DIGITAL

CULTURE & EDUCATION, 6(2)

Copyright 2014, ISSN 1836-8301

Digital Culture & Education (DCE)

Publication details, including instructions for
authors http://www.digitalcultureandeducation.com/

Switching between productive

multitasking and distraction: A case
study of how users adapt to mobile
tablet devices
Sora Park
University of Canberra
th

Online Publication Date: 12 , August 2014

To cite this Article: Park, S (2014). Switching between productive multitasking and distraction: A case study

of how users adapt to mobile tablet devices. Digital Culture & Education, 6:2, 120-132.
URL: http://www.digitalcultureandeducation.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/park.pdf

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Park

SWITCHING BETWEEN PRODUCTIVE

MULTITASKING AND DISTRACTION: A CASE STUDY
OF HOW USERS ADAPT TO MOBILE TABLET
DEVICES
SORA PARK

Abstract

This study explores how new users of mobile tablet devices experience and learn to adapt to an
environment in which there is a ubiquitous internet connection. A mixed methods study
combining netnography and online surveys was conducted among 35 university students in
Australia. The portable and mobile nature of tablets enabled participants to be engaged in
continuous internet access throughout the day, expanding the situations in which they could
engage in multiple tasks. This study focused on the way users prioritise tasks, particularly within
the context of studying. Over the course of one year, participants developed their own methods of
dealing with the new challenges they encountered. Most participants managed demands on their
time and attention by switching between productive and distractive multitasking. Self-regulation
strategies were developed through the process of managing the distraction, the main strategies being
physical disconnection from the device and mental planning.

Keywords: iPads; mobile tablet devices; digital media; multitasking;

productivity; distraction; self-regulation; young adults
Introduction
Mobile media have dramatically changed the media landscape by tethering users to their
devices and changing the ways in which they behave around technology and other
people (Scolari, Aguado & Feijo, 2012; Turkle, 2008). Users connected to the network
via mobile devices can choose the main space in which they function and interact with
others without being physically present. They can switch between multiple realities,
constantly realising ambient virtual copresence (Horst, Herr-Stephenson & Robinson,
2010). In the physical space, mobile media enables the state of absent presence, whereby
they can be colocated with others without necessarily being copresent (Gergen, 2002).
Tablets, mobile phones, and laptops are designed to increase mobility and enable users
to access the internet anytime and anywhere. In particular, mobile tablet devices are
designed as small, portable computers that can be used seamlessly in both private and
public spaces. This ubiquity forces users to make continuous choices about when and
where they are going to use the device and whether to apply existing norms or develop
new ones.
In the context of learning, digital devices such as laptops and mobile tablet devices
expand the potential of effective learning both in and out of the classroom. At the same
time, digital devices can be a cause of distraction that diverts students, allowing them to
stray from the main task. Although the true benefits of using technologies in learning
have yet to be determined, mobile devices have become prevalent in classrooms and
120

 Switching between productive multitasking and distraction

learning spaces. This is a new challenge for educators and students alike, who are trying
to embrace new technologies for effective learning. This paper discusses how the
portability of mobile tablet devices creates new multitasking situations, and how users
respond to the new challenges.
The challenges arise from the fact that tablets provide a gateway to the outside world
via ubiquitous internet access. In this exploratory study, mobile tablet devices were
distributed to students who had never used them before. Students were then observed
for a period of one year. Although participants had prior experience with computers and
mobile phones, tablets were regarded as unique in the sense that they could be used in
any context and that continuous access to the internet was possible. This flexibility of
use created situations in which users were challenged to exercise control over the way
and the extent to which they used the device. Ubiquitous access to the internet
increased both productivity and distraction. This paper reports on the way users
responded to and devised new strategies to cope with this constant connectivity.

