Is multitasking really more efficient?...
Oh, my.........this article is so obviously biased in favor of folks who think in a linear fashion.
Not meaning to provoke, but the phrases: "hate to bust your bubble" and "you probably take great pride in being a multi-tasker" do put folks like me on defense.
We never claimed to feel proud . We are just being who we are. In all honesty, we don't feel there is a problem. We don't think we are doing two things at once. We think we are maximizing our learning. We aren't trying to save time, we are trying to spend our time in ways that keep us engaged.
"Multitasking involves engaging in two tasks simultaneously. But here's the catch. It's only possible if two conditions are met: 1) at least one of the tasks is so well learned as to be automatic, meaning no focus or thought is necessary to engage in the task (e.g., walking or eating) and 2) they involve different types of brain processing."
Listening to lectures and picking out vital words is something most students HAVE automatized. This is especially true if you pair your words with a visual graphic on a PPT slide. We see it: DONE. When you interpret the slide verbally for five or more minutes, it IS possible we already did that . So..........we send our resources elsewhere- often using technology to extend the new learning you just sent our way.
Interpreting visual graphics and listening to verbal lectures ARE two different tasks. SO- yes: we can do both if we learn like that.
It saddens me that this research and this article have tainted the understanding of many people. I suspect linear thinkers use it to promote (and validate) how they think. : (