To Chat or Not To Chat: Text-Based Interruptions From Peers Improve Learner Confidence in an Online Lecture Environment
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Technology-driven interactions are becoming commonplace, particularly as online classes, telecommuting, and virtual meetings across distances and time zones have all increased in popularity. Platforms such as Google Meet, Skype, Webex, and Zoom use synchronous audio-visual communication supported by text-based chat, emoticon responses, and other supplementary functions. Given this uptick in the use of video conferencing with dynamic integrated features, it is important to understand how attention and cognitive resources may be taxed in these environments, and what that may ultimately do to participants’ ability to comprehend the target content. In the current study, we investigated the impact of topically-relevant student-initiated text chat frequency on comprehension during an online lecture. The findings revealed that chat involvement alone does not affect learning itself. Chat activity was found to not be a distraction but in fact, a facilitator of increased confidence in learning in an online lecture environment when controlling for other outside distractions. Overall, the findings suggest that relevant chat content is not distracting, and can be helpful in reinforcing concepts through supportive examples in adjacent modalities.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (JoSoTL) right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC-BY) 4.0 International, allowing others to share the work with proper acknowledgement and citation of the work's authorship and initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
- Authors are able to enter separate, additional contractual agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
- In pursuit of manuscripts of the highest quality, multiple opportunities for mentoring, and greater reach and citation of JoSoTL publications, JoSoTL encourages authors to share their drafts to seek feedback from relevant communities unless the manuscript is already under review or in the publication queue after being accepted. In other words, to be eligible for publication in JoSoTL, manuscripts should not be shared publicly (e.g., online), while under review (after being initially submitted, or after being revised and resubmitted for reconsideration), or upon notice of acceptance and before publication. Once published, authors are strongly encouraged to share the published version widely, with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
References
Alley, T. R., & Greene, M. E. (2008). The relative and perceived impact of irrelevant speech, vocal music and non-vocal music on working memory. Current Psychology, 27(4), 277-289. doi:10.1007/s12144-008-9040-z
Astani, M., Ready, K. J., & Duplaga, E. A. (2010). Online course experience matters: Investigating students’ perceptions of online learning. Issues in Information Systems, 11(2), 14-21.
Baddeley, A. (1998). Human memory. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Barks, A., Searight, H. R., & Ratwik, S. (2011). Effects of text messaging on academic performance. Journal of Pedagogy and Psychology "Signum Temporis", 4(1), 4–9. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10195-011-0039-0
Barnes, K. A., & Dougherty, M. R. (2007). The effect of divided attention on global judgment of learning accuracy. American Journal of Psychology, 120, 347–359. https://doi.org/10.2307/20445409
Blasiman, R. N., Larabee, D., & Fabry, D. (2018). Distracted students: A comparison of multiple types of distractions on learning in online lectures. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 4(4), 222-230. doi:10.1037/stl0000122
Bourke, P. A., Duncan, J., & Nimmo-Smith, I. (1996). A general factor involved in dual task performance decrement. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 49(3), 525–545. https://doi.org/10.1080/027249896392487
Calderwood, C., Ackerman, P. L., & Conklin, E. M. (2014). What else do college students “do” while studying? An investigation of multitasking. Computers & Education, 75, 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.004
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293–332. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0804_2
Chen, Q., & Yan, Z. (2016). Does multitasking with mobile phones affect learning? A review. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 34-42. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.047
Dietz, S., & Henrich, C. (2014). Texting as a distraction to learning in college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 163–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.045
Dunlosky, J., Serra, M. J., Matvey, G., & Rawson, K. A. (2005). Second-order judgments about judgments of learning. The Journal of General Psychology, 132(4), 335–346. https://doi.org/10.3200/genp.132.4.335-346
Gingerich, A. C., & Lineweaver, T. T. (2013). Omg! texting in class = u fail :( empirical evidence that text messaging during class disrupts comprehension. Teaching of Psychology, 41(1), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628313514177
Gray, S., Wheat, M., Christensen, M., & Craft, J. (2019). Snaps+: Peer-to-peer and academic support in developing clinical skills excellence in under-graduate nursing students: An exploratory study. Nurse Education Today, 73, 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2018.10.006
Hacker, J., Vom Brocke, J., Handali, J., Otto, M., & Schneider, J. (2020). Virtually in this together – how web-conferencing systems enabled a new virtual togetherness during the COVID-19 crisis. European Journal of Information Systems, 29(5), 563–584. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085x.2020.1814680
Jacobsen, W. C., & Forste, R. (2011). The wired generation: Academic and social outcomes of electronic media use among university students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(5), 275–280. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2010.0135
Kirchner, W. K. (1958). Age differences in short-term retention of rapidly changing information. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55(4), 352-358. doi:10.1037/h0043688
Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring one's own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(4), 349.
