Digital distraction during studying occurs when digital events, content, or anticipated interactions divert cognitive processing from an intended learning task. A message preview, a social feed, a second video, a background conversation in an online meeting, or an urge to check the phone can interrupt reading, problem solving, listening, or memory formation. The educational cost depends on which mental operations compete, how often attention switches, what was being learned, and how learning is measured. The central finding across controlled experiments is that off-task phone activity during instruction or study frequently reduces immediate recall and comprehension. The broader questions—how much independent knowledge persists, whether all devices and learners are affected alike, and which policies improve real achievement—require more differentiated evidence. Chen et al., 2025; Martin et al., 2025.
What Digital Distraction Means in Educational Psychology
Digital distraction describes a relationship between an attention-demanding learning goal and competing demands arising through digital technology. It is neither a diagnostic category nor a fixed personality characteristic. An instructor can use a laptop to display a worked example, and a student can use the same laptop to access a course document; both activities are on task. When the student alternates between that document and unrelated messages, competing activity consumes processing opportunities needed for the learning goal. Thus the correct unit of analysis is the interaction among task, content, device function, learner, and environment, rather than screen exposure alone. The systematic review by Martin and colleagues (2025) examined 26 educational studies and organized reported influences into technology, personal, and instructional-environment factors. Those categories characterize a heterogeneous research literature; their reported proportions are coding distributions across the review, not causal percentages of all distractions. Martin et al., 2025.
Distinguishing multitasking, interruptions, and cognitive offloading
Media multitasking means using or rapidly alternating between media streams or media and another task. The term sometimes describes genuinely simultaneous activities, such as listening to background music while reading, but more often it covers serial task switching between activities requiring conscious attention. An interruption is an event that breaks the task sequence, whether externally imposed by an alert or internally initiated by checking an app. An irrelevant notification can recruit attention even when the recipient does not open it. Cognitive offloading means delegating a mental operation to an external aid, such as storing a reminder or using a calculator; it may improve performance under appropriate conditions and should be assessed separately from distraction. The evidence reviewed here concerns competing attention during learning, not the entire field of digital learning or generative AI assistance. Stothart et al., 2015; May and Elder, 2018.
The difference between studying and completing an assignment
A person can finish a digital assignment quickly while retaining little independent understanding. Conversely, a study session may involve effortful practice that feels slower but supports later retrieval. Research therefore distinguishes time on task, completion, immediate accuracy, delayed retention, conceptual understanding, and transfer to new problems. A device may help produce a polished answer while distracting from the cognitive work necessary for unaided mastery. Outcome measures must reflect the claimed benefit or cost: a laboratory recognition score cannot automatically establish future course grades, and a course grade combines many influences beyond attention in a single study session. May and Elder, 2018; Uncapher and Wagner, 2018.
Why Multitasking Can Impair Learning
Limited processing capacity and competition for meaning
Comprehending a difficult explanation involves selecting relevant information, maintaining interim representations, connecting new claims to prior knowledge, and checking whether an inference is valid. When a competing activity requires the same resources—reading a message while reading a textbook, for instance—some of these operations are delayed, simplified, or omitted. The problem is especially acute during unfamiliar or conceptually dense material, where a learner has fewer established knowledge structures to support efficient processing. This mechanism predicts variation, not a universal numerical penalty: a familiar, automated action may conflict less than composing a response to an emotionally engaging message. May and Elder, 2018; Uncapher and Wagner, 2018.
Switching, goal reconstruction, and missed information
Moving from a mathematics proof to a messaging thread requires disengaging from one goal, accessing another set of rules and representations, and later reconstructing where the original reasoning stopped. During a live lecture the material may advance while a learner is occupied elsewhere; during self-paced reading the material remains available, but rereading or recovering the argument costs time. The disruption can also affect later judgments of comprehension: a student may recognize vocabulary on return without reconstructing the relations that make the passage intelligible. These are plausible cognitive pathways consistent with experimental findings; they are not separately verified mediators in every classroom study. Sana et al., 2013; Kuznekoff and Titsworth, 2013.
