Clark disregards the affordances of tech | W2 Q1 | Forum

As Richard Clark:
The central points of my argument are this:
Media does not influence learning. There is no significant difference between traditional instruction and media instruction. The assumption is that media allows us to do things that we previously could not. While this is true, such as a television zooming in and out, we learned the same things before media. Researchers are confounding the causal connections between media and achievement. The designs of media comparison experiments is flawed in that they do not control for other aspects of instruction, such as the underlying pedagogy and subject matter. All things must be identical for the comparison to stand. Furthermore, the attention paid to new and exciting media is a novelty effect that results in more achievement. The plain simple truth is that media has no influence on media; the effects come from other areas of the learning environment.
As myself:
I find his point of confounding media and instruction to be most convincing. Clarks use of the medical metaphor helps to illustrate his argument more fully. I agree that instruction is the essential method or active ingredient. Any implementation of an educational technology is informed by the instruction, or material to be learned. I also agree that media may be less important if the underlying pedagogy is strong. However, where we diverge is that media, although a lesser feature, is still an important feature. While the effects may be smaller than those of instruction, media has some effect. When I think of this, I think of it in terms of accessibility. Media have a strong influence on how students access and ultimately understand media. Universal design for learning is a good way to consider this. Again, the ultimate influence is the underlying pedagogy and standards folded into the design and implementation of the tool, but for certain learners delivery matters. To use his medical metaphor, a child is less likely to swallow a pill, which is why most children’s medicine is liquid. Indeed some learners need different methods of delivery. Further, the opportunity for multiple representations that technology afford makes learning more efficient still which is an underlying support of Clark’s argument.