The Effect of Distraction on Reading Comprehension

1
The Effect of Distraction on Reading
Comprehension

• Rebecca Cramer, Tanya Elder, Stephanie
  Everhart-Brown, Sarah Novinger, and Mandy Quinn
• Culver-Stockton College
• Canton, MO

2
Abstract

• This study tested the effect of distraction
  level on reading comprehension. The participants
  consisted of 88 undergraduate students at
  Culver-Stockton College. Each participant was
  given a passage to read, questions to answer, and
  received one of three levels of
  distraction high, low, or none. The results
  showed an effect of time (time to read the
  passage and answer questions), which was
  monotonic with the level of distraction, but no
  effect of distraction level was found on the
  number of errors people made on the questions.
  Results are discussed regarding the accurate
  assessment of the effect of distractions on
  learning in the classroom.

3
DISTRACTION

• Definition Any unusual occurrence that diverts
  the attention or concentration of a person.
• Levels of Distraction used in the experiment
• High Any loud distraction that exceeds the
  normal diversion level. Examples include knocking
  over a chair, laughing and eating loudly, etc.
• Low Any distraction that barely exceeds the
  normal environmental stimuli. Examples include
  tapping a pencil and smacking gum, etc.
• None Any environmental stimuli that occurs in
  the normal classroom setting.

4
COMPARISON

• Previous Study
• (Super, Braasch, Shay 1947)
• No effect of distractions on reading
  comprehension (Error measure)
• Two levels of distraction
• Vocational test, Mental ability test

• Present Study
• Tested effect of distraction on reading
  comprehension (error measure)
• Three levels of distraction
• Measured time it took to complete the test.

5
PROBLEM

• Time to complete the test was not a factor in the
  previous study.
• Level of distraction was not operationally
  defined across levels.
• Used a standardized test.

6
HYPOTHESIS

• As distraction levels increase, reading
  comprehension, as indicated by an increase in
  errors, will be compromised.
• Additionally, the time that it takes for the
  participant to complete the test will increase
  monotonically with distraction level.

7
PROCEDURE

• High, Low, Control Group
• Controlled confounds
• Followed script
• Measured Time and Errors.
• Rewarded participants
• Eighty-eight students were tested on
• (A) Reading Comprehension (as measured by number
  of errors).
• (B) Time to complete the task.

8
RESULTS ERROR MEANS
9
Figure 1 MEAN ERROR RATE
10
RESULTS MEAN TIME TO COMPLETE TASK
11
PLANNED COMPARISONS (TUKEY HSD) ON MAIN EFFECT OF
DISTRACTION ON TIME
12
Figure 2 TIME (Seconds)
13
CONFOUNDS

• Participants created distraction
• Distribution of gender
• Concentration level
• Temperature and time of day
• Intimidation
• Common Knowledge of test questions

14
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

• Experimenter and participant gender should be
  equally distributed across test sessions.
• Examples
• Male to Male
• Male to Female
• Female to Female
• Female to Male

15
CONCLUSION

• Main effect of time. It took longer for
  participants to complete the test with higher
  distraction levels.
• No main effect of distraction on reading
  comprehension as shown in the error data.
• No main effect of gender.
• No other interactions.

16
Further ResearchTest the effect of different
levels of distraction across various age groups
and on people with various handicaps and measure
its effect on reading comprehension and time to
complete the task.

• Age groups
• Elementary
• Junior High School
• High School
• Undergraduate Level
• Graduate Level

• Handicaps
• Dyslexia
• ADD/ADHD
• Agoraphobia
• Panic Disorder
• Somatoform Disorders