Session F2J
Demonstrating the Impact of Multitasking in the
Classroom
Steven Fulton, Dino Schweitzer, Lauren Scharff, Jeff Boleng
United States Air Force Academy, steven.fulton@usafa.edu, dino.schwetizer@usafa.edu, lauren.scharff@usafa.edu,
jeff.boleng@usafa.edu
Abstract - The advent of laptops, mobile devices, and
ubiquitous connectivity in the classroom has created
both opportunities and challenges for the learning
environment. Students, often feeling that they are good
multitaskers, will use their laptops to read e-mail or
browse the web during classes. Telling students the
results of multitasking research may convince some
students not to become distracted, but experiencing it
first-hand provides a more active learning approach to
the lesson. The goal of this project was to design a
meaningful demonstration of the negative effects of
multitasking so that students would internalize the
message and, hopefully, change their behavior, if
necessary. In this demonstration students were assigned
to three groups, one which had no computing distraction
(students were asked to take notes on paper), one which
had a single on-line distraction, and one group which
had dual on-line distractions. All groups were told that
distractions should not be allowed to interfere with their
class work. At the end of the lecture, students completed
a quiz on the material just presented to test their level of
understanding. There was a significant effect on quiz
performance. The group without distractions obtained
higher quiz scores than either distraction group. End-of-
semester feedback showed that 63.5% of the students
reported modifying their behavior in class based on the
demonstration.
Index Terms Classroom Distractions, Student In-Class
Behavior, Multitasking.
INTRODUCTION
As computers have become more ubiquitous as a learning
tool for students, their use by both faculty and students in
the classroom during lectures also becomes more
acceptable. At our institution, students are required to
purchase a specific laptop and receive the system prior to
the first day of classes with the expectation that they will
bring their computers to class with them. However, faculty
members have noticed that students often spend time during
class either sending or receiving email or using social
networking applications such as Facebook. When
confronted, students respond that they are multitasking to
make the best use of their time. This is especially prevalent
in computer science courses in which computers are often
an integral part of the lesson. Since the use of computers
during class is a requirement for most computer science and
978-1-61284-469-5/11/$26.00 2011 IEEE
41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F2J-1
many engineering classes, it is not feasible to ask students to
avoid using their computers. Instead, we wanted to focus
students on using their computers as a tool for learning
instead of a distraction from their classes. As such, the
purpose of this exercise was to conduct an in-class activity
that effectively demonstrated to students the detrimental
effects of multitasking and (hopefully) encourage them to
re-evaluate their own ability to multi-task and the negative
effect it has on their ability to learn information. The goal
was to conduct the activity in a one-period class with
immediate feedback on the results to drive the point home to
students. The demonstration was designed to require no
special equipment or setup, be usable in any class
employing a lecture format, and have low impact on the
normal lecture schedule.
BACKGROUND
As computers have become less expensive and smaller, they
have also become more accepted in both business meetings
and classrooms as tools to support productivity and
learning. Unfortunately, a reality of having technology such
as laptops or mobile devices in the classroom is that
students engage in distracting tasks that are not conducive to
learning the course material [1]. Students strongly believe
this technology allows them the ability to successfully
multitask. An interesting aspect to this phenomena is that
those who are classified as heavy multitaskers are often
extremely confident in their abilities to multitask [2].
As far back as the 1920s, Taylors [3] seminal work in
scientific management involved training workers in distinct
tasks and ensuring that their tasks were completed by
supervising their work. Taylors work focused on improving
efficiency by breaking down multiple tasks into single
distinct efforts and improving these individual efforts,
suggesting that improvements in worker output comes from
a singular focus on an individual task. While early
computers with their single task input systems supported
Taylors scientific management concepts, almost 90 years
later, Bannister and Remenyi [4] showed that modern
computers make focusing on a single task difficult, as
computers with windowing systems allow users to access a
multitude of applications at the same time. Current day
students openly admit to exchanging e-mails, visiting social
networking sites, or even playing games during lectures [5].
