OBJECTIVE

The skill of multitasking at work is believed to be a strength by employers and supervisors, yet a study indicates that multitasking is less efficient because it takes extra time to shift mental gears every time a person switches between tasks [3].

Everyday an individual performs activity A, which they complete every day while carrying out their primary task. This is known as a steady state activity. If someone tries something novel while doing their primary task, it is defined as an ancillary activity.

This experiment compared the impact of normal and ancillary activities on the performance of an individual while executing the primary task. The main objective is to find how multitasking affects the performance of people, as compared to completing the tasks sequentially.

Model Selection

Model Selection: Randomized Block Factorial Design

Experimental Unit: 21-30 Year Old Friends of Researchers in STEM Majors at Purdue University
Experimental Factor #1: Passage Copying-Two Levels: Sequential and Multitasking Experimental Factor #2: Writing Subject-Three Levels: Fiction, Nonfiction, and Random Blocking Factor: Gender-Two Levels: Male and Female

Three Replicates (r = 3)
Response Variable: Time to Complete Copying Passage in Seconds (Main) and Number of Numbers Counted Backwards While Multitasking (Secondary)
36 Total Response Units

Conclusion

Trial: τi

With a p-value of 0.0091, we reject the null hypothesis that the trials are the same and thus suggest that they are not equal to each other. Therefore, we suggest that there is a difference between the trials and that the sequential and multitasking trials are not equal to each other.

Subject Effect: βj

With a p-value of 0.0613, we fail to reject the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the writing subjects in time to complete writing the passage. The p-value suggests that there is a potential trend, however its not significant.

Gender Effect: δk

With a p-value of 0.0565, we fail to reject the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the blocking factor of gender in time to complete writing the passage. The p- value suggests that there is a potential trend, however its not significant.

Interaction Effect: (τβ)ij

With a p-value of 0.61, we fail to reject the null hypothesis that there is a difference between the interaction terms and thus it’s not significant.

However, the overall trend for the experiment showed that the students performed overall slower during the multitasking run compared to the sequential one. In fact, the study showed that on average, students took 24% longer to complete the task by multitasking than sequential. Thus, putting into question whether students should be multitasking to complete their assignments.