Notifications and internally generated interruptions
Interruptions do not require lengthy phone use. In an experimental attention task, Stothart, Mitchum, and Yehnert (2015) observed performance costs from phone notifications even when participants were instructed not to interact with the phone. A brief alert can cue an expectation, curiosity, or concern that persists after the sound ends. Self-initiated checking creates another pathway: the student may switch precisely when a passage becomes difficult, dull, or uncertain. Studying often contains these moments; therefore, the timing of distraction may matter as much as the total number of minutes spent online. The notification experiment demonstrates attentional interference in a defined task, while the influence on semester-long achievement remains an inference requiring additional studies. Stothart et al., 2015; Rosen et al., 2013.
Motivation and the structure of the learning environment
Distraction is also shaped by immediate reward and social expectations. A message promises information and connection; a difficult textbook may postpone reward until an assessment days away. Students with urgent family obligations, highly interactive group projects, or limited study space face different constraints from students who can isolate their devices. Research designs should include instructional relevance, classroom norms, urgency of communication, task difficulty, and access to accessible materials. Treating all checking as an individual failure of discipline obscures why environments elicit different behavior. A 2025 systematic review located suggested responses at the classroom, technology-control, and personal-behavior levels rather than reducing prevention to willpower alone. Martin et al., 2025.
What Controlled Experiments and Meta-Analyses Find
Mobile-phone distraction and immediate recall
Chen, Yan, Moeyaert, and Bangert-Drowns (2025) synthesized 27 randomized controlled experiments, comprising 55 effect sizes and 2,245 participants, on mobile-phone distraction and immediate recall among young adults. Their pooled result was Hedges' g = −0.65, with a 95% confidence interval from −0.81 to −0.49; the lecture-recall subgroup was estimated at g = −0.70. Negative values indicate lower performance in distracted conditions relative to the studied comparators. A standardized mean difference expresses a pooled between-condition difference relative to score variability, not a literal 65% decrease in what a student learns. The review reported no detected distortion from its publication-bias and outlier checks, yet those diagnostics do not settle every question about selective reporting, generalizability, or delayed retention. The estimate directly supports an immediate-recall conclusion in the sampled experimental paradigms, with greater caution required for younger children, authentic multiweek courses, long-term mastery, or intervention effects. Chen et al., 2025.
Laptop multitasking during lectures
Sana, Weston, and Cepeda (2013) experimentally examined off-task laptop multitasking during a simulated university lecture. Participants assigned to multitask performed worse on subsequent lecture-comprehension testing than participants who attended without the concurrent computer task. Importantly, students seated where they could see a peer multitasking also showed reduced comprehension relative to students without that visual exposure. This establishes a specific mechanism by which a screen can impose a cost on somebody who is not using it. It does not show that a laptop used only for note-taking or an accessible course task has the same effect. The experiment's controlled lecture setting strengthens internal causal interpretation but does not reproduce every classroom, age group, or type of assessment. Sana et al., 2013.
Texting, note-taking, and comprehension
Kuznekoff and Titsworth (2013) compared participants who watched an instructional video under different levels of assigned cell-phone engagement. The nondistracted group recorded substantially more lecture information in notes and achieved better subsequent test results than participants who used phones during instruction. The published abstract reports 62% more information in the notes of students not using phones; this particular percentage describes a study-specific note quantity, not a general estimate that phone use reduces learning by 62%. The experiment makes it plausible that phone engagement harms both information capture and subsequent performance, but its group conditions and lecture material define the scope of the inference. Kuznekoff and Titsworth, 2013.
Glass and Kang (2019) likewise studied dividing attention during classroom instruction and reported reduced performance on later examinations. Work of this sort is important because learning costs can appear on later tests rather than only during the interruption itself. However, investigators must separate assigned technological interference from the wider ecology of actual classrooms, where device use, class participation, and students' baseline preparation may be related. Glass and Kang, 2019.