The use of computers in the classrooms has two distinct
faculty factions: those who support the concept of
ubiquitous computing [6] and those who ban the use of
October 12 - 15, 2011, Rapid City, SD

computers in their classrooms [7]. In an attempt to answer
the question as to the value of computers in the classroom, a
number of studies have recently been published. Fried [5]
measured the use of computers in a classroom environment
by having students complete weekly surveys on various
aspects of a given class environment including attendance
and distractions. The single largest distraction suggested by
students in this study was the use of computers by other
students during the class. In fact, the magnitude of this
distraction was significantly greater than all other responses
combined. This suggests that not only may the use of a
computer be a distraction for the person using it, but also for
those around the student as well. It is interesting that a
students own use was perceived to be less distracting than
others use, possibly because they have control over their
own use.
Hembrooke and Gay [8] went beyond surveys and
actually tracked student computer use through a classroom
technology system. As part of their typical course, they
asked their students to use their laptops as a supplement to
the lecture and lab activities. Looking at the logs, it became
apparent that the students were using their computers for
more than just supporting their classroom learning but also
for such things as chatting or texting. In an attempt to
understand the role of this high-tech doodling, the authors
set up an experiment in which students were randomly
assigned to one of two situations a typical lecture with
their laptops and one where students were not allowed to
use their laptops. Following the lecture, the students were
given a simple 20-question surprise quiz. They expected
that the students who were not using their computers would
do better than those who did; however, it turned out that the
impact on learning depended on what the students did with
their computers. For example, students who used their
computers for long browsing sessions, regardless of whether
these topics were class related, appeared to do worse than
students who used their computers to browse short quick
looks at information regardless of the content. Based on
their finding, the authors suggest that instead of completely
banning computers, instructors need to set boundaries and
establish etiquette for usage of computers in a classroom
environment.
In computer science classes, students are often required
to use their computers for learning activities, thus they
cannot be asked to close their laptops at all times. While
they are working on legitimate course computer activities,
however, students may elect to also open and use other
applications such as email and Facebook. One study even
suggests that computer science majors may spend less time
doing academic related functions with their computers than
non-computer science majors [9].
Based on what is known about human attentional
mechanisms, the processes by which we encode new
memories, studies of human multitasking (e.g. Mack [10]
and Glenn [2]), and antidotal evidence in our classrooms,
we believe that student engagement in these distracting
activities decreases learning. However, many students have
978-1-61284-469-5/11/$26.00 2011 IEEE
41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F2J-2
Session F2J
been brought up being told they were part of the
technological, multitasking generation, and they dont
believe or fully realize the extent to which their learning is
negatively impacted by such multitasking behaviors.
While much discussion exists regarding the use of
computers in a classroom, little study has been done on
ways to focus students on using their computer wisely in the
classroom environment. Some instructors may require
students to close their laptops during class in an attempt to
focus students on the classroom activities; this is not
possible in computer science classes and engineering classes
that require the computers as tools to accomplish the area of
study. This demonstration shows students (specifically
computer science students) how they use computers in a
classroom does affect their ability to learn and retain
information.
HYPOTHESES
The goal of this project was to create a lesson that, in
addition to regular lecture content, included a brief summary
of research on attention and multitasking along with a
demonstration activity that illustrated to students, first-hand,
the detrimental impact of multitasking on learning.
We specifically examined two hypotheses:
1. Students in the groups engaging in distracting tasks
(e.g. responding to email, using Facebook) would
show lower performance on an in-class quiz at the
end of the lesson. The group with two distracting
application tasks (Facebook + email) would
perform worse than the group with one distracting
task (email only), and both would perform worse
than the no distraction group.
2. Most students would self-report (pre-demonstration
feedback), that they are capable of some level of
multitasking without negative impact on their
ability to follow a lecture and learn the material.
Post-demonstration feedback would indicate that
they are less capable then they thought at
multitasking, and that they plan to engage in
distracting tasks less often.
STUDY DESIGN
Our demonstration involved randomly assigning students to
one of three groups (Single Distraction, No Distraction,
Dual Distraction) as they entered the classroom. Each
group was told that during the class period, they were to
focus on the lecture and perform the function assigned to
their group. The groups were given a sheet of paper which
described their specific situation. The actual text provided
to each group is described in Table 1.
