Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
South African Journal of Education; 2013; 33(2) 1
Art. #405, 15 pages, http://www.sajournalofeducation.co.za
The effect of technology on learner attention and achievement in
the classroom
G Bester and L Brand
Department of Psychology of Education, University of South Africa, Pretoria
Besteg@unisa.ac.za
The objective of this investigation was to determine the effect of technology on attention and
achievement within a classroom context, taking motivation and concentration into account as
well. Lessons in Geography, English and Mathematics were presented to an experimental and
a control group consisting of 23 and 22 Grade 8 learners, respectively. Technology was imple-
mented for the experimental group but not for the control group. Significant differences were
found between the average achievements of a group of learners, exposed to technology during
a lesson, compared to a group not exposed to technology. Significant differences were also
found between the average attention of a group of learners, exposed to technology during a
lesson, compared to a group not exposed to technology. A high positive relationship was ob-
tained between motivation and concentration and moderate to high positive correlations were
obtained between attention, concentration and motivation, taken jointly as independent vari-
ables and achievement as the dependent variable.
Keywords: achievement, attention, concentration, motivation, technology
Introduction
Essentially classroom teaching consists of a teacher who teaches and learners who
learn. The simplicity of this relationship is influenced by a number of factors, both
external and internal, which have an effect on the significance and the excellence of
teaching and learning. The amount of time and effort spent in a classroom is worthless
unless the learners are learning. This is manifested within the concentration span in a
classroom.
Referring to Figure 1, a relationship (R1) exists between the teacher and the lear-
ner. This relationship is targeted at learning. In order for learning to take place, the
teacher makes use of a method of focusing the learner’s attention on the target. Focus
is seen here as zoning the learning’s attention on the specific pre-chosen target. A
relationship (R2) therefore exists between the teacher and the target with the aim of
leading to a relationship (R3) between the learner and the target. When a learner shifts
his/her focus correctly on the intended target, his/her attention is captured. This atten-
tion, when sustained over time develops into concentration.
As can be seen in Figure 1, concentration can be lost at any time in which case it
diverts back to attention (symbolised by the double arrowed lines) which is then
focused elsewhere on a new target. This target is often not the one intended by the
teacher. The teacher therefore needs to continually focus the learner back onto the
South African Journal of Education; 2013; 33(2)
2
Figure 1 Linking attention and concentration
required target (R4). If the learner’s attention is focused on the required learning
material, and the learner maintains this focus of attention over a period of time, this
prolonged or sustained attention is concentration. Anderson (2002) as cited by Tsang,
Kwan and Fox (2007:12) states that meaningful learning can be achieved as long as
one of three forms of interaction (student-teacher; student-student; student-content) is
at a high level.
The oldest definition of attention can be traced back to William James (1890) as
cited in Styles (2006:1) who suggested that it is “the taking possession of the mind in
clear and vivid form … it implies withdrawal from some things in order to deal effec-
tively with others” (Perry, 1935:18). This explanation still serves today to encompass
an effective definition of the word, attention. James (Friedenberg & Silverman, 2006:
75) suggested that substantive thought occurs when the mind slows down, perhaps
when attention is focused. Vigilance has therefore often been thought of as the essence
of attention, according to Neisser (1976:27). Attention is also defined as a system of
cognitive control in which the vast amount of information processed by the cognitive
system is reduced to a tolerable extent (Ackerman, Kyllonen & Roberts, 1999:162).
Focal attention is when attention is orientated towards a particular locus in space. This
South African Journal of Education; 2013; 33(2) 3
is also known as spatial attention. If attention is orientated on an object, by means of
the use of one or other sensory organ, including visual, auditory, smell or taste, it is
called object-oriented attention. The focus of attention can be controlled in a goal-
driven or a stimulus-driven manner for both spatial and object-oriented attention.
Concentration can be defined as that faculty of the intellect which focuses single
mindedly on one object without interruption. It must be emphasized that true concen-
tration is a wholesome one-pointedness of mind, “forcing the mind to remain on one
static point” (Gunaratana, 1994:89). The art or practice of concentration is to focus on
the task at hand and eliminate distraction. If these two definitions were to be combined
and tweaked specifically for school purposes, we could probably conclude that con-
centration is the skill needed by a learner to focus on the lesson for a period of time
without allowing one’s thoughts to be distracted. Concentration can be summarised as
complete attention using intense mental effort (Wikipedia, 2009). Concentration assists
one to confine one’s thoughts to relevant stimuli in the presence of irrelevant stimuli.
