快讯记笔记的胜利:涂鸦并不能减少无聊或思维游离,也不能提高注意力或对授课材料的记忆力。

IF 1.5 3区 心理学 Q4 PHYSIOLOGY
Emily Krysten Spencer-Mueller, Mark J Fenske
{"title":"快讯记笔记的胜利:涂鸦并不能减少无聊或思维游离,也不能提高注意力或对授课材料的记忆力。","authors":"Emily Krysten Spencer-Mueller, Mark J Fenske","doi":"10.1177/17470218231222402","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Doodling and fidgeting-traditionally viewed in educational contexts as markers of inattention and poor classroom behaviour-have more recently been considered as possible routes to improve performance by reducing boredom and its negative impact on memory. However, there is a surprising lack of well-controlled studies examining this possibility, despite the widespread adoption of fidget toys and doodling exercises within classroom settings. Here we report two experiments (total <i>N</i> = 222) that assess the impact of doodling on boredom, attention, mind-wandering, and subsequent recall of auditory information. In Experiment 1, participants first listened to a 15-min section of a lecture known to induce boredom. Immediately thereafter they were asked to jot down important information from a short voicemail that they listened to while either doodling (adding shading to shapes) or doing nothing in between note-taking. In Experiment 2, participants listened to a 45-min section of the same lecture under one of four conditions: structured doodling (i.e., shade in shapes), unstructured doodling, note-taking, or listen-only. Thought probes assessed self-perceived levels of state boredom, mind-wandering, and attention throughout the lecture. Across studies, doodling neither reduced boredom or mind-wandering nor increased attention or retention of information compared with other conditions. In contrast, attention and test performance were highest (and boredom and mind-wandering lowest) for those focused solely on note-taking.</p>","PeriodicalId":20869,"journal":{"name":"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11295400/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Note-taking for the win: Doodling does not reduce boredom or mind-wandering, nor enhance attention or retention of lecture material.\",\"authors\":\"Emily Krysten Spencer-Mueller, Mark J Fenske\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17470218231222402\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Doodling and fidgeting-traditionally viewed in educational contexts as markers of inattention and poor classroom behaviour-have more recently been considered as possible routes to improve performance by reducing boredom and its negative impact on memory. However, there is a surprising lack of well-controlled studies examining this possibility, despite the widespread adoption of fidget toys and doodling exercises within classroom settings. Here we report two experiments (total <i>N</i> = 222) that assess the impact of doodling on boredom, attention, mind-wandering, and subsequent recall of auditory information. In Experiment 1, participants first listened to a 15-min section of a lecture known to induce boredom. Immediately thereafter they were asked to jot down important information from a short voicemail that they listened to while either doodling (adding shading to shapes) or doing nothing in between note-taking. In Experiment 2, participants listened to a 45-min section of the same lecture under one of four conditions: structured doodling (i.e., shade in shapes), unstructured doodling, note-taking, or listen-only. Thought probes assessed self-perceived levels of state boredom, mind-wandering, and attention throughout the lecture. Across studies, doodling neither reduced boredom or mind-wandering nor increased attention or retention of information compared with other conditions. In contrast, attention and test performance were highest (and boredom and mind-wandering lowest) for those focused solely on note-taking.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20869,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11295400/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218231222402\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PHYSIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218231222402","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

涂鸦和坐立不安--传统上在教育环境中被视为注意力不集中和课堂行为不良的标志--最近被认为是通过减少无聊及其对记忆的负面影响来提高学习成绩的可能途径。然而,尽管小飞玩具和涂鸦练习在课堂环境中被广泛采用,却令人惊讶地缺乏对这种可能性进行良好控制的研究。在此,我们报告了两项实验(总人数 = 222),评估了涂鸦对无聊、注意力、思维游离和随后的听觉信息回忆的影响。在实验 1 中,受试者首先聆听了一段 15 分钟的已知会引起无聊的讲座。紧接着,他们被要求记下所听的简短语音邮件中的重要信息,同时在记笔记的间隙涂鸦(在图形上添加阴影)或什么也不做。在实验 2 中,受试者在以下四种条件之一下聆听了同一讲座的 45 分钟部分:有条理的涂鸦(即在图形上添加阴影)、无条理的涂鸦、记笔记或只听。在整个讲座过程中,思维探究评估了自我感觉的无聊状态、思维游离和注意力水平。在所有研究中,与其他条件相比,涂鸦既不会减少无聊或思维游离,也不会提高注意力或信息保持力。相反,只专注于记笔记的学生的注意力和考试成绩最高(而无聊和思绪游离程度最低)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Note-taking for the win: Doodling does not reduce boredom or mind-wandering, nor enhance attention or retention of lecture material.

Doodling and fidgeting-traditionally viewed in educational contexts as markers of inattention and poor classroom behaviour-have more recently been considered as possible routes to improve performance by reducing boredom and its negative impact on memory. However, there is a surprising lack of well-controlled studies examining this possibility, despite the widespread adoption of fidget toys and doodling exercises within classroom settings. Here we report two experiments (total N = 222) that assess the impact of doodling on boredom, attention, mind-wandering, and subsequent recall of auditory information. In Experiment 1, participants first listened to a 15-min section of a lecture known to induce boredom. Immediately thereafter they were asked to jot down important information from a short voicemail that they listened to while either doodling (adding shading to shapes) or doing nothing in between note-taking. In Experiment 2, participants listened to a 45-min section of the same lecture under one of four conditions: structured doodling (i.e., shade in shapes), unstructured doodling, note-taking, or listen-only. Thought probes assessed self-perceived levels of state boredom, mind-wandering, and attention throughout the lecture. Across studies, doodling neither reduced boredom or mind-wandering nor increased attention or retention of information compared with other conditions. In contrast, attention and test performance were highest (and boredom and mind-wandering lowest) for those focused solely on note-taking.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
5.90%
发文量
178
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Promoting the interests of scientific psychology and its researchers, QJEP, the journal of the Experimental Psychology Society, is a leading journal with a long-standing tradition of publishing cutting-edge research. Several articles have become classic papers in the fields of attention, perception, learning, memory, language, and reasoning. The journal publishes original articles on any topic within the field of experimental psychology (including comparative research). These include substantial experimental reports, review papers, rapid communications (reporting novel techniques or ground breaking results), comments (on articles previously published in QJEP or on issues of general interest to experimental psychologists), and book reviews. Experimental results are welcomed from all relevant techniques, including behavioural testing, brain imaging and computational modelling. QJEP offers a competitive publication time-scale. Accepted Rapid Communications have priority in the publication cycle and usually appear in print within three months. We aim to publish all accepted (but uncorrected) articles online within seven days. Our Latest Articles page offers immediate publication of articles upon reaching their final form. The journal offers an open access option called Open Select, enabling authors to meet funder requirements to make their article free to read online for all in perpetuity. Authors also benefit from a broad and diverse subscription base that delivers the journal contents to a world-wide readership. Together these features ensure that the journal offers authors the opportunity to raise the visibility of their work to a global audience.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信