Category: Multitasking

In the article “Can students really multitask? An experimental study of instant messaging while reading” by Bowman et al., (2010) the researchers, say that students are multitasking with electronics often while doing work. They conducted an experiment where college students read a passage and got an instant message before or while reading. The purpose was to see if the instant messages had an effect on reading comprehension. This article is interesting because the results from the experiment show us how we comprehend and perform on a task while being distracted.

The main focus of this paper is to summarize and analyze the research findings from the Bowman et al. (2010)’s experimental study as well as see how similar or different Jim Taylor’s article “Technology: Myth of Multitasking Is multitasking really more efficient?” is. Multitasking is doing two or more things at once and can be distracting. In previous findings on multitasking, Fried’s 2008 study (as cited in Bowman et al., 2010) states that people who multi-tasked frequently paid less attention in class and scored poorly on tests than others who didn’t multitask. In a different study in 2006 by Hrastinski (as cited in Bowman et al., 2010), it explains that when students used instant messaging to help them with classwork it actually enhanced the student’s online participation for that class.

However, in Contreras-Castillo et al., (2006) study (as cited in Bowman et al., 2010), it showed that students mainly used instant messaging for social media, and not for educational purposes. Bowman et al., (2010) predicted that students that were engaged with instant messaging while reading a typical psychology passage would take longer to read the passage and that they would also perform poorly on the test for comprehension. They proposed that multitasking has been found to be interfering with both the study time and performance in students. The key constructs that are in this experiment are when and if the students received an instant message. In this experiment, there were eighty-nine undergraduate college students, who were asked to read a 3828-word passage and in the end, they were tested with 25 multiple choice questions on their comprehension. The independent variable in the study was if a student receives an instant message and when they receive it.

The students were measured on how long they took to read the passage, read and respond to the instant messages, as well as answering the test questions. Students were randomly assigned to one of three different conditions: one group received instant messaging before they started reading, the second group received instant messaging while they were reading, and the third group did not receive any instant messaging at all. Having three different conditions helps to understand if the timing of receiving an instant message makes a difference in how long it takes to read and comprehend the passage. Having multiple groups can give us an option to see and compare the results from other groups. The researchers’ results were partially supported; yes, students can multi-task, but when compared to the other two conditions, it took students more time to read a passage when they received an instant message while they were reading.

They found that there was no significant difference in performance when the students were tested for comprehension. It took students more time to read because when they received a message while reading, they didn’t have the option to reply later, so they had to stop what they were doing and respond to the message. The group that took less time to read were the ones who received the message before they started reading. This is because they didn’t have to worry about when they were going to get the message. The findings implied that the there wasn’t a problem in the students’ performance even when they got a message while reading, but they did take more time to read.

The limitations of this article were that they only used college students, they should have also used high school students as well to see if there are any similarities or differences. The length of the passage was a bit long and it could be shorter. The future direction for this research is to have a time limit on the readings, like a deadline, and give the students the choice to reply to the instant messages when they want to so it can be like real-life study conditions. This article and the article by Jim Taylor “Technology: Myth of Multitasking Is multitasking really more efficient?” are similar because they are on the same topic of multitasking. They both include multiple types of researches that were done on multitasking by others. The article by Bowman et al., (2010) is distinct from Jim Taylors’s (2011) article because this article is scholarly and a peer-reviewed journal, whereas Taylor’s (2011) article is a popular source and opinion based.

The evidence is more believable and stronger in the Bowman et al. (2010) article because as we discussed in class, scholarly articles are written by researchers who are professionals and are more knowledgeable in the field. In conclusion, students are always multitasking while doing work and think that they can easily do multiple things at once.

In this paper I summarized and analyzed the research findings from Bowman et al., (2010). The main purpose of the study was to see if instant messaging had an effect on reading comprehension. This article is important because the results from the study showed us how multi-tasking effects the students’ comprehension of the passage and how long students took to read the passage while being distracted. I would say a possible implication is to have students from elementary to college level and see how multitasking effects them. In the end, the experimental study shows that by multitasking it will take more time to comprehend and complete a task than when you focus on one task at a time.

In the past, the need to multitask wasn’t as demanding as today’s needs. People are using their phones while executing and juggling multiple things. How can we discern if were multitasking? Do we just think that we are juggling multiple tasks? Switching back and forth between multiple tasks is more likely what’s going on. What people think is multitasking is actually pretty fluid. People who think they are multitasking and view it as such tend to do better than a unitasker usually. Multitasking is a sought after trait. It is seen as very essential in this day and age and most people in the U.S. think that they can execute multitasking as good as others or above their level. Previous research by Borger and Creamer in the sixties suggested that we cannot multitask rather we just switch between simultaneous activities and switch back.

People process things one piece at a time which insinuates that multitasking is a matter of that individual’s perception. Context is key here. The article sets out to answer how depending on the perception, of course, multitasking or monotasking impacts performance levels. Two key components I was able to pick out is it essentially depends on how hard a task is and how hard it is expected to be. The harder requirements that a task requires the more “Attention Bucks” we need to give to a particular task. As described in Cognitive Psychology class Attention bucks are where our focus is, where we are choosing to pay attention to ignoring other things. I found the hypothesis interesting that the more demanding the more enthralled we become. The primary intentions of Study 1A and that of 1B was to present activities as either Multitasking or monotasking and log its impact on performance. 1A participants were required to watch and commit to paper an educational video. 1B, the partakers were to give a rundown of an online lecture. The first thing (1A)was to analyze the number of words that were written down by participants (multitaskers did better). They analyzed how accurate the words were pertaining to the video using a text match application and surprise, surprise the multitaskers out performed the unitaskers. As an added bonus a surprise quiz was given at the end, as expected the ones that were presented with the multitasking stipulation did a lot better than the monotaskers. They didn’t leave out the amount of time that participants took and logged that there was not a big difference regarding persistence. Multitaskers did transcribe more words per second. The participants were told the tasks they’d be doing required multitasking. The researchers were trying to see the effect of their manipulation at work. 1B, participants all worked on the same task. They watched an online lecture and were to take notes about what the lecture discussed. Each participant was selected at random for either the multitask group or single task category. The word multitasking wasn’t actually used to describe what the participants would be doing, but were clear that they were two separate tasks expected of them and they were to be performed at the exact same time. The single taskers just thought it was one task at hand. Two individuals (coders) who were blind to the hypothesis, determined the quality of the notes thus an average score was calculated for each participant. Based on the coders measurements the multitasking conditions had more in-depth quality note taking. They also wrote more words than monotaskers.

