Article

Journal of Educational Technology

Digital Distraction: Systems

0(0) 1–16
! The Author(s) 2017
Shedding Light on the Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
21st-Century College DOI: 10.1177/0047239517736876
journals.sagepub.com/home/ets
Classroom

Lynn S. Aaron1 and Talia Lipton1

Abstract
It is not uncommon to walk into a college classroom and find all heads bowed down
to a flashing screen and the room . . . silent. While digital devices can certainly
support learning, what about when they are a distraction? This study explored this
21st-century phenomenon from two perspectives: Does the use of a device for
nonacademic purposes during a learning activity interfere with learning? Does the
classroom policy about digital device use play a role?
A total of 351 college students from 20 classes participated in this study. Short-
term retention was checked: A video on educationally relevant material was shown
followed by a brief quiz on that material. The results are informative for both
factors—multitasking and policy effectiveness.

Keywords
digital distraction, multitasking, learning, higher education, retention, smartphone,
mobile device

Introduction
For better or worse, there is an intrusive, new power in your classroom.
Computers from pocket- to lap-size have joined the student population.
‘‘For better and worse’’ might be more accurate; there is a lot of potential benefit

1
Rockland Community College, Suffern, NY, USA
Corresponding Author:
Lynn S. Aaron, 145 College Road, Suffern 10901, NY, USA.
Email: laaron@sunyrockland.edu
2 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 0(0)

to this, but also a lot of potential for interference with learning. When students
spend their class time attending to what is happening on their devices, what
happens to learning? Are the devices, in fact, enlightening our students or dis-
tracting1 them? That is the focus of this study.
College students rely on a variety of digital devices throughout the
day—laptops, tablets, and of course the ever-present smartphone that
seems to be permanently attached to the hands of the majority of college stu-
dents as they walk the halls and sit in the cafeteria. The ubiquitous nature of
smartphones may not require further study; however, it has been noted that, on
average, college students use their smartphones up to 9 hours a day (Kowalski,
2016) and they do not necessarily put them away when classes begin!
One might argue, and many do, that students can use these smartphones in
the classroom for learning purposes. While this is certainly true, many students
use their smartphones for other than class-related purposes. And the number is
not trivial. Tindell and Bohlander (2012) discovered that up to 92% of students
have used their smartphones to text during class time.
Of significant concern is not only the fact that students are distracted by their
digital devices but also how frequently they use their devices in the classroom
(for nonclass purposes). It has been reported (McCoy, 2013) that some students
use their digital devices over 30 times a day during class time!
When students are spending up to a fifth of classroom time on digital devices
that have nothing to do with class activities (McCoy, 2016), educators have to
wonder how this is affecting the students’ ability to learn and retain the infor-
mation being presented.

Multitasking2
There is no denying that students’ attention to lecture material has always
strayed—probably since the beginning of formal education: doodling, note-pas-
sing, paper airplanes, spitballs, and so on. The popularity of personal digital
devices in addition to the wide variety of diversions they facilitate (Facebook,
Twitter, email, texting, etc.) suggest that distraction is more prevalent today
than ever before. Besides the expected increased incidence, is this a problem?
To answer that, let us look at what happens to our cognitive resources when we
multitask. If we accept the fact that unlike long-term memory, working memory
is limited in capacity (Sweller, 1988), the amount of memory available for learn-
ing is decreased. Further, nonacademic digital device use reduces the amount of
time that can be devoted to (learning) course content. Finally, we might consider
the total recovery time. Once our attention is diverted, how long will it take to
fully refocus on the original academic content? While the distraction itself can be
short-lived, the effect can last. In a noteworthy discovery, according to Lang
(2017), a study cited by Gazzaley and Rosen indicated that it could take multi-
taskers up to 30 minutes to refocus and fully engage with the original task.
Aaron and Lipton 3

A Two-Pronged Approach
This study will explore the impact of digital devices on learning through two
different but related approaches. First, does nonacademic device usage interfere
with learning, specifically short-term retention? The second area of investigation
relates to classroom policy on the use of digital devices. In response to the
increased prevalence of these devices, some faculty members have developed
policies about their use in class. This study also begins to explore the relationship
between those policies and learning.

