Experimental Effects of Radio and Experimental Effects of Radio and Television Distractors on Children’s Television Distractors on Children’s Performance on Mathematics and Performance on Mathematics and

Reading AssignmentsReading Assignments

Presented By: Greg YardleyPresented By: Greg Yardley

Journal of Experimental Education; Spring94, Vol. 62 Issue 3, p181, 14p, 1 chart By Valerie A. Cool, Donald B. Yarbrough, University of Iowa, James E. Patton, Ruth Runde, Cedar Rapids Community School System and Timothy Z. Kieth, Alfred University

TheoryTheory

• Study Examines whether radio and Study Examines whether radio and television enhance children's television enhance children's performance on mathematics and performance on mathematics and reading assignments. reading assignments.

HypothesisHypothesis

• audience- or coactor-enhanced task performance audience- or coactor-enhanced task performance occurs through a mechanism of distraction occurs through a mechanism of distraction conflict, wherein the presence of others is a conflict, wherein the presence of others is a distraction source that works simultaneously to distraction source that works simultaneously to overload the individual's attentional system while overload the individual's attentional system while elevating drive or arousal level via the conflict elevating drive or arousal level via the conflict that arises from the attempt to process both task-that arises from the attempt to process both task-relevant and task-irrelevant input. With simple relevant and task-irrelevant input. With simple tasks especially, the net effect can be positive tasks especially, the net effect can be positive because the adverse effects of a distracting because the adverse effects of a distracting audience may be outweighed by the beneficial audience may be outweighed by the beneficial effects of increased arousal. effects of increased arousal.

Theoretical Construct Theoretical Construct

• Concentration Concentration

Operational Definition:

-Amount of Math Problems both difficult and easy completed under the influence of distraction.

-Amount of reading comprehension tested with Liddle’s Reading for Concepts

SubjectsSubjects

• Subjects for experiment 1 were 12 Subjects for experiment 1 were 12 students (7girls/5boys) ranging from students (7girls/5boys) ranging from years 11 years 6 mo to 13 years 2 years 11 years 6 mo to 13 years 2 months. All attended the same 6months. All attended the same 6thth grade class room.grade class room.

• Subjects nominated by teacher and Subjects nominated by teacher and divided by scores for Cognitive divided by scores for Cognitive Abilities Test. (COGAT)Abilities Test. (COGAT)

Subjects Experiment 2Subjects Experiment 2

• 9 students (mean age=12 years 4 9 students (mean age=12 years 4 months) Range 11 years to 13 years months) Range 11 years to 13 years attending four different 6attending four different 6thth grade class grade class rooms. Students Nominated by teacherrooms. Students Nominated by teacher

• Two boys/Two girls In advanced Two boys/Two girls In advanced reading program. Two girls/ Three boys reading program. Two girls/ Three boys taken from lower level reading taken from lower level reading instruction groups. instruction groups.

Design1Design1

• The design for this experiment was a 2 X 3 X 3 X 2 factorial, The design for this experiment was a 2 X 3 X 3 X 2 factorial, the factors being Task Difficulty (easy, difficult), Task Form the factors being Task Difficulty (easy, difficult), Task Form (A, B, C), Study Condition (TV, radio, quiet), and Ability (A, B, C), Study Condition (TV, radio, quiet), and Ability Level (higher, lower). To optimize statistical power for the Level (higher, lower). To optimize statistical power for the relatively small number of students used in the study, we relatively small number of students used in the study, we varied the first three factors within subjects and the last varied the first three factors within subjects and the last factor (Ability Level) between subjects. With respect to the factor (Ability Level) between subjects. With respect to the students' assignment booklets, the sequencing of pages students' assignment booklets, the sequencing of pages was held constant for Task Difficulty (i.e., 12 pages of easy was held constant for Task Difficulty (i.e., 12 pages of easy problems preceded 12 pages of difficult problems) and for problems preceded 12 pages of difficult problems) and for order of forms within difficulty level (i.e., pages from Form order of forms within difficulty level (i.e., pages from Form A were first, followed by Form B, then Form C). Order of A were first, followed by Form B, then Form C). Order of study condition (quiet, radio, TV) was counterbalanced study condition (quiet, radio, TV) was counterbalanced across test forms within difficulty levels via a latin square across test forms within difficulty levels via a latin square arrangement. arrangement.

