See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263891961

Technology use and academic performance

Article in Computers & Education September 2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.012

CITATIONS

READS

12

1,778

2 authors, including:
Diane Wentworth
Fairleigh Dickinson University
10 PUBLICATIONS 148 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: Diane Wentworth

Retrieved on: 18 August 2016

Computers & Education 78 (2014) 306e311

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu

Technology use and academic performance

Diane Keyser Wentworth*, June H. Middleton
Fairleigh Dickinson University, Florham campus, Madison, NJ 07940, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 4 March 2014
Received in revised form
22 May 2014
Accepted 23 June 2014
Available online 30 June 2014

As technology use continues its steady growth among college students, both within and outside of the
classroom, its effect on academic performance becomes an increasingly important question to address.
Cognitive theory and multitasking research strongly support a negative effect while other studies have
found little to no effect. Using a large sample of students, this study attempted to address these opposing
results and help nd clarity. We explored the relationship of the frequency of students' use of technologies and their academic performance as measured by GPA, SAT scores, study hours, and predicted
course grade. In order to help understand our ndings, we also examined the role of gender and
employment status in this relationship. Our hypotheses were partially supported, with frequency of
technology use negatively related to academic performance. We discuss our ndings and limitations of
the research.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Media in education
Interactive learning environment
Post-secondary education

1. Introduction
Students are among the most active and enthusiastic users of contemporary digital communication technologies. Recent large scale
surveys by Educause, Pew Research and others indicate that almost all college students access the internet, connect wirelessly, use social
networking sites, own computers and cell phones and use the internet or email on their cell phones (Hakoama & Hakoyama, 2011; Smith,
2012; Smith & Caruso, 2010; Smith, Rainie, & Zickhur, 2011). Social media usage in particular has soared among traditional college-aged
students. Eighty six percent of those ages 18e29 use social networking sites, a signicantly higher usage rate than any other age group
(Brenner, 2012.) Facebook alone currently has more than a billion users worldwide, with those in the U.S. 18e24 years of age the largest
percent of all U.S. users (24%.) (Checkfacebook.com, 2013; Goldman, 2012; Internet World Stats, 2012.)
Scholarly study of these profound changes in rapid and heavy communication technology use on students' academic performance has
just begun. Surprisingly, the results are mixed with some researchers nding technology use having little to no effect while others have
found negative effects on academic performance. The purpose of this study was to add greater clarity to the research and examine the
relationship between students' use of both computers and cell phones and their academic performance using a large sample of American
students.
A variety of studies have found a negative effect of technology on performance. Chou (2001), in a qualitative study with Taiwanese
students as its sample, reported sleep deprivation due to heavy internet use which, in turn, was correlated with poor academic performance.
Also examining Taiwanese students, this time via quantitative methods and a large sampling (over 26,000), Chen and Peng (2008) found
that students considered to be heavy users of the internet (identied by more than 34 h per week) had lower grades and lower learning
satisfaction than non-heavy users. A similar type of study conducted by Kubey, Lavin, and Barrows (2001) in the U.S. found comparable
results. Anand (2007) focused on the relationship between video game usage and grade point average (GPA). He reported an inverse trend
in GPA and daily video game usage; as the total time increased, GPA decreased (p. 555) in his sample of U.S. college students.
Karpinski and Duberstein (cited in Ohio State University, 2009) found that while Facebook users reported spending less time studying
than nonusers, 79% of these students did not believe that Facebook interfered with their academic performance. However, the authors'
statistical analysis, not using students' subjective self-reporting, found a negative correlation between time spent on Facebook and grades. ul

* Corresponding author. Dept. of Psychology and Counseling, Fairleigh Dickinson University, 285 Madison Avenue, NJ 07940, USA. Tel.: 1 973 443 8560.
E-mail address: diane_wentworth@fdu.edu (D.K. Wentworth).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.012
0360-1315/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

