Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Multitasking impairs learning from multimedia across gifted and non-gifted students

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Multitasking refers to the simultaneous execution of two or more tasks. Perceived multitasking superiority of the digital natives and gifted students in the popular education literature need to be investigated with robust studies. In this regard, the effect of different multitasking scenarios on multimedia learning was investigated with 93 gifted and 121 non-gifted middle school students. The respondents were assigned randomly to three different scenarios: Monotasking (i.e. watching an instructional video without interruption), concurrent multitasking (i.e. texting during an instructional video) and sequential multitasking (i.e. watching instructional and distractive videos successively). In addition to content learning, the students’ scores on topic interest, daily multitasking habits, subjective cognitive load and working memory capacity were considered. Working memory capacity correlated positively with learning outcomes. After it was included as a covariate, the results of a two-way between-groups ANCOVA revealed that multitasking conditions interfered with learning. Gifted students were consistently more successful than non-gifted students, but suffered during concurrent multitasking. Therefore, organizing instructional interventions according to an empirically questionable multitasking superiority seems problematic.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackerman, P. L., Beier, M. E., & Boyle, M. D. (2002). Individual differences in working memory within a nomological network of cognitive and perceptual speed abilities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,131(4), 567–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackerman, P. L., Beier, M. E., & Boyle, M. O. (2005). Working memory and intelligence: The same or different constructs? Psychological Bulletin,131(1), 30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adler, R. F., & Benbunan-Fich, R. (2013). Self-interruptions in discretionary multitasking. Computers in Human Behavior,29(4), 1441–1449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alfonso, V. C., Flanagan, D. P., & Radwan, S. (2005). The impact of the Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory on test development and interpretation of cognitive and academic abilities. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (2nd ed., pp. 185–202). New York: Guilford Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alloway, T. P., & Alloway, R. G. (2010). Investigating the predictive roles of working memory and IQ in academic attainment. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,106(1), 20–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altman, E. M., & Trafton, J. G. (2002). Memory for goals: An activation based model. Cognitive Science,26, 39–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. R. (2007). How can the human mind occur in the physical universe? (Vol. 3). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, S. (2009). In defense of distraction. New York Magazine,42(18), 28–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayas, M. B., & Sak, U. (2014). Objective measure of scientific creativity: Psychometric validity of the creative scientific ability test. Thinking Skills and Creativity,13, 195–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bai, H., Jones, W. E., Moss, J., & Doane, S. M. (2014). Relating individual differences in cognitive ability and strategy consistency to interruption recovery during multitasking. Learning and Individual Differences,35, 22–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrouillet, P., Bernardin, S., Portrat, S., Vergauwe, E., & Camos, V. (2007). Time and cognitive load in working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,33, 570–585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, L. L., Levine, L. E., Waite, B. M., & Gendron, M. (2010). Can students really multitask? An experimental study of instant messaging while reading. Computers & Education,54, 927–931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bühner, M., Konig, C. J., Pick, M., & Krumm, S. (2006). Working memory dimensions as differential predictors of the speed and error aspect of multitasking performance. Human Performance,19(3), 253–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calero, M. D., García-Martín, M. B., Jiménez, M. I., Kazén, M., & Araque, A. (2007). Self-regulation advantage for high-IQ children: Findings from a research study. Learning and Individual Differences,17(4), 328–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colom, R., Abad, F. J., Rebollo, I., & Shih, P. C. (2005). Memory span and general intelligence: A latent-variable approach. Intelligence,33(6), 623–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colom, R., Martínez-Molina, A., Shih, P. C., & Santacreu, J. (2010). Intelligence, working memory, and multitasking performance. Intelligence,38(6), 543–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Covre, P., Baddeley, A. D., Hitch, G. J., & Bueno, O. F. A. (2019). Maintaining task set against distraction: The role of working memory in multitasking. Psychology & Neuroscience,12(1), 38–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dindar, M., & Akbulut, Y. (2016). Effects of multitasking on retention and topic interest. Learning and Instruction,41, 94–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksson, G. (2010). Authentic and virtual global connections: The transformation of gifted education. Gifted Education International,27(1), 19–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fard, E. K., Keelor, J. L., Bagheban, A. A., & Keith, R. W. (2016). Comparison of the rey auditory verbal learning test (RAVLT) and digit test among typically achieving and gifted students. Iranian Journal of Child Neurology,10(2), 26–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods,39(2), 175–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, R., & Plessow, F. (2015). Efficient multitasking: Parallel versus serial processing of multiple tasks. Frontiers in Psychology,6, 1366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flanagan, D. P., & Dixon, S. G. (2013). The Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory of cognitive abilities. In C. R. Reynolds, K. J. Vannest, & E. Fletcher-Janzen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of special education (pp. 368–382). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foehr, U. G. (2006). Media multitasking among American youth: Prevalence, pairings and predictors. Cambridge: Stanford University. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation.

  • Fry, A. F., & Hale, S. (2000). Relationships among processing speed, working memory, and fluid intelligence in children. Biological Psychology,54(1–3), 1–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George, D., & Mallery, M. (2010). Using SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glass, A. L., & Kang, M. (2019). Dividing attention in the classroom reduces exam performance. Educational Psychology,39(3), 395–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graboyes, A. S. (2007). No gifted student left behind: Building a high school library media center for the gifted student. Gifted Child Today,30(2), 42–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grobman, J. (2009). A psychodynamic psychotherapy approach to the emotional problems of exceptionally and profoundly gifted adolescents and adults: A psychiatrist’s experience. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,33, 106–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guignard, J. H., Kermarrec, S., & Tordjman, S. (2016). Relationships between intelligence and creativity in gifted and non-gifted children. Learning and Individual Differences,52, 209–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. Z., Oswald, F. L., Darowski, E. S., Rench, T. A., & Brou, R. (2010). Predictors of multitasking performance in a synthetic work paradigm. Applied Cognitive Psychology,24(8), 1149–1167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heflin, H., Shewmaker, J., & Nguyen, J. (2017). Impact of mobile technology on student attitudes, engagement, and learning. Computers & Education,107, 91–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heyder, A., Bergold, S., & Steinmayr, R. (2018). Teachers’ knowledge about intellectual giftedness: A first look at levels and correlates. Psychology Learning & Teaching,17(1), 27–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heylighen, F. (2007). Characteristics and problems of the gifted: neural propagation depth and flow motivation as a model of intelligence and creativity. Brussels: ECCO. Retrieved March 3, 2018 from http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/papers/giftednessmodel.pdf.

  • Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist,41(2), 111–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huck, S. W. (2012). Reading statistics and research (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaušovec, N. (2000). Differences in cognitive processes between gifted, intelligent, creative, and average individuals while solving complex problems: An EEG study. Intelligence,28(3), 213–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judd, T., & Kennedy, G. (2011). Measurement and evidence of computer-based task switching and multitasking by ‘Net Generation’ students. Computers & Education,56(3), 625–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development,10(3), 2–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kılıç, E., & Karadeniz, S. (2004). Hiper ortamlarda öğrencilerin bilişsel yüklenme ve kaybolma düzeylerinin belirlenmesi [Specifying students’ cognitive load and disorientation level in hypermedia]. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi,40, 562–579.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinsbourne, M. (1981). Single channel theory. In D. H. Holding (Ed.), Human skills (pp. 65–89). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., & De Bruyckere, P. (2017). The myths of the digital native and the multitasker. Teaching and Teacher Education,67, 135–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., & van Merriënboer, J. G. (2013). Do learners really know best? Urban legends in education. Educational Psychologist,48(3), 169–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klepsch, M., Schmitz, F., & Seufert, T. (2017). Development and validation of two instruments measuring intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Frontiers in Psychology,8(1997), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konig, C. J., Buhner, M., & Murling, G. (2005). Working memory, fluid intelligence, and attention are predictors of multitasking performance, but polychronicity and extraversion are not. Human Performance,18(3), 243–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krapp, A. (2000). Interest and human development during adolescence: An educational-psychological approach. In J. Heckhausen (Ed.), Motivational psychology of human development (pp. 109–128). London: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraushar, J. M., & Novak, D. C. (2010). Examining the affects of student multitasking with laptops during the lecture. Journal of Information Systems Education,21(2), 241–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kucuk, S., Aydemir, M., Yildirim, G., Arpacik, O., & Goktas, Y. (2013). Educational technology research trends in Turkey from 1990 to 2011. Computers & Education,68, 42–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leppink, J., Paas, F., Van der Vleuten, C. P., Van Gog, T., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. (2013). Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load. Behavior Research Methods,45(4), 1058–1072.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, D., Liu, T., Zhang, X., Wang, M., Wang, D., & Shi, J. (2017). Fluid intelligence, emotional intelligence, and the Iowa Gambling Task in children. Intelligence,62, 167–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, L., Mills, L. A., & Ifenthaler, D. (2016). Collaboration, multi-tasking and problem solving performance in shared virtual spaces. Journal of Computing in Higher Education,28(3), 344–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, L., Robertson, T., & Lee, J. (2009). Reading performances between novices and experts in different media multitasking environments. Computers in the Schools,26(3), 169–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makel, M. C., Snyder, K. E., Thomas, C., Malone, P. S., & Putallaz, M. (2015). Gifted students’ implicit beliefs about intelligence and giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly,59(4), 203–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makransky, G., Terkildsen, T. S., & Mayer, R. E. (2019). Role of subjective and objective measures of cognitive processing during learning in explaining the spatial contiguity effect. Learning and Instruction,61, 23–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medeiros-Ward, N., Watson, J. M., & Strayer, D. L. (2015). On supertaskers and the neural basis of efficient multitasking. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,22(3), 876–883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: I. Basic mechanisms. Psychological Review,104, 3–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J., Ulrich, R., & Rolke, B. (2009). On the optimality of serial and parallel processing in the psychological refractory period paradigm: Effects of the distribution of stimulus onset asynchronies. Cognitive Psychology,58(3), 273–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Rettinger, D. A., Shah, P., & Hegarty, M. (2001). How are visuospatial working memory, executive functioning, and spatial abilities related? A latent-variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,130(4), 621–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,7, 134–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opengin, E., & Tasdemir, İ. (2016). Teachers’ views with regard to gifted students’ education and resource room program. In Excellence & innovation in basic-higher education & psychology, (pp. 82–83).

  • Ophir, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,106(37), 15583–15587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Örün, Ö., & Akbulut, Y. (2019). Effect of multitasking, physical environment and electroencephalography use on cognitive load and retention. Computers in Human Behavior,92, 216–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F. G., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental effort and performance measures. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society,35(4), 737–743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pallant, J. (2011). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS (4th ed.). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parry, D. A., & le Roux, D. B. (2018). Media multitasking and cognitive control: A systematic review of interventions. Computers in Human Behavior,92, 316–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pashler, H. (1998). The psychology of attention. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pashler, H., Kang, S. H., & Ip, R. Y. (2013). Does multitasking impair studying? Depends on timing. Applied Cognitive Psychology,27(5), 593–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paz-Baruch, N., Leikin, L., & Leikin, M. (2016). Visual processing in generally gifted and mathematically excelling adolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,39(3), 237–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portrat, S., Barrouillet, P., & Camos, V. (2008). Time-related decay or interference-based forgetting in working memory? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,34(6), 1561–1564.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragan, E. D., Jennings, S. R., Massey, J. D., & Doolittle, P. E. (2014). Unregulated use of laptops over time in large lecture classes. Computers & Education,78, 78–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redick, T. S., Broadway, J. M., Meier, M. E., Kuriakose, P. S., Unsworth, N., Kane, M. J., et al. (2012). Measuring working memory capacity with automated complex span tasks. European Journal of Psychological Assessment,28(3), 164–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, C. (2008). The myth of multitasking. The New Atlantis,20, 105–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, L. D., Lim, A. F., Carrier, L. M., & Cheever, N. A. (2011). An empirical examination of the educational impact of text message-induced task switching in the classroom: Educational implications and strategies to enhance learning. Psicología Educativa,17(2), 163–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, S. M., Morrison, G. R., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Educational technology research past and present: Balancing rigor and relevance to impact school learning. Contemporary Educational Technology,1(1), 17–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saccuzzo, D. P., Johnson, N. E., & Guertin, T. L. (1994). Information processing in gifted versus nongifted African American, Latino, Filipino, and White children: Speeded versus nonspeeded paradigms. Intelligence,19(2), 219–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sak, U. (2008). Test of the three-mathematical minds (M3) for the identification of mathematically gifted students. Roeper Review,31(1), 53–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salvucci, D. D. (2005). A multitasking general executive for compound continuous tasks. Cognitive Science,29(3), 457–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salvucci, D. D., & Taatgen, N. A. (2008). Threaded cognition: An integrated theory of concurrent multitasking. Psychological Review,115(1), 101–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salvucci, D. D., Taatgen, N. A., & Borst, J. P. (2009, April). Toward a unified theory of the multitasking continuum: From concurrent performance to task switching, interruption, and resumption. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, (pp. 1819–1828). ACM.