The critical factor in the learning process, according to Hale and Lewis (1979:33)
is attention. Unless the attention of the learner is captured, optimal learning will not
occur. Teachers need to capture the attention of learners during a lesson, irrespective
of their learning style and, if the attention of learners tends to wander, teachers should
be able to shift rapidly to a new activity to capture it once again (Rinne, 1997:131). It
is therefore important to determine what appeals to different learners during a lesson
and in this context the use of technology would certainly be an option to consider.
In a dated but still relevant document Wallington (1977:21) defines technology
in a teaching context as a complex, integrated process involving people, procedures
and devices in situations in which learning is purposive and controlled. Purposive
learning is learning in which someone else has determined that learning is to occur
within a learner and the purpose of such learning has been specified in advance.
Controlled learning is learning in which the learner’s behaviour is determined and
managed by someone else. Part of the management process may include the use of
technology. Technology is used to facilitate human learning through the systematic
identification, development, organisation and utilisation of a full range of learning
recourses and through the management of these recourses. It can be described by the
material it uses and by describing what practitioners do with it (Wallington, 1977:93).
The use of technology has undergone an evolutionary process. Initially visual de-
vices such as overhead projectors and slides were used to explain difficult material as
concretely as possible. Visual devices were later extended to include audio-visual de-
vices such as films and videos since hearing in combination with a visual component
enhances a person’s attention span resulting in better retention of the content. In the
following phase the focus shifted to communication. Technology, such as computers,
is utilized to promote interactive teaching and learning. Learners do not only receive
content in a visual or auditory way but actively react to what is presented to them.
Harris and Hofer (cited by Harris, Mishra & Koehler, 2009:393-416) developed a
South African Journal of Education; 2013; 33(2)
4
technology taxonomy related to learning activities. These activities are divided into
knowledge building activities and knowledge expression activities. Typical knowledge
building activities are:
• to read, view or listen to an informative presentation using CD-ROM, Web brow-
sers, CD players, MP3 players, Powerpoint presentations, etc.
• conducting interviews or debate issues using audio-visual conference facilities,
e-mail, Skype, etc.
Typical knowledge expression activities are:
• to write an essay or a report using word-processing
• creating maps, charts or tables using Excel or other data processing software
• developing a presentation using power-point or video recording.
Harris et al. (2009:393-416) emphasise that the use of technology in a classroom can
only be successful if pedagogical principals are taken into account. Before a teacher
decides to use technology he/she should verify pedagogically which content should be
taught in differentiated ways, according to students’ learning needs, which concepts
are difficult to learn, and how technology can overcome conceptual challenges.
Teachers should have knowledge of learners prior content-related understanding and
how technology can be used to build on existing understanding in order to master new
and more sophisticated content.
No technology is able to replace the teacher in the classroom. It can however be
successfully integrated into lessons which could maximise the learning experience
since technology has become an integral part of the life world of today’s learners.
Presently, the world is filled with technology and has marketing ploys aimed at
attracting today’s teenagers. Many students have become visual learners, having been
brought up with technology, so without visuals in a presentation the learners may not
learn effectively (Smaldino, Lowther & Russell, 2008:259). Present day students are
more used to absorbing information from the screen than from the printed page, and
they find teachers who use technology to be more reliable and knowledgeable than
those who do not (Lytras, Gasevic, Ordonez de Pablos & Huang, 2008:189). Since
children are used to ongoing stimulation in order to attract attention outside the school
context, the question arises whether the classroom environment succeeds in doing so
as well. Literature from educational research supports the claim that using visuals in
teaching results in a greater degree of learning, as the learners seem to concentrate
better and for more sustained periods of time (Sims, O’Leary, Cook & Butland,
2002:129; Ainsworth & Loizou, 2003:675). Felder and Soloman (2001), as cited by
Bitter & Legacy (2008:23), also point out that learners retain more information with
the help of sufficient visual content in their learning materials. Bitter and Legacy
(2008:152) who investigated the effects of technology on reading comprehension
found that learners tend to be more intrigued with the visuals and animations offered
by the use of technology. Students have higher comprehension scores after reading the
South African Journal of Education; 2013; 33(2) 5
electronic stories versus reading printed texts. The interactive effects of sound, ani-
mation, narration and additional definitions that make up electronic texts motivate
students to want to read the stories again, which happens less often with printed text.
