Multitasking and librarians

From LLN

Multitasking and librarians

Contents

Does multitasking improve productivity or result in poorer quality work taking longer overall? The obvious answer: It depends. Under some circumstances, multitasking means that several tasks each only deserving partial attention can be worked on simultaneously, while under others, multitasking may damage the quality of work. A librarian at a frontline reference desk will almost necessarily multitask, not only to deal with different kinds of reference requests but to make use of the time when no requests are at hand.

This roundup focuses on comments by library people and items that relate directly to libraries and librarians. Multitasking notes includes a variety of notes on multitasking and “information overload” in general.

Take note of the comment streams (usually lightly excerpted). In more than one case, what appears to be a major difference of opinion about the worth of multitasking and possible generational differences comes down to circumstances: Some people who consider themselves adroit multitaskers also say that, when a task requires focus, they eliminate all distractions.

Brain rules and multitasking

By Doug Johnson. Adapted from a May 23, 2008 post at The blue skunk blog. Used by permission.

I'm glad it is not a personal mental deficiency - my inability to multi-task.

According to Brain Rules: 12 Principles for Surviving and Thriving at Work, Home and School by John Medina, multi-tasking is a myth. (Great summary, including short video clips from accompanying DVD here at the Presentation zen website. My personal copy of the book and DVD are on order!)

According to Medina, multitaskers take twice as long to accomplish things and have double the error rate. Check out the amusing video from YouTube (My trusted source of all things scientific) and his Facebook entry on the topic.

I thought of this yesterday when attending a presentation by Michael Wesch of The Machine is Us/ing Us fame... At the end of the keynote, I had an entire page of handwritten notes, which has become unusual for me. Why?

My laptop's battery was dead and the lecture hall had zero electrical outlets. I could not do my usual thing of checking e-mail, reading rss feeds, or Twittering and half attending to the lecture. Now Wesch's talk was probably interesting enough to suck my eyeballs away from the computer screen, but then again, maybe not.

One of the things that I seriously question is the conversation about “enhancing” presentations with live blogging, back-channel discussions, streaming on-screen chat, and other noxious goings-on. Are these things actually valuable or are we doing them because we're nerds and we can?

Excerpts from the comments

  • Adam: I...relate this to the ticker/sidebar issue with stations like CNN... So many extras are thrown onto the screen how do you focus on any one thing, let alone the most important? With an “enhanced” presentation where people are going off on their own tangents it is very likely important points are being missed along the way... In a traditional presentation, perhaps some of these tools could be used after the fact more effectively--when everyone involved has gotten the full story...
  • Dean Shareski: Of course when we talk about multitasking we're really talking about task switching but I'm sure your sources and video acknowledge that (I haven't looked at them yet, too busy reading RSS, twittering, et al)... [Relates, favorably, a talk where a back channel created the “slides,” with more than 900 comments during a one-hour session:] While it was distracting to many, it added an opportunity to engage in his presentation that only occurred previously by making hand written notes... The concept of participatory engagement is good. How we make that happen, is still in question.
  • Doug J. responds: The talk/listen format has its place. It is far too widely used currently, but used well...it can be inspiring and informative... Sequential attention switching is also what Medina says we must do. Maybe those who can do it most quickly are those who are considered multi-taskers. I have no issue with audience participation/conversation/interaction. In fact, I believe most effective workshop presenters have always made this a critical part of their craft... But I believe we are doing a disservice to both our participants and to ourselves in providing concurrent “attention-getters.”
  • Dean S. again: Looking at Medina's research, it seems he equates multitasking with interruptions. I agree that self-imposed interruptions such as checking email or making grocery lists during a presentation act as interruptions. However, back channeling, when done correctly is simply a form of engagement with content. As you wrote notes, you were back channeling with yourself. That's not necessarily bad but having the opportunity to “write notes collaboratively” is a richer experience. That said, I think there are few presenters who can capture your total attention for longer than 10 minutes. So when my mind wanders, it's nice to have others bring me back closer to the ideas but posing insights and questions...
  • Francesco: ...Multitasking is more time consuming and increases the error rate. This makes our work more difficult.
  • Charlie A. Roy: ...Our school allowed administrators, counselors, deans, president's office and business office to add IM this year to help facilitate communication. I find myself as the principal having to log off and hide out in an abandoned office to get anything that is absolutely necessary done. I find if I give myself a couple hours of no phone, email, IM, cell phone and office drop bys that I am much more productive...

