skip to main content
10.1145/3517031.3529237acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesetraConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Instant messaging multitasking while reading: a pilot eye-tracking study

Published: 08 June 2022 Publication History

Abstract

This pilot study analyzes the reading patterns of 15 German students while receiving instant messages through a smartphone, imitating an online conversation. With this pilot study, we aim to test the eye-tracking setup and methodology employed, in which we analyze specifically the moment in which participants return to the reading after answering the instant messages. We explore the relationships with reading comprehension performance and differences across readers, considering individual differences regarding reading habits and multitasking behavior.

References

[1]
Naomi S. Baron, Rachelle M. Calixte, and Mazneen Havewala. 2017. The persistence of print among university students: An exploratory study. Telematics and Informatics, 590-604.
[2]
Laura L. Bowman, Laura E. Levine, Bradley M. Waite, and Michael Gendron. 2010. Can students really multitask? An experimental study of instant messaging while reading. Computers & Education, 54(4), 927–931.
[3]
James E. Cane, Fabrice Cauchard, and Ulrich W. Weger. 2012. The time-course of recovery from interruption during reading: Eye movement evidence for the role of interruption lag and spatial memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65-7, 1397-1413.
[4]
Guillaume Chevet, Thierry Baccino, Lucas Marlot, Annie Vinter, and Véronique Drai-Zerbib. 2021. Effects of interruption on eye movements and comprehension during reading on digital devices. Learning and Instruction, 101565.
[5]
Kit W. Cho, Jeanette Altarriba, and Maximilian Popiel. 2015. Mental juggling: when does multitasking impair reading comprehension? The Journal of General Psychology, 142(2), 90-105.
[6]
Virginia Clinton. 2019. Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Journal of Research in Reading, 42(2), 288-325.
[7]
Virginia Clinton-Lisell, Ben Seipel, Staci Gilpin and Christine Litzinger. 2021. Interactive features of E-texts’ effects on learning: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-16.
[8]
Pablo Delgado, Cristina Vargas, Rakefet Ackerman, and Ladislao Salmerón. 2018. Don't throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension. Educational Research Review, 25, 23-38.
[9]
Liping Deng. 2020. Laptops and mobile phones at self-study time: Examining the mechanism behind interruption and multitasking. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1), 55-67.
[10]
Rhiannon Fante, Lora L. Jacobi, and Vicki D. Sexton. 2013. The effects of instant messaging and task difficulty on reading comprehension. North American Journal of Psychology, 15(2), 287–298.
[11]
Jake D. Follmer. 2018. Executive function and reading comprehension: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychologist, 53(1), 42–60.
[12]
Annie Beth Fox, Jonathan Rosen, and Mary Crawford. 2009. Distractions, distractions: Does instant messaging affect college students’ performance on a concurrent reading comprehension task? Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 12(1), 51–53.
[13]
May Irene Furenes, Natalia Kucirkova, and Adriana G. Bus. 2021. A Comparison of children's reading on paper versus screen: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 91(4), 483–517.
[14]
Yiren Kong, Young Sik Seo, and Ling Zhai. 2018. Comparison of reading performance on screen and on paper: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 123, 138-149.
[15]
Anastasia Kononova, Eunsin Joo, and Shupei Yuan. 2016. If I choose when to switch: Heavy multitaskers remember online content better than light multitaskers when they have the freedom to multitask. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 567–575.
[16]
OECD. 2019. PISA 2018 Reading Framework,in PISA 2018 Assessment and Analytical Framework. OECD Publishing, Paris.
[17]
Özgür Örün and Yavuz Akbulut. 2019. Effect of multitasking, physical environment and electroencephalography use on cognitive load and retention. Computers in Human Behavior, 92, 216-229.
[18]
Harold Pashler, Sean H.K Kang, and Renita Y. Ip. 2013. Does multitasking impair studying? Depends on timing. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(5), 593–599.
[19]
Megan A. Pollard, and Mary L. Courage. 2017. Working memory capacity predicts effective multitasking. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 450–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.008
[20]
Larry D. Rosen, L. Mark Carrier, and Nancy A. Cheever. 2013. Facebook and texting made me do it: Media-induced task-switching while studying. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 948-958.
[21]
Jonathan Smallwood, Merrill McSpadden, and Jonathan W. Schooler. 2008. When attention matters: The curious incident of the wandering mind. Memory & Cognition,36, 1144–1150.
[22]
Kaveri Subrahmanyam, Minas Michikyan, Christine Clemmons, Rogelio Carrillo, Yalda T. Uhls, and Patricia M. Greenfield. 2013. Learning from paper, learning from screens: Impact of screen reading and multitasking conditions on reading and writing among college students. International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning (IJCBPL), 3(4), 1–27.
[23]
Phuoc Tran, Rogelio Carrillo, and Kaveri Subrahmanyam. 2013. Effects of online multitasking on reading comprehension of expository text. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 7(3).

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
ETRA '22: 2022 Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications
June 2022
408 pages
ISBN:9781450392525
DOI:10.1145/3517031
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 08 June 2022

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Digital reading
  2. Eye-tracking
  3. Multitasking
  4. Pilot study
  5. Reading comprehension

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Conference

ETRA '22

Acceptance Rates

ETRA '22 Paper Acceptance Rate 15 of 39 submissions, 38%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 69 of 137 submissions, 50%

Upcoming Conference

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 186
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)48
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3
Reflects downloads up to 21 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media