Previous research on distractions and the use of mobile devices (personal digital assistants, tablet personal computers, or laptops) have been conducted almost exclusively in higher education. The purpose of the current study was to examine the frequency and influence of distracting behaviors in Bring Your Own Device secondary school classrooms. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected from 181 secondary school students (55 female and 126 male) enrolled in three schools across Canada. Almost 80% of the students reported being on task regularly when using mobile devices in class. However, students also engaged in at least one of five distracting activities occasionally or regularly with their mobile devices including emailing (64%), surfing the web (65%), using social media (52%), instant messaging (32%), and playing games (30%). Female students engaged with social media significantly more than male students, whereas male students played games significantly more than female students. Students were rarely distracted by peer use of mobile technology devices. Students were more distracted by their own use of mobile devices when engaged in independent or group work, and less distracted with lectures and student presentations. Students claimed that teacher and school restrictions were probably the most effective method to limit distracting behavior while learning.
Aguilar-RocaN.WilliamsA.O’DowdD. (2012) The impact of laptop-free zones on student performance and attitudes in large lectures. Computers & Education59(4): 1300–1308. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.002.
2.
AwwadF.AyeshA. (2013) Effectiveness of laptop usage in UAS university undergraduate teaching. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology12(2): 77–88. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.320.
3.
AwwadF.AyeshA.AwwadS. (2013) Are laptops distracting educational tools in classrooms. Social and Behavioural Sciences103(26): 154–160. doi:10.1007/BF03033433.
4.
BarakM.LipsonA.LermanS. (2006) Wireless laptops as means for promoting active learning in large lecture halls. Journal of Research on Technology in Education38(3): 245–263. doi:10.1080/15391523.2006.10782459.
5.
BarkerL. J.AsprayW. (2006) The state of research on girls and IT. In: CohoonJ. M.AsprayW. (eds) Women and information technology, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 3–54.
6.
BeardK. S. (2015) Theoretically speaking: An interview with Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi on flow theory development and its usefulness in addressing contemporary challenges in education. Educational Psychology Review27(2): 353–364. doi:10.1007/s10648-014-9291-1.
7.
BowmanL.LevineL.WaiteB.GendronM. (2010) Can students really multitask? An experimental study of instant messaging while reading. Computers & Education54(4): 927–931. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.024.
8.
BurakL. J. (2012) Multitasking in the university classroom. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning6(2): 1–12. doi:10.1007/s00426-005-0022-6.
9.
CarrierL.CheeverN.RosenL.BenitezS.ChangJ. (2009) Multitasking across generations: Multitasking choices and difficulty ratings in three generations of Americans. Computers in Human Behavior25(2): 483–489. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.10.012.
CohenJ. (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Academic Press.
12.
CohenJ. (1992) A power primer. Psychological Bulletin112(1): 155–159. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155.
13.
CreswellJ. W. (2014) Research designs: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
14.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1990) Application of flow in human development and education: The collected works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, New York, NY: Springer.
15.
Dahlstrom, E., Walker, J. D., & Dziuban, C. M. (2013). The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology (Research Report). Louiseville, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research. Retrieved from https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS1302/ERS1302.pdf.
FriedC. B. (2008) In-class laptop use and its effects on student learning. Computers & Education50(3): 906–914. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.09.006.
18.
GaudreauP.MirandaD.GareauA. (2014) Canadian university students in wireless classrooms: What do they do on their laptops and does it really matter?Computers & Education70(1): 245–255. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.08.019.
19.
GerowJ. E.GalluchP. S.ThatcherJ. B. (2010) To slack or not to slack: Internet usage in the classroom. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application11(3): 6–22. Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/jotta/vol11/iss4/2.
20.
GrimesD.WarschauerM. (2008) Learning with laptops: A multi-method case study. Journal of Educational Computing Research38(3): 305–332. doi:10.2190/EC.38.3.d.
21.
HattieJ. (2012) Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning, New York, NY: Routledge.
22.
HwangG.TsaiC.YangS. J. H. (2008) Criteria, strategies and research issues of context-aware ubiquitous learning. Educational Technology & Society11(2): 81–91. doi:10.1.1.525.5729.
23.
JacobsenW. C.ForsteR. (2011) The wire generation: Academic and social outcomes of electronic media use among university students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking14(5): 275–280. doi:10.1089/cyber.2010.0135.
24.