October 12 - 15, 2011, Rapid City, SD

Table 1
Group Assignment
Group Assignment
Single- Your primary job is to fully participate in todays
distraction class. During the class, however, you are to have your email
up and you must answer any emails that come in during the
class. If you are tasked in the email to perform a given
function, you must do so. You may also browse the web
during the class as well.
No Your primary job is to fully participate in todays class. You
Distraction may NOT use your computer during this time and should
take any notes on paper. Paper will be provided for you.
Dual Your primary job is to fully participate in todays class.
Distraction During the class, you are to have your email tool up and
running and you must respond to each email you receive
during class. Furthermore, you should be logged into
Facebook during the session as well. While on Facebook,
you should identify four anonymous surveys during the
class. Once you have identified four surveys, you are to send
the surveys to others in Group C for them to complete during
the class, if possible.
All students were told up front that, while the class
format may be slightly different than previous class
sessions, their primary job was to participate fully in the
class. Three class sections participated in this
demonstration. Two of these sections were core computer
science lecture classes, and the third was a basic computer
science programming language class. A lecture session
(while not necessarily the best delivery method from an
educational viewpoint) was specifically chosen for this
demonstration since it was the easiest way to provide large
amounts of information to students in a limited time frame
and requires students to take notes of the material. All
students were asked to complete a pre-demonstration
feedback form consisting of five-point Likert items focusing
on their current feelings and practices toward multitasking.
(The complete demonstration procedure received approval
from our institutional review board prior to the
implementation of the activity).
During the class, the instructor conducted a typical
lecture using PowerPoint slides. The lecture was delivered
normally, although a lesson was chosen in all classes which
contained a lot of material. As the lecture proceeded,
students in the single and dual distraction groups used their
laptops to take notes and conduct their tasks as described.
To add a slight level of distraction, another instructor who
was not in the classroom sent emails to the students in the
two distraction groups asking them to complete certain
tasks. The task would include, for example, a request for
information on a specific football fact (Who is the San
Diego quarterback which leads the league in passing yards)
or a school related question (What forms must be completed
to register an independent study course for a student). Each
of the requests required that the students look up
information on the internet. Following the lecture, students
were given a surprise short quiz over the material. The quiz
questions were either short answer (one or two words) or
multiple choice, with a goal of students being able to
complete the entire quiz in less than 10 minutes. Quizzes
were hand scored by the instructor as students turned them
978-1-61284-469-5/11/$26.00 2011 IEEE October 12 - 15, 2011, Rapid City, SD
41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F2J-3
Session F2J
in; thus, the feedback could be provided immediately.
Feedback included the overall high score, the overall low
score and as well as averages for each of the three groups.
While we desired to illustrate the negative impact of
multitasking on student learning, we did not desire to
negatively impact a students overall learning and course
grade. Thus, the quiz grade did not count toward the course
grade. Further, the lecture material was either also covered
in the text, or it was not required for future exams. Thus,
even if quiz performance was lower for some groups,
overall performance in the class should not be negatively
impacted in terms of assessment. The PowerPoint slides or
instructional notes were also made accessible following
class in case any cadets wished to have the opportunity to
review the material if they missed something during lecture.
After quiz results were shared, the students were asked
to complete a second feedback form. Several of the
questions on the post-demo feedback were the same as the
pre-demonstration feedback plus additional questions were
asked to assess the role the demonstration played in
changing the students attitudes towards classroom
multitasking. Finally, at the end of the term, additional
feedback was gathered to investigate longer-term impact on
student attitudes toward multitasking. No names were
asked for on any of the feedback forms, only participation
group.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The post demonstration quiz provided the expected results.
On a 100 point scale, the mean for the no distraction group
(59.4) was clearly higher than the single distraction group
(38.5) and the dual distraction group (25.8). (The low
scores across all groups reflect the facts that the students
werent expecting a quiz, and that they knew it would not
count toward their course grade.) A single factor ANOVA
showed a significant effect for group, F(2,51)=8.6, p<.001.
