Impact of Multitasking on Listening Effectiveness in the Learning Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This experimental study evaluated the impact of multitasking and social presence on students’ performances in the learning environment. In the first live-presenter group, the participants listened to a lecture in a face-to-face environment. In the second virtual-presenter group, the participants listened on their computers to a pre-recorded lecture. The participants of these groups listened to a lecture and simultaneously wrote responses to open-ended online survey questions. While the participants of the first two groups were multitasking, those in the third group completed listening and writing tasks sequentially. It was found that multitasking significantly decreased performances on both the listening and writing tasks. The experiment also uncovered that the degree of social presence did not affect students’ performances on the listening or writing tasks in the learning environment. The perceived degree of social presence was the same in the virtual- and live-presenter groups. La présente étude expérimentale évalue les conséquences de la multiplicité des tâches et de la présence sociale sur la performance des étudiants dans l’environnement d’apprentissage. Le premier groupe a assisté à une cours donnée par un conférencier sur place. Le deuxième groupe a écouté le cours préenregistrée à partir d’un ordinateur. Les participants de ces deux groupes ont répondu simultanément en ligne aux questions ouvertes d’un sondage. Alors que les participants des deux premiers groupes ont effectué des tâches multiples simultanément, ceux du troisième groupe ont d’abord écouté puis ont répondu au sondage de façon séquentielle. Les chercheurs ont découvert que le fait de réaliser des tâches multiples entraînent une baisse importante de la performance en ce qui a trait à l’écoute et à la rédaction des réponses. L’expérience a aussi permis de découvrir que la présence en classe n’influe pas sur la performance des étudiants en ce qui a trait aux tâches d’écoute ou de rédaction dans l’environnement d’apprentissage. Le degré perçu de présence sociale était le même dans le groupe du conférencier virtuel que dans celui du conférencier en direct.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".