MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7128112127

The Effect of Taking Different Types of Breaks During Online Lectures on Student Attention and Learning

2023· dissertation· en· W7128112127 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kitty M.Q. Guo

Bibliographic record

VenueMacSphere (McMaster University) · 2023
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMind wandering and attention
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsHuman multitaskingComprehensionPopularityNote-takingSocial mediaCognitionOnline learning
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Attention during lectures often declines due to high cognitive demands, challenging student learning. The increasing popularity of online education, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, has added to the attention-sustaining difficulties students face during lectures. Online lecture breaks are a promising intervention to enhance attention and learning; however, there is limited research on how they should be designed. In the current study, I investigated the effects of break duration and frequency (Experiment 1) and break activity (Experiment 2) during an online lecture on student attention and learning. In both experiments, undergraduate students watched a 50-minute video-recorded online lecture and then completed an immediate comprehension quiz and a post-lecture survey that included questions about their lecture engagement and experiences. In Experiment 2, attention was measured through probes during the lecture, and a second comprehension quiz was administered one week later. Contrary to my predictions, findings from Experiment 1 revealed that taking three 2-minute open-ended lecture breaks led to significantly lower performance on the immediate quiz compared to taking one 6-minute open-ended lecture break or no breaks. Interestingly, participants in the combined break(s) conditions reported engaging in significantly more media multitasking behaviour and decreased levels of motivation during the lecture compared to the no breaks condition. Consistent with my predictions, Experiment 2 demonstrated that taking stretching breaks during an online lecture significantly improved immediate quiz performance compared to taking social media breaks or no breaks. These findings suggest that structuring online lectures with well-designed breaks can enhance learning outcomes, with stretching breaks showing particular promise. However, further research is needed to explore other factors that influence the quality and effectiveness of lecture breaks, as poorly designed breaks may inadvertently hinder learning.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMacSphere (McMaster University)Same topicMind wandering and attentionFrench-language works237,207