The ease of access is also advantageous to the reader.
The use of technology has the potential not only to maintain attention but also to
motivate learners to pay attention. Shelly (2004, Chapter 6:8) established that techno-
logy has the potential to increase student motivation and class attendance which is an
important aspect since so many of today’s students from advantaged homes and fami-
lies are not interested in learning or are not motivated to achieve (Barr & Parrett,
2008:6). Prensky’s belief is that the high school experience in particular is a source of
profound boredom for many teenagers who are usually engaged in some form of tech-
nology (Willougby & Wood, 2008:106). The British Institute for Learning and Deve-
lopment recently adapted a slogan from a teenager who was overheard saying “When
I come to school I have to power down”! Prensky argues passionately that with the use
of technology, students can be motivated to be involved in learning activities similar
to their involvement in computer games. Good designers of computer software are
practical theoreticians of learning. They succeed in facilitating learners to exercise
their learning skills without knowing it and without having to pay overt attention to the
matter (Willougby & Wood, 2008:46). One can only agree with Jewitt (2006:161) that
technology is reshaping knowledge, literacy and pedagogy in the present day class-
room.
The context in which technology is used and how it is used are crucial factors in
how well it may support learners (Anderson-Inman & Horney, 1998; Kern, 2006).
Despite their role as innovators, teachers have always had a love-hate relationship with
technology (John & Wheeler, 2008:15); many trying to keep up with the latest trends
and innovations, some not being bothered, while others do not have any technology
to use at all. In the South-African context, there are classrooms equipped solely with
a teacher who is expected to fulfil the needs of the learners for the majority of the day.
He/she is expected to perform the exciting role of the techno-gimmicks which are
visually attractive and auditorily stimulating.
Education needs to help produce a variety of types of literacies to make current
pedagogy relevant to the demands of the contemporary era (Trifonas, 2008:45). This
would not only make education and learning more exciting for the learners but would
also help capture their attention and improve their concentration if their teachers are
using tools relevant to their world. Tailoring a program to individual learners is what
makes a multimedia program an educational success. Such success in the form of
learner’s motivation is also caused by better understanding of and engagement with the
material (Lytras et al., 2008:189).
The aim of the present investigation was to determine whether the use of techno-
logy would make a difference in the attention and concentration abilities of learners
in the classroom situation as well as their achievement in certain learning areas. The
South African Journal of Education; 2013; 33(2)
6
possible relationship between motivation and concentration was also investigated.
Three hypotheses were formulated in this regard.
Firstly, is was assumed that there would be is a significant difference between the
average achievements of a group of learners exposed to technology during a lesson,
compared with a group who received the content of the lesson in a normal, verbal way
without being exposed to any technology. The rationale for this hypothesis is based on
the conclusion of Khine and Fisher (2003:22, 37) that technology assists students to
make meaning of the learning material and educators must therefore match appropriate
technology usage in order to maximise a student’s potential learning. The interactive
effects of sound, animation, narration and additional definitions that make up electro-
nic texts appeal to today’s learners, motivating them to concentrate better and to deli-
ver higher average achievement. Furthermore, a study conducted by Bitter and Legacy
(2008:152), found that students have higher comprehension scores after reading
electronic stories compared to those reading printed texts. In addition, an investigation
of Trifonas (2008:45) showed that achievement can be improved in the classroom with
the active involvement of the students making optimal use of the technological
advancements.
In the second hypothesis it was assumed that there would be a significant diffe-
rence between the average attention of a group exposed to technology during a lesson,
compared to a group who received the content of the lesson without exposure to any
technology. Support for this hypothesis comes from Willougby and Wood (2008:46)
who noted that learning takes place on computer software without the learners reali-
sing the amount of attention they are paying to the material. Jewitt (2006:23) provides
a framework for what engages someone’s attention while making use of technology
and Bitter and Legacy (2008:67) found that students seem to focus on their work
longer when using technology.
The third hypothesis states that a significant relationship may exist between the
motivation and concentration of learnerst. According to Cleary (1991:473-508) moti-
vation relates to the willingness to concentrate. Intrinsic motivation, where a task is
done because the learner wants to do it for its own sake, will result in concentration
during completion of the task. This corresponds with Sigman’s (2007:26) view that
learners need to be motivated in order not to lose concentration in their school work.
