Student Attention in the Modern Classroom: An Eye‐Tracking Field Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Multitasking, commonly perceived to be a method of increasing productivity and maximizing time, is increasingly commonplace among student populations. However, considering recent work examining split attention and the cognitive demands of multitasking behaviour, multitasking is negatively associated with several key learning outcomes in laboratory environments such as information retention, comprehension and academic performance. To better characterize multitasking behaviours in modern classrooms, a field study was conducted using self‐reported student data coupled with gaze behaviour on attention during lectures. Specifically, this study contrasts graduate (GS) and undergraduate (UGS) students’ self‐assessments to in‐class attention to explore whether students are self‐aware of multitasking behaviours. Methods An online questionnaire was developed and distributed to a large mixed didactic anatomy class of GS and UGS. The survey was an amalgamation of three validated questionnaires, Media Use Questionnaire, Media Multitasking Class Index (MMCI), and the Attitudes Scale towards multitasking behaviours. In addition, a subset of students (GS & UGS) wore a single‐eye gaze tracking device during 2 lectures (Arrington Research Viewpoint) throughout the fall term. Students’ (n=4) visual fields were characterized as an index of attention to On‐task (course‐related) and Off‐task (non‐course related) activities. The gaze‐tracked location and duration of multitasking activities were identified off‐line and normalized to a percentage of class time to characterize the extent to which students engage in On‐ and Off‐task activities during lecture. Results Initial analysis of the MMCI survey section (n=105) indicates GS (n=69) estimated spending 7% less class time on on‐task activities than UGS (n=36) (74±0.2 vs 81±0.1, p < 0.02). Gaze tracking indicates GS (n=1) spent 37% more time engaging in multitasking (off‐task) behaviours than UGS (n=3) (45% vs 8% respectively). The UGS MMCI off‐task behaviours compared to that cohort’s gaze tracking suggests students estimate their multitasking behaviours accurately in the classroom (7±0.1% vs 8±0.0%). Through further analysis of attentional time dedicated to on‐task activities (75±0.0%), students largely focused on their notes (54±0.1%), multimedia presentation (11±0.1%), and then the professor (0.4±0.0%) of total class time. Of the time spent in off‐task activities (8±0.0%), distractors to attention included activities such as doodling, adjusting clothes and observing neighbours (7±0.0%), text messaging (0.3±0.0%), and consuming food and/or liquids (0.3±0.0%). This is the first field study of this kind indicating how multitasking is a part of student behaviour and how attention is allocated in the modern anatomy lecture hall through gaze‐tracking. As midterm grades become available, we will correlate both real and perceived behaviours to class performance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".