Regarding Study 2A, the primary goal was to calculate the perceptions regarding multitasking instead of manipulating and telling them expectations. It was designed to measure perception and it discussed if the behaviors would have occurred regardless. This time partakers were presented with puzzles. The first puzzle was a word puzzle where the participants were asked to find as many words as they could muster. The second was an Anagram in which the participants made as many words that can be formed using a 10 letter string. After the participants were done with the puzzles it was about their ideas regarding the task as either mono tasking or multitasking. A particular response format was used. They were matched up with a partner and were to tell their partner how they perceived their activity. As predicted there was a pretty good amount of words and correct words among the multitaskers. The more the partakers felt as if they were juggling multiple tasks the better they did.

Concerning Study 2B, the same puzzles were used as Study 2A. For the multitasking category, the puzzles were presented as if they had to do with separate studies. They were separated by lines on the screen and had a different backdrop color. For the single taskers, it was presented as the same study and were not separated whatsoever. The manipulations that were set forth went according to plan. The assigned multitaskers found more words. The multitaskers also were more persistent and for a longer amount of time. I deduced that performance is best when we perceive an activity as multitasking. Study 3, concerned itself with pupil dilation. It was designed to measure effort, attention, and how well we process incoming info. Using eye tracking research methods performance was measured and as expected multitaskers performed better with that task (puzzles employed in 2A and 2B). Apparently, people that were multitasking had bigger pupils than those who were single-tasking. It seemed like the multitaskers found more words but there is not a direct connection link made describing how they were able to find more solutions over the mono taskers. More words were found across the multitaskers, their pupils were bigger and showed better focus than unitaskers. Multitaskers were more inclined to switch back and forth as well among the puzzles. Some of the studies directly employed the word multitasking while other studies didn’t make a mention of the word. Some of the studies had a certain time limit while others can be stopped whenever. When partakers multitasked, it was hard to ascertain why they did better and how exactly they switched back and forth between tasks and it made it hands-down confounded. Confounded is where a researcher is unable to distinguish a cause and effect of their actions and how it may affect a study. It is often counted out because they can’t accurately put forth the results of the study. Even though these studies did offer additional cash for correct answers it didn’t have a profound effect one way or another when it came down to it. Partakers didn’t do any better knowing they would get extra cash money. It also touched on how the other studies were executed and how they ended their work off. There was a positive effect noted across the multitaskers and this was ascertained using the bootstrap estimation approach, this approach is like a random sampling methodology that can be used so that it represents the population eliminating biases. I found it interesting that extra cash incentives didn’t affect performance levels.

The underlying theory was in this day and age multitasking is becoming more and more of a necessity. Can people actually multitask? It sets out to support how our perception of something weighs in on our capabilities and it sets out to support that if we see something as a multitasking task, we tend to be more attentive versus lumping it together like monotasking. It set out to support how we perceive things matter. We are more actively engaged in multitasking as opposed to monotasking. The initial hypothesis set out to support whether multitasking is possible, but also its effect on performance. It had a positive effect when people knew or perceived it as a multitasking task versus monotask endeavors. It is in no way better than monotasking but we just tend to engage more with a multitasking task.

I do think that the results that were yielded did accurately reflect the hypothesis in question. The researchers were able to ascertain performance based on whether it’s participants were told that they were mono-tasking or multitasking. They were able to answer that while mono-tasking isn’t necessarily superior it’s just that we actively tend to engage more with multitasking. It had a positive effect on performance when its partakers thought a task required a multitasking outlook. Is Multitasking more or less challenging than its latter? The article stated throughout its contents that participants in the multitasking category did as expected, which lead me to believe that the results were as they predicted and the outcome although not exact, was pretty close when the researchers brought everything to a close.

I think follow-up studies that could help to support the hypothesis that would be beneficial and fascinating to measure, might be participants perceptions and moods in regards to these studies using an electroencephalogram. Then we could see the specific brain areas that affect how they see the world and a stab at how they interpret multitasking versus monotasking. It would be cool to study the attention focal points of the brain. To get a glimpse of the areas lighting up and see how the EEG measured abilities to take on tasks and place them into what category. The old research yielded results based on correct solutions.

I think a Transcranial Magnetic stimulation to the prefrontal cortex and the parietal lobe would help the experimenter to understand how we process attention and may offer explanations pertinent in the realm of how we perceive and do tasks. I think it would have yielded better results to have a group that attempted and were willing to do the TMS and see how their answers changed or if they were able to do the tasks with the particular brain area put on pause. The previous groundwork in the article didn’t think of this procedure. Multitasking and the like can be complex, it is truly jaw-dropping that it accelerates our motivating forces! Technology has come a long way, multitasking is a major thing in our lives! We may do multiple things at once now, compared to before such advancements. Doing a plethora of tasks all at once makes for great strides in performance levels! I can conclude after finishing up the article that we, in fact, cannot multitask, but we think we can.

Background

Snacking while working is an increasingly common phenomenon amongst those that lead desk-bound lifestyles, namely students and white-collar workers. The proliferation of this work habit is actually a basic form of ‘multitasking’. The prevalence of multitasking in society today has transformed the way people take on daily tasks and is widely considered as a valued skill set for productivity. However, contrary to popular understanding that multitasking is valuable, scientific evidence suggests a different story, sparking debates regarding its true effectiveness. In this light, the team is interested to investigate the cognitive implications of managing a menial secondary task (snacking) concurrently with a primary task (studying). Specifically, this study aims to explore if snacking will, if at all, affect undergraduate students’ comprehension of a given text while snacking. Comment by Andrew Yee Zi Han: Are you suggesting multitasking is undesirable? Also, don’t patronize your reader: “although seemingly harmless to productivity”. Write factually. Comment by Student – Tan Wei Jin: Removed patronizing part Comment by Andrew Yee Zi Han: good Comment by Ee Yan Eion Goh: Thanks

Literature Review

Snacking

Snacks can broadly be defined into two main categories – food and beverages (Julie M Hess, 2016). In this field of study, we define the term ‘snacking’ as consumption of food outside meals. Some examples include biscuits, potato chips, chocolates and sweets. In a study conducted by Howard Egeth, it was found that snacks like chocolate and hotdogs were a form of distraction for people that engaged in a complicated task. High-fat and high-calorie snacks in particular were found to be twice as distracting. (Egeth, 2017) Comment by Andrew Yee Zi Han: “some examples include” Comment by Student – Edmund Chiang Jia Wei: Done Comment by Andrew Yee Zi Han: Is this study by Rosen (2017) or Egeth (Date Unknown)?If it is the latter, just write it as “In one study, Egeth (date) found that…” Don’t include his position and honorifics.

