To Enhance Or Hinder, That Is The Question: Technological Task Interruptions In The Classroom

107 Technology Interruptions

Technological Task Interruptions in the Classroom

Kate Blackburn, Leah LeFebvre and Emily Richardson

Abstract

Teaching and learning in a high technology environment can bea communicative challenge, especially when students (Millennials) areequipped with enhanced technology skills and accessibility. This study exam-ines students'use of task interruptions during peak performance times (classlecture) and concludes that interruptions elicit the need to self-entertainand/or to maintain social networks. Researchers conducted semi-structuredinterviews (N = 16) to examine how Millennials use technology within theuniversity classroom environment. Implications highlight that simultaneoustechnology use can both enhance and hinder performance. These flndingspoint to future investigations into the management of task interruptions inhigher education.

Keywords: Information and Communication Tecbnologies (ICTs);Multitasking; Task Intermptions; Millennials

Introduction

Armed witb cell pbones, laptops, IPods, and Mp3s, a newgeneration of students infiltrate classrooms. Millennials are able to obtainmore information at tbeir disposal tban any previous generation. Accessinginformation and communication tecbnologies (ICTs) runs tbe risk of overload(Evaristo, Adams, & Curley, 1995). Tbis occurs wben individuals seek or aregiven more information tban tbey can process (Driver & Mock, 1975).

Tbis study aims to identify bow ICTs influence students' expectationsof tbeir collegiate experience and bow tbese expectations coincide withstudents' information seeking bebaviors in tbe classroom. Often, studentsutilizing ICTs diverge from class-oriented interactions. It is common tosee students witb tbeir heads down, focused on their computer screen asopposed to tbe lecture—and to assume every student using a laptop is busytaking notes is naïve. From tbese observations, we as educators and studentsfound ourselves questioning wby students cboose to engage in pattems ofinformation overload. During peak performances wben students are bigblyengaged, overload may occur, and tbus, initiate voluntary intermptions.

Kate Blackburn, Leah LeFebvre, and Emily Richardson are doctoral candi-dates in the Department of Communication Studies at the university of Texasat Austin.

The Florida Communication Journal XLI Fall, 2013

The Florida Communication Journal 108

Due to the limited research examining voluntary distraction during peakperformance, this study serves as an initial investigation into these choices andimplications for further research. Otir approach was two-fold: first to identifytask interpretations and their consequences among Millennials, and thensecondly, to apply a grotmded theory approach to better understand students'perceptions regarding their technology choices in the classroom.

Task Interruption - A Technological Perspective

A 2003 study defines task interruption as an action occurring eitherstructurally or psychologically that distracts or delays the completion ofan individual's task (Jett & George). Structtiral task interruption is createdthrough spatial designs within a physical structure or software design, whereaspsychological task interruption is created as the individual's cognitiveabilities are interrupted by internal circumstances (e.g., daydreaming) orexternal circumstances (e.g., outside event) (Speier, Vlacich, & Vessy, 1999).Nonetheless, how this affects individual psychological task interruptionsdepends on the type of task an individual is completing (Baron, 1986;Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989; Speier, Valacich, & Vessy, 1999; Wood, 1986).Studies have shown that when a task is difficult, an individual's decision-making time increases and decision-making accuracy decreases (Chervany &Dickson, 1977; Fisher, 1998; Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989). For the ptirposesof this study, a task interruption is defined as a voltmtary action conducted todistract the individual from completing tasks.

Consequences of Task InterruptionsThe majority of research suggests that when individuals participate

in task interruptions, they miss relevant information (Fisher, 1998). As theamount of information available to students increase, time and energy is spentdeciphering what is important and what is not. Previous research suggeststask disruptions can lead to a decrease in individuals' performance (Speier etal., 1999). Ironically, the Millennial generation desires a pedagogy that valuesthe ability to acquire information as effectively and efficiently as possible(Hassel & Lourey, 2005). Thus, a conumdrum arises about how to adhere tostudents' preferences and combat increasing technological distractions.

