Introduction
The debate over how media does or does not influence learning continues to be lively and divisive in the learning community of today. While Kozma and Clark’s articles are antiquated in 2017, they continue to carry a valuable voice that should serve as a warning to institutions looking to purchase and integrate the latest new technology. From a BYOD program in British Columbia aimed at allowing students flexibility in their preferred learning platform, to building communities in on YouTube that encourage sharing experiences, learning still appears to be fundamentally unchanged by technology. Speed of access, economics of delivery and perhaps engagement of the learner show potential benefits, but the mechanism of learning remains the same.
Technology in the classroom: Local school introduces BYOD program
In October 2017 in Kelowna, British Columbia, Aberdeen Hall Preparatory School announced a Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) program, which plans to use tools that learners are already familiar with and comfortable using. Instead of having to learn new operating systems and features, learners can work with educators to learn how to leverage their favoured device to constructively build understanding (Lauzé, 2017). Kozma (1994) describes learning as a process by which the learner “strategically manages available cognitive, physical, and social resources to create new knowledge by interacting with information in the environment and integrating it with information already stored in memory” (p. 3). Educators proposing the BYOD program suggest that allowing learners to study with their preferred device will help them to personalize their education, and shifts teaching and learning towards becoming more social (Lauzé, 2017).
In 1994 Clark remarked that instructional designers are influenced to select the most economic media available that can deliver effective instruction to learners. In 2017, Lauzé shares this remark is still relevant, with schools of today facing the removal of computer labs in the classroom, resulting in an on-going challenge to incorporate technology into existing curriculum. Core to Clark’s (1994) position in the great media debate is that defined learning content and instructional methodology must underlie the curriculum, regardless of media type chosen as a delivery method. Aberdeen Hall educators aim to use technology to “research, create and share information in a way that has not been possible with paper and pencils” (Lauzé, 2017, para 12), and include that they have set out learning goals first, using technology tools to enhance teaching and learning.
Clark’s (1994) stance that instructional designers when developing a learning intervention must consider if using one specific media tool would have a positive impact on learning over another media type. Educators at Aberdeen Hall Preparatory School recognize that they are at the beginning of their journey in integrating technology into the educational system and posit that advances in virtual reality and artificial intelligence technologies may further impact how technology is used in the classroom (Lauzé, 2017).
Top 6 benefits of using technology in the classroom.
This blog post makes a lot of claims as to the effectiveness and necessity of technology in the classroom. Webanywhere is a e-learning provider, and the blog article is no doubt being used as a sales tool for their services. Clark’s 1994 paper is useful in looking at the claims put forth in the blog post.
The main point of Clark’s to consider is “whether there are other media or another set of media attributes would yield similar learning gains” (Clark, 1994). The first claim is about engagement. The author claims that “students can be expected to be more interested” in what is being taught because technology is integrated into the curriculum (Top 6, 2016). This is a pretty bold claim without any proof beyond assumptions that technology “makes learning fun and enjoyable”, and that it encourages active participation in the learning process (Top 6, 2016). Clark (1994) points out that learning gains depend on “adequate instructional methods”, not on media or technology used. Perhaps learners will be engaged by playing a videogame, but the learning depends on what methods are used in teaching. Webanywhere moves on to knowledge retention following the same line of argument that engagement equals learning where Clark’s conclusion is equally applicable.
Webanywhere introduces “Individual Learning” as a benefit of technology claiming that “students can learn at their own speed, review difficult concepts or skip ahead if they need to” (Top 6, 2016). Clark (1994) points out that we need to ask ourselves if this is only possible using a particular medium or new media in general. Surely, anyone reading a book can reread a page or make notes for future reference all at their own speed. Therefore, the claim of Webanywhere, though essentially not false, is nothing particularly special in relation to the topic of educational technology. This same conclusion can be drawn from Webanywhere’s emphasis on collaboration. It is true that collaboration is convenient and cost effective, a point Clark (1994) makes in regards to educational technologies in general, via modern online social mediums, but the internet, for example, does not pre-date collaborative educational experiences.
