Matthew as Kozma,
Although Clark’s pedantic extremism might appeal to some researchers, many of us inhabit the real world, where increasing knowledge and practicality are important.
The discussion surrounding the interaction between media and learning is vital, especially during this time of rapid technological advancement which has ushered in an age of machines with new and powerful affordances (i.e. computers). Clark frames the debate surrounding media and learning around the question of “DO media influence learning”, while perhaps a better question is “HOW can media be used to influence learning in particular ways?”. There are three points I would like to make about how media influences, or might influence, learning:
1. A media’s overall collection of attributes is what differentiates it from other media. For example, a television is capable of providing dynamic pictures, a radio is not. This (among other attributes) defines a television and radio, and no two media have the exact same combination of attributes. Understanding the way students experience, use, and process these unique variation of attributes of a media is important to understanding the influence media may have on learning.
2. It is also necessary to shift our thinking from viewing media’s role as providing necessary conditions for learning to viewing media as providing sufficient conditions for learning. It is certainly appropriate to ensure media meet all necessary conditions for learning; however, focusing on sufficient conditions (those that encourage learning) is much more useful in designing educational environments.
3. Finally, we must do away with the artificial separation of media and method. Clark encourages this separation; however, practically, method and media are never separated. They are inextricably linked. Media allows designers and educators to utilize methods, and any method will utilize some media.
I find the last point, about the inseparability of media and method to be the most convincing. If it is true that all media is a unique combination of attributes, then each media affords an instructional designer or teacher unique methods. Clark’s claim that separating media and methods will lead to greater explanation of learning variance rings empty when one considers the impossibility of this separation in nearly all learning situations.
Chris playing the part of an independent newcomer to the debate, deciding whether to side with Dr. Kozma or Dr. Clark:
Dr. Kozma,
Thank you for making your 3 points above, which I think add nuance and complexity to the argument Dr. Clark is making. I agree with you that these intellectual debates are a waste of time if they are not “practical” or useful in the “real world.”
As I told Dr. Clark, I am leaning toward your side of the argument, but there are a few aspects of your argument that give me pause. The first is your re-framing of Dr. Clark’s argument from “DO media influence learning in particular ways?” to your “HOW CAN media be used to influence learning in particular ways?”
It seems to me that the underlying assumption in your question is that media CAN be used to influence learning. This seems to me overly optimistic and smacks of technological determinism, even technological utopianism, which is false, impractical, and downright dangerous in the “real world.”
Even your mentioning of “this time of rapid technological advancement which has ushered in an age of machines with new and powerful affordances (i.e. computers)” sounds overly optimistic, even utopian.
Don’t you agree that your re-framing of Clark is somewhat naive, bordering on not helpful in the real world?
Second, you write: “It is certainly appropriate to ensure media meet all necessary conditions for learning; however, focusing on sufficient conditions (those that encourage learning) is much more useful in designing educational environments.” What evidence do you have for this assertion that focusing on the conditions that encourage learning is “more useful in designing educational environments?” In other words, it would help me if you EXPLAINED what you mean by this and even give an example that proves your point. Otherwise, it’s just an unsubstantiated claim.
I look forward to your reply online or offline!
Independent Newcomer to the Debate,
Perhaps I overstated my case somewhat in my original post. A better question might be, “WILL media influence learning?” Meaning, if we have not found a relationship between media and learning yet it may be because some of our field’s old theoretical foundations have gotten in the way of productive research on this topic. We must move away from thinking about learning as cause and effect, and move towards understanding learning as a complex interaction between the individual and environment. Only then will we begin to understand any relationship between media and learning.
To address your second point I will provide an example of necessary and sufficient conditions for learning. Take the topic of chemical bond formation. Some sort of description (text, diagrams, etc.) of the process of forming chemical bonds is all that is necessary to learn about this topic. However, a virtual simulation on a computer where students can see bonds forming and breaking, control the energy of molecules, and received appropriately timed hints and help may provide sufficient conditions for a much larger selection of learners compared with a simple description.
schellma said
Matthew as Kozma,
Although Clark’s pedantic extremism might appeal to some researchers, many of us inhabit the real world, where increasing knowledge and practicality are important.The discussion surrounding the interaction between media and learning is vital, especially during this time of rapid technological advancement which has ushered in an age of machines with new and powerful affordances (i.e. computers). Clark frames the debate surrounding media and learning around the question of “DO media influence learning”, while perhaps a better question is “HOW can media be used to influence learning in particular ways?”. There are three points I would like to make about how media influences, or might influence, learning:
1. A media’s overall collection of attributes is what differentiates it from other media. For example, a television is capable of providing dynamic pictures, a radio is not. This (among other attributes) defines a television and radio, and no two media have the exact same combination of attributes. Understanding the way students experience, use, and process these unique variation of attributes of a media is important to understanding the influence media may have on learning.
2. It is also necessary to shift our thinking from viewing media’s role as providing necessary conditions for learning to viewing media as providing sufficient conditions for learning. It is certainly appropriate to ensure media meet all necessary conditions for learning; however, focusing on sufficient conditions (those that encourage learning) is much more useful in designing educational environments.
3. Finally, we must do away with the artificial separation of media and method. Clark encourages this separation; however, practically, method and media are never separated. They are inextricably linked. Media allows designers and educators to utilize methods, and any method will utilize some media.
I find the last point, about the inseparability of media and method to be the most convincing. If it is true that all media is a unique combination of attributes, then each media affords an instructional designer or teacher unique methods. Clark’s claim that separating media and methods will lead to greater explanation of learning variance rings empty when one considers the impossibility of this separation in nearly all learning situations.
If being thorough is pedantic, I graciously accept the compliment.
I couldn’t agree more with my esteemed colleague, the rapid technological advancement we are experiencing certainly encourages our work to understand their affordances. No task more vital than understanding learning at an atomic level so we may be in control of the exact systems of education we disperse to learners. This calls for an explicit venture to not look at pieces of media and technology as completed instruments but rather as a collection of attributes. These attributes can be good and bad but none above critique. They need to be analyzed regardless of the current fad or latest device. The analysis needs to be unrelenting in such a way that the atomized pieces can be scrutinized to bring the desired learning objective down to the cheapest possible cost. The surface level combination of method and media stops asking important questions about instructional design and accepts the cost and fault of specific technologies or media in an effort to reduce complexity. I encourage the structural analysis of such a reductionist claim.
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:
3 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)