In the 1980s and 1990s, as educational technology was first becoming a budding field, Richard Clark published an analysis of data where he determined that the media that delivers instruction is no more than a delivery tool. He used an analogy of a truck carrying the information to the learner. He concluded that the media chosen has no effect on the learning taking place - that the instruction in the only thing that influences the learning.
In 1994, Kozma responded and prompted the current debate. Kozma states that some media have specific characteristics that do effect learning as more than a vehicle. While there is little research to support Kozma's claim, he suggests that the way the media helps shape the learning does have impact and that evaluating this impact requires more than raw data as the media and the way we use it has become more complex and nuanced.
Clark has stood by his original conclusions and has even subsequently released articles further supporting his stance. When considering my own stance in this debate, I read several articles as well as other students' blog posts from the past few years weighing in on this topic. I instinctively lean towards Kozma, but because I know how emotion can sway even logical minded people toward an opinion that is incorrect, I wanted to further explore the two stances to determine if that instinctive view is actually based in logic.
I agree on many levels with Clark. Quality instruction is the most important thing when it comes to student learning. And in many cases, the media itself is far less important than the instructional pedagogy. The delivery of the content can be differentiated and a good teacher knows how to consider and adapt the way their message is delivered based on the learners in their classroom. However, Clark deals in absolutes. Media is never the reason a student learns. I have a tendency personally to stay away from absolutes. While the teacher is absolutely key in student learning, I have found that there are some topics, some learning experiences, that do require a specific type of media. To say they do not ignores those disciplines.
First, let's think about music. A simple analogy would be my 5th grade keyboarding class. I absolutely can teach the class without keyboards. I could pass out paper facsimiles and we could share the lone piano to practice on. My students could still learn to play the piano. However, their skills would be severely limited. They need an instrument to practice on in order to really learn to play that instrument. One might say, "Of course - but Clark isn't talking about learning an instrument". Except in the current technological climate there are indeed other places where the media shapes the instruction, and the instruction is absolutely dependent on the media itself.
The space industry is an often cited area where Kozma's supporters find examples. One absolutely cannot learn to work at the International Space Station without technology based instruction. We do not have a tools to simulate their experiences without technology. While the instructor (in this case the serious game designer) must create the media and thus is integral in the learning process without the media itself, the information could not be relayed in a truly meaningful way for the learner. Without the simulation, the astronaut cannot gain the skills they must have to accomplish their tasks.
Certain media also provides experiences that may be too expensive or can express the information in a way that provides a deeper understanding. For example, the fifth grade classes at my school took a virtual field trip to the Grand Canyon last week. While their teachers can certainly explain the Grand Canyon and how it was formed and can use photographs to support their lesson, the media in a virtual field trip creates a learning experience that provides far greater understanding. Through the virtual field trip, the students can understand the scale of the geographical features and can explore a space that they may be unable to ever experience in person. The level of immersion the media provides plays a significant role in student understanding.
In conclusion, while I think Clark's stance on the importance of good teachers and quality instruction is absolutely correct, I disagree with the notion that media has no bearing on student learning.
Bibliography
Becker, K. (2010). The Clark-Kozma Debate in the 21st Century. Retrieved April 16, 2016, from http://www.academia.edu/462857/The_Clark-Kozma_Debate_in_the_21st_Century
Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media. Review of Educational Research.
Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development.
Kozma, R. B. (1994). The Influence of Media on Learning: The Debate Continues. School Library Media Research SLMQ 22.
The media debate. (n.d.). Retrieved April 16, 2016, from http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/The_media_debate
In 1994, Kozma responded and prompted the current debate. Kozma states that some media have specific characteristics that do effect learning as more than a vehicle. While there is little research to support Kozma's claim, he suggests that the way the media helps shape the learning does have impact and that evaluating this impact requires more than raw data as the media and the way we use it has become more complex and nuanced.
Clark has stood by his original conclusions and has even subsequently released articles further supporting his stance. When considering my own stance in this debate, I read several articles as well as other students' blog posts from the past few years weighing in on this topic. I instinctively lean towards Kozma, but because I know how emotion can sway even logical minded people toward an opinion that is incorrect, I wanted to further explore the two stances to determine if that instinctive view is actually based in logic.
I agree on many levels with Clark. Quality instruction is the most important thing when it comes to student learning. And in many cases, the media itself is far less important than the instructional pedagogy. The delivery of the content can be differentiated and a good teacher knows how to consider and adapt the way their message is delivered based on the learners in their classroom. However, Clark deals in absolutes. Media is never the reason a student learns. I have a tendency personally to stay away from absolutes. While the teacher is absolutely key in student learning, I have found that there are some topics, some learning experiences, that do require a specific type of media. To say they do not ignores those disciplines.
First, let's think about music. A simple analogy would be my 5th grade keyboarding class. I absolutely can teach the class without keyboards. I could pass out paper facsimiles and we could share the lone piano to practice on. My students could still learn to play the piano. However, their skills would be severely limited. They need an instrument to practice on in order to really learn to play that instrument. One might say, "Of course - but Clark isn't talking about learning an instrument". Except in the current technological climate there are indeed other places where the media shapes the instruction, and the instruction is absolutely dependent on the media itself.
The space industry is an often cited area where Kozma's supporters find examples. One absolutely cannot learn to work at the International Space Station without technology based instruction. We do not have a tools to simulate their experiences without technology. While the instructor (in this case the serious game designer) must create the media and thus is integral in the learning process without the media itself, the information could not be relayed in a truly meaningful way for the learner. Without the simulation, the astronaut cannot gain the skills they must have to accomplish their tasks.
Certain media also provides experiences that may be too expensive or can express the information in a way that provides a deeper understanding. For example, the fifth grade classes at my school took a virtual field trip to the Grand Canyon last week. While their teachers can certainly explain the Grand Canyon and how it was formed and can use photographs to support their lesson, the media in a virtual field trip creates a learning experience that provides far greater understanding. Through the virtual field trip, the students can understand the scale of the geographical features and can explore a space that they may be unable to ever experience in person. The level of immersion the media provides plays a significant role in student understanding.
In conclusion, while I think Clark's stance on the importance of good teachers and quality instruction is absolutely correct, I disagree with the notion that media has no bearing on student learning.
Bibliography
Becker, K. (2010). The Clark-Kozma Debate in the 21st Century. Retrieved April 16, 2016, from http://www.academia.edu/462857/The_Clark-Kozma_Debate_in_the_21st_Century
Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media. Review of Educational Research.
Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development.
Kozma, R. B. (1994). The Influence of Media on Learning: The Debate Continues. School Library Media Research SLMQ 22.
The media debate. (n.d.). Retrieved April 16, 2016, from http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/The_media_debate
The way technology can illustrate the Grand Canyon and make it fascinating to teenagers in another place that in it self says a lot about technology. Technology gives our lessons a wow factor that they crave for. A lesson is not the same if technology was not implemented.
ReplyDeleteThis was excellently written. You made some really good points here. Thank you!
ReplyDelete