Possibilities and limitations of digital multitasking for school homework

  1. De Bofarull De Torrents, Ignasi 1
  2. Comas Parra, Miquel Àngel 2
  1. 1 Universitat Internacional de Catalunya
    info

    Universitat Internacional de Catalunya

    Barcelona, España

    ROR https://ror.org/00tse2b39

  2. 2 Universidad Internacional de La Rioja
    info

    Universidad Internacional de La Rioja

    Logroño, España

    ROR https://ror.org/029gnnp81

Aldizkaria:
Quaderns de polítiques familiars: Journal of Family Policies

ISSN: 2385-5223,  2385-5215

Argitalpen urtea: 2017

Zenbakia: 3

Mota: Artikulua

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openSarbide irekia editor

Beste argitalpen batzuk: Quaderns de polítiques familiars: Journal of Family Policies

Laburpena

The digitisation of the classroom and the increased use of information and communications technologies (ICTs) at home offer ways to improve students’ educational performance. Yet misuse of the Internet and increased digital multitasking at home, where academic study and entertainment intersect, could create barriers towards academic achievement. Based on the concept of “Cognitive Load Theory” and taking a qualitative approach rooted in Critical Communicative Methodology (CCM), this study aims to examine this topic in more depth. After interviewing four focus groups consisting of 40 students from 5th and 6th grade Elementary and 1st and 2nd Grade ESO (“Educación Secundaria Obligatoria”/Compulsory Secondary Education), results revealed that students are accustomed to using computers in environments where digital study and digital entertainment are both available. Students see learning possibilities on the screen in front of them, but are also aware of the distractions in this kind of mixed, instantly available environment. This study suggests that multitasking skills should be taught formally in order to avoid students pursuing a syncopated mix of online work and social media use. Faced with this reality of how students work, the study proposes that instead of teachers focusing exclusively on formal instruction, they should offer a measured/controlled approach to multitasking activities within a reflexive, hyperlinked environment. This is the first tentative conclusion from what will be a wider, more detailed investigation involving teachers, administrators and families all within the same school in Barcelona.

Erreferentzia bibliografikoak

  • Baddeley, A. D. (2007). Working memory, thought and action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Baron, N. S. (2013). Redefining Reading: The Impact of Digital Communication Media. PMLA, 128(1), 193-200.(DOI: 10.1632/pmla.2013.128.1.193)
  • Bauerlein, M. (2004). Revisiting “Reading at Risk”. American Libraries, 35(11), 38-38.
  • Bordieu, P. (2003). El oficio del científico. Ciencia y reflexividad. Barcelona: Anagrama.
  • Calderwood, C., Ackerman, P. L., & Conklin, E. M. (2014). What else do college students“do” while studying? An investigation of multitasking. Computers & Education, 75, 19-29.(DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.004)
  • Calderwood, C., Green, J. D., Joy-Gaba, J. A., & Moloney, J. M. (2016). Forecasting errors in student media multitasking during homework completion. Computers & Education, 94, 37-(DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.021)
  • Carr, N. (2011). Superficiales. ¿Qué está haciendo Internet con nuestras mentes? Madrid: Taurus Edicio-nes.
  • Comstock, G. (2013). Media Use, Scholastic Achievement, and Attention Span. The International Encyclopedia of Media Studies. (DOI: 10.1002/9781444361506.wbiems133)(28-12-2012)
  • Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format ofinstruction. Cognition and Ins-truction, 8, 293-33.(DOI:10.1207/s1532690xci0804_2)
  • David, P., Kim, J. H., Brickman, J. S., Ran, W., & Curtis, C. M. (2015). Mobile phone distraction while studying. New media & society, 17(10), 1661-1679.(DOI: 10.1177/1461444814531692)
  • DeStefano, D., &LeFevre, J-A. (2007). Cognitive load in hypertext reading: A review. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1616-1641. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2005.08.012)
  • Flecha, R.; Vargas, J. & Davila, A. (2004) Metodología comunicativa crítica en la investigaciónen cien-cias sociales: la investigación Workaló. Lan Harremanak, 11. Bilbao: UPV, 21-33.
  • Gentile, D. A., Nathanson, A. I., Rasmussen, E. E., Reimer, R. A., & Walsh, D. A. (2012). Do you see what I see? Parent and child reports of parental monitoring of media. Family Relations, 61(3), 470-487. (DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00709.x)
  • Gómez, A., & Racionero, S. (2008). El paradigma comunicativo crítico. Universitas tarraconensis. Revis-ta de ciències de l’educació, 117-129
  • Gómez, A., Puigvert, L., & Flecha, R. (2011). Critical Communicative Methodology: informing real so-cial transformation through research. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(3), 235-245. (DOI: 10.1177/1077800410397802)
  • Habermas, J. (1987). Teoría de la Acción Comunicativa. I. Racionalidad de la acción y racionalización social.II. Crítica de la razón funcionalista. Madrid: Taurus.
  • Junco, R., & Cotten, S. R. (2012). No A 4 U: The relationship between multitasking and academic per-formance. Computers & Education, 59(2), 505-514.(DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.023)
  • Lang, A. (2009). The limited capacity model of motivated media message processing. In R. L. Nabi & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of media processes and effects (pp. 193-204). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publication
  • Lanier, J (2010). You’re Not a Gadget: A Manifesto. New York: Knopf.
  • Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educa-tional Psychologist, 38, 43-52. (DOI:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6)
  • Mora, T. y Escardíbul, J.O. (2017). Impacte del programa eduCATen l’dquisició de competències de l’alumnat de secundaria a Catalunya. Barcelona: Universitat Internacional de Catalunya
  • Motiwalla, L. F. (2007). Mobile learning: a framework and evaluation. Computers & Education, 49(3), 581–596. (DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2005.10.011)
  • Padrós Cuxart, M., Duque, & Molina, S.(2011). Avances en supervisión educativa. Revista de la Asocia-ción de Inspectores de Educación de España, 14. (http://www.adide.org/revista/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=279&Itemid=70 (28-12-2011)
  • Reinking, D. (2001). Multimedia and engaged reading in a digital world. In L. Verhoeven and C. E. Snow (Eds.) Literacy and motivation: reading engagement in individuals and groups (pp. 195-221). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Rosen, L. D., Carrier, L. M., & Cheever, N. A. (2013). Facebook and texting made me do it: Media-induced task-switching while studying. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 948-958. (DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.001
  • Sharif, I., Wills, T. A., & Sargent, J. D. (2010). Effect of visualmedia use on school performance: a pros-pective study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 46(1), 52-61. ( DOI: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.05.012)
  • Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Camberwell, Australia: ACER Press.
  • Vaidhyanathan, S. (2011). The Googlization of Everything (and Why We Should Worry). Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press.
  • Welford, A. T. (1967). Single-channel operation in the brain. Acta Psychologica, 27, 5–22. (DOI: 10.1016/0001-6918(67)90040-6)
  • Wood, E., Zivcakova, L., Gentile, P., Archer, K., De Pasquale, D., & Nosko, A. (2012). Examining the impact of off-task multi-tasking with technology on real-time classroom learning. Computers & Educa-tion, 58(1), 365–374. (DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.029)
Datuen iturria: Dialnet