Method
Video
To gauge the impact of the use of digital device for nonclassroom purposes on
learning, a scenario was designed that would integrate naturally into the normal
class environment. Every effort was made to use an approach that was consid-
erate of the faculty member’s needs. Some of the factors considered included the
use of content that would be of value to every student and multiple disciplines,
would minimize use of class time, and would be easy to administer.
With the help of the college’s library staff and Multi-Media Production
Center, a video was produced that discusses and demonstrates how to use col-
lege library resources from a remote location such as home. The video was 12 ½
minutes long.

Video and Quiz Administration

Faculty members from several disciplines were invited to participate. To main-
tain the normal classroom environment, they were asked to show the video to
their classes as part of their routine activities with no special instructions regard-
ing device use or assessment. Following the video, short-term retention was
checked. Students were asked to provide answers to an eight-question quiz
about the content of the video. Additional demographic information was col-
lected while maintaining student anonymity (see the Appendix for assessment
questions). The quiz was developed in a Google form and most responses were
submitted online.

Anonymity
It was important to us that student responses be anonymous and that the
students be aware of this. Student names were not requested at any time.
Students were asked whether or not they used their devices for nonclass pur-
poses during the video. The question asked was:
4 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 0(0)

Did you use a digital device (smartphone, tablet, laptop, wearable, etc.) for non-
class purposes during this video? **PLEASE NOTE: Responses are anonymous.
No individual responses are known.

Policy rubric. Many, but not all, faculty members have developed policies about
the use of digital devices during class. Some prohibit their use at all times; others
prohibit their use except when permitted by the instructor. On the other hand,
some have no policy whatsoever and permit use at all times, while others with a
slightly more restrictive approach permit use at all times except when students
are otherwise instructed. As we were interested in exploring the effectiveness of
these policies, we provided four restrictiveness possibilities ranging from no
restrictions to total restrictiveness (Table 1).
Each choice was assigned a number. Faculty members were asked to provide
the number that best matches their own policy to the students when they admin-
istered the quiz. Students were asked to enter that number as the response to the
first quiz question.

Participants
A total of 351 community college students from 20 classes took part in the study
between November 2016 and April 2017.

Results
As indicated earlier, the study looked at the impact of nonacademic device use
on short-term retention of academic material. It addresses the following two
questions:

1. Is there a relationship between short-term retention and the use of digital

devices as measured by quiz performance directly following the delivery of
content?
2. Is there a relationship between short-term retention and the classroom policy
on device use?

Table 1. Rubric for Classroom Policy on Digital Device Use.

1. No formal policy. There are no restrictions on student use.

2. Students can use their devices except when instructed otherwise.
3. Students can only use their devices when instructed to do so for course-related purposes.
4. A restrictive policy. No digital device use is permitted during class.
Aaron and Lipton 5

Figure 1. Number of correct responses by question.

As a measure of short-term retention, quiz results were calculated for each

participant. Scores from 0 to 8 were determined based solely on the number
of correct responses. Of the 351 respondents, only 4 gave no correct answers.
The number of correct responses rose steadily up to 6 correct and then
declined to a total of 17 respondents who got all 8 questions correct
(Figure 1). The vast majority of students, 228, responded correctly to between
4 and 6 questions.

Is there a Relationship between Retention and Digital Device Use?

As indicated earlier, the assessment tool contained eight questions about the
content of the video. When we look closely at the difference in scores for the
two student groups—those who did not use digital devices during the video and
those who did—a pattern appears (Figure 2). Students with poorer performance
(zero to three correct responses) were more likely to have used their devices
during the video. On the other hand, students who scored 4 or higher were
less likely to have used their devices. This is most noticeable among students
with the best retention (seven to eight correct responses). They were the least
likely to have used them.
Results were further analyzed by percentage of device users and nonusers
responding correctly to each question (Table 2). Over two thirds (67%) of the
students who got only one correct answer were device users. The converse was
6 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 0(0)

Figure 2. Impact of device use on retention. This chart compares how device users and
nonusers scored.