Digital reading and comprehension
A 2025 meta-analysis by Shen reported an overall negative estimate for attentional interference during reading (Hedges' g approximately −0.64) across 32 empirical studies. The included settings and distractors were heterogeneous, including video, music, messaging, and background noise; the review itself describes some comparisons involving reading on paper. Consequently, the result is best interpreted as evidence about interference with reading under the included protocols, rather than a clean causal effect of screens compared with paper. Reading outcome quality, task length, and the match between the interfering medium and language processing matter when applying these findings. Shen, 2025.
Observational Evidence and Its Interpretive Limits
Surveys and naturalistic observation help establish whether laboratory effects plausibly occur during daily student life. Junco and Cotten (2012) surveyed 1,839 university students and found that texting and Facebook activity during coursework were negatively associated with overall grade point average in their adjusted models. Their design could not randomly assign students to sustained digital habits; differences in study routines, prior achievement, motivation, and other unmeasured factors may contribute to the association. The findings are compatible with an attention-cost mechanism, but an observational GPA relationship is not equivalent to an experimentally demonstrated change in grades. Junco and Cotten, 2012.
Rosen, Carrier, and Cheever (2013) observed 263 middle school, high school, and university students during a short study period in their homes, recording off-task technology behavior at frequent intervals. This design improves ecological contact with ordinary study conditions, but a 15-minute observation cannot represent every student's week, and behavioral observation itself may alter behavior. Together, survey and observational work indicates that task switching is a realistic phenomenon worth studying while preserving a distinction between selection into habits and causal effects of experimentally manipulated interruptions. Rosen et al., 2013.
Does a Phone Hurt Learning Merely by Being Nearby?
Ward, Duke, Gneezy, and Bos (2017) randomized where participants placed their smartphones during cognitive tests and reported lower available working-memory capacity in conditions where the phone was more salient. This influential demonstration generated the 'brain drain' hypothesis: maintaining nonengagement with a salient device may occupy resources. It is an interesting mechanism, but its original experiments measured general cognitive test performance, not school learning outcomes. Ward et al., 2017.
Later reviews complicate a universal claim. Böttger, Poschik, and Zierer (2023) pooled 22 studies with 43 relevant effects and reported an overall negative pattern across smartphone use and presence, with heterogeneity by cognitive domain and study context. Importantly, mixing actual use with mere presence can conceal the narrower question of whether an inactive nearby phone has an effect. A separate systematic review by Parry, covering 56 studies and 7,093 participants, reported that among six meta-analyses organized by cognitive function, only the working-memory-capacity estimate was statistically significant; the other pooled cognitive outcomes were null. Thus 'putting the phone in another room' is a reasonable optional environment design for focused work, while claims that any visible phone inevitably damages all cognitive abilities exceed the evidence. Böttger et al., 2023; Parry, 2024.
Are Frequent Media Multitaskers Permanently Worse at Attention?
Studies of media multitasking habits ask a different question from studies that assign an interruption during one lesson. Ophir, Nass, and Wagner (2009) found that participants reporting heavier media multitasking showed greater susceptibility to certain irrelevant stimuli in cognitive-control tasks. This observation was influential but is a correlational comparison between groups, with potential measurement and selection problems. Ophir et al., 2009.
Subsequent replication work did not reliably reproduce the full pattern. A 2017 pair of replication studies and meta-analysis yielded weak associations that became nonsignificant after adjusting for small-study effects. The review by Uncapher and Wagner (2018) described the literature as evolving and emphasized uncertainty about mechanisms, directionality, and individual differences. The appropriate synthesis is that switching between phone content and demanding study tasks often imposes an immediate processing cost under controlled conditions; whether habitual multitasking causes enduring differences in general executive function is a distinct, contested question. Neither finding justifies labeling a student neurologically impaired because of device habits. Wiradhany and Nieuwenstein, 2017; Uncapher and Wagner, 2018.