The blog post goes on to talk about 21st century skills, such as leadership, critical thinking, etc., which are not actually technology based educational skills, they are simply the modern outcomes sought for education in general. Clark doesn’t talk specifically about computer related skills in his article, but I assume he would agree that computers do help people learn how to use computers, to write emails and produce PowerPoint presentations as Webanywhere informs us.
Webanywhere’s final point is about the benefits that technology has for teachers claiming that “technology can improve teaching” (Top 6, 2016) by providing grading and assessment tools which result in time saved so teachers can focus on their students. This is basically what Clark (1994) claims media/technology’s true influence is in education, that it is cost effective and allows things to be done more quickly and efficiently. Also, of note is that Webanywhere returns to it’s claims about collaboration, only this time, between teachers. Though outside of the scope of Clark’s article, I would just like to say I question the need and benefits of “collaboration” in education, whether between students, between teachers, or between students and teachers as much as I question the accepted “wisdom” that “technology makes learning better”. Once again, it depends on the teaching methodology involved just as it does with technology and media in the classroom.
I can’t help but think that any teacher reading this blog article would come away thinking “Technology will solve my problems.”…
Brain gains; Education technology.
In Brain Gains; Educational Technology, Educational technology, or “Edtech”, is recommended as a boon to learning, with some significant caveats. Even though computers have reshaped our lives in almost every way, Edtech has consistently followed a cycle of incredible hype and optimism followed by a cooling and obsolescence. One potential reason for this is the conservatism of both traditional behavioristic teaching methods, and teachers and their unions (The Economist, 2017). In spite of this, contemporary instructional designers are making people rethink the effects of edtech on learning.
One way that edtech can positively affect learning is by making instruction more ubiquitously available, especially in third world countries (The Economist, 2017). Software that personalizes learning to the individual student can raise a student up from an inefficient classroom. Another way that edtech can positively affect learning is by making teaching more efficient. According to The Economist:
In California, schools are using software to overhaul the conventional model. Instead of textbooks, pupils have “playlists”, which they use to access online lessons and take tests. The software assesses children’s progress, lightening teachers’ marking load and giving them insight on their pupils. Saved teachers’ time is allocated to other tasks, such as fostering pupils’ social skills or one-on-one tuition. A study in 2015 suggested that children in early adopters of this model score better in tests than their peers at other schools (2017).
Ultimately, the instructional design is much more important than the delivery method used. The conventional model of schooling, (ie. classrooms, hierarchical groups organized by year, standardized curriculums and fixed timetables) was first used in Prussia in the 18th century, and is still the norm today (The Economist, 2017). Technology can either be a hindrance or a help when delivering well designed instructional material. Most of the research on the effects of media on learning found that the benefits of media were strictly economic, that no delivery medium for learning showed any gains over any other medium.
In light of the astonishingly one-sided evidence, Kozma (1994) stated that the reason media have not influenced learning thus far is because our understanding of the effect of media on learning is lacking. Kozma reworks the question of “Does media influence learning?” to “Will media influence learning?” The problem with Kozma’s thinking is that the future is unknowable. In the event that new research shows a causal effect of media on learning, than the current stance can be revisited. However, as it stands, the research is almost unanimously in favor of media being a delivery method with no benefits to learning. The two studies used by Kozma involve two different learning technologies: ThinkerTools and the Jasper Woodbury Series (Kozma, 1994). Both studies showed an increase in learning from the control groups using the new technology, however, it was unclear whether the same instructional design methods were used in the control and non control groups (Clark, 1994). If different instructional design methods are used, then it’s impossible to see if the instructional design had a benefit on the learning. The future technologies look very promising, as always, but until there is empirical evidence to back up the effects on learning, we must stick to what works.
The effects of learner-generated videos for YouTube on learning outcomes and satisfaction.
This article expresses a dual purpose of media and education. Not only the acquisition of knowledge through video, but how providing an opportunity to show the transfer of knowledge via producing YouTube videos to demonstrate the learner’s comprehension of certain subjects.
