Last week I wrote with such excitement because I thought I knew exactly which direction I wanted to take with my final project. Then I read the articles for this week’s lesson and now my brain is going a totally different direction. I chose to read two articles on the effects of multitasking on learning and another regarding face-to-face communication versus communication via technology with adolescents. Originally when I started looking for case studies I focused on second language learning with mobile technologies. It seemed a natural fit for me as a Spanish teacher. However I found the multitasking studies fascinating and wanted to explore more in that direction. In the end I think I have found a new direction for my project.

I am not a multitasker. I know I am not and have almost always known I am not. I need near silence to read. I feel as if I am in chaos if too many things are going on at once. I know that I will pay attention to the television more than my papers if I try to grade student work plopped on the couch in front of one of my favorite shows. On page 24 of the article by Sana et al (2013) they explain that “when the level of available attentional resources is less than what is required to complete two simultaneous tasks, performance decrements are experienced since both tasks are competing for the same limited resources.” This would explain why I can fold laundry and catch up on the latest episode of Criminal Minds but why I cannot read a research article for class while the television is on in the background. We have a limited amount of attention to give.

The same held true for the subjects who participated in the case studies by Sana et al (2013) and Bowman et al (2010). In both cases the student subjects involved in the studies showed decreased learning or efficiency in their assigned tasks. The Bowman et al (2010) study focused on the effects of instant messaging (IM) on a set reading task. The authors found that while there was no significant effect on reader comprehension regardless of whether or not the participant received an IM interruption during reading, there was a significant effect on the length of time it took for the reader to accomplish the task. The authors suggest on page 931 that if students think they are saving time by multitasking while completing course work “they will actually need more time to achieve the same level of performance on an academic task.” What this says to me as a classroom teacher with a limited amount of time to cover an extensive curriculum is that if my students are multitasking on their laptop computers on non-class objective related tasks, they are not making the most of the time available to them for learning.

The Sana et al (2013) study was of particular interest to me because it supported my beliefs that “participants’ comprehension was impaired when they performed multiple tasks during learning.” (page 29) However of even greater interest to me was the finding that “comprehension was impaired for participants who were seated in view of peers engaged in multitasking.” (page 29) This made a great impact on me as I think about my 8th grade students who will all have laptops in their hands next year. It is one thing to have a student’s choices affect his or her own learning, but to see that their quiet multitasking behaviors could have a negative impact on their peers’ ability to learn is quite disconcerting. The authors suggest having some common sense rules for technology use in classrooms on page 30 such as explaining the consequences of negative technology use, having students agree upon rules of technology etiquette, and to “discourage laptop use in courses where technology is not necessary for learning.” My favorite suggestion however was “to provide educators with resources to help them create enriching, informative, and interactive classes that can compete with the allure of non-course websites so that students are deterred from misusing their laptop in the first place.” Clearly as an educator I fully support anything that helps create a stimulating and engaging classroom experience, however as dynamic as I potentially could be, I have serious reservations as to whether or not I could actually compete on the same level with Fortnite.

The third article I read, while not dealing with multitasking, was of particular interest to me as a foreign language educator who is trying to learn how to best support student learning with technology. Pierce (2009) wanted to compare face-to-face interactions with communication via technology particularly when dealing with teens and social anxiety. Since I teach a subject in which learning to communicate with others is the goal, this article caught my attention. Pierce (2009) stated on page 1370 that “for those who may be shy and feel inhibitions about talking with others in person, various technologies provide a safe opportunity for them to interact with others.” This made me think about my own context as a Spanish teacher. My students are all assessed daily on their communication in the target language and in the past this “class communication” portion of a student’s grade has caused some minor backlash from students and parents of students who have labeled themselves as either shy or as having social anxiety. I have been accused of academically punishing students for being shy. As Pierce initially suggests it is possible that I could use a computer aided communication tool as a means to provide students with an alternate means to show their communication skills but in a non face-to-face manner. While I am in favor of finding various ways for students to demonstrate what they know, I still contend that face-to-face communication is a key factor in learning another language and while using technology to support communication is one viable method for communication, is should not be used as a way to avoid face-to-face social interactions. Pierce (2009) also alludes to this by stating on page 1370 that “technologies may also be replacing or be a substitution for face-to-face communication” and  that “technology has changed the way we live today and is changing how we communicate with others – but at what cost?” She suggests that further research is needed to test the effects of technology potentially replacing face-to-face communication. I have often wondered if some of the adaptations and accommodations we make for students are simply band-aids covering problems rather than getting to the root of the issue and trying to truly help students. I can fully see myself utilizing more computer aided methods for students to be able to share and practice their communication skills in Spanish, but to use these tools in place of face-to-face communication because a student is shy or has social anxiety is not really helping the student face the challenge of their situation. Would it not be best to find ways to help the student find ways to deal with his or her social anxiety itself? Would this not be more beneficial to him or her over the long term?

Here you will find the link for a case study by Perry (2015) on the use of a quest-based augmented reality language learning tool. What drew me to this particular study was the use of an augmented reality mobile learning tool utilized by students who would be interacting with virtual characters in the target second language. I wondered how this would affect not only their learning, but also the potential for students with social anxiety to be able to communicate without the fear of perceived judgement that often accompanies face-to-face language learning experiences.

With this thought in mind, I return to the original thought behind this post, students and multitasking. While writing this blog post I had to step away and take a mini-break between the topics of multitasking and technology assisted communication for students with social anxiety because my own brain needed a moment to switch topics and regroup. This weeks readings did however make a connection for me between my original thought last week of utilizing QR codes or another method of AR to design a lesson and something my students struggle with daily, technological distractions and multitasking. With these thoughts in mind I know that as I design my final project I must be keenly aware of how I can design a student activity using technology while setting clear rules and expectations for how the students must utilize the tools at their disposal in a focused manner in order to eliminate the decrements they can incur from not placing their attention at the task at hand. I know that I am not a multitasker and although my students may think that they are, research is proving otherwise.

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(4), 927-931. Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.024

Perry, B. (2015). Gamifying French Language Learning: A Case Study Examining a Quest-based, Augmented Reality Mobile Learning-tool. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 2308-2315. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.892

Pierce, T. (2009). Social anxiety and technology: Face-to-face communication versus technological communication among teens. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(6), 1367-1372. Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.06.003

Sana, F., Weston, T., & Cepeda, N. J. (2013). Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both users and nearby peers. (pages 24-31).