RTL2 Assignment 2

Joshua Redmayne
17429173
How can students use their phones effectively in the
classroom?
- Does student multitasking on their phone impact on their ability to retain knowledge?

Part A: Assignment 2 Literature Review

With technology having a more critical role in everyday life, the impact this has on students who are

citizens of the internet is raised more frequently (Sackmann, & Winkler, 2013). This characterisation

finds that emergent generations have a high level of proficiency and prevalence with technology and

that increased use of information and communications technology (ICT) expands understanding and

literacy goals beyond the traditional classroom (Wu & Peng, 2017). The accessibility of mobile

phones for students in the 21st century invites teachers to ask the question of the impact of

technology within the classroom. Of particular interest is students’ split attention or multitasking/

off-task work involving mobile phones and technology, especially messaging and browsing the

internet.

The idea of having a split attention negatively impact a student’s learning experience is not a new

one. Welford (1967) discusses that the brain can only accept one signal at a time to make conscious

central decision mechanisms and that other signals must wait until the brain is free to focus on

them. The bottleneck theory of attention suggests that there is a limited amount of resources that

can be allocated to attentiveness and that excess stimuli is filtered by the brain (Broadbent 1958).

This idea of cognitive load has been explored through the 20 th and 21st centuries. Pashler (1994)

examines the dual task interference and concludes that there are different orders of thinking that

take priority. That is to say that the human brain can process multiple sensory inputs, however, they

are limited by the complexity of the tasks demanded. Paas et al. (2003) synthesises research that

conceptualises the developments of cognitive load theory and processes to apply the theory to

educational-based practices. This is further validated by Sweller (2020) who synthesises the
knowledge of cognitive load and applies it to modern educational contexts where technology is

prevalent in the classroom. Sweller claims that the theory is directly applicable to technology-

assisted learning and that instructional procedures cannot afford to ignore the importance of

cognitive load as an architectural limit of human learning. That is, cognitive load has always had an

impact on a student’s ability to learn, but as technology has pervaded into classroom contexts, new

research must exist to track the impact this has on students. It is vital that as student’s physical

capability to multitask within a classroom increases with access to technology, this does not mean an

increase in the mental capacity to process complex information and this ultimately underlies all

learning that occurs.

Wood et al (2012) examines the impact of multitasking with technology in the classroom by

comparing pen and paper versus technology use over three lectures. The study finds that students

who did not access technology performed better than students who did; despite students’ comfort

with their own devices and self-proclaimed performance increases with multitasking. However, due

to being university coursework, there is an argument to be made that the performance across the

classes may be dependent on difficulty of the content and individual student familiarity with

concepts presented.

Waite et al. (2018) studies the implications of short form texting during lectures as a means of

distraction for students. Many students who misuse their phones during class often have lapses in

attention due to receiving and responding to texts. The study implies that there is a negative impact

of texting during learning, however, did not find statistical significance in higher order questions.

Texting was shown to have negatively impacted on the quality of handwritten notes and lower order

fact recalling. Although not having statistical power, both higher and lower order skills measure

trends in the same direction, that texting distracts students from taking effective notes and

therefore prevents students from developing substantial recall ability. Recommendations to refine

this study suggest implementing a more sensitive method which may elucidate these findings with a

stronger statistical significance.

Media multitasking has significant implications and consequences for students’ academic

performance. May & Elder (2016) conducted a review to synthesise research on attention, working

memory, and the negative impacts multitasking can have on student outcomes. The study excluded

articles about general media use, articles that were published prior to 2000, and those not

investigating the effects of multitasking on academic performance. This focuses the thematic

concerns of the literature review which finds there to be a negative association with media

multitasking and student performance. Despite this, 90% of university students simultaneously use

devices whilst study, and that more than half of students reported multitasking whilst on those

devices (Hwang, et al. 2011). Hwang et al. hypothesises that habit was a predicted motive, often

students were found to multitask when the medium interaction is passive. Whilst there are policies

moderating media use, it is more critical to educate students on self-regulation habits as a

prescription for positive classroom behaviour. If not, it is possible for problematic distracted

behaviour to be habituated into professional workplaces post-schooling. This is congruent with the

current paradigm shift from ‘if technology should be used in a classroom’ to ‘how is it being used/

how can it be positively used’. That is, technology is not solely a negative contributor to the

classroom, instead complex, constructivist, and well-structured classrooms encouraged on-task

laptop use precluding multitasking and positively impacting student learning (Mouza 2008).