Table 2. Comparison of Device User and Nonuser Scores by Percentage.

Quiz score Percentage of users Percentage of nonusers

1 67 33
2 62 38
3 53 47
4 36 64
5 45 55
6 47 53
7 28 72
8 12 88

also true. Use of digital devices was decreased among students who scored in the
mid-range (four to six correct responses). The most significant differences were
among students with the highest (seven to eight correct) scores. Among students
who got all answers correct, only 12% used their devices and 88% did not.
The number of students in both extreme groups was small, but the trend
across the scores was clear. Device use in this study was negatively related to
retention.
Aaron and Lipton 7

Figure 3. Comparison of device user and nonuser average scores.

Average scores. The abovementioned findings are supported when average scores
for both groups, device users and nonusers, are calculated (Figure 3).
Students who did not use their devices scored an average of 5.1 correct
responses while the average score for users was 4.6. With a maximum score of
8, this demonstrates 6.2% greater retention among students who did not use
their devices.

Is there a Relationship between Retention and the Classroom

Device Policy?
Of the 351 total participants, 345 included their classroom policy code (numer-
ically ordered from 1 to 4 from least to most restrictive).
Table 3 shows the distribution of correct responses by policy code. Of the
student responses, 4% were from classes with the least restrictive policy and
12% were from classes with the most restrictive policy. The largest number of
students, 63%, represented the classes with Policy Code #3 (Students can only
use their devices when instructed to do so for course-related purposes). Because
Faculty members were recruited from across campus and disciplines (not by
policy), it is interesting to note the tendency was for the majority of participating
faculty members to have a more restrictive digital device use policy.
8 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 0(0)

Table 3. Student Performance by Policy.

Policy Policy Code 4

Number of Code 1 Policy Policy (most
Score students (least restrictive) Code 2 Code 3 restrictive)

0 2 0 1 1 0
1 9 1 3 5 0
2 16 1 1 14 0
3 38 3 6 27 2
4 64 1 11 43 9
5 76 1 15 52 8
6 85 5 21 47 12
7 38 1 8 21 8
8 17 0 6 8 3
Total 345 13 72 218 42
Percentage of 4 21 63 12 100%
students per Policy

The data reveal that the number of students who scored 4 or more correct
responses (out of a possible 8) tended to come from classes with at least some
restrictions. The opposite was the case for students who scored 3 or fewer correct
responses. Those results were from students who were in classrooms with the
Policy #1, the least restrictive digital device policies. Overall, students from
classes with more restrictive policies tended to score higher than those from
classes with less restrictive policies.
While the numbers are small, results are most suggestive when comparing per-
formance in the least and most restrictive categories (Figure 4). As indicated, stu-
dents who scored fewer than three correct responses all came from classrooms with
the least restrictive policies. On the other hand, the students who scored above three
correct responses all came from classes with the more restrictive policy codes.
Additional analysis (Figure 5) revealed that the students in the classes with
stricter digital device policies scored on average 70% correct. This number
dropped down to 56% in the classes with lesser restrictive digital device policies.
These numbers support the finding that students not digitally distracted are
better able to retain information presented in the classroom.

Summary and Discussion

This study explored the impact of distractions from digital devices on short-term
retention of educationally relevant material in the community college classroom.
Two factors were examined: actual device use and classroom policy about device
use. Following viewing of a 12 ½ minute video, an eight-question, multiple
Aaron and Lipton 9

Figure 4. Impact of classroom policy on performance. This chart compares the percentage
of correct responses by students from classes with the least and most restrictive device
policies.