When the Cost Changes Across Tasks and Learners
Material difficulty and prior knowledge
The same interruption need not have the same consequence during word recognition, novel mathematics, creative drafting, and review of a well-practiced procedure. Tasks differ in the amount of active integration, rehearsal, and goal tracking they require. A central inference from cognitive theory is that demanding or unfamiliar content should be more vulnerable to competition for processing resources. Yet the size of that interaction requires experimental measurement rather than prediction from task labels alone. Educational applications should therefore evaluate specific material and performance goals. May and Elder, 2018.
Age, context, and accessibility
Much of the strongest mobile-phone experimental synthesis concerns young adults. Generalization to elementary classrooms requires age-appropriate experiments that account for instructional supervision, social context, and different developmental capacities. Distraction may arise through a personal phone, a communal classroom screen, an accessible text-to-speech interface, or a software notification in a remote seminar; these are different conditions. Students who need assistive technology, translation aids, or urgent contact arrangements should retain access to essential functions through practical accommodations. Educational equity changes both feasible controls and the harms of rigid restrictions. Chen et al., 2025; Martin et al., 2025.
Emotion, social connection, and communication demands
Some media interactions are emotionally salient, such as a message from family or a stressful group chat. They may draw attention not merely because a device flashes but because their content has real consequences for the learner. By contrast, some digital conversations form part of an instructional activity, such as explaining a proof in a shared document. Studies and interventions should code whether the interaction is required, relevant, controllable, and socially consequential rather than collapsing all communication into a homogeneous distraction measure. Martin et al., 2025.
Digital Studying, Music, Video, and Multiple Screens
Different combinations of media compete in different ways. Reading an academic article while writing personal messages requires repeated shifts in language processing; following a lecture while watching unrelated video competes for visual and auditory information; checking a fact in a relevant reference may support the learning goal if integrated carefully. Background music is a distinct question because rhythm, lyrics, preference, task complexity, and listening volume vary. Evidence about phone messaging cannot establish that every instrumental soundtrack harms every learner. Researchers must define what media was present and whether attention actually shifted, rather than assuming that any simultaneous stimulus counts as equivalent multitasking. May and Elder, 2018; Shen, 2025.
For two-screen setups, screen count is a weak proxy for attention. A second display containing a source passage needed for analysis can reduce navigation effort; a display showing unrelated entertainment introduces competing stimuli. The educational criterion is whether interface design keeps task-relevant materials available without forcing frequent, unnecessary switches. In online courses this means distinguishing required educational interaction from optional feeds and alerts. Martin et al., 2025.
How Researchers Measure Learning Costs
Investigators use randomized interruption experiments, laboratory attention tests, observation, digital logs, interviews, self-report surveys, and institutional performance records. Random assignment gives the clearest basis for a local causal comparison, but its ecological validity depends on the task and participants. Observational studies reveal everyday frequency and association, but reverse causation and uncontrolled confounding remain serious concerns. Logs may reveal time spent in apps without showing why the device was used, whether the user was processing academic content, or what knowledge was retained. Self-reports are vulnerable to imperfect recall and social desirability. May and Elder, 2018; Uncapher and Wagner, 2018.
A rigorous study should specify the assigned distractor, comparison condition, study material, randomization unit, sample, baseline skill, exposure intensity, assessment timing, and statistical model. Where possible, it should report both immediate and delayed recall, transfer to new problems, learning per unit of time, and uncertainty intervals. Pre-registration and appropriate corrections can limit selective interpretation. A statistically detectable pooled average does not identify which individual learners suffer large costs; the heterogeneity of contexts and outcome measures is part of the substantive result. The meta-analytic estimates above are meaningful primarily within their documented outcomes and populations. Chen et al., 2025; Martin et al., 2025.
What Helps Students Reduce Digital Distraction?
Design a protected interval for demanding material
A practical approach is to define a specific learning goal and establish a period in which only materials needed for that goal are active. A student working through a difficult derivation can close unrelated tabs, silence nonessential notifications, and keep messaging out of the immediate workflow until a planned check-in point. This configuration follows the experimentally supported goal of reducing competing attention. The optimal interval length is a personal and curricular design decision; the cited research does not validate one universal minute count. Work that requires accessibility tools, live collaboration, or family availability may need tailored exceptions. Stothart et al., 2015; Martin et al., 2025.