  • Schaffner, E., & Schiefele, U. (2007). The effect of experimental manipulation of student motivation on the situational representation of text. Learning and Instruction,17(6), 755–772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schellen, M., Lin, L., & Bigenho, C. (2017). Effect of texting with friends during video lectures on high school students’ learning. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange (JETDE),10(1), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skaugset, L. M., Farrell, S., Carney, M., Wolff, M., Santen, S. A., Perry, M., et al. (2016). Can you multitask? Evidence and limitations of task switching and multitasking in emergency medicine. Annals of Emergency Medicine,68(2), 189–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Small, G. W., & Vorgan, G. (2008). iBrain: Surviving the technological alteration of the modern mind. New York: Collins Living.

    Google Scholar 

  • Srivastava, J. (2013). Media multitasking performance: Role of message relevance and formatting cues in online environments. Computers in Human Behavior,29(3), 888–895.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephens, K. K., & Davis, J. (2009). The social influences on electronic multitasking in organizational meetings. Management Communication Quarterly,23(1), 63–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoneman, P. (2007) The sociology and efficacy of multitasking. Chimera Working Paper 2007-05. Ipswich: University of Essex.

  • Thompson, L. A., & Oehlert, J. L. (2010). The etiology of giftedness. Learning and Individual Differences,20(4), 298–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tran, P., Carrillo, R., & Subrahmanyam, K. (2013). Effects of online multitasking on reading comprehension of expository text. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace. https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2013-3-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uncapher, M. R., Lin, L., Rosen, L. D., Kirkorian, H. L., Baron, N. S., Bailey, K., … Wagner, A. D. (2017). Media multitasking and cognitive, psychological, neural, and learning differences. Pediatrics, 140(Suppl 2), S62–S66.

  • Uncapher, M. R., & Wagner, A. D. (2018). Minds and brains of media multitaskers: Current findings and future directions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,115(40), 9889–9896.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veen, W., & Vrakking, B. (2006). Homo zappiens: Growing up in a digital age. London: Network Continuum Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waite, B. M., Lindberg, R., Ernst, B., Bowman, L. L., & Levine, L. E. (2018). Off-task multitasking, note-taking and lower-and higher-order classroom learning. Computers & Education,120, 98–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, J. M., & Strayer, D. L. (2010). Supertaskers: Profiles in extraordinary multitasking ability. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,17(4), 479–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhong, B. (2013). From smartphones to iPad: Power users’ disposition toward mobile media devices. Computers in Human Behavior,29(4), 1742–1748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study is the summary of the first author’s Ph.D. dissertation, which was supervised by the second author. The research team thanks the Editor and six anonymous reviewers for their outstanding feedback on the previous versions of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK, Grant Number: 117K133).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Education & Instructional Technology, Faculty of Education, Siirt University, Siirt, Turkey

    Barış Mercimek

  2. Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Education, Anadolu University, 26470, Eskisehir, Turkey

    Yavuz Akbulut

  3. Department of Computer Education & Instructional Technology, Faculty of Education, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey

    Onur Dönmez

  4. Center for Research and Practice for High Ability Education, Anadolu University, Eskisehir, Turkey

    Uğur Sak

Authors
  1. Barış Mercimek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yavuz Akbulut
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Onur Dönmez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Uğur Sak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yavuz Akbulut.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical approval

The research proposal was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Anadolu University (June 28, 2016).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mercimek, B., Akbulut, Y., Dönmez, O. et al. Multitasking impairs learning from multimedia across gifted and non-gifted students. Education Tech Research Dev 68, 995–1016 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09717-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09717-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation