Question

What are the real-world implications or application of the obtained results? (The answer to this question can be found by reading the “Discussion” section of the article, especially the “Conclusion” or last few paragraphs).

and here are the discussion:

Today’s students are quite different than those who populated university classrooms at the turn of the century. Raised in the internet age, constantly “plugged in”, seemingly inextricably attached to cell phones, and facile with all types of electronic media, these students nonetheless are expected to learn much of the same material as did their predecessors of the late 20th century. Today’s students’ classroom behaviors, however reflective of their engagement and facility with current technology, may be putting students’ learning at risk. And today’s classrooms, configured for wireless computing or equipped with computers, may be enabling students to engage in behaviors that compromise learning. Although many stories and anecdotes describe professors who find their students shopping online, playing games, texting friends, and checking Facebook, no prevalence data have indicated how widespread of a phenomenon classroom multitasking is. The purpose of this study was to describe the multitasking behaviors of university students while sitting in their traditional classrooms and while on their computers working on online classes. The finding that the majority of students multitask is not surprising; however, in an institution where the average class size was 22.7 during the semester that the study was done, it is surprising that more than 50% of the students sitting in class were frequently text messaging and more than one fourth were frequently checking Facebook, presumably while their professors looked on. Abaté (2008) claims that the consequence of tolerating multitasking in the classroom is an education that is limited in its adaptability, superficial, and short term memory based. The negative association between multitasking and GPA that was found in this study may not provide evidence for Abaté’s (2008) specific claims, but it does provide some justification for those professors who are banning laptops and cell phones from their classrooms (Adams, 2006; Jan, 2011). Banning phones and laptops in the classroom may meet with resistance because students may not be aware of the frequency of their multitasking, and if they are, they may not see it as problematic. Turkle (2011) comments that today’s youth grew up in a culture of distraction and that technology is so much a part of life, it has become like a phantom limb. She refers to individuals as “tethered” to technology, and contends that for many, the “unplugged” world does not provide satisfaction. Turkle (2008) writes that a phenomenon such as e-mailing during classes is so mundane that it is scarcely noticed, and that once done surreptitiously, it is currently not something people feel they need to hide. The proliferation of online classes and the significantly greater amounts of multitasking that take place among students engaged in online coursework may lead to some concern about the quality of attention and learning going on in online classes. Some of the focus group responses to the question asking participants what else they were doing while they were engaged in coursework were unique to students who took online classes. These included cooking dinner, caring for children, playing with pets, and conversing with family/roommates. These kinds of activities not only divert cognitive focus and attention, they also can physically remove the student from the act of engaging in the class. 8 Multitasking in the University Classroom http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/ij-sotl/vol6/iss2/8 The associations between multitasking and risk behaviors are disconcerting. College students worldwide have been known to engage in various risk behaviors, including alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use, unhealthy sexual practices, and disregard for preventive and protective habits (Centers for Disease Control, 1997; Steptoe et al, 2002). Indeed, the overall risk behavior of the current study population is similar to that of the general US college population. However, the significant correlations between multitasking and risk behaviors, and the significant differences in risk behaviors between high and low multitaskers support Foehr’s (2006) findings that multitaskers tend to engage in risk behaviors, and point to an additional factor to examine when considering risk behaviors among college and university students. Clearly understanding that correlations do not support causality, these results may, however, lead one to wonder if multitasking in the classroom may be yet another risk that some university students are inclined to take. The results may also lead one to believe that classroom multitaskers must also be engaging in multitasking behaviors outside of the classroom – perhaps while driving, doing homework, or engaging in other activities whose effectiveness and safety multitasking may compromise. The consideration of multitasking as a risk behavior is exacerbated by Greenfield’s (2011) claim that the digital communication and entertainment devices frequently used by multitaskers have addictive properties that can distract users as well as alter their moods and consciousness. Wang & Tchernev’s (2012) findings that college students’ multitasking behaviors generate emotional gratification provide evidence that students have a powerful drive to repeatedly engage in multitasking behavior. The addictive and emotionally gratifying nature of multitasking make it all the more difficult, and perhaps all the more important, to address. This study had several limitations: the sample was a nonrandom convenience sample, the data were self-reported, and the design was correlational. These limitations constrain inferences or generalizations regarding the entire university student population. Another limitation was that the multitasking behaviors that were listed on the survey might not adequately represent all of the multitasking activities in which the student respondents engaged. Despite the limitations, however, the results of this study can provide a starting point for further research as well as for discussions about learning in the 21st century, about standards for classroom behavior, and about the nature of risk behaviors. Ongoing research into the phenomenon of classroom multitasking may provide guidelines for the mitigation of the problems and their sequelae. Further research is needed to assess the associations between multitasking and risk behaviors; one suggestion would be to add multitasking items to the National Youth Risk Behavior Surveys and the College Health Risk Behavior Survey. Another important area for continued investigation is to examine the predictors of multitasking behaviors: what kinds of attitudes, beliefs, personality traits, and learning environments lend themselves to multitasking behaviors? And are said attitudes, beliefs, characteristics, and environments modifiable? University professors might also engage in small action research studies in their classrooms, experimenting with and assessing the effects of different pedagogical styles and approaches that might decrease multitasking among students. Although it is very likely that students have been engaging in distracting behaviors in the classroom throughout the history of education, the ubiquity of technologies seems to make the possibilities for classroom multitasking even more likely in the near future. A recent white paper by the global telecommunications company, Ericsson (2011), projects that by 9 IJ-SoTL, Vol. 6 [2012], No. 2, Art. 8 2020 there will be 50 billion connected devices, with individuals possessing between 5 and 10 devices each, so it’s quite clear that the temptations and opportunities for multitasking will not abate and will not go away. The sheer number of electronic devices, their addictive nature, and the tethered selves that students have become can make addressing the issue of classroom multitasking quite daunting. For the sake of student learning outcomes, however, instructors should attempt to mitigate the problem to the extent possible. Some suggestions include having and enforcing clear written policies regarding multitasking behaviors and media use in the classroom, along with clear penalties for non-compliance with said policies. Instructors can utilize hands-on, active learning strategies that require that students be on task with tasks that minimize opportunities for engagement with electronic devices. And, if possible, professors can set up classroom seating that minimizes visual obstructions and maximizes opportunities for circulating around classrooms. Many university professors are aware that their students are engaging in multiple behaviors while sitting in their classrooms; these professors should not avert their eyes, but rather help their students become aware of the consequences of multitasking. Perhaps engaging students in discussions about multitasking and seeking student input in addressing the issue can be a first step in resolving what has the potential to become a pernicious problem.

Answer 1

Multi-tasking, according to the article promotes risk behaviors because people who do multiple tasks in the classroom will also multi-task outside putting their life and others’ lives in danger. For example, one keeps texting while driving. Multi-tasking reduces concentration and the growing number of technological devices is only going to make things worse.

The article talks about the multi-tasking of students while sitting in a traditional classroom or online classes and the risks or impacts of it. Most of the students are multi-tasking in the classrooms and use one of the devices for texting, checking Facebook or send e-mail which prevents them from focusing on the session in progress. People who take online classes, do whatever they want while the session is on, such as talking to friends, cooking food, cleaning the house etc.

The article finally suggests that the risks associated with multi-tasking should be added to the National Youth Risk Behavior Surveys and the College Health Risk Behavior Survey. It also suggests to take up further research to examine the predictors of multitasking behaviors such as attitudes, beliefs, personality traits, and learning environments.