Design2Design2

• In selecting students for this experiment, we made a deliberate In selecting students for this experiment, we made a deliberate effort to represent a range of reading skills. However, because effort to represent a range of reading skills. However, because Experiment 1 failed to reveal any reliable distractor-related effect Experiment 1 failed to reveal any reliable distractor-related effect for Ability Level, this factor was omitted from the design of for Ability Level, this factor was omitted from the design of Experiment 2. Accordingly, the design was a 2 x 3 x 3 factorial, Experiment 2. Accordingly, the design was a 2 x 3 x 3 factorial, the factors being Task Difficulty (easy, less easy), Study Condition the factors being Task Difficulty (easy, less easy), Study Condition (radio, TV, quiet), and Study Condition Order (A, B, C). The first (radio, TV, quiet), and Study Condition Order (A, B, C). The first two factors were varied within subjects (again, to optimize two factors were varied within subjects (again, to optimize statistical power for the relatively small sample size), and the last statistical power for the relatively small sample size), and the last (Study Condition Order) was a between-subjects factor. For all (Study Condition Order) was a between-subjects factor. For all students, task difficulty order was held constant, so that the easier students, task difficulty order was held constant, so that the easier narratives were presented in the first three study sessions and the narratives were presented in the first three study sessions and the more difficult narratives were given in the last three study more difficult narratives were given in the last three study sessions. Within task difficulty levels, Study Condition Order was sessions. Within task difficulty levels, Study Condition Order was varied between subjects according to a 3 x 3 latin square design varied between subjects according to a 3 x 3 latin square design that was replicated three times across nine subjects (i.e., Order A, that was replicated three times across nine subjects (i.e., Order A, for three subjects = quiet, TV, radio; Order B, for three subjects = for three subjects = quiet, TV, radio; Order B, for three subjects = radio, quiet, TV; Order C, for three subjects = TV, radio, quiet). radio, quiet, TV; Order C, for three subjects = TV, radio, quiet).

Independent VariablesIndependent Variables

• TV Controlled by Student/Not TV Controlled by Student/Not ControlledControlled

• Radio Controlled by Student/Not Radio Controlled by Student/Not ControlledControlled

• SilenceSilence

-students that could control the radio or -students that could control the radio or TV could turn the volume down but TV could turn the volume down but could not shut the radio or TV offcould not shut the radio or TV off

Dependant VariablesDependant Variables

• Study collected four measures -- one Study collected four measures -- one behavioral and three performance behavioral and three performance related -for the subjects in Experiment 1. related -for the subjects in Experiment 1. These were (a) total time electively These were (a) total time electively spent in each study session, (b) spent in each study session, (b) percentage whole answers (dividends) percentage whole answers (dividends) correctly produced, (c) percentage digits correctly produced, (c) percentage digits incorrect in both dividends and incorrect in both dividends and remainders, and (d) number of problems remainders, and (d) number of problems attempted. attempted.

More Dependant VariablesMore Dependant Variables

• Three performance measures were recorded: (a) reading Three performance measures were recorded: (a) reading rate (i.e., the total number of words contained in the rate (i.e., the total number of words contained in the narratives and comprehension tests completed in each narratives and comprehension tests completed in each study session divided by the total time spent in that study session divided by the total time spent in that session), (b) rate of comprehension test completion (i.e., session), (b) rate of comprehension test completion (i.e., the total number of questions answered per study session the total number of questions answered per study session divided by total time spent in that session), and (c) divided by total time spent in that session), and (c) percentage of comprehension questions answered percentage of comprehension questions answered correctly. Unlike Experiment 1, total time spent in the study correctly. Unlike Experiment 1, total time spent in the study setting was not used as a measure of study persistence setting was not used as a measure of study persistence because the experimental procedure, by requiring the because the experimental procedure, by requiring the completion of the comprehension test accompanying each completion of the comprehension test accompanying each narrative, did not allow students to terminate their work at narrative, did not allow students to terminate their work at precisely any chosen time. precisely any chosen time.

ResultsResults

• Analyses for Experiment 1 were guided Analyses for Experiment 1 were guided primarily by two questions: (a) What primarily by two questions: (a) What are the effect(s) of the radio and TV are the effect(s) of the radio and TV distractors on study perseverance? and distractors on study perseverance? and (b) What are the effect(s) of these (b) What are the effect(s) of these distractors on performance? The distractors on performance? The questions were addressed by a questions were addressed by a separate 2 x 3 x 3 x 2 repeated-separate 2 x 3 x 3 x 2 repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) measures analysis of variance (ANOVA)

Question 1Question 1

• There were no significant effects on There were no significant effects on study duration due to the influence study duration due to the influence of radio or television. of radio or television.

