitasking. The first type is divided attention, which means individuals process more than one stimulus at the same time, resulting in imperfect selections of information (Posner, 1990). The second is rapid attention switching in which individuals only process one stimulus at a time but rapidly shift back and forth between the stimulus (Posner, 1990). In this situation, it both takes more time to process the information (Wood et al., 2012) and results in missing some information during the process of switching between the stimuli.
Building on these thoughtful definitions, in the present article, we defined mobile phone multitasking while learning specifically as both divided attention and rapid task switching between learning and off-task mobile phone use. Based on this definition, if individuals are reading a research article and checking mobile phones frequently for coming emails simultaneously or sequentially, then they are mobile phone multitasking while learning. However, if individuals are using mobile phones to read a research article for learning, then they are doing mobile learning or m-learning rather than mobile phone multitasking with off-task activities while learning.
Three major reasons motivated us to review the current literature: the prevalence of mobile phone multitasking while learning, the complexity of this issue, and the urgency of understanding this issue. First, advances in mobile phone, especially smartphone, and the wide coverage of 3G or even 4G fast speed service made mobile phone no longer just a tool for making phone call or texting. These advances dramatically promoted the number and types of activities in which we can engage in with mobile phone: finding information from website, locating address, connecting to social networks, reading online news, or taking and sharing pictures. Simply put, by using mobile phone, we can access to information at any place and in any time. Firat (2013) defined and compared two groups, digital immigrants and digital natives. Digital immigrants (Firat, 2013) refer to people born before the blooming of digital technology who got used to use paper-based communication and are struggling with catching up with the technology era. Digital immigrants are the “net generation” born after 1980 who can access information from anywhere at any time from any sources. Comparing to the digital immigrants group, they have some salient characteristics, including higher access speed, searching for instant pleasure, impatience in linear thinking, and most importantly, higher multitasking ability and continuous partial attention. It is so common for digital natives nowadays to use mobile phone to attend multiple streams of information while reading, doing homework, or listening to the lecture. Some of multiple streams of information are academic related. In the ECAR (Educause Center for Applied Research) study of undergraduate students and information technology (Dahlstrom, 2012), Eden reported the percentage of students using smartphone for academic purpose was about twice as many in 2012 (67%) than in 2011 (37%), through a variety of mobile-friendly institutional service and resources, including grade checking, course websites/syllabus, and course management system (Dahlstrom, 2012). However, often times, when students have access to mobile phone while learning, they are more likely to engage in off-task multitasking behaviors. Tindell and Bohlander (2012) reported 90% of university students in their study said they text messaging during classroom presentation. Murphy and Manzanares (2008) found that when instant messaging used as instructional tool, students engaged in off-task multitasking which negatively impacted learning (Murphy & Manzanares, 2008).
Second, mobile phone multitasking and learning is not a straightforward issue to investigate. For instance, it has been found that different multitasking tasks may produce different interference (Brooks, 1968; Wood et al., 2012). When we engage in two similar tasks, such as taking lecture notes (verbal) and texting (verbal), our performances are more likely to be impaired. However, our performance may not be significantly influenced when the two tasks involved are unrelated, such as taking lecture notes (verbal) and viewing a picture your friend texts you (visual). The first example is called general interference while the second one is specific interference. Therefore, in terms of mobile phone multitasking while learning, it is necessary to discuss the interference taking into account the specific type of tasks involved in, which add the complexity of the problem.
Third, in contrary to the prevalence and complexity of mobile phone multitasking while learning, few studies have explicitly investigated the relationship between mobile phone multitasking and learning outcome. While most of the current studies were self-reported and correlational, researchers started to conduct experimental studies to find out the effect of mobile phone multitasking in real world classrooms. Two review articles have been published to date. In Levine, Waite, and Bowman (2012) review article, they reviewed articles on the effects of mobile media multitasking on academic performance as well as driving, walking, and working. They concluded that media use is positively correlated with trait impulsivity and distractibility but the direction of effects is not clear. A more recent review was conducted by Carrillo and Subrahmanyam (2014). They grouped the current literature on mobile phone multitasking and learning based on the two settings of the studies, in the laboratory or in the real-world classroom, and described the differences between the findings. Studies conducted in the laboratory settings found that multitasking with mobile phone while learning had negative effects on learners' efficiency but not comprehension, while the studies conducted in classroom showed negative effects on learning and recall (Carrillo & Subrahmanyam, 2014).
The present review extended the two existing reviews in three aspects. Firstly, we not only reviewed the empirical evidence on the effect of mobile phone multitasking on learning but also reviewed variety of theories that can be used to explain the effect. Secondly, we referenced findings from the earliest and most productive area in the science of mobile phone multitasking behavior: phoning while driving (Yan, Chen, & Yu, 2013). Thirdly, we took into account the differences among specific type of tasks (i.e. ring of phone, texting, Facebook, etc.) involved in the mobile phone multitasking while learning. This article attempts to review the existing literature to answer the following three questions: How does mobile phone use impair learning? Why does mobile phone use impair learning? How to prevent from the negative effects of mobile phone multitasking while learning?
