Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology
The impact of lecture chunking format on university student vigilance: Implications for classroom pedagogy
Andrew Harris 1 * , Sarah Buglass 1, Georgina Gous 2
More Detail
1 NTU Psychology, Nottingham Trent University, United Kingdom
2 University of Lincoln, School of Psychology, United Kingdom
* Corresponding Author
Open Access Full Text (PDF)
ARTICLE INFO

Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, 2021 - Volume 3 Issue 2, pp. 90-102
https://doi.org/10.33902/JPSP.2021272429

Article Type: Research Article

Published Online: 03 Oct 2021

Views: 3062 | Downloads: 1945

ABSTRACT
Consistent with capacity theories of attention, attention can be sustained to the extent that spare mental resources remain available. The traditional lecture in higher education has received criticism for being too long to hold a student’s attention. This is based on several author’s claims that there is a measurable decrement in student attention after approximately 10-15 minutes of sustained content delivery. The present research aimed to investigate if providing small, separate units of an asynchronous lecture is able to enhance motivation for task engagement through perceived achievability of the learning outcomes, and consequently, enhance sustained attention amongst postgraduate university students. Utilising a quasi-experimental design, 51 postgraduate psychology students were recruited by opportunistic sampling from a cognitive psychology lecture on an MSc Psychology course, and given the option to watch either a long, single-video version of a lecture, or the same lecture delivered as smaller separate video chunks. Key findings indicate that presenting the material as smaller separate video units increased the perceived achievability of the learning outcomes and reduced the number of attention lapses experienced, but not the duration of those lapses, all measured via self-report single-item measures. The shorter separate videos condition also saw greater levels of break taking compliance. Looking at the sample as a whole using a hierarchical regression analysis, whilst controlling for student mind wandering tendencies as measured by the Mind Excessively Wandering Scale (MEWS), taking breaks was a significant negative predictor of attention lapses. Taken together, this suggests taking breaks is an integral part of sustained attention, and that chunking lectures into separate video units increases break taking compliance. Therefore, when designing online asynchronous learning material, lecturers should consider the value of chunking learning material for its potential direct and indirect effect on sustained attention.
KEYWORDS
asynchronous lectures attention capacity theory chunking vigilance
In-text citation: (Harris et al., 2021)
Reference: Harris, A., Buglass, S., & Gous, G. (2021). The impact of lecture chunking format on university student vigilance: Implications for classroom pedagogy. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, 3(2), 90-102. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPSP.2021272429
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Harris A, Buglass S, Gous G. The impact of lecture chunking format on university student vigilance: Implications for classroom pedagogy. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology. 2021;3(2), 90-102. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPSP.2021272429
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Harris A, Buglass S, Gous G. The impact of lecture chunking format on university student vigilance: Implications for classroom pedagogy. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology. 2021;3(2):90-102. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPSP.2021272429
In-text citation: (Harris et al., 2021)
Reference: Harris, Andrew, Sarah Buglass, and Georgina Gous. "The impact of lecture chunking format on university student vigilance: Implications for classroom pedagogy". Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology 2021 3 no. 2 (2021): 90-102. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPSP.2021272429
In-text citation: (Harris et al., 2021)
Reference: Harris, A., Buglass, S., and Gous, G. (2021). The impact of lecture chunking format on university student vigilance: Implications for classroom pedagogy. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, 3(2), pp. 90-102. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPSP.2021272429
In-text citation: (Harris et al., 2021)
Reference: Harris, Andrew et al. "The impact of lecture chunking format on university student vigilance: Implications for classroom pedagogy". Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, vol. 3, no. 2, 2021, pp. 90-102. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPSP.2021272429
REFERENCES
  • Artino Jr, A. R., & Stephens, J. M. (2009). Academic motivation and self-regulation: A comparative analysis of undergraduate and graduate students learning online. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(3-4), 146-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.02.001
  • Bradbury, N. A. (2016). Attention span during lectures: 8 seconds, 10 minutes, or more? Advances in Physiology Education, 40(4), 509-513. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00109.2016
  • Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: the self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 25(1), 49-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7916(94)90063-9
  • Bunce, D. M., Flens, E. A., & Neiles, K. Y. (2010). How long can students pay attention in class? A study of student attention decline using clickers. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(12), 1438-1443. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed100409p
  • Cole, M., & Torgerson, C. (2017). Highlights from ATD’s new micro-learning research report [Webinar]. http://webcasts.td.org/webinar/2266
  • Davies, D. R., & Parasuraman, R. (1982). The Psychology of Vigilance. Academic Press.
  • Davis, B. G. (1993) Tools for Teaching. Jossey-Bass.
  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Self-Determination Theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology (p. 416–436). Sage Publications Ltd. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n21
  • DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Workman, k. (2012). A quasi-experimental study of after-event reviewes and leadership development. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(5), 997-1015. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028244
  • Ellis, N. C. (1996). Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking, and points of order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 91-126. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44487860
  • Esterman, M., Reagan, A., Liu, G., Turner, C., & DeGutis, J. (2014). Reward reveals dissociable aspects of sustained attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(6), 2287-2296. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000019
  • Evans, C., & Waring, M. (2011). Student teacher assessment feedback preferences: The influence of cognitive styles and gender. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.11.011