It was mentioned earlier that attention, when sustained over time, develops into con-
centration. The role of motivation in this process cannot be ignored. One would
therefore not only expect to find a correlation between motivation and concentration
but also between motivation, concentration, and attention taken jointly as independent
variables and achievement as the dependent variable. To test these hypotheses the
following investigation was carried out.
Research design
An experimental investigation in the classroom was decided upon as the mode of
South African Journal of Education; 2013; 33(2) 7
inquiry for this study. The study was conducted in two phases. The first phase is a
self-completion questionnaire, which learners completed at school, measuring concen-
tration and motivation. This was followed by the second phase, consisting of a series
of lessons where the experimental group was exposed to the lessons making use of
technology in the classroom, while the control group was given the same lessons
verbally by the same teacher but no technology was used. Achievement and attention
tests were given directly after the lessons which were marked by the teacher and the
results were filled in on the learners’ questionnaire forms.
The sample
The target population of learners sought for the investigation falls in the 12 to 13 year
old, technologically active age group. They are at the beginning stages of formal ope-
rations according to Piaget’s theory and are therefore starting to outgrow the concrete
operational phase. The first year of high school was seen as an ideal age for the in-
vestigation. Permission obtained for access to state schools is time-consuming and
often rejected by one of the role players concerned. For the purposes of this study,
learners at an accessible independent junior college were approached to take part in the
investigation. This independent school is situated in Gauteng province, specifically
located in Centurion. The college has two Grade 8 classes consisting of 22 learners in
the one class and 23 learners in the other. The learners are randomly selected to the
classes at the beginning of each school year, ensuring that the classes are not speci-
fically streamed, nor are they grouped according to any other criteria. The classes are
therefore accepted to be analogous in every aspect. Due to the relatively small sized
classes in the school, non-probability sampling was used where the entire class became
the sample. The classes were randomly assigned to the experimental group or the
control group, thus making use of the static-group comparison. The sample can be
viewed as representative and balanced. As can be seen in Table 1, of the total sample,
71% spoke English as a home language, 16% spoke Afrikaans, and 13% spoke an
African language at home. With regard to the total sample, 56% were boys and 44%
girls which indicates a balanced gender composition.
Table 1 Demographics of the sample group
Group English Afrikaans African language Boys Girls Total
Experimental
Control
Total
16
16
32
3
4
7
4
2
6
12
13
25
11
9
20
23
22
45
Measuring instruments
Based on the hypotheses stated previously, achievement, attention, concentration and
motivation were to be measured.
South African Journal of Education; 2013; 33(2)
8
Motivation and concentration
A 40-item self-completion questionnaire was given to all the learners in the sample.
The questionnaire consisted of 40 items, 20 measuring motivation and 20 measuring
concentration. The learners had to respond on a 6-point scale.
I disagree completely 6 5 4 3 2 1 I agree completely
Examples of two motivation items were:
• If a task is difficult, I give up easily
• I do my homework when I feel like it
Examples of two concentration items were:
• I catch myself day dreaming during class
• I often miss out on what the teacher says
To ensure content validity the preliminary questionnaire was reviewed by competent
readers to ensure that the items included were relevant for the current research. The
questionnaire was piloted at an independent school in Gauteng, in order to test the
instruction set, as well as the content of the questionnaire. The pilot school is similar
in structure to the school used in the research, therefore eliminating possible interfering
factors. Slight alterations were made after piloting the questionnaire and a few of the
items were reshuffled in order to ensure that they were randomly presented in the
survey. The pilot study proved to be of great help in defining the relevant items.
An item analysis was done on the final questionnaire using the data of both the
experimental and control groups. No items needed to be deleted. An alpha-reliability
coefficient of 0.90 was obtained for the motivation section, and 0.93 for the concen-
tration section. Both coefficients indicate high reliability.
Achievement and attention
An identical 20-mark achievement test was given to both groups at the end of each
lesson. Ten marks tested direct content of the lesson while the other ten marks tested
attention by asking questions that related to small details given during the lessons. The
learners answered the questions individually and wrote the answers in the spaces
provided in each test. Most questions required only single-word answers, which could
easily be marked right or wrong. This was done to enhance objectivity in the marking
process. The answers to the questions tested under the content section of the test
related to the content which was presented during each lesson. However the attention
section incorporated questions which could only be answered if one had paid attention
to the subject matter and details during the lessons, as they were subtly included in the
presentation of the material. During the administration of each test, every question was
read out aloud by the teacher in order to assist any learner who may have had a reading
difficulty and who may therefore misinterpreted or misread a question. After reading
out the question, each learner had to respond by writing down his/her answer. This was
done for both the experimental and control groups. The results of the achievement tests
were collated and filled in on the learners’ original questionnaire forms. These results
were analysed statistically for interpretation purposes.