“A medium is distinctive to the extent that its defining cluster of attributes is unique, that is, different from the defining clusters of other media. This has two implications for the focus of our theories: We must specify the causal mechanisms by which cognitive and social processes are influenced as students interact with a medium’s defining capabilities (i.e., attributes). And we must specify the appropriate uses of these capabilities (i.e., variables), that is, the ways in which these capabilities may be used to influence the learning for particular students, tasks, and situations.
The second approach discussed by Salomon (1991) is the systemic approach. This approach is based on the assumption that each event, component, or action in the classroom has the potential of affecting the classroom as a whole. These variables act on each other in interdependent ways. Changing one variable may have dramatic and perhaps unanticipated effects as it propagates through the complex web of relationships among variables in the system. The goal of this approach is to describe the patterns of relationships among a system of components and events as they interact and mutually define each other in real situations”.
This article, by using the medium of video in the social media platform of YouTube allows students to interact socially both in person by way of collaboration with teachers and their fellow students and secondly on their own to provide a tangible explanation of what they have learned from the teacher, classmates and other media. There are several advantages to this including having another option to voice their thoughts other than writing, in person oral communicating and testing.
“How often do students generate questions and what kinds are they? Do they use the video to answer these questions? If they do not search the video, is the information that they generate recalled from a previous viewing or is it based on general, world knowledge? If they use information in the video what information is used and how do they search for it? How does this information, in turn, influence subsequent questions or the discourse among students? Research on this project would also benefit from controlled studies in which groups of students receive similar information embedded in text-based or video-based stories. How do students process these stories differently? How do they search them differently? What information do they remember from each and is it structured differently?”
Some of the results show that the perceived benefits were an increase in academic performance and a cross curricular understanding.
Conclusion
In reading and comparing technology advances of the last few years to articles written in 1983 and 1994, it’s easy to draw a conclusion that Clark’s reasoning still proves true. While Kozma’s future state may at some point come to fruition, the future is unknown and today’s technologies continue to fail Clark’s replaceability test. The new media we have developed serves an important and valuable part in being able to share learning resources across larger geographies and diverse demographics, but it still relies heavily on sound instructional design and methodology. Advanced simulations and artificial intelligence could at some point become an extremely economical method of teaching, but it would still only be a replacement of other forms of delivery.
It is vital to understand, especially when choosing to invest in new technologies for instruction, that the work and effort required to develop content will not be reduced. While effective use of the media will undoubtedly increase the potential reach of the material and lower the per participant cost over time, more energy and costs are invested up front to take advantage of the technology.
Works Cited
“Findings from University of Zaragoza Update Understanding of Learning Science and Technology (The effects of learner-generated videos for YouTube on learning outcomes and satisfaction).” Education Letter, 27 Apr. 2016, p. 77. Global Issues in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A450442428/GIC?u=royal_roads&xid=e9eb2c57. Accessed 7 Oct. 2017.
“Brain gains; Education technology.” The Economist, 22 July 2017, p. 9(US). Global Issues in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A498888332/GIC?u=royal_roads&xid=f757ff13. Accessed 9 Oct. 2017.
Kozma, R. (1994). “Will media influence learning: Reframing the debate.” Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7-19.
Clark, R. E. (1994). “Media will never influence learning.” Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29.
“Top 6 benefits of using technology in the classroom.” Webanywhere, February 18 2016, Retrieved from: https://www.webanywhere.co.uk/blog/2016/02/top-6-benefits-technology-classroom/
Lauzé, Sarah. Technology in the classroom: Local school introduces BYOD program (2017, Oct 1), KelownaNow. Retrieved from https://www.kelownanow.com/news/news/Sponsored/Technology_in_the_classroom_Local_school_introduces_BYOD_program1/
The above post was a collaboration between five MALAT students – Adam Romano, EJ Tremblay, Keith Williams, Jason Par and Karen Maeers.
