IP 4 - Attention Audit
For this audit, I created a Google Form to keep a log of my tasks and attention throughout the day. Here are the questions I asked myself and an example of the form:
Next, I downloaded the results as a CSV. Looking to further analyse my data, I focused on some key points from Yves Citton’s (2016) work, The Ecology of Attention and from DeCastell and Jenson’s (2004) work, Paying attention to attention: New economies for learning. The goal was to find new ways to categorize my data to reveal better patterns for analysis.
Adding for Analysis
Citton’s (2016) conclusion overviews five levels of attention, the final two being voluntary attention and environmental or external stimulus response (p. 175-176). DeCastell and Jenson (2004) also explore the concept of “voluntary” attention. One way I wanted to analyze my data was to have a way to categorize if my attention was given voluntarily (self-initiated, goal-oriented) or captured (triggered by some external source such as a notification). I added a new column and sorted each event into these two categories.
Second, I wanted to break down further how my attention was captured. I can assume that all of the voluntary attention was self-initiated. However, a pattern seemed to emerge when looking at my notes for external stimuli like where I was (physical proximity) or what caught my eye (notification) as well as my emotional state (specifically boredom). I chose to add another column that categorized each event by its “capture mechanism” and labelled the voluntary attention as a self-initiated mechanism. The capture mechanisms I settled on were, “notification”, “physical proximity”, and “boredom”.
Third, Citton (2016) engages with the idea of “deep attention” (p. 10) as concentrating on one thing for a long time and conversely, “hyper-attention” or the switching of focus rapidly. I think my data makes it difficult to categorize hyper-attention because it's clear that I was multitasking often (13 out of 20 events involved some sort of multitasking or multi-attentional interactions). However, the length of engagement during those times varied. I added a third column, “depth of engagement” and categorized it by time. Although time is perhaps problematic as a way to define depth of engagement, as I could easily get distracted by something for over 30 minutes, I would still argue that it was deep attention if it was sustained. I used the following definitions: “shallow” engagement was under 10 minutes, “medium” engagement was between 10-30 minutes, and “deep” engagement was anything over 30 minutes.
With these three new columns, it is interesting to note the links between the depth of engagement and what captured my attention. None of these events lead to any long spans of attention, or depth of engagement.
Finally, I wanted to dig a bit deeper into the idea of multi-tasking. Citton (2016, p. 184) explored the definitions of attention as "cognitive unison” and “continuous partial attention”. DeCastell and Jenson (2004) also explore the idea of multitasking, somewhat amplified by information overload and the fact that we might be impatient, such as having multiple screens to complete tasks while something else is “loading”. These ideas sparked a curiosity to try re-sort my responses in my category of multitasking from a new perspective. I decided to sort the data by whether or not I view the multitasking pairing as conflicting with the main task, complementing the main task, or absence of multitasking. This revealed that in every instance except one the tasks seemed to be competing with my attention, not resulting in a unified focus.
Key Takeaways - So What?
Everyday can be seen as a battle of attention, where do I give it, what is it taken by, how can I devote more of it.. and so on. I recognize on a daily basis that I lose myself to “doom scrolling” or switch focus from tasks that actually deserve my attention. During the completion of this IP I was bombarded by digital and physical environmental attention bids (notifications and people) as well as attention switches due to fatigue or mental blocks. I really like the idea put forth in the conclusion of Citton’s (2016) work, “The aim of individuating attention is not, therefore, to escape alienation, but to judiciously choose our alienations: what forms of alienation enrich us?” (p. 179). Even looking at my patterns of attention demonstrates the natural ways I flow in and out of focus. Next I need to decide which are most worthy of my time. Complimenting this perspective, I also wish to look at “hacking” my environment to reduce attention bids when I want to say hyper-focused. Perhaps the most compelling quote from Citton (2016) best summarizes my main takeaway:
“Learn to devote yourself, at different times, to hyper-focusing, open vigilance and free-floating attention. Even more than the ability to concentrate, good attentional health is characterized by an aptitude for modulating your level of attention to the situation at hand. It is just as essential to be able to immerse yourself in methods of sustained hyper-focusing, which make us impervious to any external stimulus, as it is to sweep broadly across the field of possibilities to note something entirely new, or to allow your free-floating attention to transgress the barriers of habit.” (p. 180).
I often get frustrated when I realize that my attention was not where “it should have been”. It would be interesting to note if there are psychological or physical changes after a sustained period of giving attention to attention and further exploring how that might change the way educators view the ecology of attention.
Sources
Citton, Y. (2016). The Ecology of Attention. Polity.
De Castell, S. and Jenson, J. (2004), Paying attention to attention: New economies for learning. Educational Theory, 54: 381-397. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0013-2004.2004.00026.x