Task ExpectationsTo understand how technology affects information distribution,

and ultimately influences learning styles of Milletinials, it is first necessaryto discuss technology expectations. Caroll, Howard, Vetere, Peck, andMurphy (2002) found that youth-technology interaction offered students away to interact across several commtinication channels. Further, Tindell andBohlander (2012) stirveyed 269 college students across 21 and found 92%have their cell phones available during class and over 90% choose to use


tbeir pbone while in class. They reported students use tbeir cell pbones tocommunicate in a variefy of ways. Some cboose to text message or browsetbe intemet, wbereas some students cboose to send picttires to activate tbeirsocial networking sites (e.g., Facebook). As individuals bave embraced newmodes of communication, their researcb (e.g., CaroU et al., 2002) suggestedtbat tbe practical use of tecbnology may fransform into new uses. In tbe past,researcbers (Giddens, 1990) argued tbat an increase in mobilify narrows tbedistance between individual's personal and public lives. In present day, tbistt-anslates to classroom interactions, as students use technologies, wbile inclass, to maintain a sense of commtinify witbin and outside tbe classroomcommunify. As tecbnology continues to transcend pbysical locations, anindividual's public and private space becomes blurred.

ICTs are designed to support—and seemingly invite—multitasking.Wireless tecbnologies allow students access to information sources beyondtbe instmctors (Hembrooke & Gray, 2003). Howe and Strauss (2003) arguedthat multitasking often binders and delays tbe original task, and suggestedMillennials aim to simultaneously exceed expectations wbile multitasking.However, recent sttidies are beginning to sbow tbat multi-taking behavioris related to negative class outcomes. For example, Rosen, Carrier, andCbeever (2013) found tbat students engaged in multitasking were morelikely to be off-task than tbose individuals wbo limited multitasking behaviorduring class time. In addition, their researcb demonsfrated individuals wboaccessed social networking sites (e.g., Facebook) during class eamed lowergrades tban otber students.

Tbe purpose of tbis study is to researcb bow tecbnology influencestbe leaming abilify of students witbin tbe classroom, specifically bow students'use of tecbnologies confributes to student disengagement in tbe classroom.Wbile otber studies evaluate tbe outcomes associated witb task intermptionsusing stirvey measures, tbis project aims to also understand wby studentsvoluntarily engage in task intermptions from a qualitative perspective.

Methods

Our study consisted of sixteen semi-stmctured interviews conductedin classrooms across a large soutbem universify. Eacb interview session wasscheduled for a maximum of one bour, and students voluntarily signed up andreceived participant notifications and reminders prior to tbeir interview. Fivemales and eleven females ranging from 18-20 years old were interviewed.Tbese interviews lasted approximately tbirfy-two minutes.

A researcb team consisted of four trained graduate students. Tbeteam collaborated on tbe interview guide creation; tbus, eacb interviewerunderstood tbe questions and importance of sequence. Tbe researcbertben followed tbis script and interviewed four individuals eacb. By usingthe script across participants, the researcb team establisbed validify among


interviewers. These interview questions were open-ended questions thatsought to evaluate students' aftitudes, beliefs, and behaviors in terms oftechnology use in the classroom.

Before the interview began, students were given a consent formto sign for their pariicipation following IRB protocols. Students were alsonotified that an audio recorder would document the interview. All interviewrecordings were uploaded to a secure data site, and were accessed only bymembers in our research team. Names ofthe participants were not includedin this labeling process to ensure participants remained anonymous andresponses confidential. Also, pariicipants assigned pseudonyms.

As a research team, we collected data following a grounded theoryapproach (Glaser & Sfrauss, 1967). After the interviews commenced,researches reviewed the data collected using constant comparative methodsto reveal primary themes that emerged. Responses focused on students'perceptions about technology use, professors, grades, etc. in the classroomenvironment. Each member of the research team identified specific timeintervals that included relevant information related to the research themescreated.

Findings

During the interview process, our research team discovered thatstudents' use of technology in the classroom is an active process voluntarilyinitiated by students. The results suggest students use technology in theclassroom as a multitasking tool to acquire course information (e.g., handouts,syllabus) and maintain social networks. Students' use of technology containsa consumerist component—specifically—providing them a rationale forintermpting classroom tasks. The categories examined task interruptions inthree contexts: impact on target generation, student perceptions regardingaccess and etiquefte, and technology as a multitasking tool.

Impact of Technology on Millennial GenerationMillermial students are the first generation to own cell phones in elementary,download thousands of songs into a device as small as a child's hand, andparticipate in virtual social networks. Technology offers this generation theabilify to receive and send information instantaneously, and mixed emotionsexist about technology among students. The majorify of participants claimtechnology improves their lives and the leaming process, either throughonline lecttire notes or the abilify to search the Intemet for resources.