Separate communication periods from deep processing
If a learning task demands sustained reasoning, batching ordinary correspondence can reduce repeated goal reconstruction. That is a theory-consistent recommendation rather than proof that one predetermined message schedule improves grades. A learner can make the distinction operational by checking whether a given action helps answer the current academic question. The same device can be used productively before or after a focus interval for feedback, research, retrieval practice, or peer explanation. May and Elder, 2018.
Use digital self-control tools with realistic expectations
Software blockers, app limits, focus modes, and screen-time dashboards differ in their behavioral mechanisms. Biedermann, Schneider, and Drachsler (2021) reviewed 28 digital self-control interventions and found varying effectiveness; interventions consisting mainly of awareness information had limited effectiveness in the reviewed evidence. This does not imply that all blockers work, nor that measured reduction in device use automatically produces durable educational gains. The necessary evaluation links the tool to a specified study behavior and, ideally, tests subsequent understanding and retention under conditions in which the tool is absent. Biedermann et al., 2021.
Make focused studying worth doing
A clear question, manageable task size, rapid feedback, opportunities to explain ideas, and active engagement can improve the structure of a study session. These designs may also reduce opportunities for unrelated browsing, but their educational value should be examined directly through learning outcomes. If the material is too difficult or directions are ambiguous, merely removing phones leaves other barriers untouched. Classroom interventions can combine structured activities, explicit device-use expectations, accessible resources, and supportive self-regulation rather than equating attention management with punishment. Martin et al., 2025.
Evaluate progress after assistance is removed
Students can test whether an adjustment is useful by comparing actual outcomes: Can they summarize the argument without looking? Solve a new problem? Recall the principle after a delay? Finish accurately in a reasonable amount of time? A higher number of uninterrupted minutes has limited educational meaning unless it supports the intended learning. Where appropriate, retrieval practice and distributed review can be integrated into the study plan; their general mnemonic mechanisms have separate canonical treatments in the Retrieval Practice scientific article and the Spaced Repetition scientific article. Chen et al., 2025.
Should Schools Ban Smartphones?
Rules that reduce unrelated screen activity can change access to distractions, but the outcomes of schoolwide bans must be evaluated separately from laboratory evidence about interruptions. Böttger and Zierer (2024) synthesized five quantitative studies in a rapid review and reported a small overall pooled effect (d = 0.162) spanning academic performance and social well-being outcomes. The estimate was more pronounced for social outcomes than grades and was based on a limited research base, so it does not establish a large universal academic benefit. Böttger and Zierer, 2024.
School policies differ in enforcement, exemptions, social support, classroom teaching, and the amount of phone use after school. A cross-sectional English school study involving 1,227 students at 30 schools found that restrictive policies alone were not associated with better measured mental health or well-being, emphasizing that a school ban and a comprehensive digital-education strategy are different interventions. Because a comparison across existing school policies does not isolate all selection and implementation effects, this result likewise should not be read as conclusive proof that every restriction fails. Proportionate policies can protect focused instruction while maintaining accessibility and necessary communication, with outcomes evaluated through independent performance and equity measures. Goodyear et al., 2025; Böttger and Zierer, 2024.
Online Education and the Artificial Era
Digital classrooms integrate instruction, collaboration, assessment, accessibility, and communication in a single interface. That integration can support learning, but it can also make a required learning window adjacent to attention-capturing alerts or unrelated content. The design challenge is to reduce gratuitous switching while preserving genuine educational functionality. Clear navigation, restrained notification defaults, relevant feedback, and accessible materials are concrete interface features to evaluate; effects on long-term learning must be verified rather than presumed. Martin et al., 2025.