Process switching is a complex process which we do not fully understand, however, simultaneous

stimulus takes more time to process which means that some information may be missed. Chen and

Yan (2016) complete a literature synthesis of one hundred and four studies that examine mobile

phone multitasking looking specifically for how mobile phone use distracts students. Three main

ways distraction occurs were described as distraction source, distraction targets, and distraction

subjects. Facebook had a negative impact on student learning; however, emails, calls and texting had

no effect. This further demonstrates that not all distracting factors have the same effect on students.

Much of the research in this field is relatively new or has little experimental power (Chen & Yan,

2016). Research is often self-reported or correlational design, which are generally considered to
have a lower statistical power than other methods. Further studies into the distraction of phone use

would benefit from higher power studies with strong correlations between the impact of distraction

on student outcomes.

In a 21st century classroom, teachers are encouraged more and more to use technology to assist

student learning. Bring your own device (B.Y.O.D) schools are common and almost every student has

access to a phone or device in classrooms. The average Australian 15-year-old spends around an

hour on the internet whilst at school, more than their counterparts around the world (Australian

Government 2017). There is a lack of research into Australian contexts of the effects of student

distractions and multitasking using their phones. A majority of the research also focuses on

university students often in highly specific contexts, however this ignores a number of factors about

motivation to study and engagement with a topic, which would be more prevalent in high schools,

where education is still compulsory. Further exploration of this theme may reveal stronger

correlation values in teenagers and raise concerns for the appropriate use of technology in the

classroom.
Dear Potential Participant:

I am working on a project titled ‘How can students use their phones effectively in the classroom? ’ for
the class, ‘Researching Teaching and Learning 2,’ at Western Sydney University. As part of the project, I
am collecting information to help inform the design of a teacher research proposal.

My project is looking at the use of mobile phones in the classroom as a distraction factor, and how
multitasking effects student outcomes. My project is focusing on how students are using their phones,
and for how long students spend using their phones. I hope to determine the impact this has on student
outcomes and the significance of this impact. Data will be collected through a series of classroom
observations that will be de-identified in which notes and video recordings may be obtained. Video
recordings will be used purely to accurately identify student interactions with their phones.

By signing this form, I acknowledge that:

 I have read the project information and have been given the opportunity to discuss the
information and my involvement in the project with the researcher/s.
 The procedures required for the project and the time involved have been explained to me, and
any questions I have about the project have been answered to my satisfaction.
 I consent to being observed.
 I understand that my involvement is confidential and that the information gained during this
data collection experience will only be reported within the confines of the ‘Researching Teaching
and Learning 2’ unit, and that all personal details will be de-identified from the data.
 I understand that I can withdraw from the project at any time, without affecting my relationship
with the researcher/s, now or in the future.

By signing below, I acknowledge that I am 18 years of age or older, or I am a full-time university student
who is 17 years old.

Signed: __________________________________

Name: __________________________________

Date: __________________________________

By signing below, I acknowledge that I am the legal guardian of a person who is under 18 years old and
provide my consent for the person’s participation.

Signed: __________________________________

Name: __________________________________

Date: __________________________________
Student Number of times Amount of time Apps accessed Additional Notes
phones accessed
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
 Data collection protocol: Lesson plan
Lesson no: . . ./3 Teacher:
Theme Relevance Evidence in lesson (attach
resources)
Teacher behaviours Established expectations of
students regarding phone
use, learning intentions,
class pacing and structure.

Student phone use How much of the class is

using their phone and for
how long?

Nature of student Are the tasks passive or

interactivity active? Direct instruction or
student led?

Teacher response to off-task Teacher instructs students

behaviour to stop using phones?
Consequences?
Confiscates?

Intentional use of How much of the lesson has

technology in the lesson? on task use of technology
included?
 Part C: Data Collection Protocol explanation

This subtopic is focused around how students are using their phones in class and the detrimental

effects this can have. If phone use is to be effective in a classroom environment, then one of the

biggest risks that teachers take is students being off task or multitasking whilst completing the work.

This subtopic examines the negative side of phone usage in classes so that the research can give a

balanced overview of the effect’s phones have on a high school classroom context.

The protocol design for data collection is based around observing the same class with the same

teacher at least 3 times. It is preferable that this is repeated for three separate teacher-class

groupings (9 observations total). The purpose of the study is to determine the prevalence of phone

usage within a high school classroom context. This will develop the idea if phones themselves are

the issue or if students’ self-regulation is an issue, and to identify the extent to which this issue

effects student learning. Some themes are identified in the second table to assist with the classroom

context and to correlate student phone use with classroom conditions. This will be useful for

immediate feedback for teachers to reflect on, as different conditions may be more or less

conducive to student’s inattention or multitasking with their phones.

Observation was chosen as the method for this study as students may be unreliable with their ability

to accurately self-report and reflect upon their usage of mobile phones (Pulliam, 2017). Observation

fosters an in depth understanding of the contextual nature of the phenomenon and allows the

behaviour to be examined in a natural setting (Cotton et al., 2010). This study of phone usage is

operating under the assumption that significant phone usage is a detriment to student outcomes

and that minor phone usage has limited impact on student outcomes (May & Elder, 2016). If

significant phone usage effects higher and lower order thinking skills, then this should be evident in

the teacher’s assessment of students. Teacher’s will be asked to include an informal assessment
method in the third lesson that can be de-identified to correlate student outcomes with phone

usage.

It is important that ethical principles are upheld and therefore informed consent must be obtained

from both the teacher and all students within the classroom (Sanderson, 2010). Student’s who do

not give consent will be excluded from data collection, however it is acknowledged that this may

skew the data. As part of giving informed consent the research team will explain the research to the

teachers and students participating in the study and be available to answer questions, they, or their

caregivers, may have about the study. It is critical to consider that although informed consent must

be obtained from parents or guardians, the students themselves also give consent to the research;

that is, adults in the child’s life do not undermine the right of the child to decide whether or not to

give consent (Sanderson, 2010). It is acknowledged that by returning the form, students consent to

the research.
 References

Australian Government. Australian Trade and Investment Commission. (2017). Australian Education

Technology: Education of the Future Now. Austrade. Available at:

https://www.austrade.gov.au/edtech/australian-education-technology-report-2017.pdf

Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and communication. Elmsford, NY, US.

Chen, Q., & Yan, Z. (2016). Does multitasking with mobile phones affect learning? A

review. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 34-42.

Cotton, D. R., Stokes, A., & Cotton, P. A. (2010). Using observational methods to research the

student experience. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 34(3), 463-473.

Hwang, Y., Kim, H., & Jeong, S. H. (2014). Why do media users multitask?: Motives for general,

medium-specific, and content-specific types of multitasking. Computers in Human

Behavior, 36, 542-548.

Jamet, E., Gonthier, C., Cojean, S., Colliot, T., & Erhel, S. (2020). Does multitasking in the classroom

affect learning outcomes? A naturalistic study. Computers in Human Behavior, 106, 106264.

May, K. E., & Elder, A. D. (2018). Efficient, helpful, or distracting? A literature review of media

multitasking in relation to academic performance. International Journal of Educational

Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), 13.

Mouza, C. (2008). Learning with laptops: Implementation and outcomes in an urban, under-privileged

school. Journal of research on technology in education, 40(4), 447-472.

Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent

developments. Educational psychologist, 38(1), 1-4.

Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: data and theory. Psychological

bulletin, 116(2), 220.

Pulliam, D. (2017). Effect of student classroom cell phone usage on teachers. [Masters Theses].

Western Kentucky University.

Sackmann, R., & Winkler, O. (2013). Technology generations revisited: The internet

generation. Gerontechnology, 11(4), 493-503.
Sanders, A. F. (1979). Some remarks on mental load. In Mental workload (pp. 41-77). Springer,

Boston, MA.

Sanderson, L. (2010). Informed Consent in Educational Settings and the Novice

Researcher. Kairaranga, 11(1), 50-55.

Sweller, J. (2020). Cognitive load theory and educational technology. Educational Technology

Research and Development, 68(1), 1-16.

Waite, B. M., Lindberg, R., Ernst, B., Bowman, L. L., & Levine, L. E. (2018). Off-task multitasking,

note-taking and lower-and higher-order classroom learning. Computers & Education, 120, 98-

111.

Welford, A. T. (1967). Single-channel operation in the brain. Acta psychologica, 27, 5-22.

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 &

Education, 58(1), 365-374.

Wu, J. Y., & Peng, Y. C. (2017). The modality effect on reading literacy: Perspectives from students’

online reading habits, cognitive and metacognitive strategies, and web navigation skills

across regions. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(7), 859-876.