Figure 5. Impact of classroom policy on average group scores. This chart compares the
average scores of students in classes with the least and most restrictive policies, and an
average of all respondents.
10 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 0(0)

choice quiz was administered to check retention. Results showed that students
who answered at least four questions correctly were less likely to have used their
devices during the video. On the other end, more of the students who earned low
scores (zero to three correct) had used their devices for nonclass purposes. Study
results also indicated that students from a class with a more restrictive policy
were more likely to earn higher scores. In other words, both nonacademic use of
digital devices and a nonrestrictive classroom policy on the use of those devices
contributed to poorer retention of classroom material.
Given the relative newness of this phenomenon, the issue of usage policies is
unsettled at this time.
There are arguments for not prohibiting student use of devices even for non-
class purposes. One such argument is that students are adults who are paying for
these classes so it is up to them whether or not they pay attention to the delivered
content. Some colleagues feel that ‘‘We are not their parents, if they don’t want
to listen I can’t force them.’’ Still others feel that college provides the oppor-
tunity for students to mature. They should be able to make their own decisions
and learn about themselves from the ramifications. Harvard professor Eric
Mazur commented that laptops and smartphones do not cause more distraction
than windows through which students look at birds and flowers, ‘‘yet you don’t
seal the windows just because of that’’ (Berlin, 2009).
Regardless of which position you side with, there’s something else to consider.
If we permit device use, what about the impact on the students sitting nearby. If
we as educators know that students will retain information with increased accur-
acy when not digitally distracted, is it our duty and responsibility to encourage
that environment when teaching? After all, the number of hours that they are
sitting in the classroom is a very small percentage of the day as compared to the
hours that they are outside of class. Students have many hours in the day to
catch up on their Instagram and Snapchat.
Various solutions are being tried for responding to this new phenomenon. In some
schools, technology users are being separated from the other students and asked to sit
in the back of the classroom (Smith, 2015). In other cases, faculty members have even
confiscated devices that are being misused, but most are sensitive to their need for
emergency communication. In some cases, the use of devices is banned entirely. This
is comparable to the most restrictive category in the current study. Not unexpectedly,
students tend to object. They have stated that they do not want to be penalized for the
immature actions of others. One response to this, tried at the University of Chicago
(‘‘University of Chicago Law School Eliminates Internet Access in Some
Classrooms,’’ 2008), was to use technology to control technology, that is, they
were able to turn off internet access in the classroom. This left students with the
ability to use their laptops for taking notes, but not for surfing.
The recent, rather rapid infusion of personal devices into the classroom has
made the development of these policies more reactive than proactive. It would
seem that this will evolve as we all continue to adjust to the technology.
Aaron and Lipton 11

Future
This study focused on short-term retention of learning material. There are sev-
eral variables that might be considered for further study.

. Further investigation of the classroom device use policy might consider if one
size fits all. Some variables might include the level of the course, the ability of
the student, the length of the class, the type of content, for example, theory
versus skills, and so on.
. Repetition of this or a similar study with a larger population could be inform-
ative. Among other things, the number of responses in the extreme categor-
ies—both the number of correct responses, one or eight correct, and the most
and least restrictive classroom policies—was small. While results were sug-
gestive, they would be more significant with larger numbers.
. Does the type of distraction make a difference? (Are all distractions created
equal?) Does time spent with Facebook have the same impact as checking a
calendar? It would seem some distractions are more distracting than others.
. Similarly, there is the question of the quantity of distractions. Is recovery time
slowed down beyond the actual time on task when there are multiple
distractions?
. ‘‘Web surfing is the new secondhand smoke’’ (Hardy, 2016). What happens to
the student who is not using a device but is sitting next to someone who is. Sana,
Weston, and Cepeda (2013) discovered that peer multitasking also impacted
performance on a test. As a further extension, one might ask if the number of
distractors make a difference. Further, when does peer pressure take over: Can
most students ignore one other student busy with their device, but not resist
when surrounded by a ‘‘group’’ of their peers? Further, what is a ‘‘group’’ to one
may not be to others. What is the tipping point; when do we intervene?
. As discussed, this study focused on short-term retention. A similar study that
focused on longer term retention would be further informative.
. Finally, is the effect the same regardless of the type of learning? An interesting
observation was made (Song & Bédard, 2015) about the importance of task
context. A motor task that was learned in a distracting environment was
better recalled in an environment that included a similar distraction.
Ramifications for different types of tasks could be investigated.