South African Journal of Education; 2013; 33(2) 9
Procedure followed during the empirical investigation
Completion of the motivation and concentration questionnaire was carried out with the
entire sample in one central venue, in order for the instructions to be consistent for
everyone and in order to eliminate the possibility that time, weather conditions, length
of time without food and other potential factors could influence the results of the
survey. This also eliminated the fact that learners could discuss the items and influence
each others’ results. No pressure was placed on the learners to complete the survey
within a certain time-frame. The learners were told to read each item carefully and to
think honestly about each item. The learners were given the opportunity to ask for
explanations if items were unclear to them or if there was any uncertainty that arose
over the questionnaire. The learners completed the survey in pencil so that they could
change an answer if they felt another scale number was more appropriate when re-
reading and checking their answers. Approximately 30 minutes was taken to complete
this section of the questionnaire. These questionnaires were then collected.
A series of three 40-minute lessons were then carried out over a period of a week
in the following learning areas: Geography, English, and Mathematics – one teacher
conducted all the lessons. Each learning area lesson was presented to the experimental
and control groups on the same day and in consecutive school periods, in order to
eliminate factors such as time of day, hunger, and fatigue. This also eliminated the
possibility of learners discussing the lessons with learners from the other class.
The same lesson was presented to both classes during school time. One difference
in the lessons prevailed: the experimental group was exposed to some form of techno-
logy during the lessons, whereas the control group was presented with no technology
during the lessons. The content was communicated verbally. The identical content was
administered to both groups and the same wording was used during both lessons.
The Geography lesson
The country of choice chosen for the Geography lesson was Vietnam. This country is
not included as a ‘country of study’ in the South African Geography syllabus. Vietnam
was therefore selected as very few students would have background knowledge on the
country, which could taint the results. The experimental group was shown a ‘Power-
point presentation’ connected from the computer to the visualiser in the classroom.
This included visuals of the Vietnamese cuchi tunnels and the surrounding Vietnam
countryside and people. The control group was given the identical information and
lesson but had no access to the technology.
Both groups were administered the achievement test directly after the material had
been presented. The learners completed this individually in the classroom. The tests
were collected and marked. These marks were written on the learners’ questionnaires
in the appropriate spaces provided on the form.
The English lesson
An unseen English poem was explained to the learners during the English lessons. The
South African Journal of Education; 2013; 33(2)
10
experimental group was exposed to an auditory tape while expressive pictures, de-
picting the poem, flashed on the interactive SMART board. The teacher recited the
poem to the control group who were given the same explanations but were not exposed
to any form of technology during the lesson. Once again the achievement test was
administered to both groups at the end of the lesson.
The Mathematics lesson
The Mobius strip was selected as the topic for the Mathematics lesson as, once again,
it is not a commonly known section in Mathematics and is generally an unknown topic
to Grade 8 learners. It was decided not to choose a purely mathematical concept in
order to ensure that all learners could participate and had equal chance of achieving
success during the test.
A video clip of the Mobius strip was shown to the experimental group while the
control group was explained the identical information but was not exposed to any form
of technology and therefore did not view the video in any form. As the Mobius strip
is spatial by nature, a practical demonstration in both groups resulted in learners
making a Mobius strip for themselves before completing the achievement test.
Results
Testing the hypotheses
In the light of hypothesis 1, the following null hypothesis was tested.
There is no significant difference between the average achievements of a group
of learners exposed to technology during a lesson compared to the group not
exposed to technology.
In order to test the null hypothesis, two groups of learners were exposed to lessons in
three different learning areas. Group 1 (the experimental group) was exposed to tech-
nology during each of the lessons, while Group 2 (the control group) was taught the
identical lessons but not exposed to any form of technology during the lessons. The
control group received the content in a normal, verbal way.
The stated null hypothesis was tested independently for each of the learning areas.
In order to test the null hypothesis, it was necessary to calculate the mean and the
standard deviation for each of the achievement tests obtained after teaching the Geog-
raphy, Mathematics, and English lessons. To ascertain whether significant differences
existed between the averages of the content sections of the three lessons given to the
two groups, t tests were used. The t values and other data are tabulated in Table 2.