Question 2Question 2

• For the first measure (number of problems For the first measure (number of problems attempted), there was a significant main attempted), there was a significant main effect for study condition, Follow-up effect for study condition, Follow-up testing, using a Tukey Studentized Range testing, using a Tukey Studentized Range (HSD) test, indicated that the students (HSD) test, indicated that the students completed significantly fewer problems completed significantly fewer problems when working with the TV on than with the when working with the TV on than with the radio on, or with quiet. Also, there was a radio on, or with quiet. Also, there was a significant main effect for task difficulty, significant main effect for task difficulty, indicating (not surprisingly) that the indicating (not surprisingly) that the students attempted fewer difficult students attempted fewer difficult problems than easy problems problems than easy problems

Experiment 2Experiment 2

• As in Experiment 1, 2 x 3 x 3 repeated As in Experiment 1, 2 x 3 x 3 repeated measures ANOVAs were used to assess the measures ANOVAs were used to assess the effects of the TV and the radio distractors effects of the TV and the radio distractors on work rate and comprehension accuracy. on work rate and comprehension accuracy.

• There were no significant effects for There were no significant effects for reading rate. However, for rate of reading rate. However, for rate of comprehension test completion, the comprehension test completion, the ANOVA yielded a significant main ANOVA yielded a significant main effect for study condition order effect for study condition order

ConclusionConclusion

• The studies failed to find significant The studies failed to find significant effects in favor of distraction effects in favor of distraction facilitating concentration during the facilitating concentration during the study of math or reading study of math or reading comprehension.comprehension.

Problems with the StudyProblems with the Study

• Limited Sample sizesLimited Sample sizes

• Limited Time for Study due to school Limited Time for Study due to school hourshours

• No part of the study was conducted No part of the study was conducted in the home where most studying is in the home where most studying is donedone

Things I would do DifferentlyThings I would do Differently

• Greater Sample sizes from different Greater Sample sizes from different SES students in different citiesSES students in different cities

• Do the study in a home setting rather Do the study in a home setting rather than a school settingthan a school setting

• REFERENCES • Aks, D. J., & Coren, S. (1990). Is susceptibility to distraction related Aks, D. J., & Coren, S. (1990). Is susceptibility to distraction related

to mental ability? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 388-to mental ability? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 388-390. 390.

• Cherry, R. S., & Kruger, B. (1983). Selective auditory attention Cherry, R. S., & Kruger, B. (1983). Selective auditory attention abilities of learning disabled and normal achieving children. abilities of learning disabled and normal achieving children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16, 202-205. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16, 202-205.

• Daoussis, L., & McKelvie, S. (1986). Musical preferences and Daoussis, L., & McKelvie, S. (1986). Musical preferences and effects of music on a reading comprehension test for extroverts effects of music on a reading comprehension test for extroverts and introverts. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 62, 283-289. and introverts. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 62, 283-289.

• Douglas, V. I., & Peters, K. G. (1979). Toward a clearer definition of Douglas, V. I., & Peters, K. G. (1979). Toward a clearer definition of the attentional deficit of hyperactive children. In G. A. Hale & M. the attentional deficit of hyperactive children. In G. A. Hale & M. Lewis (Eds), Attention and cognitive development (pp. 173-247). Lewis (Eds), Attention and cognitive development (pp. 173-247). New York: Plenum. New York: Plenum.

• Fenker, R. (1981). Stop studying start learning. Fort Worth, TX: Fenker, R. (1981). Stop studying start learning. Fort Worth, TX: Tangram. Tangram.

• Groff, B, Baron, R., & Moore, D. (1983). Distraction, attentional Groff, B, Baron, R., & Moore, D. (1983). Distraction, attentional conflict, and drivelike behavior. Journal of Experimental Social conflict, and drivelike behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 19, 359-380. Psychology. 19, 359-380.

• Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Prentice-Hall.