A separate study investigated how time plays a part in determining when snacking is likely to occur. This study found that snacking at different hours of the day affects cognitive performance. The findings concluded that mid-day snacking improves cognitive performance, namely spatial memory and attention. It was found that although cognitive performance is impaired after lunch, the ingestion of sugar from mid-day snacks counteracts these effects. It was also proven that high carbohydrate snacks improved attention and performance. In summary, taking a mid-day snack increases the intake of sugar which leads to an increase in cognitive performance. (Caroline R. Mahoney, 2007). Comment by Andrew Yee Zi Han: Grammar – writing is very unclear Comment by Student – Edmund Chiang Jia Wei: Done

The notion that our eating behavior is guided by external cues is well documented. Externality theory postulates that the presence of external stimuli can either increase or decrease a person’s internal cues to hunger (Schachter S, 1968). This means that some individuals might increase the amount and the frequency of eating when under stress, regardless of internal state of hunger. Another study proved this by showing that stress increases the consumption of snacks (Mark Conner, 2007). Additionally, another research study showed that a huge majority of people are more inclined to snack when studying. This snacking while studying essentially leads to multitasking in students (Julie M Hess, 2016). Comment by Andrew Yee Zi Han: Citations all over the place.Also, how is external eating related to anything discussed above? Comment by Student – Tan Wei Jin: made it related Comment by Ee Yan Eion Goh: citation? Comment by Ee Yan Eion Goh:

Multitasking

When multitasking, tasks can either be performed (1) concurrently or (2) sequentially (Yoori Hwang, 2018). Concurrent Multitasking (also known as dual-tasking) occurs when two tasks are executed in parallel, for example holding a conversation while driving. On the other hand, Sequential Multitasking (also known as task switching) occurs when a person must shift their attention between two independent tasks because the tasks are too cognitively demanding to perform them concurrently, such as alternating between completing a Mathematical assignment and writing an English essay.

Recently, a meta-analysis suggested that multitasking might have adverse effects on cognition, leading to a less than optimal performance of the task (Yoori Hwang, 2018). This is mainly due to cognitive overload, which means that the cognitive resources demanded by the tasks is greater than the mental capacity of the multitasker. By extension, this can be better explained by the limited capacity model of information processing (Baddeley, 1969) which assumes that cognitive resources possessed by humans are finite and limited. As such, taking on concurrent tasks results in the two (or multiple) tasks competing for finite cognitive resources. People might then experience cognitive overload, resulting in poorer performance of the undertaken tasks. Comment by Andrew Yee Zi Han: Good, but cite properly Comment by Latasha Lenus: Deleted the x3 cites

The same study by Yoori Hwang showed that not all tasks require the same level of multitasking (Yoori Hwang, 2018). Cognitive ability further deteriorates depending on which sensory channel is being used for each task. The cognitive overload will be much greater if both tasks utilize the same sense, such as watching television and reading a book (visual-visual), as compared to reading a book and listening to music (visual-audio). Comment by Andrew Yee Zi Han: Which same study? Cite please Comment by Student – Tan Wei Jin: Cited study

Cognitive Abilities

Cognitive abilities can be defined as a general capability which encompasses reasoning, problem solving, planning, abstract thinking, complex idea comprehension, and learning from experience (Dan Ispas, 2015). Cognitive abilities are key competences required and executed daily to meet the challenges of job demands, education, advanced training and societal expectations (Allemand, 2015). In tandem to this research study, cognitive ability is narrowed down to academic factors. In one study, Nathan Brody defines cognitive ability as “a latent trait ability that is assessed by psychometric tests” (Brody, 2004). These psychometric tests are often categorized into mathematical questions, reading comprehension questions or logical diagrammatic questions.

A study showed that many cognitive skills are required for reading comprehension. These cognitive skills include vocabulary & semantic processing, visualisation, working memory, reasoning and inference (Moore, 2014). The National Reading Panel also found that cognitive strategies such as predicting, monitoring and clarifying help improve reading comprehension (National Reading Panel, 2000).

Research Gap

There have been many studies done regarding the snacking and eating habits of people of different age groups and backgrounds (Timothy L.Barnes, 2015). However, a large majority of the studies and surveys were conducted in western countries such as America (Dantong Wang, 2016) and France (Arnaud Basdevant, 1993), most of which were concerned with the health implications snacking has on individuals. While there is existing research related to our study, the snacking habits of western countries cannot be directly transposed to the context of Asian societies due to differing diets, lifestyles and attitudes. Furthermore, most papers regarding snacking explore the diets and health of individuals, while the other effects of snacking on individuals (e.g. concentration levels) have not been explored extensively.

Multitasking and its effects on task performance is a widely researched area. However, a substantial amount of papers focused on the multitasking between activities involving visual-visual and visual-audio stimuli, particularly exploring the effects of media multitasking (e.g. listening to music while reading a book) on an individual’s performance (Shan Xu, 2015). There exists a gap in the current pool of research regarding multitasking of tasks that are not auditory or visual in nature. For example, eating and listening to music, which involve oral and auditory stimuli.

From the literature review, snacking and reading can manifest as either sequential or concurrent multitasking depending on an individual’s ability to multitask, which has the potential to affect cognitive ability. Hence this paper aims to explore these gaps, specifically if snacking will, if at all, affect undergraduate students’ comprehension of a given text while snacking.

Hypothesis

Based on the research studies above, multitasking is essentially the act of juggling between two tasks at the same time, causing a cognitive overload, resulting in lower cognitive ability.

One of the most common multitasking done by students is snacking and studying. Since they are two different tasks, it naturally follows that undergraduate students who snack while studying would have an adverse effect on cognitive ability, resulting in a lower quality of work. However, another study showed that mid-day snacking improves cognitive performance (Caroline R. Mahoney, 2007) which directly contradicts the above theory.

Hence, the aim of this study would be to assess whether snacking directly affects an undergraduate student’s ability to do work involving cognitive ability, which can be measured through reading comprehension tests.

The hypothesis is thus: “Undergraduate students who snack while reading will have a lower ability to comprehend a text as compared to those who do not snack while reading.” Comment by Andrew Yee Zi Han: Okay Comment by Student – Suryono Gunawan Ali:

Proposed Method

Participants

Undergraduates from Singapore University of Technology and Design will be recruited through convenience sampling and snowball sampling. Convenience sampling will be conducted by recruiting nearby college friends. Snowball sampling from the current pool of participants will be conducted if the sample size has not been achieved. These non-probability sampling methods are implemented as they are cost and time effective. They are more practical to implement in comparison to probability sampling.

