YouTube Arayüzündeki Dikkat Dağıtıcı Ögelerin Öğrencilerin Zihin Gezinmesi ve Bilişsel Yük Algısına Etkisi

Hasan Celal Balıkçı

doi:10.30703/cije.1758690

TR EN

YouTube Arayüzündeki Dikkat Dağıtıcı Ögelerin Öğrencilerin Zihin Gezinmesi ve Bilişsel Yük Algısına Etkisi

Abstract

Bu araştırma, YouTube’un standart arayüzünde yer alan dikkat dağıtıcı unsurların (önerilen videolar, yorumlar, yan paneller) ortaokul öğrencilerinin zihin gezinmesi ve bilişsel yük algısı üzerindeki etkilerini incelemek amacıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışma, Şanlıurfa ili Siverek ilçesinde, 6. sınıfta öğrenim gören 34 öğrenci ile yürütülmüş; öğrenciler rastgele olarak YouTube standart arayüzü (n=17) ve sadeleştirilmiş MP4 arayüzü (n=17) gruplarına atanmıştır. Katılımcılar, noktalama işaretleri konusunu işleyen yaklaşık beş dakikalık bir eğitsel videoyu izlemiş; izleme süresince bakış hareketleri Tobii Pro göz izleme cihazı ile kaydedilmiş, ardından Zihin Gezinmesi Ölçeği (ZGÖ-5) ve Bilişsel Yük Ölçeği uygulanmıştır. Veriler Mann-Whitney U testi ile analiz edilmiş, ısı haritaları nitel olarak değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular, zihin gezinmesi ve bilişsel yük açısından iki grup arasında anlamlı fark bulunmadığını; ancak zihin gezinmesi puanlarının anlamlılık düzeyine yakın olduğunu göstermiştir. Göz izleme verilerinde, içerik alanına odaklanmada fark görülmezken, YouTube grubunda eğitmen yüzüne odaklanma süresi anlamlı düzeyde daha yüksek çıkmıştır. Isı haritaları, her iki grupta da eğitmen yüzünün temel görsel odak noktası olduğunu, MP4 arayüzünde ise içerik metnine daha dengeli bir odaklanma sağlandığını ortaya koymuştur. Sonuç olarak, YouTube arayüzündeki dikkat dağıtıcı öğeler öğrencilerin dikkat ve bilişsel yük algısını belirgin biçimde etkilememekle birlikte, görsel odaklanma dağılımını değiştirebilmektedir; bu nedenle video tabanlı öğrenme ortamlarında arayüz sadeleştirme stratejilerinin dikkate alınması önerilmektedir.

Keywords

The Effect of Distracting Elements in the YouTube Interface on Students’ Mind-Wandering and Perceived Cognitive Load

Abstract

This study aims to examine the effects of distracting elements in YouTube's standard interface (e.g., suggested videos, comment sections, and side panels) on middle school students' mind-wandering and perceived cognitive load. The research was conducted with 34 sixth-grade students in the Siverek district of Şanlıurfa, Türkiye. Participants were randomly assigned to two groups: one viewed an educational video through the standard YouTube interface (n = 17), and the other through a simplified MP4 version without interface distractions (n = 17). During the five-minute video focused on punctuation marks, students' eye movements were recorded using a Tobii Pro eye-tracking device. Following the viewing, the Mind-Wandering Questionnaire (ZGÖ-5) and a Video-Compatible Cognitive Load Scale were administered. Data were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test, and heatmaps were qualitatively evaluated. The findings revealed no statistically significant difference between the groups in mind-wandering or cognitive load, although mind-wandering scores were close to the threshold of significance. Eye-tracking data showed no difference in fixation behavior toward the content area, but students in the YouTube group fixated significantly longer on the instructor's face. Heatmaps revealed that the instructor's face was the primary visual focus in both groups, while the MP4 group exhibited a more evenly distributed attention across the textual content. In conclusion, although the distracting elements of the YouTube interface did not substantially affect students' perceived cognitive load or attention levels, they did influence visual attention patterns. Therefore, interface simplification strategies should be considered in the design of video-based learning environments.

