Introduction
The term 'attention' doth find frequent utterance within the precincts of educational establishments. Teachers and parents alike lament the want of attentiveness displayed by students towards instructions and directions. (This, however, doth not appear to be the crux of the matter in the introductory scenario; rather, the issue doth hinge upon the meaningfulness of the cognitive processes involved.) Nay, even those students who achieve distinction in their studies do not invariably attend to events pertinent to instruction. A veritable bombardment of sights, sounds, odours, tastes, and sensations doth assail us; it is neither feasible nor indeed desirable that we should attend to them all. Our attentional faculties are circumscribed; we are capable of attending to but a select few things simultaneously. Thus, attention may be construed as the very process of selecting, from a plethora of potential inputs, those deemed worthy of our cognitive engagement.
Alternatively, 'attention' may refer to a finite resource, human in nature, which is expended in the pursuit of one's objectives, and in the mobilisation and maintenance of cognitive processes (Grabe, 1986). Attention is not merely a bottleneck within the information processing system, through which only a limited quantum of information may pass. Instead, it doth delineate a more general constraint upon the entire edifice of human information processing.
Theories of Attention
Inquiries have been directed toward elucidating the mechanisms by which individuals elect inputs for attentional consideration. Within the ambit of dichotic listening paradigms, participants are furnished with headphones, each auricle receiving disparate auditory messages. Participants are then tasked with 'shadowing' one of the messages (i.e., reiterating verbatim the aural input); a task at which most evince considerable proficiency. Cherry (1953) sought to ascertain the fate of the unattended message. His investigations revealed that participants retained awareness of its presence, its nature as either a human vocalisation or an ambient noise, and alterations in the gender of the speaker. However, they typically remained oblivious to the message's content, the specific lexicon employed, the linguistic provenance, or instances of lexical repetition.
Broadbent (1958) propounded a model of attention predicated upon the concept of a filter, or bottleneck, theory. According to this construct, environmental stimuli impinge upon the sensory apparatus, wherein they are retained ephemerally. A selection process ensues, predicated upon the physical attributes of the informational fragments, thereby designating certain elements for escalated processing by the perceptual system. Information eschewed by the perceptual system is effectively filtered out, thus precluding its progression beyond the sensory stratum. The selective nature of attention is thus ascribed to the 'bottleneck' phenomenon, whereby only a subset of messages undergoes amplified scrutiny. Within the framework of dichotic listening studies, filter theory postulates that participants elect a channel contingent upon the given instructions. Cognisance of certain attributes of the alternate message is preserved by virtue of the physical assessment of information that precedes the filtering mechanism.
Subsequent endeavours by Treisman (1960, 1964) brought to light certain inadequacies inherent within the filter theory. Treisman observed, within the context of dichotic listening experiments, that participants would routinely re-allocate their attentional focus between the respective auditory channels, contingent upon the spatial locus of the message being shadowed. Should the message, initially presented to the left auricle, abruptly migrate to the right, participants would persist in shadowing the original message, rather than accommodating the novel auditory input from the left. Ergo, selective attention is governed not solely by the physical provenance of the stimulus, but also by its semantic content.
Treisman (1992; Treisman & Gelade, 1980) advanced a feature-integration theory. In certain instances, we apportion attention across a multitude of inputs, each undergoing a modicum of rudimentary processing. Conversely, we may concentrate upon a specific input, an endeavour that imposes a greater cognitive burden. Rather than outright precluding messages, attention merely diminishes their salience relative to those under direct attentional scrutiny. Initial exposure to informational inputs precipitates a battery of analytical assessments pertaining to their physical properties and substantive content. Subsequent to this preliminary phase, an input may be singled out for focused attention.
Treisman’s model evinces a certain problematic aspect, insofar as it necessitates a substantial degree of analytical processing prior to the application of attention to an input, a circumstance that engenders perplexity, given the presumption that the initial analysis entails some measure of attentional engagement. Norman (1976) proposed that all inputs receive sufficient attentional apportionment to engender activation within a discrete sector of Long-Term Memory (LTM). At this juncture, a particular input is earmarked for intensified attentional scrutiny, contingent upon its degree of activation, a factor governed by contextual variables. An input exhibiting consonance with the established contextual framework, as delineated by prior inputs, is rendered more amenable to attentional focus. For instance, whilst engaged in the perusal of textual material, individuals are subject to a multitude of external stimuli impinging upon their sensory apparatus, yet maintain attentional focus upon the printed symbols.
According to Norman’s perspective, stimuli instigate activation within specific regions of LTM, but attention mandates a more comprehensive activation. Neisser (1967) posited the involvement of preattentive processes in the execution of head and ocular movements (e.g., re-focussing of attention) and in guided locomotion (e.g., ambulation, vehicular operation). Preattentive processes transpire autonomously, without conscious mediation on the part of the individual. Conversely, attentional processes are deliberate and necessitate conscious engagement. In support of this contention, Logan (2002) postulated the concomitance of attention and categorisation. During attentional engagement with an object, it undergoes categorisation based upon stored information within memory. Attention, categorisation, and memory thus represent tripartite facets of deliberate, conscious cognition. Current research is directed toward the elucidation of the neurophysiological mechanisms underpinning attention (Matlin, 2009).