Post-hoc analyses indicated that the no distraction group
performed significantly better than both distraction groups,
and the two distraction groups were not significantly
different from each other.
The ultimate purpose of this demonstration was to bring
about a change in student attitudes and behavior once they
realized how distractions affected their ability to learn
material during class. To assess these changes, we used pre
and post demonstration feedback as well as a series of
questions asked at the end of the semester.
The pre-demonstration survey contained seven
questions that used a five-point Likert response scale.
These questions, the response options, overall means, and
standard deviations are listed in Table 2. The results show
that self-reported student laptop use in the classroom is
slightly more likely to focus on class-related uses compared
to non-class related activities such as check email,
Facebook, or play games. Furthermore, students show
slight agreement that multitasking is detrimental to
classroom learning, and slightly stronger agreement that
todays generation is able to multitask with different
 Session F2J
technologies and do so well. Of interest is the relatively low should not care if students decide to pay attention to class
agreement that classmate access of non-class related sites on r(51)= -.28, p< .05, while those who feel that todays
their computers during class is distracting (unlike what was generation is used to multitasking, and does so well, believe
found by Fried). Finally, the pre-demonstration results that instructors should not care if students pay attention in
suggest students felt that if they chose to not pay attention in class; r(51)=.29, p<.05.Other correlations were not
class, they would suffer the consequences and the instructor significant.
should not care. The post-demonstration feedback survey included two
questions that were asked prior to the demonstration
Table 2 (whether or not multitasking was detrimental, and whether
Pre-Demo Feedback or not wireless internet access should be available), and four
Question Scale Result Result new questions that asked the students about their feelings
Mean StdDev regarding the demonstration they had just completed. These
I use my laptop to 1=Never questions, response options, means and standard deviations
take notes or enhance 2=Rarely are shown in Table 3. There was essentially no change in
my understanding of 3=Occasional 3.22 1.28
course materials 4=Sometimes the belief that multitasking was detrimental. However, there
during class 5=Frequently was a trend toward an increase in agreement that wireless
I check my email, or 1=Never internet should not be allowed in the classroom, t(84)=-1.4,
FaceBook or play 2=Rarely p=.086. Overall, students reported a fairly neutral impact of
games or text or work 3=Occasional 3.09 1.10
on other courses 4=Sometimes
the demonstration (average scores near 3.0), although the
during class 5=Frequently trends were that students were not surprised by the results of
I believe that multi- 1= Strongly the demonstration but did not believe it was contrived.
tasking is detrimental Disagree, Even more importantly, the direction of the data suggests
3.36 0.84
to classroom learning 5=Strongly
Agree
that there was at least slight support for an impact of the
Wireless internet 1= Strongly demonstration and that students planned on changing their
access should not be Disagree, behavior as a result of the demonstration. The relatively
1.41 0.56
available during class 5=Strongly large variance on all the questions suggests that the overall
Agree impact of the demonstration was dependent on the particular
I find it distracting
when classmates 1= Strongly student.
