Etec501: Celeste Galipeau-Woods Week Three Position Paper- Pro Clark

Hello Fellow Etec 501 Members
http://eunokbaek.com/etec501/etec501_bloglist.html

Celeste Galipeau-Woods
ETECC 501- Week Three Postition Paper Clark vs. Kozma Debate
4/22/10
Position Paper: Clark was Right: Media will Never Influence Learning

Background:

Back in 1983, Richard Clark professed that "instructional methods determine how effective a piece of instruction is and that media's only influence is on cost and distribution" (Hastings, & Tracey, 2005) and how media is only a "mere vehicle that delivers instruction but do not influence student achievement any more than a truck delivering our groceries causes changes in our nutrition" (Clark, 1983, p. 445).  He went on to suggest that "media do not influence learning under any conditions" (p. 445) and that therefore, the "medium chosen to deliver the instruction is insignificat" (Clark, 1983; Hart, 1996; Fleming & Levie, 1993).

Fast forward to 1994, and Clark found his position challenged by Robert Kozma who took the view that "media do influence learning and , therefore, media selection is significant" (Kozma, 1991) and that the "unique attributes of certain media can affect both the learning and motivation, and that if there is no relationship between media and learning it is only because we have not yet made one" (Kozma, 1994, p. 7).  Thus began the "great media effects debate" (Hastings & Tracey, 2005), which remains significant and relavent today just as if "the debate has remained frozen in time" (Hastings & Tracey, 2005).

Yet one more press of the fastforward button brings us brienfly to July 1996, when Barney Dalgarno refreshed the debate to bring it closer to the speed of the rapidly advancing technological evolution of the time, with his theories of how "both the media and the messae allow the learner to interact with both the media nd the message" (Bastian, M., 1996a).  This theory introduced the idea of "interactivity"  (Dalgarno, 1996) between media and the message, and how these interactions "enhance the communication of content" (Sims, 1996).  Moreover, further observations by Smith in 1996 revealed the idea that the "real interaction wasn't with the computer but was with the content" (Smith, 1996), followed by the realization that the media effects debate is mired in "emotional, and political elements and some nasty definitional ambiguities" (Shrock, 1994, p. 49).

As this media effects debate continued to grow in research and theoretical posturing, one thing becomes crystal clear and is the reason why I chose to back Clark's postion and that is because: "Assigning too much influence to media can lead to the design/development of sloppy, ineffective instructional materials that are accepted by technologiests and users simply because they utilize CBI, interactive video, or other 'high status' delivery media, while assigning too little influence to media, on the other hand, may discourage reflective thinking by designers about which media can best convey the instructional strategies needed to achieve instructional objectives" (Ross, 1994).

Of course Clark challenged all assumptions that "computer technology would serve as the panacea for achievement in education and steadfasty held that instructional strategies and methods as the primary factor is student achievement" (Clark, 1983, 1985, 1994a,b; Reiser, 1994; Ullmer, 1994).

Explanation/Justification of Position

Basically, I believe that Clark is correct in the belief that it is not the media but the message that cultivates learning to occur. Our text further enhances my viewpoint with its countless research findings that confirm how characteristics like found by Brunning, Landis, Hoffman, and Grosskopf (1993), revealed that "highly motivated students had a significant impact on their achievement, more so than the fact that they were learning at a distance".  Or, how "well designed online courses were reported to produce more positive learning outcomes" (Tallent-Rennels, et al. 2006).  Further research points to seven key factors affecting learning at a distance: "content, environment, finances, readiness, time, employment, and family support" (Jegede and Kirkwood, 1994).  Not to mention the multiple research that found the element of time to be of considerable value to the overall quality of learning. all the way to the research defining what is believed to be "optimal class size" which is believed to be "20" (Orellana, 2006). But what is missing is any data proving that the technology itself affected learning in and of its own volition.

In all, what is apparent is that the research backs the idea that the media is important in that is connects the learner and teacher and to the content, but the media can't do the assignment for the student, nor can it create the learning materials, these still require the input from a human, usually the teacher or the student.  Unfortunately, if the user is not familiar with how to operate the technology, the technology gets wasted or at the very least its potential is not fully appreciated.  As someone who has been technologically challenged before, in these instances all I remember "learning" is how to get frustrated multiple ways when the technology failed.

Presenting Counter Position

Of course there is another viewpoint in this debate, offered first from Kozma in the 1990's and that is the view that somehow the media does influences learners by its "characteristics of technology, symbol systems, and processing capabilities" (Kozma, 1991).

While there are definitely aspects of media and technology that enhance learning, such as the ability for technology to translate symbols such as "words into text, or data into graphs and tables" (Bastian, M., CK Issues, p. 1), leading to the belief that "different delivery provides different cognitive insights into the structure and meaning of the content" (Kozma, 1991), or how a "computer can juxtapose, or transform, information in one symbol system into another" (Dickson, 1985), one important point remains, and that is the reality that technology is only as effective as its user; again, my point here is that in order for the learner to be able to access and fully benefit from technology, he or she must be trained how to properly use it and this creates potential difficulties in that the learner might not have the cognitive ability, nor the time, or access to training required  to complete the input tasks needed to invoke the knowledge and abilities within the technology desired. Thus what remains is the fact that to produce learning, the abilities of the technology must first be understood by the users much like the Knights back in the time of Feudalism were empowered because of their ability to master the benefits of the new technology of the time which was the "stirrup" (Text, pg. 12).

Resolution/Conclusion

What then is the resolution to this media effect debate started way back in 1983 and remaining relavent still today?

Well the answer might best be summed up by of all people Clark himself and Jim Finn, the technology pioneer of the 1960's who taught at USC.  Finn stressed way back, how "practioners should attempt to identify unique approaches for change by using technology in new ways" (Finn, 1964) and also how "perhaps the correct application of distance education will significantlychange and restructure learning and teaching on par with societal changes" (Finn, 1964).

But, whatever the case, one thing is certain and that is that the implications of the arguments given by Clark, Finn and the countless other researchers studying this effect today, is that "when new technologies emerge, they often allow users to be more efficient. However, it isn't the technologies themselves that cause changes; rather, changes occur because of new ways of doing things that are enabled by technologies" (Text, pg. 12).  In other words,  maybe fiber optics might make life easier, but this ease is produced by programmers who have gained expertise through learning and in turn passed this learning on through instruction manuals.  So in the end, the message is the key to learning and the media is the highway in which the message travels to get to the destination of learning, not the other way around.

Works Cited:

Bastian, M., (2000). First there was the media and the message, then there was content, context, and interactivity: The evolution of the Clark/Kozma media effects debate. Access this paper at: http://www.coe.tamu.edu/-mbastian/Clark-Kozma/CK-Debate.html.

Dalgano, Barney. Lecturer at Charles Stuart University; Information Technology; School of Information Studies. HomePage: http://farrer.riv.csu.edu.au/-dalgarno. 

Hastings, N.B. & Tracey, M.W. (2005) Does the media affect learning: Where are we now?

Text book:
Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2009).  Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance learning. 4th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

U.S Department of Education (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies.