O czasopiśmie
O czasopiśmie
Kolegium Redakcyjne
Rada Naukowa
Kodeks etyczny
Terminy czasopisma
RODO - informacje o przetwarzaniu danych osobowych
Indeksacja
Licencje i dostęp
Archiwum
Dla autorów
Zasady publikacji
Techniczna instrukcja dla autorów
Kodeks etyczny dla autorów
Umowa o udzielenie nieodpłatnej licencji CC BY-SA
Oświadczenie autora o prawach autorskich
Procedura recenzowania
Procedura recenzowania
Kodeks etyczny dla recenzentów
Formularz recenzji
Lista recenzentów
Kontakt
O czasopiśmie
O czasopiśmie
Kolegium Redakcyjne
Rada Naukowa
Kodeks etyczny
Terminy czasopisma
RODO - informacje o przetwarzaniu danych osobowych
Indeksacja
Licencje i dostęp
Multitasking among modern digital generations Y and Z
1
Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowksiej
2
Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej
Data nadesłania: 25-05-2022
Data akceptacji: 07-11-2022
Data publikacji: 29-11-2022
JoMS 2022;49(2):421-430
SŁOWA KLUCZOWE
DZIEDZINY
STRESZCZENIE
Objectives:
The paper aimed to examine potential differences in attention and alternating capacities between two modern digital generations, i.e., Y and Z. Although these generations are described as different, generation Z is thought ro be multitasking, there is a lack of scientific research documenting these dissimilarities.
Material and methods:
The study involved a group of 408 participants (202 representing generation Y, and 206 representing generation Z). The experiment consisted of two parts, i.e., tasks measuring target detection attention capacities and alternating attention tasks.
Results:
Surprisingly, the results showed there are no significant differences in attentional capacities between these two modern digital generations. Generation Z is not more multitasking than generation Y.
Conclusions:
The similarities between these two generations raise questions about the philosophy of the concept of generations and about scientific evidence supporting the ideas of differentiation of generations. Our results are consistent with opinions concerning heterogeneity of IT/technological capacities among modern digital generations. The cognitive capacities of both generations are similar which was explained in line with critical opinions related to the philosophy and essence of the concept of generation differentiation.
The paper aimed to examine potential differences in attention and alternating capacities between two modern digital generations, i.e., Y and Z. Although these generations are described as different, generation Z is thought ro be multitasking, there is a lack of scientific research documenting these dissimilarities.
Material and methods:
The study involved a group of 408 participants (202 representing generation Y, and 206 representing generation Z). The experiment consisted of two parts, i.e., tasks measuring target detection attention capacities and alternating attention tasks.
Results:
Surprisingly, the results showed there are no significant differences in attentional capacities between these two modern digital generations. Generation Z is not more multitasking than generation Y.
Conclusions:
The similarities between these two generations raise questions about the philosophy of the concept of generations and about scientific evidence supporting the ideas of differentiation of generations. Our results are consistent with opinions concerning heterogeneity of IT/technological capacities among modern digital generations. The cognitive capacities of both generations are similar which was explained in line with critical opinions related to the philosophy and essence of the concept of generation differentiation.
REFERENCJE (27)
1.
Arora, P. (2012). Typology of Web 2.0 spheres. Understanding the cultural dimensions of social media spaces. Current Sociology, 60(5), pp. 599-618.
2.
Barber, H. A., Ben-Zvi, S., Bentin, S., Kutas, M. (2011). Parafoveal perception during sentence reading? An ERP paradigm using rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) with flankers. Psychophysiology, 48(4), pp. 523–531.
3.
Bennett, S., Maton, K. (2010). Beyond the ‘digital natives’ debate: Towards a more nuanced understanding of students’ technology experiences: Beyond the ‘digital natives’ debate. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), pp. 321–331.
4.
Bennett, S., Maton, K., Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), pp. 775-786.
5.
Carrier, L.M., Cheever, N.A., Rosen, L.D., Benitez, S., Chang, J. (2009). Multitasking across generations: Multitasking choices and difficulty ratings in three generations of Americans. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), pp. 483–489.
6.
Crump, M. J. C., McDonnell, J. V., Gureckis, T. M. (2013). Evaluating Amazon’s Mechanical Turk as a tool for experimental behavioral research. PLoS ONE, 8(3), e57410. https://doi.org/10.1371/journa....
7.
