Investigating Digital Distraction among Pre-service Science, Technology, and Mathematics Teachers in Nigeria


  • Adeneye Olarewaju Awofala University of Lagos
  • Oladiran Stephen Olabiyi University of Lagos
  • Racheal O Okunuga University of Lagos
  • Omolabake Temilade Ojo University of Lagos
  • Awoyemi Abayomi Awofala Tai Solarin University of Education
  • Abisola O Lawani Tai Solarin University of Education



Digital distraction, scale, pre-service teachers, science, mathematics, technology, Nigeria


Internationally, proliferation of digital technologies in classrooms has produced digital distractions among digital natives in this 21st century. Thus, it is highly imperative to develop a suitable instrument for assessing and measuring digital distraction among higher education students to enable continuing research and practice. While previous studies had treated and measured digital distraction as a sub-component of a multi-dimensional construct and as a test, the present study through instrumentation survey research, developed and authenticated a standalone digital distraction scale among pre-service science, technology and mathematics (STM) teachers in Nigeria. The instrument is constructed by adopting a multidimensional standpoint of digital distraction around a higher-order modelling method. The pre-service STM teachers were recruited from a culturally varied university student population in Nigeria. The results showed a high level of digital distraction among the pre-service STM teachers in Nigeria and the digital distraction is composed of several connected yet distinctive factors (emotional distraction, digital addiction, and distraction by procrastination), with proof backing up a higher-order structural archetypal. More so, empirical evidence confirmed the measurement invariance of the scale with regards to gender and the consistency of the psychometric properties of the digital distraction scale. Finally, a test-retest reliability of the digital distraction scale showed that the scores are not variable over time and that the scale is not sensitive to alterations in the learning milieu. Finally, it is hoped that this tool will be handy for educators interested in isolating pre-service STM teachers at risk of high digital distraction which may cause lack of respect and privation of courtesy for instructors and personal distraction in the classroom.

Author Biographies

Adeneye Olarewaju Awofala, University of Lagos

Department of Science and Technology Education & Senior Lecturer


Oladiran Stephen Olabiyi, University of Lagos

Department of Science and Technology Education & Senior Lecturer

Racheal O Okunuga, University of Lagos

Department of Science and Technology Education & Senior Lecturer

Omolabake Temilade Ojo, University of Lagos

Department of Science and Technology Education & Lecturer II

Awoyemi Abayomi Awofala, Tai Solarin University of Education

Biological Sciences & Senior Lecturer

Abisola O Lawani, Tai Solarin University of Education

Mathematics & Senior Lecturer


Adams, D. (2006). Wireless laptops in the classroom (and the sesame street syndrome). Communications of the ACM, 49, 25-27.

Attia, N. A., Baig, L., Marzouk, Y. I, & Khan, A. (2017). The potential effect of technology and distractions on undergraduate students’ concentration. Pakistani Journal of Medical Science, 33(4), 860-865. doi:

Awofala, A. O. A. (2012). Development and factorial structure of students’ evaluation of teaching effectiveness scale in mathematics. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 7(1), 33 – 44.

Awofala, A. O. A. (2017). Assessing senior secondary school students’ mathematical proficiency as related to gender and performance in mathematics in Nigeria. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 3(2), 488-502.

Awofala, A. O. A., & Fatade, A. O. (2015). Validation of the domains of creativity scale for Nigerian preservice science, technology, and mathematics teachers. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 13(1), 131-150.

Burns, S., & Lohenry, K. (2010). Cellular phone use in class: Implications for teaching and learning a pilot study. College Student Journal, 44, 805-810.

Byrne, B. M. (2006). Structural equation modeling with EQS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). Mahwah, New Jersey: Psychology Press.

Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14, 464-504.

Chen, L., Nath, R., & Insley, R. (2014). Determinants of digital distraction: A cross-cultural investigation of users in Africa, China and the U.S. Journal of International Technology and Information Management, 23(3), 145-171.

Davis, R. A., Flett, G. L., & Besser, A. (2002). Validation of a new scale for measuring problematic Internet use: Implications for pre-employment screening. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 5(4), 331-345.

Duncan, D. K., Hoekstra, A. R., & Wilcox, B. R. (2012). Digital devices, distraction, and student performance: Does in-class cell phone use reduce learning? Astronomy Education Review, 11(1), 1–4.

Frisby, B. N., Sexton, B., Buckner, M., Beck, A-C. & Kaufmann, R. M. (2018). Peers and instructors as sources of distraction from a cognitive load perspective. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 12(2), 1-10. Available at:

Gebre, E., Saroyan, A., & Bracewell, R. (2014). Students' engagement in technology rich classrooms and its relationship to professors' conceptions of effective teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 83-96.

Greenfield, D. (2017). Digital distraction test. The Centre for Internet and Technology Addiction.

Hefferman, V. (2010). The attention-span myth. New York Times Magazine, November 11, 22.

Hegedus, S., & Roschelle, J. (Eds.). (2013). Learning important mathematics from contextualization and networked collaboration—A review of the SimCalc vision and contributions: Democratizing Access to Important Mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 125-129.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55.

Junco, R., & Cotton, S. (2011). Perceived academic effects of instant messaging use. Computers & Education, 56, 370-378.

Kraushaar, J. M., & Novak, D. C. (2010). Examining the effects of student multitasking with laptop during the lecture. Journal of Information Systems Education, 21(2), 241-251.

Martin, L. (2011). Teaching business statistics in a computer lab: Benefits or distraction? Journal of Education for Business, 86(6), 326-331.

McCoy, B. (2013). Digital distractions in the classroom: Student classroom use of digital devices for non-class related purposes. Journal of Media Education, 4(4), 5-14. Retrieved from

McCoy, B. R. (2016). Digital distractions in the classroom phase ii: student classroom use of digital devices for non-class related purposes. Faculty Publications, College of Journalism & Mass Communications, 90, 1-43.

Melerdiercks, K. (2005). The dark side of the laptop university. Journal of Ethics, 14, 9-11.

O'bannon, B., & Thomas, K. (2014). Teacher perceptions of using mobile phones in the classroom: Age matters! Computers & Education, 15-25.

Ogunniyi, M. A. (2004). Development, validation and use of university students’ evaluation of teaching effectiveness scale (USETES). Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria.

Ophir, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A. D. (2009) Cognitive Control in Media Multi-Taskers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(37), 15583–15587

PR Newswire. (2013). Digital distraction: CIO survey: Tech gadgets contributing to decline in workplace etiquette. PR Newswire, May 7, 2013.

Rajeshwar, K. (2010). Too connected in a wireless world? Interface, 19(4), 3.

Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W., & van der Veen, J. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers & Education, 58(1), 136-153.

Seemiller, C. (2017). Curbing digital distractions in the classroom. Contemporary Educational Technology, 8(3), 214-231

Sullivan, A., Johnson, B., Owens, L., & Conway, R. (2014). Punish them or engage them? Teachers’ views of unproductive student behaviours in the classroom. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(6), 43-56.

Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251-296. doi:10.1023/A:1022193728205.

Tomarken, A. J., & Waller, N. G. (2003). Potential problems with “well fitting” models. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 578-598.

Wen, M. L., Tsai, C. C., Lin, H. M., & Chuang, S. C. (2004). Cognitive-metacognitive and content-technical aspects of constructivist Internet-based learning environments: A LISREL analysis. Computers & Education, 43, 237-248.

Wood, E., Zivcakova, L., Gentile, P., Archer, K., Pasquale, D., &. Nosko, A. (2012). Examining the impact of off-multitasking with technology on real-time classroom learning. Computers & Education, 58, 365-374.