Several participants express a growing concem regarding theirgeneration's reliance on technology. An engineering student, Adam, describesrelying on a calculator to perform simple addition and subfraction problemsas regretflil, observing, "I would rather know base information - not have touse a calculator." Adam defines base information as the abilify to calculate

Ill Technology Interruptions

simple matb problems involving addition or subfraction. Anotber expressesdistress over using Wikipedia as a credible source, suggesting user-submittedarticles may lead to misinformation. Later, wben anotber participant wasasked, "Do you tbink tecbnology impacts education differently, tban say afew years ago?" Licia responds, "Fifteen years ago wben it was not tbere orpopular ... kids leamed more sitting in a library, sitting in front of a book, notbaving to worry about text or not having to worry about emails, instead tbeywould be paying attention..."

Primary results in this study demonsfrate tecbnology taskintermptions do influence tbe leaming process.

Student Perceptions: Access and EtiquetteParticipants reveal tbat tbey volimtarily and actively engage in

tecbnology unrelated to class. Tbe technology's emergence and saturationcomplicates classroom etiquette. Sttidents add tbat tecbnology sbould notbe limited to tbe instmctor; ratber free access sbould be universal to allclassroom participants—wbicb begins to suggest confradictory notions ofaccess. Results demonstrate tbat students actively participate in tecbnologytask intermptions, eitber by text messaging, instant messaging, andcbecking Facebook. During our data collection an unexpected consequence,involtintary task intermptions, occtxrred from active task intermptions.Students indicated tbat altbougb tbey do not engage in tecbnology taskintermptions, involuntary task intermptions occur as classmates engage intechnology task intermptions. Students report being distracted by tbe contentvisible on tbe peer's laptop screens. Following IM conversations and lookingat Facebook pictures were some of tbe common instances of involuntarymultitasking. One participant, Tim, describes being distracted as a classmatecommunicated witb bis girlfriend via a web camera while in class. Anothersttident, Sbiree, points out, "I don't like it wben people bave tbeir laptopsopen because I can read conversations."

Responses describe task interpretations as an academic rigbt andsocially acceptable activify. Participants defend tecbnology use as a means toself-entertain, serving as a disfraction from boring lectures. When participantswere asked, "How do you think instmctors feel about tecbnology use intbe class not related to lecture?" Tbey use words sucb as "disrespected,""disappointed," and "burt" to describe bow teacbers view tbeir use oftecbnology for non-related class activities. Even tbougb participants useemotional words, a recurring agreement existed tbat teacbers sbould not gettbeir feelings btirt, because tbat was tbeir job. As Jenny points out duringtbe interview, "Tbey probably don't feel respected or cared about—but tbenagain, we are paying for tbem to teach us." Participants exhibit an entitlementin wbicb tbey demand tbe use of tecbnology in tbe classroom.

Wben participants were asked, "Do you tbink it is mde to text inclass?" over 75% of our participants agree cell pbone use, sucb as texting.


was mde. Ironically, those same pariicipants indicated they had texted duringlecture. As John explains, "I feel like we are paying for our lecture, so howwe behave in class is up to our discretion." Overall, these results provideevidence that students actively engage in technology task intermption,primarily from a consumer perspective.

This consumerist aftitude resurfaces during the interview sessionswhen students were asked, "What is an acceptable amount of time for aninstmctor to respond to an email inquiry?" Every student in this studyresponds a 24-hour time frame as an acceptable response time. Studentsperceive instmctors who do not respond within the allofted 24-hour responsewindow, or fail to respond to email over the weekend, negatively. If academicentitlement does exist, an argument can be made that classroom behaviormimics consumer behavior.

Several pariicipants made the argument that one can surf the net, text,or complete other class work, because teachers lecture notes are preposted onBlackboard. Essentially, students do not feel the need to pay aftention, dueto information availabilify. A discrepancy exists between students wantingaccess to information and their reaction to having the information to readilyavailable. The nature of PowerPoint requires the presenter to create slidesbased on main points, which are referenced to during the presentation.Preparing access allows students to disengage from lecture creating a shift infocus that is oriented more towards an individual focus compared to a groupfocus maintained by class interaction by both students and the professor.

