ارسال پیامک به عنوان یک حواس پرتی برای یادگیری در دانشجویان
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|38768||2014||5 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Computers in Human Behavior, Volume 36, July 2014, Pages 163–167
Abstract Texting has been shown to be cognitively distracting for students in lecture settings, but few have done empirical work, or looked at moderating effects between texting and academic outcomes. This experimental study compared the proportion of correct answers on a lecture quiz between students who were randomly assigned to text message during a pre-recorded lecture and those who were not, while investigating possible moderators. The participants who text messaged throughout the lecture scored significantly lower in percent of correct responses (t(95) = −4.6, p < .001, d = .93). No moderating effects were found, including: perceived distraction, perceived texting ability, number of text messages sent and received during the lecture, age, and gender.
. Introduction 1.1. Text messaging Text messaging, or texting, is a mode of conversation in which the sender types in a message typically of less than 160 characters on a mobile phone or other unit and sends it to a mobile receiver, regardless of the location or provider of the recipient. Texting has become ubiquitous through the adolescent and young adult generations (Faulkner & Culwin, 2005), with cell phone users between the ages of 18-34 sending upwards of 2000 text messages a month (Nielsen, 2011). Texting is often cited as the preferred method of conversation for college students, over phones or e-mail (Bryant et al., 2006, Skierkowski and Wood, 2012 and Van Cleemput, 2012). They use texting to update plans in real time, and to discuss private activities for which an audible conversation may not be appropriate (Grinter, Palen, & Eldridge, 2006), saving phone conversations for longer discussions about recent life events (Madell & Muncer, 2007). According to Harrison and Gilmore (2012), college students also self-report texting during work hours, while taking a shower, during religious services, and even while having sex. 1.2. Texting as a distraction One additional inopportune area for texting is the classroom setting. Wei and Wang (2010) recently found that students who are habitual texters in general are more likely to text in class. Some studies suggest technology usage during academic settings may be inhibitory to learning. For example, instant messaging on a computer, which has similar qualities to texting, has been shown to be correlated with academic distractibility (Levine, Waite, & Bowman, 2007), increased reports of academic impairment, and decreased homework completion (Junco & Cotten, 2010). Researchers have also found that using social technology such as texting or instant messaging during a simulated classroom environment can lead to lower recall (Wood et al., 2012). In addition, GPA and texting while studying are negatively correlated (Windham & B., 2008). Students who used instant messaging while reading a passage took longer to finish the passage than those who did not use instant messaging, even after removing the time taken to read and send the messages. However, there were no statistical differences on a following exam over the read passage. The researchers attributed this to the fact that the entire article was read by both groups, even though the instant messaging group took longer to do so (Bowman, Levine, Waite, & Gendron, 2010). In a lecture environment, the student does not have the option to ‘pause’ the instructor while he or she texts, indicating that the students must multi-task. Research has found that multitasking leads to less productive, lower quality, less efficient work (Junco and Cotten, 2010, Mayer and Moreno, 2003 and Meyer and Kieras, 1997). Students on computers will often multitask (Judd & Kennedy, 2011), using their laptops for things other than note taking, which can lead to distractions and lower test scores (Fried, 2008), especially when the devices are used for social interactions during class (Junco, 2012). Other studies have also shown that laptop usage can decrease student satisfaction, and does not statistically increase GPAs (Wurst, Smarkola, & Gaffney, 2008). Students in online classroom environments also report multitasking on the computer to be both distracting and challenging (Winter, Cotton, Gavin, & Yorke, 2010). Texting acts as a distracter to attention in non-academic settings, such as driving, and divided attention in a classroom environment will limit learning (Horrey et al., 2006, Kass et al., 2007 and Strayer and Johnston, 2001). Therefore, texting should act as a distraction to limit learning in a lecture setting. In a recent survey, Wei, Wang, and Klausner (2012) found that students who reported texting during a lecture had lower levels of sustained attention, and therefore lower academic performance than those who did not text. However, this study used self-reported measures. Perhaps students who chose to text during a lecture already have lower sustained attention, and this is what is driving the lower academic performance. Previous studies have found that students believe that texting is distracting in general, but yet they still choose to text during lectures (Harrison and Gilmore, 2012, Skierkowski and Wood, 2012 and Wood et al., 2012). One reason for this may be linked to an attribution bias in which students believe that their texting abilities can overcome the distraction within a lecture. Many cultural myths circulate concerning multitasking, including the idea that multitasking can make an individual more productive (Ophir, Nass, & Wagner, 2009). Other studies have found that experienced drivers are less distracted by cell phones and other secondary tasks than novice drivers (Nabatilan et al., 2012 and Patten et al., 2006). Therefore, looking at possible moderators to texting and distraction should also be a focus of research. The main purpose of this study is to examine whether texting distracts students in a lecture setting, using a quasi-experimental design. This study has two main hypotheses, as follows: 1. Participants assigned to the texting group will have a lower percentage of correct answers on a recall quiz, compared to those assigned to the control group. 2. For the texting group, perceived distraction and texting ability will moderate the effect of texting on quiz performance.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
3. Results 3.1. Quiz results To test the primary hypothesis that texting is distracting to students in a lecture setting, an independent measures t- test was conducted comparing the proportion of correct answers on the quiz between the control group (non-texting) and the texting group. The results revealed a strong effect of texting on the grade outcome. Participants in the texting group (M = 0.58 or 58% correct, SD = 0.17, N = 50) scored significantly lower on the overall recall test than the participants in the control group (M = 0.71 or 71% correct, SD = 0.12, N = 49), t(98 = −4.6, p < .001, d = .93). In order to illuminate any possible covariates for the primary result, a linear regression was run for all the participants. Self-reported distraction levels, self-reported texting ability, GPA, gender, and age were not significant predictors of the percent correct on the performance test (Table 3). Additionally, the interaction effects of these variables with the group (texters or non-texters) were also non-significant predictors. Additionally, a linear regression for only the texting group was run for total number of texts sent and received. The number of texts did not predict the percent correct within this group (β = −0.002, SEβ = 0.002, p = 0.27, N = 50). Table 3. Linear regression of covariates on percent correct (N = 99). Covariate β SEβ P-value Perceived distraction −0.02 0.05 0.58 Perceived ability 0.06 0.06 0.28 GPA −0.01 0.06 0.89 Gender (female) 0.02 0.05 0.74 Age 0.001 0.01 0.85 Group × Perceived distraction 0.001 0.08 0.99 Group × Perceived ability 0.04 0.09 0.65 Group × GPA 0.16 0.10 0.11 Group × Gender (Female) 0.02 0.11 0.85 Group × Age −0.01 0.01 0.57 Table options 3.2. Survey results The general survey was also analyzed, in order to look at student’s attitudes and beliefs about texting in the classroom, to help further inform classroom policy. To test the attitudes of students regarding texting, descriptive statistics were run on each of the measures of the survey given to the participants. On the survey results (Table 2), participants generally agreed that texting is distracting to the user in general (M = 3.68, SD = .56), but disagreed that they themselves were distracted by texting (M = 1.84, SD = 0.56). The participants also reported that they only sometimes follow texting procedures (M = 2.00, SD = 0.9), mostly disagree that University policies are effective in the classroom (M = 2.82, SD = 1.09), and think that University students should be allowed to text message in class (M = 3.33, SD = 1.25). Descriptive statistics for each of the questions can be found in Table 1.