Logged In and Zoned Out

Abstract

Laptop computers are widely prevalent in university classrooms. Although laptops are a valuable tool, they offer access to a distracting temptation: the Internet. In the study reported here, we assessed the relationship between classroom performance and actual Internet usage for academic and nonacademic purposes. Students who were enrolled in an introductory psychology course logged into a proxy server that monitored their online activity during class. Past research relied on self-report, but the current methodology objectively measured time, frequency, and browsing history of participants' Internet usage. In addition, we assessed whether intelligence, motivation, and interest in course material could account for the relationship between Internet use and performance. Our results showed that nonacademic Internet use was common among students who brought laptops to class and was inversely related to class performance. This relationship was upheld after we accounted for motivation, interest, and intelligence. Class-related Internet use was not associated with a benefit to classroom performance.

Dividing attention in the classroom reduces exam performance

“…They do not establish that it is the division of attention in class that causes the poorer performance. These results (Fried, 2008;Jacobsen & Forste, 2011;Junco, 2012;Kraushaar & Novak, 2010;Ravizza et al, 2014Ravizza et al, , 2017 cannot rule out the plausible hypothesis that the students who are more likely to divide attention between academic and non-academic tasks in class are also more likely to do so out of class. So generally, less attention to study both in and out of class ultimately reduces exam performance rather than a specific effect of divided attention on classroom learning.…”

“…So, when students divide attention between an electronic device and the classroom lesson they should be learning less. In fact, several classroom studies have found a negative correlation between the amount of time spent using an electronic device for non-academic purposes during class and subsequent exam performance using both self-report measures of electronic device use (Fried, 2008;Jacobsen & Forste, 2011;Junco, 2012;Ravizza, Hambrick, & Fenn, 2014) and direct electronic monitoring (Kraushaar & Novak, 2010;Ravizza, Uitvlugt, & Fenn, 2017).…”

Incidence of a Non-Sustainability Use of Technology on Students’ Reading Performance in Pisa

“…For example, in 2012, 96% of 15-year-old students in OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries stated that they had a computer at home, and 72% said they used a digital device at school. More and more studies show that the use of technology and digital devices in the classroom does not directly correlate to improvements in students' academic results and can have a negative effect on their educational performance [4]. It has been shown that students who use computers at school in moderation and strictly for educational purposes achieve better results than students who hardly ever use them, but if computer use is more pronounced, the results in reading, maths, and the sciences worsen across all OECD countries regardless of the students' socio-educational Sustainability 2020, 12, 749 2 of 15 context [3].…”

Laptops and mobile phones at self-study time: Examining the mechanism behind interruption and multitasking

“…Although multitasking is not a new phenomenon, its frequency has increased markedly due to the pervasiveness and ubiquity of digital technologies (Wood & Zivcakova, 2015). Against this backdrop, laptops and phones are shown to be the major source of distraction for students (Hembrooke & Gay, 2003;Rosen et al, 2013); hence there has been increasing concern over the disruptive force of computers and smart phones and their effect on student memory, concentration, and learning performance (e.g., Junco & Cotten, 2012;Patterson, 2017;Ravizza, Uitvlugt, & Fenn, 2017;Wood et al, 2012). However, our understanding of the nature of interruption from mobile phones and computers and the process of the ensuing task switching is far from conclusive.…”