Abstract
The present study piloted a cognitive exercise program in a college classroom to enhance learning of lecture material. Undergraduate students enrolled in introductory psychology (N = 68) completed variations of letter–number cancelation tasks with spoken instructions in 5-min sessions prior to lecture during four nonconsecutive class periods. Results showed significantly better exam performance on material based on lectures that followed cognitive exercise compared to lectures on nonexercise days. On an anonymous program feedback survey, students reported significantly greater levels of alertness following cognitive exercise versus before; the majority of students rated their attention to lecture and note-taking ability as above average after cognitive workouts. Although preliminary, findings suggest that cognitive exercise in the classroom may positively impact learning for college students.
Keywords
Wandering student minds and waning attention during lecture are an all too familiar experience for most college professors. And, given that mind wandering is associated with decreased recall of lecture material (Farley, Risko, & Kingstone, 2013; Kane et al., 2017; Risko, Anderson, Sarwal, Engelhardt, & Kingstone, 2012; Wammes, Boucher, Seli, Cheyne, & Smilek, 2016; Wammes, Seli, Cheyne, Boucher, & Smilek, 2016; Young, Robinson, & Alberts, 2009), educators would be well-advised to find ways to strategically offset attentional lapses during class. Instructors may be able to influence some of the factors that affect student attention spans, such as lecture length (Risko et al., 2012) and interactivity (Kay & LeSage, 2009). However, other factors may be less amenable to an instructor’s control, such as individual differences among students. With respect to mind wandering, a major source of variability is students’ level of executive cognitive control (Randall, Oswald, & Beier, 2014). Executive cognitive processes underlie the ability to resist outside distraction, take notes during lecture, and curb task-unrelated thought (Forster & Lavie, 2013; Kane et al., 2007; McVay, Kane, & Kwapil, 2009; Piolat, Olive, & Kellogg, 2005). Thus, the limited nature of these resources may pose an impediment over the course of a lecture (Peverly, Garner, & Vekaria, 2014; Risko et al., 2012). Fortunately, this barrier is not insurmountable.
Cognitive processes, including executive functions, may be improved by targeted practice of relevant tasks and activities via cognitive training (Nouchi et al., 2013; Tang & Posner, 2009; Verhaeghen, Cerella, & Basak, 2004). Typically, cognitive training is designed to modify the core cognitive processes that underlie task performance, and this requires adaptive, extended training (Klingberg, 2010). Yet traditional cognitive training may not be necessary to meet short-term objectives, such as to boost subsequent task performance; evidence suggests that brief interventions aimed at mindfulness and attentional control may yield immediate effects (Friese, Messner, & Schaffner, 2012; Mrazek, Franklin, Phillips, Baird, & Schooler, 2013; Taraban, Heide, Woollacott, & Chan, 2017; Zeidan, Johnson, Diamond, David, & Goolkasian, 2010). For example, focused meditation interventions have been shown to reduce mind wandering, improve working memory (Mrazek et al., 2013; Zeidan et al., 2010), and even counteract depletion of self-control (Friese et al., 2012). Mrazek et al. (2013) found that college students who completed a mindfulness intervention scored better on a verbal component of the graduate record exam, compared to students in a control condition. Moreover, the mindfulness intervention increased students’ working memory, and reduced mind wandering, during the exam (Mrazek et al., 2013). Similarly, Taraban et al. (2017) found a significant reduction in mind wandering during a reading task for college students after one session using the attention training technique, a listening task that taps selective, switching, and simultaneous attention. Collectively, these studies suggest that short-term cognitive interventions may have the potential to boost academic task performance by inducing a focused state of mind.