JassawallaA.SashittalH.MalsheA. (2009) Students’ perceptions of social loafing: Its antecedents and consequences in undergraduate business classroom teams. Academy of Management Learning & Education8(1): 42–54. doi:10.5465/AMLE.2009.37012178.
25.
JuddT.KennedyG. (2011) Measurement and evidence of computer-based task switching and multitasking by ‘net generation’ students. Computers & Education56(3): 625–631. doi:10.1016/j. compedu.2010.10.004.
26.
JuncoR. (2012a) Too much face and not enough books: The relationship between multiple indices of Facebook use and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior28(1): 187–198. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.08.026.
27.
JuncoR. (2012b) In-class multitasking and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior28(6): 2236–2243. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.031.
28.
KayR. H. (2008) Exploring gender differences in computer-related behaviour: Past, present, and future. In: KiddT. T.ChenI. (eds) Social information technology: Connecting society and cultural issues, Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference, pp. 12–30.
KayR. H.LauricellaS. (2011b) Gender differences in the use of laptops in higher education: A formative analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research44(3): 357–376. doi:10.2190/EC.44.3.f.
KayR. H.LauricellaS. (2014) Investigating the benefits and challenges of using laptop computers in higher education. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology40(2): 1–25. Retrieved from http://cjlt.csj.ualberta.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/831.
33.
KraushaarJ.NovakD. (2010) Examining the effects of student multitasking with laptops during the lecture. Journal of Information Systems Education21(2): 241–251. Retrieved from http://jise.org/Volume21/21-2/Pdf/vol21-2-pg241.pdf.
34.
Kukulska-HulmeA. (2005) Mobile usability and user experience. In: Kukulska-HulmeA.TraxlerJ. (eds) Mobile learning: A handbook for educators and trainers, Abingdon, England: Routledge, pp. 45–56.
35.
LindrothT.BergquistM. (2010) Laptopers in an educational practice: Promoting the personal learning situation. Computers & Education54(2): 311–320. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.07.014.
36.
NaismithL.LonsdaleP.VavoulaG.SharplesM. (2004) NESTA futurelab report 11: Literature review in mobile technologies and learning, Bristol, England, NESTA Futurelab. Retrieved from https://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/FUTL15/FUTL15.pdf.
37.
PettyG. (2009) Evidence-based teaching, 2nd ed. Cheltenham, England: Nelson Thornes.
PrenskyM. (2010) Teaching digital natives, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
40.
RaganE. D.JenningsS. R.MasseyJ. D.DoolittleP. E. (2014) Unregulated use of laptops over time in large lecture classes. Computers & Education78(1): 78–86. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.05.002.
41.
RavizzaS. M.HambrickD. Z.FennK. M. (2014) Non-academic Internet use in the classroom is negatively related to classroom learning regardless of intellectual ability. Computers & Education78(1): 109–114. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.05.007.
42.
Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (2010). Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8- to-18-year-olds (ERIC No. ED527859). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED527859.pdf.
43.
RosenL.CarrierL.CheeverN. (2013) Facebook and texting made me do it: Media-induced task-switching while studying. Computers in Human Behavior29(3): 948–958. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.001.
44.
SandersJ. (2006) Gender and technology: A research review. In: SkeltonC.FrancisB.SmulyanL. (eds) Handbook of gender and education, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 1–40.
45.
SkibaD. J. (2011) On the horizon mobile devices: Are they a distraction or another learning tool?Nursing Education Perspectives32(3): 195–197. doi:10.5480/1536-5026-32.3.195.
46.
SpinkA. (2003) Multitasking information behavior [sic] and information task switching: An exploratory study. Journal of Documentation60(4): 336–351. doi:10.1108/00220410410548126.
47.
TallvidM.LundinJ.SvenssonL.LindströmB. (2015) Exploring the relationship between sanctioned and unsanctioned laptop use in a 1:1 classroom. Educational Technology & Society18(1): 237–249. Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/journals/18_1/20.pdf.
48.
TanejaA.FioreV.FischerB. (2015) Cyber-slacking in the classroom: Potential for digital distraction in the new age. Computers & Education82(1): 141–151. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.009.
WeberR. P. (1990) Basic content analysis, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publishing.
51.
ZhangY.WildemuthB. M. (2009) Qualitative analysis of content. In: WildemuthB. M. (ed.) Applications of social research methods to questions in information and library science, Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, Inc, pp. 308–319.
