{"id":254,"date":"2017-10-09T08:11:59","date_gmt":"2017-10-09T15:11:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0027\/?p=254"},"modified":"2017-10-11T11:34:50","modified_gmt":"2017-10-11T18:34:50","slug":"the-influence-of-media-on-learning","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0027\/the-influence-of-media-on-learning\/","title":{"rendered":"Activity 7 – LRNT523 – The Influence of Media on Learning"},"content":{"rendered":"

The \u201cmedia debate\u201d is a debate originating in the 1990s between Richard Clark and Robert Kozma on whether media influences learning. After reading papers outlining the arguments made by Clark (1994) and Kozma (1994), as a group of five MALAT students, we present four recent articles that demonstrate a contrast to Clark\u2019s or Kozma\u2019s claims or evidence.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

By: Mary Ellis, Krista Frate, Marshall Hartlen, Steve Minten, and Nicolette Young<\/span><\/p>\n

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.<\/span><\/p>\n

Five Ways to Teach Students to be Future Ready<\/span><\/h2>\n

Article Link<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Matt Miller\u2019s (2017) article entitled \u201c5 Ways to Teach Students to Be Future-Ready\u201d 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.\u00a0He 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.<\/span><\/p>\n

Miller\u2019s article contrasts Kozma\u2019s (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 <\/span>creation. Secondly, in several <\/span>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.<\/span><\/p>\n

How has Technology Changed Education?<\/span><\/h2>\n

Article Link<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

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 \u00a0(How has Technology Changed Education, 2015). This contradicts Clark\u2019s assertions that media has \u201c\u2026differential economic benefits but no learning benefits.\u201d (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 <\/span>video conference with scientists in the <\/span>Arctic. The article states \u201cThe walls of the classrooms are no longer a barrier as technology enables new ways of learning, communicating, and working collaboratively.\u201d Clark might suggest the impacts of the technologies enabling learning are economic; that learning is more accessible and <\/span>cost-effective, but could have taken place without the aid of these specific technologies.<\/span><\/p>\n

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 \u201csage on the stage\u201d to \u201cguide on the side\u201d (How has Technology Changed Education, 2015). This claim aligns with Kozma\u2019s view that media and method have an integral relationship; a medium\u2019s 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 \u201cattributes must be proxies for some other variables that are instrumental in learning gains.\u201d (Clark 1994)<\/span><\/p>\n

Though the article states clearly that today\u2019s technology \u201cenables forms of communication and collaboration undreamt of in the past,\u201d (para. 3) \u00a0it 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\u2019s 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 <\/span>it or ask ourselves \u00a0\u201cif another (similar) set of attributes would lead to the same learning result\u201d (1994). By separating medium and method, Clark insists, we can better focus on various methods which adequately meet learning requirements and choose the most <\/span>economical option (1994).<\/span><\/p>\n

Teaching in the Digital Age: How Educators use Technology to <\/span>Improve Student Learning<\/span><\/h2>\n

Article Link<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

In\u00a0Teaching in a digital age: how educators use technology to improve student learning<\/i>, authors McKnight et al. (2016) discuss the findings of their case-study exploring how teachers\u2019 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, <\/span>including providing instantaneous feedback to <\/span>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 \u201clearning routines, cognitive processes, problem-solving, and teacher roles\u201d (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 <\/span>delivered.<\/p>\n

McKnight et al.\u2019s case-study neither <\/span>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.\u2019s case-study neither <\/span>contradicts nor affirms Kozma\u2019s argument that media changes the way we learn (1994), nor Clark\u2019s argument that media will never change how we learn (1994).<\/span><\/p>\n

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 \u201clearning routines, cognitive processes, <\/span>problem-solving, and teacher roles\u201d (p. 5), they claim technology will not change how we <\/span>learn.<\/p>\n

Teachers Explain why VR is more than a Buzzword<\/span><\/h2>\n

Article Link<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

According to several educators in Gallagher\u2019s (2017)\u2019s column \u201cTeachers explain why VR is more than just a buzzword\u201d, technology may have caught up to what Kozma was waiting for in the great \u201cmedia debate\u201d. Kozma(1994) argued that \u201cif there is no relationship between media and learning it may be because we have not yet made one\u201d ( p. 2). In 2017, the VR experiences for three instructors (Gallagher, 2017) claim that a relationship between VR and learning may now exist.<\/span><\/p>\n