Attention and Learning
Attention doth stand as a necessary prerequisite to the acquisition of knowledge. In the discerning of letters, a child doth learn the distinctive features thereof; to wit, in distinguishing 'b' from 'd', pupils must attend to the placement of the vertical line, whether it be on the left or right side of the circle, and not merely to the presence of a circle attached to a vertical line. To profit from the pedagogue's instruction, students must heed the teacher's voice, disregarding other sounds. To cultivate skills in reading comprehension, students must attend to the printed words themselves, and disregard such irrelevancies as the page's dimensions or colour.
Attention is a resource finite; learners do not possess an unlimited store thereof. Learners allocate their attention to activities as a function of motivation and self-regulation (Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989; Kanfer & Kanfer, 1991). As skills become routine, information processing requires less conscious attention. In mastering multiplication problems, students must attend to each stage of the process, verifying their calculations. Once students have mastered the multiplication tables and the algorithm, the solving of problems becomes automatic, triggered by the input. Research doth indicate that much cognitive skill processing becomes automatic with practice (Phye, 1989).
Differences in the ability to govern attention are associated with the student's age, hyperactivity, intelligence, and learning disabilities (Grabe, 1986). Attention deficits are linked to learning problems. Hyperactive students are characterised by excessive motor activity, distractibility, and diminished academic achievement. They find difficulty in focusing and sustaining attention on academic material. They may be unable to block out irrelevant stimuli, which overloads their processing systems. Sustaining attention over time requires that students work in a strategic manner and monitor their level of comprehension. Those of normal attainment and older children sustain attention better than do lower achievers and younger learners on tasks requiring strategic processing (Short, Friebert, & Andrist, 1990).
Teachers may discern attentive students by observing their eye focus, their capacity to commence work on cue (once directions have been given), and physical signs (e.g., handwriting) indicating their engagement in the task (Good & Brophy, 1984). However, physical signs alone may prove insufficient; strict teachers can maintain students in quietude even though they may not be engaged in class work.
Teachers can foster student attention to pertinent material through the design of classroom activities. Eye-catching displays or actions at the commencement of lessons engage student attention. Teachers who move about the classroom, especially when students are engaged in seat work, help sustain student attention on the task. Further suggestions for focusing and maintaining student attention are given in the Table 'Suggestions for focusing and maintaining student attention'
Student Attention in the Classroom
Various practices assist in preventing classrooms from becoming predictable and repetitive, which diminishes attention. Teachers can vary their presentations, materials employed, student activities, and personal qualities such as dress and mannerisms. Lesson formats for young children should be kept short. Teachers can sustain a high level of activity through student involvement and by moving about to check on student progress.
Kathy Stone might incorporate the following activities in a language arts lesson in her third-grade class. As students commence each section of a teacher-directed exercise, they can point to the location on their papers or in their books. The manner in which sections are introduced can be varied: Students can read together in small groups, individual students can read and be called upon to explain, or she can introduce the section herself. The manner in which students' answers are checked also can be varied: Students can use hand signals or respond in unison, or individual students can answer and explain their answers. As students independently complete the exercise, she moves about the room, checks students' progress, and assists those having difficulty learning or maintaining task focus.
A music teacher might increase student attention by using vocal exercises, singing certain selections, using instruments to complement the music, and adding movement to instruments. The teacher might combine activities or vary their sequence. Small tasks also can be varied to increase attention, such as the way a new music selection is introduced. The teacher might play the entire selection, then model by singing the selection, and then involve the students in the singing. Alternatively, for the last activity the teacher could divide the selection into parts, work on each of the small sections, and then combine these sections to complete the full selection.
| Device | Implementation |
|---|---|
| Signals | Signal to students at the start of lessons or when they are to change activities. |
| Movement | Move whilst presenting material to the whole class. Move around the room whilst students are engaged in seat work. |
| Variety | Use different materials and teaching aids. Use gestures. Do not speak in a monotone. |
| Interest | Introduce lessons with stimulating material. Appeal to students' interests at other times during the lesson. |
| Questions | Ask students to explain a point in their own words. Stress that they are responsible for their own learning. |
Attention and Reading
A commonplace research finding doth indicate that pupils are more prone to recollect salient textual components than those of lesser import (R. Anderson, 1982; Grabe, 1986). Readers of both adept and deficient skill are wont to pinpoint material of consequence and devote extended periods of scrutiny thereto (Ramsel & Grabe, 1983; Reynolds & Anderson, 1982). That which doth distinguish these readers is their subsequent processing and comprehension. Perchance, less proficient readers, being more exercised with rudimentary reading tasks (e.g., decoding), become diverted from material of import and process it not adequately for retention and retrieval. Whilst attending to material of consequence, proficient readers may be more inclined to relate the information to their existing knowledge, render it meaningful, and rehearse it, all of which doth improve comprehension (Resnick, 1981).
The significance of textual material can influence subsequent recollection through differential attention (R. Anderson, 1982). Textual elements, it would seem, are processed at some minimal level that their importance may be assessed. Based upon this evaluation, the textual element is either dismissed in favour of the subsequent element (unimportant information) or receives further attention (important information). Comprehension doth suffer when pupils do not pay adequate attention. Assuming attention to be sufficient, the actual types of processing in which pupils engage must differ to account for subsequent differences in comprehension. Superior readers may engage in a great deal of automatic processing initially and attend to information deemed important, whereas readers of lesser skill might engage in automatic processing less frequently.
Hidi (1995) did note that attention is requisite during manifold phases of reading: processing orthographic features, extracting meanings, judging information for importance, and focusing upon information of import. This doth suggest that attentional demands vary considerably depending upon the purpose of reading—for example, extracting details, comprehending, or new learning. Future research—especially neurophysiological—should help to clarify these issues.