D.K. Wentworth, J.H. Middleton / Computers & Education 78 (2014) 306e311

307

Haq and Chand (2012), using a sample of Pakistani students, reported that 61% of their sample believed that Facebook use adversely affected
their academic performance, with men reporting this adverse effect to a greater extent than women.
Yet Pasek, More, and Hargittai (2009) found no negative correlation between Facebook use and students' grades when demographic
variables were controlled while Kolek and Saunders (2008) suggested that Facebook usage may be correlated with higher grades. Rouis
(2012) examined cognitive absorption in Facebook usage in relation to Tunisian students' polychronicity skills, engagement with their
university and their satisfaction with friends and family. Although there was no direct negative effect of Facebook usage on academic
performance as measured by GPA, her results found two moderators (student interest in her/his university and polychronicity skills) of this
relationship.
Thus, surveying the literature suggests that there is no clear current agreement on the effects of technology use on academic
performance.
1.1. Effects of multitasking
A number of researchers have explored the effects of using technology while engaged in academic endeavors to determine whether
multitasking affects academic performance. In this study, we have adopted Junco and Cotten's (2012) denition of multitasking: divided
attention and non-sequential task switching for ill-dened tasks as they are performed in learning situations. (pp. 505e506) This denition
was chosen because it was derived from the extensive cognitive psychology literature on attention to task as reviewed by Chun, Golomb, and
Turk-Browne (2011). Numerous researchers have found that successful multitasking is impossible; our brains are not designed to
concurrently attend to multiple incoming information sources effectively (Marois & Ivanoff, 2005; Monsell, 2003; Ophir, Nass, & Wagner,
2009.) The studies discussed in the following paragraphs have all found that humans cannot effectively attend to two or more tasks at the
same time.
Mayer and Moreno (2003) provide a cognitive theory of multimedia learning that is relevant in examining multitasking and academic
performance. They argue that human memory is both limited in its ability to process information coming from multiple channels and that
meaningful learning requires substantial cognitive processing. They suggest that when processing demands exceed processing capacities, a
situation of cognitive overload results, which diminishes meaningful learning. Thus, multitaskers cannot perform effectively due to the
multiple cognitive demands simultaneously placed upon them.
Ellis, Daniels, and Jauregui (2010) conducted an experiment comparing accounting students who were required to text during a class
lecture to those for whom texting was forbidden. Performance on a subsequent exam administered to both groups revealed that the texting
group received signicantly lower scores than the non-texters.
Fried (2008) reported a negative effect of in-class laptop use in both level of distraction and overall course performance while controlling
for other possible explanatory variables such as academic preparation and aptitude as measured by high school rank and ACT scores.
Kraushaar and Novak (2010) also reported a negative effect of in-class laptop use. With student consent, these researchers tracked the type
of software running during a fteen-week management information systems class. Those who had distractive software open during class
had signicantly lower scores on homework, projects, quizzes, nal exams and nal course averages than students who mainly used
productive software. Additionally, they found that students' self-reports of multitasking were greatly underreported when compared to
their actual behavior.
However, Hembrooke and Gay (2003) found the opposite; overall course performance was not affected by in-class laptop use and
subsequent multitasking. Similarly, Hargittai and Hsieh (2010) reported no negative effect of social network use on academic performance.
A related issue, the impact of cell phone rings in the classroom setting has been studied. Both End, Worthman, Mathews, and Wetterau
(2010) and Shelton, Elliott, Eaves, and Exner (2009) found that students exposed to ringing cell phones during a lecture exhibited low
accuracy rates on test items based on material presented when compared to students who were not exposed to a ringing cell phone.
Students also were less likely to include the interrupted lecture material in their notes. Campbell (2006) surveyed students and faculty and
found that both groups indicated ringing phones in the classroom were a problem. Both groups supported policies banning them from the
classroom.
Instant messaging during classroom time has also been a target for study. Fox, Rosen, and Crawford (2009) reported that the more time
students spent instant messaging, the lower their self-reported GPA. Junco and Cotten (2011) reported negative effects of instant messaging
on homework completion. In another study examining the effects of instant messaging, Levine, Waite, and Bowman (2007) found that
distractibility and amount of time spent instant messaging were positively related while distractibility and amount of time spent reading
books were negatively related. Bowman, Levine, Waite, and Gendron (2010) examined the effects of instant messaging during class time.
When comparing groups that instant messaged before, during, or not at all while reading a long passage via their laptops while in class, the
group that received instant messages while reading the passage fared the worst. When time spent reading the actual instant messages was
subtracted, this group still required a much longer time (22e59%) to read the passage, an indication that multitasking was not working for
these students.
A study conducted by Junco and Cotten (2012) investigated the effects of multitasking while studying. Using hierarchical regression
analyses, they found that using Facebook and texting while completing class work were negatively associated with overall grade point
average. Kirschner and Karpinski (2010) also found negative effects of Facebook use on grade point average and number of weekly hours
spent studying. Yet, in Junco and Cotton's (2012) study, using email, instant messaging, talking on a phone, and information searching were
not related to GPA.
Wood et al. (2011) conducted an in-class experimental study including several control groups and found detrimental effects of technology use on academic performance. Their results showed that students who used technologies during class time underperformed those
who did not on a content-based exam. When these students were asked if they complied with the instructions on whether to use
technology or not, only 57% reported compliance, suggesting that for a large percentage of students, the availability of technology was
irresistible.
Frequency of cell phone use was negatively correlated with grade point average in research conducted by Harman and Sato (2011).
Jacobsen and Forste (2011) included all types of electronic media in their research and found a negative correlation with grades.