In Gallagher\u2019s (2017) column, the first teacher\u2019s experience is that virtual reality movies are more immersive than other media and aids students to \u201clearn with all the senses\u201d (para. 4). She observes that virtual reality movies allow the content to be experienced, rather than just watched. The second instructor piloted\u00a0Google Expeditions<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 interactive field trips using VR. She corroborates Gallagher\u2019s observation of the first instructor\u2019s experience, stating that VR\u2019s power is in the quality of the experience, not the <\/span>content.<\/p>\n

These statements contrast with Clark (1994)\u2019s view that there is no evidence that \u201cmedia or media attributes influence learning in any essential and structural way\u201d (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 <\/span>an essential and structural way \u2013 in terms of the <\/span>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.<\/span><\/p>\n

Another of Clark (1994)\u2019s assertions is contradicted by these experiences \u2013 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\u2019s (1994) view that media is not \u201cdirectly responsible for motivating learning\u201d (p. 2).<\/span><\/p>\n

Clark <\/span>metaphorizes that media can be likened to the truck that delivers our groceries in that it has no effect on our eating habits \u2013 he argues media is solely the deliverer of instruction but not achievement. However, as described through these three instructor experiences, the VR truck is bringing us directly to the farm where the meat and vegetables grow \u2013 letting us walk around, smell, listen and experience where these groceries came from.<\/span><\/p>\n

Not considered in either Clark (1994), or Kozma\u2019s (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 <\/span>theory was likewise starting to gain popularity at the publication of both author\u2019s work. As Kozma (1994) observes \u201clearning is an active, constructive, cognitive and social process by which the learner manages resources to create new knowledge by interacting with information in the <\/span>environment and associating it with previous knowledge. Here too, further inquiry is required as to the specific information is required to effect of <\/span>21st-century media on learning.<\/span><\/p>\n

References<\/span><\/p>\n

Clark, R. E. (1985). Evidence for confounding in computer-based instruction studies: Analyzing the <\/span>meta analyses.\u00a0Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 33<\/i>(4).<\/span><\/p>\n

Clark, R. E. (1994).\u00a0Media will never influence learning.\u00a0Educational Technology Research and Development<\/i>,\u00a042<\/i>(2), 21-29.<\/span><\/p>\n

Clark, R. E. and Sugrue B. M. (1988). Research on instructional media, 1978-1988. In D. Ely (Ed.),\u00a0Educational Media Yearbook 1987-88<\/i>. Littletown, CO: Libraries Unlimited.<\/span><\/p>\n

Gallagher, K.. (2017, April 12). Teachers explain why VR is more than just a buzzword. [Online column within information resource site and community]. Retrieved fromhttps:\/\/www.edsurge.com\/news\/2017-04-12-teachers-explain-why-vr-is-more-than-just-a-buzzword<\/span><\/p>\n

Kozma, R. B. (1994).\u00a0Will media influence learning: Reframing the debate.\u00a0Educational Technology Research and Development<\/i>,\u00a042<\/i>(2), 7-19.<\/span><\/p>\n

McKnight, K., O\u2019Malley, 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.\u00a0Journal of research on technology in education<\/i>,\u00a048<\/i>(3), 194-211. Retrieved from\u00a0https:\/\/pdfs.semanticscholar.org\/1143\/6d1f5dd47529b666a1c4bfdd720d681305b8.pdf.<\/span><\/p>\n

Miller, M. (2017, August 10). 5 ways to teach students to be future ready.\u00a0EdTech Magazine.\u00a0<\/i>Retrieved from https:\/\/edtechmagazine.com\/k12\/article\/2017\/08\/5-ways-teach-students-be-future-ready<\/span><\/p>\n

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<\/span><\/p>\n

Image Source” Pixabay<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The \u201cmedia debate\u201d is a debate originating in the 1990s between Richard Clark and Robert Kozma on whether media influences learning. After reading papers outlining the arguments made by Clark (1994) and Kozma (1994), as a group of five MALAT… Continue Reading →<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":71,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-254","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-lrnt523"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0027\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/254","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0027\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0027\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0027\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/71"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0027\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=254"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0027\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/254\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":264,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0027\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/254\/revisions\/264"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0027\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=254"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0027\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=254"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0027\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=254"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}