Excerpts from Brain Rules

By John Medina, excerpted from “The brain cannot multitask” on Medina's Brain rules blog.

Multitasking, when it comes to paying attention, is a myth. The brain naturally focuses on concepts sequentially, one at a time. At first that might sound confusing; at one level the brain does multitask. You can walk and talk at the same time. Your brain controls your heartbeat while you read a book. Pianists can play a piece with left hand and right hand simultaneously. Surely this is multitasking. But I am talking about the brain’s ability to pay attention. It is the resource you forcibly deploy while trying to listen to a boring lecture at school. It is the activity that collapses as your brain wanders during a tedious presentation at work. This attentional ability is not capable of multitasking.

[Discusses a teenager trying to write a paper with 11 windows open and an iPod running--the windows including two IM screens--and the sequence of brain activity taking place each time the student moves from working on the paper to dealing with email, IM or anything else.]

Here’s why this matters: Studies show that a person who is interrupted takes 50 percent longer to accomplish a task. Not only that, he or she makes up to 50 percent more errors...

Some people, particularly younger people, are more adept at task-switching. If a person is familiar with the tasks, the completion time and errors are much less than if the tasks are unfamiliar. Still, taking your sequential brain into a multitasking environment can be like trying to put your right foot into your left shoe...

The brain is a sequential processor, unable to pay attention to two things at the same time. Businesses and schools praise multitasking, but research clearly shows that it reduces productivity and increases mistakes. Try creating an interruption-free zone during the day—turn off your e-mail, phone, IM program, or BlackBerry—and see whether you get more done.

What to tell students about distractions

By Steven Bell. Excerpted and adapted from a September 5, 2008 post at ACRLog. Used by permission.

At this time of the year many academic librarians are gearing up for their fall instruction sessions.. I wonder how many librarians are thinking about how they’ll deal with electronic distractions. Not only can students tune out a library instructor with their personal communication gadgets or a laptop, but in a hands-on computer lab setting putting a student in front of a computer is akin to saying, “Please go ahead and surf the web or IM your friends while I try to teach you something.”...

If you’ve that found distracted students represent a challenge in your short-term sessions, you can well imagine that this can be an incredible problem for faculty with a multi-class teaching load. This past year has seen a number of faculty and institutions declaring outright bans on any type of electronic device in the classroom. Some critics of that action say giving students access to the web can enhance their learning. For example, students can quickly search for additional information that can contribute to a topic discussion. An instructor can direct students to a website that contains images or primary documents that can deepen a student’s knowledge of the subject matter. But without tight control on student access, texting, IMing and surfing can quickly make a mockery of learning.

Determined to prevent that from happening in his courses this faculty member makes clear in his syllabus how he intends to deal with this problem. To address what he calls the “divided attention” problem, an entire section of the course syllabus is devoted to an extended warning about texting, surfing or otherwise using gadgets in class. But first he appeals to the students’ intellect. He writes:

The brain has got to give up on one of the tasks in order to effectively accomplish the other. Hidden behind all the hype about multitasking, then, is this sad truth: it makes you slower and dumber. For this reason alone you should seek to avoid the problem of divided attention when you are in class. But there’s another reason, too: technology often causes us to lose our senses when it comes to norms of polite behavior and, as a result, perfectly lovely people become unbelievably rude.

It appears to appeal as a method for reducing student distraction because a number of faculty have requested permission to use his exact wording in their own syllabi. Academic librarians are without the luxury of a syllabus for their instruction sessions nor do they typically hold the power of the grade. But there is probably no reason why a librarian couldn’t begin a session with a statement that cautions students about the dangers of distraction. The real challenge is whether or not a library instructor wants to throw down the gauntlet and actually issue a warning along the lines of “If I catch you texting or IMing I’ll just ask you to leave--and let your professor know you didn’t make it to the end of the session.” A bit heavyhanded perhaps? Maybe it’s best to check with the instructor first. See if he or she has a policy on classroom distractions. If so, then a better approach may be to let students know that policy extends to your session as well--along with any related consequences for unacceptable behaviors...

