This article was downloaded by [7419224398]On 29 May 2015 At 1429Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number 1072954 Registeredoffice Mortimer House 37-41 Mortimer Street London W1T 3JH UK

Click for updates

Journal of College Reading and LearningPublication details including instructions for authors andsubscription informationhttpwwwtandfonlinecomloiucrl20

Connected Yet Distracted MultitaskingAmong College StudentsKouider Mokhtaria Julie Delelloa amp Carla Reicharda

a University of Texas at TylerPublished online 29 May 2015

To cite this article Kouider Mokhtari Julie Delello amp Carla Reichard (2015) Connected Yet DistractedMultitasking Among College Students Journal of College Reading and Learning 452 164-180 DOI1010801079019520151021880

To link to this article httpdxdoiorg1010801079019520151021880

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor amp Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (theldquoContentrdquo) contained in the publications on our platform However Taylor amp Francisour agents and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy completeness or suitability for any purpose of the Content Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authorsand are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor amp Francis The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses actions claimsproceedings demands costs expenses damages and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content

This article may be used for research teaching and private study purposes Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction redistribution reselling loan sub-licensingsystematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden Terms amp

Conditions of access and use can be found at httpwwwtandfonlinecompageterms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

Journal of College Reading and Learning 45 164ndash180 2015Copyright copy College Reading and Learning AssociationISSN 1079-0195 print2332-7413 onlineDOI 1010801079019520151021880

Connected Yet Distracted MultitaskingAmong College Students

KOUIDER MOKHTARI JULIE DELELLOAND CARLA REICHARD

University of Texas at Tyler

In this study 935 undergraduate college students from a regionalfour-year university responded to an online time-diary survey askingthem to report their multitasking habits and practices while engaged infour main activities reading voluntarily for fun reading for academicpurposes watching television (TV) and using the Internet Resultsshowed that a majority of the students reported performing two or moretasks simultaneously switching rapidly back and forth from one taskto another About half of the students also admitted that multitaskinginterfered with and influenced their ability to focus on core activitiessuch as reading for academic purposes These findings have importantimplications for addressing media multitasking as a growing concernamong college students

KEYWORDS multitasking academic reading reading on the Internet

MILLENNIAL MULTITASKING CONSTANTLY CONNECTED YETDISTRACTED

In 2009 we published the results of a study in which we examined the impactof Internet and television use on the reading habits and practices of college stu-dents in a midsized four-year university in the midwestern United States In thisstudy (Mokhtari Reichard amp Gardner 2009) we used a time-diary survey methodof data collection enabling us to more accurately measure the amount of timestudents spend on college-related activities such as reading for fun watchingtelevision or using the Internet We chose to collect data using the time-diarymethod because unlike traditional self-report surveys that ask respondents toestimate the amount of time they typically spend in a 12- or 24-hour timeperiod time-diary surveys ask them to indicate the amount of time they spenton a particular activity (eg TV watching) during specific time blocks (eg

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kouider Mokhtari University of Texas at TylerSchool of Education 3900 University Blvd Tyler TX 75799 E-mail kouidergmailcom

164

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 165

1200 pmndash600 pm) during the previous day In general the time-diary methodhas been shown to provide a more accurate estimate of the amount of time studentsreport spending on various activities

In our 2009 study we found that 95 of students reported using the Internetldquoevery day or almost every dayrdquo to do such things as use e-mail (904) chat usinginstant messaging (638) surf the Web (562) listen to music (525) andconduct research (477) We also found that the time students spend online doesnot mean that they have given up on other practices such as reading voluntarilyfor fun studying for school or watching TV In fact students reported spendingnearly eight hours per week on recreational reading and slightly over 15 hours perweek on academic or school-related reading In other words the amount of timestudents spend on the Internet has not been found to interfere with the time theyreport spending on reading for their studies or for leisure Other researchers (egGriswold amp Wright 2004) found a similar positive correlation between studentsrsquoInternet use and reading underscoring the dual advantage enjoyed by readers whouse the Internet

Of particular interest in our 2009 study is that students also reported that theyoften engaged in multitasking switching from task to task while reading for funstudying for school watching TV or using the Internet However students did notindicate what types of tasks they engaged in during these activities nor did theyreport whether multitasking interfered with their primary activities These ques-tions are the subject of the current study which focuses primarily on multitaskingamong college students We understand this to be a topic worthy of examinationparticularly in light of the influence of new and emerging information communi-cation technologies such as the Internet and in light of the relatively small butgrowing research challenging the ability of an individual to perform multiple tasksat the same time and to do so in a dependable and productive way

Information Communication Technologies Provide New Forms of Literacy

Over the last decade rapid technological changes have transformed the worldas we know it Internet access social networking and mobile devices have becomean integral part of the American college studentrsquos life In a recent article titledldquoBorn in Another Timerdquo the National Association of State Boards of Education(NASBE 2012) reported that ldquotodayrsquos students have never lived in a world wherethe Internet wasnrsquot in their homes and cell phones werenrsquot in everyonersquos pocketsrdquo(p 4)

For those individuals born in the ldquoNet Generationrdquo the media landscape isdifferent from that of previous generations For todayrsquos 18-year-old college stu-dent Google was a research project in 1996 the year they were born Just a fewyears later in early 2000 the USB flash drive replaced the floppy disk and TheNational Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) reportedas of August 2001 that 20 of online households had access to high-speed Internet(US Department of Commerce 2002) For the Millennial (18ndash24 year olds) thepopular social network platforms of Myspace (2003) Facebook (2004) YouTube(2005) and Twitter (2006) were still in their infancy (Delello amp McWhorter 2013)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

166 K MOKHTARI ET AL

Time magazinersquos 2006 Person of the Year cover was ldquoYourdquo based on Web 20 user-generated content (Grossman 2006) Also in 2006 Nintendo launched the Wiirevolutionizing the gaming industry and in 2007 the Amazon Kindle and first-generation iPhone became accessible to the public Applersquos 2010 release of the firstiPad sold over one million devices (Goldman 2010) Furthermore emerging visualnetworks such as Pinterest (2009) Instagram (2010) and Snap Chat (2012) shiftedsocial media platforms from text messages to image-based platforms (Delello et al2013) In 2013 Experian reported that Millennials spend 14 more time connectedto mobile devices per week than students of previous generations did (ExperianMarketing Services 2013) According to the Pew Internet Group students ldquotreattheir multitasking hand-held gadgets almost like a body part with a cell phoneglowing by the bed poised to disgorge texts phone calls e-mails songs newsvideos games and wake-up jinglesrdquo (Pew Research Center 2010 p 1) All of thistechnology has taken place within the Millennialsrsquo lifespan so it is not surprisingthat a studentrsquos attention might be divided

Just over a decade ago the Pew Internet amp American Life Project reporttitled The Internet Goes to College reported that 74 of college students used theInternet four or more hours per week (Jones 2002) By 2010 Internet use amongundergraduates rose to 98 Ninety-six percent of those students had cell phoneswith 63 reporting that they use them to access the Web (Pew Research Center2010) Also 86 of Millennials use a social network site to stay connected withothers (Madden amp Zickuhr 2011) and receive an average of 3853 text messagesper month (Experian Marketing Services 2013) Friedrich Peterson and Koster(2011) noted that college students are more technologically connected than everbefore

Multitasking and Academic Performance

For the millennial learner staying connected and multitasking has becomea part of life Simultaneous media usage is rising and for students growing upldquowiredrdquo digital access might also mean more distractions and less time spent oncoursework Technology could indeed be a ldquodisruptive innovationrdquo (EconomistIntelligence Unit 2008) even affecting a studentrsquos ability to learn and do well inschool (Carr 2008) Literacy and technology experts argue that as new technolo-gies for information and communication appear new conceptions for exploitingthese technologies are continuously crafted by users (Leu 2010) How peopleexploit these technologies eventually has consequences for whether time spent onone activity displaces time spent on other activities For example studies haveshown that students who multitask during class lectures typically do less well onexams than students who do not multitask while attending lectures Ellis Danielsand Jauregui (2010) found that students who texted during a business accountingclass did worse on exams than students who did not text Kraushaar and Novak(2010) reported that students who tried to listen to lectures while using ldquodistrac-tiverdquo windows (games pictures e-mail texting web surfing) under reported theextent of their multitasking and were lower achieving than students who looked atmostly productive windows Bowman Levine Waite and Dendron (2010) found

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 167

that students in a general psychology course who used instant messaging whilereading an article on a computer took between 22 and 59 longer to read thearticle than students who used instant messaging before reading or those who didnot use instant messaging McCoy (2013) stated that 80 of college students checktheir digital device more than ten times per school day and confess to sending andreceiving text messages during class causing them to pay less attention to instruc-tion in the classroom With few exceptions the consensus among these studies isthat multitasking is a distraction that interferes with and compromises studentsrsquoefforts to learn and do well academically

Questioning whether multitasking interferes with reading in the digital ageRich (2008) stated ldquosome argue that the hours spent prowling the Internet arethe enemy of readingmdashdiminishing literacy wrecking attention spans and destroy-ing a precious common culture that exists only through the reading of booksrdquo(p 6) Also Elish-Piper Wold and Schwingendorf (2014) noted that as adoles-cents increase their use of digital literacies they read less for enjoyment than theydid before Conversely Mokhtari et al (2009) found that the time students reportedspending on the Internet did not displace time spent reading for academic or recre-ational purposes Even though the evidence purports the notion that multitaskinghinders cognitive functioning and performance there is still an underlying publicassumption that multitasking could produce positive outcomes which leads someto suggest that it may be a double-edged sword (Anderson amp Rainie 2012)

Multitasking and Cognitive Functioning Theory

Some theorists have proposed that the brainrsquos executive function is able toselect initiate execute and terminate tasks (Rubinstein Meyer amp Evans 2001)According to Cooper-Kahn and Dietzel (2008) ldquothe executive functions are a set ofprocesses that all have to do with managing oneself and onersquos resources in order toachieve a goal It is an umbrella term for the neurologically-based skills involvingmental control and self-regulationrdquo (p 6) One component of executive functioningis cognitive flexibility or multitasking The theory of ldquocognitive flexibilityrdquo or ldquotaskswitchingrdquo has been described as the mental ability to switch between thinkingabout two different concepts and thinking about multiple concepts simultaneously(Scott 1962)

An article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggestedthat human cognition is unable to process multiple media streams at once leavingmany individuals unable to cope with the changing media environment (OphirNass Wagner amp Posner 2009) Also ldquoswitching to a new task is slower andmore error prone than performance when repeating a taskrdquo (Leber Turk-Browneamp Chun 2008 para 1) This continual interchange from one task to another mightalso lessen the ability to ignore distractions leading to a state of ldquoinfomaniardquo(Zeldes Sward amp Louchheim 2007)

THE PRESENT STUDY

In an era of digital distractions the continual switching of attention could have sig-nificant implications for college students in regard to teaching and learning With

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

168 K MOKHTARI ET AL

the rapid advancement of new digital technologies research is needed to betterunderstand whether engaging in multiple tasks interferes with core activities andwhether multitasking influences learning and academic performance In this studywe wanted to explore in more depth the practice of multitasking among collegestudents We asked students to report their multitasking behaviors while engagedin four main activities reading voluntarily for fun reading for school watchingTV and using the Internet Specifically we were interested in finding out

(1) how often students multitasked while engaged in each of these activities(2) whether they felt the time spent doing one activity interfered with or

displaced other activities and(3) whether multitasking influenced their ability to concentrate on each of

the main activities reading for fun reading for school watching TV orusing the Internet

For purposes of this study we operationally define multitasking as performing twoor more tasks simultaneously switching rapidly back and forth from one task toanother

METHOD

Participants

Study participants included 935 undergraduate college students who werepursuing a bachelorrsquos degree at one public regional four-year university in themidwestern United States Participants included a cross section of students withrespect to rank (17 Freshmen 15 Sophomores 31 Juniors and 37 Seniors)and majors in college ranging from accounting to nursing We sent a link to thetime-diary survey to approximately 7000 students enrolled during the fall semesterof 2013 The 935 usable responses represent a 1335 response rate As a grouprespondents closely mirrored the student population of undergraduate students atthe university in terms of age (mean = 225) gender (55 female 45 male) andethnic diversity (70 White 11 Hispanic 9 African-American 7 Asian and3 representing other ethnic groups)

Data Sources

We used an innovative time-diary survey method which targeted specificaspects of studentsrsquo reading habits and practices ranging from time spent on partic-ular activities in a given day to whether they performed other tasks while engagedin these activities We adapted our survey from an instrument titled ldquoThe 6-HourTime Diaryrdquo developed by Stanford researchers Nie and Erbring (2002) Ratherthan asking participants to estimate the amount of time they typically spend ina 12- or 24-hour time period the time-diary method asked them to indicate theamount of time they spend on a particular activity during one of four 6-hour timeblocks during the previous day

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 169

Data Analysis

We analyzed the data obtained using basic descriptive statistics whichenabled us to summarize and expose patterns emerging from these data We alsoanalyzed correlations between self-reported grades and degrees of multitaskingOur analyses were focused on (a) how often students multitasked while engagedin each of the activities viz reading for fun reading for school watching TV orusing the Internet (b) whether they felt the time spent doing one activity interferedwith or displaced other activities and (c) whether multitasking influenced theirability to concentrate on each of the main activities

RESULTS

Multitasking While Reading Voluntarily for Fun

Table 1 presents results pertaining to how often students multitasked whilereading voluntarily for fun These results show that a majority of the studentsreported performing two or more tasks ldquomost of the time some of the time ora little of the timerdquo doing such things as watching TV (6177) listening to music(6214) reading for school or doing homework (6125) writing (4646) talk-ing on the phone or texting (7235) playing games online (1958) and socialnetworking or communicating with others online via e-mail (6746)

Table 2 shows student responses pertaining to whether they felt that timespent reading for fun displaced or took time away from doing any of the otheractivities such as doing homework watching TV or using the Internet The resultsindicate that 353 of the 626 students who responded to this question reportedthat time spent reading for fun took time away from reading for school or doinghomework A majority also reported that reading for fun did not interfere with otheractivities including watching TV (7746) writing (7781) socializing withfriends (7249) social networking (7659) playing video games (8328) orperforming other activities (7549) In other words most felt they could read forfun while doing any of the other tasks but not while doing school work

TABLE 1 While You Were Reading Books Magazines or Newspapers for Fun Yesterday How OftenDid You Do Any of the Following Activities at the Same Time

Activity or TaskMost of the

TimeSome of the

TimeA Little ofthe Time Never

TotalResponses

Watching TV or videos 1801 2417 1959 3823 633Listening to music 2173 2173 1869 3786 626Reading for school 2010 2267 1849 3875 622Writing 723 1704 2219 5354 622Talking on phonetexting 2000 2677 2567 2765 635Playing games online 307 583 1068 8042 618Social networking 1817 2449 2480 3254 633Other 775 930 310 7984 129

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

170 K MOKHTARI ET AL

TABLE 2 Did You Feel That the Time You Spent Reading for Fun yesterday Took Time Away FromDoing Any of the Following Activities or Tasks

Question Yes No Unsure Total Responses

Reading for school or homework 3530 5815 655 626Watching TV videos or DVDs 1562 7746 692 621Writing 1419 7781 799 613Socializing with friends or family 2006 7249 744 618Social networking 1626 7659 715 615Playing games online 918 8328 754 610Other 539 7549 1912 204

Table 3 reports the results pertaining to whether multitasking affected stu-dentsrsquo ability to concentrate on reading for fun The results indicate that for themost part a majority of the students (about 55) reported that performing multi-ple tasks did affect their ability to concentrate on reading for fun Only 12 of the678 students who responded to this question reported that they did not multitask atall while reading for fun

We did not have access to studentsrsquo actual grades but we did have studentsrsquoself-reported grades In order to assess whether multitasking might be affectingacademic performance we correlated the self-reported grades with a combinedmeasure of multitasking The multitasking measure adds the ordinal values of eachreported multitasking instance So for example a student who reported reading forfun and watching TV ldquosome of the timerdquo (ordinal value 2) and texting ldquomost of thetimerdquo (ordinal value 3) but no other types of multitasking would have a combinedmultitasking value of 5

Table 4 shows Spearmanrsquos Rho values for self-reported grades correlatedwith the combined multitasking value for reading for fun (Rho = minus013964p lt 00004) as well as with their reported perception that multitasking affectedtheir ability to concentrate on the materials they were reading for fun (Rho =minus008909 p lt 00319) In other words reported grades are negatively correlatedwith the overall degree of multitasking even more so than the loss of concentrationthat students reported when asked directly The combined multitasking measure

TABLE 3 Did You Feel That Doing Multiple Tasks at the Same Time Yesterday Affected YourAbility to Concentrate on the Materials You Were Reading for Fun

Answer Response

Yes a lot 103 1549Yes some 260 3910No not at all 183 2752Not sure 37 556Did not multitask 82 1233Total 665 100

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 171

TABLE 4 Correlations Among Self-Reported Grades Multitasking Measure and Self-Reported Perceptionof Multitasking on Concentration While Reading for Fun

VariableAdditive Multitasking Measure

(While Reading for Fun)Self-Reported Degree That Multitasking TakesAway Concentration (While Reading for Fun)

Self-Reported Grades minus013964 (p lt 00004) minus008909 (p lt 00319)Multitasking Measure 006826 (p lt 01066)

was not strongly correlated with studentsrsquo reported lack of concentration whilemultitasking suggesting that multitaskingrsquos effect on grades does not match upwell with studentsrsquo self-perceptions

Multitasking While Reading for Academic Purposes

Table 5 presents results pertaining to how often students multitasked whilereading for academic purposes The results show that a majority of the studentsreported being engaged in performing two or more tasks while reading for aca-demic purposes most of the time some of the time or a little of the time Forinstance of the total number of students responding to this question a majorityreported listening to music (51) writing (51) talking on the phone or texting(66) and social networking (56) The exceptions to this trend are playing videogames (12) and watching TV (44)

Table 6 shows whether students felt that time spent reading for school pur-poses displaced or took time away from doing other activities such as readingfor fun watching TV or using the Internet Most students felt that reading foracademic purposes did not interfere with these activities including reading forfun (6332) watching TV (6088) socializing with friends (4898) or socialnetworking (6450)

Table 7 reports the results pertaining to whether multitasking affected stu-dentsrsquo ability to concentrate on reading for academic purposes Sixty percent of

TABLE 5 While You Wwere Completing Assigned Readings for College Classes Yesterday How OftenDid You Do Any of the Following Activities at the Same Time

QuestionMost of the

TimeSome of the

TimeA Little ofthe Time Never

TotalResponses

Watching TV VideoDVDs 1078 1680 1648 5594 631Listening to music 1735 1861 1546 4858 634Writing 1006 2332 1725 4936 626Talking on the phonetexting 1191 2226 3182 3401 638Playing video games 160 512 576 8752 625Social networking 1074 1690 2796 4439 633Other 578 636 405 8382 173

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

172 K MOKHTARI ET AL

TABLE 6 Did You Feel That the Time You Spent Reading for College Classes Yesterday Took TimeAway From Any of the Following Cctivities or Tasks

Question Yes No Unsure Total Responses Mean

Reading for fun 3056 6332 611 638 176Watching TV videos or DVDs 3459 6088 454 639 170Writing 1517 7772 711 633 192Socializing with friendsfamily 4632 4898 469 639 158Social networking 2946 6450 604 645 177Other 941 7327 1732 202 208

TABLE 7 Did You Feel That Doing Multiple Tasks at the Same Time Yesterday Affected YourAbility to Concentrate on the Materials You Were Reading for College Classes

Answer Response

Yes a lot 136 20Yes some 269 40No not at all 162 24Not sure 22 3Did not multitask 85 13Total 674 100

TABLE 8 Correlations Among Self-Reported Grades Multitasking Measure and Self-Reported Perceptionof Multitasking on Concentration While Reading for School or Homework

VariableAdditive Multitasking Measure

(While Reading for School)Self-Reported Degree That Multitasking Takes

Away Concentration (While Reading for School)

Self-reported grades minus007780 (p lt 00474) minus011675 (p lt 00049)Multitasking measure 007084 (p lt 00917)

the respondents felt that their multitasking affected their ability to concentrate a lot(20) or some (40)

Table 8 shows Spearmanrsquos Rho values for self-reported grades correlatedwith the combined multitasking value for reading for academic purposes asdescribed in the previous tables (Rho = minus00778 p lt 00474) as well as withtheir reported perception that multitasking affected their ability to concentrate onthe materials they were reading for school (Rho = minus011675 p lt 00049) Againthere is a significant negative correlation with the overall degree of multitasking

Multitasking While Watching TV

Table 9 presents results relating to how often students multitasked whilewatching TV With the exception of talking on the phone or texting and social

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 173

TABLE 9 While You Were Watching TV Yesterday How Often Did You Do Any of the FollowingActivities at the Same Time

QuestionMost of the

TimeSome of the

TimeA Little ofthe Time Never

TotalResponses

Reading for fun 573 1181 1007 7240 576Listening to music 1090 1003 502 7405 578Reading for school or homework 934 1661 1696 5709 578Writing 490 1119 1206 7185 572Talking on the phonetexting 1935 2954 2207 2903 589Playing video games 335 493 634 8539 568Social networking 1749 2568 2240 3443 549Other 664 554 148 8635 271

networking a majority of the students reported ldquoneverrdquo multitasking whilewatching TV It is worth noting that 71 of the students reported talking on thephone or texting and nearly 66 reported social networking with others whilewatching TV

Table 10 shows whether students felt that time spent watching TV displacedor took time away from doing any of the other activities The results indicatethat a majority of students felt that watching TV did not interfere much withother activities including reading for school or homework (5193) reading forfun (6927) networking with friends online (8467) writing (7525) andsocializing with friends (756)

Table 11 reports the results on whether students perceived that multitask-ing affected their ability to focus closely on watching TV The results show that41 of the students reported that performing multiple tasks affected their abilityto concentrate on watching TV a lot (9) or some (32)

Table 12 shows Spearmanrsquos Rho values for self-reported grades correlatedwith the combined multitasking value for watching TV as described in the previoustables (Rho = minus007426 p lt 00707) as well as with their reported perception thatmultitasking affected their ability to concentrate on the materials they were readingfor school (Rho = minus006326 p lt 01366) So for TV watching the correlation ofgrades with the overall degree of multitasking was not significant

TABLE 10 Did You Feel That the Time You Spent watching TV Yesterday Took Time Away From Anyof the Following Activities

Question Yes No Unsure Total Responses

Reading for school or homework 4286 5193 521 595Reading for fun 2428 6927 645 589Social networking 1005 8467 528 587Writing 1775 7525 700 586Socializing with friendsfamily 1877 7560 563 586Other 375 8375 1250 240

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

174 K MOKHTARI ET AL

TABLE 11 Did You Feel That Doing Multiple Activities at the Same Time Yesterday AffectedYour Ability to Concentrate on the TV Programs you Were Watching

Answer Response

Yes a lot 55 9Yes some 197 32No not at all 269 44Not sure 41 7Did not multitask 52 8Total 614 100

TABLE 12 Correlations Among Self-Reported Grades Multitasking Measure and Self-ReportedPerception of Multitasking on Concentration While Watching TV

VariableAdditive Multitasking Measure

(While Watching TV)Self-Reported Degree That Multitasking Takes

Away Concentration (While Watching TV)

Self-reported grades minus007426 (p lt 00707) minus006326 (p lt 01366)Multitasking measure 010976 (p lt 00103)

Multitasking While Using the Internet

Table 13 presents results related to how often students multitasked whileusing the Internet The results show that with few exceptions a majority of thestudents reported performing multiple tasks ldquomost of the time some of the timeor a little of the timerdquo while using the Internet Of the total number of studentsresponding to this question a majority reported engaging in multiple tasks such asdoing homework (65) listening to music (53) watching TV (54) and talk-ing on the phone or texting (74) In addition students also reported engagingin other activities such as reading for fun (36) playing video games (15) andperforming other tasks (11) while using the Internet

TABLE 13 While You Were Using the Internet Yesterday How Often Did You Do Any of theFollowing (Non-Internet) Activities at the Same Time

QuestionMost of the

TimeSome of the

TimeA Little ofthe Time Never

TotalResponses

Reading for school or homework 2106 2736 1609 3549 603Reading for fun 491 1557 1523 6430 591Listening to music 1946 1980 1409 4664 596Watching TV 1235 2250 1946 4569 591Writing 771 1490 1490 6250 584Talking on the phonetexting 1493 3068 2819 2620 603Playing video games 308 632 347 8496 585Other 058 694 741 8902 173

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 175

Table 14 shows student responses pertaining to whether they felt that timespent using the Internet displaced time spent on doing other activities The resultsindicate that most students did not feel that using the Internet interfered with otheractivities including reading for fun (7483) watching TV (8110) writing(7778) reading for academic purposes (6156) and socializing with friends(6772) These data seem to indicate that the Internet affected studentsrsquo readingfor school activity or academics more than it affected other activities as indicatedby the percentage of students (6156) reporting whether time spent using theInternet displaced time spent on schoolwork

Table 15 reports the results pertaining to whether multitasking affected stu-dentsrsquo ability to focus closely on using the Internet The results indicate that about41 of students reported that performing multiple tasks affected their ability toconcentrate on using the Internet a lot (9) or some of the time (32) As in otheractivities such as reading for fun reading for school or watching TV only about6 of the students who responded to this question reported not multitasking whileusing the Internet

Table 16 shows Spearmanrsquos Rho values for self-reported grades correlatedwith the combined multitasking value for using the internet as described inTables 13ndash15 (Rho = minus007532 p 00621) as well as with their reported per-ception that multitasking affected their ability to concentrate on the materials theywere reading for school (Rho = minus007989 p lt 00541) So for Internet use thecorrelation of grades with the overall degree of multitasking was not significant

TABLE 14 Did You Feel That the Time You Spent Using the Internet Yesterday Took Time Away FromAny of the Following Activities

Question Yes No Unsure Total Responses

Reading for school or homework 3274 6156 570 614Reading for fun 1967 7483 550 600Watching TV 1371 8110 518 598Writing 1599 7778 623 594Socializing with friendsfamily 2659 6772 569 598Other 468 8128 1404 235

TABLE 15 Did You Feel That Doing Multiple Activities at the Same Time Yesterday Affected YourAbility to Concentrate on What You Were Doing While Using the Internet

Answer Response

Yes a lot 59 9Yes some 201 32No not at all 287 46Not sure 41 7Did not multitask 39 6Total 627 100

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

176 K MOKHTARI ET AL

TABLE 16 Correlations Among Self-Reported Grades Multitasking Measure and Self-ReportedPerception of Multitasking on Concentration While Using the Internet

VariableAdditive Multitasking Measure

(While Using the Internet)Self-Reported Degree That Multitasking TakesAway Concentration (While Using the Internet)

Self-reported grades minus007532 (p lt 00621) minus007989 (p lt 00541)Multitasking measure 013900 (p lt 00008)

DISCUSSION

Our goal in this time-diary survey study was to shed light on the multitaskinghabits of todayrsquos college students on one college campus Consistent with priorresearch investigating college studentsrsquo reading habits and practices we found thatthe majority of the studyrsquos participants reported spending a considerable portionof their time on reading for fun reading for school watching TV and using theInternet Although not very surprising to us a key finding was that students alsoreported performing an array of other tasks simultaneously while engaged in oneor more of the four main activities under study In almost all areas the majorityof students reported that they spent time talking on the phone or texting whileengaged in other activities This finding is not unexpected given the fact that 97of individuals aged 18ndash29 have a cell phone and over 50 of those are connected tothe Internet (Anderson amp Rainie 2012) Also it is not surprising given the numberof existing cell phones that texting has become a primary mode of communicationfor many college students A recent T-Mobile study found that the average personchecks his or her phone approximately 150 times per day (T-Mobile 2012)

What we found particularly interesting was the fact that students perceivedacross all areas that multitasking for the most part did not interfere with core activ-ities such as reading for fun reading for school watching TV or using the InternetThese findings are consistent with prior research indicating that the amount of timethat college students spend on the Internet does not seem to interfere with the timethey report spending on other core activities (eg Mokhtari et al 2009 Griswoldamp Wright 2004)

However we also found that students felt that multitasking interfered withtheir reading for school purposes more so than for the other activities such as read-ing for fun (7483) watching TV (8110) writing (7778) doing homework(6156) and socializing with friends (6772) Sixty percent of the respondentsfelt that multitasking affected their ability to concentrate a lot (20) or some (40)when reading for academic purposes In essence these students acknowledged thatperforming two or more tasks simultaneously (eg listening to music watchingTV andor texting) while reading for school (eg completing a chapter readingassignment in a particular course) interfered with their ability to focus closely onthe content of that assignment This finding highlights the fact that students werecognizant that multitasking was somewhat of a distraction to their schoolwork

In a somewhat similar survey study focused on student classroom use ofdigital devices for nonclass related purposes McCoy (2013) found that more than

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 177

90 of students surveyed admitted to using media devices such as cell phoneslaptops and other devices for recreational purposes during class time with morethan 80 acknowledging that using laptops smartphones and other media devicesinterfered with their learning

