Multitasking

Despite what we have heard about the dangers of multitasking, it is something we all do and have always done.

Our amazingly flexible and multi-talented human brain assures this.

We constantly do a host of things at once, both mentally and physically, consciously and unconsciously.

For example, we can drive a car or ride a bike on a familiar road, while at the same time carrying on a meaningful conversation with someone next to us.

Or we can cook a delicious meal and simultaneously help our child brainstorm a science project.

Even more impressively, we can read a novel and readily immerse ourselves in its story.

Yet we don't even realize the complexity of what we're doing in terms of unconsciously decoding words, instantaneously comprehending their meaning, and then weaving them into a coherent narrative that often inspires and moves us.

Without this natural ability to do a myriad of tasks at the same time, we simply wouldn't get much done, even in basic ways.

To multitask is part of what it means to be human.

That's why it won't work to tell our students, don't multitask.

It simply doesn't make sense to them, and they can't help but do it anyway.

That said, there is little doubt that the allure and possibilities for multitasking are much different today than just 10 or 15 years ago.

This is because of the now almost pervasive availability of our students' digital devices to interrupt their thoughts.

As we all know, most of our kids spend a lot of time attending to these devices for social, entertainment, and learning purposes.

We also consider what this means for their well-being and growth, but we will focus on the cognitive implications here.

What we want to think about is how we can help our students manage the almost boundless multitasking opportunities now available to them, as it might influence their academics.

The key word in what I just said is manage.

How do we help them make thoughtful choices about when multitasking might be okay, and when it will be detrimental to their learning? Some of the confusion and controversies surrounding multitasking stem from differences in what we mean by the word.

For our purposes, we will focus mostly in the cognitive realm.

So physical processes involved in multitasking, like bike riding or driving a car, won't be part of our discussion.

Most cognitive scientists will tell you that it is virtually impossible for the average person to perform even two moderately complex mental processes simultaneously.

The only way it can happen is when one of the processes has been automatized through repeated practice.

The reading example earlier exemplifies that.

Usually what we do when we appear to multitask is actually to task switch.

That means we switch from one task to the other over a relatively short period of time.

Even with tasks involving different modalities, like seeing and hearing, unless one of those tasks is automatized, task switching must still occur.

And it's in the switching where the cost of multitasking can come.

Every time we switch from one task to another, we must attend to the different goal and rules for the completion of each task.

This means, as we switch from task to task, a new goal and a new set of rules come into play.

The more complicated the task, typically the more complicated the rules and goals.

This almost invariably slows things down, sometimes by a lot, and the two tasks take longer to accomplish switching back and forth than if done alone to completion one after the other.

Let's try to illustrate this with a simple example shown here.

• One two three four five six seven eight nine 10.

A B C D E F G H I J.

A one, B two, C three, D four, E five, F six, G seven, H eight, I nine, J 10.

• One two three four five six seven eight nine 10.

A B C D E F G H I J.

A one, B two, C three, D four.

• One two three four five six seven eight nine 10.

A B C D E F G H I J.

A one, B two, C three, D four, E five, F six, G seven, H eight, I nine, J 10.

• It was clear that saying the numbers and then the letters separately in sequence was fast and easy.

Just as clear to you, I'm sure, was the fact that when we interleaved, it took much longer to say the numbers and letters, and that the accuracy of the performance also suffered.

This is because people had to switch goals, get to 10, and get to J, as well as rules, go in sequence, begin with one, and begin with A.

This is exactly what happens when a student multitasks doing his science homework while responding to incoming text messages on his smartphone.

The goals and strategies for effectively completing a science reading are much different than for the intentions and social rules in answering texts from different people.

As he switches from task to task, new goals and rules have to be brought into working memory to reengage with the task.

No wonder it takes longer.

Depending on the complexity of the tasks involved, and the time available to complete them, performance can also suffer.

But we do need to be careful before we generalize this simple understanding about multitasking's time and performance costs.

Know this that we asked people to do our exercise as fast as they could.

In other words, we put time constraints on the completion of the tasks.

This makes sense because in real life we often have limited time to complete multiple tasks we have to accomplish.

But what if we don't have to worry so much about time? In other words, it's okay to take longer, just as each task is completed effectively.

In our previous example, it would be like telling folks that there was no time limit on interleaving the numbers and letters.

In this case, they would undoubtedly slow down and take longer, but also probably make fewer mistakes.

In fact, most people, when they slow down doing this exercise, they can complete it flawlessly.

So the tasks get done, and they get done well.

Under these conditions, multitasking works fine.

But there are a couple of key qualifications we need to make.

The first is that the ability to switch from one task to another should be under the control of the learner in order for this form of multitasking to work well.

Studying alone, or responding to text messages, could be an example.

Assuming the learner can ignore the notification sound, she can decide when to respond to the texts, and therefore control the switching in ways it makes sense for her learning.

That ability to control the timing of the interruption is important.

On the other hand, responding to questions from a peer sitting next to you while studying is more problematic.

The unpredictable interruptions can negatively influence learning, which happens to be one of the challenges of unstructured group studying.

Another qualification has to do with the difficulty of the tasks involved.

The more difficult the tasks, the more likely it will be that extended and concentrated focus will be required to effectively complete the task.

Switching back and forth by multitasking will likely compromise this.

For example, reading a history assignment for comprehension of simple factual information is different from a history assignment requiring higher order thinking, like synthesis or evaluation.

It would probably be much harder to multitask while trying to do the challenging history assignment.

So how can we summarize this brief foray into the complexities of multitasking? An important reality check is that our students are going to multitask, almost no matter what we say.

In addition, if we try to severely restrict them from doing it, it may cause them so much anxiety that it will negatively impact their learning.

This doesn't mean we surrender to the multitasking wars of their digital world, but it does mean we acknowledge that multitasking will happen, and it could be useful at times, especially motivationally.

Our role therefore, is to help them understand when multitasking and digital technology used is appropriate, and when it may significantly interfere with their learning.

We need to help them learn how to make thoughtful choices and manage it.

This means teaching them the meta-cognitive and self-regulation skills to make this happen.

We'll be talking more about this in a later session.

In sum, what do we want our students to understand about multitasking? First, they need to realize that multitasking costs them time.

It's invariably inefficient, and they need to know that if they do it, whatever they're doing is going to take longer.

So if time is limited, multitasking will likely hurt their performances because of being rushed or not finishing.

The other possible consequence is that they will end up spending extra time doing the tasks reasonably well, and later they will pay the price.

Sleep loss is the most common result.

On the other hand, if there are circumstances when time is less pressing, then multitasking might be okay, especially if they control when to switch tasks.

They pace the task switching in ways it makes sense for their own learning.

Otherwise, time and performance problems will be amplified because of the costs of unpredictable interruptions.

Finally, if the quality of task completion is important, or the task is especially challenging, then simply not multitasking is key.

As hard as that will be, focusing singularly on these high priority or difficult tasks is the way to go.

In other words, avoid multitasking for important things that need to get done well, especially if time is limited.