The experience of multitasking

Multitasking has existed since long before digital technologies were introduced.
Secondary activities such as passing notes in class while the teacher is not watching or
listening to the radio while reading are good examples. With multifunctional digital
devices, opportunities to multitask have increased significantly, and multitasking has
become more of the norm than the exception. People are constantly engaged in
continuous partial attention, whereby they simultaneously process multiple streams of
information without fully committing to a single activity (Jones, 2005). Multitasking, in
the context of digital media, usually describes the phenomena of dividing attention
between simultaneous activities or rapidly switching between two or more tasks. There
are two distinct areas in the literature, in which multitasking is usually regarded as a
negative outcome of digital media: media multitasking and multitasking in the context of
learning.
In media studies, media multitasking occurs when users engage in other activities
while consuming media content. Due to the increase in the number of platforms and
devices in the home, people can access multiple media sources simultaneously. The
simultaneous use of multiple media increases overall exposure, but diminishes the
quality of the information that is being processed (Jeong & Fishbein, 2007). Ophir, Nass
and Wagner (2009) found that heavy media multitaskers are distracted more easily and
are less efficient at switching tasks. Simultaneously performing two cognitive tasks result
in less favorable responses (Bolls & Muehling, 2007). In advertising, multiple media
consumption reduces the effects of commercial messages (Jeong & Fishbein, 2007;
Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; Voorveld, 2011).
Certain media activities are more suitable for multitasking. For example, a study by
Pool, Koolstra and van der Voort (2003) showed that listening to music has less impact
on students homework than viewing television. This is reflected in the activities people
choose to engage in when they multitask. Preteens tend to engage in more multitasking
when talking over the phone, communicating online, and listening to music (Pea et al.,
2012).
Multitasking poses a more substantial problem in the context of learning. Many
studies suggest that unless learning activities are built into the technology use, the
technology is usually more of a distraction than a learning tool (Fried, 2008; Junco &
Cotton, 2011; Kraushaar & Novak, 2010; Wainer et al., 2008; Wood et al., 2012; Wurst,
Smarkola, & Gaffney, 2008). For example, computer use has been found to have a
negative impact on learning, and this effect is greater among younger and poorer
students (Wainer et al., 2008). Those who use laptops in class have lower overall
121

Park

learning outcomes because of the distraction laptops entail (Fried, 2008). A study
conducted among young students between the fifth and eighth grades found that
numeracy and literacy skills decline when computers are introduced into the household
(Vigdor & Ladd, 2010). Even when constructive learning does appear to occur through
laptops, the overall satisfaction of student learning has been found to be lower among
laptop users than non-laptop students (Wurst et al., 2008). Among older students,
Wood et al. (2012) also found that attempting to multitask in lectures had a detrimental
impact on learning outcomes.
Students are increasingly challenged by various multitasking activities unrelated to the
task at hand, such as Facebook and MSN. Rosen, Carrier and Cheever.s (2013)
observational study confirmed that engaging in social media during study periods
negatively affected students grades. Junco and Cotten (2011) found that engaging
simultaneously in schoolwork and instant messaging (IM) had a negative effect on
studying; and, that student GPAs were negatively correlated with the social use of
information and communication technology (ICT; Junco & Cotton, 2012). Bowman et
al. (2010) tested whether the use of IM during reading hinders the reading process; they
found that students took significantly longer to complete the reading task, even when
subtracting IM time. Beentjes and Koolstras (1996) survey of 8th to 10th graders
revealed that student learning was impaired by background media use when studying at
home.
Certain activities are more distracting than others. Kraushaar and Novak (2010)
distinguished between productive and distractive multitasking, distractive being the noncourse related activities performed on students laptops during class, such as email, IM,
and entertainment surfing. In their study, academic performance was lower when the
proportion of distractive multitasking was higher. Learning is less effective when
students engage in activities that are not related to the goals of the task. This is because
off-task activities increase the extraneous cognitive load (Wood et al., 2012).
The problem with engaging in multiple tasks is that people cannot simultaneously
process multiple messages centrally. Peripheral message processing is known to reduce
the long-term effects of the messages (Jeong & Fishbein, 2007; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986;
Srivastava, 2013). A response-selection bottleneck occurs because cognitive processes
are limited in this capacity. When confronted with multiple tasks, the brain must choose
among the many stimuli (Borst, Taatgen & van Rijn, 2010; Meyer et al., 1995). The way
the brain handles multiple-task performance is to rely on adaptive executive control,
which enables substantial amounts of temporal overlap among stimulus identification,
response selection, and movement-production processes for concurrent tasks (Meyer &
Kieras, 1997). The cognitive load imposed by engaging in multiple tasks negatively
affects the learning process because there are limits to the quantity of information that
can be retained (Lee, Lin & Robertson, 2012). Learning and storing information are two
different activities, involving different areas of the brain. The learning that occurs during
multitasking is less flexible and more specialised, which makes it harder to retrieve the
information after learning (Rosen, 2008).
There may be a difference between dividing ones attention and switching rapidly
between tasks (Posner, 1990). Multitasking divides the attention among activities,
making the selection of information imperfect and resulting in delayed or slowed
processes (Smith & Kosslyn, 2007). On the other hand, rapid attention switching occurs
when a person rapidly shifts his or her attention among different activities. Since the
individual is only attending to one stimulus at any given time, the multitasking doesnt
necessarily compromise the quality of the process. However, when people engage in
rapid attention switching, there is a time lag before full attention is restored to the new
tasks (Butler, Arrington & Weywadt, 2011; Rubinstein, Meyer & Evans, 2001). In
122