When we asked students for their perceptions about multitasking the major-ity readily admitted that they felt multitasking negatively affected their ability toconcentrate on their schoolwork If this perception was true we would expectthat increases in multitasking would negatively affect student grades and indeedgrades were negatively correlated with the overall amount of multitasking reportedas well as the reported perception of loss of concentration from multitasking Yetthe perception of loss of concentration was not strongly correlated with the over-all amount of multitasking to some extent confirming that students do not fullyperceive the effects of multitasking on their academic performance

Research has shown that about only 2 of us are ldquosupertaskersrdquo multi-tasking effectively (Sundem 2012) For the rest of the 98 multitasking canreduce productivity by as much as 40 and switching from one task to anothermakes it difficult to tune out distractions and can cause mental blocks that canslow productivity (American Psychological Association 2006 Rubinstein et al2001 Sundem 2012) In his book Why Students Donrsquot Like School Willingham(2010) noted that ldquoone of the most stubborn persistent phenomena of the mind isthat when you do two things at once you donrsquot do either one as well as when youdo them one at a timerdquo (p 25) This is true not just for college students but forpeople in the workplace as well

Educational Implications and Cautions

In light of the studyrsquos main findings we recognize that multitasking is abyproduct of our modern and constantly connected world It is fueled by newand emerging information communication technologies such as the Internet Thesemedia technologies often make the ability to switch between tasks and accessinformation relatively easy so easy in fact that it can hide the cognitive costsof redirecting attention and actually processing information to gain understanding

Conversely new and emerging multitasking research seems to suggest thatthere is a high cost associated with multitasking in that it increases error in whatwe do and makes us less productive In his book Brain Rules John Medina (2009)reports that multitaskers experience about a 40 decline in productivity and take50 longer to complete a single task Although the temptation to multitask is aconstant companion we recommend that college students be mindful of its benefitsand drawbacks as they try to make themselves more efficient and more productivewhile juggling personal family and school obligations Walter Pauk a pioneer inthe field of college learning and study skills advises students to set aside or allo-cate specific periods of time (time chunking) for specific tasks in order to preventinterruptions and distractions which in turn will help students be more productive(Pauk 2010)

A valuable lesson learned from this study is that we have a great deal moreto learn about multitasking its nature benefits and inconveniences particularly

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

178 K MOKHTARI ET AL

in the context of schooling Even though students in our study told us that mul-titasking interfered with their core activities and influenced their ability to focuson focal activities such as reading for academic purposes we are not certain aboutthe conditions under which students multitask the extent to which it interferes withthe time spent on other activities and exactly how it influences their productivityFor instance when a student listens to music eats a snack and watches TV whileengaged in a core activity such as completing a reading assignment (eg read-ing a chapter in a book) for a science class what happens to his or her ability toeffectively complete the core reading assignment How do the type and number oftasks such as listening to music or watching TV while performing a core task suchas reading a chapter book affect someonersquos ability to focus on their reading assign-ment Do certain types of tasks (eg listening to music) have a lesser influence ona reading assignment than other tasks (eg talking on the phone) Are there dif-ferences in multitasking habits and practices between male and female studentsWe recommend that these questions and others be subjected to rigorous researchand investigation Answers to these questions will help address media multitaskingamong college students as a growing concern

Finally we want to share three potential limitations of this study whichshould be taken into consideration when interpreting the results and engaging infuture research that addresses multitasking among college students First it is achallenge to accurately capture studentsrsquo multitasking habits and practices throughthe use of indirect methods such as surveys or questionnaires We believe we haveminimized the design limitations of traditional self-report instruments by using atime-diary survey which provides a more accurate measure of time spent on cer-tain activities and therefore reduces error resulting in an increase in instrumentvalidity and reliability Second our time-diary survey instrument was lengthy andmay have contributed to the relatively low response rate from our original poolof students Finally even though some of our findings are consistent with priorresearch with regard to studentsrsquo multitasking habits and practices the findings ofthis study have limited generalizability in large part because the students in thisstudy were from one four-year institution

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Kouider Mokhtari PhD serves as the Anderson-Vukelja-Wright Endowed Chair of Education in theSchool of Education at The University of Texas at Tyler

Julie Delello PhD is an Assistant Professor in the School of Education at The University of Texas at Tyler

Carla Reichard PhD is Assistant Director in the Office of Research and Technology Transfer at TheUniversity of Texas at Tyler

REFERENCES

American Psychological Association (2006) Multitasking Switching costs Retrieved from httpapaorgresearchactionmultitaskaspx

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

166 K MOKHTARI ET AL

Time magazinersquos 2006 Person of the Year cover was ldquoYourdquo based on Web 20 user-generated content (Grossman 2006) Also in 2006 Nintendo launched the Wiirevolutionizing the gaming industry and in 2007 the Amazon Kindle and first-generation iPhone became accessible to the public Applersquos 2010 release of the firstiPad sold over one million devices (Goldman 2010) Furthermore emerging visualnetworks such as Pinterest (2009) Instagram (2010) and Snap Chat (2012) shiftedsocial media platforms from text messages to image-based platforms (Delello et al2013) In 2013 Experian reported that Millennials spend 14 more time connectedto mobile devices per week than students of previous generations did (ExperianMarketing Services 2013) According to the Pew Internet Group students ldquotreattheir multitasking hand-held gadgets almost like a body part with a cell phoneglowing by the bed poised to disgorge texts phone calls e-mails songs newsvideos games and wake-up jinglesrdquo (Pew Research Center 2010 p 1) All of thistechnology has taken place within the Millennialsrsquo lifespan so it is not surprisingthat a studentrsquos attention might be divided

Just over a decade ago the Pew Internet amp American Life Project reporttitled The Internet Goes to College reported that 74 of college students used theInternet four or more hours per week (Jones 2002) By 2010 Internet use amongundergraduates rose to 98 Ninety-six percent of those students had cell phoneswith 63 reporting that they use them to access the Web (Pew Research Center2010) Also 86 of Millennials use a social network site to stay connected withothers (Madden amp Zickuhr 2011) and receive an average of 3853 text messagesper month (Experian Marketing Services 2013) Friedrich Peterson and Koster(2011) noted that college students are more technologically connected than everbefore

Multitasking and Academic Performance

For the millennial learner staying connected and multitasking has becomea part of life Simultaneous media usage is rising and for students growing upldquowiredrdquo digital access might also mean more distractions and less time spent oncoursework Technology could indeed be a ldquodisruptive innovationrdquo (EconomistIntelligence Unit 2008) even affecting a studentrsquos ability to learn and do well inschool (Carr 2008) Literacy and technology experts argue that as new technolo-gies for information and communication appear new conceptions for exploitingthese technologies are continuously crafted by users (Leu 2010) How peopleexploit these technologies eventually has consequences for whether time spent onone activity displaces time spent on other activities For example studies haveshown that students who multitask during class lectures typically do less well onexams than students who do not multitask while attending lectures Ellis Danielsand Jauregui (2010) found that students who texted during a business accountingclass did worse on exams than students who did not text Kraushaar and Novak(2010) reported that students who tried to listen to lectures while using ldquodistrac-tiverdquo windows (games pictures e-mail texting web surfing) under reported theextent of their multitasking and were lower achieving than students who looked atmostly productive windows Bowman Levine Waite and Dendron (2010) found

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 167

that students in a general psychology course who used instant messaging whilereading an article on a computer took between 22 and 59 longer to read thearticle than students who used instant messaging before reading or those who didnot use instant messaging McCoy (2013) stated that 80 of college students checktheir digital device more than ten times per school day and confess to sending andreceiving text messages during class causing them to pay less attention to instruc-tion in the classroom With few exceptions the consensus among these studies isthat multitasking is a distraction that interferes with and compromises studentsrsquoefforts to learn and do well academically

Questioning whether multitasking interferes with reading in the digital ageRich (2008) stated ldquosome argue that the hours spent prowling the Internet arethe enemy of readingmdashdiminishing literacy wrecking attention spans and destroy-ing a precious common culture that exists only through the reading of booksrdquo(p 6) Also Elish-Piper Wold and Schwingendorf (2014) noted that as adoles-cents increase their use of digital literacies they read less for enjoyment than theydid before Conversely Mokhtari et al (2009) found that the time students reportedspending on the Internet did not displace time spent reading for academic or recre-ational purposes Even though the evidence purports the notion that multitaskinghinders cognitive functioning and performance there is still an underlying publicassumption that multitasking could produce positive outcomes which leads someto suggest that it may be a double-edged sword (Anderson amp Rainie 2012)

Multitasking and Cognitive Functioning Theory

Some theorists have proposed that the brainrsquos executive function is able toselect initiate execute and terminate tasks (Rubinstein Meyer amp Evans 2001)According to Cooper-Kahn and Dietzel (2008) ldquothe executive functions are a set ofprocesses that all have to do with managing oneself and onersquos resources in order toachieve a goal It is an umbrella term for the neurologically-based skills involvingmental control and self-regulationrdquo (p 6) One component of executive functioningis cognitive flexibility or multitasking The theory of ldquocognitive flexibilityrdquo or ldquotaskswitchingrdquo has been described as the mental ability to switch between thinkingabout two different concepts and thinking about multiple concepts simultaneously(Scott 1962)

An article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggestedthat human cognition is unable to process multiple media streams at once leavingmany individuals unable to cope with the changing media environment (OphirNass Wagner amp Posner 2009) Also ldquoswitching to a new task is slower andmore error prone than performance when repeating a taskrdquo (Leber Turk-Browneamp Chun 2008 para 1) This continual interchange from one task to another mightalso lessen the ability to ignore distractions leading to a state of ldquoinfomaniardquo(Zeldes Sward amp Louchheim 2007)

THE PRESENT STUDY

In an era of digital distractions the continual switching of attention could have sig-nificant implications for college students in regard to teaching and learning With

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

168 K MOKHTARI ET AL

the rapid advancement of new digital technologies research is needed to betterunderstand whether engaging in multiple tasks interferes with core activities andwhether multitasking influences learning and academic performance In this studywe wanted to explore in more depth the practice of multitasking among collegestudents We asked students to report their multitasking behaviors while engagedin four main activities reading voluntarily for fun reading for school watchingTV and using the Internet Specifically we were interested in finding out

(1) how often students multitasked while engaged in each of these activities(2) whether they felt the time spent doing one activity interfered with or

displaced other activities and(3) whether multitasking influenced their ability to concentrate on each of

the main activities reading for fun reading for school watching TV orusing the Internet

For purposes of this study we operationally define multitasking as performing twoor more tasks simultaneously switching rapidly back and forth from one task toanother

METHOD

Participants

Study participants included 935 undergraduate college students who werepursuing a bachelorrsquos degree at one public regional four-year university in themidwestern United States Participants included a cross section of students withrespect to rank (17 Freshmen 15 Sophomores 31 Juniors and 37 Seniors)and majors in college ranging from accounting to nursing We sent a link to thetime-diary survey to approximately 7000 students enrolled during the fall semesterof 2013 The 935 usable responses represent a 1335 response rate As a grouprespondents closely mirrored the student population of undergraduate students atthe university in terms of age (mean = 225) gender (55 female 45 male) andethnic diversity (70 White 11 Hispanic 9 African-American 7 Asian and3 representing other ethnic groups)

Data Sources

We used an innovative time-diary survey method which targeted specificaspects of studentsrsquo reading habits and practices ranging from time spent on partic-ular activities in a given day to whether they performed other tasks while engagedin these activities We adapted our survey from an instrument titled ldquoThe 6-HourTime Diaryrdquo developed by Stanford researchers Nie and Erbring (2002) Ratherthan asking participants to estimate the amount of time they typically spend ina 12- or 24-hour time period the time-diary method asked them to indicate theamount of time they spend on a particular activity during one of four 6-hour timeblocks during the previous day

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 169

Data Analysis

We analyzed the data obtained using basic descriptive statistics whichenabled us to summarize and expose patterns emerging from these data We alsoanalyzed correlations between self-reported grades and degrees of multitaskingOur analyses were focused on (a) how often students multitasked while engagedin each of the activities viz reading for fun reading for school watching TV orusing the Internet (b) whether they felt the time spent doing one activity interferedwith or displaced other activities and (c) whether multitasking influenced theirability to concentrate on each of the main activities

RESULTS

Multitasking While Reading Voluntarily for Fun

Table 1 presents results pertaining to how often students multitasked whilereading voluntarily for fun These results show that a majority of the studentsreported performing two or more tasks ldquomost of the time some of the time ora little of the timerdquo doing such things as watching TV (6177) listening to music(6214) reading for school or doing homework (6125) writing (4646) talk-ing on the phone or texting (7235) playing games online (1958) and socialnetworking or communicating with others online via e-mail (6746)

Table 2 shows student responses pertaining to whether they felt that timespent reading for fun displaced or took time away from doing any of the otheractivities such as doing homework watching TV or using the Internet The resultsindicate that 353 of the 626 students who responded to this question reportedthat time spent reading for fun took time away from reading for school or doinghomework A majority also reported that reading for fun did not interfere with otheractivities including watching TV (7746) writing (7781) socializing withfriends (7249) social networking (7659) playing video games (8328) orperforming other activities (7549) In other words most felt they could read forfun while doing any of the other tasks but not while doing school work

TABLE 1 While You Were Reading Books Magazines or Newspapers for Fun Yesterday How OftenDid You Do Any of the Following Activities at the Same Time

Activity or TaskMost of the

TimeSome of the

TimeA Little ofthe Time Never

TotalResponses

Watching TV or videos 1801 2417 1959 3823 633Listening to music 2173 2173 1869 3786 626Reading for school 2010 2267 1849 3875 622Writing 723 1704 2219 5354 622Talking on phonetexting 2000 2677 2567 2765 635Playing games online 307 583 1068 8042 618Social networking 1817 2449 2480 3254 633Other 775 930 310 7984 129

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

170 K MOKHTARI ET AL

TABLE 2 Did You Feel That the Time You Spent Reading for Fun yesterday Took Time Away FromDoing Any of the Following Activities or Tasks

Question Yes No Unsure Total Responses

Reading for school or homework 3530 5815 655 626Watching TV videos or DVDs 1562 7746 692 621Writing 1419 7781 799 613Socializing with friends or family 2006 7249 744 618Social networking 1626 7659 715 615Playing games online 918 8328 754 610Other 539 7549 1912 204

Table 3 reports the results pertaining to whether multitasking affected stu-dentsrsquo ability to concentrate on reading for fun The results indicate that for themost part a majority of the students (about 55) reported that performing multi-ple tasks did affect their ability to concentrate on reading for fun Only 12 of the678 students who responded to this question reported that they did not multitask atall while reading for fun

We did not have access to studentsrsquo actual grades but we did have studentsrsquoself-reported grades In order to assess whether multitasking might be affectingacademic performance we correlated the self-reported grades with a combinedmeasure of multitasking The multitasking measure adds the ordinal values of eachreported multitasking instance So for example a student who reported reading forfun and watching TV ldquosome of the timerdquo (ordinal value 2) and texting ldquomost of thetimerdquo (ordinal value 3) but no other types of multitasking would have a combinedmultitasking value of 5

Table 4 shows Spearmanrsquos Rho values for self-reported grades correlatedwith the combined multitasking value for reading for fun (Rho = minus013964p lt 00004) as well as with their reported perception that multitasking affectedtheir ability to concentrate on the materials they were reading for fun (Rho =minus008909 p lt 00319) In other words reported grades are negatively correlatedwith the overall degree of multitasking even more so than the loss of concentrationthat students reported when asked directly The combined multitasking measure

TABLE 3 Did You Feel That Doing Multiple Tasks at the Same Time Yesterday Affected YourAbility to Concentrate on the Materials You Were Reading for Fun

Answer Response

Yes a lot 103 1549Yes some 260 3910No not at all 183 2752Not sure 37 556Did not multitask 82 1233Total 665 100

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 171

TABLE 4 Correlations Among Self-Reported Grades Multitasking Measure and Self-Reported Perceptionof Multitasking on Concentration While Reading for Fun

VariableAdditive Multitasking Measure

(While Reading for Fun)Self-Reported Degree That Multitasking TakesAway Concentration (While Reading for Fun)

Self-Reported Grades minus013964 (p lt 00004) minus008909 (p lt 00319)Multitasking Measure 006826 (p lt 01066)

was not strongly correlated with studentsrsquo reported lack of concentration whilemultitasking suggesting that multitaskingrsquos effect on grades does not match upwell with studentsrsquo self-perceptions

Multitasking While Reading for Academic Purposes

Table 5 presents results pertaining to how often students multitasked whilereading for academic purposes The results show that a majority of the studentsreported being engaged in performing two or more tasks while reading for aca-demic purposes most of the time some of the time or a little of the time Forinstance of the total number of students responding to this question a majorityreported listening to music (51) writing (51) talking on the phone or texting(66) and social networking (56) The exceptions to this trend are playing videogames (12) and watching TV (44)

Table 6 shows whether students felt that time spent reading for school pur-poses displaced or took time away from doing other activities such as readingfor fun watching TV or using the Internet Most students felt that reading foracademic purposes did not interfere with these activities including reading forfun (6332) watching TV (6088) socializing with friends (4898) or socialnetworking (6450)

Table 7 reports the results pertaining to whether multitasking affected stu-dentsrsquo ability to concentrate on reading for academic purposes Sixty percent of

TABLE 5 While You Wwere Completing Assigned Readings for College Classes Yesterday How OftenDid You Do Any of the Following Activities at the Same Time

QuestionMost of the

TimeSome of the

TimeA Little ofthe Time Never

TotalResponses

Watching TV VideoDVDs 1078 1680 1648 5594 631Listening to music 1735 1861 1546 4858 634Writing 1006 2332 1725 4936 626Talking on the phonetexting 1191 2226 3182 3401 638Playing video games 160 512 576 8752 625Social networking 1074 1690 2796 4439 633Other 578 636 405 8382 173

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

172 K MOKHTARI ET AL

TABLE 6 Did You Feel That the Time You Spent Reading for College Classes Yesterday Took TimeAway From Any of the Following Cctivities or Tasks

Question Yes No Unsure Total Responses Mean

Reading for fun 3056 6332 611 638 176Watching TV videos or DVDs 3459 6088 454 639 170Writing 1517 7772 711 633 192Socializing with friendsfamily 4632 4898 469 639 158Social networking 2946 6450 604 645 177Other 941 7327 1732 202 208

TABLE 7 Did You Feel That Doing Multiple Tasks at the Same Time Yesterday Affected YourAbility to Concentrate on the Materials You Were Reading for College Classes

Answer Response

Yes a lot 136 20Yes some 269 40No not at all 162 24Not sure 22 3Did not multitask 85 13Total 674 100

TABLE 8 Correlations Among Self-Reported Grades Multitasking Measure and Self-Reported Perceptionof Multitasking on Concentration While Reading for School or Homework

VariableAdditive Multitasking Measure

(While Reading for School)Self-Reported Degree That Multitasking Takes

Away Concentration (While Reading for School)

Self-reported grades minus007780 (p lt 00474) minus011675 (p lt 00049)Multitasking measure 007084 (p lt 00917)

the respondents felt that their multitasking affected their ability to concentrate a lot(20) or some (40)

Table 8 shows Spearmanrsquos Rho values for self-reported grades correlatedwith the combined multitasking value for reading for academic purposes asdescribed in the previous tables (Rho = minus00778 p lt 00474) as well as withtheir reported perception that multitasking affected their ability to concentrate onthe materials they were reading for school (Rho = minus011675 p lt 00049) Againthere is a significant negative correlation with the overall degree of multitasking

Multitasking While Watching TV

Table 9 presents results relating to how often students multitasked whilewatching TV With the exception of talking on the phone or texting and social

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 173

TABLE 9 While You Were Watching TV Yesterday How Often Did You Do Any of the FollowingActivities at the Same Time

QuestionMost of the

TimeSome of the

TimeA Little ofthe Time Never

TotalResponses

Reading for fun 573 1181 1007 7240 576Listening to music 1090 1003 502 7405 578Reading for school or homework 934 1661 1696 5709 578Writing 490 1119 1206 7185 572Talking on the phonetexting 1935 2954 2207 2903 589Playing video games 335 493 634 8539 568Social networking 1749 2568 2240 3443 549Other 664 554 148 8635 271

networking a majority of the students reported ldquoneverrdquo multitasking whilewatching TV It is worth noting that 71 of the students reported talking on thephone or texting and nearly 66 reported social networking with others whilewatching TV

Table 10 shows whether students felt that time spent watching TV displacedor took time away from doing any of the other activities The results indicatethat a majority of students felt that watching TV did not interfere much withother activities including reading for school or homework (5193) reading forfun (6927) networking with friends online (8467) writing (7525) andsocializing with friends (756)

Table 11 reports the results on whether students perceived that multitask-ing affected their ability to focus closely on watching TV The results show that41 of the students reported that performing multiple tasks affected their abilityto concentrate on watching TV a lot (9) or some (32)

Table 12 shows Spearmanrsquos Rho values for self-reported grades correlatedwith the combined multitasking value for watching TV as described in the previoustables (Rho = minus007426 p lt 00707) as well as with their reported perception thatmultitasking affected their ability to concentrate on the materials they were readingfor school (Rho = minus006326 p lt 01366) So for TV watching the correlation ofgrades with the overall degree of multitasking was not significant

TABLE 10 Did You Feel That the Time You Spent watching TV Yesterday Took Time Away From Anyof the Following Activities

Question Yes No Unsure Total Responses

Reading for school or homework 4286 5193 521 595Reading for fun 2428 6927 645 589Social networking 1005 8467 528 587Writing 1775 7525 700 586Socializing with friendsfamily 1877 7560 563 586Other 375 8375 1250 240

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

174 K MOKHTARI ET AL

TABLE 11 Did You Feel That Doing Multiple Activities at the Same Time Yesterday AffectedYour Ability to Concentrate on the TV Programs you Were Watching

Answer Response

Yes a lot 55 9Yes some 197 32No not at all 269 44Not sure 41 7Did not multitask 52 8Total 614 100

TABLE 12 Correlations Among Self-Reported Grades Multitasking Measure and Self-ReportedPerception of Multitasking on Concentration While Watching TV

VariableAdditive Multitasking Measure

(While Watching TV)Self-Reported Degree That Multitasking Takes

Away Concentration (While Watching TV)

Self-reported grades minus007426 (p lt 00707) minus006326 (p lt 01366)Multitasking measure 010976 (p lt 00103)

Multitasking While Using the Internet

Table 13 presents results related to how often students multitasked whileusing the Internet The results show that with few exceptions a majority of thestudents reported performing multiple tasks ldquomost of the time some of the timeor a little of the timerdquo while using the Internet Of the total number of studentsresponding to this question a majority reported engaging in multiple tasks such asdoing homework (65) listening to music (53) watching TV (54) and talk-ing on the phone or texting (74) In addition students also reported engagingin other activities such as reading for fun (36) playing video games (15) andperforming other tasks (11) while using the Internet

TABLE 13 While You Were Using the Internet Yesterday How Often Did You Do Any of theFollowing (Non-Internet) Activities at the Same Time

QuestionMost of the

TimeSome of the

TimeA Little ofthe Time Never

TotalResponses

Reading for school or homework 2106 2736 1609 3549 603Reading for fun 491 1557 1523 6430 591Listening to music 1946 1980 1409 4664 596Watching TV 1235 2250 1946 4569 591Writing 771 1490 1490 6250 584Talking on the phonetexting 1493 3068 2819 2620 603Playing video games 308 632 347 8496 585Other 058 694 741 8902 173

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 175

Table 14 shows student responses pertaining to whether they felt that timespent using the Internet displaced time spent on doing other activities The resultsindicate that most students did not feel that using the Internet interfered with otheractivities including reading for fun (7483) watching TV (8110) writing(7778) reading for academic purposes (6156) and socializing with friends(6772) These data seem to indicate that the Internet affected studentsrsquo readingfor school activity or academics more than it affected other activities as indicatedby the percentage of students (6156) reporting whether time spent using theInternet displaced time spent on schoolwork

Table 15 reports the results pertaining to whether multitasking affected stu-dentsrsquo ability to focus closely on using the Internet The results indicate that about41 of students reported that performing multiple tasks affected their ability toconcentrate on using the Internet a lot (9) or some of the time (32) As in otheractivities such as reading for fun reading for school or watching TV only about6 of the students who responded to this question reported not multitasking whileusing the Internet

Table 16 shows Spearmanrsquos Rho values for self-reported grades correlatedwith the combined multitasking value for using the internet as described inTables 13ndash15 (Rho = minus007532 p 00621) as well as with their reported per-ception that multitasking affected their ability to concentrate on the materials theywere reading for school (Rho = minus007989 p lt 00541) So for Internet use thecorrelation of grades with the overall degree of multitasking was not significant

TABLE 14 Did You Feel That the Time You Spent Using the Internet Yesterday Took Time Away FromAny of the Following Activities

Question Yes No Unsure Total Responses

Reading for school or homework 3274 6156 570 614Reading for fun 1967 7483 550 600Watching TV 1371 8110 518 598Writing 1599 7778 623 594Socializing with friendsfamily 2659 6772 569 598Other 468 8128 1404 235

TABLE 15 Did You Feel That Doing Multiple Activities at the Same Time Yesterday Affected YourAbility to Concentrate on What You Were Doing While Using the Internet

Answer Response

Yes a lot 59 9Yes some 201 32No not at all 287 46Not sure 41 7Did not multitask 39 6Total 627 100

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

176 K MOKHTARI ET AL

TABLE 16 Correlations Among Self-Reported Grades Multitasking Measure and Self-ReportedPerception of Multitasking on Concentration While Using the Internet

VariableAdditive Multitasking Measure

(While Using the Internet)Self-Reported Degree That Multitasking TakesAway Concentration (While Using the Internet)

Self-reported grades minus007532 (p lt 00621) minus007989 (p lt 00541)Multitasking measure 013900 (p lt 00008)

DISCUSSION

Our goal in this time-diary survey study was to shed light on the multitaskinghabits of todayrsquos college students on one college campus Consistent with priorresearch investigating college studentsrsquo reading habits and practices we found thatthe majority of the studyrsquos participants reported spending a considerable portionof their time on reading for fun reading for school watching TV and using theInternet Although not very surprising to us a key finding was that students alsoreported performing an array of other tasks simultaneously while engaged in oneor more of the four main activities under study In almost all areas the majorityof students reported that they spent time talking on the phone or texting whileengaged in other activities This finding is not unexpected given the fact that 97of individuals aged 18ndash29 have a cell phone and over 50 of those are connected tothe Internet (Anderson amp Rainie 2012) Also it is not surprising given the numberof existing cell phones that texting has become a primary mode of communicationfor many college students A recent T-Mobile study found that the average personchecks his or her phone approximately 150 times per day (T-Mobile 2012)

What we found particularly interesting was the fact that students perceivedacross all areas that multitasking for the most part did not interfere with core activ-ities such as reading for fun reading for school watching TV or using the InternetThese findings are consistent with prior research indicating that the amount of timethat college students spend on the Internet does not seem to interfere with the timethey report spending on other core activities (eg Mokhtari et al 2009 Griswoldamp Wright 2004)

However we also found that students felt that multitasking interfered withtheir reading for school purposes more so than for the other activities such as read-ing for fun (7483) watching TV (8110) writing (7778) doing homework(6156) and socializing with friends (6772) Sixty percent of the respondentsfelt that multitasking affected their ability to concentrate a lot (20) or some (40)when reading for academic purposes In essence these students acknowledged thatperforming two or more tasks simultaneously (eg listening to music watchingTV andor texting) while reading for school (eg completing a chapter readingassignment in a particular course) interfered with their ability to focus closely onthe content of that assignment This finding highlights the fact that students werecognizant that multitasking was somewhat of a distraction to their schoolwork

In a somewhat similar survey study focused on student classroom use ofdigital devices for nonclass related purposes McCoy (2013) found that more than

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 177

90 of students surveyed admitted to using media devices such as cell phoneslaptops and other devices for recreational purposes during class time with morethan 80 acknowledging that using laptops smartphones and other media devicesinterfered with their learning

When we asked students for their perceptions about multitasking the major-ity readily admitted that they felt multitasking negatively affected their ability toconcentrate on their schoolwork If this perception was true we would expectthat increases in multitasking would negatively affect student grades and indeedgrades were negatively correlated with the overall amount of multitasking reportedas well as the reported perception of loss of concentration from multitasking Yetthe perception of loss of concentration was not strongly correlated with the over-all amount of multitasking to some extent confirming that students do not fullyperceive the effects of multitasking on their academic performance

Research has shown that about only 2 of us are ldquosupertaskersrdquo multi-tasking effectively (Sundem 2012) For the rest of the 98 multitasking canreduce productivity by as much as 40 and switching from one task to anothermakes it difficult to tune out distractions and can cause mental blocks that canslow productivity (American Psychological Association 2006 Rubinstein et al2001 Sundem 2012) In his book Why Students Donrsquot Like School Willingham(2010) noted that ldquoone of the most stubborn persistent phenomena of the mind isthat when you do two things at once you donrsquot do either one as well as when youdo them one at a timerdquo (p 25) This is true not just for college students but forpeople in the workplace as well