308

D.K. Wentworth, J.H. Middleton / Computers & Education 78 (2014) 306e311

Kelly (2004) followed a different approach and asked students to rate themselves on how efciently they use their own time and
correlated the estimate with grade point averages. Those students who reported using their time more efciently also were those with
higher grade point averages (GPA). Burak (2012) conducted a cross-disciplinary survey of 774 students and found that the majority of
students reported engaging in classroom multitasking. This was signicantly related to lower GPA and an increase in risky behaviors such as
the use of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs.
Weimer (2012) cited a variety of studies (Bowman et al., 2010; Burak, 2012; Ellis et al., 2010; Fried, 2008; Kraushaar & Novak, 2010) to
demonstrate the futility of multitasking. She argued that the most effective way to eliminate or reduce multitasking is through providing
students with concrete evidence that multitasking compromises their efforts to learn. Yet, Gasser and Palfrey (2009), disagreed. Their
review of the multitasking research with a young adult sample concluded: 1) learning is possible when multitasking, 2) multitasking
changes learning qualitatively because it forces learners to rely on different memory systems, and 3) attention loss and time spent switching
from task to task has an adverse effect on learning complex new facts and concepts.
Given this multitasking research and its mixed results, our study was designed to examine a variety of types of technology use and
several variables that might affect this use. We tested the following hypotheses:
H1. There will be a negative correlation between: a) the frequency of technology use and college students' overall grade point average, and b) the
frequency of technology use and hours studied.
H2. The frequency of students' use of technology will be negatively associated with measures of successful academic performance when
compared to the following variables: their gender, SAT scores, or employment status.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Participants
Four hundred and eighty three students from a private university located in New Jersey, U.S.A., voluntarily participated in this research.
Participants' gender, age, class level, employment status, major, and the class from which the participants were drawn are all provided in
Table 1. All students were enrolled in either a biology (45%) or psychology course (55%). Slightly over half (56%) were freshmen, 17%
sophomores, 9% juniors, 18% seniors. The majority of the sample was women (71%) and traditional college age; 90% were ages 18e21. Slightly
over half of the sample (52%) was employed in addition to their student status.
2.1.1. Measures
The survey was grouped into ve sections of closed ended response items. Section one requested cell phone usage (e.g. have a cell phone,
estimated number of minutes used per week). Section two requested social network usage (e.g. in which social networks they have an
account, number of times each weekday they check their accounts). Section three requested computer usage (e.g. number of hours per day
using a computer overall, number of hours per day using a computer for academic reasons). Section four requested academic related

Table 1
Participant demographics.
Demographic variable
Gender
Age

Class

Employment
Majors

Class source

Females
Males
18
19
20
21
22
23
24e40
Freshmen
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Yes
No
Allied Health
Biology
Business
Chemistry
Education
Hospitality, tourism
Psychology
Undeclared
Others
Biology e introductory
Biology e advanced
Psychology e introductory
Psychology e advanced

Number of participants varied by variable because not all participants reported all data.

Na

Percent

310
129
179
119
39
55
22
9
14
246
74
40
78
229
209
23
151
39
19
35
18
76
29
63
184
34
217
48

71%
29%
41%
27%
9%
13%
5%
2%
3%
56%
17%
9%
18%
52%
48%
5%
34%
9%
4%
8%
4%
17%
6%
14%
38%
7%
45%
10%