In the present research, we hypothesized that a short-term cognitive intervention might facilitate the “task” of attending to a college lecture. To this end, we created a program of prelecture cognitive exercise sessions and pilot-tested the intervention in an introductory psychology class. Prior to lecture in select class meetings, students completed a 5-min session of tasks designed to target key processes recruited by a typical lecture, visual and auditory selective attention, sustained attention, and working memory (Peverly et al., 2014; Risko et al., 2012). Tasks were variants of traditional paper–pencil letter cancelation tasks, the goal of which is to rapidly scan rows of letters (and/or numbers or other symbols) to locate and mark (cancel) all instances of a designated target (Pradhan & Nagendra, 2008; Ruff, Evans, & Light, 1986). Cancelation tasks are presumed to tap selective visual and sustained attention and have historically been used in studies of patients with unilateral neglect, attentional and processing speed impairment, and vigilance deficit due to sleep deprivation (Casagrande, Violani, Curcio, & Bertini, 1997; De Gennaro, Ferrara, Curcio, & Bertini, 2001; Kumar & Telles, 2009; Uttl & Pilkenton-Taylor, 2001). In the present study, the traditional paper–pencil version cancelation task was modified to impose the additional demands of a typical lecture, namely auditory selective attention (e.g., to attend to instructor), working memory (e.g., to hold info in mind while note-taking), and switching between multiple inputs (e.g., teacher’s voice, notes on PowerPoint slides or whiteboard). In our task variants, targets were presented verbally by an experimenter, instead of printed at the top of the task sheet. We also updated the target several times for each display, at irregular intervals. Thus, for any given search block, students were required to hold a target in working memory, while performing a speeded visual search and staying vigilant for the verbal “stop, switch” cue that preceded a new target. Practice on visual scanning tasks, especially when paired with auditory selective attention tasks, has been shown to effectively improve attention and executive control for individuals with schizophrenia, attention deficit disorders, and mild brain injury (Cassidy, Easton, Capelli, Singer, & Bilodeau, 1996; López-Luengo & Vázquez, 2003; Semrud-Clikeman et al., 1999). In the present study, the cognitive exercises were expected to improve students’ ability to attend to the subsequent lecture and thereby increase learning. To evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention, we compared exam performance for posttraining lecture material against material presented in lectures on nontraining days. Upon completion of the study, students also completed an anonymous survey to self-evaluate the benefits of the program and to provide feedback about the experience.
Method
Participants
Participants were 68 undergraduate students (52 women, 16 men) from two sections of an introductory psychology course at Eckerd College, a private liberal arts college in Saint Petersburg, FL. The two sections were identical in instructor, syllabus, textbook, lecture material, class size, and composition (N = 34 students, primarily first and second year, in each).
Materials
Cognitive exercises
Task stimuli were white sheets of paper filled with rows of characters (letters, numbers, symbols, or any combination of these). A block consisted of a one-page display of stimuli, and each cognitive exercise session included up to three blocks. Within each block, participants were instructed to begin the search at the top left of the display and scan characters from left to right, one row at a time, and perform a specific action (circle or strikethrough) to every instance of the target(s). At the start of each block, participants were given a starting instruction and told to continue until the experimenter said, “stop, switch,” which served as a cue for the next instruction. For example, an initial directive to “circle letter N,” after a 25-s delay, might be followed by the “stop, switch” cue and a new directive of “strikethrough number 4.” To create sufficient demand on visual attention, target–distracter ratio and display density were progressively increased across blocks and sessions (Huang & Wang, 2009). Task difficulty was also manipulated by varying the number of targets and actions included in a given search instruction. For example, “Circle the letter K” would be considered easier than “Circle the letters K and W, and strikethrough the number 4.” Task difficulty was incrementally increased, across blocks and between sessions, to offset practice effects and keep students engaged in the cognitive exercises.
Training protocol
At the start of the class period on training days, participants were provided with a packet of stimulus sheets and verbal directions, as detailed above, by an experimenter not otherwise affiliated with the class or students. The instructor’s lecture commenced shortly after the completion of the 5-min cognitive exercise session, about 6–8 min into the class period, and continued for the remainder of the 90-min class period. On nontraining days, lecture began immediately at the start of the class period, or in some cases, after a brief quiz. The program consisted of five sessions over 7 weeks.
Exam performance
Four multiple-choice format exams were administered during the semester. Of these, the second and third exams corresponded to the period during which the training program was implemented and were selected for data analysis. Items were pooled across the two exams, and each question was designated as one of the following: (1) based upon lecture material presented on a training day, (2) based upon lecture material presented on a nontraining day, or (3) based upon textbook reading. Each test question was rated for difficulty on a 3-point scale, using Bloom’s taxonomy as a guide (Adams, 2015). Of the 98 questions, 12 were textbook-based and excluded from analysis. Of the remaining questions, 24 were based on training day lecture material (average difficulty rating, M = 1.98), and 62 were drawn from nontraining day lecture material (average difficulty rating, M = 1.57). For each participant, two scores were computed: proportion of correctly answered items from training lectures and proportion of correctly answered items from nontraining lectures.
Student feedback survey
To evaluate the effectiveness of the cognitive exercise program from a student perspective, an online survey was created using Typeform, a program that allows responses to be submitted anonymously. Students were asked to self-evaluate the following, using a 5-point scale: average alertness level before cognitive exercise, average alertness level during cognitive exercise, average alertness level after cognitive exercise, ability to attend to lecture after cognitive exercise, and, ability to effectively take notes after cognitive exercise. Additionally, students were asked whether they would be willing to do cognitive exercise before quizzes or exams and in other courses. Lastly, the students were asked to rate the cognitive exercise intervention overall, using a five-star rating.