Educational Implications and Cautions

In light of the studyrsquos main findings we recognize that multitasking is abyproduct of our modern and constantly connected world It is fueled by newand emerging information communication technologies such as the Internet Thesemedia technologies often make the ability to switch between tasks and accessinformation relatively easy so easy in fact that it can hide the cognitive costsof redirecting attention and actually processing information to gain understanding

Conversely new and emerging multitasking research seems to suggest thatthere is a high cost associated with multitasking in that it increases error in whatwe do and makes us less productive In his book Brain Rules John Medina (2009)reports that multitaskers experience about a 40 decline in productivity and take50 longer to complete a single task Although the temptation to multitask is aconstant companion we recommend that college students be mindful of its benefitsand drawbacks as they try to make themselves more efficient and more productivewhile juggling personal family and school obligations Walter Pauk a pioneer inthe field of college learning and study skills advises students to set aside or allo-cate specific periods of time (time chunking) for specific tasks in order to preventinterruptions and distractions which in turn will help students be more productive(Pauk 2010)

A valuable lesson learned from this study is that we have a great deal moreto learn about multitasking its nature benefits and inconveniences particularly

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

178 K MOKHTARI ET AL

in the context of schooling Even though students in our study told us that mul-titasking interfered with their core activities and influenced their ability to focuson focal activities such as reading for academic purposes we are not certain aboutthe conditions under which students multitask the extent to which it interferes withthe time spent on other activities and exactly how it influences their productivityFor instance when a student listens to music eats a snack and watches TV whileengaged in a core activity such as completing a reading assignment (eg read-ing a chapter in a book) for a science class what happens to his or her ability toeffectively complete the core reading assignment How do the type and number oftasks such as listening to music or watching TV while performing a core task suchas reading a chapter book affect someonersquos ability to focus on their reading assign-ment Do certain types of tasks (eg listening to music) have a lesser influence ona reading assignment than other tasks (eg talking on the phone) Are there dif-ferences in multitasking habits and practices between male and female studentsWe recommend that these questions and others be subjected to rigorous researchand investigation Answers to these questions will help address media multitaskingamong college students as a growing concern

Finally we want to share three potential limitations of this study whichshould be taken into consideration when interpreting the results and engaging infuture research that addresses multitasking among college students First it is achallenge to accurately capture studentsrsquo multitasking habits and practices throughthe use of indirect methods such as surveys or questionnaires We believe we haveminimized the design limitations of traditional self-report instruments by using atime-diary survey which provides a more accurate measure of time spent on cer-tain activities and therefore reduces error resulting in an increase in instrumentvalidity and reliability Second our time-diary survey instrument was lengthy andmay have contributed to the relatively low response rate from our original poolof students Finally even though some of our findings are consistent with priorresearch with regard to studentsrsquo multitasking habits and practices the findings ofthis study have limited generalizability in large part because the students in thisstudy were from one four-year institution

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Kouider Mokhtari PhD serves as the Anderson-Vukelja-Wright Endowed Chair of Education in theSchool of Education at The University of Texas at Tyler

Julie Delello PhD is an Assistant Professor in the School of Education at The University of Texas at Tyler

Carla Reichard PhD is Assistant Director in the Office of Research and Technology Transfer at TheUniversity of Texas at Tyler

REFERENCES

American Psychological Association (2006) Multitasking Switching costs Retrieved from httpapaorgresearchactionmultitaskaspx

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 167

that students in a general psychology course who used instant messaging whilereading an article on a computer took between 22 and 59 longer to read thearticle than students who used instant messaging before reading or those who didnot use instant messaging McCoy (2013) stated that 80 of college students checktheir digital device more than ten times per school day and confess to sending andreceiving text messages during class causing them to pay less attention to instruc-tion in the classroom With few exceptions the consensus among these studies isthat multitasking is a distraction that interferes with and compromises studentsrsquoefforts to learn and do well academically

Questioning whether multitasking interferes with reading in the digital ageRich (2008) stated ldquosome argue that the hours spent prowling the Internet arethe enemy of readingmdashdiminishing literacy wrecking attention spans and destroy-ing a precious common culture that exists only through the reading of booksrdquo(p 6) Also Elish-Piper Wold and Schwingendorf (2014) noted that as adoles-cents increase their use of digital literacies they read less for enjoyment than theydid before Conversely Mokhtari et al (2009) found that the time students reportedspending on the Internet did not displace time spent reading for academic or recre-ational purposes Even though the evidence purports the notion that multitaskinghinders cognitive functioning and performance there is still an underlying publicassumption that multitasking could produce positive outcomes which leads someto suggest that it may be a double-edged sword (Anderson amp Rainie 2012)

Multitasking and Cognitive Functioning Theory

Some theorists have proposed that the brainrsquos executive function is able toselect initiate execute and terminate tasks (Rubinstein Meyer amp Evans 2001)According to Cooper-Kahn and Dietzel (2008) ldquothe executive functions are a set ofprocesses that all have to do with managing oneself and onersquos resources in order toachieve a goal It is an umbrella term for the neurologically-based skills involvingmental control and self-regulationrdquo (p 6) One component of executive functioningis cognitive flexibility or multitasking The theory of ldquocognitive flexibilityrdquo or ldquotaskswitchingrdquo has been described as the mental ability to switch between thinkingabout two different concepts and thinking about multiple concepts simultaneously(Scott 1962)

An article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggestedthat human cognition is unable to process multiple media streams at once leavingmany individuals unable to cope with the changing media environment (OphirNass Wagner amp Posner 2009) Also ldquoswitching to a new task is slower andmore error prone than performance when repeating a taskrdquo (Leber Turk-Browneamp Chun 2008 para 1) This continual interchange from one task to another mightalso lessen the ability to ignore distractions leading to a state of ldquoinfomaniardquo(Zeldes Sward amp Louchheim 2007)

THE PRESENT STUDY

In an era of digital distractions the continual switching of attention could have sig-nificant implications for college students in regard to teaching and learning With

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

168 K MOKHTARI ET AL

the rapid advancement of new digital technologies research is needed to betterunderstand whether engaging in multiple tasks interferes with core activities andwhether multitasking influences learning and academic performance In this studywe wanted to explore in more depth the practice of multitasking among collegestudents We asked students to report their multitasking behaviors while engagedin four main activities reading voluntarily for fun reading for school watchingTV and using the Internet Specifically we were interested in finding out

(1) how often students multitasked while engaged in each of these activities(2) whether they felt the time spent doing one activity interfered with or

displaced other activities and(3) whether multitasking influenced their ability to concentrate on each of

the main activities reading for fun reading for school watching TV orusing the Internet

For purposes of this study we operationally define multitasking as performing twoor more tasks simultaneously switching rapidly back and forth from one task toanother

METHOD

Participants

Study participants included 935 undergraduate college students who werepursuing a bachelorrsquos degree at one public regional four-year university in themidwestern United States Participants included a cross section of students withrespect to rank (17 Freshmen 15 Sophomores 31 Juniors and 37 Seniors)and majors in college ranging from accounting to nursing We sent a link to thetime-diary survey to approximately 7000 students enrolled during the fall semesterof 2013 The 935 usable responses represent a 1335 response rate As a grouprespondents closely mirrored the student population of undergraduate students atthe university in terms of age (mean = 225) gender (55 female 45 male) andethnic diversity (70 White 11 Hispanic 9 African-American 7 Asian and3 representing other ethnic groups)

Data Sources

We used an innovative time-diary survey method which targeted specificaspects of studentsrsquo reading habits and practices ranging from time spent on partic-ular activities in a given day to whether they performed other tasks while engagedin these activities We adapted our survey from an instrument titled ldquoThe 6-HourTime Diaryrdquo developed by Stanford researchers Nie and Erbring (2002) Ratherthan asking participants to estimate the amount of time they typically spend ina 12- or 24-hour time period the time-diary method asked them to indicate theamount of time they spend on a particular activity during one of four 6-hour timeblocks during the previous day

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 169

Data Analysis

We analyzed the data obtained using basic descriptive statistics whichenabled us to summarize and expose patterns emerging from these data We alsoanalyzed correlations between self-reported grades and degrees of multitaskingOur analyses were focused on (a) how often students multitasked while engagedin each of the activities viz reading for fun reading for school watching TV orusing the Internet (b) whether they felt the time spent doing one activity interferedwith or displaced other activities and (c) whether multitasking influenced theirability to concentrate on each of the main activities

RESULTS

Multitasking While Reading Voluntarily for Fun

Table 1 presents results pertaining to how often students multitasked whilereading voluntarily for fun These results show that a majority of the studentsreported performing two or more tasks ldquomost of the time some of the time ora little of the timerdquo doing such things as watching TV (6177) listening to music(6214) reading for school or doing homework (6125) writing (4646) talk-ing on the phone or texting (7235) playing games online (1958) and socialnetworking or communicating with others online via e-mail (6746)

Table 2 shows student responses pertaining to whether they felt that timespent reading for fun displaced or took time away from doing any of the otheractivities such as doing homework watching TV or using the Internet The resultsindicate that 353 of the 626 students who responded to this question reportedthat time spent reading for fun took time away from reading for school or doinghomework A majority also reported that reading for fun did not interfere with otheractivities including watching TV (7746) writing (7781) socializing withfriends (7249) social networking (7659) playing video games (8328) orperforming other activities (7549) In other words most felt they could read forfun while doing any of the other tasks but not while doing school work

TABLE 1 While You Were Reading Books Magazines or Newspapers for Fun Yesterday How OftenDid You Do Any of the Following Activities at the Same Time

Activity or TaskMost of the

TimeSome of the

TimeA Little ofthe Time Never

TotalResponses

Watching TV or videos 1801 2417 1959 3823 633Listening to music 2173 2173 1869 3786 626Reading for school 2010 2267 1849 3875 622Writing 723 1704 2219 5354 622Talking on phonetexting 2000 2677 2567 2765 635Playing games online 307 583 1068 8042 618Social networking 1817 2449 2480 3254 633Other 775 930 310 7984 129

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

170 K MOKHTARI ET AL

TABLE 2 Did You Feel That the Time You Spent Reading for Fun yesterday Took Time Away FromDoing Any of the Following Activities or Tasks

Question Yes No Unsure Total Responses

Reading for school or homework 3530 5815 655 626Watching TV videos or DVDs 1562 7746 692 621Writing 1419 7781 799 613Socializing with friends or family 2006 7249 744 618Social networking 1626 7659 715 615Playing games online 918 8328 754 610Other 539 7549 1912 204

Table 3 reports the results pertaining to whether multitasking affected stu-dentsrsquo ability to concentrate on reading for fun The results indicate that for themost part a majority of the students (about 55) reported that performing multi-ple tasks did affect their ability to concentrate on reading for fun Only 12 of the678 students who responded to this question reported that they did not multitask atall while reading for fun

We did not have access to studentsrsquo actual grades but we did have studentsrsquoself-reported grades In order to assess whether multitasking might be affectingacademic performance we correlated the self-reported grades with a combinedmeasure of multitasking The multitasking measure adds the ordinal values of eachreported multitasking instance So for example a student who reported reading forfun and watching TV ldquosome of the timerdquo (ordinal value 2) and texting ldquomost of thetimerdquo (ordinal value 3) but no other types of multitasking would have a combinedmultitasking value of 5

Table 4 shows Spearmanrsquos Rho values for self-reported grades correlatedwith the combined multitasking value for reading for fun (Rho = minus013964p lt 00004) as well as with their reported perception that multitasking affectedtheir ability to concentrate on the materials they were reading for fun (Rho =minus008909 p lt 00319) In other words reported grades are negatively correlatedwith the overall degree of multitasking even more so than the loss of concentrationthat students reported when asked directly The combined multitasking measure

TABLE 3 Did You Feel That Doing Multiple Tasks at the Same Time Yesterday Affected YourAbility to Concentrate on the Materials You Were Reading for Fun

Answer Response

Yes a lot 103 1549Yes some 260 3910No not at all 183 2752Not sure 37 556Did not multitask 82 1233Total 665 100

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 171

TABLE 4 Correlations Among Self-Reported Grades Multitasking Measure and Self-Reported Perceptionof Multitasking on Concentration While Reading for Fun

VariableAdditive Multitasking Measure

(While Reading for Fun)Self-Reported Degree That Multitasking TakesAway Concentration (While Reading for Fun)

Self-Reported Grades minus013964 (p lt 00004) minus008909 (p lt 00319)Multitasking Measure 006826 (p lt 01066)

was not strongly correlated with studentsrsquo reported lack of concentration whilemultitasking suggesting that multitaskingrsquos effect on grades does not match upwell with studentsrsquo self-perceptions

Multitasking While Reading for Academic Purposes

Table 5 presents results pertaining to how often students multitasked whilereading for academic purposes The results show that a majority of the studentsreported being engaged in performing two or more tasks while reading for aca-demic purposes most of the time some of the time or a little of the time Forinstance of the total number of students responding to this question a majorityreported listening to music (51) writing (51) talking on the phone or texting(66) and social networking (56) The exceptions to this trend are playing videogames (12) and watching TV (44)

Table 6 shows whether students felt that time spent reading for school pur-poses displaced or took time away from doing other activities such as readingfor fun watching TV or using the Internet Most students felt that reading foracademic purposes did not interfere with these activities including reading forfun (6332) watching TV (6088) socializing with friends (4898) or socialnetworking (6450)

Table 7 reports the results pertaining to whether multitasking affected stu-dentsrsquo ability to concentrate on reading for academic purposes Sixty percent of

TABLE 5 While You Wwere Completing Assigned Readings for College Classes Yesterday How OftenDid You Do Any of the Following Activities at the Same Time

QuestionMost of the

TimeSome of the

TimeA Little ofthe Time Never

TotalResponses

Watching TV VideoDVDs 1078 1680 1648 5594 631Listening to music 1735 1861 1546 4858 634Writing 1006 2332 1725 4936 626Talking on the phonetexting 1191 2226 3182 3401 638Playing video games 160 512 576 8752 625Social networking 1074 1690 2796 4439 633Other 578 636 405 8382 173

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

172 K MOKHTARI ET AL

TABLE 6 Did You Feel That the Time You Spent Reading for College Classes Yesterday Took TimeAway From Any of the Following Cctivities or Tasks

Question Yes No Unsure Total Responses Mean

Reading for fun 3056 6332 611 638 176Watching TV videos or DVDs 3459 6088 454 639 170Writing 1517 7772 711 633 192Socializing with friendsfamily 4632 4898 469 639 158Social networking 2946 6450 604 645 177Other 941 7327 1732 202 208

TABLE 7 Did You Feel That Doing Multiple Tasks at the Same Time Yesterday Affected YourAbility to Concentrate on the Materials You Were Reading for College Classes

Answer Response

Yes a lot 136 20Yes some 269 40No not at all 162 24Not sure 22 3Did not multitask 85 13Total 674 100

TABLE 8 Correlations Among Self-Reported Grades Multitasking Measure and Self-Reported Perceptionof Multitasking on Concentration While Reading for School or Homework

VariableAdditive Multitasking Measure

(While Reading for School)Self-Reported Degree That Multitasking Takes

Away Concentration (While Reading for School)

Self-reported grades minus007780 (p lt 00474) minus011675 (p lt 00049)Multitasking measure 007084 (p lt 00917)

the respondents felt that their multitasking affected their ability to concentrate a lot(20) or some (40)

Table 8 shows Spearmanrsquos Rho values for self-reported grades correlatedwith the combined multitasking value for reading for academic purposes asdescribed in the previous tables (Rho = minus00778 p lt 00474) as well as withtheir reported perception that multitasking affected their ability to concentrate onthe materials they were reading for school (Rho = minus011675 p lt 00049) Againthere is a significant negative correlation with the overall degree of multitasking

Multitasking While Watching TV

Table 9 presents results relating to how often students multitasked whilewatching TV With the exception of talking on the phone or texting and social

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 173

TABLE 9 While You Were Watching TV Yesterday How Often Did You Do Any of the FollowingActivities at the Same Time

QuestionMost of the

TimeSome of the

TimeA Little ofthe Time Never

TotalResponses

Reading for fun 573 1181 1007 7240 576Listening to music 1090 1003 502 7405 578Reading for school or homework 934 1661 1696 5709 578Writing 490 1119 1206 7185 572Talking on the phonetexting 1935 2954 2207 2903 589Playing video games 335 493 634 8539 568Social networking 1749 2568 2240 3443 549Other 664 554 148 8635 271

networking a majority of the students reported ldquoneverrdquo multitasking whilewatching TV It is worth noting that 71 of the students reported talking on thephone or texting and nearly 66 reported social networking with others whilewatching TV

Table 10 shows whether students felt that time spent watching TV displacedor took time away from doing any of the other activities The results indicatethat a majority of students felt that watching TV did not interfere much withother activities including reading for school or homework (5193) reading forfun (6927) networking with friends online (8467) writing (7525) andsocializing with friends (756)

Table 11 reports the results on whether students perceived that multitask-ing affected their ability to focus closely on watching TV The results show that41 of the students reported that performing multiple tasks affected their abilityto concentrate on watching TV a lot (9) or some (32)

Table 12 shows Spearmanrsquos Rho values for self-reported grades correlatedwith the combined multitasking value for watching TV as described in the previoustables (Rho = minus007426 p lt 00707) as well as with their reported perception thatmultitasking affected their ability to concentrate on the materials they were readingfor school (Rho = minus006326 p lt 01366) So for TV watching the correlation ofgrades with the overall degree of multitasking was not significant

TABLE 10 Did You Feel That the Time You Spent watching TV Yesterday Took Time Away From Anyof the Following Activities

Question Yes No Unsure Total Responses

Reading for school or homework 4286 5193 521 595Reading for fun 2428 6927 645 589Social networking 1005 8467 528 587Writing 1775 7525 700 586Socializing with friendsfamily 1877 7560 563 586Other 375 8375 1250 240

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

174 K MOKHTARI ET AL

TABLE 11 Did You Feel That Doing Multiple Activities at the Same Time Yesterday AffectedYour Ability to Concentrate on the TV Programs you Were Watching

Answer Response

Yes a lot 55 9Yes some 197 32No not at all 269 44Not sure 41 7Did not multitask 52 8Total 614 100

TABLE 12 Correlations Among Self-Reported Grades Multitasking Measure and Self-ReportedPerception of Multitasking on Concentration While Watching TV

VariableAdditive Multitasking Measure

(While Watching TV)Self-Reported Degree That Multitasking Takes

Away Concentration (While Watching TV)

Self-reported grades minus007426 (p lt 00707) minus006326 (p lt 01366)Multitasking measure 010976 (p lt 00103)

Multitasking While Using the Internet

Table 13 presents results related to how often students multitasked whileusing the Internet The results show that with few exceptions a majority of thestudents reported performing multiple tasks ldquomost of the time some of the timeor a little of the timerdquo while using the Internet Of the total number of studentsresponding to this question a majority reported engaging in multiple tasks such asdoing homework (65) listening to music (53) watching TV (54) and talk-ing on the phone or texting (74) In addition students also reported engagingin other activities such as reading for fun (36) playing video games (15) andperforming other tasks (11) while using the Internet

TABLE 13 While You Were Using the Internet Yesterday How Often Did You Do Any of theFollowing (Non-Internet) Activities at the Same Time

QuestionMost of the

TimeSome of the

TimeA Little ofthe Time Never

TotalResponses

Reading for school or homework 2106 2736 1609 3549 603Reading for fun 491 1557 1523 6430 591Listening to music 1946 1980 1409 4664 596Watching TV 1235 2250 1946 4569 591Writing 771 1490 1490 6250 584Talking on the phonetexting 1493 3068 2819 2620 603Playing video games 308 632 347 8496 585Other 058 694 741 8902 173

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 175

Table 14 shows student responses pertaining to whether they felt that timespent using the Internet displaced time spent on doing other activities The resultsindicate that most students did not feel that using the Internet interfered with otheractivities including reading for fun (7483) watching TV (8110) writing(7778) reading for academic purposes (6156) and socializing with friends(6772) These data seem to indicate that the Internet affected studentsrsquo readingfor school activity or academics more than it affected other activities as indicatedby the percentage of students (6156) reporting whether time spent using theInternet displaced time spent on schoolwork

Table 15 reports the results pertaining to whether multitasking affected stu-dentsrsquo ability to focus closely on using the Internet The results indicate that about41 of students reported that performing multiple tasks affected their ability toconcentrate on using the Internet a lot (9) or some of the time (32) As in otheractivities such as reading for fun reading for school or watching TV only about6 of the students who responded to this question reported not multitasking whileusing the Internet

Table 16 shows Spearmanrsquos Rho values for self-reported grades correlatedwith the combined multitasking value for using the internet as described inTables 13ndash15 (Rho = minus007532 p 00621) as well as with their reported per-ception that multitasking affected their ability to concentrate on the materials theywere reading for school (Rho = minus007989 p lt 00541) So for Internet use thecorrelation of grades with the overall degree of multitasking was not significant

TABLE 14 Did You Feel That the Time You Spent Using the Internet Yesterday Took Time Away FromAny of the Following Activities

Question Yes No Unsure Total Responses

Reading for school or homework 3274 6156 570 614Reading for fun 1967 7483 550 600Watching TV 1371 8110 518 598Writing 1599 7778 623 594Socializing with friendsfamily 2659 6772 569 598Other 468 8128 1404 235

TABLE 15 Did You Feel That Doing Multiple Activities at the Same Time Yesterday Affected YourAbility to Concentrate on What You Were Doing While Using the Internet

Answer Response

Yes a lot 59 9Yes some 201 32No not at all 287 46Not sure 41 7Did not multitask 39 6Total 627 100

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

176 K MOKHTARI ET AL

TABLE 16 Correlations Among Self-Reported Grades Multitasking Measure and Self-ReportedPerception of Multitasking on Concentration While Using the Internet

VariableAdditive Multitasking Measure

(While Using the Internet)Self-Reported Degree That Multitasking TakesAway Concentration (While Using the Internet)

Self-reported grades minus007532 (p lt 00621) minus007989 (p lt 00541)Multitasking measure 013900 (p lt 00008)

DISCUSSION

Our goal in this time-diary survey study was to shed light on the multitaskinghabits of todayrsquos college students on one college campus Consistent with priorresearch investigating college studentsrsquo reading habits and practices we found thatthe majority of the studyrsquos participants reported spending a considerable portionof their time on reading for fun reading for school watching TV and using theInternet Although not very surprising to us a key finding was that students alsoreported performing an array of other tasks simultaneously while engaged in oneor more of the four main activities under study In almost all areas the majorityof students reported that they spent time talking on the phone or texting whileengaged in other activities This finding is not unexpected given the fact that 97of individuals aged 18ndash29 have a cell phone and over 50 of those are connected tothe Internet (Anderson amp Rainie 2012) Also it is not surprising given the numberof existing cell phones that texting has become a primary mode of communicationfor many college students A recent T-Mobile study found that the average personchecks his or her phone approximately 150 times per day (T-Mobile 2012)

What we found particularly interesting was the fact that students perceivedacross all areas that multitasking for the most part did not interfere with core activ-ities such as reading for fun reading for school watching TV or using the InternetThese findings are consistent with prior research indicating that the amount of timethat college students spend on the Internet does not seem to interfere with the timethey report spending on other core activities (eg Mokhtari et al 2009 Griswoldamp Wright 2004)

However we also found that students felt that multitasking interfered withtheir reading for school purposes more so than for the other activities such as read-ing for fun (7483) watching TV (8110) writing (7778) doing homework(6156) and socializing with friends (6772) Sixty percent of the respondentsfelt that multitasking affected their ability to concentrate a lot (20) or some (40)when reading for academic purposes In essence these students acknowledged thatperforming two or more tasks simultaneously (eg listening to music watchingTV andor texting) while reading for school (eg completing a chapter readingassignment in a particular course) interfered with their ability to focus closely onthe content of that assignment This finding highlights the fact that students werecognizant that multitasking was somewhat of a distraction to their schoolwork

In a somewhat similar survey study focused on student classroom use ofdigital devices for nonclass related purposes McCoy (2013) found that more than

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 177

90 of students surveyed admitted to using media devices such as cell phoneslaptops and other devices for recreational purposes during class time with morethan 80 acknowledging that using laptops smartphones and other media devicesinterfered with their learning

When we asked students for their perceptions about multitasking the major-ity readily admitted that they felt multitasking negatively affected their ability toconcentrate on their schoolwork If this perception was true we would expectthat increases in multitasking would negatively affect student grades and indeedgrades were negatively correlated with the overall amount of multitasking reportedas well as the reported perception of loss of concentration from multitasking Yetthe perception of loss of concentration was not strongly correlated with the over-all amount of multitasking to some extent confirming that students do not fullyperceive the effects of multitasking on their academic performance

Research has shown that about only 2 of us are ldquosupertaskersrdquo multi-tasking effectively (Sundem 2012) For the rest of the 98 multitasking canreduce productivity by as much as 40 and switching from one task to anothermakes it difficult to tune out distractions and can cause mental blocks that canslow productivity (American Psychological Association 2006 Rubinstein et al2001 Sundem 2012) In his book Why Students Donrsquot Like School Willingham(2010) noted that ldquoone of the most stubborn persistent phenomena of the mind isthat when you do two things at once you donrsquot do either one as well as when youdo them one at a timerdquo (p 25) This is true not just for college students but forpeople in the workplace as well

Educational Implications and Cautions

In light of the studyrsquos main findings we recognize that multitasking is abyproduct of our modern and constantly connected world It is fueled by newand emerging information communication technologies such as the Internet Thesemedia technologies often make the ability to switch between tasks and accessinformation relatively easy so easy in fact that it can hide the cognitive costsof redirecting attention and actually processing information to gain understanding

Conversely new and emerging multitasking research seems to suggest thatthere is a high cost associated with multitasking in that it increases error in whatwe do and makes us less productive In his book Brain Rules John Medina (2009)reports that multitaskers experience about a 40 decline in productivity and take50 longer to complete a single task Although the temptation to multitask is aconstant companion we recommend that college students be mindful of its benefitsand drawbacks as they try to make themselves more efficient and more productivewhile juggling personal family and school obligations Walter Pauk a pioneer inthe field of college learning and study skills advises students to set aside or allo-cate specific periods of time (time chunking) for specific tasks in order to preventinterruptions and distractions which in turn will help students be more productive(Pauk 2010)

A valuable lesson learned from this study is that we have a great deal moreto learn about multitasking its nature benefits and inconveniences particularly

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

178 K MOKHTARI ET AL

in the context of schooling Even though students in our study told us that mul-titasking interfered with their core activities and influenced their ability to focuson focal activities such as reading for academic purposes we are not certain aboutthe conditions under which students multitask the extent to which it interferes withthe time spent on other activities and exactly how it influences their productivityFor instance when a student listens to music eats a snack and watches TV whileengaged in a core activity such as completing a reading assignment (eg read-ing a chapter in a book) for a science class what happens to his or her ability toeffectively complete the core reading assignment How do the type and number oftasks such as listening to music or watching TV while performing a core task suchas reading a chapter book affect someonersquos ability to focus on their reading assign-ment Do certain types of tasks (eg listening to music) have a lesser influence ona reading assignment than other tasks (eg talking on the phone) Are there dif-ferences in multitasking habits and practices between male and female studentsWe recommend that these questions and others be subjected to rigorous researchand investigation Answers to these questions will help address media multitaskingamong college students as a growing concern

Finally we want to share three potential limitations of this study whichshould be taken into consideration when interpreting the results and engaging infuture research that addresses multitasking among college students First it is achallenge to accurately capture studentsrsquo multitasking habits and practices throughthe use of indirect methods such as surveys or questionnaires We believe we haveminimized the design limitations of traditional self-report instruments by using atime-diary survey which provides a more accurate measure of time spent on cer-tain activities and therefore reduces error resulting in an increase in instrumentvalidity and reliability Second our time-diary survey instrument was lengthy andmay have contributed to the relatively low response rate from our original poolof students Finally even though some of our findings are consistent with priorresearch with regard to studentsrsquo multitasking habits and practices the findings ofthis study have limited generalizability in large part because the students in thisstudy were from one four-year institution

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Kouider Mokhtari PhD serves as the Anderson-Vukelja-Wright Endowed Chair of Education in theSchool of Education at The University of Texas at Tyler

Julie Delello PhD is an Assistant Professor in the School of Education at The University of Texas at Tyler

Carla Reichard PhD is Assistant Director in the Office of Research and Technology Transfer at TheUniversity of Texas at Tyler

REFERENCES

American Psychological Association (2006) Multitasking Switching costs Retrieved from httpapaorgresearchactionmultitaskaspx

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

168 K MOKHTARI ET AL

the rapid advancement of new digital technologies research is needed to betterunderstand whether engaging in multiple tasks interferes with core activities andwhether multitasking influences learning and academic performance In this studywe wanted to explore in more depth the practice of multitasking among collegestudents We asked students to report their multitasking behaviors while engagedin four main activities reading voluntarily for fun reading for school watchingTV and using the Internet Specifically we were interested in finding out