The participants will be informed that their involvement in the experiment would solely be to complete an assigned test material.

Procedure

A total of 50 participants will be randomized into two groups of 25 each, a control group and a test group. The test will be conducted over the span of a few days from 1400 to 1600 hours. This timing falls between common lunch and dinner timings, which ensures that participants from the test group will be able to consume snacks during the experiment. All participants will be informed to select a 25 minutes slot to participate in this experiment. Comment by Andrew Yee Zi Han: Why this timing? Comment by Student – Suryono Gunawan Ali: Added justification

Control Group

Each participant will be instructed through email or text to report at the experiment venue 5 minutes prior to their selected slot. The participant will be reminded that their task in the experiment is to complete the test material within 25 minutes. As such, all participants will not be aware of the true objective of the experiment.

Test Group

Similar to the control group, each participant will be instructed through email or text to report at the experiment venue 5 minutes prior to their selected slot. The participant will be reminded that their task in the experiment is to complete the test material within 25 minutes.

However, a plastic container containing Oreos will be introduced into the test environment. Participants in the test group will be instructed to consume any number of Oreos during and up till the completion of the assigned test material.

At the start and end of every experiment in the test group, the number of Oreos in the plastic container will be counted. This is to verify that the participant has actually consumed the Oreos.

Post Experiment

At the end of every experiment, participants will be instructed to keep the test content confidential to uphold the integrity of the test and experiment.

After all participants have completed the experiments, an email will be sent to reveal the true objective of the experiment: To assess whether snacking directly affects an undergraduate student’s cognitive ability while studying.

The respective groups’ results will be tabulated. The mean, median and standard deviation of the test scores between the 2 groups will be recorded and compared. A higher collective score for the test group will be evidence to falsify our hypothesis.

Selection of Snack

The snack selected for the experiment is Oreo, a chocolate biscuit with a white cream filling. Oreo is selected because high-fat and high-calorie snacks in particular are shown to be twice as much distracting as other snacks of a lower fat and calorie content (Egeth, 2017). Furthermore, Oreos are consistent in shape and size, which will make calculating the number of Oreos consumed easier, as compared to snacks of less uniform shapes like potato chips.

Test Material

The test material that will be given to the participants is sourced from Khan Academy Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) preparation site. The SAT is an accredited form of measurement that is used by colleges and universities throughout the United States. It serves as a psychometric test that measures a participant’s reading comprehension skills, which would also serve to measure their cognitive ability (Brody, 2004). Comment by Andrew Yee Zi Han: Really? Comment by Andrew Yee Zi Han: Cognitive ability is not comprehension skill

An actual full reading test from the site is 65 minutes long and is infeasible for our test procedure. Instead, two passages and their comprehension questions based on the passages will be extracted from a practice paper. For this test procedure, the last 2 passages from the Reading Section of the SAT Practice Paper #9 were extracted[footnoteRef:2]. This will take approximately 25 minutes to complete. [2: Refer to Appendix A for test material]

The practice paper will give a final quantitative score of the participant’s performance. This ensures a fair, consistent test for all participants, and simplifies the process of comparing the results between control and test groups.

Links and References

1. Allemand, M. (2015). Midlife Psychological Development. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition) (pp. 369-375). Switzerland.
2. Arnaud Basdevant, C. C.-G. (1993). Appetite Volume 21: Snacking Patterns in Obese French Women. Paris: -.
3. Baddeley, A. D. (1969). Short-term memory and the limited capacity hypothesis. British Journal of Psychology, 51-55.
4. Brian Wansink, C. R. (2010). Appetite Volume 54: “Is this a meal or snack?” Situational cues that drive perceptions. United States: -.
5. Brody, N. (2004). What Cognitive Intelligence Is and What Emotional Intelligence Is Not. Psychological Inquiry, 234-238.
6. Caroline R. Mahoney, H. A. (2007). Effect of an afternoon confectionery snack on cognitive processes critical to learning. Physiology & Behavior, 344-352.
7. Christopher D. Wickens, R. S. (2015). Discrete task switching in overload: A meta-analyses and a model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 79-84.
8. Craik, F. I. (2014). Effects of distraction on memory and cognition: a commentary. Frontiers in Psychology, Cognition.
9. Dan Ispas, W. C. (2015). Personnel Selection, Psychology of. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (pp. 936-940). Illinois, USA.
10. Dantong Wang, K. d. (2016). Snacking Among US Children: Patterns Differ by Time of Day. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior Volume 48, 369-375.
11. Egeth, H. (2017, Oct 26). hub.jdu.edu. From John Hopkins University: https://hub.jhu.edu/2017/10/26/junk-food-twice-as-distracting/
12. Jianzhong Xu, X. F. (2015). Homework Distraction Scale: Confirming the Factor Structure With Middle School Students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 496-500.
13. Julie M Hess, S. S. (2016). What Is a Snack, Why Do We Snack, and How Can We Choose Better Snacks? A Review of the Definitions of Snacking, Motivations to Snack, Contributions to Dietary Intake, and Recommendations for Improvement . Advances in Nutrition, Volume 7, Issue 3, 466-475.
14. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and Effort. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
15. Kathryn Silliman, K. R.-F. (2004). K. Silliman et al. /Californian Journal of Health Promotion 2004, Volume 2, Issue 2,10-19 A Survey of Dietary and Exercise Habits and Perceived Barriers to Following a Healthy Lifestyle in a College Population . Californian Journal of Health Promotion, 10-19.
16. Lang, A. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication, 46-70.
17. Liu, P.-J. Y. (2015). Aging and Decision Making.
18. Mark Conner, M. F. (2007). Stress and snacking: A diary study of daily hassles and between-meal snacking. Psychology and Health, 51-63.
19. Moore, A. L. (2014). A Research Review of Cognitive Skills, Strategies, and Interventions for Reading Comprehension.
20. National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
21. Schachter S, G. R. (1968). Effects of fear, deprivation and obesity on eating. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91-97.
22. Shan Xu, Z. (. (2015). Media multitasking and well-being of university students. In Computers in Human Behavior Volume 55 (pp. 242-250 ). Ohio, USA.
23. Timothy L.Barnes, S. A. (2015). Snacking Behaviors, Diet Quality, and Body Mass Index in a Community Sample of Working Adults. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Volume 115, 1117-1123.
24. Yoori Hwang, S.-H. J. (2018). Multitasking and task performance: Roles of task hierarchy, sensory. Computers in Human Behaviour, 161-167.

