This is now the second time I have read these articles, and my thoughts about the debate have changed somewhat. Previously, I vehemently disagreed with Clark and supported Kozma. Now, although I still support the position that media does influence learning, I have more sympathy toward Clark’s position. This transition surprised me.
One of Clark’s central points is that the effects of media are confounded with the effects of instructional method. He states that when effects from the use of media are discovered they are most likely due to slight differences in instructional methods, and that a variety of media or attributes might result in similar effects as long as the instructional method is similar. I agree that consideration of instructional method is important, perhaps especially so when it is easy to get “caught up” in excitement over novel, fun and exciting advances in technology and media. However, to address the fact that some media attributes afford instructional methods that are not possible in the absence of that attribute I will use Clark’s own example of learning to fly an airplane.
Although people learned to fly long before simulators existed, simulators have allowed pilots to create cognitive representations not possible without simulations. For example, simulators allows pilots to experience all manner of emergency scenarios not possible when flying an actual airplane. This instructional method is unique to the simulator media. Clark might reply that if it were possible to experience these emergency situations in an actual airplane then the cognitive representations would be more different, thus, it is the method, not the media, that is important. Such subtle distinctions are the core of Clark’s argument.
Perhaps those distinctions are important, perhaps not. Perhaps there is room for research which assumes an intricate link between media and methods (Kozma) and research which separates the two (Clark). Each strand of research may reveal insights through a different lens, allowing researchers to develop a richer understanding of learning.
Hi Matthew,
You wrote: “Now, although I still support the position that media does influence learning, I have more sympathy toward Clark’s position.”
Is your position that media DOES influence learning (period, end of sentence)?
Or, is your position that media CAN influence learning (in certain contexts, for certain people)?
Or, both? Or, something else?
In your view, what beliefs about the nature of reality (e.g., one truth, many truths, etc.) OR beliefs about the nature of knowledge OR about research paradigms (e.g., positivist, interpretivist, critical theory, etc.) OR other assumptions seem to UNDERLIE and FIT with the position you are developing?
I think your interesting response raises a number of other very important aspects to consider as we consider the question: Will/Does/Can Media influence learning? within the context of this Mind, Media & Learning Course.
Thanks for your post!
Hey Chris,
Reflecting on your questions my position is that media CAN influence learning; however, just USING media does not necessarily influence learning. Media must be used intelligently in order to influence learning in SOME contexts. For example, can we say that media is influencing learning if a student creates flashcards on Quizlet (a popular website) as opposed to making their own paper copies? I am not so sure that we can. In fact, I believe (although I can not cite any specific studies) that there is some evidence to suggest that the act of actually writing something on paper is more beneficial to learning compared with typing on a computer. If that is the case then media might actually HARM learning in certain instances.
By the way, this has been a very enlightening discussion thread for me. I came into this thinking there is NO WAY I support Clark’s position, but the more I type the more I seem to move in that direction….
schellma said
This is now the second time I have read these articles, and my thoughts about the debate have changed somewhat. Previously, I vehemently disagreed with Clark and supported Kozma. Now, although I still support the position that media does influence learning, I have more sympathy toward Clark’s position. This transition surprised me.One of Clark’s central points is that the effects of media are confounded with the effects of instructional method. He states that when effects from the use of media are discovered they are most likely due to slight differences in instructional methods, and that a variety of media or attributes might result in similar effects as long as the instructional method is similar. I agree that consideration of instructional method is important, perhaps especially so when it is easy to get “caught up” in excitement over novel, fun and exciting advances in technology and media. However, to address the fact that some media attributes afford instructional methods that are not possible in the absence of that attribute I will use Clark’s own example of learning to fly an airplane.
Although people learned to fly long before simulators existed, simulators have allowed pilots to create cognitive representations not possible without simulations. For example, simulators allows pilots to experience all manner of emergency scenarios not possible when flying an actual airplane. This instructional method is unique to the simulator media. Clark might reply that if it were possible to experience these emergency situations in an actual airplane then the cognitive representations would be more different, thus, it is the method, not the media, that is important. Such subtle distinctions are the core of Clark’s argument.
Perhaps those distinctions are important, perhaps not. Perhaps there is room for research which assumes an intricate link between media and methods (Kozma) and research which separates the two (Clark). Each strand of research may reveal insights through a different lens, allowing researchers to develop a richer understanding of learning.
I believe I have had a similar experience to yours. My previous read of this debate left be astounded with Clark’s half-baked views and a reread has left me in between Clark and Kozma. I also thought I read more into Clark’s point about technological novelty this read though but another part I found more highlighted was his conversation of the embedded effort into technology. That hours of planning and design go into a new technology and when it is used in experiment the same person-hours are left out of the equation. This was an interesting reflection for Clark’s argument but also for experiment design in general. I also like your example of the failure of Clark’s assertions with the airplane simulator, it really puts a period on the end of the thought.
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)