One of the most cited articles by Paul Kirschner and me was about a simple but persistent misconception: that we can multitask. The answer remains no, even though it sometimes feels like we can. In reality, we simply switch between tasks quickly, and switching costs more than we think. In the meantime, a new meta-analysis has appeared that re-examines this question, specifically in an academic context: what does media multitasking – studying while also checking your messages, scrolling or opening YouTube – do to your school results?

The study brings together eleven recent studies from different countries and arrives at a clear but nuanced answer: the more students are distracted by digital media while studying, the lower their results. It is a negative correlation of r = -0.25, not dramatically large but consistent. Whether you are a student who quickly opens Instagram while studying or a teacher who wonders why your class seems so distracted, this figure is relevant.

What I found interesting is that the researchers also look at the enormous variation in the results. One study finds a more substantial impact than another. That is not a problem – it is part of meta-research – but it also says something: context matters. Age, motivation, self-regulation, the type of media… everything can play a role. And that is perhaps the greatest gain for further research.

The idea that multitasking is harmful has become widely accepted. But at the same time, we continue to do it en masse. In the classroom, on the train, at the kitchen table. Often because we think: “This is how young people (from 7 to 77) work.” Or worse: “I can combine it just fine.” This meta-analysis reminds us that this belief is not correct. Even if you think you can still follow a PowerPoint with half an eye, the figures show that your learning gain decreases.

For those who work with young people—or are young people themselves—this study has a clear message: Digital media are not neutral. Their constant availability invites distraction, and that distraction comes at a price. Those who really want to learn or perform will have to consciously choose to focus—notifications off, tabs closed, attention on.

I still maintain that multitasking is a myth. And this study shows why.

Abstract of the meta-analysis :

Academic media multitasking specifically refers to the phenomenon where students or academics divide their attention between learning-related activities, such as studying or reading scholarly material, and non-learning activities like texting friends, checking social media, or browsing unrelated websites. Studies confirm a negative correlation between media multitasking and academic achievement, with some reporting small to moderate effects or no correlation at all. This topic is particularly important today due to the pervasive use of media among younger generations and its impact on attention, focus, academic performance, and cognitive load. This meta-analysis aimed to quantitatively integrate individual correlational studies and draw general conclusions about the relationship between academic media multitasking and academic achievement. The sample comprised studies published in English scientific journals from 2010 to the present, with methodological characteristics matching the context of this analysis. A total of 11 studies were included in the final analysis. Correlation coefficients were used as a measure of effect size, with both fixed and random effects models applied to calculate the overall measure of effect size. The quality of the included studies was assessed, and potential publication bias was examined using a symmetry graph and Trim and Fill analysis. The results confirmed a low-intensity negative correlation between digital multitasking and academic achievement with a weighted average correlation coefficient of r=−0.252 (fixed effects model) and r=−0.246 (random effects model) and high heterogeneity (I² = 93.98%) among the studies, suggesting variability in the findings. The present meta-analysis also revealed high heterogeneity among the studies, suggesting variability in the findings. This heterogeneity opens avenues for exploring potential mediating relationships or covariates that impact why students engage in digital multitasking.