 Switching between productive multitasking and distraction

contrast, one area of cognitive psychology suggests a potential benefit of multitasking,

having found that training can improve multitasking skills (Meyer et al., 1995).
According to scholars who suggest an adaptive view of the brain, information
processing is considered to be massively parallel and distributed throughout
components of interconnected neural networks (Anderson & Hinton, 1981).
Multitasking in certain tasks can be trained or learned (Saunders & Klemming, 2003).
Multitasking affects the type of learning that takes place in the brain and involves a
different area of the brain than single-task activities (Foerde, Knowlton, & Poldrack,
2006). Constant multitasking by young people today may train them to juggle multiple
activities and use time more efficiently (Carrier et al., 2009).

Adapting to the challenges of multitasking

Multitasking is more prevalent than ever before, especially among youth, and the trend
is certainly growing. According to research by the Kaiser Family Foundation, the
average amount of time that children aged 8 to 18 report media multitasking increased
from 16% in 1999 to 29% in 2009 (Rideout, Foeher & Roberts, 2010). If multitasking is
among the cognitive activities that can be learned, then we can assume that exposure to
certain technologies will enhance users ability to multitask. Carrier et al. (2009)
compared the Baby Boomers, X Generation, and Net Generation in their multitasking
behaviour and found that the youngest generation exercised a greater amount of
multitasking, but that the types of activities engaged in were similar across all
generations. This implies that multitasking is an acquired skill and that people have to
learn how to do it efficiently. Cognitive flexibility is a characteristic of the human brain
that helps people pursue complex tasks, such as multitasking, and adapt to changing
demands (Ionescu, 2012).
However, most studies about multitasking are cross-sectional and thus cannot
identify long term changes over time. Furthermore, most studies that measure the
distracting impact of new technologies do not acknowledge the novelty effect of a new
device when it is introduced into the users existing digital environment. New digital
devices are presumed to be inserted seamlessly into the users everyday context. Users
adjust to the multi-platform, multi-device environment by devising their own strategies.
Self-regulated learning can be used to manage multitasking with digital devices. Studies
on self-regulation conclude that effective learning occurs when students block out
distractions while engaged in learning activities (Sitzman & Ely, 2011). For example,
Wei, Wang and Klausner (2012) tested the relationship between self-regulation, text
messaging in class and cognitive learning. Students who have higher self-regulation
levels are less likely to text in class and more likely to sustain their attention, and thus
achieve better learning outcomes. The will to consciously sustain focus is a vital factor
in self-regulated learning (Roeser & Peck, 2009).

Research Questions and Methodology

Previous studies suggest that multitasking using digital devices compromises the overall
quality of learning outcomes. However, less is known about the user experience during
the multitasking process and the way they deal with the challenges that arise. This study
examines how users of mobile tablet devices respond to the ubiquitous access to the
internet, particularly in a learning environment, with a focus on their perception of their
multitasking behaviour.
Drawing on previous studies, we can conclude that (1) multitasking behaviour is
becoming more prevalent in the digital age; (2) certain activities impose less cognitive
load and are thus easier to multitask; and, (3) human brains are adaptable to the
environment, within limits. It is expected that, due to ubiquitous access to multiple
123

Park

platforms, people are faced with an increased demand for multitasking and that they
learn to adapt. The following exploratory research questions were developed to explore
the experience of users while adapting to a new digital device.
Research Question 1. What are the perceived negative and positive effects of
multitasking among young adults after they are given mobile tablet devices?
Research Question 2. How do young adults adapt to and balance productive and
distractive multitasking after they are given mobile tablet devices?
The data analysed in this study was drawn from a larger longitudinal study of young
adults conducted between August 2011 and August 2012. A total of 35 first and secondyear full-time university students at an Australian university were recruited through oncampus bulletin boards and the universitys online portal site. Voluntary participants
were directed to a Web link, where they were asked to complete a short screening
survey. Screening questions included age, gender, and ownership of digital devices,
including mobile tablet devices. A quota sample was selected on the basis of the
populations gender and age composition. Only those who did not already own a tablet
device were invited to take part in the study. For a summary of participants
demographic profiles, see Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of participants
Variables
Gender

Type of residence

Age

Male
Female
Live with family
Off campus residence
On campus residence
18-20
21-25

