•	It was found that participants whose texts contained more words performed worse on the test, but the effect of elapsed time between receiving and sending a text was moderated, with longer delays resulting in better performance.

•	Regardless of gender or grade point average, the non-texting group performed better.


University of Minnesota - Twin Cities

•	In-class mobile phone multitasking's effects during course lecture on test performance.

•	The effect of three different in-class texting behaviors on course grade

•	Multitasking activities of various mediums (texting, emailing, Instant Messaging (IM), and Facebook) to three methods of note-taking (paper-and-pencil, word-processing, and natural use of technology condition) during a direct instruction lecture.

•	Multitasking environment (not the note-taking methods).

•	Mobile phone multitasking in a natural classroom setting.

•	The effect of interruptions via Instant Messaging and situational interest in learning during multitasking.

•	Laptop use multitasking.


Conditions of in-class multitasking

May, K.E., Elder, A.D. Efficient, helpful, or distracting? A literature review of media multitasking in relation to academic performance. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 15, 13 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0096-z


Efficient, helpful, or distracting? A literature review of media multitasking in relation to academic performance

Results of in-class mobile phone multitasking

(1) mild texting policy; "cell phones are strictly prohibited during class 

(2) strict cell phone policy; "students will lose 3% of their final grade each time they are caught texting"

(3) no presented texting policy; "students free to have cell phones on and text as desired"

Three different in-class texting behaviors

•	There was a significant difference in performance between participants who did not use any technology and those who did. Compared to paper-and-pencil participants, those using Facebook and Instant Messaging performed worse.

•	Under any condition, repeated practice with different technologies didn't improve performance.


Finding of multitasking activities of various mediums

Six classroom conditions: (1) Facebook distracted; (2) paper note-taking; (3) no media use control group; (4) mixed distraction; (5) laptop note-taking; and (6) distracted combination. 

Participants in distracted conditions (1, 4, & 6) performed worse on the post-test than participants in the non-distracted control, paper-and-pencil, and laptop note-taking groups.

Multitasking environment

Social media usage on mobile phones negatively affected performance. There was no significant relationship between attentional control and multitasking computer self-efficacy. Consequently, students may think they can multitask better than they actually can.

Findings of mobile phone multitasking in a natural classroom setting.

It was found that interruptions of multitasking reduced learning; interest level also predicted learning as strongly as interruptions. In contrast, interest did not seem to moderate interruption effects.

Findings of interruptions via Instant Messaging and situational interest in learning during multitasking.

Trying to engage in classroom activities and technologies simultaneously can affect learning negatively, possibly due to inattention to course material. Various outcomes were demonstrated as evidence of these adverse effects on academic performance: test performance, grades, comprehension, recall, and note-taking.

Summary of in-class multitasking

•	It is common for university students to use laptops.

•	It's convenient to be able to connect with lectures through laptops, but they are also a major distraction during lectures.

•	According to the research, in an average lecture, students generate nearly 65 new active windows on their laptops, with 62% classified as distracting and irrelevant to lecture content.


Learn Before

Related