Multitasking: Both Functional and DistractingWhile Millermials carry laptops to ostensibly take down notes, more

often than not these were used to engage in multiple tasks during the lecture.As Jesse explains, "If you see my laptop open, then I am most probablyinstant messaging in class and am caught up in the conversation." Pariicipantsreport having multiple windows opens, switching back and forih duringclass, in order to disfract and enteriain. A review of this idea of multiplewindows points to the active task intermptions that students engage in duringclass. While emails and Facebook emerge as top contenders, working onassignments for other classes also competes for a student's aftention. Sarahobserves, "I have up to 3 to 5 windows open. I usually Facebook and checkemail and spend the maximum time on Facebook. Along with that I have theBlackboard open and my notes. Sometimes if I have something due for a 2pm. class, I work on it during my noon class." Dependence on technologyaffects this particular student's interest in class, as she reporis being lessinterested in classes where use of technology was prohibited versus classesthat allowed use of laptops.

Reasons for multitasking during lectures vary. However, a majorifyof students in this study attributes their multitasking to the lack of engagingand enteriaining lecture material provided by the instmctor. Laura observes


tbat tbe moment ber instmctor indicates information covered during lecturewill not be on an exam, almost balf tbe class sbuts down their laptops and takesout tbeir pbones. Tbe vibration ofthe cell pbones was anotber multitaskingexplanation, because it demands tbeir attention and alerts students to tbearrival of a new message.

Anotber unexpected finding in our study was student awareness tbatmultitasking leads to distraction, whicb prompts some students to take activesteps to confrol tecbnology task intermptions. For instance, one studentreports sbe and some fHends consciously refrain from carrying a laptop toclass in order to limit Facebook activify, a major disfraction to leaming.Anotber participant articulates carrying notebooks to belp ber focus on takingnotes down correctly. Some sttidents disclose sitting at the front of class toavoid temptation to text. Students wbo actively confrolled multitaskingtemptations describe tbe lengtb of class time as a contributor to tbeir decision.Mattbew responds, "It's just 50 minutes, I can wait." Still, not all students intbis study find multitasking disfracting. Some believe an individual can dobotb—pay attention to lecture and engage in technology task intermptions.The aforementioned results signal that students describe negative and positivestudent perceptions of classroom multitasking; bowever, an underlying resultof tbis researcb indicates tbat a majorify of students engage in tecbnologytask intermptions during some point in tbeir academic career.

A major activify influencing student multitasking is tbe desire tomaintain and participate in social networks. Some participants report usingtext messaging in class to make plans witb friends. Anotber student revealsbiding tinder tbe desk to answer a call from ber friend, only to enstire tbefriend was not being ignored. Membersbip in social organizations alsodrives student multitasking bebavior. Many participants cite keeping upwitb tbe organizational exfracurricular activities as a prime reason for taskintermptions.

One female participant claims baving two emails open on ber laptopduring class to keep up witb work tbat ber exfracurricular activities demanded.Asbley reasons, "I am in cbarge of a lot of communication takes place tbrougbme and filters out." Use of tecbnology by tbe Millennials is essential to keepup witb social pressures of "fitting in." As Megan observes, "Our generationis constantly taking out tbeir cell phones because it makes tbem look cool,and tbey feel tbat tbey can fit in if tbey are constantly communicating." Ina sense, students are not only using tbese tecbnology task intermptions toentertain or disfract, but as a form of impression management.

Social networking sites sucb as Facebook allow Millennials to keepin toucb witb one anotber. Anotber female student, Kristine, notes tbat thereputation and popularify from sororify membersbip increased her need toengage in texts or instant messages to keep informed of class details (e.g.,assignment deadlines). Utilizing tecbnology to communicate to tbeir fHendsor classmates for class-related purposes also seems to be a way tbat students


maintain a sense of community. For example, using the Blackboard featureto send mass emails to everybody enrolled in a particular course was afrequently-cited communication pattem in the interviews. These emails wereprimarily to solicit lecttire notes or assistance from fellow students. Thus,these responses demonsfrate that keeping up with their social and academicactivities is a priority for the Millennials.

Conclusion: Implications and Future Directions

Researchers have raised concems about whether students have thenecessary skills to engage with the volume of information made available tothem by ICTs (Hess, 1999; Howe, 2003). As Resnick (2002) points out, themere presence of the technology will not enhance the leaming process unlessused appropriately by instmctors, and by students. Increasingly, there is aneed to rethink approaches to pedagogy, and the space in which teachingand leaming take place (e.g., Cobcroft, Towers, Smith, & Bruns, 2006;Qblinger, 2003, Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005, Resnick, 2002). This sttidyconcluded that students actively engage in technology task intermptionsto engage with course materials, as well as to self-entertain and maintainsocial networks. A major implication suggests technology plays dual rolesin the classroom, simultaneously aiding and disfracting student performance.Another major implication to emerge in this study is the knowledge that astudent's leaming process operates within a consumerist framework or atthe very least demonsfrates how students perceive their technological rightswithin the classroom. For example, believing the payment of tuition justifiesinappropriate behaviors. Futtire research is needed to understand instmctors'management of intermptions in relation to student-perceived consequences.This study contributes to previous literature and provides support forfurther research into understanding how individuals actively engage in taskintermptions within other organizational environments.