Section snippets
Method
Multiple search strategies were used to locate the existing research, including computer search of electronic databases, manual search of references of identified articles, and consultation with experienced librarian. Multiple major databases, including PsycINFO, Scopus, ERIC, and Education Research Complete, were searched. Three groups of key words were used in the initial literature search. The first group is related to mobile phone, such as mobile phone use, mobile phone use, texting, and
How does mobile phone multitasking impair learning?
In general, mobile phone multitasking results in distraction through three major ways, distraction sources (e.g, Campbell, 2006, Shelton et al., 2009, Harman and Sato, 2011, Junco, 2012), distraction targets (e.g., Bowman et al., 2010, Fox et al., 2009), and distraction subjects (e.g., Foehr, 2006; Zhao, Reimer, Mehler, D'Ambrosio, & Coughlin, 2013).
Cognitive theory of multimedia learning approach
Mayer and Moreno (2003) developed the cognitive theory of multimedia learning approach based on the dual channel assumption, the limited capacity assumption, and the active processing assumption. This theory is among the earliest and best efforts in understanding how and why multitasking affect learning. According to this theory, when in the multimedia context, learners are exposed to both words and pictures, which belong to two different information processing channels, auditory/verbal channel
Raise public awareness
It is important to make students correctly understand their actual multitasking ability and to recognize that the habit of constantly engaging in multitasking activities may have profound impacts on basic cognitive abilities (Ophir et al., 2009, Sanbonmatsu et al., 2013). This could be the first preventive strategy to decrease the negative impact of mobile multitasking on learning. Schlehofer's team (Schlehofer et al., 2010) revealed that people's actual multitasking ability is adversely
Conclusion
This paper attempts to review the emerging literature by focusing on three specific questions concerning the influence of mobile phone multitasking on academic performance. First, regarding how mobile phone multitasking impairs learning, the existing literature indicates that mobile phone multitasking results in distraction through three major ways: distraction sources, distraction targets, and distraction subjects. Distraction sources include ring of mobile phone, texting, and social
References (60)
- et al.
Memory for goals: an activation-based model
Cognitive Science
(2002) - et al.
Can students really multitask? An experimental study of instant messaging while reading
Computers & Education
(2010) - et al.
To ban or not to ban: differences in mobile phone policies at elementary, middle, and high schools
Computer in Human Behavior
(2014) - et al.
Cell phone conversing while driving in New Zealand: prevalence, risk perception, and legislation
Accident Analysis and Prevention
(2011) - et al.
Text messaging amongst New Zealand drivers: prevalence and risk perception
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour
(2012) - et al.
Text-speak processing impairs tactile location
Acta Psychologica
(2012) - et al.
Why do media users multitask?: motives for general, medium-specific, and content-specific types of multitasking
Computers in Human Behavior
(2014) Making sense of multitasking: the role of Facebook
Computers & Education
(2014)Too much face and not enough books: the relationship between multiple indices of Facebook use and academic performance
Computers in Human Behavior
(2012)- et al.
No A 4 U: the relationship between multitasking and academic performance
Computers and Education
(2012)
Facebook® and academic performance
Computers in Human Behavior
Psychological predictors of college students' cell phone use while driving
Accident Analysis and Prevention
The distracting effects of a ringing cell phone: an investigation of the laboratory and the classroom setting
Journal of Environmental Psychology
Cognitive distraction while multitasking in the automobile
Examining the impact of off-task multi-tasking with technology on real-time classroom learning
Computers & Education
Self-reported and observed risky driving behaviors among frequent and infrequent cell phone users
Accident; Analysis and Prevention
Managing mobile multitasking: the culture of iPhones on stanford campus
Potential benefits and costs of concurrent task engagement to maintain vigilance a driving simulator investigation
Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
Effects of text messaging on academic performance
Journal of Pedagogy and Psychology “Signum Temporis”
Impulsivity: cognitive, behavioral, and psychophysiological correlates
Aging and the effects of conversation with a passenger of a caller on simulated driving performance
ProQuest
Understanding the social implications of technological multitasking: a conceptual model
A cross-cultural comparison of media multitasking in American and Malaysian college students
Cyber Behavior, Psychology, and Learning
The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) and its correlates
British Journal of Clinical Psychology
Spatial and verbal components of the act of recall
Canadian Journal of Psychology
Cellular phone use in class: Implications for teaching and learning a pilot study
College Student Journal US: Project Innovation of Mobile
Distractor filtering in media multitaskers
Perception
Perceptions of mobile phones in college classrooms: ringing, cheating, and classroom policies
Communication Edu
Mobile phone multitasking and learning
Effects of simulator practice and real-world experience on cell-phone-related driver distraction
Human Factors
Cited by (196)
Appetite for distraction? A systematic literature review on customer smartphone distraction
2024, International Journal of Information ManagementToward a multilevel framework of multicommunicating: Insights from a systematic review
2023, Computers in Human Behavior ReportsTeachers’ perceptions of educational apps use: Psychometric properties of a new instrument (PEAU-t), validation, and measurement invariance
2023, Computers in Human Behavior ReportsM-Learning adoption in higher education towards SDG4
2023, Future Generation Computer Systems