Matt as Clark:
Frankly, I don’t know why the professor insists that we use this medium. This conversation could have happened with just as much outcome through email, written letter, in person, etc. When asked to summarize my arguments (which I have now stated twice in as many articles) I would summarize them as three simple, clear, and irrefutable points (which I’m sure that bozo Kozma will refute anyway):
1) Don’t believe the hype of specific media. There are huge sums of money that want these media to persist. The (unbox scored) data show this when you specifically look at effect size. Especially when you account for journal biases toward positive media results.
2) Even in those studies that show positive results for specific media, their controls weren’t really controls because the same amount of time didn’t go into the work for the conventional learning they use as controls. The positive results merely show that when you work longer on something, it turns out better.
3) When you are looking for a specific learning goal, and you choose a specific media or set of attributes ask yourself if you could accomplish the same goal using different media or attributes. If you can, the method of instruction is the core of what you are looking at, not the media or attributes.
Chris playing the part of an independent newcomer to the debate, deciding whether to side with Dr. Clark or Dr. Kozma:
Dr. Clark, I think you make some excellent points in #2 and #3 above and I’m leaning toward siding with you, but I have some issues with point #1. Can you please help me understand.
First, is one of your central points that the impact of media (and attributes of media) on learning, motivation and instruction is more HYPE than substance?
If so, I would like to hear more about your rationale for saying this. For instance, what evidence do you have to support your claim that “huge sums of money want these media to persist.”
Also, when you say “the data show THIS when you specifically look at effect size” what is the “this” to which you are referring?
Furthermore, don’t studies of media effects on learning that report high effect sizes PROVE that indeed media (or attributes of media) affect learning?
Finally, don’t we want journals that publish media and learning studies to ONLY publish studies that report positive effects with respect to media and learning? If there are no effects or they are negative, why would we want to publish such things in a leading EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH journal?
This isn’t journal bias…it’s just common sense. Educational research journals shouldn’t disseminate studies of technology/media use in education that show they don’t impact learning. Practically speaking, what would be the point?
[To MATT: In your initial post, you didn’t tell us WHICH of Clark’s 3 points above you find most convincing and WHY, which was part of the question. What do you think?]
I look forward to your replies online or off!
Matthew responding as Kozma,
Well Dr. Clark, restating your same arguments more than a decade apart does not make them any less false compared with the first time.
In response to your points:
1. Is there actually huge sums of money supporting media in education? If so, I would like to see reports or data.
2. This assertion again seems to be lacking data to back up the claim. It is unclear if greater effort is put into designing new media interventions compared with control interventions. Additionally, even if we assume that more effort goes into designing new media programs compared with traditional programs, much of that work might not involve anything instructionally related. Computers must be programed, graphics drawn, etc.
3. How about those learning goals which can not be accomplished using any other media? My example of a flight simulator in my earlier post provides a good example of a learning experience that is not translatable to conventional forms of media.
Christine Greenhow said
Chris playing the part of an independent newcomer to the debate, deciding whether to side with Dr. Clark or Dr. Kozma:Dr. Clark, I think you make some excellent points in #2 and #3 above and I’m leaning toward siding with you, but I have some issues with point #1. Can you please help me understand.
First, is one of your central points that the impact of media (and attributes of media) on learning, motivation and instruction is more HYPE than substance?
If so, I would like to hear more about your rationale for saying this. For instance, what evidence do you have to support your claim that “huge sums of money want these media to persist.”
Also, when you say “the data show THIS when you specifically look at effect size” what is the “this” to which you are referring?
Furthermore, don’t studies of media effects on learning that report high effect sizes PROVE that indeed media (or attributes of media) affect learning?
Finally, don’t we want journals that publish media and learning studies to ONLY publish studies that report positive effects with respect to media and learning? If there are no effects or they are negative, why would we want to publish such things in a leading EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH journal?
This isn’t journal bias…it’s just common sense. Educational research journals shouldn’t disseminate studies of technology/media use in education that show they don’t impact learning. Practically speaking, what would be the point?
[To MATT: In your initial post, you didn’t tell us WHICH of Clark’s 3 points above you find most convincing and WHY, which was part of the question. What do you think?]
I look forward to your replies online or off!
Thank you for your response, Chris. According to fortune.com, the educational technology business hit $2 billion a year. This is a serious amount of money flying around and with this much at stake, advertising of education technology companies will be sure to blur the effectiveness of their products. This is just one way that I believe that the impact of media is more hype than substance. This distortion is also evident from the binary way that media effects are presented in journals. If a media effect is found, regardless of the degree of its effectiveness, it is shown to be the end all be all. In reality, (from studies such as J. Kulik, Kulik, & Cohen, 1979) these ‘victories’ for media effects are only by the merest hair, clearly under the .2 threshold for weak correlation.
If there are actual studies that show high effect sizes for a specific media, my argument is that the media are merely vehicles for the effective attributes. Studies should instead compare different media to find similarities in their effect sizes and then analyze the underlying attribute of positive effect. Once this is done, find a vehicle that can deliver this attribute at the cheapest cost.
In response to what we should publish in journals, in no way is it the responsibility of journals to be the showcase of positive correlations. What we learn from negative or no correlation can be just as important. From the same meta-study of work from J. Kulik, Kulik, & Cohen in 1979, they clearly showed that the overall research on media is not as glorious as portrayed by journals, it is, in fact, much overstated if you include unpublished works. Frankly, this is the most salient point of all my arguments as it speaks to a critique of journals in general. How can we have any claim to a semblance of thoughtful research if we do not share anything but ‘shiny’ positive correlations?
Administrators:
Christine Greenhow
Diana
cainwil1
Ming
Forum Stats:
Groups: 7
Forums: 13
Topics: 25
Posts: 70
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 0
Members: 89
Moderators: 0
Admins: 4
Most Users Ever Online: 51
Currently Online:
2 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)