N
15
20
19
6
10
21
14

%
43
57
54.3
17.1
28.6
60
40

In order to track changes throughout the course of one year, both quantitative and
qualitative methods were used. Two sets of longitudinal surveys were conducted. The
first set consisted of pre-study, mid-study, and post-study surveys. The second set was a
monthly survey conducted from September to November 2011 and from February to
July 2012. An online community discussion forum was open throughout the study,
enabling researchers to engage in netnography. Netnography is a participantobservational research strategy conducted in online spaces (Kozinets, 2010). The
researchers actively participated in the online environment by posting questions,
prompting answers and engaging with the participants. This study reports mainly on the
findings from the online discussions.
With the exception of the pre-study survey, all of the data were collected after
students had been given their mobile table devices. The model that was given was the
iPad II, with Wi-Fi and 3G access. Wi-Fi was available on campus at no extra cost.
Students who wished to use 3G technology were required to purchase a SIM card and a
subscription to a mobile 3G service. All names used in this study are pseudonyms. Prior
to the study, appropriate ethics approval was obtained from the National Health and
Research Council through their National Ethics Application Form (NEAF).

124

 Switching between productive multitasking and distraction

The participant recruitment procedure resulted in a cohort of students who owned

various digital devices and were regular users of the internet. In all, 74.3% of
participants owned a smart phone and 94.3% owned their own laptops or computers
(see Table 2).
Table 2. Device ownership prior to the study
Type of device
Mobile phone

Laptop or PC

Ownership before study

Smart phone

N
26

%
74.3

Regular mobile phone

22.9

Do not own

2.9

Personally own

33

94.3

Do not own*

5.7

*Students who did not own their own computer/laptop were still able to get access to a home
computer/laptop

Multitasking behaviour in continuum

Multitasking behaviour is not new to the digital era. In modernity, time is a basic unit of
measurement used to determine value. High productivity is regarded as the completion
of a certain process in a reduced amount of time. According to Southerton and
Tomlinson (2005), time squeeze is a general characteristic of contemporary suburban
households and people are expected to manage multiple tasks within a limited
timeframe.
Media multitasking was already prevalent among study participants before the study.
In the pre-study survey, participants reported that they frequently engaged in an
additional activity, such as using the computer, playing games or text messaging, while
watching TV or listening to music. Among the participants, 14.3% reported doing so
every time they watched TV, and 31.4% did so every time they listened to music. This
pattern did not change significantly after using mobile tablet devices for a year. For
most participants, adding one more device did not significantly increase the amount of
media multitasking.
However, new situations emerged in which they could engage in both media and
non-media multitasking. For example, chatting with friends online while watching
television was reported as a new advantage of having a portable device that they could
carry around within the home. During classes, they frequently used their iPads to
multitask. During lectures, 91.2% of participants searched for information on their
iPads. A total of 82.4% said they shared information with others outside of the lecture
through tweeting, posting, and emailing. Similarly, 85.3% reported reading on their
iPads during lectures and 91.2% engaged in iPad activities that were not related to the
lecture.

The co-existence of distractive and productive multitasking

After receiving their iPad, participants reported identifying new situations in which they
could multitask. These included using their iPads on public transportation, in
classrooms, while engaging in conversations with others, and at home while watching
television. Most multitasking activities were accepted as natural, efficient and becoming
the normal trend (Neil). Using their iPads for social network sites, emails, and
browsing during a conversation with other people was not regarded negatively, but was
rather considered complementary to the primary activity and fantastic for time
management (Jean). When Heather was in Peru, for instance, she was able to engage in
a conversation with the locals using her iPad for translation. Other examples of
125

Park

complementary multitasking included tweeting during a television program that invites

audiences to participate via Twitter (Aiden), and seeking information related to the main
task (Mia).
While consuming media content, iPads were used not only to search for information
related to the media content, such as visiting the homepage of the broadcaster
(Elizabeth), but also to use time efficiently, such as browsing for used cars while
watching TV and looking up other spur of the moment ideas (Jacob). At times, it was
used to co-view a television program with a remote friend. The Friday night AFL game
was on and whilst watching the game at home on my couch I had my iPad out having a
conversation with a friend from home about the game that was unfolding in front of my
eyes (Donald). Using my iPad, I accessed the SBS website that was rating Australias
vote for Eurovision, which added another angle to watching the show (Rita). Many
participants found multitasking to be a positive experience, whether it was during a
conversation or watching television.
I think it is natural to try to multitask in todays society and the dual conversation is an
element of that. Today, I was setting up my mother on Facebook and teaching her how to
use it, when my work rang. I continued to teach mum [the] technology while on the
phone Technology has given me the ability to hold these multiple conversations for longer
and more stealthily. (Patrick)
I feel that since I got the iPad I tend to engage in technology multitasking because while
I'm watching Foxtel on the one hand, I'm also reading lectures on my laptop, while flicking
through Facebook on my iPad. (Mary)
At the same time, participants were aware of the distraction that iPads presented to
them due to this capacity to multitask.
When watching Q&A on ABC, I would engage in a Twitter conversation using the
hashtag for the television show with other viewers Though this is encouraged by the
producers of the show itself, it would at times distract [me] from the actual show itself
because of the enormity of the online conversation.(Henry)
The cause of distraction was the continuous access to the internet through the iPads.
This led participants to procrastinate on their main task in lieu of the various
applications that caught their attention.
[The] ease of carrying around the iPad also has contributed to its ability to distract. I also
find the iPad not only a distraction, but a good option for a form of procrastination
always better to be playing games or chatting on Facebook than working on an
assignment. (Rene)
iPad users easily tune out because it is too easy to access information quickly, whether
it be relevant or not (Jacob). The push service was found to be distracting because
messages from Facebook pop up at the top of the screen when working on something
else (Rene). In most cases, the additional tasks were habitual behaviours that they
engaged in without purposely thinking or planning. Elizabeth suggested that the
distraction was due to the ubiquity. Checking Facebook and email whenever logged on
to the internet is habitual (Elizabeth). The constant accessibility of the internet is the
source of distraction and iPads have made it easier to tap into that opportunity.

