Multitasking Essa: A Critical Review
Purpose: This assignment will provide practice to locate and interpret scholarly research and develop your skills to communicate effectively about psychological literature.
Topic: You will write a three to four page paper (excluding the title page and references) on the topic of “multitasking” using two empirical articles. One of these articles (Bowman, Levine, Waite, & Gendron, 2010) will be discussed in class to ensure that you understand the purpose, method, and findings. You will be responsible for locating and summarizing a second article on the same topic (multitasking) using PsycINFO. To aid your PsycINFO article selection, you will be required to use the search terms “Multitasking” AND “Instant Messaging” AND “Achievement”. Based on these results, you must select a peer-reviewed, empirical article published within the last ten years.
Format: Your title page, in-text citations, and references should conform to APA guidelines. You do NOT need to include an Abstract. Make sure that you do NOT directly quote your sources. Instead, paraphrase when appropriate.
Content: Your first paragraph should be an introductory paragraph sparking the reader’s interest in the topic. Why is it interesting and/or important to study multitasking? The paragraph should end with a thesis statement presenting the main idea and focus of your paper. The thesis statement sets the reader up for what he or she will learn by reading your paper. In other words, what is the goal of the paper? Your introduction should be approximately half a page.
Your body paragraphs should be a review of the literature. Your literature review should present relevant information in a coherent and organized fashion. For each of the articles, summarize the main question that it addressed, the general methodology, and the overall findings (results). Help the reader understand the similarities/differences among the studies with connecting statements at the start and/or end of your paragraphs (e.g., “In contrast to findings by Rose et al., (2018), Smith’s (2015) study showed that...”). Strong writing presents relevant information in a clear, succinct, organized fashion using straightforward, accurate, unbiased language. Your body paragraphs should be approximately two pages.
Your conclusion is where you integrate and interpret the information that was presented in your literature review. What is a “take home” message about multitasking? Does the evidence suggest that multitasking is efficient/effective? Why or why not? What is a practical implication from this research (i.e., how could these findings be applied to real life?)? What more remains to be learned about multitasking? Your conclusion should be approximately one page.
Length: This assignment should be approximately 3-4 pages double-spaced (excluding the title page and references
Writing Fellow (WF) Paper: Multitasking Literature Review
____________________________________________________________________________
This is the second of two papers on which you will work with a Writing Fellow (see syllabus for further information. The relevant deadlines are as follows:
Wednesday, Nov. 4th |
Schedule your WF meeting through Sign-up Genius (look for an e-mail from WF) |
Wednesday, Nov. 9th |
WF Polished Draft: Multitasking Literature Review Due via Blackboard by 11:59pm |
Monday, Nov. 9th |
IF you are missing components, you will receive a resubmission request via your UMBC e-mail (see WF Policy in the syllabus for details) |
Wednesday, Nov. 11th |
IF you are missing components, this is your resubmission deadline. Note: Your grade will be based on your original submission; resubmission is for WF meeting eligibility only. |
Nov. 16th—20th |
Face-to-face meeting with WF by appointment only (see WF e-mail for scheduling details) |
Wednesday, Nov. 25th |
WF Final Submission: Multitasking Literature Review Due via Blackboard by 11:59pm |
Notes: (1) Black dates are for ALL students; Grey dates only pertain to students that do not turn in a complete polished draft. (2) If you miss the resubmission deadline, you will not be able to meet with your WF. No exceptions. |
|
Purpose: This assignment will provide practice to locate and interpret scholarly research and develop your skills to communicate effectively about psychological literature.
Topic: You will write a three to four page paper (excluding the title page and references) on the topic of “multitasking” using two empirical articles. One of these articles (Bowman, Levine, Waite, & Gendron, 2010) will be discussed in class to ensure that you understand the purpose, method, and findings. You will be responsible for locating and summarizing a second article on the same topic (multitasking) using PsycINFO. To aid your PsycINFO article selection, you will be required to use the search terms “Multitasking” AND “Instant Messaging” AND “Achievement”. Based on these results, you must select a peer-reviewed, empirical article published within the last ten years.
Format: Your title page, in-text citations, and references should conform to APA guidelines. You do NOT need to include an Abstract. Make sure that you do NOT directly quote your sources. Instead, paraphrase when appropriate.
Content: Your first paragraph should be an introductory paragraph sparking the reader’s interest in the topic. Why is it interesting and/or important to study multitasking? The paragraph should end with a thesis statement presenting the main idea and focus of your paper. The thesis statement sets the reader up for what he or she will learn by reading your paper. In other words, what is the goal of the paper? Your introduction should be approximately half a page.
Your body paragraphs should be a review of the literature. Your literature review should present relevant information in a coherent and organized fashion. For each of the articles, summarize the main question that it addressed, the general methodology, and the overall findings (results). Help the reader understand the similarities/differences among the studies with connecting statements at the start and/or end of your paragraphs (e.g., “In contrast to findings by Rose et al., (2018), Smith’s (2015) study showed that...”). Strong writing presents relevant information in a clear, succinct, organized fashion using straightforward, accurate, unbiased language. Your body paragraphs should be approximately two pages.