access non-class Disagree,
2.08 0.94
related sites on their 5=Strongly Table 3
computers during Agree Post-Demo Feedback
class
Todays generation is Question Scale Result Result
used to multitasking 1= Strongly Mean StdDev
with different Disagree, 3.49 0.79 I believe that 1= Strongly
technologies and does 5=Strongly multi-tasking is Disagree, 3.39 1.01
so well Agree detrimental to 5=Strongly
If I choose to not pay classroom learning Agree
attention in class and 1= Strongly Wireless internet 1= Strongly
suffer the Disagree, access should not Disagree, 1.61 0.83
consequences that is 5=Strongly 3.22 0.92 be available 5=Strongly
my decision and the Agree during class Agree
instructor should not I was surprised by 1= Strongly
care. the results of this Disagree, 2.52 0.89
demonstration 5=Strongly
Agree
Looking at relationships between responses to the
The multi-tasking 1= Strongly
different questions, we also find some interesting results in demonstration was Disagree,
the pre-demo feedback. We see a statistically significant contrived and does 5=Strongly 2.86 1.16
relationship suggesting that the more a student feels that not reflect what Agree
multitasking is detrimental to classroom learning, the less actually happens
in my other classes
they feel that todays generation is able to multitask well; This 1= Strongly
r(51)= -.43, p<.01. We also see a statistically significant demonstration did Disagree,
relationship suggesting that those who feel that wireless nothing to change 5=Strongly 2.88 0.94
should be available in class believe that todays generation my opinion about Agree
my ability to
is used to multitasking; r(51)= .29 p<.05. Students who find multitask
it distracting when classmates access non-related sites I plan on changing 1= Strongly
during class are less likely to feel that todays generation is my classroom Disagree, 2.88 0.98
used to multitasking; r(51)= -.35, p<.02. Finally, students habits in regard to 5=Strongly
multitasking Agree
who find it distracting to have classmates access non-related
sites during class are less likely to agree that instructors

978-1-61284-469-5/11/$26.00 2011 IEEE October 12 - 15, 2011, Rapid City, SD

41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F2J-4
 Session F2J
As with the pre-test, relationships between responses to
the different questions revealed some interesting patterns. Significant correlational relationships also support
For example, those who most agreed that multitasking is the benefit of the demonstration for reported behavioral
detrimental to learning were most likely to plan on changing changes (rather than simply intentions to change, which was
their classroom habits; r(47)=.32, p<.051. Interestingly, assessed immediately following the demonstration). Those
while at least a trend existed for all three demonstration who thought the exercise was informative claim to have
groups to show this relationship, it was only significant for made behavioral changes in this class, r(50)=.51331, p<.01
the group that experienced no distractions; r(12)=.59, p<.05. as well as in other classes, r(50)=.567313, p < .01.
Across all groups, there was a nonsignificant tendency Open-ended comments give further insight into the
for students who were more surprised to be more likely to student perceptions at the end of the semester. Supportive
agree that the demo changed their opinion about their ability comments include, It was a good example to prove a point
to multitask; r(47)=-.21, p=.12. Perhaps those students who teachers have been stressing forever., This definitely
were most confident that they could multitask were in turn opened my eyes to how much time I wasted just doing a
most surprised by their poor performance, and thus, were minute here and a minute there online., and The
more likely to change their opinion. demonstration is great for beginning comp sci majors so
Finally, at the end of the semester, we asked three they don't short themselves. The one student who strongly
questions, each using a six-point Likert response scale. disagreed with all three end-of-semester questions stated, I
These questions focused on the long-term effect of the always pay attention. This suggests that perhaps the lack
demonstration. We also provided space for additional of impact in his case was due to the fact that he did not
comments related to the demonstration. Questions, believe it applied to him, rather than that the demonstration
response options, means and standard deviations associated was not effective in general.
with this end-of-semester feedback are provided in Table 4.
While the means suggest very little long-term effect of CONCLUSIONS
the demonstration, a closer look at the data suggests Student performance during this demonstration was no
meaningful positive impact for a large number of students. surprise and matched the results of previous studies. The
More specifically, if data are sorted into agree versus goal of the study, however, was not to confirm previous
disagree categories, 86.5% of the students agreed that the results, but to effectively demonstrate to students, in a
exercise was informative, 63.5% agreed that they modified relatively non-intrusive way, the impact of their
their behavior in this class as a result of the demonstration, multitasking behavior and encourage change in those
and 65.4% agreed that they modified their behavior in other students who tended to multitask. According to the
classes as a result of the demonstration. instructors who participated in these demonstrations, there
Table 4
was little impact on the course in terms of class time lost, or
End of Course Feedback
amount of material covered. In fact, the instructors
Question Scale Mean StdDev appreciated the opportunity to use the exercise as a
The multi-tasking in-class 1=Strongly 2.67 1.19 discussion basis for the impact of multitasking, expectations
exercise was informative agree, of classroom behavior, and student responsibilities. The fact
about the effects of trying to 6=Strongly that the demonstration required minimum overhead as far as
multi-task during class disagree
preparation or setup made it easy to accomplish in a
As a result of the 1=Strongly 3.53 1.31
demonstration activity, I agree, standard lecture course. The only real necessity outside of
have modified my online 6=Strongly normal lecture was to have a colleague send the distracting
behavior in this class in disagree emails at pre-arranged times. Because the same emails went
order to reduce the possible to all students in both multitasking groups, and the no-
negative impact of on-line
multi-tasking (e.g. I check distraction group did not have their computers on, there was
email less frequently, surf no need to know a priori which students would be placed in
the Internet less often, etc. which groups the emails went to the entire class.
