ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Audience attention in classroom peer presentations as a situated, role-dependent, and evaluative process.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Peer presentations are widely used to promote active learning, oral communication, and peer interaction. Existing research has mainly examined presenters' performance, learning outcomes, and anxiety, while less attention has been paid to how non-presenting peers experience and regulate attention. Drawing on classroom attention, mind wandering, self-regulation, and student engagement research, this study examines audience attention as a situated and role-dependent process in peer-led instruction. Methods: This study adopted a grounded theory-informed qualitative design to develop a context-sensitive process model of audience attention during classroom peer presentations. Data included classroom observations, 16 semi-structured interviews, and 72 written narratives collected shortly after presentation sessions. Rather than treating these accounts as direct measurements of real-time attention, the analysis examined participants' perceived, recalled, and reconstructed attentional experiences through iterative coding, constant comparison, and triangulation. Results: Participants described audience attention as a dynamic, evaluative, and recursive process shaped by the social and epistemic conditions of peer-led instruction. Participants moved among focused engagement, intermittent attention, surface monitoring, and disengagement. Attentional investment was shaped by topic relevance, delivery accessibility, instructional legitimacy, internal vulnerability, and accountability cues. Disruption prompted minimal-cost self-regulation, externally triggered re-engagement, or disengagement when perceived instructional value was low. Evaluative outcomes were retrospectively linked to later expectations across presentation episodes. Conclusion: The proposed model extends attention and engagement research by showing how general attentional mechanisms are reorganized in peer-led instructional contexts, where knowledge authority is provisional, accountability is comparatively weak, and audience members act as learners, peers, and evaluators. The findings highlight the need to consider audience experience, presentation quality, and instructional design when implementing peer presentations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.