Measuring Childhood Mind Wandering and Its Effects in the Classroom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Mind wandering, where attention drifts from the here‐and‐now to internal thoughts, is often linked to decreased educational performance. However, its impact on children remains largely unexplored. This study introduces and evaluates a method for measuring mind wandering in classroom environments. A sample of 126 8–9‐year‐olds participated in a listening activity where they periodically categorized their thoughts before completing immediate and delayed memory tests. Children reported being off‐task in 45% of responses, 22% of which were mind wandering and 23% of which were thoughts about distractions. Our findings reveal that classroom mind wandering is common and can adversely affect immediate memory recall. The long‐term implications of mind wandering in childhood are still uncertain, highlighting the need for further research. The results demonstrate the feasibility of assessing off‐task thought in the classroom using thought probes that differentiate between distractions and mind wandering, which have distinct causes and may require tailored responses.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".