Challenges and Potential Benefits of Mind Wandering in Education
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology © 2016 American Psychological Association 2016, Vol. 2, No. 2, 134–146 2332-2101/16/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/stl0000060 TEACHER-READY THEORY REVIEW The Mind That Wanders: Challenges and Potential Benefits of Mind Wandering in Education Amy A. Pachai, Anita Acai, Andrew B. LoGiudice, and Joseph A. Kim McMaster University Our minds naturally wander for much of our daily lives. Here we review how mind wandering, or task-unrelated thought, impacts comprehension during lectures and reading, and how it relates to general academic success. In some situations, mind wandering may not hinder performance, and may even aid in creativity, future plan- ning, problem solving, and relief from boredom. We distill research on the negative and potentially positive effects of mind wandering to suggest ways that teachers can reduce and redirect mind wandering in the classroom. To conclude we suggest that, rather than attempt to eliminate mind wandering entirely, we should attempt to alleviate mind wandering at the most strategic times, using research to suggest what techniques should be applied, and when. Keywords: mind wandering, learning, focused attention, education It is unreasonable to expect students to gelhardt, & Kingstone, 2012; Smallwood, continuously pay attention while listening to a Obonsawin, & Reid, 2002; Szpunar, Khan, & lecture, reading a textbook, or studying for a Schacter, 2013), making lengthy lectures or test. The mind naturally wanders, shifting at- study sessions even more problematic. A re- tention from the primary learning task at hand cent surge in mind wandering research has to internal, personally relevant thoughts produced findings relevant to educators. In (Smallwood & Schooler, 2006). Indeed, the what follows, we summarize the theory and prevalence of mind wandering makes it a methods in this field of research, then review critical topic for educators—estimates for how mind wandering is related to lecture off-task thought range from 30%–50% of the comprehension, reading, general academic time during our daily lives (Giambra, 1995; ability, problem solving, and future planning. Killingsworth & Gilbert, 2010) and 20%– To conclude, we outline practical tips for 40% of the time during educationally relevant educators to manage student attention in the tasks such as reading (Schooler, Reichle, & classroom. Halpern, 2004). Mind wandering also seems to occur more frequently as time spent on a Theories of Mind Wandering task increases (Risko, Anderson, Sarwal, En- With mind wandering research still in its early stages, the theoretical underpinnings are This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. not widely agreed upon and experimental This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. methods are still developing. Nevertheless, Amy A. Pachai, Department of Psychology, Neurosci- some key principles have begun to emerge. ence and Behaviour, McMaster University; Anita Acai, Theoretical models of mind wandering often Program for Educational Research and Development, Mc- Master University; Andrew B. LoGiudice and Joseph A. implicate an executive control system, Kim, Department of Psychology, Neuroscience and Behav- thought to manage a number of higher-level iour, McMaster University. cognitive processes related to the onset and Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- maintenance of task-unrelated thought, in- dressed to Amy A. Pachai, Department of Psychcology, Neuroscience and Behaviour, McMaster University, 1280 cluding the direction of attention and creating Main Street West Hamilton, ON, Canada L8S 4K1. E-mail: new responses or solutions (Unsworth, [email protected] Redick, Lakey, & Young, 2010). Of the the- 134 MIND WANDERING IN EDUCATION 135 oretical models that exist, we outline four where personally relevant concerns draw atten- hypotheses that capture the varied perspec- tion away from external stimuli due to a failure tives on mind wandering, many of which rely of the executive control system to maintain ex- on the executive control system. ternal attention (Smallwood, 2013). Perceptual Decoupling Resource Control Account The perceptual decoupling hypothesis as- The more recent resource control account sumes that certain mental processes are com- uniquely suggests that mind wandering is a de- mon to both mind wandering and task-related fault state of our cognitive system (Thomson, thought (Antrobus, Singer, Goldstein, & Fort- Besner, & Smilek, 2015). This account argues gang, 1970). These mental processes cannot be that both mind wandering and attention to ex- optimally devoted to both task-related and task- ternal tasks draw on a limited pool of resources. unrelated thought simultaneously. When mind Like the executive failure hypothesis, the re- wandering occurs, the executive control system source control account implicates an executive presumably allows these mental processes to control system in mind wandering. However, decouple from the external environment, reduc- under this hypothesis, the executive control sys- ing attention to the external environment and tem allots the limited resources to both mind thereby allowing an internal train of thought to wandering and the current task in an attempt to be maintained without disruption (Kane & promote optimal performance. As time pro- Engle, 2002). Critically, this hypothesis does gresses, the executive control system depletes not explain why mind wandering occurs, but and is less able to keep the default state from describes what processes ensure the continuity intruding, thus leading to mind wandering and of a bout of mind wandering (Smallwood, poorer task performance. This hypothesis 2013). uniquely suggests that mind wandering is not necessarily a failure of our cognitive system, Executive Failure Hypothesis but inherent to it. These theories conclude that mind wandering The executive failure hypothesis similarly is a result of limited cognitive resources and can implicates the executive control system in mind explain why it interferes with task performance. wandering, but expands the role of this system We cannot selectively attend to all important beyond perceptual decoupling; specifically, it is stimuli, so our cognitive system must have thought to reduce external and internal distrac- some mechanism for optimally allocating re- tions to sustain attention to the primary task sources—a posited function of the executive (McVay & Kane, 2009; Smallwood, 2013). Ac- control system. At the extreme, mind wandering cording to this account, mind wandering occurs is so prevalent that it may be inherent to the when the executive control system fails to in- system, as the resource control account sug- hibit distracting internal thoughts. In other gests. words, this hypothesis classifies mind wander- ing as an unintentional failure of our cognitive system. Measuring Mind Wandering It is useful to briefly review how researchers This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Current Concerns Hypothesis measure mind wandering. The most common This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Contrary to the mechanistic perspective of method, known as experience sampling, in- the two previously discussed hypotheses, the volves periodically presenting participants with current concerns hypothesis focuses on why a thought probe in the form of a visual or mind wandering occurs on a broader scale. It auditory cue (e.g., a prompt appearing on a posits that an individual’s goals and desires screen or the sound of a bell) and asking them to trigger mind wandering by drawing attention self-report their current state of mind wandering away from the current external environment (Szpunar et al., 2013). The questions range from (Klinger, Gregoire, & Barta, 1973). This line of very direct (e.g., “Were you mind wandering thinking may work in conjunction with the just before the probe?” or “Was your attention more mechanistic hypotheses discussed above, focused on or off task just before the probe?”) to 136 PACHAI, ACAI, LOGIUDICE, AND KIM less direct (e.g., “What were you thinking about on the relation between default network activa- just before the probe?”). These more general tion and mind wandering is needed to determine questions allow researchers to assess whether whether it can be used to predict the presence of the contents of a bout of mind wandering are mind wandering specifically, as opposed to consistent with the current concerns hypothesis. merely the absence of task-related activity. Participants may also subjectively rate the qual- Eye tracking has recently gained traction as ity of their attention—for example, whether it another objective approach for detecting mind was superficial and accompanied by frequent wandering. Researchers have been able to show distractions, or whether it was active and inten- that participants blink significantly more often tional (Szpunar et al., 2013). Probe results from when mind wandering than when on-task classroom settings can also be correlated with (Smilek, Carriere, & Cheyne, 2010). This find- the instructor’s behavior and/or level of engage- ing supports an association between mind wan- ment (Szpunar et al., 2013). In sum, these direct dering and perceptual decoupling, which means probes of inattention can be used to understand