Contributors: Lorri Weaver, George Tam, May Bahador, Stu Reed, Donna Baker
Both Clark (1994) and Kozma (1994) acknowledge that instructional methods and delivery of media must be aligned to facilitate learning. The debate is about the ability of more than one medium to support a selected instructional method, whether a given medium has capabilities that cannot be replicated by another medium, and whether or not the research is valid.
The debate should extend beyond applying Clark’s replaceability theory, which states that if both Media A and Media B yield a measurable improvement in learning, the issue becomes one of method rather than technology as the influencing factor (Clark, 1994). The debate should be about cognitive efficiency—reaching learning or problem-solving goals through optimal use of mental resources—and the efficiency of the technology to meet desired learning outcomes and instructional goals, and must also consider the complexities of the social situations within which they are used. As Kozma stated, “Rather than causes and effects, then, we are looking for causal mechanisms, which are the underlying processes that produce events. And rather than general laws we are looking for sufficient tendencies, which are the net effects of these mechanisms as they operate in complex social situations.” (Kozma, 1994, p. 16).
Our articles touch on different aspects of the debate.
Five benefits of video conferencing to learning
https://www.trainingzone.co.uk/community/blogs/irma-hunkeler/5-benefits-of-video-conferencing-to-learning
Hunkeler’s (2017) blog post on the benefits of video conferencing to learning supports some of Kozma’s claims (1994), while contradicting elements of Clark’s perspective (1994). While Clark claims that media does not in any way influence learning, Hunkeler asserts that a major advantage of video-based learning is its ability to cater activities to varied learning styles, which may have a direct effect on learning. Having the ability to collaborate through screen and file sharing, Hunkeler claims, results in better decisions and solutions by connecting with both auditory and visual learners. There is no mention, however, of how implementing instructional methods using technology measurably show advantages over face-to-face methods, which does not definitively contrast Clark’s claim that “there is no single media attribute that serves a unique cognitive effect for some learning task” (Introduction, para 2).
Although Hunkeler states technological tools make content more available, as well as allowing access to experts who are not limited by location or time constraints, improved access does not prove that video is necessarily the best way to reach learning outcomes or collaborate in an employment context. The “complex social situations” described by Kozma (p. 15) must be the starting point for choosing the appropriate method and medium to maximize cognitive efficiency.
Virtual instructors: Almost as good as the real thing
http://www.clomedia.com/2017/02/21/virtual-instructors-almost-good-real-thing/
The main claim that Clark (1994) makes is that instructional media does not influence learning, and that it is the methods through which the instruction is taught that dictate learning. In the feature article by Marshall (2017), she describes how virtual instruction can nearly replace traditional instructor-led training in terms of providing quality learning. She enforces the notion that virtual instructor-led training may be not only cost-effective, but effective overall in terms of learning goals.
Addressing Clark’s statement about how media does not influence learning, Marshall notes that question and answer sessions may be incorporated in live face-to-face lessons or in a virtual setting, but in virtual settings there may be more engagement and the ability to ask questions at any time, unlike face-to-face sessions. In addition, all questions and answers may be tracked for future reference. It is this change in dynamic to the question and answer session that may alter the learning that takes place, refuting Clark’s claim that media does not influence learning.
The learning revolution: It’s not about education
https://www.wired.com/insights/2014/01/learning-revolution-education/
Although Clark (1994) and Kozma (1994) disagree on whether instructional media influences learning, they both agree the instructional method plays a strong role in learning. Witte’s article (2014) describes Babbel, a language learning system he co-founded and currently serves as the CEO. He implies that technology alone will change education, stating, “A new trend is initiated by a whole new breed of learning technology start-ups that set out to make learning easier for everybody” (Witte, 2014, para 4).
Witte’s article focuses solely on technology as an enabler of change to how people learn, claiming that the learning revolution occurring now is people using new technology for self-teaching (2014). The article does not refer to how the learning environment is designed, the instructional methods used, or whether a learning theory was applied, a perspective that directly contradicts both Clark and Kozma, who both identify the importance of applying instructional methods in learning.
Social media’s influence on the education system
http://www.teachercast.net/2016/06/02/social-medias-influence-education-system/
Brenton (2016) explains that the use of social media as a tool for learning in schools grows every year, and teachers are utilizing this powerful tool more and more to reach out to students and use it as a learning enhancement. As Brenton states, based on a study done by Harvard University, while completing group activities in post-secondary classes, students that used social media and online platforms to communicate and complete their group activities did much better than the one without using online platforms. She concludes that the improvement in grades is an indication of media influencing learning and having a positive effect in a classroom.
This article contradicts the claim made by Clark (1994) that media does not influence learning. On the other hand, it does support Kozma’s (1994) request that we examine how we, “… use the capabilities of media to influence learning for particular students, tasks, and situations” (p. 23).
References
Brenton, L. (2016, June 2). Social media’s influence on the education system [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.teachercast.net/2016/06/02/social-medias-influence-education-system/
Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29.
Hunkeler, I. (2017, September 29). Five benefits of video conferencing to learning [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://www.trainingzone.co.uk/community/blogs/irma-hunkeler/5-benefits-of-video-conferencing-to-learning
Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning: Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7-19.
Marshall, J. (2017, February 21). Virtual instructors: Almost as good as the real thing [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.clomedia.com/2017/02/21/virtual-instructors-almost-good-real-thing/
Witte, M. (2014, January). The learning revolution: It’s not about education [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/insights/2014/01/learning-revolution-education/
