By: Mary Ellis, Krista Frate, Marshall Hartlen, Steve Minten, and Nicolette Young
How people learn is constantly up for discussion, and debate. And every few years a new theory is advanced often identifying previous theories as flawed. In a similar vein, the influence of media on learning has also been debated. Academics like Clark (1994) maintain that media will never have a significant impact on learning, while contemporaries like Kozma (1994) argue that with the continued advancement of technology, it is time to revisit the argument. The following post explores four articles that explore the scope of the debate, and add to the continuing discussion.
Five Ways to Teach Students to be Future Ready
Article Link
Matt Miller’s (2017) article entitled “5 Ways to Teach Students to Be Future-Ready” provides five changes that a teacher can make to their classroom that will help students learn better and be more prepared for the workforce. Miller claims that the students of today will enter a workforce that is technology infused and filled with innovation. He encourages them to use a medium that suits their learning in order to communicate their ideas in a more succinct fashion. He also encourages educational institutions to ensure that students are creating content that matches their unique skills and notes that the medium they choose is not as important as the actual creation process itself.
Miller’s article contrasts Kozma’s (1994) position that the medium can influence learning as long as it is linked to the instructional method. Firstly, Miller (2017) makes no connection between the medium and the method, Within the article, he does not once link any one medium to being required to achieve the goals of creativity, collaboration and creation. . Secondly, in several instances he states that many mediums may be selected to encourage learning for the students. If learning happens for the students no matter which medium is used, as Miller suggests, then one can infer that the medium is not the primary factor in learning.
How has Technology Changed Education?
Article Link
In an article published on the Purdue University Online website, the author (unknown) claims technology has profoundly impacted education and enabled new ways of learning (How has Technology Changed Education, 2015). This contradicts Clark’s assertions that media has “…differential economic benefits but no learning benefits.” (Clark, 1994). Clark (1994) suggests asking whether or not a similar set of attributes as those under scrutiny would lead to similar results. In the article linked, the authors give an example of students in rural U.S. following blogs and connecting in video conference with scientists in the arctic. The article states “The walls of the classrooms are no longer a barrier as technology enables new ways of learning, communicating, and working collaboratively.” Clark might suggest the impacts of the technologies enabling learning are economic; that learning is more accessible and cost effective, but could have taken place without the aid of these specific technologies.
The Purdue University article also claims roles of teacher and learner have been changed by modern technology, suggesting access to abundant content has given students more responsibility over their learning and changed the role of teacher from “sage on the stage” to “guide on the side” (How has Technology Changed Education, 2015). This claim aligns with Kozma’s view that media and method have an integral relationship; a medium’s capabilities enable methods and must be confounded (Kozma 1994). Clark suggests that, because various attributes of various media can accomplish similar learning (see studies cited by Clark, 1985; Clark & Sugrue, 1988, as cited by Clark, 1994) the “attributes must be proxies for some other variables that are instrumental in learning gains.” (Clark 1994)
Though the article states clearly that today’s technology “enables forms of communication and collaboration undreamt of in the past,” (para. 3) it does not clearly identify specific attributes as unique to particular technologies (How has Technology Changed Education, 2015). Therefore, the article could be interpreted to be aligned with Clark’s view. However, it is implied by reference to abundant content and video conferencing that the arrival of the internet has changed learning. It is hard to imagine a world with the same learning results afforded by the communication and collaboration taking place online, but Clark insists we do imagine it, or ask ourselves “if another (similar) set of attributes would lead to the same learning result” (1994). By separating medium and method, Clark insists, we can better focus on various methods which adequately meet learning requirements and choose the most economic option (1994).
Teaching in the Digital Age: How Educators use Technology to improve Student Learning
Article Link
In Teaching in a digital age: how educators use technology to improve student learning, authors McKnight et al. (2016) discuss the findings of their case-study exploring how teachers’ perception of technology in the classroom has helped their methods. In interviewing teachers and administrators, issuing an online survey, and observing classrooms, the authors determined that teachers use technology in a variety of contexts, including: providing instantaneous feedback to students, and creating interactive and self-paced lessons. Despite the creativity using technology can inspire, teachers from low socioeconomic schools indicated that the lack of a computer at home and inadequate access at school impeded their ability to take advantage of the options technology-enabled learning provides. McKnight et al. also indicate that technology improves learning when it helps change “learning routines, cognitive processes, problem-solving, and teacher roles” (p. 5), they argue that it is effective when it enables course content to be delivered more efficiently. However, technology should not be a distraction from the course content being delivered .