(1) how often students multitasked while engaged in each of these activities(2) whether they felt the time spent doing one activity interfered with or

displaced other activities and(3) whether multitasking influenced their ability to concentrate on each of

the main activities reading for fun reading for school watching TV orusing the Internet

For purposes of this study we operationally define multitasking as performing twoor more tasks simultaneously switching rapidly back and forth from one task toanother

METHOD

Participants

Study participants included 935 undergraduate college students who werepursuing a bachelorrsquos degree at one public regional four-year university in themidwestern United States Participants included a cross section of students withrespect to rank (17 Freshmen 15 Sophomores 31 Juniors and 37 Seniors)and majors in college ranging from accounting to nursing We sent a link to thetime-diary survey to approximately 7000 students enrolled during the fall semesterof 2013 The 935 usable responses represent a 1335 response rate As a grouprespondents closely mirrored the student population of undergraduate students atthe university in terms of age (mean = 225) gender (55 female 45 male) andethnic diversity (70 White 11 Hispanic 9 African-American 7 Asian and3 representing other ethnic groups)

Data Sources

We used an innovative time-diary survey method which targeted specificaspects of studentsrsquo reading habits and practices ranging from time spent on partic-ular activities in a given day to whether they performed other tasks while engagedin these activities We adapted our survey from an instrument titled ldquoThe 6-HourTime Diaryrdquo developed by Stanford researchers Nie and Erbring (2002) Ratherthan asking participants to estimate the amount of time they typically spend ina 12- or 24-hour time period the time-diary method asked them to indicate theamount of time they spend on a particular activity during one of four 6-hour timeblocks during the previous day

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 169

Data Analysis

We analyzed the data obtained using basic descriptive statistics whichenabled us to summarize and expose patterns emerging from these data We alsoanalyzed correlations between self-reported grades and degrees of multitaskingOur analyses were focused on (a) how often students multitasked while engagedin each of the activities viz reading for fun reading for school watching TV orusing the Internet (b) whether they felt the time spent doing one activity interferedwith or displaced other activities and (c) whether multitasking influenced theirability to concentrate on each of the main activities

RESULTS

Multitasking While Reading Voluntarily for Fun

Table 1 presents results pertaining to how often students multitasked whilereading voluntarily for fun These results show that a majority of the studentsreported performing two or more tasks ldquomost of the time some of the time ora little of the timerdquo doing such things as watching TV (6177) listening to music(6214) reading for school or doing homework (6125) writing (4646) talk-ing on the phone or texting (7235) playing games online (1958) and socialnetworking or communicating with others online via e-mail (6746)

Table 2 shows student responses pertaining to whether they felt that timespent reading for fun displaced or took time away from doing any of the otheractivities such as doing homework watching TV or using the Internet The resultsindicate that 353 of the 626 students who responded to this question reportedthat time spent reading for fun took time away from reading for school or doinghomework A majority also reported that reading for fun did not interfere with otheractivities including watching TV (7746) writing (7781) socializing withfriends (7249) social networking (7659) playing video games (8328) orperforming other activities (7549) In other words most felt they could read forfun while doing any of the other tasks but not while doing school work

TABLE 1 While You Were Reading Books Magazines or Newspapers for Fun Yesterday How OftenDid You Do Any of the Following Activities at the Same Time

Activity or TaskMost of the

TimeSome of the

TimeA Little ofthe Time Never

TotalResponses

Watching TV or videos 1801 2417 1959 3823 633Listening to music 2173 2173 1869 3786 626Reading for school 2010 2267 1849 3875 622Writing 723 1704 2219 5354 622Talking on phonetexting 2000 2677 2567 2765 635Playing games online 307 583 1068 8042 618Social networking 1817 2449 2480 3254 633Other 775 930 310 7984 129

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

170 K MOKHTARI ET AL

TABLE 2 Did You Feel That the Time You Spent Reading for Fun yesterday Took Time Away FromDoing Any of the Following Activities or Tasks

Question Yes No Unsure Total Responses

Reading for school or homework 3530 5815 655 626Watching TV videos or DVDs 1562 7746 692 621Writing 1419 7781 799 613Socializing with friends or family 2006 7249 744 618Social networking 1626 7659 715 615Playing games online 918 8328 754 610Other 539 7549 1912 204

Table 3 reports the results pertaining to whether multitasking affected stu-dentsrsquo ability to concentrate on reading for fun The results indicate that for themost part a majority of the students (about 55) reported that performing multi-ple tasks did affect their ability to concentrate on reading for fun Only 12 of the678 students who responded to this question reported that they did not multitask atall while reading for fun

We did not have access to studentsrsquo actual grades but we did have studentsrsquoself-reported grades In order to assess whether multitasking might be affectingacademic performance we correlated the self-reported grades with a combinedmeasure of multitasking The multitasking measure adds the ordinal values of eachreported multitasking instance So for example a student who reported reading forfun and watching TV ldquosome of the timerdquo (ordinal value 2) and texting ldquomost of thetimerdquo (ordinal value 3) but no other types of multitasking would have a combinedmultitasking value of 5

Table 4 shows Spearmanrsquos Rho values for self-reported grades correlatedwith the combined multitasking value for reading for fun (Rho = minus013964p lt 00004) as well as with their reported perception that multitasking affectedtheir ability to concentrate on the materials they were reading for fun (Rho =minus008909 p lt 00319) In other words reported grades are negatively correlatedwith the overall degree of multitasking even more so than the loss of concentrationthat students reported when asked directly The combined multitasking measure

TABLE 3 Did You Feel That Doing Multiple Tasks at the Same Time Yesterday Affected YourAbility to Concentrate on the Materials You Were Reading for Fun

Answer Response

Yes a lot 103 1549Yes some 260 3910No not at all 183 2752Not sure 37 556Did not multitask 82 1233Total 665 100

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 171

TABLE 4 Correlations Among Self-Reported Grades Multitasking Measure and Self-Reported Perceptionof Multitasking on Concentration While Reading for Fun

VariableAdditive Multitasking Measure

(While Reading for Fun)Self-Reported Degree That Multitasking TakesAway Concentration (While Reading for Fun)

Self-Reported Grades minus013964 (p lt 00004) minus008909 (p lt 00319)Multitasking Measure 006826 (p lt 01066)

was not strongly correlated with studentsrsquo reported lack of concentration whilemultitasking suggesting that multitaskingrsquos effect on grades does not match upwell with studentsrsquo self-perceptions

Multitasking While Reading for Academic Purposes

Table 5 presents results pertaining to how often students multitasked whilereading for academic purposes The results show that a majority of the studentsreported being engaged in performing two or more tasks while reading for aca-demic purposes most of the time some of the time or a little of the time Forinstance of the total number of students responding to this question a majorityreported listening to music (51) writing (51) talking on the phone or texting(66) and social networking (56) The exceptions to this trend are playing videogames (12) and watching TV (44)

Table 6 shows whether students felt that time spent reading for school pur-poses displaced or took time away from doing other activities such as readingfor fun watching TV or using the Internet Most students felt that reading foracademic purposes did not interfere with these activities including reading forfun (6332) watching TV (6088) socializing with friends (4898) or socialnetworking (6450)

Table 7 reports the results pertaining to whether multitasking affected stu-dentsrsquo ability to concentrate on reading for academic purposes Sixty percent of

TABLE 5 While You Wwere Completing Assigned Readings for College Classes Yesterday How OftenDid You Do Any of the Following Activities at the Same Time

QuestionMost of the

TimeSome of the

TimeA Little ofthe Time Never

TotalResponses

Watching TV VideoDVDs 1078 1680 1648 5594 631Listening to music 1735 1861 1546 4858 634Writing 1006 2332 1725 4936 626Talking on the phonetexting 1191 2226 3182 3401 638Playing video games 160 512 576 8752 625Social networking 1074 1690 2796 4439 633Other 578 636 405 8382 173

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

172 K MOKHTARI ET AL

TABLE 6 Did You Feel That the Time You Spent Reading for College Classes Yesterday Took TimeAway From Any of the Following Cctivities or Tasks

Question Yes No Unsure Total Responses Mean

Reading for fun 3056 6332 611 638 176Watching TV videos or DVDs 3459 6088 454 639 170Writing 1517 7772 711 633 192Socializing with friendsfamily 4632 4898 469 639 158Social networking 2946 6450 604 645 177Other 941 7327 1732 202 208

TABLE 7 Did You Feel That Doing Multiple Tasks at the Same Time Yesterday Affected YourAbility to Concentrate on the Materials You Were Reading for College Classes

Answer Response

Yes a lot 136 20Yes some 269 40No not at all 162 24Not sure 22 3Did not multitask 85 13Total 674 100

TABLE 8 Correlations Among Self-Reported Grades Multitasking Measure and Self-Reported Perceptionof Multitasking on Concentration While Reading for School or Homework

VariableAdditive Multitasking Measure

(While Reading for School)Self-Reported Degree That Multitasking Takes

Away Concentration (While Reading for School)

Self-reported grades minus007780 (p lt 00474) minus011675 (p lt 00049)Multitasking measure 007084 (p lt 00917)

the respondents felt that their multitasking affected their ability to concentrate a lot(20) or some (40)

Table 8 shows Spearmanrsquos Rho values for self-reported grades correlatedwith the combined multitasking value for reading for academic purposes asdescribed in the previous tables (Rho = minus00778 p lt 00474) as well as withtheir reported perception that multitasking affected their ability to concentrate onthe materials they were reading for school (Rho = minus011675 p lt 00049) Againthere is a significant negative correlation with the overall degree of multitasking

Multitasking While Watching TV

Table 9 presents results relating to how often students multitasked whilewatching TV With the exception of talking on the phone or texting and social

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 173

TABLE 9 While You Were Watching TV Yesterday How Often Did You Do Any of the FollowingActivities at the Same Time

QuestionMost of the

TimeSome of the

TimeA Little ofthe Time Never

TotalResponses

Reading for fun 573 1181 1007 7240 576Listening to music 1090 1003 502 7405 578Reading for school or homework 934 1661 1696 5709 578Writing 490 1119 1206 7185 572Talking on the phonetexting 1935 2954 2207 2903 589Playing video games 335 493 634 8539 568Social networking 1749 2568 2240 3443 549Other 664 554 148 8635 271

networking a majority of the students reported ldquoneverrdquo multitasking whilewatching TV It is worth noting that 71 of the students reported talking on thephone or texting and nearly 66 reported social networking with others whilewatching TV

Table 10 shows whether students felt that time spent watching TV displacedor took time away from doing any of the other activities The results indicatethat a majority of students felt that watching TV did not interfere much withother activities including reading for school or homework (5193) reading forfun (6927) networking with friends online (8467) writing (7525) andsocializing with friends (756)

Table 11 reports the results on whether students perceived that multitask-ing affected their ability to focus closely on watching TV The results show that41 of the students reported that performing multiple tasks affected their abilityto concentrate on watching TV a lot (9) or some (32)

Table 12 shows Spearmanrsquos Rho values for self-reported grades correlatedwith the combined multitasking value for watching TV as described in the previoustables (Rho = minus007426 p lt 00707) as well as with their reported perception thatmultitasking affected their ability to concentrate on the materials they were readingfor school (Rho = minus006326 p lt 01366) So for TV watching the correlation ofgrades with the overall degree of multitasking was not significant

TABLE 10 Did You Feel That the Time You Spent watching TV Yesterday Took Time Away From Anyof the Following Activities

Question Yes No Unsure Total Responses

Reading for school or homework 4286 5193 521 595Reading for fun 2428 6927 645 589Social networking 1005 8467 528 587Writing 1775 7525 700 586Socializing with friendsfamily 1877 7560 563 586Other 375 8375 1250 240

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

174 K MOKHTARI ET AL

TABLE 11 Did You Feel That Doing Multiple Activities at the Same Time Yesterday AffectedYour Ability to Concentrate on the TV Programs you Were Watching

Answer Response

Yes a lot 55 9Yes some 197 32No not at all 269 44Not sure 41 7Did not multitask 52 8Total 614 100

TABLE 12 Correlations Among Self-Reported Grades Multitasking Measure and Self-ReportedPerception of Multitasking on Concentration While Watching TV

VariableAdditive Multitasking Measure

(While Watching TV)Self-Reported Degree That Multitasking Takes

Away Concentration (While Watching TV)

Self-reported grades minus007426 (p lt 00707) minus006326 (p lt 01366)Multitasking measure 010976 (p lt 00103)

Multitasking While Using the Internet

Table 13 presents results related to how often students multitasked whileusing the Internet The results show that with few exceptions a majority of thestudents reported performing multiple tasks ldquomost of the time some of the timeor a little of the timerdquo while using the Internet Of the total number of studentsresponding to this question a majority reported engaging in multiple tasks such asdoing homework (65) listening to music (53) watching TV (54) and talk-ing on the phone or texting (74) In addition students also reported engagingin other activities such as reading for fun (36) playing video games (15) andperforming other tasks (11) while using the Internet

TABLE 13 While You Were Using the Internet Yesterday How Often Did You Do Any of theFollowing (Non-Internet) Activities at the Same Time

QuestionMost of the

TimeSome of the

TimeA Little ofthe Time Never

TotalResponses

Reading for school or homework 2106 2736 1609 3549 603Reading for fun 491 1557 1523 6430 591Listening to music 1946 1980 1409 4664 596Watching TV 1235 2250 1946 4569 591Writing 771 1490 1490 6250 584Talking on the phonetexting 1493 3068 2819 2620 603Playing video games 308 632 347 8496 585Other 058 694 741 8902 173

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 175

Table 14 shows student responses pertaining to whether they felt that timespent using the Internet displaced time spent on doing other activities The resultsindicate that most students did not feel that using the Internet interfered with otheractivities including reading for fun (7483) watching TV (8110) writing(7778) reading for academic purposes (6156) and socializing with friends(6772) These data seem to indicate that the Internet affected studentsrsquo readingfor school activity or academics more than it affected other activities as indicatedby the percentage of students (6156) reporting whether time spent using theInternet displaced time spent on schoolwork

Table 15 reports the results pertaining to whether multitasking affected stu-dentsrsquo ability to focus closely on using the Internet The results indicate that about41 of students reported that performing multiple tasks affected their ability toconcentrate on using the Internet a lot (9) or some of the time (32) As in otheractivities such as reading for fun reading for school or watching TV only about6 of the students who responded to this question reported not multitasking whileusing the Internet

Table 16 shows Spearmanrsquos Rho values for self-reported grades correlatedwith the combined multitasking value for using the internet as described inTables 13ndash15 (Rho = minus007532 p 00621) as well as with their reported per-ception that multitasking affected their ability to concentrate on the materials theywere reading for school (Rho = minus007989 p lt 00541) So for Internet use thecorrelation of grades with the overall degree of multitasking was not significant

TABLE 14 Did You Feel That the Time You Spent Using the Internet Yesterday Took Time Away FromAny of the Following Activities

Question Yes No Unsure Total Responses

Reading for school or homework 3274 6156 570 614Reading for fun 1967 7483 550 600Watching TV 1371 8110 518 598Writing 1599 7778 623 594Socializing with friendsfamily 2659 6772 569 598Other 468 8128 1404 235

TABLE 15 Did You Feel That Doing Multiple Activities at the Same Time Yesterday Affected YourAbility to Concentrate on What You Were Doing While Using the Internet

Answer Response

Yes a lot 59 9Yes some 201 32No not at all 287 46Not sure 41 7Did not multitask 39 6Total 627 100

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

176 K MOKHTARI ET AL

TABLE 16 Correlations Among Self-Reported Grades Multitasking Measure and Self-ReportedPerception of Multitasking on Concentration While Using the Internet

VariableAdditive Multitasking Measure

(While Using the Internet)Self-Reported Degree That Multitasking TakesAway Concentration (While Using the Internet)

Self-reported grades minus007532 (p lt 00621) minus007989 (p lt 00541)Multitasking measure 013900 (p lt 00008)

DISCUSSION

Our goal in this time-diary survey study was to shed light on the multitaskinghabits of todayrsquos college students on one college campus Consistent with priorresearch investigating college studentsrsquo reading habits and practices we found thatthe majority of the studyrsquos participants reported spending a considerable portionof their time on reading for fun reading for school watching TV and using theInternet Although not very surprising to us a key finding was that students alsoreported performing an array of other tasks simultaneously while engaged in oneor more of the four main activities under study In almost all areas the majorityof students reported that they spent time talking on the phone or texting whileengaged in other activities This finding is not unexpected given the fact that 97of individuals aged 18ndash29 have a cell phone and over 50 of those are connected tothe Internet (Anderson amp Rainie 2012) Also it is not surprising given the numberof existing cell phones that texting has become a primary mode of communicationfor many college students A recent T-Mobile study found that the average personchecks his or her phone approximately 150 times per day (T-Mobile 2012)

What we found particularly interesting was the fact that students perceivedacross all areas that multitasking for the most part did not interfere with core activ-ities such as reading for fun reading for school watching TV or using the InternetThese findings are consistent with prior research indicating that the amount of timethat college students spend on the Internet does not seem to interfere with the timethey report spending on other core activities (eg Mokhtari et al 2009 Griswoldamp Wright 2004)

However we also found that students felt that multitasking interfered withtheir reading for school purposes more so than for the other activities such as read-ing for fun (7483) watching TV (8110) writing (7778) doing homework(6156) and socializing with friends (6772) Sixty percent of the respondentsfelt that multitasking affected their ability to concentrate a lot (20) or some (40)when reading for academic purposes In essence these students acknowledged thatperforming two or more tasks simultaneously (eg listening to music watchingTV andor texting) while reading for school (eg completing a chapter readingassignment in a particular course) interfered with their ability to focus closely onthe content of that assignment This finding highlights the fact that students werecognizant that multitasking was somewhat of a distraction to their schoolwork

In a somewhat similar survey study focused on student classroom use ofdigital devices for nonclass related purposes McCoy (2013) found that more than

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 177

90 of students surveyed admitted to using media devices such as cell phoneslaptops and other devices for recreational purposes during class time with morethan 80 acknowledging that using laptops smartphones and other media devicesinterfered with their learning

When we asked students for their perceptions about multitasking the major-ity readily admitted that they felt multitasking negatively affected their ability toconcentrate on their schoolwork If this perception was true we would expectthat increases in multitasking would negatively affect student grades and indeedgrades were negatively correlated with the overall amount of multitasking reportedas well as the reported perception of loss of concentration from multitasking Yetthe perception of loss of concentration was not strongly correlated with the over-all amount of multitasking to some extent confirming that students do not fullyperceive the effects of multitasking on their academic performance

Research has shown that about only 2 of us are ldquosupertaskersrdquo multi-tasking effectively (Sundem 2012) For the rest of the 98 multitasking canreduce productivity by as much as 40 and switching from one task to anothermakes it difficult to tune out distractions and can cause mental blocks that canslow productivity (American Psychological Association 2006 Rubinstein et al2001 Sundem 2012) In his book Why Students Donrsquot Like School Willingham(2010) noted that ldquoone of the most stubborn persistent phenomena of the mind isthat when you do two things at once you donrsquot do either one as well as when youdo them one at a timerdquo (p 25) This is true not just for college students but forpeople in the workplace as well

Educational Implications and Cautions

In light of the studyrsquos main findings we recognize that multitasking is abyproduct of our modern and constantly connected world It is fueled by newand emerging information communication technologies such as the Internet Thesemedia technologies often make the ability to switch between tasks and accessinformation relatively easy so easy in fact that it can hide the cognitive costsof redirecting attention and actually processing information to gain understanding

Conversely new and emerging multitasking research seems to suggest thatthere is a high cost associated with multitasking in that it increases error in whatwe do and makes us less productive In his book Brain Rules John Medina (2009)reports that multitaskers experience about a 40 decline in productivity and take50 longer to complete a single task Although the temptation to multitask is aconstant companion we recommend that college students be mindful of its benefitsand drawbacks as they try to make themselves more efficient and more productivewhile juggling personal family and school obligations Walter Pauk a pioneer inthe field of college learning and study skills advises students to set aside or allo-cate specific periods of time (time chunking) for specific tasks in order to preventinterruptions and distractions which in turn will help students be more productive(Pauk 2010)

A valuable lesson learned from this study is that we have a great deal moreto learn about multitasking its nature benefits and inconveniences particularly

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

178 K MOKHTARI ET AL

in the context of schooling Even though students in our study told us that mul-titasking interfered with their core activities and influenced their ability to focuson focal activities such as reading for academic purposes we are not certain aboutthe conditions under which students multitask the extent to which it interferes withthe time spent on other activities and exactly how it influences their productivityFor instance when a student listens to music eats a snack and watches TV whileengaged in a core activity such as completing a reading assignment (eg read-ing a chapter in a book) for a science class what happens to his or her ability toeffectively complete the core reading assignment How do the type and number oftasks such as listening to music or watching TV while performing a core task suchas reading a chapter book affect someonersquos ability to focus on their reading assign-ment Do certain types of tasks (eg listening to music) have a lesser influence ona reading assignment than other tasks (eg talking on the phone) Are there dif-ferences in multitasking habits and practices between male and female studentsWe recommend that these questions and others be subjected to rigorous researchand investigation Answers to these questions will help address media multitaskingamong college students as a growing concern

Finally we want to share three potential limitations of this study whichshould be taken into consideration when interpreting the results and engaging infuture research that addresses multitasking among college students First it is achallenge to accurately capture studentsrsquo multitasking habits and practices throughthe use of indirect methods such as surveys or questionnaires We believe we haveminimized the design limitations of traditional self-report instruments by using atime-diary survey which provides a more accurate measure of time spent on cer-tain activities and therefore reduces error resulting in an increase in instrumentvalidity and reliability Second our time-diary survey instrument was lengthy andmay have contributed to the relatively low response rate from our original poolof students Finally even though some of our findings are consistent with priorresearch with regard to studentsrsquo multitasking habits and practices the findings ofthis study have limited generalizability in large part because the students in thisstudy were from one four-year institution

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Kouider Mokhtari PhD serves as the Anderson-Vukelja-Wright Endowed Chair of Education in theSchool of Education at The University of Texas at Tyler

Julie Delello PhD is an Assistant Professor in the School of Education at The University of Texas at Tyler

Carla Reichard PhD is Assistant Director in the Office of Research and Technology Transfer at TheUniversity of Texas at Tyler

REFERENCES

American Psychological Association (2006) Multitasking Switching costs Retrieved from httpapaorgresearchactionmultitaskaspx

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 169

Data Analysis

We analyzed the data obtained using basic descriptive statistics whichenabled us to summarize and expose patterns emerging from these data We alsoanalyzed correlations between self-reported grades and degrees of multitaskingOur analyses were focused on (a) how often students multitasked while engagedin each of the activities viz reading for fun reading for school watching TV orusing the Internet (b) whether they felt the time spent doing one activity interferedwith or displaced other activities and (c) whether multitasking influenced theirability to concentrate on each of the main activities

RESULTS

Multitasking While Reading Voluntarily for Fun

Table 1 presents results pertaining to how often students multitasked whilereading voluntarily for fun These results show that a majority of the studentsreported performing two or more tasks ldquomost of the time some of the time ora little of the timerdquo doing such things as watching TV (6177) listening to music(6214) reading for school or doing homework (6125) writing (4646) talk-ing on the phone or texting (7235) playing games online (1958) and socialnetworking or communicating with others online via e-mail (6746)

Table 2 shows student responses pertaining to whether they felt that timespent reading for fun displaced or took time away from doing any of the otheractivities such as doing homework watching TV or using the Internet The resultsindicate that 353 of the 626 students who responded to this question reportedthat time spent reading for fun took time away from reading for school or doinghomework A majority also reported that reading for fun did not interfere with otheractivities including watching TV (7746) writing (7781) socializing withfriends (7249) social networking (7659) playing video games (8328) orperforming other activities (7549) In other words most felt they could read forfun while doing any of the other tasks but not while doing school work

TABLE 1 While You Were Reading Books Magazines or Newspapers for Fun Yesterday How OftenDid You Do Any of the Following Activities at the Same Time

Activity or TaskMost of the

TimeSome of the

TimeA Little ofthe Time Never

TotalResponses

Watching TV or videos 1801 2417 1959 3823 633Listening to music 2173 2173 1869 3786 626Reading for school 2010 2267 1849 3875 622Writing 723 1704 2219 5354 622Talking on phonetexting 2000 2677 2567 2765 635Playing games online 307 583 1068 8042 618Social networking 1817 2449 2480 3254 633Other 775 930 310 7984 129

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

170 K MOKHTARI ET AL

TABLE 2 Did You Feel That the Time You Spent Reading for Fun yesterday Took Time Away FromDoing Any of the Following Activities or Tasks

Question Yes No Unsure Total Responses

Reading for school or homework 3530 5815 655 626Watching TV videos or DVDs 1562 7746 692 621Writing 1419 7781 799 613Socializing with friends or family 2006 7249 744 618Social networking 1626 7659 715 615Playing games online 918 8328 754 610Other 539 7549 1912 204

Table 3 reports the results pertaining to whether multitasking affected stu-dentsrsquo ability to concentrate on reading for fun The results indicate that for themost part a majority of the students (about 55) reported that performing multi-ple tasks did affect their ability to concentrate on reading for fun Only 12 of the678 students who responded to this question reported that they did not multitask atall while reading for fun

We did not have access to studentsrsquo actual grades but we did have studentsrsquoself-reported grades In order to assess whether multitasking might be affectingacademic performance we correlated the self-reported grades with a combinedmeasure of multitasking The multitasking measure adds the ordinal values of eachreported multitasking instance So for example a student who reported reading forfun and watching TV ldquosome of the timerdquo (ordinal value 2) and texting ldquomost of thetimerdquo (ordinal value 3) but no other types of multitasking would have a combinedmultitasking value of 5

Table 4 shows Spearmanrsquos Rho values for self-reported grades correlatedwith the combined multitasking value for reading for fun (Rho = minus013964p lt 00004) as well as with their reported perception that multitasking affectedtheir ability to concentrate on the materials they were reading for fun (Rho =minus008909 p lt 00319) In other words reported grades are negatively correlatedwith the overall degree of multitasking even more so than the loss of concentrationthat students reported when asked directly The combined multitasking measure

TABLE 3 Did You Feel That Doing Multiple Tasks at the Same Time Yesterday Affected YourAbility to Concentrate on the Materials You Were Reading for Fun

Answer Response

Yes a lot 103 1549Yes some 260 3910No not at all 183 2752Not sure 37 556Did not multitask 82 1233Total 665 100

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 171

TABLE 4 Correlations Among Self-Reported Grades Multitasking Measure and Self-Reported Perceptionof Multitasking on Concentration While Reading for Fun

VariableAdditive Multitasking Measure

(While Reading for Fun)Self-Reported Degree That Multitasking TakesAway Concentration (While Reading for Fun)

Self-Reported Grades minus013964 (p lt 00004) minus008909 (p lt 00319)Multitasking Measure 006826 (p lt 01066)

was not strongly correlated with studentsrsquo reported lack of concentration whilemultitasking suggesting that multitaskingrsquos effect on grades does not match upwell with studentsrsquo self-perceptions

Multitasking While Reading for Academic Purposes

Table 5 presents results pertaining to how often students multitasked whilereading for academic purposes The results show that a majority of the studentsreported being engaged in performing two or more tasks while reading for aca-demic purposes most of the time some of the time or a little of the time Forinstance of the total number of students responding to this question a majorityreported listening to music (51) writing (51) talking on the phone or texting(66) and social networking (56) The exceptions to this trend are playing videogames (12) and watching TV (44)

Table 6 shows whether students felt that time spent reading for school pur-poses displaced or took time away from doing other activities such as readingfor fun watching TV or using the Internet Most students felt that reading foracademic purposes did not interfere with these activities including reading forfun (6332) watching TV (6088) socializing with friends (4898) or socialnetworking (6450)

Table 7 reports the results pertaining to whether multitasking affected stu-dentsrsquo ability to concentrate on reading for academic purposes Sixty percent of

TABLE 5 While You Wwere Completing Assigned Readings for College Classes Yesterday How OftenDid You Do Any of the Following Activities at the Same Time

QuestionMost of the

TimeSome of the

TimeA Little ofthe Time Never

TotalResponses

Watching TV VideoDVDs 1078 1680 1648 5594 631Listening to music 1735 1861 1546 4858 634Writing 1006 2332 1725 4936 626Talking on the phonetexting 1191 2226 3182 3401 638Playing video games 160 512 576 8752 625Social networking 1074 1690 2796 4439 633Other 578 636 405 8382 173

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

172 K MOKHTARI ET AL

TABLE 6 Did You Feel That the Time You Spent Reading for College Classes Yesterday Took TimeAway From Any of the Following Cctivities or Tasks

Question Yes No Unsure Total Responses Mean

Reading for fun 3056 6332 611 638 176Watching TV videos or DVDs 3459 6088 454 639 170Writing 1517 7772 711 633 192Socializing with friendsfamily 4632 4898 469 639 158Social networking 2946 6450 604 645 177Other 941 7327 1732 202 208

TABLE 7 Did You Feel That Doing Multiple Tasks at the Same Time Yesterday Affected YourAbility to Concentrate on the Materials You Were Reading for College Classes

Answer Response

Yes a lot 136 20Yes some 269 40No not at all 162 24Not sure 22 3Did not multitask 85 13Total 674 100