According to the t values in Table 2, the null hypothesis can be rejected at the 0.01
level for all three learning areas. There was a significant difference between the ave-
rage achievements of the group of learners exposed to technology during a lesson
compared to the group who were not exposed to technology and only received normal
verbal instruction. In each instance the average achievement of those who received
technology supported instruction was significantly higher. It appears that technology
plays a significant role in the achievement of learners in Geography, Mathematics, and
English.
South African Journal of Education; 2013; 33(2) 11
Table 2 Statistical data for the content section of the achievement tests
Group N0S t p
Geography content
Mathematics content
English content
1
2
1
2
1
2
23
22
23
22
23
22
7.52
5.5
6.87
4.32
9.39
6.32
0.99
2.26
1.49
1.84
0.72
1.76
3.85
5.13
7.61
p < 0.01
p < 0.01
p < 0.01
df = 43 for each learning area
In the light of hypothesis 2, the following null hypothesis was tested.
There is no significant difference between the average attention of a group ex-
posed to technology during a lesson compared to a group not exposed to tech-
nology.
In order to test the null hypothesis, two groups of learners were exposed to lessons in
three different learning areas. Group 1 (the experimental group) was exposed to tech-
nology during each of the lessons, while Group 2 (the control group) was taught the
identical lessons but not exposed to any form of technology during the lessons. The
stated null hypothesis was tested independently for each of the learning areas. As in
the previous hypothesis the mean and standard deviation for each of the attention tests
were obtained after teaching the Geography, Mathematics, and English lessons. To
ascertain whether significant differences exist between the averages of the attention
sections of the three lessons given to the two groups, t tests were used. The t values
and other data are tabulated in Table 3.
Table 3 Statistical data for the attention section of the achievement tests
Group N0S t p
Geography content
Mathematics content
English content
1
2
1
2
1
2
23
22
23
22
23
22
8.9
6.18
7.13
5.28
8.87
6.41
1.08
1.65
1.46
1.45
1.25
2.28
6.59
4.28
4.46
p < 0.01
p < 0.01
p < 0.01
df = 43 for each learning area
According to the t values in Table 3, the null hypothesis can be rejected at the 0.01
level for all three learning areas. There is a significant difference between the average
attention of a group of learners exposed to technology during a lesson compared to a
group not exposed to technology. The average attention of learners exposed to techno-
logy during a lesson was significantly higher compared to those who received normal
verbal instruction.
South African Journal of Education; 2013; 33(2)
12
Based on hypothesis 3, the following null hypothesis was tested.
There is no significant relationship between the motivation and concentration of
learners.
In order to test the null hypothesis, it was necessary to calculate the correlation coef-
ficient between motivation and concentration. According to the results the null hypo-
thesis can be rejected at the 0.01 level since a high positive relationship was obtained
between motivation and concentration (r = 0.71; p < 0.01). The result confirms
Neisser’s (1976:215) stimulus-properties theory in which he proposes that motivating
stimuli play a key role in optimizing concentration as well as Treisman’s attenuation
model (Treisman & Souther, 1986:14), which accentuates that if a learner is motivated
in a lesson, he or she is able to concentrate for sustained periods of time.
In the light of the underlying relationship between motivation, concentration and
attention, multiple correlations were calculated between motivation, concentration and
attention, taken jointly as independent variables, with achievement (in each learning
area) as the dependent variable. The following multiple correlation coefficients were
obtained (N = 45): Geography (r = 0.73; p < 0.01), Mathematics (r = 0.64; p < 0.01)
and English (r = 0.54; p < 0.01). Moderate to high positive correlations were obtained
indicating that high attention, concentration and motivation will relate to high levels
of achievement, while lower achievement levels will be related to low attention,
concentration and motivation.
Discussion of the results
Subjects at school level can roughly be divided into languages, predominantly non-
verbal material, and verbal learning material. In this investigation the language subject
was English, the non-verbal subject was Mathematics, and the verbal learning subject
was Geography. In all three the learning areas the application of technology instruction
resulted in a significant difference between the average achievement of the learners
who received technology instruction during the lesson and those who received normal
verbal instruction. In each instance the average achievement of those who received
technology instruction was significantly higher. This investigation should be viewed
as an investigation on micro level but it does convey the important message that the
use of technology supports teaching and learning and should be promoted where pos-
sible. The results of the investigation are consistent with the results of other studies
such as the study conducted by O’Donnell, Hmelo-Silver and Erkens (2006:3) who
found that higher levels of learning goals can be accomplished if supported by various
technological applications. In another study, Bitter and Legacy (2008:152) found that
students have higher comprehension scores after reading electronic stories versus
printed texts of the same stories. The results of this investigation also support the
findings of Khine and Fisher (2003:37), John and Wheeler (2008:48), and Smaldino
et al. (2008:259). These studies emphasise that learners would retain more information
with the help of sufficient stimulating technological content in their learning materials.
