Addressing digital distraction in the tertiary classroom: A blended approach

Digitally enabled multitasking has become ubiquitous on college campuses, but is it an effective way to study? Mobile devices may enhance study for learners with strong concrete reasoning skills (Chen & Ji, 2015), but students who engage in off-task device use during class — a habit known as “cyber-slacking” (Flanigan & Kiewra, 2018) — tend to have lower academic performance (Chen et al., 2025; Demirbilek & Talan, 2018; Mendoza et al., 2018). Research also shows that students themselves tend to view their devices as distracting (Aagaard, 2021; Jackson, 2017; Wang et al, 2023). While tertiary educators have mainly responded to cyber-slacking by restricting device use, this essay favors teacher-student collaboration and blended learning as more constructive approaches.

Years before digital devices filled college campuses, psychologist John Sweller explained how distraction strains the cognitive resources needed to acquire new information and solve problems (Sweller et al., 2011). Since the advent of the student laptop and smartphone in the noughties, Sweller’s cognitive load theory (1988) has informed a growing body of research showing how digital multitasking can inhibit the cognition of college students. Today’s “digital natives” engage in a broad range of multitasking behaviors (Ettinger & Cohen, 2020), but Kirschner and Bruyckere (2017) doubt whether digitally enabled multitasking is even possible, let alone productive.

In two experiments involving several hundred undergraduate students, Ward et al. (2017) have shown that the mere presence of a smartphone can impact key memory functions for task-specific information. Similar effects have been noted even when a nearby phone has been switched off (Skowronek et al., 2023). The cognitive impacts of digital distraction are such that Flanigan and Kiewra (2018) have declared: “instructors must acknowledge that the Net Generation is not predisposed to use technology for academically beneficial purposes” (p. 593).

Devices distract because of their highly engaging features. Social media and mobile games are designed to capture and retain user attention by enabling instant gratification and a “flow” state (Alter, 2017). When students face the choice of delaying gratification to pursue cognitively demanding study tasks, they tend to choose their devices (Kaliebe & Shah, 2024). The remarkable attraction of mobile devices has led one college instructor to concede “If you [the students] want to distract yourself, this isn’t elementary school, it’s not compulsory, you can do that” (Flanigan & Babchuk, 2022, p. 360). But it is not only students and technology that are to blame. Instructors facing digital distraction should acknowledge the role of inappropriate curricula and pedagogies.

On the eve of the generative AI revolution, Harvard Business Impact interviewed several university students on what was lacking in their lectures. Most were concerned they were missing the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in today’s economy (“Why your students,” 2022). They also criticized the monotony of traditional lectures, a sentiment which is corroborated in the literature. Limniou (2021) conducted a year-long study of more than 350 University of Liverpool psychology students, finding they would compensate for a lack of breaks during lectures by checking their mobiles. It is notable that this behavior may be unconscious, as expressed by one Danish student interviewed by Aagaard (2021): “Well, I actually think it happens without you thinking about it. When something gets boring, you just log on to Facebook” (p. 358).

So digital distraction is at least partly caused by educators, as well as students, and both are affected. For students, distraction limits knowledge retention (Limniou, 2021) — e.g., they take incomplete notes (Flanigan & Titsworth, 2020). Their reduced recall subsequently impacts their assessment performance, which can gradually undermine their longer-term academic goals. For teachers, unchecked digital distraction can negatively affect their professional satisfaction and classroom management (Flanigan & Babchuk, 2022), which can create conditions for further student disengagement. Cumulatively, the impacts of off-task device use can degrade the value of tertiary education for both learners and teachers.

The most common response to digital distraction has been to restrict and ban mobile device use. Although bans may pose an opportunity for educators to re-evaluate the role of digital technologies in the classroom (Selwyn & Aagaard, 2021), students may view such strict measures as encroaching on their autonomy (even when they themselves wish to control their device use) (Wang et al., 2023). Device restrictions may also be counter-productive for instructors. In Flanigan and Babchuk’s (2022) study of instructor sentiments on digital distraction, one participant described the tension they felt when enforcing their device policy: “I’ll ask students to put the device away and [they] are actually almost combative about it” (p. 362). If enforcement actually leads to confrontation, instructors risk the kind of relational turning points that compromise classroom rapport (Docan-Morgan & Manusov, 2009). So device policies had better accommodate a reasonable degree of learner autonomy. For example, instructors could acknowledge their students’ ability to self-regulate device use for improved academic outcomes (Demirbilek & Talan, 2018; Fletcher & Stanzione, 2021).

This is where collaboration between teachers and students seems a more promising way to manage digital distraction. Once instructors clarify their device policies (Flanigan & Kiewra, 2018), they can work with students to constructively integrate mobile technology in their lessons. Such a blended learning approach (Garrison & Vaughan, 2011) can help make lessons more relevant to students of the “Net Generation,” while retaining proven methods of face-to-face instruction like classroom discussions (Graham, 2019). In one successful intervention at Harper Adams University in the United Kingdom, Mu and Paparas (2015) observed that the mobile quiz platform Kahoot enlivened their economics lectures for non-majors and boosted attendance. In a post-intervention survey, 43 of 49 (87%) student-respondents expressed they would like to see the method applied in other modules.