126

 Switching between productive multitasking and distraction

Being connected to the internet constantly, especially in lectures, makes it very tempting and
very easy to tune out. (Jacob)
The escapist notion of media can be applied to such situations. iPads provide users the
opportunity to avoid activities that occur in confined spaces. Instead of engaging in the
main task, participants often shift their attention into their own virtual spaces.
[It is] quite easy to take it to [class] and every now and then stray from what we are
doing to look at my Facebook. (Elizabeth)
It is, in a way, leaving the physical space to be elsewherein the online space. Noah
often tunes out when the class becomes boring. Similarly Aiden constantly
refreshes Facebook and Twitter, hoping something interesting might appear during dry
lectures. However, the purpose of their multitasking extended beyond simply trying to
avoid a task. Participants were feeling a constant need to be connected to their virtual
world.
While studying for my final exams last semester, I got into the habit of keeping Facebook
open on my iPad, which was sitting in front of me. This allowed me to look at the flow of
information coming in from the Facebook news feed while studying. (Aiden)
Participants considered their iPads to be an efficient tool to maximise their use of time,
but also a playful device that distracts them when they have to engage in serious tasks
such as studying or attending lectures. Both sides of this duality of distraction and
efficient multitasking were well accepted among the students. They did not consider the
two concepts to be mutually exclusive; both behaviours co-existed in their everyday
context.
It has taken procrastination to a whole new level! Also, it has taken productivity to a new
level. (Brian)
Most participants grew up in media-rich environments. They had had their own mobile
phones since approximately the age of 12 and had computers in their houses before the
age of five. As such, it is not surprising that they have practiced backchannelling or
experienced ambient virtual copresence (Horst et al., 2010) in classrooms. The
difference is that in secondary schools, there were rules at school that prohibited or
banned such activities, but in a university setting, there are no explicit rules governing
their behaviour in class; they are left to decide for themselves.
The survey results confirm the participants duality in their perception of
multitasking. In the post-study survey, 29.4% of participants thought that iPads had
made them better learners, and 88.2% thought that iPads were useful in the classroom
during lectures or tutorials. On the other hand, 58.8% admitted that when they were
using the iPad, they were easily distracted by other functions or apps. Most students
reflected on how distracting, yet helpful, the device was during their studies. In all,
20.6% of the participants thought that even though the iPad has some features that help
in studying, the overall impact was distraction. A full 73.5% reported that even though it
was a distraction at times, the iPad had helped them to study more efficiently. Only
5.9% thought it helped without any distraction.