Introduction

In this fast-forwarding world, it is essentially important for one to manage time and do tasks simultaneously to manage the workload. Task achievement is the first thing one should aim for. Completing the task efficiently makes the results brighter. Quality and time given to the task performed is also important outcome for one to multitask and give their best. Thus, it can be concluded that task achievement and management of time is vital for everyone to complete the assigned task. Looking at the broad perspective further, it is discussed in the ensuing paragraphs.

Initials researches have stated the difficulty of performing several tasks synchronously (Rogers & Monsell, 1995). Doing more than one work at a time and maintaining overall attention to both tasks is something challenging for human beings. Multitasking while studying gives them more stress and takes more effort for one to remember and recall things at the same moment Lifestyle as of this is more prone to increase efficiency; however, there are limitations to how arranged multiple tasks can be carried out simultaneously (Posner, 1982). Cognitive resources have more demands while multitasking, which, as a result reduces overall performance, also, performance on each sequential task (Broadbent, 1958). When focused on a sequential task, our attention is much more towards the one task and is not disturbed by the other task, and this data is enough processed and stored in the memory very efficiently (Naveh-Benjamin, Craik, Perretta, & Tonev, 2000). Students should be more involved in studying through concepts and mental efforts and not messaging or doing online studies. Performing in-person and giving their best will uplift their futures. Hence when we study while multitasking and later if one retrieves the information one can see that, some amount of performance decrease is seen (Wickens & Hollands, 2010). Hence, completing and managing more than two tasks together take effort and need great attention towards it and there are not infinite numbers of attentional resources or references (Konig, Buhner, & Murling, 2005; Pashler, 1994). Multitasking can result in poor remembrance of initial information learned for long time memory (Bailey & Konstan,2006; Ophir, Nass, & Wagner, 2009).

Hence, attempting to complete two simple cognitive tasks simultaneously will take more time than completing the same two tasks sequentially.

Participants

Approximately 1,331 students were involved in the activity of psychology. Out of these 664 pupils were involved in multitasking and the rest that is 667 were involved in serial wise that is sequential activity. Hence, there was a huge amount of people who participated in this activity.

Material

Chits of paper were provided to the students and according to that, they had to perform certain tasks. Students performed the task one by one and their performing times were recorded by their partners. Duals after jotting down the total time they submitted it to their TA’s. mobile phones were there with the children to record time and they had to check whether the opposite one is going in correct order or not.

Procedure

Approximately 20 students were present in one seminar. Students had to go to the seminar number in which they were assigned to. students were divided into pairs and were given one task to each one of them and the other one would have to note the time being taken by the opposite student. One pair had two students so one child had to perform task 1 and another child had to perform task 2. Out of the two one student was in control group and the opposite one was in experimental group. Considering, control group; they had to speak alphabets in order starting from A to Z and after that they had to count numbers from 1 to 26 individually. their times were recorded by his/her partner. Secondly, person with multiple tasks had to alphabets in order(A-Z) along with counting the number from 1 to 26 (simultaneously). The task for group one was simple and straight towards recollecting the simple series of alphabets and counting the series of numbers in their mind. Adding to this, experimental group had to count as well as had to recall the alphabets one by one without failing to recall the correct number and alphabet in sequence. While the one performs the task other one had to record time. After completing the allotted tasks, they to submit the recorded timings to their TA and the analysis was created or performed.

Results

The outcomes found here were that people while multitasking took an average of 73.12 seconds to complete the task. Which was quite more as compared to the students who were allotted single tasks. Single task students took average of 13.45 seconds. There was total of 667 people in control activity and 664 people in multitasking group. As this result can say that multitasking eventually takes a lot of time while a single task has more attention towards their task and are efficient towards their performance as compared to opposite category.

Discussion

According to the hypothesis, it can be said that it is clearly indicated that multitasking students will take or consume more time as compared to the pupils who perform sequentially. Students took significantly longer time to complete the task while counting the numbers along with recalling and speaking the correct alphabet orders. Despite, students are being made to learn alphabets from A-Z and number from 1-26 since their childhood still people faced some issues while recalling it because while thinking about the one part of the task one has to look at the consequent side also which leads in temporary memory loss or load on their memory to recollect all the information simultaneously.

This hypothesis is strongly relatable to this study as it clearly shows that multitasking is time-consuming also, needs more attention towards both of the tasks.Talking not only about counting numbers and alphabets but also, we can take the example of instant messaging. As mentioned earlier while instant messaging in class people tend to pay attention to text messages rather than studying and at last end up in scoring low marks as in contrast with the people who do solely pay attention to their studies. As it is said by Levine et al that given correlational research suggesting relations between media multitasking and academic distractibility (Levine et al.,2007). Educators must know the threats of multimedia while studies and should focus on multitasking as they might contribute to some mental issues or academic low scores while doing multiple tasks together. Supporting overall, it can be said that multitasking needs more brain exercise and needs brainstorming while they find the answers in their own minds. Multitaskers take more time while completing their works which hinders the progress of their result as well as the works which are associated with it. It makes them have more load in their minds and often makes them lose their patience or ability to take stress at the same time.

This research helps the general public a lot as it makes them think about the other alternatives to complete all their tasks one by one also, time management. These studies make government think upon providing resources or thinking about the alternatives to make children study well and also to help them cope up with their single works. People outside of this field will also care about this research as this research states the general issue and general findings which gives information to them about cognitive development. Additionally, it also gives the knowledge and idea about maintaining their time and work accordingly and spreads awareness amongst people about the losses and fears of multitasking.

There are some limitations to this study as we can say that we can’t stop people from using their mobiles or laptops in class because if we stop the usage of phones and laptops or tablets then how they take notes? How would the general public react to it? Hence one can say that changing the thoughts of people through conducted studies is something about difficult tasks.

Conclusion

Thus, in conclusion, it can be inferred that multitasking takes immense time while doing two tasks together rather than one task at a time, which will result in cognitive overload.