McKnight et al.’s case-study neither contradicts nor affirms arguments regarding the influence or lack of influence media has on education made by Kozma (1994), nor Clark (1994) respectively. McKnight et al.’s case-study neither contradicts nor affirms Kozma’s argument that media changes the way we learn (1994), nor Clark’s argument that media will never change how we learn (1994).
Although their research indicates that teachers appreciate using technology in the classroom, and feel fairly comfortable developing their technological skills, which indicates a willingness to integrate technology in the classroom. McKnight et al. caution that the technology, or medium, used to deliver courses ought never take the focus away from the content. Until such time that technology reshapes “learning routines, cognitive processes, problem solving, and teacher roles” (p. 5), they claim technology will not change how we learn .
Teachers Explain why VR is more than a Buzzword
Article Link
According to several educators in Gallagher’s (2017)’s column “Teachers explain why VR is more than just a buzzword”, technology may have caught up to what Kozma was waiting for in the great “media debate”. Kozma(1994) argued that “if there is no relationship between media and learning it may be because we have not yet made one” ( p. 2). In 2017, the VR experiences for three instructors (Gallagher, 2017) claim that a relationship between VR and learning may now exist.
In Gallagher’s (2017) column, the first teacher’s experience is that virtual reality movies are more immersive than other media and aids students to “learn with all the senses” (para. 4). She observes that virtual reality movies allow the content to be experienced, rather than just watched. The second instructor piloted Google Expeditions (Link) – interactive field trips using VR. She corroborates Gallagher’s observation of the first instructor’s experience, stating that VR’s power is in the quality of the experience, not the content..
These statements contrast with Clark (1994)’s view that there is no evidence that “media or media attributes influence learning in any essential and structural way” (p.5). In allowing a student to experience their learning in a separate, realistic and reactive environment where they can use multiple senses, the educators give evidence that VR is influencing learning in a essential and structural way – in terms of the experience it enables. This differentiates it from other media as the instructors describe the VR itself as the experience that impacts learning, not the content.
Another of Clark (1994)’s assertions is contradicted by these experiences – that learner benefits are derived from content and instructional strategy, not the media itself. After using a graffiti art VR simulation with her students, a third instructor discusses the higher motivation and engagement that VR enables. This is in direct contrast to Clark’s (1994) view that media is not “directly responsible for motivating learning” (p. 2).
Instead of the truck just delivering our groceries, Clark’s metaphorizses that media is solely the deliverer of instruction (groceries) and not achievement. In this way, the VR truck is bringing us directly to the farm where the meat and vegetables grow – letting us walk around, smell, listen and experience where these groceries came from, but does not necessarily help us to understand how they grow.
Not considered in either Clark (1994), or Kozma’s (1994) arguments is the fact that both were writing at the dawn of the internet age. Clark may be correct in identifying that no specific research has accurately concluded the successful influence of media on learning, but the media he wrote of in 1994 is vastly different than what exists today. Constructivist learning theory, was likewise starting to gain popularity at the publication of both author’s work. As Kozma (1994) observes “learning is an active, constructive, cognitive and social process by which the learner manages resources to create new knowledge by interacting with information in the environment, and associating it with previous knowledge. Here too, further inquiry is required as to the specific information is required to effect of 21st century media on learning.
References
Clark, R. E. (1985). Evidence for confounding in computer-based instruction studies: Analyzing the meta analyses. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 33(4).
Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29.
Clark, R. E. and Sugrue B. M. (1988). Research on instructional media, 1978-1988. In D. Ely (Ed.), Educational Media Yearbook 1987-88. Littletown, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Gallagher, K.. (2017, April 12). Teachers explain why VR is more than just a buzzword. [Online column within information resource site and community]. Retrieved from https://www.edsurge.com/news/2017-04-12-teachers-explain-why-vr-is-more-than-just-a-buzzword
Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning: Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7-19.
McKnight, K., O’Malley, K., Ruzic, R., Horsley, M. K., Franey, J. J., & Bassett, K. (2016). Teaching in a digital age: How educators use technology to improve student learning. Journal of research on technology in education, 48(3), 194-211. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1143/6d1f5dd47529b666a1c4bfdd720d681305b8.pdf.
Miller, M. (2017, August 10). 5 ways to teach students to be future ready. EdTech Magazine. Retrieved from https://edtechmagazine.com/k12/article/2017/08/5-ways-teach-students-be-future-ready
Purdue University Online. (2017). How has technology changed education? Retrieved from: http://online.purdue.edu/ldt/learning-design-technology/resources/how-has-technology-changed-education