Koriat, A., & Bjork, R. A. (2005). Illusions of competence in monitoring one's knowledge during study: The foresight bias. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(2), 187–194. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.2.187
Kozar, O. (2016). Text chat during video/audio conferencing lessons: Scaffolding or getting in the way? CALICO Journal, 33(2), 231-259. doi:10.1558/cj.v33i2.26026
Laberge, D., & Brown, V. (1986). Variations in size of the visual field in which targets are presented: An attentional range effect. Perception & Psychophysics, 40(3), 188-200.
Lee, J., Lin, L., & Robertson, T. (2012). The impact of media multitasking on learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 37(1), 94-104. doi:10.1080/17439884.2010.537664
Lee, J., Yoon, S. Y., & Lee, C. H. (2013). Exploring online learning at primary schools: Students' perspectives on cyber home learning system through video conferencing (CHLS-VC). The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(1), 68-76.
Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, 41, 31-48.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3801_6
Mokhtari, K., Delello, J., & Reichard, C. (2015). Connected yet distracted: Multitasking among college students. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 45(2), 164-180.
Packard, B. W.-L., Solyst, J., Pai, A., & Yu, L. (2020). Peer-designed active learning modules as a strategy to improve confidence and comprehension within introductory computer science. Journal of College Science Teaching, 49(5).
Pashler, H. (1990). Do response modality effects support multiprocessor models of divided attention? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16(4), 826–842. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.16.4.826
Prince, T., Snowden, E., & Matthews, B. (2010). Utilising peer coaching as a tool to improve student-teacher confidence and support the development of classroom practice. Literacy Information and Computer Education Journal, 1(1), 45–51. https://doi.org/10.20533/licej.2040.2589.2010.0007
Risko, E. F., Anderson, N., Sarwal, A., Engelhardt, M., & Kingstone, A. (2011). Everyday attention: Variation in mind wandering and memory in a lecture. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(2), 234–242. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1814
Salame, P., & Baddeley, A. (1989). Effects of background music on phonological short-term memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41A(1), 107–122.
Scott, C. R., & Timmerman, C. E. (2005). Relating computer, communication, and computer-cediated communication comprehensions to new communication technology use in the workplace. Communication Research, 32(6), 683–725. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650205281054
Srivastava, J. (2013). Media multitasking performance: Role of message relevance and formatting cues in online environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 888-895. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.023
Stoet, G. (2010). PsyToolkit - A software package for programming psychological experiments using Linux. Behavior Research Methods, 42(4), 1096-1104.
Stoet, G. (2017). PsyToolkit: A novel web-based method for running online questionnaires and reaction-time experiments. Teaching of Psychology, 44(1), 24-31.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
Szpunar, K. K., Khan, N. Y., & Schacter, D. L. (2013). Interpolated memory tests reduce mind wandering and improve learning of online lectures. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(16), 6313–6317. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1221764110
Szpunar, K. K., Moulton, S. T., & Schacter, D. L. (2013). Mind wandering and education: from the classroom to online learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00495
Wecker, C. (2012). Slide presentations as speech suppressors: When and why learners miss oral information. Computers & Education, 59(2), 260-273.
Wilcox, J. R. (2000). Videoconferencing: The whole picture (3rd ed.). CMP Books.
Xie, H., Mayer, R. E., Wang, F., & Zhou, Z. (2018). Coordinating visual and auditory cueing in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(2), 235-255. doi:10.1037/edu0000285
Zeamer, C., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2013). The process of auditory distraction: Disrupted attention and impaired recall in a simulated lecture environment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(5), 1463–1472. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032190