Artificial-intelligence tools create an additional distinction between the management of attention and the delegation of thought. An AI-generated answer can keep a student on the same screen while replacing the steps that would otherwise build independent competence. Conversely, an appropriately designed explanation or question can support study. Such systems need their own direct evidence about unaided retention, error detection, and transfer. Digital distraction research alone cannot establish the efficacy of AI tutoring, and cognitive offloading is not synonymous with looking away from a textbook. The present article therefore retains its educational-attention focus and evaluates AI-based assistance only where it alters the demands placed on attention. Martin et al., 2025.
Evidence Status and Unresolved Questions
Established within the studied conditions: concurrent off-task mobile-phone activity can lower immediate recall, and laptop multitasking during simulated lectures can reduce comprehension for both users and visible peers. The 2025 randomized-experiment meta-analysis provides a quantitative estimate for young-adult immediate recall, while individual lecture experiments demonstrate plausible mechanisms in controlled environments. Chen et al., 2025; Sana et al., 2013.
Supported but context-dependent: distraction often imposes time and coordination costs; notification management and task-oriented interface design are reasonable responses. Direct evidence that one particular focus application, study interval, or school rule consistently raises durable achievement is less complete. Reviews classify promising interventions but also reveal heterogeneous measures and limited generalizability. Biedermann et al., 2021; Martin et al., 2025.
Contested or limited: an inactive nearby smartphone does not demonstrate a uniform effect across all cognitive domains, and media multitasking frequency has not been conclusively shown to cause permanent executive-control deficits. The size of distraction effects for different children, neurodivergent learners, teaching subjects, cultural contexts, and semester-long grades remains insufficiently resolved for sweeping one-size-fits-all prescriptions. More preregistered field experiments with longer follow-up, reliable measures of actual task switching, transparent comparators, and equity-sensitive outcome reporting would address these limits. Parry, 2024; Wiradhany and Nieuwenstein, 2017.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does multitasking while studying always reduce learning?
The evidence shows an average cost under many controlled off-task phone and lecture conditions. A cost is more likely when activities compete for reading, reasoning, or memory operations. A second device used solely for relevant reference material is a different intervention from scrolling unrelated social content. Precise effects depend on the task, comparator, and outcome measure. Chen et al., 2025; May and Elder, 2018.
Can a notification interrupt concentration without opening an app?
Yes. Controlled attention-task evidence indicates that receiving a notification can impair performance without interaction with the device. The extent to which each brief interruption changes long-term academic results is a separate empirical question. Stothart et al., 2015.
Is studying with a phone on the desk harmful even when it is silent?
The original phone-presence experiments reported costs for certain cognitive measures, but later synthesis found mixed domain-specific effects. Moving a device out of sight may be convenient when it encourages checking, yet a silent nearby device is not demonstrated to damage every kind of learning. Ward et al., 2017; Parry, 2024.
Does turning off notifications guarantee better grades?
It removes one source of externally cued interruptions. Grades depend on many other factors, and the experimental evidence for reduced attentional interference cannot be converted into a guaranteed grade improvement. Notification controls should be evaluated alongside study methods, the difficulty of material, and actual retention. Stothart et al., 2015; Martin et al., 2025.
Are all students equally affected by distractions?
No uniform effect follows from the evidence. The studies involve different samples, tasks, distractors, ages, measures, and learning environments. Some estimated moderator patterns have been reported, but translating them into universal individual predictions would exceed their reliability and generalizability. Chen et al., 2025.
What should a student measure when trying a focus strategy?
Use learning-relevant outcomes: accurate explanation, delayed recall, ability to solve a new problem, and learning achieved in the time available. Screen-time reductions and subjective concentration are useful process indicators but do not by themselves demonstrate retained knowledge. May and Elder, 2018; Martin et al., 2025.
Related Articles
Cluster Learning and Educational Psychology — The full scientific framework for learning, instruction, cognition, motivation, and educational settings.
Transfer of Learning: Why Knowledge Does or Does Not Generalize — How to test whether learning extends beyond practiced material.
Retrieval Practice: Why Testing Yourself Improves Memory — The memory-retrieval evidence underlying independent recall checks.
Spaced Repetition: How the Spacing Effect Supports Long-Term Memory — Distributed practice and long-term retention within the Memory and Forgetting research territory.