Excerpts from the comments

  • Beth: ...Before beginning an instruction session, I tell classes they are sitting in front of a computer and it is really tempting and easy to check e-mail, surf, IM their girlfriend/boyfriend, etc., because I’m tempted too when in similar situations. But their instructor/professor has taken time to bring them here for an important reason and what I’m going to teach them will be useful during their time in school and beyond. So if they want an edge over some of their peers in other classes, they might want to pay attention for the next 50 minutes or so. It doesn’t stop all of the mouse clicking and typing but it does seem to help.
  • Laura Wimberley:...I think it’s less bad in a computer lab than in a lecture hall. Our eyes are drawn to screens, so in a lecture hall where only maybe a third of the students have laptops, up to two-thirds of the students can be distracted from the professor and their notes by the other students’ irrelevant screens. But if everyone has their own lab computer, then they’ll pay attention to that screen, so at least students who choose to IM or whatever are only hurting themselves.
  • Joan: I take a different approach and try to use some humor. As students come into class, I tell them, “Go ahead and check Facebook now, because you’ll need to turn it off once I start.” They seem amused that I even know about Facebook... Too much talking, by the librarian, in any library session is bad. If students are IMing the whole time, maybe it’s an indicator the librarian should incorporate more active learning into his or her teaching. What’s that saying about a poor carpenter who blames his tools? A poor teacher, then, blames Facebook.
  • libwitch: I tell them a few things: headphones (even if they are off), texting, cell phones, IM’ etc are not allowed. I have a very very short period of their time to try to teach them just a few useful things, and their attention is appreciated. Furthermore, what I am going to show them is going to make their research much more efficient and easier, so its a win-win situation... Frankly, if they are being that easily distracted, then maybe it's time to think about how much talking is going on by the teacher vs active learning by the students.
  • a librarian: My approach at this point...as long as they are not distracting their fellow students or disrupting class or talking when I’m talking, it is their loss if they choose to do something else. Most students are not trying to be rude... If a student does become disruptive or distracting to others, I then draw attention to it.
  • Dani Vaughn-Tucker: I teach a survey history course as an adjunct faculty member at our university. In my syllabus, it clearly states that electronic devices are to be off during class. However, I decided to rethink this policy for two important reasons: 1) Security-- I have my cell phone with me at all times and it is on vibrate. I allow my students to keep their cells on their desks as long as they are on vibrate or silent; 2) A couple of my students told me they prefer to take notes on their laptops and asked my permission on the first day of class before bringing them to class. They sit in the back of the class and they are doing very well with question and answer sessions. If they were to become disruptive, I’d change my mind.

Being wired or being tired

Brief excerpts from “Being wired or being tired: 10 ways to cope with information overload” by Sarah Houghton-Jan, published in the July 2008 Ariadne.
Editor's note: I see a direct relationship between so-called information overload and multitasking issues, given that the overload specifically involves interruptions. Houghton-Jan's 6,700-word article includes lots of good advice for managing information and interruptions. These are brief, possibly disjointed excerpts.

What is information overload? 27 instant messages. 4 text messages. 17 phone calls. 98 work emails. 52 personal emails. 76 email listserv messages. 14 social network messages. 127 social network status updates. 825 RSS feed updates. 30 pages from a book. 5 letters. 11 pieces of junk mail. 1 periodical issue. 3 hours of radio. 1 hour of television. That, my friends, is information overload.

It is also my daily average amount of information received, sampled over a two-week period. That’s right—that much in every category every day. I suppose that is why I was called upon to write an article about coping with information overload (IO). I am still here, I am still alive, and my brain has yet to explode, so somehow I must be finding a way to make it work. At least, that is what other people tell me...

