Everyday Attention: Variation in Mind Wandering and Memory in a Lecture

Abstract

Understanding the factors underlying variation in attentional state is critical in a number of domains. Here, we investigate the relation between time on task and mind wandering (i.e., a state of decoupled attention) in the context of a lecture. Lectures are the primary means of knowledge transmission in post secondary education rendering an understanding of attentional variations in lectures a pressing practical concern. We report two experiments wherein participants watched a video recorded lecture either alone (Experiment 1) or in a classroom context (Experiment 2). Participants responded to mind wandering probes at various times in the lecture in an effort to track variations in mind wandering over time. In addition, following the lecture, memory for the lecture material was tested. Results demonstrate that in a lecture mind wandering increases with time on task and memory for the lecture material decreases. In addition, there was a significant relation between mind wandering and memory for lecture material. Theoretical and practical applications of the present results are discussed.

On the relation between motivation and retention in educational contexts: The role of intentional and unintentional mind wandering

“…Here we extend this work to the lecture setting, which is one of the most common pedagogical formats. In a series of recent articles, researchers have begun to better understand the relation between mind wandering and the retention of lecture material (e.g., Farley, Risko, & Kingstone, 2013;Risko, Anderson, Sarwal, Engelhardt, & Kingstone, 2012;Risko, Buchanan, Medimorec, & Kingstone, 2013;Szpunar, Khan, & Schacter, 2013). As in research examining reading comprehension, this work has revealed that mind wandering is negatively associated with the retention of lecture material.…”

On the relation of mind wandering and ADHD symptomatology

“…ADHD, mind wandering has been linked to (1) poor academic performance (Risko et al, 2012;Szpunar, Khan, and Schacter, 2013), (2) elevated response variability (Seli, Carriere, et al, 2013;Seli, Cheyne, & Smilek, 2013), (3) failures of executive control (Kane et al, 2007), and (4) difficulties in the workplace (Knowles & Tay, 2002). While these findings are consistent with the hypothesis that mind wandering is a central feature of ADHD, research on these two topics has progressed relatively independently over the years and, to date, there have been few studies examining the role of mind wandering in the larger symptomatology of ADHD (but see Shaw & Giambra, 1993;Franklin et al, in press).…”

Are you mind-wandering, or is your mind on task? The effect of probe framing on mind-wandering reports

“…A recent review by the first author (Weinstein, in press) revealed that amongst 145 studies that used the probe-caught method in the last decade, there were at least 69 different probe and response option variants. In that review, the variants were classified into 4 main categories: dichotomous, where one thought-state (e.g., "mind-wandering") was presented and participants indicated whether it applied to them in the current moment by answering yes or no (e.g., Risko, Anderson, Sarwal, Engelhardt, & Kingstone, 2012); dichotomous, where participants chose between two contrasting thought-states (usually on-task vs. mind-wandering, e.g., Forster & Lavie, 2009); categorical, where multiple MIND-WANDERING PROBE FRAMING 4 thought-states were presented (e.g., "The lecture", "The time/The computer", or "Something else"; Risko, Buchanan, Medimorec, & Kingstone, 2013); and scale, where participants indicated their thought-state along a continuum (e.g., a 6-point Likert scale from on-task to off-task; Morrison, Goolsarran, Rogers, & Jha, 2013). Of most interest to the current experiment, a contrasting pattern emerged between the dichotomous yes/no studies and the dichotomous (two thought-state) studies: in the first case, almost all (29/31) studies asked participants to indicate whether they were mind-wandering (as opposed to whether they were on-task); whereas in the second case, all (25/25) studies asked participants whether they were on-task or mind-wandering, in that specific order (that is, on-task always came first).…”