Adaptive Learning Systems: Personalization and Research Evidence — Review algorithmic personalization, sequencing, learner models, outcomes, equity, and implementation.
Learning Analytics in Education: Prediction, Bias, and Student Privacy — Explore prediction models, educational data quality, privacy, bias, and the limits of intervention inference.
Generative AI for Homework: Learning, Dependence, and Cognitive Offloading — Separate assignment completion from genuine learning and assess cognitive offloading and verification practices.
AI Tutors in Education: Learning Outcomes, Accuracy, and Limitations — Evaluate tutoring-system effectiveness, feedback quality, learner agency, privacy, and experimental evidence.
References
Biedermann, D., Schneider, J., and Drachsler, H. (2021). Digital self-control interventions for distracting media multitasking: A systematic review. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(5), 1217–1231. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12581.
Böttger, T., Poschik, M., and Zierer, K. (2023). Does the brain drain effect really exist? A meta-analysis. Behavioral Sciences, 13(9), 751. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13090751.
Böttger, T., and Zierer, K. (2024). To ban or not to ban? A rapid review on the impact of smartphone bans in schools on social well-being and academic performance. Education Sciences, 14(8), 906. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14080906.
Chen, Q., Yan, Z., Moeyaert, M., and Bangert-Drowns, R. (2025). Mobile multitasking in learning: A meta-analysis of effects of mobilephone distraction on young adults' immediate recall. Computers in Human Behavior, 162, 108432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108432.
Glass, A. L., and Kang, M. (2019). Dividing attention in the classroom reduces exam performance. Educational Psychology, 39(3), 395–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2018.1489046.
Goodyear, V. A., Randhawa, A., Adab, P., et al. (2025). School phone policies and their association with mental wellbeing, phone use, and social media use (SMART Schools): A cross-sectional observational study. The Lancet Regional Health – Europe, 51, 101211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2025.101211.
Junco, R., and Cotten, S. R. (2012). No A 4 U: The relationship between multitasking and academic performance. Computers and Education, 59(2), 505–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.023.
Kuznekoff, J. H., and Titsworth, S. (2013). The impact of mobile phone usage on student learning. Communication Education, 62(3), 233–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2013.767917.
Martin, F., Long, S., Haywood, K., and Xie, K. (2025). Digital distractions in education: A systematic review of research on causes, consequences and prevention strategies. Educational Technology Research and Development, 73, 3423–3451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-025-10550-6.
May, K. E., and Elder, A. D. (2018). Efficient, helpful, or distracting? A literature review of media multitasking in relation to academic performance. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15, 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0096-z.
Ophir, E., Nass, C., and Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(37), 15583–15587. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903620106.
Parry, D. A. (2024). Does the mere presence of a smartphone impact cognitive performance? A meta-analysis of the brain drain effect. Media Psychology, 27(5), 737–762. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2023.2286647.
Rosen, L. D., Carrier, L. M., and Cheever, N. A. (2013). Facebook and texting made me do it: Media-induced task-switching while studying. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 948–958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.001.
Sana, F., Weston, T., and Cepeda, N. J. (2013). Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both users and nearby peers. Computers and Education, 62, 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.003.
Shen, Y. (2025). Distractions in digital reading: A meta-analysis of attentional interference effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1671214. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1671214.
Stothart, C., Mitchum, A., and Yehnert, C. (2015). The attentional cost of receiving a cell phone notification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(4), 893–897. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000100.
Uncapher, M. R., and Wagner, A. D. (2018). Minds and brains of media multitaskers: Current findings and future directions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(40), 9889–9896. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1611612115.
Ward, A. F., Duke, K., Gneezy, A., and Bos, M. W. (2017). Brain drain: The mere presence of one's own smartphone reduces available cognitive capacity. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2(2), 140–154. https://doi.org/10.1086/691462.
Wiradhany, W., and Nieuwenstein, M. R. (2017). Cognitive control in media multitaskers: Two replication studies and a meta-analysis. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 79, 2620–2641. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-017-1408-4.