TABLE 8 Correlations Among Self-Reported Grades Multitasking Measure and Self-Reported Perceptionof Multitasking on Concentration While Reading for School or Homework

VariableAdditive Multitasking Measure

(While Reading for School)Self-Reported Degree That Multitasking Takes

Away Concentration (While Reading for School)

Self-reported grades minus007780 (p lt 00474) minus011675 (p lt 00049)Multitasking measure 007084 (p lt 00917)

the respondents felt that their multitasking affected their ability to concentrate a lot(20) or some (40)

Table 8 shows Spearmanrsquos Rho values for self-reported grades correlatedwith the combined multitasking value for reading for academic purposes asdescribed in the previous tables (Rho = minus00778 p lt 00474) as well as withtheir reported perception that multitasking affected their ability to concentrate onthe materials they were reading for school (Rho = minus011675 p lt 00049) Againthere is a significant negative correlation with the overall degree of multitasking

Multitasking While Watching TV

Table 9 presents results relating to how often students multitasked whilewatching TV With the exception of talking on the phone or texting and social

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 173

TABLE 9 While You Were Watching TV Yesterday How Often Did You Do Any of the FollowingActivities at the Same Time

QuestionMost of the

TimeSome of the

TimeA Little ofthe Time Never

TotalResponses

Reading for fun 573 1181 1007 7240 576Listening to music 1090 1003 502 7405 578Reading for school or homework 934 1661 1696 5709 578Writing 490 1119 1206 7185 572Talking on the phonetexting 1935 2954 2207 2903 589Playing video games 335 493 634 8539 568Social networking 1749 2568 2240 3443 549Other 664 554 148 8635 271

networking a majority of the students reported ldquoneverrdquo multitasking whilewatching TV It is worth noting that 71 of the students reported talking on thephone or texting and nearly 66 reported social networking with others whilewatching TV

Table 10 shows whether students felt that time spent watching TV displacedor took time away from doing any of the other activities The results indicatethat a majority of students felt that watching TV did not interfere much withother activities including reading for school or homework (5193) reading forfun (6927) networking with friends online (8467) writing (7525) andsocializing with friends (756)

Table 11 reports the results on whether students perceived that multitask-ing affected their ability to focus closely on watching TV The results show that41 of the students reported that performing multiple tasks affected their abilityto concentrate on watching TV a lot (9) or some (32)

Table 12 shows Spearmanrsquos Rho values for self-reported grades correlatedwith the combined multitasking value for watching TV as described in the previoustables (Rho = minus007426 p lt 00707) as well as with their reported perception thatmultitasking affected their ability to concentrate on the materials they were readingfor school (Rho = minus006326 p lt 01366) So for TV watching the correlation ofgrades with the overall degree of multitasking was not significant

TABLE 10 Did You Feel That the Time You Spent watching TV Yesterday Took Time Away From Anyof the Following Activities

Question Yes No Unsure Total Responses

Reading for school or homework 4286 5193 521 595Reading for fun 2428 6927 645 589Social networking 1005 8467 528 587Writing 1775 7525 700 586Socializing with friendsfamily 1877 7560 563 586Other 375 8375 1250 240

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

174 K MOKHTARI ET AL

TABLE 11 Did You Feel That Doing Multiple Activities at the Same Time Yesterday AffectedYour Ability to Concentrate on the TV Programs you Were Watching

Answer Response

Yes a lot 55 9Yes some 197 32No not at all 269 44Not sure 41 7Did not multitask 52 8Total 614 100

TABLE 12 Correlations Among Self-Reported Grades Multitasking Measure and Self-ReportedPerception of Multitasking on Concentration While Watching TV

VariableAdditive Multitasking Measure

(While Watching TV)Self-Reported Degree That Multitasking Takes

Away Concentration (While Watching TV)

Self-reported grades minus007426 (p lt 00707) minus006326 (p lt 01366)Multitasking measure 010976 (p lt 00103)

Multitasking While Using the Internet

Table 13 presents results related to how often students multitasked whileusing the Internet The results show that with few exceptions a majority of thestudents reported performing multiple tasks ldquomost of the time some of the timeor a little of the timerdquo while using the Internet Of the total number of studentsresponding to this question a majority reported engaging in multiple tasks such asdoing homework (65) listening to music (53) watching TV (54) and talk-ing on the phone or texting (74) In addition students also reported engagingin other activities such as reading for fun (36) playing video games (15) andperforming other tasks (11) while using the Internet

TABLE 13 While You Were Using the Internet Yesterday How Often Did You Do Any of theFollowing (Non-Internet) Activities at the Same Time

QuestionMost of the

TimeSome of the

TimeA Little ofthe Time Never

TotalResponses

Reading for school or homework 2106 2736 1609 3549 603Reading for fun 491 1557 1523 6430 591Listening to music 1946 1980 1409 4664 596Watching TV 1235 2250 1946 4569 591Writing 771 1490 1490 6250 584Talking on the phonetexting 1493 3068 2819 2620 603Playing video games 308 632 347 8496 585Other 058 694 741 8902 173

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 175

Table 14 shows student responses pertaining to whether they felt that timespent using the Internet displaced time spent on doing other activities The resultsindicate that most students did not feel that using the Internet interfered with otheractivities including reading for fun (7483) watching TV (8110) writing(7778) reading for academic purposes (6156) and socializing with friends(6772) These data seem to indicate that the Internet affected studentsrsquo readingfor school activity or academics more than it affected other activities as indicatedby the percentage of students (6156) reporting whether time spent using theInternet displaced time spent on schoolwork

Table 15 reports the results pertaining to whether multitasking affected stu-dentsrsquo ability to focus closely on using the Internet The results indicate that about41 of students reported that performing multiple tasks affected their ability toconcentrate on using the Internet a lot (9) or some of the time (32) As in otheractivities such as reading for fun reading for school or watching TV only about6 of the students who responded to this question reported not multitasking whileusing the Internet

Table 16 shows Spearmanrsquos Rho values for self-reported grades correlatedwith the combined multitasking value for using the internet as described inTables 13ndash15 (Rho = minus007532 p 00621) as well as with their reported per-ception that multitasking affected their ability to concentrate on the materials theywere reading for school (Rho = minus007989 p lt 00541) So for Internet use thecorrelation of grades with the overall degree of multitasking was not significant

TABLE 14 Did You Feel That the Time You Spent Using the Internet Yesterday Took Time Away FromAny of the Following Activities

Question Yes No Unsure Total Responses

Reading for school or homework 3274 6156 570 614Reading for fun 1967 7483 550 600Watching TV 1371 8110 518 598Writing 1599 7778 623 594Socializing with friendsfamily 2659 6772 569 598Other 468 8128 1404 235

TABLE 15 Did You Feel That Doing Multiple Activities at the Same Time Yesterday Affected YourAbility to Concentrate on What You Were Doing While Using the Internet

Answer Response

Yes a lot 59 9Yes some 201 32No not at all 287 46Not sure 41 7Did not multitask 39 6Total 627 100

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

176 K MOKHTARI ET AL

TABLE 16 Correlations Among Self-Reported Grades Multitasking Measure and Self-ReportedPerception of Multitasking on Concentration While Using the Internet

VariableAdditive Multitasking Measure

(While Using the Internet)Self-Reported Degree That Multitasking TakesAway Concentration (While Using the Internet)

Self-reported grades minus007532 (p lt 00621) minus007989 (p lt 00541)Multitasking measure 013900 (p lt 00008)

DISCUSSION

Our goal in this time-diary survey study was to shed light on the multitaskinghabits of todayrsquos college students on one college campus Consistent with priorresearch investigating college studentsrsquo reading habits and practices we found thatthe majority of the studyrsquos participants reported spending a considerable portionof their time on reading for fun reading for school watching TV and using theInternet Although not very surprising to us a key finding was that students alsoreported performing an array of other tasks simultaneously while engaged in oneor more of the four main activities under study In almost all areas the majorityof students reported that they spent time talking on the phone or texting whileengaged in other activities This finding is not unexpected given the fact that 97of individuals aged 18ndash29 have a cell phone and over 50 of those are connected tothe Internet (Anderson amp Rainie 2012) Also it is not surprising given the numberof existing cell phones that texting has become a primary mode of communicationfor many college students A recent T-Mobile study found that the average personchecks his or her phone approximately 150 times per day (T-Mobile 2012)

What we found particularly interesting was the fact that students perceivedacross all areas that multitasking for the most part did not interfere with core activ-ities such as reading for fun reading for school watching TV or using the InternetThese findings are consistent with prior research indicating that the amount of timethat college students spend on the Internet does not seem to interfere with the timethey report spending on other core activities (eg Mokhtari et al 2009 Griswoldamp Wright 2004)

However we also found that students felt that multitasking interfered withtheir reading for school purposes more so than for the other activities such as read-ing for fun (7483) watching TV (8110) writing (7778) doing homework(6156) and socializing with friends (6772) Sixty percent of the respondentsfelt that multitasking affected their ability to concentrate a lot (20) or some (40)when reading for academic purposes In essence these students acknowledged thatperforming two or more tasks simultaneously (eg listening to music watchingTV andor texting) while reading for school (eg completing a chapter readingassignment in a particular course) interfered with their ability to focus closely onthe content of that assignment This finding highlights the fact that students werecognizant that multitasking was somewhat of a distraction to their schoolwork

In a somewhat similar survey study focused on student classroom use ofdigital devices for nonclass related purposes McCoy (2013) found that more than

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 177

90 of students surveyed admitted to using media devices such as cell phoneslaptops and other devices for recreational purposes during class time with morethan 80 acknowledging that using laptops smartphones and other media devicesinterfered with their learning

When we asked students for their perceptions about multitasking the major-ity readily admitted that they felt multitasking negatively affected their ability toconcentrate on their schoolwork If this perception was true we would expectthat increases in multitasking would negatively affect student grades and indeedgrades were negatively correlated with the overall amount of multitasking reportedas well as the reported perception of loss of concentration from multitasking Yetthe perception of loss of concentration was not strongly correlated with the over-all amount of multitasking to some extent confirming that students do not fullyperceive the effects of multitasking on their academic performance

Research has shown that about only 2 of us are ldquosupertaskersrdquo multi-tasking effectively (Sundem 2012) For the rest of the 98 multitasking canreduce productivity by as much as 40 and switching from one task to anothermakes it difficult to tune out distractions and can cause mental blocks that canslow productivity (American Psychological Association 2006 Rubinstein et al2001 Sundem 2012) In his book Why Students Donrsquot Like School Willingham(2010) noted that ldquoone of the most stubborn persistent phenomena of the mind isthat when you do two things at once you donrsquot do either one as well as when youdo them one at a timerdquo (p 25) This is true not just for college students but forpeople in the workplace as well

Educational Implications and Cautions

In light of the studyrsquos main findings we recognize that multitasking is abyproduct of our modern and constantly connected world It is fueled by newand emerging information communication technologies such as the Internet Thesemedia technologies often make the ability to switch between tasks and accessinformation relatively easy so easy in fact that it can hide the cognitive costsof redirecting attention and actually processing information to gain understanding

Conversely new and emerging multitasking research seems to suggest thatthere is a high cost associated with multitasking in that it increases error in whatwe do and makes us less productive In his book Brain Rules John Medina (2009)reports that multitaskers experience about a 40 decline in productivity and take50 longer to complete a single task Although the temptation to multitask is aconstant companion we recommend that college students be mindful of its benefitsand drawbacks as they try to make themselves more efficient and more productivewhile juggling personal family and school obligations Walter Pauk a pioneer inthe field of college learning and study skills advises students to set aside or allo-cate specific periods of time (time chunking) for specific tasks in order to preventinterruptions and distractions which in turn will help students be more productive(Pauk 2010)

A valuable lesson learned from this study is that we have a great deal moreto learn about multitasking its nature benefits and inconveniences particularly

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

178 K MOKHTARI ET AL

in the context of schooling Even though students in our study told us that mul-titasking interfered with their core activities and influenced their ability to focuson focal activities such as reading for academic purposes we are not certain aboutthe conditions under which students multitask the extent to which it interferes withthe time spent on other activities and exactly how it influences their productivityFor instance when a student listens to music eats a snack and watches TV whileengaged in a core activity such as completing a reading assignment (eg read-ing a chapter in a book) for a science class what happens to his or her ability toeffectively complete the core reading assignment How do the type and number oftasks such as listening to music or watching TV while performing a core task suchas reading a chapter book affect someonersquos ability to focus on their reading assign-ment Do certain types of tasks (eg listening to music) have a lesser influence ona reading assignment than other tasks (eg talking on the phone) Are there dif-ferences in multitasking habits and practices between male and female studentsWe recommend that these questions and others be subjected to rigorous researchand investigation Answers to these questions will help address media multitaskingamong college students as a growing concern

Finally we want to share three potential limitations of this study whichshould be taken into consideration when interpreting the results and engaging infuture research that addresses multitasking among college students First it is achallenge to accurately capture studentsrsquo multitasking habits and practices throughthe use of indirect methods such as surveys or questionnaires We believe we haveminimized the design limitations of traditional self-report instruments by using atime-diary survey which provides a more accurate measure of time spent on cer-tain activities and therefore reduces error resulting in an increase in instrumentvalidity and reliability Second our time-diary survey instrument was lengthy andmay have contributed to the relatively low response rate from our original poolof students Finally even though some of our findings are consistent with priorresearch with regard to studentsrsquo multitasking habits and practices the findings ofthis study have limited generalizability in large part because the students in thisstudy were from one four-year institution

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Kouider Mokhtari PhD serves as the Anderson-Vukelja-Wright Endowed Chair of Education in theSchool of Education at The University of Texas at Tyler

Julie Delello PhD is an Assistant Professor in the School of Education at The University of Texas at Tyler

Carla Reichard PhD is Assistant Director in the Office of Research and Technology Transfer at TheUniversity of Texas at Tyler

REFERENCES

American Psychological Association (2006) Multitasking Switching costs Retrieved from httpapaorgresearchactionmultitaskaspx

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

170 K MOKHTARI ET AL

TABLE 2 Did You Feel That the Time You Spent Reading for Fun yesterday Took Time Away FromDoing Any of the Following Activities or Tasks

Question Yes No Unsure Total Responses

Reading for school or homework 3530 5815 655 626Watching TV videos or DVDs 1562 7746 692 621Writing 1419 7781 799 613Socializing with friends or family 2006 7249 744 618Social networking 1626 7659 715 615Playing games online 918 8328 754 610Other 539 7549 1912 204

Table 3 reports the results pertaining to whether multitasking affected stu-dentsrsquo ability to concentrate on reading for fun The results indicate that for themost part a majority of the students (about 55) reported that performing multi-ple tasks did affect their ability to concentrate on reading for fun Only 12 of the678 students who responded to this question reported that they did not multitask atall while reading for fun

We did not have access to studentsrsquo actual grades but we did have studentsrsquoself-reported grades In order to assess whether multitasking might be affectingacademic performance we correlated the self-reported grades with a combinedmeasure of multitasking The multitasking measure adds the ordinal values of eachreported multitasking instance So for example a student who reported reading forfun and watching TV ldquosome of the timerdquo (ordinal value 2) and texting ldquomost of thetimerdquo (ordinal value 3) but no other types of multitasking would have a combinedmultitasking value of 5

Table 4 shows Spearmanrsquos Rho values for self-reported grades correlatedwith the combined multitasking value for reading for fun (Rho = minus013964p lt 00004) as well as with their reported perception that multitasking affectedtheir ability to concentrate on the materials they were reading for fun (Rho =minus008909 p lt 00319) In other words reported grades are negatively correlatedwith the overall degree of multitasking even more so than the loss of concentrationthat students reported when asked directly The combined multitasking measure

TABLE 3 Did You Feel That Doing Multiple Tasks at the Same Time Yesterday Affected YourAbility to Concentrate on the Materials You Were Reading for Fun

Answer Response

Yes a lot 103 1549Yes some 260 3910No not at all 183 2752Not sure 37 556Did not multitask 82 1233Total 665 100

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 171

TABLE 4 Correlations Among Self-Reported Grades Multitasking Measure and Self-Reported Perceptionof Multitasking on Concentration While Reading for Fun

VariableAdditive Multitasking Measure

(While Reading for Fun)Self-Reported Degree That Multitasking TakesAway Concentration (While Reading for Fun)

Self-Reported Grades minus013964 (p lt 00004) minus008909 (p lt 00319)Multitasking Measure 006826 (p lt 01066)

was not strongly correlated with studentsrsquo reported lack of concentration whilemultitasking suggesting that multitaskingrsquos effect on grades does not match upwell with studentsrsquo self-perceptions

Multitasking While Reading for Academic Purposes

Table 5 presents results pertaining to how often students multitasked whilereading for academic purposes The results show that a majority of the studentsreported being engaged in performing two or more tasks while reading for aca-demic purposes most of the time some of the time or a little of the time Forinstance of the total number of students responding to this question a majorityreported listening to music (51) writing (51) talking on the phone or texting(66) and social networking (56) The exceptions to this trend are playing videogames (12) and watching TV (44)

Table 6 shows whether students felt that time spent reading for school pur-poses displaced or took time away from doing other activities such as readingfor fun watching TV or using the Internet Most students felt that reading foracademic purposes did not interfere with these activities including reading forfun (6332) watching TV (6088) socializing with friends (4898) or socialnetworking (6450)

Table 7 reports the results pertaining to whether multitasking affected stu-dentsrsquo ability to concentrate on reading for academic purposes Sixty percent of

TABLE 5 While You Wwere Completing Assigned Readings for College Classes Yesterday How OftenDid You Do Any of the Following Activities at the Same Time

QuestionMost of the

TimeSome of the

TimeA Little ofthe Time Never

TotalResponses

Watching TV VideoDVDs 1078 1680 1648 5594 631Listening to music 1735 1861 1546 4858 634Writing 1006 2332 1725 4936 626Talking on the phonetexting 1191 2226 3182 3401 638Playing video games 160 512 576 8752 625Social networking 1074 1690 2796 4439 633Other 578 636 405 8382 173

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

172 K MOKHTARI ET AL

TABLE 6 Did You Feel That the Time You Spent Reading for College Classes Yesterday Took TimeAway From Any of the Following Cctivities or Tasks

Question Yes No Unsure Total Responses Mean

Reading for fun 3056 6332 611 638 176Watching TV videos or DVDs 3459 6088 454 639 170Writing 1517 7772 711 633 192Socializing with friendsfamily 4632 4898 469 639 158Social networking 2946 6450 604 645 177Other 941 7327 1732 202 208

TABLE 7 Did You Feel That Doing Multiple Tasks at the Same Time Yesterday Affected YourAbility to Concentrate on the Materials You Were Reading for College Classes

Answer Response

Yes a lot 136 20Yes some 269 40No not at all 162 24Not sure 22 3Did not multitask 85 13Total 674 100

TABLE 8 Correlations Among Self-Reported Grades Multitasking Measure and Self-Reported Perceptionof Multitasking on Concentration While Reading for School or Homework

VariableAdditive Multitasking Measure

(While Reading for School)Self-Reported Degree That Multitasking Takes

Away Concentration (While Reading for School)

Self-reported grades minus007780 (p lt 00474) minus011675 (p lt 00049)Multitasking measure 007084 (p lt 00917)

the respondents felt that their multitasking affected their ability to concentrate a lot(20) or some (40)

Table 8 shows Spearmanrsquos Rho values for self-reported grades correlatedwith the combined multitasking value for reading for academic purposes asdescribed in the previous tables (Rho = minus00778 p lt 00474) as well as withtheir reported perception that multitasking affected their ability to concentrate onthe materials they were reading for school (Rho = minus011675 p lt 00049) Againthere is a significant negative correlation with the overall degree of multitasking

Multitasking While Watching TV

Table 9 presents results relating to how often students multitasked whilewatching TV With the exception of talking on the phone or texting and social

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 173

TABLE 9 While You Were Watching TV Yesterday How Often Did You Do Any of the FollowingActivities at the Same Time

QuestionMost of the

TimeSome of the

TimeA Little ofthe Time Never

TotalResponses

Reading for fun 573 1181 1007 7240 576Listening to music 1090 1003 502 7405 578Reading for school or homework 934 1661 1696 5709 578Writing 490 1119 1206 7185 572Talking on the phonetexting 1935 2954 2207 2903 589Playing video games 335 493 634 8539 568Social networking 1749 2568 2240 3443 549Other 664 554 148 8635 271

networking a majority of the students reported ldquoneverrdquo multitasking whilewatching TV It is worth noting that 71 of the students reported talking on thephone or texting and nearly 66 reported social networking with others whilewatching TV

Table 10 shows whether students felt that time spent watching TV displacedor took time away from doing any of the other activities The results indicatethat a majority of students felt that watching TV did not interfere much withother activities including reading for school or homework (5193) reading forfun (6927) networking with friends online (8467) writing (7525) andsocializing with friends (756)

Table 11 reports the results on whether students perceived that multitask-ing affected their ability to focus closely on watching TV The results show that41 of the students reported that performing multiple tasks affected their abilityto concentrate on watching TV a lot (9) or some (32)

Table 12 shows Spearmanrsquos Rho values for self-reported grades correlatedwith the combined multitasking value for watching TV as described in the previoustables (Rho = minus007426 p lt 00707) as well as with their reported perception thatmultitasking affected their ability to concentrate on the materials they were readingfor school (Rho = minus006326 p lt 01366) So for TV watching the correlation ofgrades with the overall degree of multitasking was not significant

TABLE 10 Did You Feel That the Time You Spent watching TV Yesterday Took Time Away From Anyof the Following Activities

Question Yes No Unsure Total Responses

Reading for school or homework 4286 5193 521 595Reading for fun 2428 6927 645 589Social networking 1005 8467 528 587Writing 1775 7525 700 586Socializing with friendsfamily 1877 7560 563 586Other 375 8375 1250 240

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

174 K MOKHTARI ET AL

TABLE 11 Did You Feel That Doing Multiple Activities at the Same Time Yesterday AffectedYour Ability to Concentrate on the TV Programs you Were Watching

Answer Response

Yes a lot 55 9Yes some 197 32No not at all 269 44Not sure 41 7Did not multitask 52 8Total 614 100

TABLE 12 Correlations Among Self-Reported Grades Multitasking Measure and Self-ReportedPerception of Multitasking on Concentration While Watching TV

VariableAdditive Multitasking Measure

(While Watching TV)Self-Reported Degree That Multitasking Takes

Away Concentration (While Watching TV)

Self-reported grades minus007426 (p lt 00707) minus006326 (p lt 01366)Multitasking measure 010976 (p lt 00103)

Multitasking While Using the Internet

Table 13 presents results related to how often students multitasked whileusing the Internet The results show that with few exceptions a majority of thestudents reported performing multiple tasks ldquomost of the time some of the timeor a little of the timerdquo while using the Internet Of the total number of studentsresponding to this question a majority reported engaging in multiple tasks such asdoing homework (65) listening to music (53) watching TV (54) and talk-ing on the phone or texting (74) In addition students also reported engagingin other activities such as reading for fun (36) playing video games (15) andperforming other tasks (11) while using the Internet

TABLE 13 While You Were Using the Internet Yesterday How Often Did You Do Any of theFollowing (Non-Internet) Activities at the Same Time

QuestionMost of the

TimeSome of the

TimeA Little ofthe Time Never

TotalResponses

Reading for school or homework 2106 2736 1609 3549 603Reading for fun 491 1557 1523 6430 591Listening to music 1946 1980 1409 4664 596Watching TV 1235 2250 1946 4569 591Writing 771 1490 1490 6250 584Talking on the phonetexting 1493 3068 2819 2620 603Playing video games 308 632 347 8496 585Other 058 694 741 8902 173

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 175

Table 14 shows student responses pertaining to whether they felt that timespent using the Internet displaced time spent on doing other activities The resultsindicate that most students did not feel that using the Internet interfered with otheractivities including reading for fun (7483) watching TV (8110) writing(7778) reading for academic purposes (6156) and socializing with friends(6772) These data seem to indicate that the Internet affected studentsrsquo readingfor school activity or academics more than it affected other activities as indicatedby the percentage of students (6156) reporting whether time spent using theInternet displaced time spent on schoolwork

Table 15 reports the results pertaining to whether multitasking affected stu-dentsrsquo ability to focus closely on using the Internet The results indicate that about41 of students reported that performing multiple tasks affected their ability toconcentrate on using the Internet a lot (9) or some of the time (32) As in otheractivities such as reading for fun reading for school or watching TV only about6 of the students who responded to this question reported not multitasking whileusing the Internet

Table 16 shows Spearmanrsquos Rho values for self-reported grades correlatedwith the combined multitasking value for using the internet as described inTables 13ndash15 (Rho = minus007532 p 00621) as well as with their reported per-ception that multitasking affected their ability to concentrate on the materials theywere reading for school (Rho = minus007989 p lt 00541) So for Internet use thecorrelation of grades with the overall degree of multitasking was not significant

TABLE 14 Did You Feel That the Time You Spent Using the Internet Yesterday Took Time Away FromAny of the Following Activities

Question Yes No Unsure Total Responses

Reading for school or homework 3274 6156 570 614Reading for fun 1967 7483 550 600Watching TV 1371 8110 518 598Writing 1599 7778 623 594Socializing with friendsfamily 2659 6772 569 598Other 468 8128 1404 235

TABLE 15 Did You Feel That Doing Multiple Activities at the Same Time Yesterday Affected YourAbility to Concentrate on What You Were Doing While Using the Internet

Answer Response

Yes a lot 59 9Yes some 201 32No not at all 287 46Not sure 41 7Did not multitask 39 6Total 627 100

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

176 K MOKHTARI ET AL

TABLE 16 Correlations Among Self-Reported Grades Multitasking Measure and Self-ReportedPerception of Multitasking on Concentration While Using the Internet

VariableAdditive Multitasking Measure

(While Using the Internet)Self-Reported Degree That Multitasking TakesAway Concentration (While Using the Internet)

Self-reported grades minus007532 (p lt 00621) minus007989 (p lt 00541)Multitasking measure 013900 (p lt 00008)

DISCUSSION

Our goal in this time-diary survey study was to shed light on the multitaskinghabits of todayrsquos college students on one college campus Consistent with priorresearch investigating college studentsrsquo reading habits and practices we found thatthe majority of the studyrsquos participants reported spending a considerable portionof their time on reading for fun reading for school watching TV and using theInternet Although not very surprising to us a key finding was that students alsoreported performing an array of other tasks simultaneously while engaged in oneor more of the four main activities under study In almost all areas the majorityof students reported that they spent time talking on the phone or texting whileengaged in other activities This finding is not unexpected given the fact that 97of individuals aged 18ndash29 have a cell phone and over 50 of those are connected tothe Internet (Anderson amp Rainie 2012) Also it is not surprising given the numberof existing cell phones that texting has become a primary mode of communicationfor many college students A recent T-Mobile study found that the average personchecks his or her phone approximately 150 times per day (T-Mobile 2012)

What we found particularly interesting was the fact that students perceivedacross all areas that multitasking for the most part did not interfere with core activ-ities such as reading for fun reading for school watching TV or using the InternetThese findings are consistent with prior research indicating that the amount of timethat college students spend on the Internet does not seem to interfere with the timethey report spending on other core activities (eg Mokhtari et al 2009 Griswoldamp Wright 2004)

However we also found that students felt that multitasking interfered withtheir reading for school purposes more so than for the other activities such as read-ing for fun (7483) watching TV (8110) writing (7778) doing homework(6156) and socializing with friends (6772) Sixty percent of the respondentsfelt that multitasking affected their ability to concentrate a lot (20) or some (40)when reading for academic purposes In essence these students acknowledged thatperforming two or more tasks simultaneously (eg listening to music watchingTV andor texting) while reading for school (eg completing a chapter readingassignment in a particular course) interfered with their ability to focus closely onthe content of that assignment This finding highlights the fact that students werecognizant that multitasking was somewhat of a distraction to their schoolwork

In a somewhat similar survey study focused on student classroom use ofdigital devices for nonclass related purposes McCoy (2013) found that more than

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 177

90 of students surveyed admitted to using media devices such as cell phoneslaptops and other devices for recreational purposes during class time with morethan 80 acknowledging that using laptops smartphones and other media devicesinterfered with their learning

When we asked students for their perceptions about multitasking the major-ity readily admitted that they felt multitasking negatively affected their ability toconcentrate on their schoolwork If this perception was true we would expectthat increases in multitasking would negatively affect student grades and indeedgrades were negatively correlated with the overall amount of multitasking reportedas well as the reported perception of loss of concentration from multitasking Yetthe perception of loss of concentration was not strongly correlated with the over-all amount of multitasking to some extent confirming that students do not fullyperceive the effects of multitasking on their academic performance

Research has shown that about only 2 of us are ldquosupertaskersrdquo multi-tasking effectively (Sundem 2012) For the rest of the 98 multitasking canreduce productivity by as much as 40 and switching from one task to anothermakes it difficult to tune out distractions and can cause mental blocks that canslow productivity (American Psychological Association 2006 Rubinstein et al2001 Sundem 2012) In his book Why Students Donrsquot Like School Willingham(2010) noted that ldquoone of the most stubborn persistent phenomena of the mind isthat when you do two things at once you donrsquot do either one as well as when youdo them one at a timerdquo (p 25) This is true not just for college students but forpeople in the workplace as well