Conclusion
There has undeniably been an important intrusion into our classrooms. Digital
devices bring instant access to relevant academic information, but also to social
media and other nonacademic attractions. This study joins the growing body of
literature that shows performance is decreased by device distraction. When
12 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 0(0)

students attend to the distractions, they are depleting valuable cognitive

resources. Various possible approaches can be implemented in an effort to min-
imize the problem. It will also be important to consider recent studies indicating
that students’ attraction to device use is driven in much the same way an addict
is driven to their drug of choice (Hou et al., 2012); physiologic changes in the
brain mimic those of the addict. Students need their ‘‘fix.’’
It seems undeniable that personal digital devices will continue to shine their
own lights in our classrooms—for better and worse. Who would have predicted a
screen in every student pocket! In light of the rapid technological changes that
have marked the Information Age, there are likely more to come. This will be an
evolving challenge for the 21st century educator.

Appendix
Research at the RCC Library: Assessment Questions
Please answer the questions below to the best of your ability based on the
Library Research video.
Please enter the Course Type (1–4) your instructor provides:

* 1
* 2
* 3
* 4

1. What information is needed to access library resources from off-campus?

* Student ID and date of birth

* Student ID and phone number
* RCC login name and email password
* Email password and phone number
* Not sure

2. If you do not have the information needed to access Library resources online,
where can you get it?*

* Brucker Hall
* Records & registration in the technology center
* Fieldhouse
* Library
* Not sure

3. Four tabs were mentioned in the video. You can use the Search All tab to
search which of the following types of resources:*
Aaron and Lipton 13

* Books
* Electronic journals
* Newspaper articles
* All of the above
* Not sure

4. What techniques can be used to reduce the number of search results?*

* Parentheses
* Quotation marks
* Uppercase letters
* Fewer keywords
* Not sure

5. Which of these will not be found using the Databases tab?

* Book
* Journal
* Newspaper
* Dissertation
* Not sure

6. A peer-reviewed article is one that has been reviewed by what group of

people?

* Students in your class

* Students at RCC
* Members of the public (chosen at random)
* Professionals in the field
* Not sure

7. Which of these is an example of a call number as discussed in the video?

* 0324416
* 845-574-4000
* PS3559.R8 A95 2015
* 111-12-2345
* Not sure

8. How can you contact the Library staff to get assistance accessing Library
resources?

* Telephone
14 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 0(0)

* Text
* Email
* Any of the above

Demographics
This information will help us understand the group of people who watched
the video.
What level is this course (What is the first number in the course identifier)?

* 100 level
* 200 level

Is this course required for your degree?

* Yes
* No
* Not sure

Is this course a prerequisite for another course?

* Yes
* No
* Not sure

Are you enrolled in any of these?

* ENG 082, ENG 098, MAT 048, MAT 065

* ESL Courses
* MTS Honors Program
* None of them

How useful did you find this video?*

1 2 3 4 5
Not Useful * * * * * Very Useful
Did you use a digital device (smartphone, tablet, laptop, wearable, etc.) for
nonclass purposes during this video?** Please note: Responses are anonymous.
No individual responses are known.

* Yes
* No

Have you ever taken this quiz before?

Aaron and Lipton 15

* Yes
* No
* Maybe

Thank you for participating. Please return this form to your instructor.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank everyone who made this study possible. This includes but
is not limited to: Rockland Community College Librarians Sarah Levy, Xi Shi, and
especially Clare Dowd, who developed the video; Janice Goldstein and the staff of the
Rockland Community College Multi-Media Production Center for producing the video;
Jeremy Cordock, who helped analyze data; and the faculty from the 20 classes who made
time in their coursework for their students to participate.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication
of this article.