Procedure
At the start of the semester, students were informed that cognitive training activities during class time would be a regular part of the course curriculum, and participation was expected. Students were invited to take part in the evaluation of the program’s effectiveness and advised that this component was strictly optional. After the completion of the program, students were given an opportunity to provide informed consent to allow the experimenter access to their exam results and class attendance record for research purposes. To ensure that students did not feel compelled to consent, the instructor left the room while the experimenter distributed and collected the consent forms. All the students in the class provided written informed consent, and the experimenter was given access to the students’ exam results and attendance records. At the end of the last cognitive exercise session, students were provided with a link to the anonymous online survey and invited to provide honest feedback about the program and their experience.
Results
Exam Performance
Data analysis included only participants who attended all lectures and training sessions during the sampling period, thus the final sample was N = 48 (38 women and 10 men). A paired-samples t test indicated that the proportion of questions answered correctly was greater for posttraining lecture material (M = 0.880, SD = 0.082) compared to nontraining day lecture material (M = 0.824, SD = 0.097), t(47) = −4.24, p < .001, d = 0.624, CI95 [−0.08 ≤ M D ≤ −0.03].
Student Feedback Survey
Of the 68 students enrolled in class, approximately 88% completed the survey (N = 60). Paired-samples t-test comparisons indicated significantly greater self-reported level of alertness after training (M = 3.60, SD = 0.67) compared to before training (M = 3.05, SD = 0.50), t(59) = 5.90, p < .001, d = 0.930, CI95 [−0.71 ≤ M D ≤ −0.35]. More than half the respondents reported positive effects of training; 57% reported above-average ability to attend to lecture, and 53% reported above-average note-taking ability, following training. The majority of students also expressed interest in taking part in additional cognitive exercise (72% responded yes to cognitive exercise before quizzes or exams, and 82% said yes to including the program in other courses). On average, students rated the program overall as four stars on a five-star scale.
Discussion
To summarize, cognitive exercise was associated with modest learning gains, as measured by exam performance, and subjective student reports indicated overall satisfaction with training and perceived benefits. In particular, students reported increases in their levels of alertness both during and after the brain training exercises. Also, the majority of students rated the training as favorable and would be open to incorporating the training into other courses or prior to quizzes and exams. The finding of relatively higher exam performance for posttraining lecture material, along with students’ self-reports of increased alertness during and after sessions, suggests a postexercise reduction in mind wandering. While speculative, this possibility is consistent with previous research and could perhaps be tested in future studies via the inclusion of mind wandering probes during lecture (Risko et al., 2012).
Limitations of the present study include the potential for bias; the instructor was not blind to condition and thus may have (inadvertently) lectured with greater clarity or confidence on days that included cognitive exercise. Likewise, students’ favorable reports on the feedback survey may have been influenced by the expectation that cognitive exercise would improve their ability to focus and attend to lecture. With respect to program evaluation, exam scores alone are not a sufficient measure of learning. And, because an exam is given after multiple class periods, students have an opportunity to review lecture material outside of class. From a practical standpoint, group training poses specific challenges. In the present study, students seldom arrived to class simultaneously/on time (and some students missed class altogether); thus, data points were lost from analyses, and some students did not receive the full benefit of the program. Moreover, because students differ in ability, it was virtually impossible to ensure that all students were equally engaged in, yet not frustrated by, cognitive exercises.
Directions for future research include follow-up studies to establish the program’s efficacy and mode of action for boosting lecture learning. To this end, perhaps future studies might include postlecture quizzes (and/or other outcome measures) and in-lecture mind wandering probes. Pretest measures might also be a useful addition to determine which students would most likely benefit from prelecture cognitive exercise. Previous research suggests that the effects of some mind wandering interventions depend on measurable individual differences, such as level of baseline distractibility (Kane et al., 2007; Mrazek et al., 2013). Yet another avenue of research might focus on refining the program and its implementation. For example, issues of timing and pace could be resolved by a computerized program (which might also be less cumbersome than a paper–pencil version). Of course, a unique feature of the present design is its resemblance to a natural classroom, wherein lecture is not self-paced, nor individually tailored, and students are expected to stay vigilant regardless of difficulty level. On the other hand, partial automation might improve the program’s usability, while retaining key elements. For instance, whereas in the present version, an experimenter presents visual search targets and switch cues, perhaps these could be delivered via PowerPoint or another medium that would retain the mixed auditory–visual component of the exercises. This alternative would afford greater standardization of cue presentation and may be a more feasible option for instructors who wish to implement the program.
In conclusion, while the present research is preliminary, the findings are compelling and warrant further exploration. The possibility that prelecture cognitive training may have benefits that parallel those of a preworkout physical warm-up is intuitive and exciting. Given the enthusiastic response of the majority of our students, perhaps other instructors will be inspired to try something like this in their own classrooms. Aside from its potential cognitive benefit, the program serves nicely as a teaching example for applied research methods, individual differences, and the cross-discipline nature of psychology.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.