Studying in the region of proximal learning reduces mind wandering

Abstract

Insofar as mind wandering has been linked to poor learning, finding ways to reduce the propensity to mind wander should have implications for improving learning. We investigated the possibility that studying materials at an appropriate level of difficulty with respect to the individual's capabilities-that is, studying in the region of proximal learning (RPL)-might reduce mind wandering. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants were probed for their attentional state while they studied blocks of English-Spanish word pairs that were (a) easy, (b) in the RPL, or (c) difficult. We found that studying materials in the RPL was associated with reduced mind wandering. Test performance on items studied while mind wandering was also poorer. In Experiment 3, we investigated the relation between differences in participants' mastery and mind wandering. We found that high performers mind wandered more when studying the easier word pairs, whereas low performers mind wandered more when studying the difficult items. These results indicate that the RPL is specific to the individual's level of mastery and that mind wandering occurs when people are outside that region.

Mind wandering perspective on attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

“…As discussed above Mason et al (2007) manipulated the frequency of MW by varying task cognitive-demands, and correlated MW frequency with DMN task induced deactivations. Similar findings have been replicated by others (Forster and Lavie, 2009; Levinson et al, 2012; McVay and Kane, 2012; Metcalfe and Xu, 2016; Ruby et al, 2013; Rummel and Boywitt, 2014; Smallwood et al, 2007; Xu and Metcalfe, 2016). Related to these findings, shifts from task-related to task-unrelated thoughts are observed during low cognitive demand tasks (Stawarczyk et al, 2011b; Thomson et al, 2014).…”

“…Furthermore, higher working memory capacity predicted greater frequency of task-unrelated thoughts in a low demand breath-awareness task (Levinson et al, 2012) but fewer errors (regarded as a behavioural index of less frequent MW) in a high demand 3-back working memory task (Rummel and Boywitt, 2014). Similarly, the level of linguistic expertise (reflecting executive control and working memory capacity) determined the frequency of MW since individuals with high levels of linguistic ability showed more frequent task-unrelated thoughts for easy items, compared to individuals with low to medium linguistic ability (Xu and Metcalfe, 2016). Thus, both working memory capacity and linguistic capacity had a moderating effect on the level of MW under low and high demand conditions.…”

“…MW has an adverse impact on both cognitive task performance and daily life in control populations. Measured performance deficits associated with MW include greater stimuli-response error rates (Forster and Lavie, 2009; Stawarczyk et al, 2011b), slower reaction times (Smallwood et al, 2013; Stawarczyk et al, 2011b) reduced accuracy of response (Kam and Handy, 2014; McVay and Kane, 2009; Rummel and Boywitt, 2014; Smallwood et al, 2008; Thomson et al, 2014; Unsworth and Robison, 2016; Xu and Metcalfe, 2016) and greater mean error percentage (Thomson et al, 2015).…”

The inattentive on-screen reading: Reading medium affects attention and reading comprehension under time pressure

“…We measured text comprehension, mindwandering, and metacognitive calibration. Besides, we measured a comprehensive set of covariates to control for their potential influence on comprehension ( Ackerman & Lauterman, 2012 ; Daneman & Merikle, 1996 ; Guthrie, Klauda, & Ho, 2013 ; Hidi, 2001 ; Naumann, 2015 ; Ozuru, Dempsey, & McNamara, 2009 ) and mindwandering ( Feng et al, 2013 ; Fulmer, D'Mello, Strain, & Graesser, 2015 ; Kane & McVay, 2012 ; Randall, Oswald, & Beier, 2014 ; Unsworth & McMillan, 2013 ; Xu & Metcalfe, 2016 ). Our hypotheses were: Participants reading on screen will mindwander more than those reading the printed text, regardless of time pressure.…”

Compliant activity rather than difficulty accelerates thought probe responsiveness and inhibits deliberate mind wandering

“…unintentional, and (4) unrelated to the task at hand [7]. The relationship between task difficulty and mind wandering has become controversial, because some experiments have differed from most previous data by showing that mind wandering is increased in a more difficult task compared to an easier one [8,14]. In this study in addition to using forced-choice thought probes, we also used post-task VAS assessment to allow for comparisons of subjective ratings of intentional vs. spontaneous mind wandering.…”