Notes
1. For purposes of this article, distracted is defined as attention diverted from course
content.
2. ‘‘Task-switching’’ is a more appropriate term for this type of multitasking. When we
engage in more than one activity at a time, we are actually switching our attention rapidly
back and forth from one task to the other rather than simultaneously attending to both.

References
Berlin, F. (2009, December 22). From distraction to engagement: Wireless devices in the
classroom. Retrieved from http://er.educause.edu/articles/2009/12/from-distraction-
to-engagement-wireless-devices-in-the-classroom
Hou, H., Jia, S., Hu, S., Fan, R., Sun, W., Sun, T., & Zhang, H. (2012). Reduced striatal
dopamine transporters in people with internet addiction disorder. Journal of
Biomedicine & Biotechnology, 2012, 1–5.
Hardy, Q. (2016, November 1). How to deal with digital distractions. The New York
Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/06/education/edlife/how-to-
deal-with-digital-distractions.html
Kowalski, K. (2016, July 3). Watch out: Cell phones can be addictive. Retrieved from https://
www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/watch-out-cell-phones-can-be-addictive
Lang, James M. (2017, April 17). ‘‘The Distracted Classroom: Is It Getting Worse?’’ The
Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.chronicle.com/article/The-
Distracted-Classroom-Is/239785
16 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 0(0)

McCoy, B. (2013, September 1). Digital distractions in the classroom: Student classroom
use of digital devices for non-class related purposes. Retrieved from http://digitalcom-
mons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article¼1070&context¼journalismfacpub
McCoy, B. (2016). Digital distractions in the classroom phase II: Student classroom use
of digital devices for non-class related purposes. Journal of Media Education, 7(1),
5–32.
Sana, F., Weston, T., & Cepeda, N. (2013). Laptop multitasking hinders classroom
learning for both users and nearby peers. Computers & Education, 62, 24–31.
Smith, D. (2015, Spring/Summer). Digital devices in the classroom: Help or hindrance?
Weinber Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.weinberg.northwestern.edu/discover/
weinberg-magazine/spring-summer-2015/digital-devices-in-the-classroom-help-or-hin-
drance.html
Song, J.-H., & Bédard, P. (2015). Paradoxical benefits of dual-task contexts for visuo-
motor memory. Psychological Science, 26(2), 148–158. doi:10.1177/0956797614557868
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cognitive
Science, 12(2), 257–285. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
Tindell, D. R., & Bohlander, R. W. (2012). The use and abuse of cell phones and text
messaging in the classroom: A survey of college students. College Teaching, 60(1), 1–9.
doi:10.1080/87567555.2011.604802
University of Chicago Law School eliminates Internet access in some classrooms. (2008,
April 11). Retrieved from https://news.uchicago.edu/article/2008/04/11/university-chi-
cago-law-school-eliminates-internet-access-some-classrooms.

Author Biographies
Lynn S. Aaron is co-director of the Center for Excellence in Teaching &
Learning at Rockland Community College of the State University of New
York where she is also a Professor of Computer Studies. She has co-authored
journal articles in the areas of academic integrity, intellectual property rights,
and open educational resources. She has served on the Editorial Board for the
Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and Online Teaching
(MERLOT) since 2002, and is also SUNY Tools of Engagement Project
(TOEP) Fellow for Rockland Community College. She is a recipient of the
SUNY Chancellor’s Award for Excellence in Faculty Service.

Talia Lipton is a full time faculty member in the Speech/Communication Studies

Department at Rockland Community College. She is also an ASHA certified
Speech Language Pathologist with over 25 years experience in the field of com-
munication disorders. She has made numerous presentations on student acces-
sibility in the college classroom and is currently working with SUNY to advance
the education and adoption of Open Educational Resources.