Educational Implications and Cautions

In light of the studyrsquos main findings we recognize that multitasking is abyproduct of our modern and constantly connected world It is fueled by newand emerging information communication technologies such as the Internet Thesemedia technologies often make the ability to switch between tasks and accessinformation relatively easy so easy in fact that it can hide the cognitive costsof redirecting attention and actually processing information to gain understanding

Conversely new and emerging multitasking research seems to suggest thatthere is a high cost associated with multitasking in that it increases error in whatwe do and makes us less productive In his book Brain Rules John Medina (2009)reports that multitaskers experience about a 40 decline in productivity and take50 longer to complete a single task Although the temptation to multitask is aconstant companion we recommend that college students be mindful of its benefitsand drawbacks as they try to make themselves more efficient and more productivewhile juggling personal family and school obligations Walter Pauk a pioneer inthe field of college learning and study skills advises students to set aside or allo-cate specific periods of time (time chunking) for specific tasks in order to preventinterruptions and distractions which in turn will help students be more productive(Pauk 2010)

A valuable lesson learned from this study is that we have a great deal moreto learn about multitasking its nature benefits and inconveniences particularly

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

178 K MOKHTARI ET AL

in the context of schooling Even though students in our study told us that mul-titasking interfered with their core activities and influenced their ability to focuson focal activities such as reading for academic purposes we are not certain aboutthe conditions under which students multitask the extent to which it interferes withthe time spent on other activities and exactly how it influences their productivityFor instance when a student listens to music eats a snack and watches TV whileengaged in a core activity such as completing a reading assignment (eg read-ing a chapter in a book) for a science class what happens to his or her ability toeffectively complete the core reading assignment How do the type and number oftasks such as listening to music or watching TV while performing a core task suchas reading a chapter book affect someonersquos ability to focus on their reading assign-ment Do certain types of tasks (eg listening to music) have a lesser influence ona reading assignment than other tasks (eg talking on the phone) Are there dif-ferences in multitasking habits and practices between male and female studentsWe recommend that these questions and others be subjected to rigorous researchand investigation Answers to these questions will help address media multitaskingamong college students as a growing concern

Finally we want to share three potential limitations of this study whichshould be taken into consideration when interpreting the results and engaging infuture research that addresses multitasking among college students First it is achallenge to accurately capture studentsrsquo multitasking habits and practices throughthe use of indirect methods such as surveys or questionnaires We believe we haveminimized the design limitations of traditional self-report instruments by using atime-diary survey which provides a more accurate measure of time spent on cer-tain activities and therefore reduces error resulting in an increase in instrumentvalidity and reliability Second our time-diary survey instrument was lengthy andmay have contributed to the relatively low response rate from our original poolof students Finally even though some of our findings are consistent with priorresearch with regard to studentsrsquo multitasking habits and practices the findings ofthis study have limited generalizability in large part because the students in thisstudy were from one four-year institution

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Kouider Mokhtari PhD serves as the Anderson-Vukelja-Wright Endowed Chair of Education in theSchool of Education at The University of Texas at Tyler

Julie Delello PhD is an Assistant Professor in the School of Education at The University of Texas at Tyler

Carla Reichard PhD is Assistant Director in the Office of Research and Technology Transfer at TheUniversity of Texas at Tyler

REFERENCES

American Psychological Association (2006) Multitasking Switching costs Retrieved from httpapaorgresearchactionmultitaskaspx

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 171

TABLE 4 Correlations Among Self-Reported Grades Multitasking Measure and Self-Reported Perceptionof Multitasking on Concentration While Reading for Fun

VariableAdditive Multitasking Measure

(While Reading for Fun)Self-Reported Degree That Multitasking TakesAway Concentration (While Reading for Fun)

Self-Reported Grades minus013964 (p lt 00004) minus008909 (p lt 00319)Multitasking Measure 006826 (p lt 01066)

was not strongly correlated with studentsrsquo reported lack of concentration whilemultitasking suggesting that multitaskingrsquos effect on grades does not match upwell with studentsrsquo self-perceptions

Multitasking While Reading for Academic Purposes

Table 5 presents results pertaining to how often students multitasked whilereading for academic purposes The results show that a majority of the studentsreported being engaged in performing two or more tasks while reading for aca-demic purposes most of the time some of the time or a little of the time Forinstance of the total number of students responding to this question a majorityreported listening to music (51) writing (51) talking on the phone or texting(66) and social networking (56) The exceptions to this trend are playing videogames (12) and watching TV (44)

Table 6 shows whether students felt that time spent reading for school pur-poses displaced or took time away from doing other activities such as readingfor fun watching TV or using the Internet Most students felt that reading foracademic purposes did not interfere with these activities including reading forfun (6332) watching TV (6088) socializing with friends (4898) or socialnetworking (6450)

Table 7 reports the results pertaining to whether multitasking affected stu-dentsrsquo ability to concentrate on reading for academic purposes Sixty percent of

TABLE 5 While You Wwere Completing Assigned Readings for College Classes Yesterday How OftenDid You Do Any of the Following Activities at the Same Time

QuestionMost of the

TimeSome of the

TimeA Little ofthe Time Never

TotalResponses

Watching TV VideoDVDs 1078 1680 1648 5594 631Listening to music 1735 1861 1546 4858 634Writing 1006 2332 1725 4936 626Talking on the phonetexting 1191 2226 3182 3401 638Playing video games 160 512 576 8752 625Social networking 1074 1690 2796 4439 633Other 578 636 405 8382 173

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

172 K MOKHTARI ET AL

TABLE 6 Did You Feel That the Time You Spent Reading for College Classes Yesterday Took TimeAway From Any of the Following Cctivities or Tasks

Question Yes No Unsure Total Responses Mean

Reading for fun 3056 6332 611 638 176Watching TV videos or DVDs 3459 6088 454 639 170Writing 1517 7772 711 633 192Socializing with friendsfamily 4632 4898 469 639 158Social networking 2946 6450 604 645 177Other 941 7327 1732 202 208

TABLE 7 Did You Feel That Doing Multiple Tasks at the Same Time Yesterday Affected YourAbility to Concentrate on the Materials You Were Reading for College Classes

Answer Response

Yes a lot 136 20Yes some 269 40No not at all 162 24Not sure 22 3Did not multitask 85 13Total 674 100

TABLE 8 Correlations Among Self-Reported Grades Multitasking Measure and Self-Reported Perceptionof Multitasking on Concentration While Reading for School or Homework

VariableAdditive Multitasking Measure

(While Reading for School)Self-Reported Degree That Multitasking Takes

Away Concentration (While Reading for School)

Self-reported grades minus007780 (p lt 00474) minus011675 (p lt 00049)Multitasking measure 007084 (p lt 00917)

the respondents felt that their multitasking affected their ability to concentrate a lot(20) or some (40)

Table 8 shows Spearmanrsquos Rho values for self-reported grades correlatedwith the combined multitasking value for reading for academic purposes asdescribed in the previous tables (Rho = minus00778 p lt 00474) as well as withtheir reported perception that multitasking affected their ability to concentrate onthe materials they were reading for school (Rho = minus011675 p lt 00049) Againthere is a significant negative correlation with the overall degree of multitasking

Multitasking While Watching TV

Table 9 presents results relating to how often students multitasked whilewatching TV With the exception of talking on the phone or texting and social

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 173

TABLE 9 While You Were Watching TV Yesterday How Often Did You Do Any of the FollowingActivities at the Same Time

QuestionMost of the

TimeSome of the

TimeA Little ofthe Time Never

TotalResponses

Reading for fun 573 1181 1007 7240 576Listening to music 1090 1003 502 7405 578Reading for school or homework 934 1661 1696 5709 578Writing 490 1119 1206 7185 572Talking on the phonetexting 1935 2954 2207 2903 589Playing video games 335 493 634 8539 568Social networking 1749 2568 2240 3443 549Other 664 554 148 8635 271

networking a majority of the students reported ldquoneverrdquo multitasking whilewatching TV It is worth noting that 71 of the students reported talking on thephone or texting and nearly 66 reported social networking with others whilewatching TV

Table 10 shows whether students felt that time spent watching TV displacedor took time away from doing any of the other activities The results indicatethat a majority of students felt that watching TV did not interfere much withother activities including reading for school or homework (5193) reading forfun (6927) networking with friends online (8467) writing (7525) andsocializing with friends (756)

Table 11 reports the results on whether students perceived that multitask-ing affected their ability to focus closely on watching TV The results show that41 of the students reported that performing multiple tasks affected their abilityto concentrate on watching TV a lot (9) or some (32)

Table 12 shows Spearmanrsquos Rho values for self-reported grades correlatedwith the combined multitasking value for watching TV as described in the previoustables (Rho = minus007426 p lt 00707) as well as with their reported perception thatmultitasking affected their ability to concentrate on the materials they were readingfor school (Rho = minus006326 p lt 01366) So for TV watching the correlation ofgrades with the overall degree of multitasking was not significant

TABLE 10 Did You Feel That the Time You Spent watching TV Yesterday Took Time Away From Anyof the Following Activities

Question Yes No Unsure Total Responses

Reading for school or homework 4286 5193 521 595Reading for fun 2428 6927 645 589Social networking 1005 8467 528 587Writing 1775 7525 700 586Socializing with friendsfamily 1877 7560 563 586Other 375 8375 1250 240

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

174 K MOKHTARI ET AL

TABLE 11 Did You Feel That Doing Multiple Activities at the Same Time Yesterday AffectedYour Ability to Concentrate on the TV Programs you Were Watching

Answer Response

Yes a lot 55 9Yes some 197 32No not at all 269 44Not sure 41 7Did not multitask 52 8Total 614 100

TABLE 12 Correlations Among Self-Reported Grades Multitasking Measure and Self-ReportedPerception of Multitasking on Concentration While Watching TV

VariableAdditive Multitasking Measure

(While Watching TV)Self-Reported Degree That Multitasking Takes

Away Concentration (While Watching TV)

Self-reported grades minus007426 (p lt 00707) minus006326 (p lt 01366)Multitasking measure 010976 (p lt 00103)

Multitasking While Using the Internet

Table 13 presents results related to how often students multitasked whileusing the Internet The results show that with few exceptions a majority of thestudents reported performing multiple tasks ldquomost of the time some of the timeor a little of the timerdquo while using the Internet Of the total number of studentsresponding to this question a majority reported engaging in multiple tasks such asdoing homework (65) listening to music (53) watching TV (54) and talk-ing on the phone or texting (74) In addition students also reported engagingin other activities such as reading for fun (36) playing video games (15) andperforming other tasks (11) while using the Internet

TABLE 13 While You Were Using the Internet Yesterday How Often Did You Do Any of theFollowing (Non-Internet) Activities at the Same Time

QuestionMost of the

TimeSome of the

TimeA Little ofthe Time Never

TotalResponses

Reading for school or homework 2106 2736 1609 3549 603Reading for fun 491 1557 1523 6430 591Listening to music 1946 1980 1409 4664 596Watching TV 1235 2250 1946 4569 591Writing 771 1490 1490 6250 584Talking on the phonetexting 1493 3068 2819 2620 603Playing video games 308 632 347 8496 585Other 058 694 741 8902 173

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 175

Table 14 shows student responses pertaining to whether they felt that timespent using the Internet displaced time spent on doing other activities The resultsindicate that most students did not feel that using the Internet interfered with otheractivities including reading for fun (7483) watching TV (8110) writing(7778) reading for academic purposes (6156) and socializing with friends(6772) These data seem to indicate that the Internet affected studentsrsquo readingfor school activity or academics more than it affected other activities as indicatedby the percentage of students (6156) reporting whether time spent using theInternet displaced time spent on schoolwork

Table 15 reports the results pertaining to whether multitasking affected stu-dentsrsquo ability to focus closely on using the Internet The results indicate that about41 of students reported that performing multiple tasks affected their ability toconcentrate on using the Internet a lot (9) or some of the time (32) As in otheractivities such as reading for fun reading for school or watching TV only about6 of the students who responded to this question reported not multitasking whileusing the Internet

Table 16 shows Spearmanrsquos Rho values for self-reported grades correlatedwith the combined multitasking value for using the internet as described inTables 13ndash15 (Rho = minus007532 p 00621) as well as with their reported per-ception that multitasking affected their ability to concentrate on the materials theywere reading for school (Rho = minus007989 p lt 00541) So for Internet use thecorrelation of grades with the overall degree of multitasking was not significant

TABLE 14 Did You Feel That the Time You Spent Using the Internet Yesterday Took Time Away FromAny of the Following Activities

Question Yes No Unsure Total Responses

Reading for school or homework 3274 6156 570 614Reading for fun 1967 7483 550 600Watching TV 1371 8110 518 598Writing 1599 7778 623 594Socializing with friendsfamily 2659 6772 569 598Other 468 8128 1404 235

TABLE 15 Did You Feel That Doing Multiple Activities at the Same Time Yesterday Affected YourAbility to Concentrate on What You Were Doing While Using the Internet

Answer Response

Yes a lot 59 9Yes some 201 32No not at all 287 46Not sure 41 7Did not multitask 39 6Total 627 100

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

176 K MOKHTARI ET AL

TABLE 16 Correlations Among Self-Reported Grades Multitasking Measure and Self-ReportedPerception of Multitasking on Concentration While Using the Internet

VariableAdditive Multitasking Measure

(While Using the Internet)Self-Reported Degree That Multitasking TakesAway Concentration (While Using the Internet)

Self-reported grades minus007532 (p lt 00621) minus007989 (p lt 00541)Multitasking measure 013900 (p lt 00008)

DISCUSSION

Our goal in this time-diary survey study was to shed light on the multitaskinghabits of todayrsquos college students on one college campus Consistent with priorresearch investigating college studentsrsquo reading habits and practices we found thatthe majority of the studyrsquos participants reported spending a considerable portionof their time on reading for fun reading for school watching TV and using theInternet Although not very surprising to us a key finding was that students alsoreported performing an array of other tasks simultaneously while engaged in oneor more of the four main activities under study In almost all areas the majorityof students reported that they spent time talking on the phone or texting whileengaged in other activities This finding is not unexpected given the fact that 97of individuals aged 18ndash29 have a cell phone and over 50 of those are connected tothe Internet (Anderson amp Rainie 2012) Also it is not surprising given the numberof existing cell phones that texting has become a primary mode of communicationfor many college students A recent T-Mobile study found that the average personchecks his or her phone approximately 150 times per day (T-Mobile 2012)

What we found particularly interesting was the fact that students perceivedacross all areas that multitasking for the most part did not interfere with core activ-ities such as reading for fun reading for school watching TV or using the InternetThese findings are consistent with prior research indicating that the amount of timethat college students spend on the Internet does not seem to interfere with the timethey report spending on other core activities (eg Mokhtari et al 2009 Griswoldamp Wright 2004)

However we also found that students felt that multitasking interfered withtheir reading for school purposes more so than for the other activities such as read-ing for fun (7483) watching TV (8110) writing (7778) doing homework(6156) and socializing with friends (6772) Sixty percent of the respondentsfelt that multitasking affected their ability to concentrate a lot (20) or some (40)when reading for academic purposes In essence these students acknowledged thatperforming two or more tasks simultaneously (eg listening to music watchingTV andor texting) while reading for school (eg completing a chapter readingassignment in a particular course) interfered with their ability to focus closely onthe content of that assignment This finding highlights the fact that students werecognizant that multitasking was somewhat of a distraction to their schoolwork

In a somewhat similar survey study focused on student classroom use ofdigital devices for nonclass related purposes McCoy (2013) found that more than

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 177

90 of students surveyed admitted to using media devices such as cell phoneslaptops and other devices for recreational purposes during class time with morethan 80 acknowledging that using laptops smartphones and other media devicesinterfered with their learning

When we asked students for their perceptions about multitasking the major-ity readily admitted that they felt multitasking negatively affected their ability toconcentrate on their schoolwork If this perception was true we would expectthat increases in multitasking would negatively affect student grades and indeedgrades were negatively correlated with the overall amount of multitasking reportedas well as the reported perception of loss of concentration from multitasking Yetthe perception of loss of concentration was not strongly correlated with the over-all amount of multitasking to some extent confirming that students do not fullyperceive the effects of multitasking on their academic performance

Research has shown that about only 2 of us are ldquosupertaskersrdquo multi-tasking effectively (Sundem 2012) For the rest of the 98 multitasking canreduce productivity by as much as 40 and switching from one task to anothermakes it difficult to tune out distractions and can cause mental blocks that canslow productivity (American Psychological Association 2006 Rubinstein et al2001 Sundem 2012) In his book Why Students Donrsquot Like School Willingham(2010) noted that ldquoone of the most stubborn persistent phenomena of the mind isthat when you do two things at once you donrsquot do either one as well as when youdo them one at a timerdquo (p 25) This is true not just for college students but forpeople in the workplace as well

Educational Implications and Cautions

In light of the studyrsquos main findings we recognize that multitasking is abyproduct of our modern and constantly connected world It is fueled by newand emerging information communication technologies such as the Internet Thesemedia technologies often make the ability to switch between tasks and accessinformation relatively easy so easy in fact that it can hide the cognitive costsof redirecting attention and actually processing information to gain understanding

Conversely new and emerging multitasking research seems to suggest thatthere is a high cost associated with multitasking in that it increases error in whatwe do and makes us less productive In his book Brain Rules John Medina (2009)reports that multitaskers experience about a 40 decline in productivity and take50 longer to complete a single task Although the temptation to multitask is aconstant companion we recommend that college students be mindful of its benefitsand drawbacks as they try to make themselves more efficient and more productivewhile juggling personal family and school obligations Walter Pauk a pioneer inthe field of college learning and study skills advises students to set aside or allo-cate specific periods of time (time chunking) for specific tasks in order to preventinterruptions and distractions which in turn will help students be more productive(Pauk 2010)

A valuable lesson learned from this study is that we have a great deal moreto learn about multitasking its nature benefits and inconveniences particularly

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

178 K MOKHTARI ET AL

in the context of schooling Even though students in our study told us that mul-titasking interfered with their core activities and influenced their ability to focuson focal activities such as reading for academic purposes we are not certain aboutthe conditions under which students multitask the extent to which it interferes withthe time spent on other activities and exactly how it influences their productivityFor instance when a student listens to music eats a snack and watches TV whileengaged in a core activity such as completing a reading assignment (eg read-ing a chapter in a book) for a science class what happens to his or her ability toeffectively complete the core reading assignment How do the type and number oftasks such as listening to music or watching TV while performing a core task suchas reading a chapter book affect someonersquos ability to focus on their reading assign-ment Do certain types of tasks (eg listening to music) have a lesser influence ona reading assignment than other tasks (eg talking on the phone) Are there dif-ferences in multitasking habits and practices between male and female studentsWe recommend that these questions and others be subjected to rigorous researchand investigation Answers to these questions will help address media multitaskingamong college students as a growing concern

Finally we want to share three potential limitations of this study whichshould be taken into consideration when interpreting the results and engaging infuture research that addresses multitasking among college students First it is achallenge to accurately capture studentsrsquo multitasking habits and practices throughthe use of indirect methods such as surveys or questionnaires We believe we haveminimized the design limitations of traditional self-report instruments by using atime-diary survey which provides a more accurate measure of time spent on cer-tain activities and therefore reduces error resulting in an increase in instrumentvalidity and reliability Second our time-diary survey instrument was lengthy andmay have contributed to the relatively low response rate from our original poolof students Finally even though some of our findings are consistent with priorresearch with regard to studentsrsquo multitasking habits and practices the findings ofthis study have limited generalizability in large part because the students in thisstudy were from one four-year institution

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Kouider Mokhtari PhD serves as the Anderson-Vukelja-Wright Endowed Chair of Education in theSchool of Education at The University of Texas at Tyler

Julie Delello PhD is an Assistant Professor in the School of Education at The University of Texas at Tyler

Carla Reichard PhD is Assistant Director in the Office of Research and Technology Transfer at TheUniversity of Texas at Tyler

REFERENCES

American Psychological Association (2006) Multitasking Switching costs Retrieved from httpapaorgresearchactionmultitaskaspx

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

172 K MOKHTARI ET AL

TABLE 6 Did You Feel That the Time You Spent Reading for College Classes Yesterday Took TimeAway From Any of the Following Cctivities or Tasks

Question Yes No Unsure Total Responses Mean

Reading for fun 3056 6332 611 638 176Watching TV videos or DVDs 3459 6088 454 639 170Writing 1517 7772 711 633 192Socializing with friendsfamily 4632 4898 469 639 158Social networking 2946 6450 604 645 177Other 941 7327 1732 202 208

TABLE 7 Did You Feel That Doing Multiple Tasks at the Same Time Yesterday Affected YourAbility to Concentrate on the Materials You Were Reading for College Classes

Answer Response

Yes a lot 136 20Yes some 269 40No not at all 162 24Not sure 22 3Did not multitask 85 13Total 674 100

TABLE 8 Correlations Among Self-Reported Grades Multitasking Measure and Self-Reported Perceptionof Multitasking on Concentration While Reading for School or Homework

VariableAdditive Multitasking Measure

(While Reading for School)Self-Reported Degree That Multitasking Takes

Away Concentration (While Reading for School)

Self-reported grades minus007780 (p lt 00474) minus011675 (p lt 00049)Multitasking measure 007084 (p lt 00917)

the respondents felt that their multitasking affected their ability to concentrate a lot(20) or some (40)

Table 8 shows Spearmanrsquos Rho values for self-reported grades correlatedwith the combined multitasking value for reading for academic purposes asdescribed in the previous tables (Rho = minus00778 p lt 00474) as well as withtheir reported perception that multitasking affected their ability to concentrate onthe materials they were reading for school (Rho = minus011675 p lt 00049) Againthere is a significant negative correlation with the overall degree of multitasking

Multitasking While Watching TV

Table 9 presents results relating to how often students multitasked whilewatching TV With the exception of talking on the phone or texting and social

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 173

TABLE 9 While You Were Watching TV Yesterday How Often Did You Do Any of the FollowingActivities at the Same Time

QuestionMost of the

TimeSome of the

TimeA Little ofthe Time Never

TotalResponses

Reading for fun 573 1181 1007 7240 576Listening to music 1090 1003 502 7405 578Reading for school or homework 934 1661 1696 5709 578Writing 490 1119 1206 7185 572Talking on the phonetexting 1935 2954 2207 2903 589Playing video games 335 493 634 8539 568Social networking 1749 2568 2240 3443 549Other 664 554 148 8635 271

networking a majority of the students reported ldquoneverrdquo multitasking whilewatching TV It is worth noting that 71 of the students reported talking on thephone or texting and nearly 66 reported social networking with others whilewatching TV

Table 10 shows whether students felt that time spent watching TV displacedor took time away from doing any of the other activities The results indicatethat a majority of students felt that watching TV did not interfere much withother activities including reading for school or homework (5193) reading forfun (6927) networking with friends online (8467) writing (7525) andsocializing with friends (756)

Table 11 reports the results on whether students perceived that multitask-ing affected their ability to focus closely on watching TV The results show that41 of the students reported that performing multiple tasks affected their abilityto concentrate on watching TV a lot (9) or some (32)

Table 12 shows Spearmanrsquos Rho values for self-reported grades correlatedwith the combined multitasking value for watching TV as described in the previoustables (Rho = minus007426 p lt 00707) as well as with their reported perception thatmultitasking affected their ability to concentrate on the materials they were readingfor school (Rho = minus006326 p lt 01366) So for TV watching the correlation ofgrades with the overall degree of multitasking was not significant

TABLE 10 Did You Feel That the Time You Spent watching TV Yesterday Took Time Away From Anyof the Following Activities

Question Yes No Unsure Total Responses

Reading for school or homework 4286 5193 521 595Reading for fun 2428 6927 645 589Social networking 1005 8467 528 587Writing 1775 7525 700 586Socializing with friendsfamily 1877 7560 563 586Other 375 8375 1250 240

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

174 K MOKHTARI ET AL

TABLE 11 Did You Feel That Doing Multiple Activities at the Same Time Yesterday AffectedYour Ability to Concentrate on the TV Programs you Were Watching

Answer Response

Yes a lot 55 9Yes some 197 32No not at all 269 44Not sure 41 7Did not multitask 52 8Total 614 100

TABLE 12 Correlations Among Self-Reported Grades Multitasking Measure and Self-ReportedPerception of Multitasking on Concentration While Watching TV

VariableAdditive Multitasking Measure

(While Watching TV)Self-Reported Degree That Multitasking Takes

Away Concentration (While Watching TV)

Self-reported grades minus007426 (p lt 00707) minus006326 (p lt 01366)Multitasking measure 010976 (p lt 00103)

Multitasking While Using the Internet

Table 13 presents results related to how often students multitasked whileusing the Internet The results show that with few exceptions a majority of thestudents reported performing multiple tasks ldquomost of the time some of the timeor a little of the timerdquo while using the Internet Of the total number of studentsresponding to this question a majority reported engaging in multiple tasks such asdoing homework (65) listening to music (53) watching TV (54) and talk-ing on the phone or texting (74) In addition students also reported engagingin other activities such as reading for fun (36) playing video games (15) andperforming other tasks (11) while using the Internet

TABLE 13 While You Were Using the Internet Yesterday How Often Did You Do Any of theFollowing (Non-Internet) Activities at the Same Time

QuestionMost of the

TimeSome of the

TimeA Little ofthe Time Never

TotalResponses

Reading for school or homework 2106 2736 1609 3549 603Reading for fun 491 1557 1523 6430 591Listening to music 1946 1980 1409 4664 596Watching TV 1235 2250 1946 4569 591Writing 771 1490 1490 6250 584Talking on the phonetexting 1493 3068 2819 2620 603Playing video games 308 632 347 8496 585Other 058 694 741 8902 173

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 175

Table 14 shows student responses pertaining to whether they felt that timespent using the Internet displaced time spent on doing other activities The resultsindicate that most students did not feel that using the Internet interfered with otheractivities including reading for fun (7483) watching TV (8110) writing(7778) reading for academic purposes (6156) and socializing with friends(6772) These data seem to indicate that the Internet affected studentsrsquo readingfor school activity or academics more than it affected other activities as indicatedby the percentage of students (6156) reporting whether time spent using theInternet displaced time spent on schoolwork

Table 15 reports the results pertaining to whether multitasking affected stu-dentsrsquo ability to focus closely on using the Internet The results indicate that about41 of students reported that performing multiple tasks affected their ability toconcentrate on using the Internet a lot (9) or some of the time (32) As in otheractivities such as reading for fun reading for school or watching TV only about6 of the students who responded to this question reported not multitasking whileusing the Internet

Table 16 shows Spearmanrsquos Rho values for self-reported grades correlatedwith the combined multitasking value for using the internet as described inTables 13ndash15 (Rho = minus007532 p 00621) as well as with their reported per-ception that multitasking affected their ability to concentrate on the materials theywere reading for school (Rho = minus007989 p lt 00541) So for Internet use thecorrelation of grades with the overall degree of multitasking was not significant

TABLE 14 Did You Feel That the Time You Spent Using the Internet Yesterday Took Time Away FromAny of the Following Activities

Question Yes No Unsure Total Responses

Reading for school or homework 3274 6156 570 614Reading for fun 1967 7483 550 600Watching TV 1371 8110 518 598Writing 1599 7778 623 594Socializing with friendsfamily 2659 6772 569 598Other 468 8128 1404 235

TABLE 15 Did You Feel That Doing Multiple Activities at the Same Time Yesterday Affected YourAbility to Concentrate on What You Were Doing While Using the Internet

Answer Response

Yes a lot 59 9Yes some 201 32No not at all 287 46Not sure 41 7Did not multitask 39 6Total 627 100

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

176 K MOKHTARI ET AL

TABLE 16 Correlations Among Self-Reported Grades Multitasking Measure and Self-ReportedPerception of Multitasking on Concentration While Using the Internet

VariableAdditive Multitasking Measure

(While Using the Internet)Self-Reported Degree That Multitasking TakesAway Concentration (While Using the Internet)

Self-reported grades minus007532 (p lt 00621) minus007989 (p lt 00541)Multitasking measure 013900 (p lt 00008)

DISCUSSION

Our goal in this time-diary survey study was to shed light on the multitaskinghabits of todayrsquos college students on one college campus Consistent with priorresearch investigating college studentsrsquo reading habits and practices we found thatthe majority of the studyrsquos participants reported spending a considerable portionof their time on reading for fun reading for school watching TV and using theInternet Although not very surprising to us a key finding was that students alsoreported performing an array of other tasks simultaneously while engaged in oneor more of the four main activities under study In almost all areas the majorityof students reported that they spent time talking on the phone or texting whileengaged in other activities This finding is not unexpected given the fact that 97of individuals aged 18ndash29 have a cell phone and over 50 of those are connected tothe Internet (Anderson amp Rainie 2012) Also it is not surprising given the numberof existing cell phones that texting has become a primary mode of communicationfor many college students A recent T-Mobile study found that the average personchecks his or her phone approximately 150 times per day (T-Mobile 2012)