References

1. Bailey, B. P., & Konstan, J. A. (2006). On the need for attention-aware systems: Measuring effects of interruption on task performance, error rate, and affective state. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(4), 685–708. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2005.12.009
2. Bowman, L. L., Levine, L. E., Waite, B. M., & Gendron, M. (2010). Can students really multitask? An experimental study of instant messaging while reading. Computers & Education, 54(4), 927–931. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.024
3. Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and Communication. doi: 10.1016/c2013-0-08164-9
4. Konig, C. J., Buhner, M., & Murling, G. (2005). Working Memory, Fluid Intelligence, and Attention Are Predictors of Multitasking Performance, but Polychronicity and Extraversion Are Not. Human Performance, 18(3), 243–266. doi: 10.1207/s15327043hup1803_3
5. Naveh-Benjamin, M., Craik, F. I. M., Perretta, J. G., & Tonev, S. T. (2000). The effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes: The resiliency of retrieval processes. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 53(3), 609–625. doi: 10.1080/027249800410454
6. Ophir, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(37), 15583–15587. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0903620106
7. Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116(2), 220–244. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.116.2.220
8. Pashler, H., Kang, S. H. K., & Ip, R. Y. (2013). Does Multitasking Impair Studying? Depends on Timing. Applied Cognitive Psychology. doi: 10.1002/acp.2919
9. Posner, M. I. (1982). Cumulative development of attentional theory. American Psychologist, 37(2), 168–179. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.37.2.168
10. Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictible switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(2), 207–231. doi: 10.1037//0096-3445.124.2.207
11. Sana, F., Weston, T., & Cepeda, N. J. (2013). Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both users and nearby peers. Computers & Education, 62, 24–31. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.003
12. Wickens, C. D., & Hollands, J. G. (2010). Engineering psychology and human performance. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Objectives

The aim of this study is knowing the nature of an information seeker’s multitasking information behavior and information task switching. The researcher wants to scrutinize the way information seeker carry out multitasking information behavior, to look into the model of multitasking information behavior and information task switching, to check the mix techniques of data collection such as observation, diary, and interview.

Design

A Qualitative, exploratory study using observational, diary and interview

Setting: 1 Public library (2 visits)

Subjects/Participants: A resident of State College, Pennsylvania who had a college-level education and was a full-time mother.

Methods

Diary of actions and thoughts

The data was assembled by the diary of actions and thoughts at the time of visiting the library two times. The researcher used a qualitative data collection technique to get in-depth actions and thoughts of the information seeker. The researcher asked the information seeker to write on a blank paper about her actions and thoughts when she comes to the library.

Observation

The other method for collecting the data was the observation method in which the researcher from a distance observed the information seeker when she visited the library to note the behavior of information seeker.

Interview

Furthermore, to enhance the diary and observation method the researcher conducted open-ended interviews from the information seeker after each library visit. The purpose of the open-ended interviews was to talk about the information seeker’s diary notes and process throughout the time of library visit.

Main Result

The Information seeker made two visits to one public library. The first library visit was on Thursday, 19th June 2003 at 11:00 A.M. This visit involved three information tasks which were information on Miami Beach and South Beach in Florida, Information and books about cooking with polenta and Information on a new drug (Xolain) to treat allergic asthma. The information seeker interacted with the library’s catalog, magazine index, and web during her six Electronic searches in her first visit. Physical library searches: This involves the information seeker to search a book or magazine physically in the library which involved the activities of finding Italian cookbooks on polenta. During her second physical library search, she looked into the magazines for tourist books and in her final physical search she went back to the Italian cooking section to get the book on ten polenta recipes and she borrowed it. Serendipity browsing episode: The serendipity browsing occurred when the information seeker was physically browsing the library shelves but ended up on looking at the DVD movies first. In addition to that, she went to towards Greek cooking books but not specifically polenta recipes. Furthermore, she decided to look for the books on Miami beach but looked at the political books for a time being and in the meanwhile, she decided to borrow a book by Bob Woodward. Information Task Switching: The information seeker’s process of information task switching was analyzed as a sequence. The first library visit consisted of a sequence of thirteen information task switches. The information seeker visited the same public library on Tuesday, 1st, July 2003. Here the information seeker stopped looking at the information for task 3 (information on a drug (Xolain) for treating allergic asthma) and started working on the information task four (colon cancer). Electronic Searches: In her second library visit she searched the book catalog on Miami then she went back to the electronic book catalog to search books on colon cancer. Physical library search: During this search she went directly to the shelf for knowing that if there was anything different on the shelf on Italian cooking books. Serendipity Browsing: In the second visit of library serendipity browsing occurred when she was looking for DVD movies to borrow but when she came to the library she saw some books on food for summer on the display. Information Task Switching: The second library visit looked over into the information task switching four times. In the interview, the information seeker recognized the cause of information task switching and serendipity of browsing episodes. She said she got plenty of information that required examination before beginning that task. She also mentioned that when she gets to search on one specific task she used to get bored with it and then shift to another task. She also prioritized her information tasks on the area of her interest which was related to her field. In addition to that, she said that the images in the library give rise to serendipity browsing and leads to borrowing a book.

Conclusion

Based on the voluntarily participated information seeker the author concludes that the multitasking information behavior and task switching behavior depend on one’s area of interest and the level of difficulty they face while they are looking for the information. The author stated that one switch from searching a piece of specific information to others when they find something more productive then what they were looking for. Moreover, multitasking information behavior can be considered as part of productive output.

Commentary

The evolving complexities in our daily life tasks mostly take people into multitasking behavior which has now become an important factor in human information behavior. At present, limited knowledge exists on users’ searching behavior and the extent of successive search behavior by Web and digital library users (Spink,1996). Most literature on this point provides a theoretical model of information task switching during multitasking information behavior. The supporting behavior of multi-tasking information behavior has become a challenge for system designers. During the user’s search interaction information retrieval systems supports the user supporting behavior on this task (Spink,1999a, b). Distributing the search function to the systems, and the decision-making function to information seeker, the obtained results will be better than being totally purely human or purely machine-based search (Drury & Sinclair, 1983; Hou, Lin, & Drury, 1993). The article evaluated the nature of an information seeker between information seeker multitasking information behavior and information task switching. The author used a mix of data collection techniques such as observations, diary of thoughts and interviewing for the results. The study was designed well and could serve as a model for investigating the information seeker’s multitasking information behavior and information task switching. The research methodology is explained in detail and can be used by any other researcher for further research. Considering the limitation of the research, there may be some concern about the sample size. Results from a single volunteer participant cannot be representative of all the population. Comprehensive information tasks can be designed and the population can be increased to get representative of that population. Suggestions for selecting the population can be made by selecting the people of the same characteristics such as selecting only college students, working men/women, etc. The author stated that further research is needed to enlighten the capacities of information seeker for task switching, to know what potential is required for multitasking information behavior and how productive are the results.