Negotiating multitasking by adopting self-regulation strategies

127

Park

Tablet users encountered situations in which they had to process multiple threads of
conversation. Learning to manage time across various activities was one of the
challenges many of them mentioned.
I was once in a lecture taking notes on the given subject. While this was happening, I was
receiving notifications from Facebook that someone was trying to contact me about a group
project for another subject. I have then had to answer these questions on the group project,
which has prohibited me from taking any more notes on the given lecture. I was trying to
still listen to what was being presented, yet it was too difficult to maintain this attention
while trying to organise a meeting with my group for a different subject. (Anna)
When this happened, they had to devise their own rules and boundaries by
experimenting and negotiating with themselves to find an optimal solution. The way
they coped with this can be described as a self-regulation process whereby they acquired
appropriate skills to control their use of the device. Self-regulation is a process that
guides an individual through a goal-oriented task over time when circumstances are
changeable. This usually occurs when a routine is disrupted (Karoly, 1993).
Similar to the findings reported by Quan-Haase (2010) in a study on instant
messaging (IM), participants in this study adopted physical disconnection strategies
when coping with distraction. Disconnection is the act of banning physical access to the
device altogether, either by leaving the iPad behind (Diana), not using it in lectures
(Kathryn), or banishing the iPad to the lounge room (Jean). Simply not leaving it on
the desk when they needed to study was one of the banning methods (Jean). Another
method was to customise the iPads during certain periods so that they would be less
tempted to use it for off-task activities. Anna reported deleting distracting apps during
the exam period and re-installing them afterwards. Andres exerted self-control by
closing all apps that were not relevant to the main task and deleting some until after the
work had been completed. In contrast, Elizabeths strategy was to open useful
applications that were directly related to the main task so that she would not be tempted
to visit Facebook. Additional effective ways of minimising distraction, included turning
the volume down so that they would not be distracted by the noise (Donald), or in
other cases, turning the volume up so that they would not feel inclined to play games in
the presence of others (Brian).
In contrast, some users chose to mentally plan ahead for the distracting activities in
order to exercise greater control when the situation presented itself. For example, one
method was to pre-schedule the distraction so that they could minimise the temptation
when they were engaged in the main task. By anticipating the distraction, users could
proactively deal with it before it actually occurred.
When I do a day of study I generally give myself set breaks for 1015 minutes and will
play on my iPad in those breaks, but I rarely spend longer on it than Ive given myself.
(Evelyn)
Time management and self-control skills were both necessary to implement this
strategy. Evelyn used technology breaks to address her internal needs. She reported
spending about 20 minutes on studying, allowing herself to be distracted for a few
minutes, and then returning to her studying. In Heathers case, she would reduce the
temptation to be distracted during her main activity by engaging in all of the distracting
activities first, and then focus on her studies.
Both placing a physical ban on the use of the device and pre-scheduling distraction
can be characterized as self-regulatory techniques employed when acquiring digital
media literacy. Being able to access, use, critically understand and appropriate the device
128

 Switching between productive multitasking and distraction

are important aspects of digital media literacy (Park, 2012). Digital media literacy is a
multidimensional concept that includes not only the device literacy, but also the ability
to engage and exercise social norms. These strategies were adopted once users were
comfortable using the device, after several months of exploring it. The time it takes to
become digitally literate is reflected in the fact the method of self-regulation was not
always effective. Participants reported that it required a lot of self-control (Rita) and
the user must be strong (Chloe). Some reported difficulty with this self-regulation: If
[distraction] is going to happen, it usually does (Mason); and, no matter what I do, I
always find myself on Facebook, and it is so easy to just tune out of the lecture or
tutorial (Noah). Coping with distraction is an ongoing process of negotiation. Dylan
deleted all of his distracting apps from his iPad, but found himself pulling out his phone
with the same apps.
Rather than attempting to increase the ability to multitask across all activities,
participants closely monitored their use and limited their multitasking activities that were
distracting. For example, when they were studying, they chose not to engage in
multitasking, but rather to manage their time so that they would not have to multitask.
It may be that one year was not sufficient time for them to train themselves in effective
multitasking during focused activities. Nevertheless, participants quickly learned how to
switch between productive multitasking and regulating distraction depending on the
context and the task at hand.
Unless learning is motivated and directed by goals and positive outcomes, using
digital technologies may not be an immediately rewarding experience. According to
Bandura (2001), intentionality is the power to originate actions for a given purpose. Selfreactiveness suggests that an agent has to be not only a planner and forethinker, but a
motivator and self-regulator as well (p.8). Considering how a person acts, reacts and
reflects upon his or her own behaviour is a useful way to analyse the manner in which
mobile tablet users cope with and negotiate their device usage practices.
Self-regulated learning is a general disposition that students bring into the classroom
in an engaged and motivated manner (Boekaerts, 2005). It defines the way students
learn the subject matter. In this case, self-regulated learning was used as a strategy for
dealing with distraction. In an era in which multiple digital devices are being introduced
into and used in the classroom, the effectiveness of learning is increasingly dependent
on students abilities to exert self-regulation. This involves the process of learning how
to use new devices per se, but also devising rules and routines of appropriate usage from
the users standpoint. The process of self-regulation when learning how to use mobile
tablet devices in the context of studying illustrates how young people acquire digital
media literacy.

