Saturday, March 26, 2011
in my veiws
Interesting study that caught my eye as soon as I saw the study. One thing I found interesting in your research was the fact that women reported multi-tasking as detrimental to their work. One would think that the stereotype of women being the great multi-taskers would have changed that factor in your research. Another interesting piece of your research was statistic that 93% of students multi-task while working on school work. As an educator, that is a very alarming statistic. One question I have, is do you think that multitasking has any positive effects on the generation? One example I think of is the resilience that students have because of constantly learning how to juggle many different tasks at one time.
IMPLICATIONS!
Implications:
•While use of IM may be beneficial for enhancing social connections and well-being, our research suggests amount of time spent IMing is not beneficial for college students completing schoolwork.
•College students are aware that multitasking hurts their academics; however, they continue to multitask.
•Based on background characteristics and the ways they use technology, certain students are at higher risk of academic impairment.
•We hypothesize about the existence of a “multitasking personality” among college students. While our research can’t identify such personalities, our results suggest that some college students may multitask at such high levels that it has become normative for them in many ways.
•While use of IM may be beneficial for enhancing social connections and well-being, our research suggests amount of time spent IMing is not beneficial for college students completing schoolwork.
•College students are aware that multitasking hurts their academics; however, they continue to multitask.
•Based on background characteristics and the ways they use technology, certain students are at higher risk of academic impairment.
•We hypothesize about the existence of a “multitasking personality” among college students. While our research can’t identify such personalities, our results suggest that some college students may multitask at such high levels that it has become normative for them in many ways.
Multitasking has negative effect on student academic work
Summary of Findings:
•IM users spend a great deal of time actively chatting (120 minutes per day on average).
•97% of IM users reported multitasking by doing something else on the computer while chatting.
•93% reported multitasking by engaging in a non-computer related activity (watching television, talking on the phone, etc.) while chatting.
•93% reported that they had actively chatted and performed schoolwork at the same time.
•57% of IM users reported that doing schoolwork while IMing had a detrimental effect on theirschoolwork.
•Students who spent more time actively chatting via IM per day were more likely to report academic impairment.
•Students who reported higher frequencies of doing schoolwork while IMing were more likely to report academic impairment.
•Students who reported multitasking by doing another activity on the computer or another activity not on the computer, were more likely to report academic impairment.
•Women were more likely to report a detrimental impact of multitasking on their schoolwork.
•Older students were less likely to report academic impairment because of multitasking.
•IM users spend a great deal of time actively chatting (120 minutes per day on average).
•97% of IM users reported multitasking by doing something else on the computer while chatting.
•93% reported multitasking by engaging in a non-computer related activity (watching television, talking on the phone, etc.) while chatting.
•93% reported that they had actively chatted and performed schoolwork at the same time.
•57% of IM users reported that doing schoolwork while IMing had a detrimental effect on theirschoolwork.
•Students who spent more time actively chatting via IM per day were more likely to report academic impairment.
•Students who reported higher frequencies of doing schoolwork while IMing were more likely to report academic impairment.
•Students who reported multitasking by doing another activity on the computer or another activity not on the computer, were more likely to report academic impairment.
•Women were more likely to report a detrimental impact of multitasking on their schoolwork.
•Older students were less likely to report academic impairment because of multitasking.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Introduction in General
Home > multitasking
multitasking
The ability to execute more than one task at the same time, a task being a program. The terms multitasking and multiprocessing are often used interchangeably, although multiprocessing implies that more than one CPU is involved.
In multitasking, only one CPU is involved, but it switches from one program to another so quickly that it gives the appearance of executing all of the programs at the same time.
There are two basic types of multitasking: preemptive and cooperative. In preemptive multitasking, the operating system parcels out CPU time slices to each program. In cooperative multitasking, each program can control the CPU for as long as it needs it. If a program is not using the CPU, however, it can allow another program to use it temporarily. OS/2, Windows 95, Windows NT, the Amiga operating system and UNIX use preemptive multitasking, whereas Microsoft Windows 3.x and the MultiFinder (for Macintosh computers) use cooperative multitasking.
multitasking
The ability to execute more than one task at the same time, a task being a program. The terms multitasking and multiprocessing are often used interchangeably, although multiprocessing implies that more than one CPU is involved.
In multitasking, only one CPU is involved, but it switches from one program to another so quickly that it gives the appearance of executing all of the programs at the same time.