What we found particularly interesting was the fact that students perceivedacross all areas that multitasking for the most part did not interfere with core activ-ities such as reading for fun reading for school watching TV or using the InternetThese findings are consistent with prior research indicating that the amount of timethat college students spend on the Internet does not seem to interfere with the timethey report spending on other core activities (eg Mokhtari et al 2009 Griswoldamp Wright 2004)

However we also found that students felt that multitasking interfered withtheir reading for school purposes more so than for the other activities such as read-ing for fun (7483) watching TV (8110) writing (7778) doing homework(6156) and socializing with friends (6772) Sixty percent of the respondentsfelt that multitasking affected their ability to concentrate a lot (20) or some (40)when reading for academic purposes In essence these students acknowledged thatperforming two or more tasks simultaneously (eg listening to music watchingTV andor texting) while reading for school (eg completing a chapter readingassignment in a particular course) interfered with their ability to focus closely onthe content of that assignment This finding highlights the fact that students werecognizant that multitasking was somewhat of a distraction to their schoolwork

In a somewhat similar survey study focused on student classroom use ofdigital devices for nonclass related purposes McCoy (2013) found that more than

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 177

90 of students surveyed admitted to using media devices such as cell phoneslaptops and other devices for recreational purposes during class time with morethan 80 acknowledging that using laptops smartphones and other media devicesinterfered with their learning

When we asked students for their perceptions about multitasking the major-ity readily admitted that they felt multitasking negatively affected their ability toconcentrate on their schoolwork If this perception was true we would expectthat increases in multitasking would negatively affect student grades and indeedgrades were negatively correlated with the overall amount of multitasking reportedas well as the reported perception of loss of concentration from multitasking Yetthe perception of loss of concentration was not strongly correlated with the over-all amount of multitasking to some extent confirming that students do not fullyperceive the effects of multitasking on their academic performance

Research has shown that about only 2 of us are ldquosupertaskersrdquo multi-tasking effectively (Sundem 2012) For the rest of the 98 multitasking canreduce productivity by as much as 40 and switching from one task to anothermakes it difficult to tune out distractions and can cause mental blocks that canslow productivity (American Psychological Association 2006 Rubinstein et al2001 Sundem 2012) In his book Why Students Donrsquot Like School Willingham(2010) noted that ldquoone of the most stubborn persistent phenomena of the mind isthat when you do two things at once you donrsquot do either one as well as when youdo them one at a timerdquo (p 25) This is true not just for college students but forpeople in the workplace as well

Educational Implications and Cautions

In light of the studyrsquos main findings we recognize that multitasking is abyproduct of our modern and constantly connected world It is fueled by newand emerging information communication technologies such as the Internet Thesemedia technologies often make the ability to switch between tasks and accessinformation relatively easy so easy in fact that it can hide the cognitive costsof redirecting attention and actually processing information to gain understanding

Conversely new and emerging multitasking research seems to suggest thatthere is a high cost associated with multitasking in that it increases error in whatwe do and makes us less productive In his book Brain Rules John Medina (2009)reports that multitaskers experience about a 40 decline in productivity and take50 longer to complete a single task Although the temptation to multitask is aconstant companion we recommend that college students be mindful of its benefitsand drawbacks as they try to make themselves more efficient and more productivewhile juggling personal family and school obligations Walter Pauk a pioneer inthe field of college learning and study skills advises students to set aside or allo-cate specific periods of time (time chunking) for specific tasks in order to preventinterruptions and distractions which in turn will help students be more productive(Pauk 2010)

A valuable lesson learned from this study is that we have a great deal moreto learn about multitasking its nature benefits and inconveniences particularly

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

178 K MOKHTARI ET AL

in the context of schooling Even though students in our study told us that mul-titasking interfered with their core activities and influenced their ability to focuson focal activities such as reading for academic purposes we are not certain aboutthe conditions under which students multitask the extent to which it interferes withthe time spent on other activities and exactly how it influences their productivityFor instance when a student listens to music eats a snack and watches TV whileengaged in a core activity such as completing a reading assignment (eg read-ing a chapter in a book) for a science class what happens to his or her ability toeffectively complete the core reading assignment How do the type and number oftasks such as listening to music or watching TV while performing a core task suchas reading a chapter book affect someonersquos ability to focus on their reading assign-ment Do certain types of tasks (eg listening to music) have a lesser influence ona reading assignment than other tasks (eg talking on the phone) Are there dif-ferences in multitasking habits and practices between male and female studentsWe recommend that these questions and others be subjected to rigorous researchand investigation Answers to these questions will help address media multitaskingamong college students as a growing concern

Finally we want to share three potential limitations of this study whichshould be taken into consideration when interpreting the results and engaging infuture research that addresses multitasking among college students First it is achallenge to accurately capture studentsrsquo multitasking habits and practices throughthe use of indirect methods such as surveys or questionnaires We believe we haveminimized the design limitations of traditional self-report instruments by using atime-diary survey which provides a more accurate measure of time spent on cer-tain activities and therefore reduces error resulting in an increase in instrumentvalidity and reliability Second our time-diary survey instrument was lengthy andmay have contributed to the relatively low response rate from our original poolof students Finally even though some of our findings are consistent with priorresearch with regard to studentsrsquo multitasking habits and practices the findings ofthis study have limited generalizability in large part because the students in thisstudy were from one four-year institution

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Kouider Mokhtari PhD serves as the Anderson-Vukelja-Wright Endowed Chair of Education in theSchool of Education at The University of Texas at Tyler

Julie Delello PhD is an Assistant Professor in the School of Education at The University of Texas at Tyler

Carla Reichard PhD is Assistant Director in the Office of Research and Technology Transfer at TheUniversity of Texas at Tyler

REFERENCES

American Psychological Association (2006) Multitasking Switching costs Retrieved from httpapaorgresearchactionmultitaskaspx

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 173

TABLE 9 While You Were Watching TV Yesterday How Often Did You Do Any of the FollowingActivities at the Same Time

QuestionMost of the

TimeSome of the

TimeA Little ofthe Time Never

TotalResponses

Reading for fun 573 1181 1007 7240 576Listening to music 1090 1003 502 7405 578Reading for school or homework 934 1661 1696 5709 578Writing 490 1119 1206 7185 572Talking on the phonetexting 1935 2954 2207 2903 589Playing video games 335 493 634 8539 568Social networking 1749 2568 2240 3443 549Other 664 554 148 8635 271

networking a majority of the students reported ldquoneverrdquo multitasking whilewatching TV It is worth noting that 71 of the students reported talking on thephone or texting and nearly 66 reported social networking with others whilewatching TV

Table 10 shows whether students felt that time spent watching TV displacedor took time away from doing any of the other activities The results indicatethat a majority of students felt that watching TV did not interfere much withother activities including reading for school or homework (5193) reading forfun (6927) networking with friends online (8467) writing (7525) andsocializing with friends (756)

Table 11 reports the results on whether students perceived that multitask-ing affected their ability to focus closely on watching TV The results show that41 of the students reported that performing multiple tasks affected their abilityto concentrate on watching TV a lot (9) or some (32)

Table 12 shows Spearmanrsquos Rho values for self-reported grades correlatedwith the combined multitasking value for watching TV as described in the previoustables (Rho = minus007426 p lt 00707) as well as with their reported perception thatmultitasking affected their ability to concentrate on the materials they were readingfor school (Rho = minus006326 p lt 01366) So for TV watching the correlation ofgrades with the overall degree of multitasking was not significant

TABLE 10 Did You Feel That the Time You Spent watching TV Yesterday Took Time Away From Anyof the Following Activities

Question Yes No Unsure Total Responses

Reading for school or homework 4286 5193 521 595Reading for fun 2428 6927 645 589Social networking 1005 8467 528 587Writing 1775 7525 700 586Socializing with friendsfamily 1877 7560 563 586Other 375 8375 1250 240

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

174 K MOKHTARI ET AL

TABLE 11 Did You Feel That Doing Multiple Activities at the Same Time Yesterday AffectedYour Ability to Concentrate on the TV Programs you Were Watching

Answer Response

Yes a lot 55 9Yes some 197 32No not at all 269 44Not sure 41 7Did not multitask 52 8Total 614 100

TABLE 12 Correlations Among Self-Reported Grades Multitasking Measure and Self-ReportedPerception of Multitasking on Concentration While Watching TV

VariableAdditive Multitasking Measure

(While Watching TV)Self-Reported Degree That Multitasking Takes

Away Concentration (While Watching TV)

Self-reported grades minus007426 (p lt 00707) minus006326 (p lt 01366)Multitasking measure 010976 (p lt 00103)

Multitasking While Using the Internet

Table 13 presents results related to how often students multitasked whileusing the Internet The results show that with few exceptions a majority of thestudents reported performing multiple tasks ldquomost of the time some of the timeor a little of the timerdquo while using the Internet Of the total number of studentsresponding to this question a majority reported engaging in multiple tasks such asdoing homework (65) listening to music (53) watching TV (54) and talk-ing on the phone or texting (74) In addition students also reported engagingin other activities such as reading for fun (36) playing video games (15) andperforming other tasks (11) while using the Internet

TABLE 13 While You Were Using the Internet Yesterday How Often Did You Do Any of theFollowing (Non-Internet) Activities at the Same Time

QuestionMost of the

TimeSome of the

TimeA Little ofthe Time Never

TotalResponses

Reading for school or homework 2106 2736 1609 3549 603Reading for fun 491 1557 1523 6430 591Listening to music 1946 1980 1409 4664 596Watching TV 1235 2250 1946 4569 591Writing 771 1490 1490 6250 584Talking on the phonetexting 1493 3068 2819 2620 603Playing video games 308 632 347 8496 585Other 058 694 741 8902 173

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 175

Table 14 shows student responses pertaining to whether they felt that timespent using the Internet displaced time spent on doing other activities The resultsindicate that most students did not feel that using the Internet interfered with otheractivities including reading for fun (7483) watching TV (8110) writing(7778) reading for academic purposes (6156) and socializing with friends(6772) These data seem to indicate that the Internet affected studentsrsquo readingfor school activity or academics more than it affected other activities as indicatedby the percentage of students (6156) reporting whether time spent using theInternet displaced time spent on schoolwork

Table 15 reports the results pertaining to whether multitasking affected stu-dentsrsquo ability to focus closely on using the Internet The results indicate that about41 of students reported that performing multiple tasks affected their ability toconcentrate on using the Internet a lot (9) or some of the time (32) As in otheractivities such as reading for fun reading for school or watching TV only about6 of the students who responded to this question reported not multitasking whileusing the Internet

Table 16 shows Spearmanrsquos Rho values for self-reported grades correlatedwith the combined multitasking value for using the internet as described inTables 13ndash15 (Rho = minus007532 p 00621) as well as with their reported per-ception that multitasking affected their ability to concentrate on the materials theywere reading for school (Rho = minus007989 p lt 00541) So for Internet use thecorrelation of grades with the overall degree of multitasking was not significant

TABLE 14 Did You Feel That the Time You Spent Using the Internet Yesterday Took Time Away FromAny of the Following Activities

Question Yes No Unsure Total Responses

Reading for school or homework 3274 6156 570 614Reading for fun 1967 7483 550 600Watching TV 1371 8110 518 598Writing 1599 7778 623 594Socializing with friendsfamily 2659 6772 569 598Other 468 8128 1404 235

TABLE 15 Did You Feel That Doing Multiple Activities at the Same Time Yesterday Affected YourAbility to Concentrate on What You Were Doing While Using the Internet

Answer Response

Yes a lot 59 9Yes some 201 32No not at all 287 46Not sure 41 7Did not multitask 39 6Total 627 100

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

176 K MOKHTARI ET AL

TABLE 16 Correlations Among Self-Reported Grades Multitasking Measure and Self-ReportedPerception of Multitasking on Concentration While Using the Internet

VariableAdditive Multitasking Measure

(While Using the Internet)Self-Reported Degree That Multitasking TakesAway Concentration (While Using the Internet)

Self-reported grades minus007532 (p lt 00621) minus007989 (p lt 00541)Multitasking measure 013900 (p lt 00008)

DISCUSSION

Our goal in this time-diary survey study was to shed light on the multitaskinghabits of todayrsquos college students on one college campus Consistent with priorresearch investigating college studentsrsquo reading habits and practices we found thatthe majority of the studyrsquos participants reported spending a considerable portionof their time on reading for fun reading for school watching TV and using theInternet Although not very surprising to us a key finding was that students alsoreported performing an array of other tasks simultaneously while engaged in oneor more of the four main activities under study In almost all areas the majorityof students reported that they spent time talking on the phone or texting whileengaged in other activities This finding is not unexpected given the fact that 97of individuals aged 18ndash29 have a cell phone and over 50 of those are connected tothe Internet (Anderson amp Rainie 2012) Also it is not surprising given the numberof existing cell phones that texting has become a primary mode of communicationfor many college students A recent T-Mobile study found that the average personchecks his or her phone approximately 150 times per day (T-Mobile 2012)

What we found particularly interesting was the fact that students perceivedacross all areas that multitasking for the most part did not interfere with core activ-ities such as reading for fun reading for school watching TV or using the InternetThese findings are consistent with prior research indicating that the amount of timethat college students spend on the Internet does not seem to interfere with the timethey report spending on other core activities (eg Mokhtari et al 2009 Griswoldamp Wright 2004)

However we also found that students felt that multitasking interfered withtheir reading for school purposes more so than for the other activities such as read-ing for fun (7483) watching TV (8110) writing (7778) doing homework(6156) and socializing with friends (6772) Sixty percent of the respondentsfelt that multitasking affected their ability to concentrate a lot (20) or some (40)when reading for academic purposes In essence these students acknowledged thatperforming two or more tasks simultaneously (eg listening to music watchingTV andor texting) while reading for school (eg completing a chapter readingassignment in a particular course) interfered with their ability to focus closely onthe content of that assignment This finding highlights the fact that students werecognizant that multitasking was somewhat of a distraction to their schoolwork

In a somewhat similar survey study focused on student classroom use ofdigital devices for nonclass related purposes McCoy (2013) found that more than

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 177

90 of students surveyed admitted to using media devices such as cell phoneslaptops and other devices for recreational purposes during class time with morethan 80 acknowledging that using laptops smartphones and other media devicesinterfered with their learning

When we asked students for their perceptions about multitasking the major-ity readily admitted that they felt multitasking negatively affected their ability toconcentrate on their schoolwork If this perception was true we would expectthat increases in multitasking would negatively affect student grades and indeedgrades were negatively correlated with the overall amount of multitasking reportedas well as the reported perception of loss of concentration from multitasking Yetthe perception of loss of concentration was not strongly correlated with the over-all amount of multitasking to some extent confirming that students do not fullyperceive the effects of multitasking on their academic performance

Research has shown that about only 2 of us are ldquosupertaskersrdquo multi-tasking effectively (Sundem 2012) For the rest of the 98 multitasking canreduce productivity by as much as 40 and switching from one task to anothermakes it difficult to tune out distractions and can cause mental blocks that canslow productivity (American Psychological Association 2006 Rubinstein et al2001 Sundem 2012) In his book Why Students Donrsquot Like School Willingham(2010) noted that ldquoone of the most stubborn persistent phenomena of the mind isthat when you do two things at once you donrsquot do either one as well as when youdo them one at a timerdquo (p 25) This is true not just for college students but forpeople in the workplace as well

Educational Implications and Cautions

In light of the studyrsquos main findings we recognize that multitasking is abyproduct of our modern and constantly connected world It is fueled by newand emerging information communication technologies such as the Internet Thesemedia technologies often make the ability to switch between tasks and accessinformation relatively easy so easy in fact that it can hide the cognitive costsof redirecting attention and actually processing information to gain understanding

Conversely new and emerging multitasking research seems to suggest thatthere is a high cost associated with multitasking in that it increases error in whatwe do and makes us less productive In his book Brain Rules John Medina (2009)reports that multitaskers experience about a 40 decline in productivity and take50 longer to complete a single task Although the temptation to multitask is aconstant companion we recommend that college students be mindful of its benefitsand drawbacks as they try to make themselves more efficient and more productivewhile juggling personal family and school obligations Walter Pauk a pioneer inthe field of college learning and study skills advises students to set aside or allo-cate specific periods of time (time chunking) for specific tasks in order to preventinterruptions and distractions which in turn will help students be more productive(Pauk 2010)

A valuable lesson learned from this study is that we have a great deal moreto learn about multitasking its nature benefits and inconveniences particularly

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

178 K MOKHTARI ET AL

in the context of schooling Even though students in our study told us that mul-titasking interfered with their core activities and influenced their ability to focuson focal activities such as reading for academic purposes we are not certain aboutthe conditions under which students multitask the extent to which it interferes withthe time spent on other activities and exactly how it influences their productivityFor instance when a student listens to music eats a snack and watches TV whileengaged in a core activity such as completing a reading assignment (eg read-ing a chapter in a book) for a science class what happens to his or her ability toeffectively complete the core reading assignment How do the type and number oftasks such as listening to music or watching TV while performing a core task suchas reading a chapter book affect someonersquos ability to focus on their reading assign-ment Do certain types of tasks (eg listening to music) have a lesser influence ona reading assignment than other tasks (eg talking on the phone) Are there dif-ferences in multitasking habits and practices between male and female studentsWe recommend that these questions and others be subjected to rigorous researchand investigation Answers to these questions will help address media multitaskingamong college students as a growing concern

Finally we want to share three potential limitations of this study whichshould be taken into consideration when interpreting the results and engaging infuture research that addresses multitasking among college students First it is achallenge to accurately capture studentsrsquo multitasking habits and practices throughthe use of indirect methods such as surveys or questionnaires We believe we haveminimized the design limitations of traditional self-report instruments by using atime-diary survey which provides a more accurate measure of time spent on cer-tain activities and therefore reduces error resulting in an increase in instrumentvalidity and reliability Second our time-diary survey instrument was lengthy andmay have contributed to the relatively low response rate from our original poolof students Finally even though some of our findings are consistent with priorresearch with regard to studentsrsquo multitasking habits and practices the findings ofthis study have limited generalizability in large part because the students in thisstudy were from one four-year institution

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Kouider Mokhtari PhD serves as the Anderson-Vukelja-Wright Endowed Chair of Education in theSchool of Education at The University of Texas at Tyler

Julie Delello PhD is an Assistant Professor in the School of Education at The University of Texas at Tyler

Carla Reichard PhD is Assistant Director in the Office of Research and Technology Transfer at TheUniversity of Texas at Tyler

REFERENCES

American Psychological Association (2006) Multitasking Switching costs Retrieved from httpapaorgresearchactionmultitaskaspx

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

174 K MOKHTARI ET AL

TABLE 11 Did You Feel That Doing Multiple Activities at the Same Time Yesterday AffectedYour Ability to Concentrate on the TV Programs you Were Watching

Answer Response

Yes a lot 55 9Yes some 197 32No not at all 269 44Not sure 41 7Did not multitask 52 8Total 614 100

TABLE 12 Correlations Among Self-Reported Grades Multitasking Measure and Self-ReportedPerception of Multitasking on Concentration While Watching TV

VariableAdditive Multitasking Measure

(While Watching TV)Self-Reported Degree That Multitasking Takes

Away Concentration (While Watching TV)

Self-reported grades minus007426 (p lt 00707) minus006326 (p lt 01366)Multitasking measure 010976 (p lt 00103)

Multitasking While Using the Internet

Table 13 presents results related to how often students multitasked whileusing the Internet The results show that with few exceptions a majority of thestudents reported performing multiple tasks ldquomost of the time some of the timeor a little of the timerdquo while using the Internet Of the total number of studentsresponding to this question a majority reported engaging in multiple tasks such asdoing homework (65) listening to music (53) watching TV (54) and talk-ing on the phone or texting (74) In addition students also reported engagingin other activities such as reading for fun (36) playing video games (15) andperforming other tasks (11) while using the Internet

TABLE 13 While You Were Using the Internet Yesterday How Often Did You Do Any of theFollowing (Non-Internet) Activities at the Same Time

QuestionMost of the

TimeSome of the

TimeA Little ofthe Time Never

TotalResponses

Reading for school or homework 2106 2736 1609 3549 603Reading for fun 491 1557 1523 6430 591Listening to music 1946 1980 1409 4664 596Watching TV 1235 2250 1946 4569 591Writing 771 1490 1490 6250 584Talking on the phonetexting 1493 3068 2819 2620 603Playing video games 308 632 347 8496 585Other 058 694 741 8902 173

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 175

Table 14 shows student responses pertaining to whether they felt that timespent using the Internet displaced time spent on doing other activities The resultsindicate that most students did not feel that using the Internet interfered with otheractivities including reading for fun (7483) watching TV (8110) writing(7778) reading for academic purposes (6156) and socializing with friends(6772) These data seem to indicate that the Internet affected studentsrsquo readingfor school activity or academics more than it affected other activities as indicatedby the percentage of students (6156) reporting whether time spent using theInternet displaced time spent on schoolwork

Table 15 reports the results pertaining to whether multitasking affected stu-dentsrsquo ability to focus closely on using the Internet The results indicate that about41 of students reported that performing multiple tasks affected their ability toconcentrate on using the Internet a lot (9) or some of the time (32) As in otheractivities such as reading for fun reading for school or watching TV only about6 of the students who responded to this question reported not multitasking whileusing the Internet

Table 16 shows Spearmanrsquos Rho values for self-reported grades correlatedwith the combined multitasking value for using the internet as described inTables 13ndash15 (Rho = minus007532 p 00621) as well as with their reported per-ception that multitasking affected their ability to concentrate on the materials theywere reading for school (Rho = minus007989 p lt 00541) So for Internet use thecorrelation of grades with the overall degree of multitasking was not significant

TABLE 14 Did You Feel That the Time You Spent Using the Internet Yesterday Took Time Away FromAny of the Following Activities

Question Yes No Unsure Total Responses

Reading for school or homework 3274 6156 570 614Reading for fun 1967 7483 550 600Watching TV 1371 8110 518 598Writing 1599 7778 623 594Socializing with friendsfamily 2659 6772 569 598Other 468 8128 1404 235

TABLE 15 Did You Feel That Doing Multiple Activities at the Same Time Yesterday Affected YourAbility to Concentrate on What You Were Doing While Using the Internet

Answer Response

Yes a lot 59 9Yes some 201 32No not at all 287 46Not sure 41 7Did not multitask 39 6Total 627 100

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

176 K MOKHTARI ET AL

TABLE 16 Correlations Among Self-Reported Grades Multitasking Measure and Self-ReportedPerception of Multitasking on Concentration While Using the Internet

VariableAdditive Multitasking Measure

(While Using the Internet)Self-Reported Degree That Multitasking TakesAway Concentration (While Using the Internet)

Self-reported grades minus007532 (p lt 00621) minus007989 (p lt 00541)Multitasking measure 013900 (p lt 00008)

DISCUSSION

Our goal in this time-diary survey study was to shed light on the multitaskinghabits of todayrsquos college students on one college campus Consistent with priorresearch investigating college studentsrsquo reading habits and practices we found thatthe majority of the studyrsquos participants reported spending a considerable portionof their time on reading for fun reading for school watching TV and using theInternet Although not very surprising to us a key finding was that students alsoreported performing an array of other tasks simultaneously while engaged in oneor more of the four main activities under study In almost all areas the majorityof students reported that they spent time talking on the phone or texting whileengaged in other activities This finding is not unexpected given the fact that 97of individuals aged 18ndash29 have a cell phone and over 50 of those are connected tothe Internet (Anderson amp Rainie 2012) Also it is not surprising given the numberof existing cell phones that texting has become a primary mode of communicationfor many college students A recent T-Mobile study found that the average personchecks his or her phone approximately 150 times per day (T-Mobile 2012)

What we found particularly interesting was the fact that students perceivedacross all areas that multitasking for the most part did not interfere with core activ-ities such as reading for fun reading for school watching TV or using the InternetThese findings are consistent with prior research indicating that the amount of timethat college students spend on the Internet does not seem to interfere with the timethey report spending on other core activities (eg Mokhtari et al 2009 Griswoldamp Wright 2004)

However we also found that students felt that multitasking interfered withtheir reading for school purposes more so than for the other activities such as read-ing for fun (7483) watching TV (8110) writing (7778) doing homework(6156) and socializing with friends (6772) Sixty percent of the respondentsfelt that multitasking affected their ability to concentrate a lot (20) or some (40)when reading for academic purposes In essence these students acknowledged thatperforming two or more tasks simultaneously (eg listening to music watchingTV andor texting) while reading for school (eg completing a chapter readingassignment in a particular course) interfered with their ability to focus closely onthe content of that assignment This finding highlights the fact that students werecognizant that multitasking was somewhat of a distraction to their schoolwork

In a somewhat similar survey study focused on student classroom use ofdigital devices for nonclass related purposes McCoy (2013) found that more than

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 177

90 of students surveyed admitted to using media devices such as cell phoneslaptops and other devices for recreational purposes during class time with morethan 80 acknowledging that using laptops smartphones and other media devicesinterfered with their learning

When we asked students for their perceptions about multitasking the major-ity readily admitted that they felt multitasking negatively affected their ability toconcentrate on their schoolwork If this perception was true we would expectthat increases in multitasking would negatively affect student grades and indeedgrades were negatively correlated with the overall amount of multitasking reportedas well as the reported perception of loss of concentration from multitasking Yetthe perception of loss of concentration was not strongly correlated with the over-all amount of multitasking to some extent confirming that students do not fullyperceive the effects of multitasking on their academic performance

Research has shown that about only 2 of us are ldquosupertaskersrdquo multi-tasking effectively (Sundem 2012) For the rest of the 98 multitasking canreduce productivity by as much as 40 and switching from one task to anothermakes it difficult to tune out distractions and can cause mental blocks that canslow productivity (American Psychological Association 2006 Rubinstein et al2001 Sundem 2012) In his book Why Students Donrsquot Like School Willingham(2010) noted that ldquoone of the most stubborn persistent phenomena of the mind isthat when you do two things at once you donrsquot do either one as well as when youdo them one at a timerdquo (p 25) This is true not just for college students but forpeople in the workplace as well

Educational Implications and Cautions

In light of the studyrsquos main findings we recognize that multitasking is abyproduct of our modern and constantly connected world It is fueled by newand emerging information communication technologies such as the Internet Thesemedia technologies often make the ability to switch between tasks and accessinformation relatively easy so easy in fact that it can hide the cognitive costsof redirecting attention and actually processing information to gain understanding

Conversely new and emerging multitasking research seems to suggest thatthere is a high cost associated with multitasking in that it increases error in whatwe do and makes us less productive In his book Brain Rules John Medina (2009)reports that multitaskers experience about a 40 decline in productivity and take50 longer to complete a single task Although the temptation to multitask is aconstant companion we recommend that college students be mindful of its benefitsand drawbacks as they try to make themselves more efficient and more productivewhile juggling personal family and school obligations Walter Pauk a pioneer inthe field of college learning and study skills advises students to set aside or allo-cate specific periods of time (time chunking) for specific tasks in order to preventinterruptions and distractions which in turn will help students be more productive(Pauk 2010)

A valuable lesson learned from this study is that we have a great deal moreto learn about multitasking its nature benefits and inconveniences particularly

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

178 K MOKHTARI ET AL

in the context of schooling Even though students in our study told us that mul-titasking interfered with their core activities and influenced their ability to focuson focal activities such as reading for academic purposes we are not certain aboutthe conditions under which students multitask the extent to which it interferes withthe time spent on other activities and exactly how it influences their productivityFor instance when a student listens to music eats a snack and watches TV whileengaged in a core activity such as completing a reading assignment (eg read-ing a chapter in a book) for a science class what happens to his or her ability toeffectively complete the core reading assignment How do the type and number oftasks such as listening to music or watching TV while performing a core task suchas reading a chapter book affect someonersquos ability to focus on their reading assign-ment Do certain types of tasks (eg listening to music) have a lesser influence ona reading assignment than other tasks (eg talking on the phone) Are there dif-ferences in multitasking habits and practices between male and female studentsWe recommend that these questions and others be subjected to rigorous researchand investigation Answers to these questions will help address media multitaskingamong college students as a growing concern

Finally we want to share three potential limitations of this study whichshould be taken into consideration when interpreting the results and engaging infuture research that addresses multitasking among college students First it is achallenge to accurately capture studentsrsquo multitasking habits and practices throughthe use of indirect methods such as surveys or questionnaires We believe we haveminimized the design limitations of traditional self-report instruments by using atime-diary survey which provides a more accurate measure of time spent on cer-tain activities and therefore reduces error resulting in an increase in instrumentvalidity and reliability Second our time-diary survey instrument was lengthy andmay have contributed to the relatively low response rate from our original poolof students Finally even though some of our findings are consistent with priorresearch with regard to studentsrsquo multitasking habits and practices the findings ofthis study have limited generalizability in large part because the students in thisstudy were from one four-year institution

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Kouider Mokhtari PhD serves as the Anderson-Vukelja-Wright Endowed Chair of Education in theSchool of Education at The University of Texas at Tyler

Julie Delello PhD is an Assistant Professor in the School of Education at The University of Texas at Tyler