Conclusion

This study observed young adults over a period of one year and examined how they
learned to manage and address the new challenges posed by adding another digital
device to their digital environment. Young adults who had never owned a mobile tablet
device were given iPads and observed over the course of one year. Mobile tablets, while
similar to laptops and smart phones, presented the participants with a novel situation,
i.e., continuous connection to the internet. The ubiquity of internet access was regarded
as an added convenience in most settings. In many situations, multitasking was regarded
as productive and helpful in improving time management. However, multitasking posed
a challenge in the context of studying.
Participants struggled to balance their studies as they faced intensified multitasking
situations. Despite the fact that they all had prior experience with multitasking to some
extent, they encountered new situations in which they were now habitually engaging in
129

Park

multiple tasks. Situations emerged in which they needed to devise coping strategies to
focus on one task. The main methods of dealing with such challenges were either to
physically disconnect themselves from the device or to plan ahead and manage the
anticipated distractions.
Learning to use a new device requires not only technical skills, but also an
understanding of the broader social meaning of using devices in various contexts. Due
to the portability, students were able to carry their tablets everywhere. Participants
explored, experimented, and negotiated various uses of the device according to the
different contexts in which they found themselves. At first, participants went through a
novelty period. This is when they experimented with the device and spent enormous
amounts of time using it. After this phase passed, they were able to reflect upon their
usage patterns and establish what they thought to be optimal use. During the process,
self-regulatory strategies were adopted, whereby they eventually found a place for the
new device amongst the various digital devices they used.

Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the Public Communication Research Cluster at the
Faculty of Arts & Design and the Information and Technology Management at the
University of Canberra (2011-2012).An earlier version of the paper was presented at the
14th annual conference of the Association of Internet Researchers.

References
Anderson, J. A. & Hinton, G. E. (1981). Models of information processing in the brain.
In Hinton, G. E. & Anderson, J. A. (eds). Parallel Models of Associative Memory,
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52(1), 1.
Beentjes, J. W. J., & Koolstra, C. M. (1996). Combining background media with doing
homework: Incidence of background media use and perceived. Communication
Education, 45(1), 59.
Boekaerts, M. L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment
and intervention. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54(2), 199-231.
Bolls, P. D., & Muehling, D. D. (2007). The effects of dual-task processing on
consumers' responses to high- and low-imagery radio advertisements. Journal of
Advertising, 36(4), 35-47.
Borst, J. P., Taatgen, N. A., & van Rijn, H. (2010). The problem state: A cognitive
bottleneck in multitasking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and
Cognition, 36(2), 363-382.
Bowmann, 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.
Butler, K. M., Arrington, C. M., & Weywadt, C. (2011). Working memory capacity
modulates task performance but has little influence on task choice. Memory and
Cognition, 39, 708724.
Carrier, L. M., Cheever, N. A., Rosen, L. D., Benitez, S., & Chang, J. (2009).
Multitasking across generations: Multitasking choices and difficulty ratings in three
generations of Americans. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 483-489.
130

 Switching between productive multitasking and distraction

Foerde, K., Knowlton, B. J., & Poldrack, R. A. (2006). Modulation of competing

memory systems by distraction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(31),
11778-11783.
Fried, C. B. (2008). In-class laptop use and its effects on student learning. Computers &
Education, 50(3), 906-914.
Gergen, K. J. (2002). The challenge of absent presence. In J. Katz & M. Aakhus (Eds.),
Perpetual Contact (pp. 227-241). NY, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Horst, H. A., Herr-Stephenson, B., & Robinson, L. (2010). Media ecologies. In M. Ito
(Ed.), Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out: Kids Living and Learning with New
Media. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Ionescu, T. (2012). Exploring the nature of cognitive flexibility. New Ideas in Psychology,
30, 190-200.
Jeong, S.H., & Fishbein, M. (2007). Predictors of multitasking with media: Media factors
and audience factors. Media Psychology, 10(3), 364-384.
Jones, S. (2005). Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually
Making Us Smarter. NY, NY: Riverhead Books.
Junco, R., & Cotten, S. R. (2012). No A 4 U: The relationship between multitasking and
academic performance. Computers & Education, 59(2), 505-514.
Junco, R., & Cotten, S. R. (2011). Perceived academic effects of instant messaging use.
Computers & Education, 56(2), 370-378.
Karoly, P. (1993). Mechanisms of self-regulation: A systems view. Annual Review of
Psychology, 44(1), 23.
Kozinets, R. (2010). Netnography: Doing Ethnographic Research Online. SAGE Publications
Ltd.
Kraushaar, 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.
Lee, J., Lin, L., & Robertson, T. (2012). The impact of media multitasking on learning.
Learning, Media and Technology, 37(1), 94-104.
Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive
processes and multiple-task performance: Part 2. Accounts of psychological
refractory-period phenomena. Psychological Review, 104(4), 749-791.
Meyer, D. E., Kieras, D. E., Lauber, E., Schumacher, E. H., Glass, J., Zurbriggen, E., et
al. (1995). Adaptive executive control: Flexible multiple-task performance without
pervasive immutable response-selection bottlenecks. Acta Psychologica, 90(1-3), 163190.
Ophir, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(37), 15583-15587.
Park, S. (2012). Dimensions of digital media literacy and the relationship to social
exclusion. Media International Australia, 142(1). 87-100.
Pea, R., Nass, C., Meheula, L., Rance, M., Kumar, A., Bamford, H., et al. (2012). Media
use, face-to-face communication, media multitasking, and social well-being among 8to 12-year-old girls. Developmental Psychology, 48(2), 327-336.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral
routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Pool, M. M., Koolstra, C. M., & van der Voort, T. H. A. (2003). The impact of
background radio and television on high school students' homework performance.
Journal of Communication, 53(1), 74-87.