As a result of this 1=Strongly 3.49 1.31 Student response did not differ between pre- and post-
demonstration activity, I agree,
have modified my online 6=Strongly feedback regarding the detrimental effects of multitasking,
behavior in other classes in disagree and only slightly shifted their beliefs about internet access
order to reduce the possible during class. In other words, the demonstration did not
negative impact of online create a huge AHA experience that suddenly opened
multitasking (e.g. I check e-
mail less frequently, surf the student eyes to the detriments of multitasking. However,
Internet less often, etc.) the relatively strong positive indicators that students would
and did modify their behavior indicates the demonstration
1
While pre and post experiment feedback was requested from all
was successful in reinforcing the ill effects of inappropriate
participants, not everyone completed the post experiment feedback nor multitasking, and did impact a relatively large number of
were all questions on the post experiment feedback was completed by those students in the classes. By focusing this study on Computer
who did provide feedback reflecting differing population values in these Science classes, which require computers as an in-class tool,
numbers.
978-1-61284-469-5/11/$26.00 2011 IEEE October 12 - 15, 2011, Rapid City, SD
41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F2J-5
 Session F2J
we felt that we could demonstrate to the student how to use
computers as a support tool as opposed to a distraction. Our
findings suggest that such a demonstration in a technical
(Computer Science or Engineering) class may help students
understand how and when to use computers to improve their
learning.
The description and results from this demonstration are
being promoted within our institution to encourage other
departments and classes to consider similar exercises. Most
classes include some discussion of the use of laptops and
instructor expectations at the start of the semester. An
exercise such as this can serve to reinforce that discussion
and provide a basis for quantitatively examining the
negative side effects of multitasking.

REFERENCES
[1] Benbunan-Fich, R. and Truman, G. "Technical opinion Multitasking
with laptops during meetings". Communications of the ACM, 52, 2 2009),
139-141.
[2] Glenn, D. "Scholars turn their attention to attention". The Chronicle of
Higher Education(February 28, 2010 2010).
[3] Taylor, F.(2005). The principles of scientific management 1st World
Library.
[4] Bannister, F. and Remenyi, D. 2008. Multitasking: The uncertain
impact of technology on knowledge workers and managers 2nd European
Conference on Information Management and Evaluation. London,
Academic Conferences Limited. 21.
[5] Fried, C. "In-class laptop use and its effects on student learning".
Computers & Education, 50, 3 2008), 906-914.
[6] Brown, D., Burg, J. and Dominick, J. "A strategic plan for ubiquitous
laptop computing". Communications of the ACM, 41, 1 1998), 35.
[7] Young, J. "The fight for classroom attention: Professor vs. laptop".
Chronicle of Higher Education, 52, 39 2006), A27.
[8] Hembrooke, H. and Gay, G. "The laptop and the lecture: The effects of
multitasking in learning environments". Journal of Computing in Higher
Education, 15, 1 2003), 46-64.
[9] Assiter, K. "Attention and learning in the connected classroom". J.
Comput. Small Coll., 24, 1 2008), 219-226.
[10] Mack, A. "Inattentional blindness". Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 12, 5 2003), 180.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project was supported by the USAFA Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning Program.

Distribution A, Approved for public release, distribution unlimited.

978-1-61284-469-5/11/$26.00 2011 IEEE October 12 - 15, 2011, Rapid City, SD

41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F2J-6