References

1. Drury, C.G., & Sinclair, M.A. (1983). Human and machine performance in an inspection task. Human Factors, 25(4), 391–399.
2. Hou, T., Lin, L., & Drury, C.G. (1993). An empirical study of hybrid inspection systems and allocation of inspection functions. International Journal of Human Factors in Manufacturing, 3(4),351–367.
3. Spink, A. (1996). A multiple search session model of end-user behavior: An exploratory study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47(8), 603-609.
4. Spink, A., Bateman, J. and Greisdorf, H. (1999a), “Successive searching behavior during information seeking: an exploratory study”, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 439‐49.
5. Spink, A., Bateman, J. and Jansen, B.J. (1999b), “Searching heterogeneous collections on the Web: a survey of Excite users”, Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 117‐28.

Multitasking could be described as the capacity to deal with different task at the same time. David Silverman, the author of In Defense of Multitasking, states that multitasking” is crucial to survival in today’s workplace” (599). However, Silverman does not deny that occasionally single tasking may improve the nature of work, diminish our feelings of anxiety and become increasingly viable. Alternatively, its overpowering to abstain from sending messages or talking in live while working at the PC or read press while eating. Such examples are various. Indeed, considering our insane and rapid life, multitasking is invited and might be considered as an advantage in workplace. At the main look, it may appear that an individual performing several tasks at the same time, might be progressively fruitful, productive and focused. As indicated by the author, multitasking encourages us to get basic information quicker, keeps up others from being held up, gives us something to center when we are stuck and focuses that multitasking is vital for official work positions.

Multitasking makes easier to get work quicker. David Silverman refers to that you can contact an individual so as to demand information regardless of whether this individual is on the other undertaking. Be that as it may, is this individual is inaccessible as a result of his or her extraordinary concentrate just in one errand; it could take him a few hours to get the required data (657). Performing various tasks gives individuals a chance to spare time. Rather than completing one errand after other, they consolidate undertakings so as to rapidly acquire every one of the outcomes. Notwithstanding, individuals should know when performing multiple tasks is lacking. Diminish Bregman, the creator of How (and Why) to Stop Multitasking, makes reference to: ‘On the off chance that you actually just have thirty minutes to complete an introduction you thought would take 60 minutes, would you say you are going to answer an interfering with call’ (653)? Understanding when performing various tasks is helpful permits you perform more things in a shorter period; and sparing time permits you become increasingly profitable.

A few undertakings are repetitive, and it is useful to change to another issue so as to give a little rest for the mind. For instance, the yearly report is certainly not a wonderful issue however checking messages, occasionally, or participating in auxiliary undertakings, decreases the enduring brought about by the present assignment. The exposition In Defense of Multitasking clarifies that a little change from the monotonous errand let your intuitive achieve a critical outcome (657). Disputably, Peter Bregman proclaims that performing multiple tasks makes our profitability decline by 40%. He clarifies that by changing starting with one thing then onto the next we stop the nonstop advancement of the action and become inefficient (652). Indeed, performing multiple tasks enables us to continue on a few undertakings, regardless of whether the advancement is inconsequential. It encourages us advance a few undertakings toward a solitary due date, which is a typical working method these days.

There are numerous Executive employments and client administration occupations, for instance, where performing various tasks is understood and vital. David Silverman clarifies that on the off chance that he was a general temporary worker, he would need to remain ceaselessly over the painter, woodworker, circuit tester, and all his staff so as to control their execution (657). Be that as it may, in his article How (and Why) to Stop Multitasking, Peter guarantees, ‘that performing multiple tasks isn’t just wasteful, it’s unpleasant’ (652). On the off chance that you are frequently hindered from the fundamental movement, you ought to create important abilities that will permit you rapidly discover the methods for how to change starting with one undertaking then onto the next. It suggests to hold up under as a top priority that by changing, to this present movement, it would take you substantially more time than expected to perform it. Hence, time and conditions direct their tenets, and we need to focus on how and what enables us to manage a lot of various undertakings.

In conclusion, multitasking is the capacity to separate a few assignments in advantageous parts so as to come back to the first undertaking with advanced parallel arrangement of different issues. According to David Silverman, performing multiple task is helpful for getting quicker the data we need, discovering elective ways for achieving monotonous errands, and is some sort of understood issue in these days employments. Be that as its way, we cannot deny that performing mutltiple task as all things have, has its drawbacks. In the meantime, indicate that our general public is mechanically wired. The capacity to utilize numerous advancements in the meantime will keep individuals of any age progressively versatile, pertinent and employable. Actually, multitasker is not the person who makes everything a moment’s a delay, however the person who can rapidly center and just rapidly switch.

Besides those positive effects of technology on education, there are a few negative effects too. Nowadays, students became dependent on computers to complete their homework and assignment. They need network connection to the internet to surf for information. However, while they are surfing for useful information online, they tend to surf other irrelevant websites such as YouTube for entertainment. Students are also easily distracted by the power of social media by looking at their phones whenever receiving a notification from applications such as Facebook, Whatsapp, Instagram and many more. In a study conducted by students of Wilkes University (2011), 92% of students use their mobile devices to send text messages during class time.

Most of the students did so to fight boredom since they feel that lectures are not as interesting as the virtual world on mobile devices. In another study done by a student of University of Nebraska-Lincoln (2013), more than 80% of the respondents indicated that using their mobile devices for non-class purposes caused them to pay less attention in the classroom and it will also distract others in class.

In a lecture hall, students are distracted when they see their classmates doing other activities instead of paying attention in class. Students tend to follow the bad examples than the good ones because to them the bad examples are more interesting to follow. The condition is getting worse with online learning due to the pandemic of COVID-19 since students are more easily distracted as lecturers do not keep an eye for them. Furthermore, by using laptops, computers, or mobile phones to attend classes, students may multitask by just having another tab for entertainment purposes.

For offline classes, lecturers may confiscate their mobile phones or point them out once finding out they are using their digital devices for other non-related purposes but for online classes, it is hard for lecturers to find out whether the student is paying attention or not. In a survey about multitasking (2003), it is found that students who multitask during class scored worse on a test compared to those who do not multitask. This is because students who do not multitask are able to pay full attention to the syllabus and absorb more information during class. Multitasking in class caused the attention to split from the academic side to the entertainment side. By splitting the attention, students will lose some important information when they are focusing on another side. Therefore, it is clear that technology usage in education will cause negative effects as it will distract student’s attention from lecture materials by multitasking during class.

