Dr Mira Vogel, Senior Lecturer in Education, King’s Academy
Back in 2013 when media studies professor Clay Shirky decided to stop students from using digital devices during his teaching, it was in response to research which had sent ripples through the academic community.
Faria Sana and colleagues had set up two experiments. One investigated whether multitasking on a laptop impeded learning while the other investigated the influence of being in direct view of another multitasking student. As well as finding a strong negative effect on multitaskers’ learning (operationalised as the ability to recall knowledge and apply it to novel problems), the researchers discovered even stronger negative effects on students taking paper notes within view of a peer who was multitasking – those students scored a full 17% less in a post-lecture test. In 2020 Amanda Hall and colleagues extended this work and found even stronger interference with learning when the multitasking was unrelated to the topic of the lecture. Students did not necessarily recognise disruption to their learning, but in the post-lecture knowledge test they scored better on the material covered when students within their view were using their laptops for on-task note-taking.
Although lab conditions are rarely authentic learning environments, many educators recognised this phenomenon from their own experiences, and found these findings compelling. Likening the effects of multitasking to second-hand smoking, Shirky enacted a default ban on laptop use in his class and weighed into the already vigorous global conversation about how to respond to the phenomenon of digital distraction. At the time, he worried that his students were powerless to resist the designs of technology companies to exploit users’ most primal instincts in order to keep their attention. Social media companies have since openly admitted to this business model, which has been referred to by former industry insiders as ‘the race to the bottom of the brainstem‘.
Weighed against the impetus to ban digital networked devices are several reasons, the most compelling of which is accessibility. Educators cannot know, predict nor assume who will need a digital device to interact with and learn from a lecture. Restricting use to only students with documented disabilities is likely to make them stand out even more. There are more reasons not to ban. For heavy social media users, out of sight is not out of mind and they may experience more distraction when deprived of their device. For those users, removing the device deprives them of vital interactions they rely on for peace of mind, and the consequent worry is liable to destroy any prospect of concentrative work. More prosaically, there are expectations around being reachable in an emergency, and in any case it’s doubtful that a ban could be enforced, especially in large groups. Then there are students’ expectations around participatory culture and the questions a ban might raise about a lecturer’s tech cred. Some educators seek to engage students through their devices, in opinion polls, voting and knowledge tests, for example. Finally, banning does not help students to develop metacognitive awareness of the consequences of distractions from learning, nor ways to overcome them in their lives beyond that timetabled class.
Between the extremes of banning and ignoring digital devices, there is the possibility of supporting students to control their attention. In their 2016 book ‘The Distracted Mind‘, psychologists Adam Gazzaley and Larry Rosen set out four causes of distraction along with some strategies for developing cognitive control. These are not particular to higher education, but they look amenable to being adapted as follows.
Supporting students to understand the costs of multitasking and task-switching. We should expect a knowledge-action gap here; in other words, being told about research evidence is unlikely to lead to behaviour change on its own. Instead, we need to deeply grasp the principles through experience and reflection. In a conscious multitasking exercise, David Levy sets his students an activity to note any temptations to switch attention away from task at hand, along with their decision in response – maintain or switch. Participants in my workshops about responding to distraction tell me they have found this approach helpful in becoming aware of triggers and exercising control.
Limiting access. If students decide to do put their devices out of reach, there are apps which allow them to impose blocks on selected software for a set amount of time. This may be particularly powerful in independent study but can also eliminate the device notifications which demand attention during class.
Decreasing boredom-related self-interruption. Students can introduce variety by interleaving what they study, using a range of study strategies, changing physical position, and rewarding themselves with breaks when they catch up with social media or do something enjoyable. Educators can also improve engagement by introducing variety to their teaching. Real-world examples, posing questions, use of audience response systems and follow-up discussion have been associated with improved engagement.
Supporting students to reduce their fear of missing out. FoMO is a social anxiety about being absent from valuable experiences happening elsewhere. It tends to affect younger adults, who are consequently likely to want to check social media more often. To the extent that FoMO is related to adjustment to university life, creating a sense of belonging and mattering within a module or degree will help students to perceive their university studies as among those valuable experiences, rather than a dislocation. This is likely to lessen students’ dependence on being involved minute by minute in what is happening outside the learning context.
This post has primarily been concerned with building defences against distraction on an individual basis. Ultimately, though, in a world of social media with advertising revenue to make, distraction is our problem but not our fault. So, while the strategies above are beneficial and likely to empower us, the problem and the harm will persist until the technology companies competing for attention adopt more responsible business models.
Sources
Gazzaley, A., & Rosen, L. D. (2016). The distracted mind: Ancient brains in a high-tech world. MIT Press.
Hall, A. C. G., Lineweaver, T. T., Hogan, E. E., & O’Brien, S. W. (2020). On or off task: The negative influence of laptops on neighboring students’ learning depends on how they are used. Computers & Education, 153, 103901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103901
Levy, D. M. (2016). Mindful tech: How to bring balance to our digital lives. Yale University Press. p115-117.
Sana, F., Weston, T., & Cepeda, N. J. (2013). Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both users and nearby peers. Computers & Education, 62, 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.003
Shirky, C. (2014). Why a leading professor of new media just banned technology use in his class. Washington Post. 5th September 2014. Accessed at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2014/09/25/why-a-leading-professor-of-new-media-just-banned-technology-use-in-class/