Information flowing in from the multitude of devices, organisations, and technologies distracts, pressures, and stresses us. And yet we continue to produce information for ourselves and for others. Every time we send out information, information returns to us, usually two-fold. We deal with both interruptive and non-interruptive information every day. When constantly interrupted with that information, we never have those periods of time when you can think, plan and ponder. As a result, our ability to push our lives and our institutions forward has been greatly compromised....

Ten techniques to manage the overload

  1. General organizational techniques: Houghton-Jan offers nine recommendations with commentary, including Think before sending, Schedule yourself, Use your 'down time' to your benefit.
  2. 'Filtering information received: Four key recommendations--weed your inputs, teach others, schedule unplugged times and unplug at will when you need to concentrate.
  3. RSS overload techniques: Four good ways to use feeds intelligently.
  4. Interruptive technology overload techniques: Five guidelines, including Check when you want to and Do not interrupt yourself.
  5. Phone overload techniques: Another five key techniques--including knowing when (and when not) to use the phone, guarding your mobile number and learning to let it ring.
  6. Email overload techniques: Do you do email? Why? Houghton-Jan offers ten techniques, from scheduling your email scanning and keeping your inbox empty to limiting lists and using folders effectively.
  7. Print media overload techniques: Three suggestions (and, of course, print media never actively interrupt you): Discard what you don't need, cancel rarely-read subscriptions and weed what you do keep.
  8. Multimedia overload techniques: Three techniques worth considering.
  9. Social network overload techniques: Schedule and allot social-network time, pick a primary network--and limit instant messaging!
  10. Time and stress management: Five techniques including taking breaks, using your calendar and balancing life and work.

At 500 words a minute, reading this article in full will only take 14 minutes out of your day. Houghton-Jan's advice (and links to other resources) should repay that quarter of an hour many times over.

Multitasking

Excerpts from a December 6, 2007 post by Nicole Engard at What I learned today...

I always thought that being able to do multple things at once lead to more productivity--but...I got some links sent to me about how multi-tasking actually leads to less productivity. [Omitting items covered in Multitasking notes:]

You see, humans are terrible at doing more than one thing at a time, even though most of us think we're good at it. But when we multitask, two things happen:
1. We get less done.
2. The quality of what we do is lower.
Multitasking, a term cribbed from computers, is an information age creed that, while almost universally sworn by, is more rooted in blind faith than fact. It’s the wellspring of office gaffes, as well as the stock answer to how we do more with less when in fact we’re usually doing less with more. What now passes for multitasking was once called not paying attention.

So… I guess the fact that I’m a habitual multi-tasker means that I’m not really paying attention… I’m not sure how to respond. I feel like I’m productive...

Excerpts from the comments

  • Walt Crawford: I think the question is whether you’re doing your best work–or, perhaps, whether you set aside “unitasking” periods for cases where focus really does lead to better results. I can’t say what the answer is in your case. I know, without any doubt, what it is in my case–and most studies (as you’ve noted) seem to suggest that most people do their best work–on those tasks where focus means something–when they don’t multitask. Gotta admit, I really wouldn’t want a surgeon to be participating in a chat session or checking email while I’m under the knife, and I wouldn’t expect a concert pianist to be browsing Bloglines during a concerto. Those may be extreme cases, to be sure–and there are lots of daily cases where 100% focus won’t make much difference. For me, “serious writing” requires focus, as did serious systems analysis and programming. Your mileage (and your tasks!) may vary.
  • Nicole Engard:...You are right--there are times when I do focus--when I have to to focus on one task.
  • Lori Reed: ...I’m convinced it’s true. But it’s rare I get a chance to work uninterrupted–-which is another reason why I am a huge advocate for telecommuting. I can get more work done at home in a few hours than I get done at work all day.
  • Walt Crawford: And there it is. I think the idea that people should never multitask is silly–-and implausible, even at work (with some exceptions). Much of the time, “doing your best work” for that period of time requires CPA or multitasking, because “being there” for a variety of interrupt-driven purposes is what’s happening. The issue, I think, is whether multitasking is always preferable–whether you can indeed do your best work under CPA conditions. So far, the answer I’m getting from experienced multitaskers is the same as yours: No–there are times when you focus...
  • Simon: For what it’s worth, I’m coming to agree with Walt. And I’ve spent the past 10-20 years as a chronic multitasker. It became evident that I really do perform better when I’m unitasking... I also realised that multitasking on web surfing and watching sport meant I actually missed most of what happened in the game, even though I thought I was paying attention. Yeah, it’s all anecdotal, and sure there are times when the ability to multitask is valuable, but perhaps not all the time.
  • Jesse: When it comes to writing code, I can attest to the assertion that it can take 15 minutes to get back into the flow of it after being interrupted. Good professional programming is a very focus-oriented task that requires the coder to get immersed in the code, particularly when you are working on a particularly difficult problem. Back when I was a full-time professional programmer, my colleagues and I would often email each other questions and such, even if we were sitting next to each other. That way the person receiving the email could look at it when (s)he had a mental break, instead of being interrupted by a live person. It sounds goofy, but it really made a difference in productivity.