Keywords

References

Aagaard, J. (2015). Drawn to distraction: A qualitative study of off-task use of educational technology. Computers & Education, 87, 90-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.03.010
Akaslan, D., & Alpsülün, M. (2017). Göz izleme tekniklerini kullanarak öğrencilerin elektronik içerikler ile etkileşiminin araştırılması. In N. Akfırat, D. F. Staub, & G. Yavaş (Eds.), Current database in education (pp. 314–334). IJOPEC.
Alpsülün, M., Balıkçı, H. C., & Özek, M. B. (2024). Use of eye tracking method according to individual differences: A review from the perspective of gender, personality structure, and birth. Içinde Social Reflections of Human-Computer Interaction in Education, Management, and Economics (ss. 167-183). IGI Global Scientific Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-3033-3.ch009
Bailenson, J. N., Blascovich, J., Beall, A. C., & Loomis, J. M. (2003). Interpersonal distance in immersive virtual environments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(7), 819-833. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203029007002
Bannert, M. (2002). Managing cognitive load—Recent trends in cognitive load theory. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 139-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00021-4
Becan, C., & Eaghanioskoui, G. (2019). The effect of instagram as a tool of conspicious consumption on purchase motivation of consumers. Electronic Journal of New Media, 3(2), 84-101. https://doi.org/10.17932/IAU.EJNM.25480200.2019.3/2.84-101
Benway, J. P., & Lane, D. M. (1998). Banner blindness: Web searchers often miss “obvious” links. Itg Newsletter, 1(3), 1-22
Bojko, A. (Aga). (2009). Informative or misleading? Heatmaps deconstructed. Içinde J. A. Jacko (Ed.), Human-computer Interaction. New Trends (ss. 30-39). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02574-7_4