In a more recent blended learning intervention, researchers at Borneo Tarakan University in Indonesia used Mobile-Assisted Language Learning to energize a mandatory English course for science and engineering students. A follow-up survey indicated that students engaged and learned more in the “blended” activities. However, they gave lower scores for interaction in the online components (De Vega et al., 2023). This finding prompts an important caveat: Instructors pursuing the blended approach should consider student perceptions of value-benefit to earn their cooperation (Vanslambrouck et al., 2018). And since “students are the main clients of blended learning solutions” (Graham, 2019, p. 177), instructors should monitor the extent to which their interventions promote or reduce engagement.

Effective blended learning does not merely replace face-to-face learning with digital components (Müller et al., 2023). Instructors should consider the relevance and user-friendliness of educational technologies, as learning new platforms can increase extraneous cognitive load and distract students from key learning objectives (Sweller et al., 2011). Effective blending rather involves focused, progressively challenging activities, which pull but not strain working memory. In such mode, learners can establish a sound knowledge base that prepares them for more cognitively demanding tasks (Sweller et al., 2011). This approach, informed by cognitive load theory, employs user-friendly online platforms like Kahoot, and pre-empts disengagement with appropriately selected tasks, topics and breaks (Mendoza et al., 2018).

In sum, the proposed method, driven by established theory, intends to mitigate persistent off-task mobile device use that is hindering tertiary education. It focuses on autonomy and opportunity rather than restriction, and tailors e-learning elements to better engage today’s digital natives. This is especially important as universities prepare them for the ongoing AI revolution and Industrial 5.0.

References

Aagaard, J. (2021). ‘From a small click to an entire action’: Exploring students’ anti-distraction strategies. Learning,Media and Technology, 46(3), 355–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2021.1896540

Alter, A. Irresistible: The rise of addictive technology and the business of keeping us hooked (Kindle ed.). Penguin.

Chen, Q., Yan, Z., Moeyaert, M., & Bangert-Drowns, R. (2025). Mobile multitasking in learning: A meta-analysis of effects of mobile phone distraction on young adults’ immediate recall. Computers in Human Behavior, 162, Article 108432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108432

Chen, R., & Ji, C. (2015). Investigating the relationship between thinking style and personal electronic device use and its implications for academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 177–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.042

Demirbilek, M., & Talan, T. (2018). The effect of social media multitasking on classroom performance. Active Learning in Higher Education, 19(2), 117–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417721382

​​De Vega, N., Basri, M., & Nur, S. (2023). Integrating mobile-assisted learning for a dynamic blended approach in higher education. Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, 32(2), 819–827. http://doi.org/10.11591/ijeecs.v32.i2.pp819-827

Docan-Morgan, T., & Manusov, V. (2009). Relational turning point events and their outcomes in college teacher-student relationships from students’ perspectives. Communication Education, 58(2), 155–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520802515713

Ettinger, K., & Cohen, A. (2020). Patterns of multitasking behaviours of adolescents in digital environments. Education and Information Technologies, 25, 623–645 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09982-4

Flanigan, A. E., & Babchuk, W. A. (2022). Digital distraction in the classroom: exploring instructor perceptions and reactions. Teaching in Higher Education, 27(3), 352–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1724937

Flanigan, A. E., & Kiewra, K. A. (2018). What college instructors can do about student cyber-slacking. Educational Psychology Review, 30, 585–597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9418-2

Flanigan, A. E., & Titsworth., S. (2020). The impact of digital distraction on lecture note taking and student learning. Instructional Science, 48, 495–524. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-020-09517-2

Fletcher, K. A., & Stanzione, C. M. (2021). A mixed-methods approach to understanding laptop-free zones in college classrooms. Computers and Education, 172, Article 104253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104253

Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2011). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Graham, C. R. (2019). Current Research in Blended Learning. In W. C. Diehl & M. G. Moore (Eds.), Handbook of Distance Education (4th ed., pp. 173–188). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315296135-15

Kaliebe, K. & Shah, K. (2024). Digital distractions and misinformation. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 72(2), 235–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcl.2024.08.002

Limniou, M. (2021). The effect of digital device usage on student academic performance: A case study. Education Sciences, 11(3), 121. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11030121

Mendoza, J. S., Pody, B. C., Lee, S., Kim, M., & McDonough, I. M. (2018). The effect of cellphones on attention and learning: The influences of time, distraction, and nomophobia. Computers in Human Behavior, 86, 52–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.04.027

Mu, H., & Paparas, D. (2015). Incorporating the advantages of clickers and mobile devices to teach Economics to non-economists. Cogent Economics & Finance, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2015.1099802

Müller, C., Mildenberger, T. & Steingruber, D. (2023). Learning effectiveness of a flexible learning study programme in a blended learning design: why are some courses more effective than others?. Int J Educ Technol High Educ, 20(10).https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-022-00379-x

Selwyn, N., & Aagaard, J. (2021). Banning mobile phones from classrooms — An opportunity to advance understandings of technology addiction, distraction and cyberbullying. British Journal of Education Technology, 52(1), 8–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12943

Skowronek, J., Seifert, A., & Lindberg, S. (2023). The mere presence of a smartphone reduces basal attentional performance. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 9363–9363. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-36256-4

Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4419-8126-4

Wang, Q., Sun, F., Wang, X., & Gao, Y. (2023). Exploring Undergraduate Students’ Digital Multitasking in Class: An Empirical Study in China. Sustainability 2023, 15, Article 10184. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310184

Why your students are disengaged. (2022, August 3). Harvard Business Impact. https://hbsp.harvard.edu/inspiring-minds/why-your-students-are-disengaged