An Examination of Students' Use of Technology for Non-Academic Purposes in the College Classroom

Main Article Content

Zachary George Charles Kornhauser
Andrea L. Paul
Karen L. Siedlecki

Abstract

Previous research has shown that students who use technology in the classroom for non-academic purposes suffer decrements to their academic performance. These findings are consistent with theories and research in cognitive science. However, no current study has examined the sorts of technology that students use in class, their reasons for using it, and whether they feel that it is acceptable to use it. The current study sought to qualitatively explore these questions across a sample (N= 105) of college students. Results reveal that the most common use of technology in the classroom is text messaging and emailing, and that students regularly use technology for a variety of non-academic reasons. Limitations of this study include the homogeneity of the participant sample.  Future research should determine what factors lead students to use technology for non-academic purposes and also identify effective strategies for preventing or managing students’ use of technology for non-academic purposes in the college classroom.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Kornhauser, Z. G. C., Paul, A. L., & Siedlecki, K. L. (2016). An Examination of Students’ Use of Technology for Non-Academic Purposes in the College Classroom. Journal of Teaching and Learning With Technology, 5(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.14434/jotlt.v5n1.13781
Section
Articles

References

Baddeley, A., Lewis, V. V., Eldridge, M. M., & Thomson, N. N. (1984). Attention and retrieval from long-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113(4), 518-540.

Broadbent, D. (1958). Perception and Communication. London: Pergamon Press.

Dahlstrom, E., De Boor, T., Grunwald, P., & Vockley, M. (2011). The ECAR national study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2011. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research.

Fried, C. B. (2008). In-class laptop use and its effects on student learning. Computers & Education, 50(3), 906-914.

Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Hembrooke, H., & Gay, G. (2003). The laptop and the lecture: The effects of multitasking in learning environments. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 15(1), 46-64.

Jacobsen, W. C., & Forste, R. (2011). The wired generation: Academic and social outcomes of electronic media use among university students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 14(5), 275-280.

Junco, R., & Cotten, S. R. (2012). No A 4 U: The relationship between multitasking and academic performance. Computers & Education, 59(2), 505-514.

Kraushaar, J. M., & Novak, D. C. (2010). Examining the affects of student multitasking with laptops during the lecture. Journal of Information Systems Education, 21(2), 241251.

Leahy, W., & Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory, modality of presentation and the transient information effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(6), 943-951. doi:10.1002/acp.1787

Pearson Education (2014). Pearson student mobile device survey: College students. New York, NY: Pearson Education.

Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Daniels, L. M. Stupinsky, R. H., & Perry, R. P. (2010). Boredom in achievement settings: Exploring control-value antecedents and performance outcomes of a neglected emotion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3) 531-549.

Reardon, J., Payan, J., Miller, C., & Alexander, J. (2008). Optimal class length in marketing undergraduate classes: An examination of preference, instructor evaluations, and student performance. Journal of Marketing Education, 30(1), 12-20.

Rosen, L.D., Lim, A. F., Carrier, L. M., & Cheever, N. A. (2011) An empirical examination of the educational impact of text message-induced task switching in the classroom: Educational implications and strategies to enhance learning. Psicologia Educativa, 17, 163-177.

Sweller, J. (1988) Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285.

Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive Load Theory. Psychology of Learning And Motivation, 55, 37-76.

Sweller, J. (2012). Human cognitive architecture: Why some instructional procedures work and others do not. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, C. B. McCormick, G. M. Sinatra, J. Sweller (Eds.) , APA educational psychology handbook, Vol 1: Theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 295-325). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/13273-011

University of Virginia, (2009). UVA first year student computer inventory. Retrieved from http://its.virginia.edu/students/inventory/2009/.

Witecki, G., & Nonnecke, B. (2015). Engagement in digital lecture halls: A study of student course engagement and mobile device use during lecture. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 14, 73-90.

Wood, E., Zivcakova, L., Gentile, P., Archer, K., De Pasquale, D., & Nosko, A. (2012). Examining the impact of off-task multi-tasking with technology on real-time classroom learning. Computers & Education, 58(1), 365-374.

Wong, A., Leahy, W., Marcus, N., & Sweller, J. (2012). Cognitive load theory, the transient information effect and e-learning. Learning and Instruction, 22, 449–457. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.05.004

Young, J. R. (2006). The fight for classroom attention: Professor vs. laptop. Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(39), A27-A29.