In this modern time in history, multitasking as many tasks as possible within a set time frame has become a necessary trait to be more efficient. Through the influence of technology, many believe multitasking is enhancing valuable skills that help with effective learning. However, in reality, multitasking is destructive to young students. Multitasking dilutes a person’s focus whilst trying to complete tasks simultaneously. This results in lower quality and greater time taken to complete all the tasks, making multitasking inefficient. In addition, this dilution of focus is causing students to lack attention to schoolwork. While multitasking can have its positives, schools should not encourage multitasking as a method of producing effective workers, due to the inability for one to multitask naturally, the prevention of efficiency and performance, the lack of attention and the negative health effects it has to learning.

Technology is increasing the popularity of multitasking making it seem natural. This does not always mean multitasking is an advantageous skill. Multitasking has caused many young learners to get easily distracted and resulted in the failure to understand the concepts and processes of the finished task. According to Just et al., and Klingberg & Roland, it was found that the brain of participants who were engaged in multiple tasks had significantly lower activation energy compared to the sum of the activation areas when each of the tasks were performed independently (as cited in Foehr & Henry, 2006). This lower activation has caused many students learning to become disrupted and unable to complete tasks to good standards. After all, the spread of multitasking cannot be controlled if the media itself is not willing to. Through the use of technology, media has made multitasking acceptable and normal as nothing has been done to prevent it, only to encourage it. It was found in an index that, those who used media to multitask along established cognitive control dimensions, showed that, heavy media multitaskers were more influenced to distractions from unnecessary environmental stimuli and irrelevant representations in memory (Ophir, Nass, Wagner, & Posner). This relates to school students who are multitasking, as it is causing them to become even more ineffective. Furthermore, it can be concluded that people especially school students cannot multitask in general as It is not effective and can causes greater distractions. Through multitasking, efficiency and performance are both sacrificed within school learning.

Multitasking is lowering efficiency and performance within school learning. Schools acquire better efficiency and performance in their tasks to make learning more enjoyable. But this method has its flaws as students who follow this either end up not finishing tasks or finish to an unacceptable level. According to a study conducted on school studenst, those who multitasked constantly outside of school by watching television, playing with friends and other activities, were reported to not finish homework 77% of the time, whereas those students who were alone with no distractions performed 65% (Kackar, Shumow, Schmidt, & Grzetich). This represent how the efficiency has decreased when multitasking, as time learning is wasted. Young learners who multitask distribute their focus from unfinished work to concentrate on other work without even realising it. The information required for the task that they have been working initially will most likely have been forgotten causing them failure in learning. Students with laptops opened during a lecture who were involved in browsing, search, and/or social computing suffered documents on traditional measures of memory for the lecture content (Hembrooke & Gay 2003).

According to Hembrooks’s and Gay’s (2003, p.4) study, “limitations in the amount of information that can either be selectively attended to, processed, or encoded such that there no longer exist enough overlap at the time of retrieval for the subject to recognize or recall the to-be-remembered information”. This causes lower performance in assigned tasks. Furthermore, it can be concluded that school students cannot multitask as it not effective as it causes lower efficiency and lower performance when doing tasks. Multitasking causes students forgetting all the information gained as useless or combining all knowledge, both unnecessary and essential.

The combined knowledge of various tasks has caused a lower attention span for young learners to get distracted. In a study performed on students, it was found that students who didn’t multitask, were striving for meaning and understanding as they became more interested in the meaning within the academic task, whereas the surface users who were instrumental, reproductive and minimalistic saw tasks as a demand that had to be met, and focused mainly on the time taken (Yılmaz & Orhan, 2010). It is foreseeable that tasks that require greater understanding and fluency take more time and progress compared to those who didn’t multitask. This causes students who multitask to lose valuable time, which in return is causing them to lack attention within one task, as multitasking makes them want to finish faster. More importantly, work is not getting finished to the full standard as students rush through work whilst multitasking causing them to be ineffective. According to Galagan (2010), the result of this has cost teachers to give no marks to those who use technology in class, as one claims, ‘I think their response is too regulatory, but obviously, the classroom is becoming more of an open marketplace and less of a sanctuary’. Therefore, those who try and finish multiple assignments or tasks generate more work for themselves resulting in a lower attention span as it not effective. Multitasking causes health problems that occur when the habits are reoccurring within classes.

Multitasking causes many negative health problems to school students from day to day. Multitasking causes a student’s mood to change from doing tasks completing not attempting tasks. One study found that multi-tasking using for students has a greater health risk. According to (Yahoo! & Carat Interactive, 2003, p11. (4)):

“Multitasking (using various media simultaneously) is the Millennial’s specialty, and the growth in the amount of media being used by young people is largely explained by their multitasking behaviour. The ‘Net plays a central role in their multitasking, acting as the “hub” media (sic) that they focus upon most.” (Foehr, & Henry, p. 11)

Dominant health risks that is the stress created by multitasking continuously which leads to health problems such as anxiety and mental exhaustion. Multitasking may be acceptable if done occasionally; however, at the amount and intensity that most multitasking takes place is making multitasking a serious health concern for students. Multitasking should not be allowed at schools due to the negative health risks it has on students.

Multitasking is a distraction to school students and does not produce effective young learners. It causes students to change their attention towards something and gives them freedom. However, this freedom in fact is not free, as it cost students to not understand or fully complete a task costsing more time, efficiency and performance. It causes student to lack concentration as they get distracted from other tasks. It causes both stress and anxiety whilst completing tasks. Multitasking is not helpful in any way other than giving students short term pleasure. Multitasking is a bad habit that should not be influenced by schools through technology as it causes students to become in effective in their learning,

Reference List

1. Foehr, U. G., & Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. (2006). Media multitasking among american youth: Prevalence, predictors and pairings. ().Henry J.
2. Galagan, P. (2010). Burp, chatter, tweet: New sounds in the classroom. T and D, 64(7), 26-29.
3. 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
4. Kackar, H. Z., Shumow, L., Schmidt, J. A., & Grzetich, J. (2011). Age and gender differences in adolescents’ homework experiences. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32(2), 70-77. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2010.12.005
5. Ophir, E., Nass, C., Wagner, A. D., & Posner, M. I. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(37), 15583-15587. doi:10.1073/pnas.0903620106
6. Yılmaz, M. B., & Orhan, F. (2010). The use of internet by high school students for educational purposes in respect to their learning approaches. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 2143-2150. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.296