D.K. Wentworth, J.H. Middleton / Computers & Education 78 (2014) 306e311

309

information (e.g. number of hours spent studying, estimated course grade). Section ve requested demographic information (e.g. major, age,
GPA). The survey was reviewed and approved by the university's Institutional Review Board.
The survey was reviewed for the following three criteria: clarity, relevance, and specicity as suggested by Church and Waclawski (1998.)
A small pilot test was administered to a group of seven graduate students in a graduate industrial/organizational psychology course. Each
student completed the survey and then provided verbal feedback about the clarity of the wording of each item, whether the items were
easily understandable, and whether students would be able to provide the data requested. Data from this pilot study were analyzed; this led
to slight adjustments in wording and elimination of two items that were unclear.
2.1.2. Procedure
The study received university IRB approval before data collection began. Students in the selected classes were asked to complete the
survey at the end of a class period. The survey took 10 min or less to complete. Student participation was solicited at approximately midsemester. Participation was totally voluntary with informed consent solicited and agreed to by all participants. Students who were under 18
were excluded from participation in the research. The authors did not collect data in their own classes; they left the room during data
collection. A graduate student or administrative assistant entered each class, solicited participation, and provided a box in which participants returned their completed surveys.
2.1.3. Results
We used SPSS software to analyze the collected data. First we calculated descriptive statistics and second, we performed three types of
analyses: correlational, stepwise multiple regression, ANOVA, and t-tests.
2.1.4. Descriptive statistics
Demographic data are provided in Table 1. Both actual frequency and percentages are provided for each demographic. The sample was
predominantly women (71%), traditional college age (90% 18e21 years old); freshmen (56%) or sophomores (17%) or seniors (18%), and a
slight majority were employed in addition to being students (52%). Slightly over half of the participants (55%) were from 11 different
psychology courses with the remaining 45% in 5 biology courses. Biology (34%) comprised the largest major, followed by psychology (17%)
and business (9%).
Table 2 provides sample size, mean scores, and standard deviations for the key variables measured in this study. Our participants were
frequent users of technology, with an average of approximately 121 (SD 113) minutes spent per week on their cell phones, a little more
than 166 (SD 170) texts sent on weekdays, and slightly more than 5 (SD 3.64) hours spent on the computer per weekday. The average
GPA was 3.2 (on a 0e4.0 scale, SD .51) with an average SAT verbal score of 535 (SD 93.00) and SAT quantitative score of 549 (SD 95.63).
No signicant results were found when testing whether allied health/biology/chemistry majors were more frequent users of technology
when compared to non-allied health/biology/non-chemistry majors. Thus, all data were combined.
2.1.5. Hypothesis 1
H1 was tested by correlating the frequency of technology use with students' overall grade point average (GPA) and the number of hours
studied for one class. Outliers were removed from daily computer hours and daily cell phone minutes for several reasons. If a participant
indicated he/she used his/her computer more than 24 h a day, his/her data were removed. The daily cell phone minutes originally ranged
from 0 to 2100 min. Because this range was so large, we removed those with less than 20 min per day (n 23) and those with over 500 min
per day (n 28) to normalize the data. We did not conduct analyses with the outliers included because the outliers could contribute to error
variance as well as affect the normality of the data and underlying assumptions (Osborne & Overbay, 2004).
Only the number of hours spent daily on a computer was very slightly negatively correlated with a student's GPA at a signicant level,
r .12, p < .05, n 301. Using a median split of those with a low number of daily computer hours use (M 2.74, SD .93, n 226)
compared to those with a high number of daily computer hours use (M 7.55, SD 3.83, n 209) as the independent variable, and the
number of hours studied on weekdays for their psychology/biology class as the dependent variable, a signicant negative relationship again
was reported, t (424) 2.40, p < .02. Daily cell phone minute usage (r .01, ns) and daily hours spent on social networks (r .01, ns) had
no relationship to GPA.
2.1.6. Hypothesis 2
To test H2, the frequency of students' use of technology will be negatively associated with measures of successful academic performance
more than with their gender, SAT scores, or employment, stepwise multiple regressions were performed. Two separate regressions were
conducted, the rst using the self-reported predicted course grade as the criterion; the second used the actual GPA as the criterion. For each
regression the following variables were entered as predictors: technology use (measured by cell phone minutes per week, texts per week,

Table 2
Descriptive statistics of key variables.
Variable

Na

Mean

SD

Total cell phone minutes per week

Number of texts per week day
Number of computer hours per week day
Number of hours studied for this class Mondays-Thursdays
Number of hours worked per week
GPA
SAT verbal
SAT quantitative

371
376
435
429
278
365
224
195

120.92
166.36
5.05
2.05
11.42
3.20
534.75
549.06

113.27
169.54
3.64
1.65
10.22
.51
93.00
95.63

Number of participants varied by variable because not all participants reported all data.

310

D.K. Wentworth, J.H. Middleton / Computers & Education 78 (2014) 306e311

and computer hours per week), number of hours studied for their biology/psychology course per week, gender, employed or not, and their
high school SAT verbal and quantitative scores.
The rst regression showed that SAT quantitative score and number of texts per week accounted for 16% of the variance in predicted
course grade (F(2, 129) 13.51, p < .01), SAT quantitative score (b .35, t 4.35, p < .00) and texts per week (b .23, t 2.86, p < .01)
were signicant predictors. Phone cell minutes per week, computer hours per week, number of study hours, gender and SAT verbal scores all
failed to increase the percentage of variance explained by the model.
The second regression showed that SAT quantitative score (b .32, t 3.82, p < .01), gender (b .21, t 2.56, p < .02), and
employment (b .18, t 2.14, p < .04) accounted for 15% of the variance in GPA (F (3, 119) 8.33, p < .01). Higher SAT quantitative scores,
(gender) women, and those who were not employed predicted GPA. Frequency of technology use, number of hours studied and SAT verbal
scores failed to increase the percentage of variance explained by the model.
3. Discussion
Our sample was composed of highly connected, high frequency users of technology, with students using their cell phones over two hours
each week, sending over 30 texts a day on average and reporting ve hours a day of computer use. With such frequent and continuous use of
technology, we hypothesized a strong negative relationship with academic performance.
Both of our hypotheses were supported partially. A small, yet signicant negative correlation was found between the amount of time
students spent on their computer per week and their GPAs. However, a stronger negative relationship existed between the amount of time
spent on their computers per week and the amount of time spent studying. Thus, those participants who spent more time on their computer, compared to those who spent less time, had lower GPAs and spent less time studying. The reverse was also true, those participants
who spent less time on their computer, compared to those who spent more time, had higher GPAs and spent more time studying. These
results support the ndings of several investigators (Anand, 2007; Chen & Peng, 2008; Chou, 2001; Karpinski & Duberstein (cited in Ohio
State University, 2009); Kubey et al., 2001). Given that these studies included students from the U.S., Pakistan, and Taiwan, our results
suggest that the effects of the use of technology are not culture bound. Although some of the earlier research did not nd a negative
relationship between technology use and academic performance (Kolek & Saunders, 2008; Pasek, More, & Hargattai, 2009), our results
support the notion of non-culturally bound relationships between technology and academic performance. Technology appears to have a
damaging effect in the academic sphere.
Hypothesis 2 tested which factors had the greatest predictive power for academic performance, measured by overall GPA and selfreported predicted course grade. Again, partial support was found for our hypothesis. The number of texts sent per week and a student's
SAT quantitative score accounted for 16% of the variance in their predicted course grade, a signicant amount. Thus, the only measure of
technology use that signicantly predicted course grade was number of texts sent weekly. It is surprising that neither frequency of cell
phone use nor internet use were found to be signicant predictors of course grade.
However, when GPA was the criterion, no measures of technology use accounted for a signicant amount of variance. Instead, SAT
quantitative score, gender (women) and not working while attending school were signicant predictors of GPA.
SAT quantitative scores were predictive for both measures of academic performance. A possible explanation may be that given the
diversity of today's students' backgrounds, and varying levels of language and verbal abilities, numerical ability may be a better predictor of
academic performance at this point in time. Nationally, SAT scores have decreased in both the verbal and written sub-tests over the past two
decades while quantitative scores showed a small increase, but then a slight decline, over this same time period (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2012). Given that numeracy is less culturally bound, it may be a more accurate academic predictor in today's
diverse world.
Additionally, being female was a positive indicator of academic performance. This result mirrors the general trend of women pursuing
higher education more than men and also earning higher grades while in school (DiPrete & Buchmann, 2013; Lewin, 2006). The differences
are not explained by ability. Some researchers have suggested that boys exert less effort and are less engaged in school. DiPrete and
Buchmann (2013) argue that societal norms are the root cause of these differences. Whatever the cause, our research adds to the literature in demonstrating how gender plays a role in academic performance.
The nding that a lack of employment while attending classes predicted better academic performance is easier to explain. Although our
students were high users of technology, if they were not working they had more time for their technology and their studies. Although many
students claim that work helps them focus and stay busy, we found that it was a detriment to their academic focus.
3.1. Limitations and future research
Although we had a large sample, size alone does not automatically guarantee generalizability. This research was limited by: 1) an
overabundance of women, 2) a heavy preponderance of biology majors, and 3) the participants were all drawn from one private university in
the mid-Atlantic region of the U.S. To address these limitations, future research should include a more even gender balance, greater major,
racial and ethnic diversity, and participants from all regions of the country.
Additionally, measures of technology use may need to be rened. Student self-reports may have been biased, either positively or
negatively, due to memory errors and lack of awareness of their actual frequency of using technology. With the increasing sophistication of
smart phones, it may be easier to collect actual usage numbers given specic research applications. This would be a fruitful area for interdisciplinary research and development. Researchers in the eld of cyberpsychology could team up with their computer science colleagues to
create mobile applications for data capture of phone/computer/tablet/MP3 player usage.
Disclosure statement
No competing nancial interests exist.