Epstein, M., Howes, P. (2008). Recruiting, retaining and managing the millennial generation. New York, NY: American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
8.
Evans, C., Robertson, W. (2020). The four phases of the digital natives debate. Human Behavior & Emerging Technologies 2, pp. 269–277.
9.
Foxe, J. J., Morie, K. P., Laud, P. J., Rowson, M. J., de Bruin, E. A., Kelly, S. P. (2012). Assessing the effects of caffeine and theanine on the maintenance of vigilance during a sustained attention task. Neuropharmacology, 62(7), pp. 2320–2327.
10.
Helyer, R., Lee, D. (2012). The twenty‐first century multiple generation workforce. Education + Training, 54(7), pp. 565–578.
11.
Jeong, S., Fishbein, M. (2007). Predictors of multitasking with media: Media factors and audience factors. Media Psychology, 10, pp. 364–384.
12.
Koutropoulos, A. (2011). Digital Natives: Ten years after. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(4), pp. 525-538.
13.
LeFevre, J. A., Berrigan, L., Vendetti, C., Kamawar, D., Bisanz, J., Skwarchuk, S. L., Smith-Chant, B. L. (2013). The role of executive attention in the acquisition of mathematical skills for children in Grades 2 through 4. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114(2), pp. 243–261.
14.
Liu, W., Pasman, G., Stappers, P. J., Taal-Fokker, J. (2012). Making the office catch up: Comparing Generation Y interactions at home and at work. DIS In the Wild, June 11-15, pp. 697-700. https://doi.org/10.1145/231795....
16.
Luck, S. J., Ford, J. M., Sarter, M., Lustig, C. (2012). CNTRICS final biomarker selection: Control of attention. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 38(1), pp. 53–61.
17.
Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., Vojt, G. (2011). Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Computers & Education, 56(2), pp. 429-440.
18.
Masson, N., Pesenti, M., Coyette, F., Andres, M., Dormal, V. (2017). Shifts of spatial attention underlie numerical comparison and mental arithmetic: Evidence from a patient with right unilateral neglect. Neuropsychology, 31(7), pp. 822–833.
19.
Ophir, E., Nass, C., Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(37), pp. 15583–15587.
20.
Ophir, Y., Lipshits-Braziler, Y., Rosenberg, H. (2020). New-media screen time is not (necessarily) linked to depression: Comments on Twenge, Joiner, Rogers, and Martin (2018). Clinical Psychological Science, 8(2), pp. 374-378.
21.
Palfrey, J., Gasser, U. (2008). Born digital: Understanding the first generation of digital natives. New York, NY: Basic Books.
22.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 2: Do they really think differently? On the Horizon, 9(6), pp. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1108/107481....
23.
Prensky, M. (2005). Listen to the natives. Educational Leadership, 63(4), pp. 8-13.
24.
Selwyn, N. (2009). The digital native – Myth and reality. ASLIB Proceedings, 61(4), pp. 364–379.
25.
Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown Up Digital: How the net generation is changing your world. New York, Chicago, San Francisco: McGrow Hill.
26.
Venter, E. (2017). Bridging the communication gap between Generation Y and the Baby Boomer generation. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 22(4), pp. 497-507.
27.
Winograd, M., Hais, M. D. (2011). Millennial momentum: How a new generation is remaking America. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Udostępnij
| eISSN: | 2391-789X |
| ISSN: | 1734-2031 |
Przetwarzamy dane osobowe zbierane podczas odwiedzania serwisu. Realizacja funkcji pozyskiwania informacji o użytkownikach i ich zachowaniu odbywa się poprzez dobrowolnie wprowadzone w formularzach informacje oraz zapisywanie w urządzeniach końcowych plików cookies (tzw. ciasteczka). Dane, w tym pliki cookies, wykorzystywane są w celu realizacji usług, zapewnienia wygodnego korzystania ze strony oraz w celu monitorowania ruchu zgodnie z Polityką prywatności. Dane są także zbierane i przetwarzane przez narzędzie Google Analytics (więcej).
Możesz zmienić ustawienia cookies w swojej przeglądarce. Ograniczenie stosowania plików cookies w konfiguracji przeglądarki może wpłynąć na niektóre funkcjonalności dostępne na stronie.
Możesz zmienić ustawienia cookies w swojej przeglądarce. Ograniczenie stosowania plików cookies w konfiguracji przeglądarki może wpłynąć na niektóre funkcjonalności dostępne na stronie.
