What are the real-worldimplications or application of the obtained results? (The answer tothis question can be found by reading the “Discussion” section ofthe article, especially the “Conclusion” or last fewparagraphs).

and here are thediscussion:

Today’s students are quite differentthan those who populated university classrooms at the turn of thecentury. Raised in the internet age, constantly “plugged in”,seemingly inextricably attached to cell phones, and facile with alltypes of electronic media, these students nonetheless are expectedto learn much of the same material as did their predecessors of thelate 20th century. Today’s students’ classroom behaviors, howeverreflective of their engagement and facility with currenttechnology, may be putting students’ learning at risk. And today’sclassrooms, configured for wireless computing or equipped withcomputers, may be enabling students to engage in behaviors thatcompromise learning. Although many stories and anecdotes describeprofessors who find their students shopping online, playing games,texting friends, and checking Facebook, no prevalence data haveindicated how widespread of a phenomenon classroom multitasking is.The purpose of this study was to describe the multitaskingbehaviors of university students while sitting in their traditionalclassrooms and while on their computers working on online classes.The finding that the majority of students multitask is notsurprising; however, in an institution where the average class sizewas 22.7 during the semester that the study was done, it issurprising that more than 50% of the students sitting in class werefrequently text messaging and more than one fourth were frequentlychecking Facebook, presumably while their professors looked on.Abaté (2008) claims that the consequence of tolerating multitaskingin the classroom is an education that is limited in itsadaptability, superficial, and short term memory based. Thenegative association between multitasking and GPA that was found inthis study may not provide evidence for Abaté’s (2008) specificclaims, but it does provide some justification for those professorswho are banning laptops and cell phones from their classrooms(Adams, 2006; Jan, 2011). Banning phones and laptops in theclassroom may meet with resistance because students may not beaware of the frequency of their multitasking, and if they are, theymay not see it as problematic. Turkle (2011) comments that today’syouth grew up in a culture of distraction and that technology is somuch a part of life, it has become like a phantom limb. She refersto individuals as “tethered” to technology, and contends that formany, the “unplugged” world does not provide satisfaction. Turkle(2008) writes that a phenomenon such as e-mailing during classes isso mundane that it is scarcely noticed, and that once donesurreptitiously, it is currently not something people feel theyneed to hide. The proliferation of online classes and thesignificantly greater amounts of multitasking that take place amongstudents engaged in online coursework may lead to some concernabout the quality of attention and learning going on in onlineclasses. Some of the focus group responses to the question askingparticipants what else they were doing while they were engaged incoursework were unique to students who took online classes. Theseincluded cooking dinner, caring for children, playing with pets,and conversing with family/roommates. These kinds of activities notonly divert cognitive focus and attention, they also can physicallyremove the student from the act of engaging in the class. 8Multitasking in the University Classroomhttp://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/ij-sotl/vol6/iss2/8 Theassociations between multitasking and risk behaviors aredisconcerting. College students worldwide have been known to engagein various risk behaviors, including alcohol, tobacco, and otherdrug use, unhealthy sexual practices, and disregard for preventiveand protective habits (Centers for Disease Control, 1997; Steptoeet al, 2002). Indeed, the overall risk behavior of the currentstudy population is similar to that of the general US collegepopulation. However, the significant correlations betweenmultitasking and risk behaviors, and the significant differences inrisk behaviors between high and low multitaskers support Foehr’s(2006) findings that multitaskers tend to engage in risk behaviors,and point to an additional factor to examine when considering riskbehaviors among college and university students. Clearlyunderstanding that correlations do not support causality, theseresults may, however, lead one to wonder if multitasking in theclassroom may be yet another risk that some university students areinclined to take. The results may also lead one to believe thatclassroom multitaskers must also be engaging in multitaskingbehaviors outside of the classroom – perhaps while driving, doinghomework, or engaging in other activities whose effectiveness andsafety multitasking may compromise. The consideration ofmultitasking as a risk behavior is exacerbated by Greenfield’s(2011) claim that the digital communication and entertainmentdevices frequently used by multitaskers have addictive propertiesthat can distract users as well as alter their moods andconsciousness. Wang & Tchernev’s (2012) findings that collegestudents’ multitasking behaviors generate emotional gratificationprovide evidence that students have a powerful drive to repeatedlyengage in multitasking behavior. The addictive and emotionallygratifying nature of multitasking make it all the more difficult,and perhaps all the more important, to address. This study hadseveral limitations: the sample was a nonrandom convenience sample,the data were self-reported, and the design was correlational.These limitations constrain inferences or generalizations regardingthe entire university student population. Another limitation wasthat the multitasking behaviors that were listed on the surveymight not adequately represent all of the multitasking activitiesin which the student respondents engaged. Despite the limitations,however, the results of this study can provide a starting point forfurther research as well as for discussions about learning in the21st century, about standards for classroom behavior, and about thenature of risk behaviors. Ongoing research into the phenomenon ofclassroom multitasking may provide guidelines for the mitigation ofthe problems and their sequelae. Further research is needed toassess the associations between multitasking and risk behaviors;one suggestion would be to add multitasking items to the NationalYouth Risk Behavior Surveys and the College Health Risk BehaviorSurvey. Another important area for continued investigation is toexamine the predictors of multitasking behaviors: what kinds ofattitudes, beliefs, personality traits, and learning environmentslend themselves to multitasking behaviors? And are said attitudes,beliefs, characteristics, and environments modifiable? Universityprofessors might also engage in small action research studies intheir classrooms, experimenting with and assessing the effects ofdifferent pedagogical styles and approaches that might decreasemultitasking among students. Although it is very likely thatstudents have been engaging in distracting behaviors in theclassroom throughout the history of education, the ubiquity oftechnologies seems to make the possibilities for classroommultitasking even more likely in the near future. A recent whitepaper by the global telecommunications company, Ericsson (2011),projects that by 9 IJ-SoTL, Vol. 6 [2012], No. 2, Art. 8 2020 therewill be 50 billion connected devices, with individuals possessingbetween 5 and 10 devices each, so it’s quite clear that thetemptations and opportunities for multitasking will not abate andwill not go away. The sheer number of electronic devices, theiraddictive nature, and the tethered selves that students have becomecan make addressing the issue of classroom multitasking quitedaunting. For the sake of student learning outcomes, however,instructors should attempt to mitigate the problem to the extentpossible. Some suggestions include having and enforcing clearwritten policies regarding multitasking behaviors and media use inthe classroom, along with clear penalties for non-compliance withsaid policies. Instructors can utilize hands-on, active learningstrategies that require that students be on task with tasks thatminimize opportunities for engagement with electronic devices. And,if possible, professors can set up classroom seating that minimizesvisual obstructions and maximizes opportunities for circulatingaround classrooms. Many university professors are aware that theirstudents are engaging in multiple behaviors while sitting in theirclassrooms; these professors should not avert their eyes, butrather help their students become aware of the consequences ofmultitasking. Perhaps engaging students in discussions aboutmultitasking and seeking student input in addressing the issue canbe a first step in resolving what has the potential to become apernicious problem.