There are two basic types of multitasking: preemptive and cooperative. In preemptive multitasking, the operating system parcels out CPU time slices to each program. In cooperative multitasking, each program can control the CPU for as long as it needs it. If a program is not using the CPU, however, it can allow another program to use it temporarily. OS/2, Windows 95, Windows NT, the Amiga operating system and UNIX use preemptive multitasking, whereas Microsoft Windows 3.x and the MultiFinder (for Macintosh computers) use cooperative multitasking.
Social consequences
Because society endorses constant multitasking, such as listening to music while exercising, physical social interaction is negatively affected. Already, youth commonly text and listen to music while having a “conversation”. Though they may be talented at switching their attention rapidly between their favorite song, phone, and a friend’s response, they are physically incapable of focusing on both in the same moment; thus, the friend is neglected. Because an important part of a message is communicated through body language and tone of voice, a person who texts while conversing will miss a great part of what the other says. The texting person will also convey the message that they are uninterested in the conversation. A person can feel excluded when talking to someone who whips out a cell phone to text in the midst of conversation. This portrays that the texting person does not care for what the other thinks because they do not maintain eye contact or pay complete attention to the conversation. Through electronic communication, body language and expression are lost altogether.[citation needed] “Thousands of years of evolution created human physical communication… that puts broadband to shame in its ability to convey meaning and create bonds” . This long-term accomplishment is easily discarded when people turn to the quick, easy methods of communicating through technology.
The brain's role in multitasking
Because the brain cannot fully focus when multitasking, people take longer to complete tasks and are predisposed to error. When people attempt to complete many tasks at one time, “or [alternate] rapidly between them, errors go way up and it takes far longer—often double the time or more—to get the jobs done than if they were done sequentially,” states Meyer . This is largely because “the brain is compelled to restart and refocus” . A study by Meyer and David Kieras found that in the interim between each exchange, the brain makes no progress whatsoever. Therefore, multitasking people not only perform each task less suitably, but lose time in the process.
When presented with much information, the brain is forced to pause and refocus continuously as one switches between tasks . Realistically, this is “a rapid toggling among tasks rather than simultaneous processing.” According to a study done by Jordan Grafman, chief of the cognitive neuroscience section at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, “the most anterior part [of the brain] allows [a person] to leave something when it’s incomplete and return to the same place and continue from there,” while Broadman’s Area 10, a part of the brain’s frontal lobes, is important for establishing and attaining long term goals . Focusing on multiple dissimilar tasks at once forces the brain to process all activity in its anterior. Though the brain is complex and can perform a myriad of tasks, it cannot multitask well.
Another study by René Marois, a psychologist of Vanderbilt University, discovered that the brain exhibits a “response selection bottleneck” when asked to perform several tasks at once. The brain must then decide which activity is most important, thereby taking more time. Psychologist David Meyer of the University of Michigan claims that, instead of a “bottleneck,” the brain experiences “adaptive executive control” which places priorities on each activity. These viewpoints differ in that, while bottlenecking attempts to force many thoughts through the brain at once, adaptive executive control prioritizes tasks to maintain resemblance of order. The brain better understands this order and, as psychologists such as Dr. Meyer believe, can therefore be trained to multitask . Because the brain is an expanse of yet uncharted territory, psychologists do not understand how the brain truly processes input and reacts to overstimulation.
Some research suggests that the human brain can be trained to multitask. A study published in Child Development by Monica Luciana, associate professor of psychology at the University of Minnesota, discovered that the brain’s capability of categorizing competing information continues to develop until ages sixteen and seventeen. Perhaps if people are trained to multitask at an early age, they will become efficient at multitasking. A study by Vanderbilt University found that multitasking is largely limited by “the speed with which our prefrontal cortex processes information.” Paul E. Dux, co-author of the study, believes that this process can become faster through proper training. The research team found that with training, the brain can think and perform certain tasks more quickly, effectively allowing time for another task. The study trained seven people to perform two simple tasks, either separately or together, and conducted brain scans of the participants. The individuals multitasked poorly at first but, with training, were able to adeptly perform the tasks simultaneously. Brain scans of the participants indicate that the prefrontal cortex quickened its ability to process the information, enabling the individuals to multitask more efficiently. However, the study also suggests that the brain is incapable of performing multiple tasks at one time, even after extensive training . This study further indicates that, while the brain can become adept at processing and responding to certain information, it cannot truly multitask.
People have a limited ability to retain information, which worsens when the amount of information increases. For this reason people alter information to make it more memorable, such as separating a ten-digit phone number into three smaller groups or dividing the alphabet into sets of three to five letters. George Miller, former psychologist at Harvard University, believes the limits to the human brain’s capacity centers around “the number seven, plus or minus two.” An illustrative example of this is a test in which a person must repeat numbers read aloud. While two or three numbers are easily repeated, shown in the beginning straight line, fifteen numbers becomes more difficult, as the line curves. The person would, on average, repeat seven correctly . Brains are only capable of storing a limited amount of information in their short term memories.