Bozhilova, N. S., Michelini, G., Kuntsi, J., & Asherson, P. (2018). Mind wandering perspective on attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 92, 464-476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.07.010
Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2013). Science, new media, and the public. Science, 339(6115), 40-41. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1232329
Buscher, G., Cutrell, E., & Morris, M. R. (2009). What do you see when you’re surfing? Using eye tracking to predict salient regions of web pages. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 21-30. https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518705
Cain, M. S., & Mitroff, S. R. (2011). Distractor filtering in media multitaskers. Perception, 40(10), 1183-1192. https://doi.org/10.1068/p7017
Finlay, K. A., & Rogers, J. (2015). Maximizing self-care through familiarity: The role of practice effects in enhancing music listening and progressive muscle relaxation for pain management. Psychology of Music, 43(4), 511-529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735613513311
Garza Villarreal, E. A., Brattico, E., Vase, L., Østergaard, L., & Vuust, P. (2012). Superior analgesic effect of an active distraction versus pleasant unfamiliar sounds and music: The influence of emotion and cognitive style. PLOS One, 7(1), e29397. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0029397
Goldberg, J. H., & Kotval, X. P. (1999). Computer interface evaluation using eye movements: Methods and constructs. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 24(6), 631-645. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-8141(98)00068-7
Gong, Z., & Ding, Y. (2018). Mind wandering: Mechanism, function, and intervention. Psychology, 9(12), 2662-2672. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2018.912152
Greeves, S., & Oz, M. (2024). YouTube in higher education: Comparing student and instructor perceptions and practices. Frontiers in Education, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1330405
Guilford, J. P. (1954). Psychometric methods. McGraw-Hill.
Guo, P. J., Kim, J., & Rubin, R. (2014). How video production affects student engagement: An empirical study of MOOC videos. Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning @ scale conference, 41-50. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556325.2566239
Gür, D., Alpsülün, M., & Türel, Y. K. (2024). Ortaokul öğrencileri neden youtuber olmak i̇stiyor? Gümüşhane University Journal of Social Sciences, 15(2), 332-347. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/gumus/article/1345251
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (Eighth edition). Cengage. Hari, J. (2023). Çalınan dikkat: Neden odaklanamıyoruz? (B. E. Aksoy, Çev.; 5. basım). Metis Yayınları.
Hollis, R. B., & Was, C. A. (2016). Mind wandering, control failures, and social media distractions in online learning. Learning and Instruction, 42, 104-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.007
Hoogerbrugge, A. J., Hooge, I. T. C., Hessels, R. S., & Strauch, C. (2025). When is enough enough? Empirical guidelines to determine participant sample size for scene viewing studies. Behavior Research Methods, 57(9), 241. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-025-02754-8
Hyönä, J., Lorch, R. F., & Kaakinen, J. K. (2002). Individual differences in reading to summarize expository text: Evidence from eye fixation patterns. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 44-55. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.1.44
Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld: From garden to Earth. Indiana University Press. https://www.google.com/books?hl=tr&lr=&id=qGx-_VpaJKUC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=Ihde,+D.+(1990).+Technology+and+the+lifeworld:+From+garden+to+earth.+Indiana+University+Press.&ots=u_EjBfwKkQ&sig=joi5TyyXTjFcewjt643ifnnfSoo
Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory: How many types of load does it really need? Educational Psychology Review, 23, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9150-7
Killingsworth, M. A., & Gilbert, D. T. (2010). A wandering mind is an unhappy mind. Science, 330(6006), 932-932. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1192439
Kizilcec, R. F., Bailenson, J. N., & Gomez, C. J. (2015). The instructor’s face in video instruction: Evidence from two large-scale field studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3), 724-739. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000013
Lang, A. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication, 50(1), 46-70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02833.x
Lee, T., Kim, D., Park, S., Kim, D., & Lee, S.-J. (2022). Predicting mind-wandering with facial videos in online lectures. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2104-2113. http://openaccess.thecvf.com/content/CVPR2022W/CVPM/html/Lee_Predicting_Mind-Wandering_With_Facial_Videos_in_Online_Lectures_CVPRW_2022_paper.html
Lillard, A. S., & Peterson, J. (2011). The immediate impact of different types of television on young children’s executive function. Pediatrics, 128(4), 644-649. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2010-1919
MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.1.84
Mark, G., Gudith, D., & Klocke, U. (2008). The cost of interrupted work: More speed and stress. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 107-110. https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357072
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2. bs). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511811678
Newell, L. A. (2015). Redefining attention (and revamping the legal profession?) for the digital generation (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 2346496). Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2346496
Nielsen, J. (2007). Banner blindness: The original eyetracking research, 10-year research overview. Nielsen Norman Group. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/banner-blindness-original-eyetracking/
Ophir, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(37), 15583-15587. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903620106
Özer, A. (2016). Sanal müzede öğrenmenin bağlamsal modelinin kullanımının öğrencilerin akademik başarısı, motivasyonu ve memnuniyet düzeylerine etkisi [Doktora Tezi]. Ankara Üniversitesi.
Phillips, N. E., Ralph, B. C. W., Carriere, J. S. A., & Smilek, D. (2016). Examining the influence of saliency of peer-induced distractions on direction of gaze and lecture recall. Computers & Education, 99, 81-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.04.006
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372-422. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372
Risko, E. F., Anderson, N., Sarwal, A., Engelhardt, M., & Kingstone, A. (2012). Everyday attention: Variation in mind wandering and memory in a lecture. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(2), 234-242. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1814
Rosen, L. D., Mark Carrier, L., & Cheever, N. A. (2013). Facebook and texting made me do it: Media-induced task-switching while studying. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 948-958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.001
Sezgi̇n, S., & Yüksel, G. (2020). Zihin gezinmesi ölçeklerinin türkçeye uyarlanması: Bir geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 18(1), 456-482. https://doi.org/10.37217/tebd.738231
Simon, H. A. (1996). Designing organizations for an information-rich world. International Library of Critical Writings in Economics, 70, 187-202.
Strom, P. S., Strom, R. D., Sindel-Arrington, T., & Rude, R. V. (2023). Student attention and distraction in community college. Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 13(1) https://doi.org/10.5539/jedp.v13n1p41
Sugiarto, V. M., Listyani, L., & Kurniawan, A. (2021). Senior high school second-grade language students’ perceptions on the use of YouTube videos. E-Structural, 4(2), 99-114. https://doi.org/10.33633/es.v4i02.4578
Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design: Instrucional design in technical areas (1. publ). ACER.
Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 123-138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9128-5
Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Içinde J. P. Mestre & B. H. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation (C. 55, ss. 37-76). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00002-8
Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 185-233. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1203_1
Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251-296. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022193728205
Szpunar, K. K., Khan, N. Y., & Schacter, D. L. (2013). Interpolated memory tests reduce mind wandering and improve learning of online lectures. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(16), 6313-6317. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1221764110
Türel, Y. K., & Alpsülün, M. (2025). Farklı bilişsel yük türleri ölçeğinin türkçe uyarlaması: Geçerlilik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 26(2), 421-436. https://doi.org/10.29299/kefad.1600402
Verbeek, P.-P. (2005). What things do: Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design. Penn State Press.
Wu, T. (2017). Dikkat tacirleri: İnsan Zihnine Girmek İçin Verilen Amansız Mücadele (B. Karal, Çev.; 1. Baskı). The Kitap Yayınları.
Zamur Tuncer, R., & Tanir Levendeli̇, Ş. (2023). Bağ(ım)lı bireyden yorgun bireye: Dijital i̇letişim çağında sosyal ağ yorgunluğu. Selçuk İletişim, 16(2), 479-507. https://doi.org/10.18094/josc.1296833