Carla Reichard PhD is Assistant Director in the Office of Research and Technology Transfer at TheUniversity of Texas at Tyler

REFERENCES

American Psychological Association (2006) Multitasking Switching costs Retrieved from httpapaorgresearchactionmultitaskaspx

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 175

Table 14 shows student responses pertaining to whether they felt that timespent using the Internet displaced time spent on doing other activities The resultsindicate that most students did not feel that using the Internet interfered with otheractivities including reading for fun (7483) watching TV (8110) writing(7778) reading for academic purposes (6156) and socializing with friends(6772) These data seem to indicate that the Internet affected studentsrsquo readingfor school activity or academics more than it affected other activities as indicatedby the percentage of students (6156) reporting whether time spent using theInternet displaced time spent on schoolwork

Table 15 reports the results pertaining to whether multitasking affected stu-dentsrsquo ability to focus closely on using the Internet The results indicate that about41 of students reported that performing multiple tasks affected their ability toconcentrate on using the Internet a lot (9) or some of the time (32) As in otheractivities such as reading for fun reading for school or watching TV only about6 of the students who responded to this question reported not multitasking whileusing the Internet

Table 16 shows Spearmanrsquos Rho values for self-reported grades correlatedwith the combined multitasking value for using the internet as described inTables 13ndash15 (Rho = minus007532 p 00621) as well as with their reported per-ception that multitasking affected their ability to concentrate on the materials theywere reading for school (Rho = minus007989 p lt 00541) So for Internet use thecorrelation of grades with the overall degree of multitasking was not significant

TABLE 14 Did You Feel That the Time You Spent Using the Internet Yesterday Took Time Away FromAny of the Following Activities

Question Yes No Unsure Total Responses

Reading for school or homework 3274 6156 570 614Reading for fun 1967 7483 550 600Watching TV 1371 8110 518 598Writing 1599 7778 623 594Socializing with friendsfamily 2659 6772 569 598Other 468 8128 1404 235

TABLE 15 Did You Feel That Doing Multiple Activities at the Same Time Yesterday Affected YourAbility to Concentrate on What You Were Doing While Using the Internet

Answer Response

Yes a lot 59 9Yes some 201 32No not at all 287 46Not sure 41 7Did not multitask 39 6Total 627 100

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

176 K MOKHTARI ET AL

TABLE 16 Correlations Among Self-Reported Grades Multitasking Measure and Self-ReportedPerception of Multitasking on Concentration While Using the Internet

VariableAdditive Multitasking Measure

(While Using the Internet)Self-Reported Degree That Multitasking TakesAway Concentration (While Using the Internet)

Self-reported grades minus007532 (p lt 00621) minus007989 (p lt 00541)Multitasking measure 013900 (p lt 00008)

DISCUSSION

Our goal in this time-diary survey study was to shed light on the multitaskinghabits of todayrsquos college students on one college campus Consistent with priorresearch investigating college studentsrsquo reading habits and practices we found thatthe majority of the studyrsquos participants reported spending a considerable portionof their time on reading for fun reading for school watching TV and using theInternet Although not very surprising to us a key finding was that students alsoreported performing an array of other tasks simultaneously while engaged in oneor more of the four main activities under study In almost all areas the majorityof students reported that they spent time talking on the phone or texting whileengaged in other activities This finding is not unexpected given the fact that 97of individuals aged 18ndash29 have a cell phone and over 50 of those are connected tothe Internet (Anderson amp Rainie 2012) Also it is not surprising given the numberof existing cell phones that texting has become a primary mode of communicationfor many college students A recent T-Mobile study found that the average personchecks his or her phone approximately 150 times per day (T-Mobile 2012)

What we found particularly interesting was the fact that students perceivedacross all areas that multitasking for the most part did not interfere with core activ-ities such as reading for fun reading for school watching TV or using the InternetThese findings are consistent with prior research indicating that the amount of timethat college students spend on the Internet does not seem to interfere with the timethey report spending on other core activities (eg Mokhtari et al 2009 Griswoldamp Wright 2004)

However we also found that students felt that multitasking interfered withtheir reading for school purposes more so than for the other activities such as read-ing for fun (7483) watching TV (8110) writing (7778) doing homework(6156) and socializing with friends (6772) Sixty percent of the respondentsfelt that multitasking affected their ability to concentrate a lot (20) or some (40)when reading for academic purposes In essence these students acknowledged thatperforming two or more tasks simultaneously (eg listening to music watchingTV andor texting) while reading for school (eg completing a chapter readingassignment in a particular course) interfered with their ability to focus closely onthe content of that assignment This finding highlights the fact that students werecognizant that multitasking was somewhat of a distraction to their schoolwork

In a somewhat similar survey study focused on student classroom use ofdigital devices for nonclass related purposes McCoy (2013) found that more than

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 177

90 of students surveyed admitted to using media devices such as cell phoneslaptops and other devices for recreational purposes during class time with morethan 80 acknowledging that using laptops smartphones and other media devicesinterfered with their learning

When we asked students for their perceptions about multitasking the major-ity readily admitted that they felt multitasking negatively affected their ability toconcentrate on their schoolwork If this perception was true we would expectthat increases in multitasking would negatively affect student grades and indeedgrades were negatively correlated with the overall amount of multitasking reportedas well as the reported perception of loss of concentration from multitasking Yetthe perception of loss of concentration was not strongly correlated with the over-all amount of multitasking to some extent confirming that students do not fullyperceive the effects of multitasking on their academic performance

Research has shown that about only 2 of us are ldquosupertaskersrdquo multi-tasking effectively (Sundem 2012) For the rest of the 98 multitasking canreduce productivity by as much as 40 and switching from one task to anothermakes it difficult to tune out distractions and can cause mental blocks that canslow productivity (American Psychological Association 2006 Rubinstein et al2001 Sundem 2012) In his book Why Students Donrsquot Like School Willingham(2010) noted that ldquoone of the most stubborn persistent phenomena of the mind isthat when you do two things at once you donrsquot do either one as well as when youdo them one at a timerdquo (p 25) This is true not just for college students but forpeople in the workplace as well

Educational Implications and Cautions

In light of the studyrsquos main findings we recognize that multitasking is abyproduct of our modern and constantly connected world It is fueled by newand emerging information communication technologies such as the Internet Thesemedia technologies often make the ability to switch between tasks and accessinformation relatively easy so easy in fact that it can hide the cognitive costsof redirecting attention and actually processing information to gain understanding

Conversely new and emerging multitasking research seems to suggest thatthere is a high cost associated with multitasking in that it increases error in whatwe do and makes us less productive In his book Brain Rules John Medina (2009)reports that multitaskers experience about a 40 decline in productivity and take50 longer to complete a single task Although the temptation to multitask is aconstant companion we recommend that college students be mindful of its benefitsand drawbacks as they try to make themselves more efficient and more productivewhile juggling personal family and school obligations Walter Pauk a pioneer inthe field of college learning and study skills advises students to set aside or allo-cate specific periods of time (time chunking) for specific tasks in order to preventinterruptions and distractions which in turn will help students be more productive(Pauk 2010)

A valuable lesson learned from this study is that we have a great deal moreto learn about multitasking its nature benefits and inconveniences particularly

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

178 K MOKHTARI ET AL

in the context of schooling Even though students in our study told us that mul-titasking interfered with their core activities and influenced their ability to focuson focal activities such as reading for academic purposes we are not certain aboutthe conditions under which students multitask the extent to which it interferes withthe time spent on other activities and exactly how it influences their productivityFor instance when a student listens to music eats a snack and watches TV whileengaged in a core activity such as completing a reading assignment (eg read-ing a chapter in a book) for a science class what happens to his or her ability toeffectively complete the core reading assignment How do the type and number oftasks such as listening to music or watching TV while performing a core task suchas reading a chapter book affect someonersquos ability to focus on their reading assign-ment Do certain types of tasks (eg listening to music) have a lesser influence ona reading assignment than other tasks (eg talking on the phone) Are there dif-ferences in multitasking habits and practices between male and female studentsWe recommend that these questions and others be subjected to rigorous researchand investigation Answers to these questions will help address media multitaskingamong college students as a growing concern

Finally we want to share three potential limitations of this study whichshould be taken into consideration when interpreting the results and engaging infuture research that addresses multitasking among college students First it is achallenge to accurately capture studentsrsquo multitasking habits and practices throughthe use of indirect methods such as surveys or questionnaires We believe we haveminimized the design limitations of traditional self-report instruments by using atime-diary survey which provides a more accurate measure of time spent on cer-tain activities and therefore reduces error resulting in an increase in instrumentvalidity and reliability Second our time-diary survey instrument was lengthy andmay have contributed to the relatively low response rate from our original poolof students Finally even though some of our findings are consistent with priorresearch with regard to studentsrsquo multitasking habits and practices the findings ofthis study have limited generalizability in large part because the students in thisstudy were from one four-year institution

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Kouider Mokhtari PhD serves as the Anderson-Vukelja-Wright Endowed Chair of Education in theSchool of Education at The University of Texas at Tyler

Julie Delello PhD is an Assistant Professor in the School of Education at The University of Texas at Tyler

Carla Reichard PhD is Assistant Director in the Office of Research and Technology Transfer at TheUniversity of Texas at Tyler

REFERENCES

American Psychological Association (2006) Multitasking Switching costs Retrieved from httpapaorgresearchactionmultitaskaspx

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

176 K MOKHTARI ET AL

TABLE 16 Correlations Among Self-Reported Grades Multitasking Measure and Self-ReportedPerception of Multitasking on Concentration While Using the Internet

VariableAdditive Multitasking Measure

(While Using the Internet)Self-Reported Degree That Multitasking TakesAway Concentration (While Using the Internet)

Self-reported grades minus007532 (p lt 00621) minus007989 (p lt 00541)Multitasking measure 013900 (p lt 00008)

DISCUSSION

Our goal in this time-diary survey study was to shed light on the multitaskinghabits of todayrsquos college students on one college campus Consistent with priorresearch investigating college studentsrsquo reading habits and practices we found thatthe majority of the studyrsquos participants reported spending a considerable portionof their time on reading for fun reading for school watching TV and using theInternet Although not very surprising to us a key finding was that students alsoreported performing an array of other tasks simultaneously while engaged in oneor more of the four main activities under study In almost all areas the majorityof students reported that they spent time talking on the phone or texting whileengaged in other activities This finding is not unexpected given the fact that 97of individuals aged 18ndash29 have a cell phone and over 50 of those are connected tothe Internet (Anderson amp Rainie 2012) Also it is not surprising given the numberof existing cell phones that texting has become a primary mode of communicationfor many college students A recent T-Mobile study found that the average personchecks his or her phone approximately 150 times per day (T-Mobile 2012)

What we found particularly interesting was the fact that students perceivedacross all areas that multitasking for the most part did not interfere with core activ-ities such as reading for fun reading for school watching TV or using the InternetThese findings are consistent with prior research indicating that the amount of timethat college students spend on the Internet does not seem to interfere with the timethey report spending on other core activities (eg Mokhtari et al 2009 Griswoldamp Wright 2004)

However we also found that students felt that multitasking interfered withtheir reading for school purposes more so than for the other activities such as read-ing for fun (7483) watching TV (8110) writing (7778) doing homework(6156) and socializing with friends (6772) Sixty percent of the respondentsfelt that multitasking affected their ability to concentrate a lot (20) or some (40)when reading for academic purposes In essence these students acknowledged thatperforming two or more tasks simultaneously (eg listening to music watchingTV andor texting) while reading for school (eg completing a chapter readingassignment in a particular course) interfered with their ability to focus closely onthe content of that assignment This finding highlights the fact that students werecognizant that multitasking was somewhat of a distraction to their schoolwork

In a somewhat similar survey study focused on student classroom use ofdigital devices for nonclass related purposes McCoy (2013) found that more than

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 177

90 of students surveyed admitted to using media devices such as cell phoneslaptops and other devices for recreational purposes during class time with morethan 80 acknowledging that using laptops smartphones and other media devicesinterfered with their learning

When we asked students for their perceptions about multitasking the major-ity readily admitted that they felt multitasking negatively affected their ability toconcentrate on their schoolwork If this perception was true we would expectthat increases in multitasking would negatively affect student grades and indeedgrades were negatively correlated with the overall amount of multitasking reportedas well as the reported perception of loss of concentration from multitasking Yetthe perception of loss of concentration was not strongly correlated with the over-all amount of multitasking to some extent confirming that students do not fullyperceive the effects of multitasking on their academic performance

Research has shown that about only 2 of us are ldquosupertaskersrdquo multi-tasking effectively (Sundem 2012) For the rest of the 98 multitasking canreduce productivity by as much as 40 and switching from one task to anothermakes it difficult to tune out distractions and can cause mental blocks that canslow productivity (American Psychological Association 2006 Rubinstein et al2001 Sundem 2012) In his book Why Students Donrsquot Like School Willingham(2010) noted that ldquoone of the most stubborn persistent phenomena of the mind isthat when you do two things at once you donrsquot do either one as well as when youdo them one at a timerdquo (p 25) This is true not just for college students but forpeople in the workplace as well

Educational Implications and Cautions

In light of the studyrsquos main findings we recognize that multitasking is abyproduct of our modern and constantly connected world It is fueled by newand emerging information communication technologies such as the Internet Thesemedia technologies often make the ability to switch between tasks and accessinformation relatively easy so easy in fact that it can hide the cognitive costsof redirecting attention and actually processing information to gain understanding

Conversely new and emerging multitasking research seems to suggest thatthere is a high cost associated with multitasking in that it increases error in whatwe do and makes us less productive In his book Brain Rules John Medina (2009)reports that multitaskers experience about a 40 decline in productivity and take50 longer to complete a single task Although the temptation to multitask is aconstant companion we recommend that college students be mindful of its benefitsand drawbacks as they try to make themselves more efficient and more productivewhile juggling personal family and school obligations Walter Pauk a pioneer inthe field of college learning and study skills advises students to set aside or allo-cate specific periods of time (time chunking) for specific tasks in order to preventinterruptions and distractions which in turn will help students be more productive(Pauk 2010)

A valuable lesson learned from this study is that we have a great deal moreto learn about multitasking its nature benefits and inconveniences particularly

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

178 K MOKHTARI ET AL

in the context of schooling Even though students in our study told us that mul-titasking interfered with their core activities and influenced their ability to focuson focal activities such as reading for academic purposes we are not certain aboutthe conditions under which students multitask the extent to which it interferes withthe time spent on other activities and exactly how it influences their productivityFor instance when a student listens to music eats a snack and watches TV whileengaged in a core activity such as completing a reading assignment (eg read-ing a chapter in a book) for a science class what happens to his or her ability toeffectively complete the core reading assignment How do the type and number oftasks such as listening to music or watching TV while performing a core task suchas reading a chapter book affect someonersquos ability to focus on their reading assign-ment Do certain types of tasks (eg listening to music) have a lesser influence ona reading assignment than other tasks (eg talking on the phone) Are there dif-ferences in multitasking habits and practices between male and female studentsWe recommend that these questions and others be subjected to rigorous researchand investigation Answers to these questions will help address media multitaskingamong college students as a growing concern

Finally we want to share three potential limitations of this study whichshould be taken into consideration when interpreting the results and engaging infuture research that addresses multitasking among college students First it is achallenge to accurately capture studentsrsquo multitasking habits and practices throughthe use of indirect methods such as surveys or questionnaires We believe we haveminimized the design limitations of traditional self-report instruments by using atime-diary survey which provides a more accurate measure of time spent on cer-tain activities and therefore reduces error resulting in an increase in instrumentvalidity and reliability Second our time-diary survey instrument was lengthy andmay have contributed to the relatively low response rate from our original poolof students Finally even though some of our findings are consistent with priorresearch with regard to studentsrsquo multitasking habits and practices the findings ofthis study have limited generalizability in large part because the students in thisstudy were from one four-year institution

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Kouider Mokhtari PhD serves as the Anderson-Vukelja-Wright Endowed Chair of Education in theSchool of Education at The University of Texas at Tyler

Julie Delello PhD is an Assistant Professor in the School of Education at The University of Texas at Tyler

Carla Reichard PhD is Assistant Director in the Office of Research and Technology Transfer at TheUniversity of Texas at Tyler

REFERENCES

American Psychological Association (2006) Multitasking Switching costs Retrieved from httpapaorgresearchactionmultitaskaspx

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 177

90 of students surveyed admitted to using media devices such as cell phoneslaptops and other devices for recreational purposes during class time with morethan 80 acknowledging that using laptops smartphones and other media devicesinterfered with their learning

When we asked students for their perceptions about multitasking the major-ity readily admitted that they felt multitasking negatively affected their ability toconcentrate on their schoolwork If this perception was true we would expectthat increases in multitasking would negatively affect student grades and indeedgrades were negatively correlated with the overall amount of multitasking reportedas well as the reported perception of loss of concentration from multitasking Yetthe perception of loss of concentration was not strongly correlated with the over-all amount of multitasking to some extent confirming that students do not fullyperceive the effects of multitasking on their academic performance

Research has shown that about only 2 of us are ldquosupertaskersrdquo multi-tasking effectively (Sundem 2012) For the rest of the 98 multitasking canreduce productivity by as much as 40 and switching from one task to anothermakes it difficult to tune out distractions and can cause mental blocks that canslow productivity (American Psychological Association 2006 Rubinstein et al2001 Sundem 2012) In his book Why Students Donrsquot Like School Willingham(2010) noted that ldquoone of the most stubborn persistent phenomena of the mind isthat when you do two things at once you donrsquot do either one as well as when youdo them one at a timerdquo (p 25) This is true not just for college students but forpeople in the workplace as well

Educational Implications and Cautions

In light of the studyrsquos main findings we recognize that multitasking is abyproduct of our modern and constantly connected world It is fueled by newand emerging information communication technologies such as the Internet Thesemedia technologies often make the ability to switch between tasks and accessinformation relatively easy so easy in fact that it can hide the cognitive costsof redirecting attention and actually processing information to gain understanding

Conversely new and emerging multitasking research seems to suggest thatthere is a high cost associated with multitasking in that it increases error in whatwe do and makes us less productive In his book Brain Rules John Medina (2009)reports that multitaskers experience about a 40 decline in productivity and take50 longer to complete a single task Although the temptation to multitask is aconstant companion we recommend that college students be mindful of its benefitsand drawbacks as they try to make themselves more efficient and more productivewhile juggling personal family and school obligations Walter Pauk a pioneer inthe field of college learning and study skills advises students to set aside or allo-cate specific periods of time (time chunking) for specific tasks in order to preventinterruptions and distractions which in turn will help students be more productive(Pauk 2010)

A valuable lesson learned from this study is that we have a great deal moreto learn about multitasking its nature benefits and inconveniences particularly

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

178 K MOKHTARI ET AL

in the context of schooling Even though students in our study told us that mul-titasking interfered with their core activities and influenced their ability to focuson focal activities such as reading for academic purposes we are not certain aboutthe conditions under which students multitask the extent to which it interferes withthe time spent on other activities and exactly how it influences their productivityFor instance when a student listens to music eats a snack and watches TV whileengaged in a core activity such as completing a reading assignment (eg read-ing a chapter in a book) for a science class what happens to his or her ability toeffectively complete the core reading assignment How do the type and number oftasks such as listening to music or watching TV while performing a core task suchas reading a chapter book affect someonersquos ability to focus on their reading assign-ment Do certain types of tasks (eg listening to music) have a lesser influence ona reading assignment than other tasks (eg talking on the phone) Are there dif-ferences in multitasking habits and practices between male and female studentsWe recommend that these questions and others be subjected to rigorous researchand investigation Answers to these questions will help address media multitaskingamong college students as a growing concern

Finally we want to share three potential limitations of this study whichshould be taken into consideration when interpreting the results and engaging infuture research that addresses multitasking among college students First it is achallenge to accurately capture studentsrsquo multitasking habits and practices throughthe use of indirect methods such as surveys or questionnaires We believe we haveminimized the design limitations of traditional self-report instruments by using atime-diary survey which provides a more accurate measure of time spent on cer-tain activities and therefore reduces error resulting in an increase in instrumentvalidity and reliability Second our time-diary survey instrument was lengthy andmay have contributed to the relatively low response rate from our original poolof students Finally even though some of our findings are consistent with priorresearch with regard to studentsrsquo multitasking habits and practices the findings ofthis study have limited generalizability in large part because the students in thisstudy were from one four-year institution

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Kouider Mokhtari PhD serves as the Anderson-Vukelja-Wright Endowed Chair of Education in theSchool of Education at The University of Texas at Tyler

Julie Delello PhD is an Assistant Professor in the School of Education at The University of Texas at Tyler

Carla Reichard PhD is Assistant Director in the Office of Research and Technology Transfer at TheUniversity of Texas at Tyler

REFERENCES

American Psychological Association (2006) Multitasking Switching costs Retrieved from httpapaorgresearchactionmultitaskaspx

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

178 K MOKHTARI ET AL

in the context of schooling Even though students in our study told us that mul-titasking interfered with their core activities and influenced their ability to focuson focal activities such as reading for academic purposes we are not certain aboutthe conditions under which students multitask the extent to which it interferes withthe time spent on other activities and exactly how it influences their productivityFor instance when a student listens to music eats a snack and watches TV whileengaged in a core activity such as completing a reading assignment (eg read-ing a chapter in a book) for a science class what happens to his or her ability toeffectively complete the core reading assignment How do the type and number oftasks such as listening to music or watching TV while performing a core task suchas reading a chapter book affect someonersquos ability to focus on their reading assign-ment Do certain types of tasks (eg listening to music) have a lesser influence ona reading assignment than other tasks (eg talking on the phone) Are there dif-ferences in multitasking habits and practices between male and female studentsWe recommend that these questions and others be subjected to rigorous researchand investigation Answers to these questions will help address media multitaskingamong college students as a growing concern

Finally we want to share three potential limitations of this study whichshould be taken into consideration when interpreting the results and engaging infuture research that addresses multitasking among college students First it is achallenge to accurately capture studentsrsquo multitasking habits and practices throughthe use of indirect methods such as surveys or questionnaires We believe we haveminimized the design limitations of traditional self-report instruments by using atime-diary survey which provides a more accurate measure of time spent on cer-tain activities and therefore reduces error resulting in an increase in instrumentvalidity and reliability Second our time-diary survey instrument was lengthy andmay have contributed to the relatively low response rate from our original poolof students Finally even though some of our findings are consistent with priorresearch with regard to studentsrsquo multitasking habits and practices the findings ofthis study have limited generalizability in large part because the students in thisstudy were from one four-year institution

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Kouider Mokhtari PhD serves as the Anderson-Vukelja-Wright Endowed Chair of Education in theSchool of Education at The University of Texas at Tyler

Julie Delello PhD is an Assistant Professor in the School of Education at The University of Texas at Tyler

Carla Reichard PhD is Assistant Director in the Office of Research and Technology Transfer at TheUniversity of Texas at Tyler

REFERENCES

American Psychological Association (2006) Multitasking Switching costs Retrieved from httpapaorgresearchactionmultitaskaspx

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

MULTITASKING IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS 179

Anderson J amp Rainie L (2012) Main findings Teens technology and human potential in 2020Pew Research Internet Project Retrieved from httpwwwpewinternetorg20120229main-findings-teens-technology-and-human-potential-in-2020

Bowman L L Levine L E Waite B M amp Dendron M (2010) Can students really multitaskAn experimental study of instant messaging while reading Computers amp Education 54 927ndash931

Carr N (2008) Is Google making us stupid The Atlantic Online Retrieved from httpwwwtheatlanticcommagazinearchive200807is-google-making-us-stupid306868

Cooper-Kahn J amp Dietzel L (2008) What is executive functioning LD Online Retrieved fromhttpwwwldonlineorgarticle29122

Delello J A amp McWhorter R R (2013) New visual social media for the higher education class-room In G Mallia (Ed) The social classroom Integrating social network use in education(pp 368ndash393) Hershey PA IGI Global

Economist Intelligence Unit New Media Consortium (2008) The future of higher educationHow technology will shape learning (White paper sponsored by the New Media Consortium)Retrieved from httpwwwnmcorgpdfFuture-of-Higher-Ed-(NMC)pdf

Elish-Piper L Wold L S amp Schwingendorf K (2014) Scaffolding high school studentsrsquo readingof complex texts using linked text sets Journal of Adolescent amp Adult Literacy 57(7) 565ndash574

Ellis Y Daniels W amp Jauregui A (2010) The effect of multitasking on the grade performance ofbusiness students Research in Higher Education Journal 8(1) 1ndash10 Retrieved from httpwwwaabricommanuscripts10498pdf

Experian Marketing Services (2013) The 2013 digital marketer Life is the channel Retrieved fromhttpwwwexperiancomassetsmarketing-servicesreports2013-digital-marketer-downloadpdfSP_MID=768ampSP_RID=812481

Friedrich R Peterson M amp Koster A (2011) The rise of Generation C How to prepare forthe connected generationrsquos transformation of the consumer and business landscape Strategy andBusiness 62 Retrieved from httpwwwstrategy-businesscom article11110pg=all

Goldman J (2010 May) Apple sells 1 million iPads CNBC Retrieved from httpwwwcnbccomid36911690

Griswold W amp Wright N (2004) Wired and well-read In P N Howard amp S Jones (Eds) Societyonline The Internet in context (pp 203ndash222) Thousand Oaks CA Sage

Grossman L (2006) Youmdashyes youmdashare TIMErsquos person of the year TIME Retrieved from httpcontenttimecomtimemagazinearticle09171157081000html

Jones S (2002) The Internet goes to college How students are living in the future with todayrsquostechnology Pew Internet amp American Life Retrieved from httpwwwpewinternetorgfilesold-mediaFilesReports2002PIP_College_Reportpdfpdf

Kraushaar J M amp Novak D C (2010) Examining the effects of student multitasking with laptopsduring lecture Journal of Information Systems Education 21(2) 241ndash251

Leber A B Turk-Browne N B amp Chun M M (2008) Neural predictors of moment-to-momentfluctuations in cognitive flexibility Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA105(36) 13592ndash13597 doi101073pnas0805423105

Leu J (2010) Literacy and technology Deictic consequences for literacy education in an informa-tion age In M Kamil P Mosenthal P Pearson amp R Barr (Eds) Handbook of reading research(III) (pp 743ndash770) Mahway NJ Lawrence Erlbaum

Madden M amp Zickuhr K (2011) 65 of online adults use social networking sites Women main-tain their foothold on SNS use and older Americans are still coming aboard Retrieved from httpwwwucsfedusitesdefaultfileslegacy_filesPIP-SNS-Update-2011pdf

McCoy B (2013) Digital distraction in the classroom Student classroom use of digital devices fornon-class-related purposes Journal of Media Education Retrieved from httpencalameocomread000091789af53ca4e647f

Medina J (2009) Brain rules New York NY Peer Press

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015

180 K MOKHTARI ET AL

Mokhtari K Reichard C amp Gardner A (2009) The impact of Internet use and TV watching onthe reading habits of college students Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 52(7) 609ndash619

NASBE (2012) Born in another time ensuring educational technology meets the needs of stu-dents today and tomorrow National Association of State Boards of Education Retrieved fromhttpwwwnasbeorgwp-contentuploadsBorn-in-Another-Time-NASBE-full-reportpdf

Nie N H amp Erbring L (2002) Internet and mass media A preliminary report IT amp Society 1(2)134ndash141

Ophir E Nass C Wagner A D amp Posner M I (2009) Cognitive control in media multitaskersProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106 (37)15583ndash15587

Pauk W (2010) How to study in college New York NY PearsonPew Research Center (2010) Millennials A portrait of generation next Confident Connected Open

to change Retrieved from httpwwwpewsocialtrendsorg 20100224millennials-confident-connected-open-to-change

Rich M (2008) Literacy debate Online ru really reading The New York Times Online Retrievedfrom httpwwwnytimescom20080727books27readinghtmlpagewanted=allamp_r=0

Rubinstein J S Meyer D E amp Evans J E (2001) Executive control of cognitive processes intask switching Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance 27(4)763ndash797

Scott W A (1962) Cognitive complexity and cognitive flexibility American SociologicalAssociation 25 405ndash414 doi1023072785779

Sundem G (2012 February 24) This is your brain on multitasking Brains of multitaskers arestructurally different than brains of monotaskers Psychology Today (Brain Trust) Retrieved fromhttpwwwpsychologytodaycomblogbrain-trust201202is-your-brain-multitasking

T-Mobile (2012) Average person looks at his phone 150 times per day Phone Arena Retrievedfrom httpwwwphonearenacomnewsAverage-person-looks-at-his-phone-150-times-per-day_id26636

US Department of Commerce (2002) A nation online How Americans are expanding their use ofthe Internet (Report of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration andthe Economics and Statistics Administration) Retrieved from httpwwwntiadocgovlegacyntiahomednanationonline2pdf

Willingham D (2009) Why donrsquot students like school New York NY Jossey-BassZeldes N Sward D amp Louchheim S (2007) Infomania Why we canrsquot afford to ignore it any

longer First Monday 12(8) doi105210fmv12i81973

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

741

922

439

8] a

t 14

29 2

9 M

ay 2

015