ReferencesBaron, R. S. (1986). Distraction-conflict theory: Progress and problems. In L.

Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19,1-40. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Carroll, J., Howard, S., Vetere, F., Peck, J., & Murphy, J. (2002). Just whatdo the youth of today want? Technology appropriation by youngpeople. In R. H. Sprague (Ed.), Proceedings of the 35th HawaiiInternational Conference on System Sciences, Maui, HI, Institute ofElectrical and Electronics Engineers.

Chervany, N., & Dickson, G. (1974). An experimental evaluation of overloadin a production environment. Management Science, 20, 1335-1344.doi: 10.1287/mnsc.20.10.1335


Cobcroft, R., Towers, S., Smith, J., & Bruns, A. (2006). Mobile learningin review: Opportunities and challenges for learners, teachersand institutions. Proceedings Online Learning and TeachingConference, Brisbane, Australia.

Dede, C. (2005). Planning for "neomillenial" learning styles. EducationQuarterly, 28, 7-12.

Driver, M., & Mock, T. (1975). Human information processing decision styletheory and accounting information systems. Accounting Review, 50,490-508.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research.Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 523-550.

Evaristo, R., Adams, C , & Curiey, S. (1995). Information overload revisited:A theoretical model. Proceedings ofthe 16"' Annual InternationalConference on Information Systems, Amsterdam.

Fisher, C. D. (1998). Effects of external and internal interruptions of boredomat work: Two studies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19,503-522. doi: 10.1002/(SICI) 1099-1379( 199809) 19:5<503: : AID-JOB854>3.0.CO;2-9

Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Stanford, CA: StanfordUniversity Press.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory.Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

Hembrooke, H., & Gay, G. (2003). The laptop and the lecture: The effectsof multitasking in learning environments. Journal of Computing inHigher Education, 75 1-19.

Hess, B. (1999). Graduate student cognition during information retrievalusing the World Wide Web: A pilot study.

Computer & Education 33, 1-33.Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The next great generation.

New York, NY: Vintage Books.Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2003). Millennials go to college. Great Falls, VA:

American Association of Registrars and Admissions Officers andLifeCourse Associates.

Jett, Q. R., & George, J. M. (2003). Work interrupted: A closer look at therole of interruptions in organizational life. Academy of ManagementReview, 28(3), 494-507. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2003.10196791

Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivations and cognitiveabilities: An integrative/aptitude-treatment interaction approachto skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 657-690.doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.74.4.657

Oblinger, D. (2003). Boomers, gen-xers, and Millennials: Understanding thenew students, Educause Review, 38, 37-47.

Oblinger, D. G., & Oblinger, J. L. (Eds.). (2005). Educating the net generation.


Washington, DC: Educause. Available: http://www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen.

Resnick, M. (2002). Rethinking leaming in the digital age. In G. Kirkman(Ed.), The Global Information Technology Report: Readiness forthe Networked World. Oxford University Press, 32-37.

Rosen, L. D., Carrier, M. L., & Cheever, N. A. (2013). Facebook and textingmade me do it: Media-induced task-

switching while studying. Communication in Human Behavior, 29,948-958. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.001

Sheridan, T. B., & Ferrell. W. R. (1974). Man-Machine system: Information,control, and decision models of humansperformance. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.

Speier,C.,Valacich,J.S.,&Vessey,I. (1999).The influenceoftaskintermptionon individual decision making: An information overload perspective.Decision Sciences, 30, 337-360. doi:10.1111/j.l540-5915.1999.tbO1613.x

Tindell, D. R., & Bohlander, R. W. (2012): The use and abuse of cell phonesand text messaging in the classroom: A survey of college students.College Teaching, 60, 1-9. doi:10.1080/87567555.2011.604802

Wood, R. E. (1986). Task complexity: Definition of the construct.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 60-82. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(86)90044-0

Copyright of Florida Communication Journal is the property of Florida CommunicationJournal and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listservwithout the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,download, or email articles for individual use.

To Enhance Or Hinder, That Is The Question: Technological Task Interruptions In The Classroom

Documents