On multitasking

By Jenica Rogers. Adapted from this December 3, 2007 post at Attempting elegance. Used by permission.

Continuous Partial Attention gets a lot of love (and hate) in relation to online multitasking. But I’m sitting at our reference desk for my weekly shift, and since it’s Crisis And Chaos time (end of semester blues all over the place), I can guarantee this three hour shift will be filled with short frantic moments in which my help is desperately needed, interspersed with long stretches of pointing at the stapler and saying “there are more computers in the basement or over in the Levitt Center.”

For those long stretches, I brought some work with me. Weeding work, to be specific.

And so here I am, pointing at the stapler, checking MLA to see if book chapters are indexed, looking at our catalog to check for ToC notes, looking in Worldcat to see if anyone has put in those ToC notes, editing bib records and filling out weeding slips, all while watching the students coming and going from the lobby and reference area, monitoring the printer and watching reference IM and email accounts.

I believe that’s not just multitasking — it’s CPA. I am, in fact, paying attention to all those things continuously, not just multitasking. It’s also just the reality of being a librarian, at least in my experience. I’ve also watched colleagues do exactly the same thing, at this same desk. And so…why are we so amazed by and interested in and critical of online CPA?

I realize that it may be that my disinterest in CPA as a discussion topic is because I’m good at it, and it’s not a struggle for me. But given the realities of who we are and the work we do, I can’t help feeling like we’re creating an issue that’s not an issue. Sadly, I’ve seen CPA be an issue that adds to the conflict between us as we move from the “old” offline way of living and working to the “new” more online way of working and living—CPA is the issue that leads to generational and work-style conflicts based around “you think we should do that because you don’t understand why I don’t like it.” Really, what I don’t understand is how online CPA is so very different than what we already do. It’s not content, or action—it’s format. We already employ CPA in our daily work, particularly at a service desk where we’re constantly taking the emotional temperature of the environment. So, as I see it, online CPA is just taking the skills we’ve built over the years as service professionals and employing them in a new place, using new tools.

Doesn’t our profession have enough conflicts in philosophy without creating new ones where they’re not necessary?