In technology-rich learning environments, learners can explore new information, con-
South African Journal of Education; 2013; 33(2) 13
struct new knowledge and link theories into practice, thus maximising their achieve-
ment. To ensure quality instruction the possible utilization of technology should be a
priority when planning and presenting a lesson at school level.
Attention was earlier defined as a system of cognitive control in which the vast
amount of information processed by the cognitive system is reduced to a tolerable
extent (Ackerman et al., 1999:162). Any mean in which this reduction process can be
facilitated should be considered when content is presented during a lesson at school
level. The use of technology is certainly one method to consider. In this investigation
the average attention of learners exposed to technology during a lesson was signi-
ficantly higher compared to a group not exposed to technology. This was the case in
each of the three learning areas. It appears that technology succeeds in capturing and
maintaining the attention of learners during a lesson. Implementing technology creates
a more interactive learning environment which enables learners to use multi-modalities
resulting in better attention and concentration for a longer period of time. It is not
surprising because children today are visual learners having grown up with technology.
Teachers should capitalise on this phenomenon.
Based on the results discussed above, the use of technology can improve achieve-
ment and will most probably facilitate attention which, if sustained over time, will
develop into better concentration. It should be taken into account, however, that
learners are also affectively involved in a classroom context. Technology can capture
the attention of learners but there should also be a willingness from their side to con-
centrate in order for a learning task to be successfully completed. In this respect
motivation becomes an important variable. A high positive correlation was obtained
between motivation and concentration indicating that high motivation can be asso-
ciated with high concentration and vice versa. This finding corresponds with that of
Treisman and Gelade (1980:111) who found that learners pay attention according to
how motivated they are at the time. Ashley (2005:10) also agrees in this regard and
points out that it is not the fact, that children cannot pay attention, but that today’s
children have great difficulty sustaining attention unless sufficiently motivated to do
so. This is confirmed by Willis (2005:32) who states that information must motivate
a learner sufficiently otherwise attention is withdrawn.
One can assume that an optimal learning situation is created where the teacher
succeeds in capturing the attention of learners (using technology, for example) and
where the learners are motivated to concentrate on the learning task. The multiple
correlations obtained in this investigation between attention, motivation, concentration
(taken jointly) and achievement in each of the learning areas, support such an as-
sumption. Moderate to high positive correlations were obtained. In a language subject
(in this instance English) r = 0.54, which implies that 29% (r² = 0.29) of the variance
in achievement based on the content of a particular lesson, can be explained by
attention, motivation and concentration. For a non-verbal subject (Mathematics) it was
40% and for a verbal learning subject (Geography) it was as much as 53%. One can
expect that the variance in achievement explained by attention, motivation, and con-
South African Journal of Education; 2013; 33(2)
14
centration will differ from lesson to lesson depending on the amount and difficulty
level of the content, but from the results of this investigation one can predict that at-
tention, motivation and concentration may explain 29% or more of the variance in
achievement after a lesson had been presented. This is a substantial proportion consi-
dering the fact that only three variables were used in the model. Other variables which
relate to achievement such as aptitude, intelligence, learning style and self-concept
which were not taken into account in this investigation, will most probably add to the
unexplained proportion of the variance in achievement.
In conclusion, the objective of this investigation was to determine the effect of
technology on attention and achievement within a classroom context, also taking moti-
vation and concentration into account. From the results of the investigation it appears
that achievement will be very likely to improve if technology is used in a lesson to
capture the attention of learners and to maintain their concentration. If the learners are
motivated to learn and to concentrate, the possibility of higher achievement increases.
Although technology will never replace the human aspect of teaching, it has become
a necessity within the modern day classroom and therefore teachers should be less
reluctant to make use of it. Technology can also contribute to better classroom
management. If teachers can capture the attention of learners during lessons they will
not only accomplish good academic results, but they will most probably experience
less discipline problems in class as well. Investigating such a possibility could be the
aim of a future research project.