131

Park

Posner, M. I. (1990). Hierarchical distributed networks in the neuropsychology of

selective attention. In A. Caramazza (Ed.), Cognitive Neuropsychology and Neurolinguistics
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 187210.
Quan-Haase, A. (2010). Self-regulation in instant messaging (IM): Failures, strategies,
and negative consequences. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 6(3), 22-42.
Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (2010). Generation M2: Media in the Lives of
8 to 18 year olds. Menlo Park, California: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.
Roeser, R. W., & Peck, S. C. (2009). An education in awareness: Self, motivation, and
self-regulated learning in contemplative perspective. Educational Psychologist, 44(2),
119136.
Rosen, C. (2008). The myth of multitasking. New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology &
Society, 20, 105-110.
Rosen, L. D., Carrier, M. L., & Cheever, N. A. (2013). Facebook and texting made me
do it: Media-induced task-switching while studying. Computers in Human Behavior,
29(3), 948-958.
Rubinstein, J. S., Meyer, D. E., & Evans, J. E. (2001). Executive control of cognitive
processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance, 27(4), 763-797.
Saunders, G., & Klemming, F. (2003). Integrating technology into a traditional learning
environment. Active Learning in Higher Education, 4(1), 74-86.
Scolari, C. A., Aguado, J. M., & Feijo, C. (2012). Mobile media: Towards a definition
and taxonomy of contents and applications. International Journal of Interactive Mobile
Technologies 6(2), 29-38.
Sitzmann, T., & Ely, K. (2011). A meta-analysis of self-regulated learning in workrelated training and educational attainment: What we know and where we need to go.
Psychological Bulletin, 137(3), 421-442.
Smith, E., & Kosslyn , S. (2007). Cognitive Psychology: Mind and Brain. Pearson.
Southerton, D., & Tomlinson, M. (2005). Pressed for time the differential impacts of
a time squeeze. The Sociological Review, 53(2), 215-239.
Srivastava, J. (2013). Media multitasking performance: Role of message relevance and
formatting cues in online environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 888-895
Turkle, S. (2008). Always-on/always-on-you: The tethered self. In J. Katz (Ed.),
Handbook of Mobile Communication Studies: MIT Press.
Vigdor, J., & Ladd, H. (2010). Scaling the Digital Divide: Home Computer Technology and
Student Achievement. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal
Data in Education Research (CALDER).
Voorveld, H. A. M. (2011). Media multitasking and the effectiveness of combining
online and radio advertising. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), 2200-2206.
Wainer, J., Dwyer, T., Dutra, R. S., Covic, A., Magalhaes, V. B., Ferreira, L. R. R., et al.
(2008). Too much computer and Internet use is bad for your grades, especially if you
are young and poor: Results from the 2001 Brazilian SAEB. Computers & Education,
51(4), 1417-1429.
Wei, F.-Y. F., Wang, Y. K., & Klausner, M. (2012). Rethinking college students' selfregulation and sustained attention: Does text messaging during class influence
cognitive learning? Communication Education, 61(3), 185-204
Wood, E., Zivcakova, L., Gentile, P., Archer, K., De Pasquale, D., & Nosko, A. (2012).
Examining the impact of off-task multi-tasking with technology on real-time
classroom learning. Computers & Education, 58(1), 365-374.
132

 Switching between productive multitasking and distraction

Wurst, C., Smarkola, C., & Gaffney, M. A. (2008). Ubiquitous laptop usage in higher
education: Effects on student achievement, student satisfaction, and constructivist
measures in honors and traditional classrooms. Computers & Education, 51(4), 17661783.

Biographical Statement
Sora Park is Associate Professor and Course Convener of Media and Public Affairs at
the University of Canberra. She is an inaugural member of the News & Media Research
Centre. Her research focuses on digital media users and implications for media policy.
Contact: [email protected] +61-2-6201-5423

133