Details

Primary Language

Turkish

Subjects

Instructional Technologies

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Hasan Celal Balıkçı ^*
0000-0002-1539-1863
Türkiye

Publication Date

June 10, 2026

Submission Date

August 5, 2025

Acceptance Date

February 23, 2026

Published in Issue

Year 2026 Volume: 15 Number: 1

DOI

https://doi.org/10.30703/cije.1758690

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA37PG56ZH

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Balıkçı, H. C. (2026). YouTube Arayüzündeki Dikkat Dağıtıcı Ögelerin Öğrencilerin Zihin Gezinmesi ve Bilişsel Yük Algısına Etkisi. Cumhuriyet Uluslararası Eğitim Dergisi, 15(1), 400-420. https://doi.org/10.30703/cije.1758690

AMA

1.Balıkçı HC. YouTube Arayüzündeki Dikkat Dağıtıcı Ögelerin Öğrencilerin Zihin Gezinmesi ve Bilişsel Yük Algısına Etkisi. CIJE. 2026;15(1):400-420. doi:10.30703/cije.1758690

Chicago

Balıkçı, Hasan Celal. 2026. “YouTube Arayüzündeki Dikkat Dağıtıcı Ögelerin Öğrencilerin Zihin Gezinmesi Ve Bilişsel Yük Algısına Etkisi”. Cumhuriyet Uluslararası Eğitim Dergisi 15 (1): 400-420. https://doi.org/10.30703/cije.1758690.

EndNote

Balıkçı HC (June 1, 2026) YouTube Arayüzündeki Dikkat Dağıtıcı Ögelerin Öğrencilerin Zihin Gezinmesi ve Bilişsel Yük Algısına Etkisi. Cumhuriyet Uluslararası Eğitim Dergisi 15 1 400–420.

IEEE

[1]H. C. Balıkçı, “YouTube Arayüzündeki Dikkat Dağıtıcı Ögelerin Öğrencilerin Zihin Gezinmesi ve Bilişsel Yük Algısına Etkisi”, CIJE, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 400–420, June 2026, doi: 10.30703/cije.1758690.

ISNAD

Balıkçı, Hasan Celal. “YouTube Arayüzündeki Dikkat Dağıtıcı Ögelerin Öğrencilerin Zihin Gezinmesi Ve Bilişsel Yük Algısına Etkisi”. Cumhuriyet Uluslararası Eğitim Dergisi 15/1 (June 1, 2026): 400-420. https://doi.org/10.30703/cije.1758690.

JAMA

1.Balıkçı HC. YouTube Arayüzündeki Dikkat Dağıtıcı Ögelerin Öğrencilerin Zihin Gezinmesi ve Bilişsel Yük Algısına Etkisi. CIJE. 2026;15:400–420.

MLA

Balıkçı, Hasan Celal. “YouTube Arayüzündeki Dikkat Dağıtıcı Ögelerin Öğrencilerin Zihin Gezinmesi Ve Bilişsel Yük Algısına Etkisi”. Cumhuriyet Uluslararası Eğitim Dergisi, vol. 15, no. 1, June 2026, pp. 400-2, doi:10.30703/cije.1758690.

Vancouver

1.Hasan Celal Balıkçı. YouTube Arayüzündeki Dikkat Dağıtıcı Ögelerin Öğrencilerin Zihin Gezinmesi ve Bilişsel Yük Algısına Etkisi. CIJE. 2026 Jun. 1;15(1):400-2. doi:10.30703/cije.1758690

YouTube Arayüzündeki Dikkat Dağıtıcı Ögelerin Öğrencilerin Zihin Gezinmesi ve Bilişsel Yük Algısına Etkisi

Abstract

Keywords

The Effect of Distracting Elements in the YouTube Interface on Students’ Mind-Wandering and Perceived Cognitive Load

Abstract

Keywords

References

Details

Primary Language

Subjects

Journal Section

Authors

Publication Date

Submission Date

Acceptance Date

Published in Issue

DOI

IZ

Cite

© Cumhuriyet University, Faculty of Education