D.K. Wentworth, J.H. Middleton / Computers & Education 78 (2014) 306e311

311

References
Anand, V. (2007). A study of time management: the correlations between video game usage and academic performance markers. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 10(4),
552e559. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.9991.
Bowman, L. L., Levine, L. E., Waite, B. M., & Gendron, M. (2010). Can students really multitask? an experimental study of instant messaging while reading. Computers &
Education, 54, 927e931.
Brenner, J. (2012, May 31). Pew internet: Social networking. Retrieved July 17, 2012 from http://pewinternet.org/Commentary/2012/March/Pew-Internet-Social-Networkingfull-detail.aspx.
Burak, L. (2012). Multitasking in the university classroom. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(2). http://academics.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl/
v6n2/html.
Campbell, S. W. (2006). Perceptions of mobile phones in college classrooms: ringing, cheating, and classroom policies. Communication Education, 55(3), 280e294.
Checkfacebook.com. (2013). United States age distribution. Retrieved June 17, 2013 from www.checkfacebook.com.
Chen, Y.-F., & Peng, S. S. (2008). University students' internet use and its relationships with academic performance, interpersonal relationships, psychosocial adjustment, and
self-evaluation. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(4), 467e469. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.0128.
Chou, C. (2001). Internet heavy use and addiction among Taiwanese college students: an online interview study. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 4(5), 573e585.
Chun, M. M., Golomb, J. D., & Turk-Browne, N. B. (2011). A taxonomy of external and internal attention. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 73e101.
Church, A., & Waclawski, J. (1998). Designing and using organizational surveys: A seven-step process. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Publishers.
DiPrete, T., & Buchmann, C. (2013). The rise of women: the growing gender gap in education and what it means for schools. Russell Sage Foundation.
Ellis, Y., Daniels, B., & Jauregui, A. (2010). The effect of multitasking on the grade performance of business students. Research in Higher Education Journal, 8, 1e10.
End, C. M., Worthman, S., Mathews, M. B., & Wetterau, K. (2010). Costly cell phones: the impact of cell phone rings on academic performance. Teaching of Psychology, 37,
55e57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00986280903425912.
Fox, A. B., Rosen, J., & Crawford, M. (2009). Distractions, distractions: does instant messaging affect college students' performance on a concurrent reading comprehension
task? CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(1), 51e53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2008.0107.
Fried, C. B. (2008). In-class laptop use and its effects on student learning. Computers & Education, 50, 906e914. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.09.006.
Gasser, U., & Palfrey, J. (2009, March). Mastering multitasking. Educational Leadership, 66(6), 14e19.
Goldman, D. (2012, April 23). Facebook tops 900 million users. Retrieved July 17, 2012 from http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/23/technology/facebook-q1/index.htm http://dx.
doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2008.0107.
Hakoama, M., & Hakoyama, S. (2011). The impact of cell phone use on social networking and development among college students. The American Association of Behavioral and
Social Sciences Journal, 15, 1e20.
Hargittai, E., & Hsieh, Y.-l. P. (2010). Predictors and consequences of differentiated practices on social network sites. Information, Communication & Society, 13(4), 515e536.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691181003639866.
Harman, B. A., & Sato, T. (2011). Cell phone use and grade point average among undergraduate university students. College Student Journal, 45, 544e549.
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), 46e64.
Internet World Stats. (2012). Facebook users in the world. Retrieved July 17, 2012 from http://www.internetworldstats.com/facebook.htm.
Jacobsen, W. C., & Forste, R. (2011). The wired generation: academic and social outcomes of electronic media use among university students. CyberPsychology, Behavior, and
Social Networking, 14(5), 275e280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2010.0135.
Junco, R., & Cotten, S. R. (2011). Perceived academic effects of instant messaging use. Computers & Education, 56, 370e378. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.020.