References
Ackerman PL, Kyllonen PC & Roberts RD (Eds) 1999. Learning and Individual
Differences: Process, Trait, and Content Determinants. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Ainsworth S & Loizou AT 2003. The effects of self-explaining when learning with text or
diagrams. Cognitive Science Journal, 27:669-681.
Anderson-Inman L & Horney MA 1998. Transforming text for at-risk readers. In D
Reinking, L Labbo, M McKenna & R Kieffer (Eds). Handbook of literacy and
technology: Technological transformations in a post-typographic world. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Ashley S 2005. The ADD & ADHD Answer Book. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks Inc.
Barr RD & Parrett WH 2008. Saving our Students – Saving our Schools (2nd ed). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Bitter GG & Legacy JM 2008. Using Technology in the classroom (7th ed). Boston: Pearson
Publishers.
Cleary LM 1991. Affect and Cognition in the Writing Processes of Eleventh Graders: A
Study of Concentration and Motivation. Written Communication, 8:473-508.
Friedenberg J & Silverman G 2006. Cognitive Science: An Introduction to the Study of
Mind. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Gunaratana VH 1994. Mindfulness in Plain English. USA: Bhavana Society. Available at
http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma4/mpe.html. Accessed 28 August 2009.
Hale GA & Lewis M (Eds.) 1979. Attention and Cognitive Development. New York: Plenum
Press.
South African Journal of Education; 2013; 33(2) 15
Harris J, Mishra P & Koehler M 2009. Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge and Learning Activity Types: Curriculum-based Technology Integration
Reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41:393-416.
Jewitt C 2006. Technology, Literacy and Learning. A multimodal approach. London:
Routledge.
John PD & Wheeler S 2008. The Digital Classroom: Harnessing the power of technology
for the future of learning and teaching. New York: Routledge/David Falmer.
Kern R 2006. Perspectives on technology in learning and teaching languages. TESOL
Quarterly, 40:183-210.
Khine MS & Fisher D 2003. Technology-Rich Learning Environments. A Future
Perspective. New Jersey: World Scientific.
Lytras MD, Gasevic D, Ordonez de Pablos P & Huang W 2008. Technology Enhanced
Learning: Best Practices. New York: IGI Publishing.
Neisser U 1976. Skills of divided attention. Cognition, 4:215-230.
O’Donnell AM, Hmelo-Silver CE & Erkens G (Eds) 2006. Collaborative Learning,
Reasoning and Technology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Perry RB 1935. The Thought and Character of William James. New York: Longmans.
Rinne CH 1997. Excellent classroom management. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing
Company.
Shelly GB, Cashman TJ, Gunter RE & Gunter GA 2004. Teachers discovering computers:
Integrating technology and digital media in the classroom (4th ed). Boston, MA:
Thompson Course Technology.
Sigman A 2007. Remotely controlled: How television is damaging our lives. UK: Random
House.
Sims E, O'Leary R, Cook J & Butland G 2002. Visual literacy: what is it and do we need it
to use learning technologies effectively? ASCILITE, 885-888.
Smaldino SE, Lowther DL & Russell JD 2008. Instructional Technology and Media for
Learning (9th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Publications.
Styles EA 2006. The Psychology of Attention (2nd ed). New York: Psychology Press.
Treisman AM & Gelade G 1980. A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive
Psychology, 12:97-136.
Treisman AM & Souther J 1986. Illusory Words: The roles of Attention and of Top-Down
Constraints in Conjunction Letters to Form Words. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 12:3-17.
Trifonas PP (Ed.) 2008. Worlds of Difference. Rethinking the ethics of Global Education for
the 21st Century. London: Paradigm Publishers.
Tsang P, Kwan R & Fox R 2007. Enhancing Learning through Technology: Research on
Emerging Technologies and Pedagogies. New Jersey: World Scientific Publishing.
Wallington C 1977. The definition of Educational Technology. AECT Task Force on
Definition and Terminology. Washington: Association for Educational Communication
and Technology.
Wikipedia 2009. Concentration. Available at www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration.
Accessed 29 November 2009.
Willis J 2005. Adding the science of learning to the art of teaching. Voices from the middle,
13(2):30-34.
Willougby T & Wood E 2008. Children’s Learning in a Digital World. USA: Blackwell
Publishing.