  • Gholami, R., Allahyar, N., & Rafik-Galea, S. (2012). Integrative motivation as an essential determinant of achievement: A case of EFL high school students. World Applied Sciences Journal, 17(11), 1416-1424. http://www.idosi.org/wasj/wasj17(11)12/6.pdf
  • Hartley, J. & Cameron, A. (1967). Some observations on the efficiency of lecturing. Educational Review, 20(1), 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013191670200103
  • Hartley, J. & Davies, I.K. (1978). Note taking: A critical review. Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, 15(3), 207–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/0033039780150305
  • Jahnke, I., Lee, Y. M., Pham, M., He, H., & Austin, L. (2020). Unpacking the inherent design principles of mobile microlearning. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 25(3), 585-619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-019-09413-w
  • Johnstone, A. H., & Percival, F. (1976). Attention breaks in lectures. Education in Chemistry, 13(2), 49-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/00986280701291291
  • Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 193-206. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.5.1.193
  • Lang, P. J. (1980). Self-Assessment Manikin. The Center for Research in Psychophysiology, University of Florida.
  • Lee, K. E., Williams, K. J., Sargent, L. D., Williams, N. S., & Johnson, K. A. (2015). 40-second green roof views sustain attention: The role of micro-breaks in attention restoration. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 42, 182-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.04.003
  • Licorish, S. A., Owen, H. E., Daniel, B., & George, J. L. (2018). Students’ perception of Kahoot!’s influence on teaching and learning. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 13(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-018-0078-8
  • Lim, J., & Kwok, K. (2016). The effects of varying break length on attention and time on task. Human Factors, 58(3), 472-481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720815617395
  • Lim, J., Wu, W. C., Wang, J., Detre, J. A., Dinges, D. F., & Rao, H. (2010). Imaging brain fatigue from sustained mental workload: an ASL perfusion study of the time-on-task effect. Neuroimage, 49(4), 3426-3435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.11.020
  • Maccoby, M. (1995). Why Work: Motivating and Leading the New Generation (2nd ed.). Simon & Schuster.
  • MacLean, K. A., Aichele, S. R., Bridwell, D. A., Mangun, G. R., Wojciulik, E., & Saron, C. D. (2009). Interactions between endogenous and exogenous attention during vigilance. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71(5), 1042-1058. https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.71.5.1042
  • Major, A., & Calandrino, T. (2018). Beyond chunking: Micro-learning secrets for effective online design. FDLA Journal, 3(1), 1-5. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/fdla-journal/vol3/iss1/13
  • Massar, S. A. A., Lim, J., Sasmita, K., & Chee, M. W. L. (2016). Rewards boost sustained attention through higher effort: A value-based decision-making approach. Biological Psychology, 120, 21–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2016.07.019
  • McCoy, B. R. (2016). Digital distractions in the classroom phase II: Student classroom use of digital devices for non-class related purposes. Journal of Media Education, 7(1), 5-32. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/journalismfacpub/90
  • McKeachie, W. J. (1986). Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research and Theory for College and University Teachers. Lexington, MA: Heath. https://doi.org/10.2307/328598
  • Mowlem, F. D., Agnew-Blais, J., Pingault, J. B., & Asherson, P. (2019). Evaluating a scale of excessive mind wandering among males and females with and without attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder from a population sample. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-39227-w
  • Neigel, A. R., Claypoole, V. L., Waldorf, K. M., Dever, D. A., & Szalma, J. L. (2017, September). Motivational correlates of vigilance task engagement. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 61, No. 1, pp. 1524-1528). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931213601865
  • Oberauer, K. (2019). Working memory and attention–A conceptual analysis and review. Journal of Cognition, 2(1), 1-23. http://doi.org/10.5334/joc.58
  • O'Connor, C., Robertson, I. H., & Levine, B. (2011). The prosthetics of vigilant attention: Random cuing cuts processing demands. Neuropsychology, 25(4), 535–543.
  • https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022767
  • Pallant, J. (2001). SPSS Survival Manual. Allen & Unwin.
  • Panigrahi, R., Srivastava, P. R., & Sharma, D. (2018). Online learning: Adoption, continuance, and learning outcome—A review of literature. International Journal of Information Management, 43, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfongt.2018.05.005
  • Rosengrant, D., Hearrington, D., & O’Brien, J. (2021). Investigating student sustained attention in a guided inquiry lecture course using an eye tracker. Educational Psychology Review, 33, 11-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648/020/09540/2
  • Rowe, D. A., Mazzotti, V. L., Ingram, A., & Lee, S. (2017). Effects of goal-setting instruction on academic engagement for students at risk. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 40(1), 25-35. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143416678175
  • Russell, J. A., & Mehrabian, A. (1977). Evidence for a three-factor theory of emotions. Journal of Research in Personality, 11(3), 273-294. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(77)90037-X
  • Schmidt, M., Benzing, V., & Kamer, M. (2016). Classroom-based physical activity breaks and children's attention: cognitive engagement works! Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1474. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01474
  • Tyler, J. M., & Burns, K. C. (2008). After depletion: The replenishment of the self's regulatory resources. Self and Identity, 7(3), 305-321. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860701799997
  • Wankat, P.C. (2002). The Effective Efficient Professor: Teaching, Scholarship and Service. Allyn and Bacon. https://doi.org/10.1080/1937156X.2003.11949512
  • Warm, J. S., Dember, W. N., & Hancock, P.A. (1996). Vigilance and workload in automated systems. In R. Parasuraman, & M. Mouloua (Eds.), Automation and human performance: Theory and applications (pp. 183–200). Erlbaum.
  • Warm, J. S., Parasuraman, R., & Matthews, G. (2008). Vigilance requires hard mental work and is stressful. Human Factors, 50(3), 433-441. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008X312152
  • Weissman, D. H., Roberts, K. C., Visscher, K. M., & Woldorff, M. G. (2006). The neural bases of momentary lapses in attention. Nature Neuroscience, 9, 971-978. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1727
  • Young, M. S., Robinson, S., & Alberts, P. (2009). Students pay attention! Combating the vigilance decrement to improve learning during lectures. Active Learning in Higher Education, 10(1), 41-55. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787408100194
LICENSE
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.