Junco, R., & Cotten, S. R. (2012). No A 4 U: the relationship between multitasking and academic performance. Computers & Education, 59, 505e514. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.compedu.2011.12.023.
Kelly, W. E. (2004). As achievement sails the river of time: the role of time use efciency in grade-point-average. Educational Research Quarterly, 27(4), 3e8.
Kirschner, P. A., & Karpinski, A. C. (2010). Facebook and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1237e1245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.024.
Kolek, E. A., & Saunders, D. (2008). Online disclosure: an empirical examination of undergraduate Facebook proles. NASPA Journal, 45(1), 1e25.
Kraushaar, J. M., & Novak, D. C. (2010). Examining the affects of student multitasking with laptops during lecture. Journal of Information Systems Education, 21(2), 241e251.
Kubey, R. W., Lavin, M. J., & Barrows, J. R. (2001). Internet use and collegiate academic performance decrements: early ndings. Journal of Communication, 51(2), 366e382.
Levine, L. E., Waite, B. M., & Bowman, L. L. (2007). Electronic media use, reading, and academic distractibility in college youth. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(4), 560e566.
Lewin, T. (2006). At colleges, women are leaving men in the dust. Retrieved June 20, 2013 from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/education/09college.html?
pagewantedall &_r0&pagewantedprint.
Marois, R., & Ivanoff, J. (2005). Capacity limits of information processing in the brain. Trends in Cognitive Science, 9(6), 296e305.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43e52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
S15326985EP3801_6.
Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7(3), 134e140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00028-7.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). Fast facts, SAT scores. Retrieved June 20, 2013 from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id171.
Ohio State University. (2009, April 13). Facebook use linked to lower grades in college. Science Daily. Retrieved July 17, 2012 from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/
04/09041380538.htm.
Ophir, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America: Social
Sciences e Psychological and Cognitive Science, 106(37), 15583e15587. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903620106.
Osborne, J. W., & Overbay, A. (2004). The power of outliers (and why researchers should always check for them). Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 9(6). Retrieved
May 15, 2014 from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v9&n6.
Pasek, J., More, E., & Hargittai, E. (2009). Facebook and academic performance: reconciling a media sensation with data. First Monday, 14(5). Retrieved November 1, 2010, from
http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2498/2181.
Rouis, S. (2012). Impact of cognitive absorption on Facebook on students' achievement. CyberPsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(6), 296e303. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1089/cyber.2011.0390.
Shelton, J. T., Elliott, E. M., Eaves, S. D., & Exner, A. L. (2009). The distracting effects of a ringing cell phone: an investigation of the laboratory and the classroom setting. Journal
of Environmental Psychology, 29(4), 513e521.
Smith, A. (2012, June 26). 17% of cell phone owners do most of their online browsing on their phone, rather than a computer or other device. Retrieved July 17, 2012 from http://
pewrinternet.org/Reports/2012/Cell-Internet-Use-2012.aspx.
Smith, S. D., & Caruso, J. B. (2010). The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology. Retrieved August 2, 2012 from http//www.educause.edu/Resources/
ECARStudyofUndergraduateStuden/217333.
Smith, A., Rainie, L., & Zickhur, K. (2011, July 19). College students and technology. Retrieved July 17, 2012 from http: www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/College-students-andtechnology.aspx.
ul Haq, & Chand, S. (2012). Pattern of Facebook usage and its impact on academic performance of university students: a gender based comparison. Bulletin of Education and
Research, 34(2), 19e28.
Weimer, M. (2012, Sept. 26). Students think they can multitask. Here's proof they can't. The Teaching Professor Blog. http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/teaching-professorblog/multitasking-confronting-students-with-the-facts/.
Wood, E., Zivcakova, L., Gentile, P., Archer, K., DePasquale, D., & Nosko, A. (2011). Examining the impact of off-task multi-tasking with technology on real-time classroom
learning. Computers & Education, 58, 365e374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/compedu.2011.08.029.