digital technology and cognition

glass and kang aim

twe does the presence of electronic devices effect classroom and exam performace

glass and kang method

2 classes that met 2x a week could use their devices on 1 of the days, performance was measured with comprehension quizzes and later test scores, proposive sampling

glass and kang findings

divided attention affected final exam a lot for device and no device, secondhand distraction

glass and kang values

strong internal validity, strong ecological validity, strong construct validity

glass and kang limitations

low reliability bc no multiple trials, didn’t explore individual differences, may not generalize to other courses/teaching styles

mueller and oppenheimer aim

twe does hand-writing vs typing notes affect recall

mueller and oppenheimer method

students took notes either on paper or typed on 4 film-lectures, then on test day (40 Q factual or conceptual quiz) “study” group studied for 10 minutes while “no-study” went in blind, 2×2 factorial

mueller and oppenheimer findings

handwriting and typing w/o study did bad on factual but decent on conceptual, handwriting did better on study for both, laptop-study did better on factual than handwriting-no study

mueller and oppenheimer values

highly standardized, independent samples so controlled order effects, good mundane realism

mueller and oppenheimer limitations

low ecological validity bc concepts aren’t connected, participant variability, can’t control extraneous variables, low temporal validity

sparrow aims

twe does technology lead to cognitive offloading of info/affect where info can be found

sparrow methods

#1: 60 trivia facts (old + new), half were told to remember vs. don’t remember and half were told that space = save vs. erase, 10 min free recall then 40Q true/false recognition test, 2×2 factorial design

#2: 30 trivia facts typed that the computer saved into 6 labeled folders (participants knew which folder), 10 min free recall then given part of fact and had to recall folder + full fact

sparrow findings

#1: remember vs no remember had no difference, difference for save vs erase

#2: could remember folder name for than info (participants prioritized where info was found

internet is increasingly acting as an external memory store

storm aim

twe does using google make you depend on it

storm method

group 1 used google to answer 8Q, group 2 used memory, group 3 were asked no questions, then all 3 were tested on answering the Q as fast as possible with access to google, lab experiment

storm findings

google use: internet 83%, memory 63%, baseline 65%, prior google use increases later reliance

google effect

belief that people tend to forget info that they can easily find online

transactive memory store

when people know where info can be found and rely on external sources to store info instead of keeping it in their own memory

reception context

context in which you receive info about an event can impact how you remember it

overt rehersal

hearing about an event over and over again has an impact on how you can remember the event