Your conclusion is where you integrate and interpret the information that was presented in your literature review. What is a “take home” message about multitasking? Does the evidence suggest that multitasking is efficient/effective? Why or why not? What is a practical implication from this research (i.e., how could these findings be applied to real life?)? What more remains to be learned about multitasking? Your conclusion should be approximately one page.
Length: This assignment should be approximately 3-4 pages double-spaced (excluding the title page and references).
Polished Draft Grading: Your polished draft submission will be graded on a scale from 0-10. A polished draft represents your best effort at the assignment. It is of quality comparable to what you would turn in for grading. It is not an outline, a rough draft, or a first draft. Proofread carefully to remove any grammar or spelling errors. This will ensure that when you meet, your Writing Fellow can focus on larger issues like organization, presentation, and clarity of style. Your polished draft submission will be graded via the following rubric:
Criteria |
Missing |
Partially addressed |
Included |
Article selection:
|
0 |
0.5 |
1 |
Introduction:
|
0 |
1 |
2 |
Body paragraphs:
|
0 |
2 |
4 |
Conclusion:
|
0 |
1 |
2 |
Format:
|
0 |
0.5 |
1 |
**Full points indicate that all required sections were included; however, drafts are NOT evaluated for accuracy of content. Full points does NOT mean that the paper is perfect!
Final Submission Grading: Your final submission will be graded according to the grading posted rubric posted on Blackboard labeled “Grading Rubric: Multitasking Literature Review.” The maximum score is 90 points.
Reminders: All submissions should be double-spaced, 12-point Times New Roman font, and submitted via Blackboard as either a .doc or .docx file (Microsoft Word software) by the deadline specified in the syllabus.
WRITING FELLOW (WF) PAPER: MULTITASKING LITERATURE REVIEW
GRADING RUBRIC
INTRODUCTION
|
Introduction Total _____/10 |
LITERATURE REVIEW
|
Literature Review Total _____/40
|
CONCLUSION
|
Conclusion Total _____/15
|
WRITING MECHANICS:
|
Writing Mechanics Total _____/7 |
ARTICLE SELECTION/FORMAT:
|
Article Selection/Format Total _____/8
|
WRITING FELLOW FEEDBACK
|
Writing Fellow Feedback Total _____/10 |
TOTAL POINTS EARNED |
_____/90 |
Running head: MULTITASKING1
Multitasking: A Critical Literature Review
Student Name
College/University Affiliation
MULTITASKING
2
Multitasking: A Critical Literature Review
I. Introduction
Typically, screens and schoolwork do not mix – or so a (very) common yet not well documented academically opinion goes. The exponential growth in ICT innovations, devices, platforms and applications has, indeed, spilled over into classroom in unpredictable ways. If anything, whilst ICT applications, particularly multimedia, are increasingly used in classroom settings for academic purposes, such applications are also adopted, in multiple “creative” ways by students, in and out of class, for non-academic purposes, especially socializing. Indeed, social media, as one most dominant form of ICT applications in and out of class, has come to (re)define student performance – and, for that matter, overall experience – in class. Specifically, usability and adoption patterns of of ICT applications are increasingly studied in order to assess positive or negative impact of student learning experience and, more generally, overall academic performance and success. To put matters into perspective, a closer examination is required of current literature on possible/potential impact of ICT applications on student learning journey in and out of class. This short critical review aims, accordingly and for current purposes, to present and discuss select literature – namely, Bowman, Levine, Waite and Gendron (2010), and Junco and Cotten (2012) – in order to understand current state of ICT applications and impact on classroom learning and beyond and offer future directions of research. II. Literature Review
In “Can students really multitask? An experimental study of instant messaging while reading,” Bowman, Levine, Waite and Gendron ask a central research question: can students juggle schoolwork and socializing activities using instant messaging (IM)? The study, informed
MULTITASKING
3
by earlier work on multitasking activities students perform synchronously while studying, advances earlier findings by considering for cognitive processing abilities, particularly time students take to understand texts, as students are engaged in IM activities during doing schoolwork. To do so, study authors sample 89 students, evenly split between males and females, aged 17-46, predominantly white (74%), are freshmen and sophomores, and are predominantly full time (91%). The study sample is split into 3 groups, or “conditions,” reading and answering MCQs of a 3828-word passage: (i) a group exposed to IMs prior to assigned reading and answering, (ii) a group exposed to IMS during assigned reading and answering, and (iii) a group not exposed to IMs. The study, confirming earlier findings of no impact on final exam/reading scores, has as a primary finding sampled students exposed to IMs during reading and answering activities reporting longest time understanding, or processing, assigned reading. This primary finding is congruent to an established conceptualization of “slower reaction time,” i.e. psychological refractory period (PRP), whereby synchronous tasks are performed slower due to longer cognitive processing. The study leaves unanswered rigorously, however, a number of questions including most notably why students exposed to IMs prior to assigned reading and answering activities report shortest reading time among all studied groups and only offers speculative answers.
In “ No A 4 U: The relationship between multitasking and academic performance,” Junco and Cotten assume a wider perspective. Despite not focusing on IM per se as a sole distractor from scho...