Excerpts from the comments

  • Jeff Scott: Is that like calling walking and chewing gum at the same time multi-tasking? Or is that CPA? The librarian’s reference desk has always been this way. Bring your work to your desk and still appear available, not an easy skill.
  • Jenica: I guess that’s part of my question. At what point do we stop calling it Multitasking or CPA or some other signifier of “special” and just say that this, here, is what we do. Walking and chewing gum isn’t “special,” it’s what we do. I think that giving the “special” signifiers to things is part of what makes them ‘other’ and ‘different’ and ‘new’ and in some cases, therefore ‘bad’. As in, rather than saying I’m doing the traditional work of a librarian and exhibiting continuous partial attention behaviors at the same time, I’d rather say that I’m doing the work of a modern librarian. Because I’m not sure that the distinction has any value anymore. Aren’t they the same thing in our modern information culture?
  • Walt Crawford: I think the answer to your question is: Do you do this all the time, no matter what your primary task is, or only when it’s appropriate? If the latter, then it’s multitasking or CPA–-and it’s something you set aside when you really want to (and can) focus on a single task. And I don’t think it’s a generational thing or whatever; I think it’s realistic–-part of the time. If the former–-if you’re “continuously partially attentive” to lots of things even while you’re writing an article or a book or doing something else that I believe would benefit from focus (or concentration, if you prefer), then maybe there is a generational thing, or at least a deep cultural/personal difference. I don’t believe our “modern information culture” requires that we be doing three things at once 100% of the time, and I don’t believe it requires that we be “on” all the time. I’m reasonably well convinced that most people do their best at certain kinds of tasks when they’re unitasking. I know that’s true for me. Walking and chewing gum is one thing; participating in LSW Meebo and doing careful editing or writing is another. For me, the latter doesn’t work. If it does for you–-if your best writing, your best thinking, whatever, takes place while you’re also engaged in several other things–-well, that’s great, but I don’t think it’s a prerequisite for modernity...
  • Jenica: ...I don’t disagree with any of what you just wrote. This morning I spent an hour reading the latest OCLC research report, and I did it in my office, door closed, music off, focused on one thing, because I wanted to absorb and understand in a way I wouldn’t be able to otherwise. But. The thing I’m dancing around is the statement that I’ve heard and read about how librarians can’t be asked to take on/learn/implement/employ a technology tool because they can’t multitask in that way, or they can’t provide good service in person if they have to be focusing on more than just the patron in front of them. And in my experience academic library reference has never been a unifocal task. It never was, unless you had the luxury of working with backup staff to handle the next user in line and in an environment that allowed you to block out the hubbub of the public space you were working in. My experience with reference has always been about multitasking, and about continuous partial attention to the people, spaces, resources, and other work at hand. And. So. CPA as applied to online reference interactions and tools isn’t, in my opinion, any different than the CPA we’ve always done at a service point, and saying that it is feels disingenuous to me. Which is why I think we need to ditch the term, and stop talking about it like it’s special. It’s just what we do in service to patrons at a reference desk…whether what we’re monitoring is online or off...
  • Walt: Thanks for the clarification. I certainly agree (not ever having done it, but observing it) that front-desk reference work will generally be multitasking/CPA, and with one person on duty has to be that way. No argument at all.

Paying attention

Excerpts from an October 28, 2006 post by Marilyn Pukkila at ACRLog

This snippet from a Business Week article got me thinking:

In fact, the advertising [in MySpace] can be so subtle that kids don’t distinguish it from content. ‘It’s what our users want,’ says Anderson.

Most users of this generation claim they can tell when someone wants to sell them something—and it puts them off. But this blurring of the lines makes me question just how much they really can tell...

I think this blurring is an offshoot of “continuous partial attention”... While multitasking can be useful, there is still value in the ability to focus on one task, and educators have a role in conveying that message. A group of students told me that the one thing they’d find most challenging about the voluntary simplicity movement was not giving up things. It was spending time alone to think, relax, and get to know themselves and their values. I was startled, but it quickly made sense to me. If their lives are so hyperconnected, solitude could be very threatening. And what does this mean for those members of this generation who are solitary beings by inclination?

Excerpts from the comments

  • Marc Meola: How can we create environments in our libraries and library services that promote focusing on one task? The idea that teaching focused attention is an educational goal strikes me as a good alternative to the seemingly corporate influenced idea that we are “adapting to our consumers” by enabling them to multitask even more. Besides, even the corporate world realizes that multitasking doesn’t work, and that “what now passes for multitasking used to be called not paying attention.”...
  • Marilyn R. Pukkila: When I teach a class in our e-classroom, I always use our Robotel software, which pushes my screen onto all the learner screens... I’ve been amused this semester to find that for each class I’ve taught, I’ve had at least one person say how much they appreciated seeing what I was doing right on their own screens... I think I’m helping them focus!

Related articles

  • Multitasking notes - Notes from outside the library field including research and arguments for and against multitasking and continuous partial attention.
  • Generational issues - Rightly or wrongly, discussions of multitasking tend to bring up generational issues.

Your turn: Talk about it

Retrieved from "http://pln.lyrasis.org/wiki/index.php/Multitasking_and_librarians"
Personal tools
Home