• Keith, T. Z. (1986). Homework. West Lafayette, IN: Kappa Delta Pi. Keith, T. Z. (1986). Homework. West Lafayette, IN: Kappa Delta Pi. • Krupski, A. (1980). Attention processes: Research, theory, and Krupski, A. (1980). Attention processes: Research, theory, and

implications for special education. In B. K. Keough (Ed.), Advances implications for special education. In B. K. Keough (Ed.), Advances in special education (Vol. 1, pp. 101-140). Greenwich, CT: JAI in special education (Vol. 1, pp. 101-140). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Press.

• Landau, S., Lorch, E. P., & Milich, R. (1992). Visual attention to and Landau, S., Lorch, E. P., & Milich, R. (1992). Visual attention to and comprehension of television in attention-deficit hyperactivity comprehension of television in attention-deficit hyperactivity disordered and normal boys. Child Development, 63, 928-937. disordered and normal boys. Child Development, 63, 928-937.

• Liddle, W. (1977). Reading for concepts. New York: McGraw-Hill. Liddle, W. (1977). Reading for concepts. New York: McGraw-Hill. • Miller, P. H., & Weiss, M G. (1982). Children's and adults' Miller, P. H., & Weiss, M G. (1982). Children's and adults'

knowledge about what variables affect selective attention. Child knowledge about what variables affect selective attention. Child Development, 53, 543-549. Development, 53, 543-549.

• Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. • Patton, J. E., Routh, D. K., & Offenbach, S. I. (1981). Televised classroom Patton, J. E., Routh, D. K., & Offenbach, S. I. (1981). Televised classroom

events as distractors for reading disabled children. Journal of Abnormal Child events as distractors for reading disabled children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 9, 355-370. Psychology, 9, 355-370.

• Patton, J. E., Routh, D. K., & Stinard, T. A. (1986). Where do children study: Patton, J. E., Routh, D. K., & Stinard, T. A. (1986). Where do children study: Behavioral observations. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 24, 439-440. Behavioral observations. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 24, 439-440.

• Patton, J. E., Stinard, T. A., & Routh, D. K, (1983). Where do children study? Patton, J. E., Stinard, T. A., & Routh, D. K, (1983). Where do children study? Journal of Educational Research. 76. 280-286. Journal of Educational Research. 76. 280-286.

• Pearson, D. A. (1991). Auditory attention switching: A developmental study. Pearson, D. A. (1991). Auditory attention switching: A developmental study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 51,320-334. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 51,320-334.

• Pezdek, K., & Hartman, E. E (1983). Children's TV viewing: Attention and Pezdek, K., & Hartman, E. E (1983). Children's TV viewing: Attention and comprehension of auditory versus visual information. Child Development, 54, comprehension of auditory versus visual information. Child Development, 54, 1015-1023. 1015-1023.

• Rivlin, L. G., & Weinstein, C. S. (1984). Educational issues, school setting, Rivlin, L. G., & Weinstein, C. S. (1984). Educational issues, school setting, and environmental psychology. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 4, 347-and environmental psychology. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 4, 347-364. 364.

• Routh, D. K. (1979). Activity, attention and aggression in learning disabled Routh, D. K. (1979). Activity, attention and aggression in learning disabled children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 8, 183-187. children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 8, 183-187.

• Treisman, A.M. (1969). Selective attention in man. British Medical Bulletin, Treisman, A.M. (1969). Selective attention in man. British Medical Bulletin, 20, 12-26. 20, 12-26.

• Woodworth, R. S., & Schlosberg, H. (1954). Experimental Woodworth, R. S., & Schlosberg, H. (1954). Experimental psychology. New York: Holt. psychology. New York: Holt.

• Zentall, S.S., & Zentall, T. R. (1983). Optimal stimulation: A Zentall, S.S., & Zentall, T. R. (1983). Optimal stimulation: A model of disordered activity and performance in normal model of disordered activity and performance in normal and deviant children. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 446-471. and deviant children. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 446-471.

• ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~• By VALERIE A. COOL, DONALD B. YARBROUGH, The By VALERIE A. COOL, DONALD B. YARBROUGH, The

University of Iowa, JAMES E. PATTON, RUTH RUNDE, Cedar University of Iowa, JAMES E. PATTON, RUTH RUNDE, Cedar Rapids Community School System and TIMOTHY Z. KEITH, Rapids Community School System and TIMOTHY Z. KEITH, Alfred University Alfred University

• Copyright of Journal of Experimental Education is the Copyright of Journal of Experimental Education is the property of Heldref Publications and its content may not be property of Heldref Publications and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.individual use.