This ineffectiveness of the human brain for multitasking has been demonstrated in different studies.
Laboratory based studies of multi-tasking indicate that one motivation for switching between tasks is to increase the time spent on the task that produces the most reward (Payne, Duggan & Neth, 2007). This reward could be progress towards an overall task goal or it could simply be the opportunity to pursue a more interesting or fun activity. Payne, Duggan and Neth (2007) found that decisions to switch task reflected either the reward provided by the current task or the availability of a suitable opportunity to switch (i.e. the completion of a subgoal). A French fMRI study published in 2010 indicated preliminary support for the hypothesis that the brain can pursue at most two goals simultaneously, one for each frontal lobe (which has a goal-oriented area).
When presented with much information, the brain is forced to pause and refocus continuously as one switches between tasks . Realistically, this is “a rapid toggling among tasks rather than simultaneous processing.” According to a study done by Jordan Grafman, chief of the cognitive neuroscience section at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, “the most anterior part [of the brain] allows [a person] to leave something when it’s incomplete and return to the same place and continue from there,” while Broadman’s Area 10, a part of the brain’s frontal lobes, is important for establishing and attaining long term goals . Focusing on multiple dissimilar tasks at once forces the brain to process all activity in its anterior. Though the brain is complex and can perform a myriad of tasks, it cannot multitask well.
Another study by René Marois, a psychologist of Vanderbilt University, discovered that the brain exhibits a “response selection bottleneck” when asked to perform several tasks at once. The brain must then decide which activity is most important, thereby taking more time. Psychologist David Meyer of the University of Michigan claims that, instead of a “bottleneck,” the brain experiences “adaptive executive control” which places priorities on each activity. These viewpoints differ in that, while bottlenecking attempts to force many thoughts through the brain at once, adaptive executive control prioritizes tasks to maintain resemblance of order. The brain better understands this order and, as psychologists such as Dr. Meyer believe, can therefore be trained to multitask . Because the brain is an expanse of yet uncharted territory, psychologists do not understand how the brain truly processes input and reacts to overstimulation.
Some research suggests that the human brain can be trained to multitask. A study published in Child Development by Monica Luciana, associate professor of psychology at the University of Minnesota, discovered that the brain’s capability of categorizing competing information continues to develop until ages sixteen and seventeen. Perhaps if people are trained to multitask at an early age, they will become efficient at multitasking. A study by Vanderbilt University found that multitasking is largely limited by “the speed with which our prefrontal cortex processes information.” Paul E. Dux, co-author of the study, believes that this process can become faster through proper training. The research team found that with training, the brain can think and perform certain tasks more quickly, effectively allowing time for another task. The study trained seven people to perform two simple tasks, either separately or together, and conducted brain scans of the participants. The individuals multitasked poorly at first but, with training, were able to adeptly perform the tasks simultaneously. Brain scans of the participants indicate that the prefrontal cortex quickened its ability to process the information, enabling the individuals to multitask more efficiently. However, the study also suggests that the brain is incapable of performing multiple tasks at one time, even after extensive training . This study further indicates that, while the brain can become adept at processing and responding to certain information, it cannot truly multitask.
People have a limited ability to retain information, which worsens when the amount of information increases. For this reason people alter information to make it more memorable, such as separating a ten-digit phone number into three smaller groups or dividing the alphabet into sets of three to five letters. George Miller, former psychologist at Harvard University, believes the limits to the human brain’s capacity centers around “the number seven, plus or minus two.” An illustrative example of this is a test in which a person must repeat numbers read aloud. While two or three numbers are easily repeated, shown in the beginning straight line, fifteen numbers becomes more difficult, as the line curves. The person would, on average, repeat seven correctly . Brains are only capable of storing a limited amount of information in their short term memories.
This ineffectiveness of the human brain for multitasking has been demonstrated in different studies.
Laboratory based studies of multi-tasking indicate that one motivation for switching between tasks is to increase the time spent on the task that produces the most reward (Payne, Duggan & Neth, 2007). This reward could be progress towards an overall task goal or it could simply be the opportunity to pursue a more interesting or fun activity. Payne, Duggan and Neth (2007) found that decisions to switch task reflected either the reward provided by the current task or the availability of a suitable opportunity to switch (i.e. the completion of a subgoal). A French fMRI study published in 2010 indicated preliminary support for the hypothesis that the brain can pursue at most two goals simultaneously, one for each frontal lobe (which has a goal-oriented area).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)