Technology-e-learning-school break lunch (c) Rawpixel.com, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0
As a group, we (Anita Fahrenbruch, Amanda Dunn, Jeff Clemens, Joyce Wimmer, and Alastair Linds) reviewed four current articles focused on the technology benefits in the classroom and opportunities they use to leverage those in education. Each article chosen offered new perspectives to dispute the concepts proposed by Clark (1994) that media has no impact on learning and that the medium of which learning is delivered cannot influence learning. We note that Clark wrote his article in 1994 and the articles we chose are from 2015-2018, offering new insights into technology use which may not have been present during Clark’s article.The articles we chose are the following: (1) ‘Gamification for Learning’, by Tu, Suji-Montes, and Yen (a chapter from Media rich instruction: Connecting curriculum to all learners, 2015), (2) ‘3 Ways Video Games Can Help Students Thrive’ by Cortez published by EdTech Magazine, (3) ‘Cutting Edge Education’ published by Forbes Technology Council, and (4) ‘A Principal Shares Tech Benefits for the 1:1 Skeptic. Technology Solutions That Drive Education’ by Renwick. We will provide a brief summary of each article and use their concepts to offer a different view to Clark’s statements.
‘Gamification for learning’ by Tu, Sujo-Montes, & Yen (2015) strives to answer three questions; what is gamification and how does it support learning and education, how do game dynamics and game personalities relate to gamification design, and how is effective gamification created to support learning (p. 203)? The authors discuss the merits of gamification and two categories of game attributes: game mechanics and game dynamics. Game mechanics is described as “principles, rules, and/or mechanisms that direct a desired behavior through a system of incentives, feedbacks, and rewards with reasonably predictable outcomes” (p. 204). Whereas game dynamics are described as the “when and how these incentive [motivators] should be presented” (p. 204). Gaming dynamics, which is part of game theory, impact the engagement, behavior, emotion, socialization, and exploration of a learner. The authors discuss two frameworks of which gamification can be applied; Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and Fogg Behaviour Model (FBM). SDT are based on “human motivation and personality” (p. 208) where the motivations of the learner come from within and are not motivated by external factors such as reward, badges, or other game mechanics. FBM is a model that bids to understand a balancing relationship between what learners perceive is boring and what is motivating and comparing that to what is difficult to what is simple. This balance is called the activation threshold where the motivation is enough to take on more difficult learning but the difficulty is enough to not become boring or frustrating. Whether or not this threshold is achieved may be influenced by gaming personality (Socializer, Achiever, Explorer, and Killer). These four gaming personalities are compared to four spectrums of gaming motivators: Player, Acting, World/Content, and Interaction. Of course learners are not affixed to these gaming personalities and most are multidimensional. By combining these concepts, Tu et.al develop a model for constructing gamification which supports educators in the design of gamification to be added to their instruction. This is based on four main dimensions; goal setting, player engagement, progressive design and environment building. Taking into consideration how the gaming personalities influences motivations within gaming theory, educators can determine which game dynamics they can use with gaming mechanics to add gamification to their existing lessons.
The article written by Cortez (2016) summarizes the outcomes of game-based learning implemented at a Quest to Learn (Q2L) grade 6 to grade 12 school in New York City as well as uses both quantitative and qualitative data from research to demonstrate her observations. The author found that social skills such as communication, cooperation and collaboration, literacy, personalized learning and motivation flourished in this type of learning environment.
The blog post by Forbes Technology Council (FTC) (2018) offers member opinions on how technology can be best utilized in education. The results are shared in a comprehensive list detailing technology use to personalize a student’s learning and the use of Hutchin’s theory of distributed cognition (dCoG), which offers a framework to understand media, how this media interacts with individuals and the environment in which an activity takes place (Liu, Nersessian & Stasko, n.d.); dCoG is used in the design of digital learning environments. The blog post continues with suggested reasons for augmenting traditional teaching with technology, addressing how technology use can lower costs in education and affect the student experience through instant feedback, increased accessibility to and participation in online classrooms. Furthermore, the interviewed members suggested opportunities afforded by technology, such as the lowering of workload for teachers through automated test scoring, increased data protection and the opportunity for industry to participate through internship programs offering students real world and research based learning experiences.
Renwick’s (2015) article discusses the primary goal of a school, “to ensure that students benefit from the connections they develop” (para. 13) and outlines the positive role that technology has in enhancing students’ learning. With the presence of technology seemingly everywhere, it is only natural that questions arise regarding school’s protocols. Renwick begins by discussing some of the negatives implications that studies have shown when people’s communication are done primarily with phones: reduced empathy, self-reflection, and open mindedness. He then uses three examples, the ability to help with Learning disabilities, assisting English language learners, and giving students to ability to learn by distance education, to dispute these implications and show the benefit technology has on learning. Renwick offers examples of how different medias can impact and benefit learning, as opposed to the arguments presented by Clark.
In the article, “Media Will Never Influence Learning”, Clark (1994) outlines a set of rules or reasons why media must be separated from instructional design which determines his stance that media has no impact on learning. These rules are as follows: the selected learning method must be cost effective but also have the most learning efficiency; if the learning attribute in one form of media is found in another, then the attribute must be a proxy for another design outside of said media; if two media achieve the same result then an unknown variable exists which hasn’t been measured, that can disprove media impact; motivation must come from internal beliefs in regards to external events; and quantitative data must exist for the media to be proven to have an impact. Clark made “the explicit and clear claim that there were no learning benefits” (p. 22) to be had through the use of media in education.
Each article offers a unique opportunity to view Clark’s arguments. As the members of FTC voiced, technology is able to adjust to a student’s individual needs using their best “modality” for learning and adjusting the learning experience as the student is engaging with the technology (Forbes Technology Council, 2018, para. 2). This point was also reiterated by Renwick and Cortez with using technology to assist students with different learning styles and abilities. There are many ways that games have allowed for new creative lessons; for example, a game where the students become scientists travelling through the human body. Without the inclusion of media this would be impossible to recreate in a reasonable manner (Cortez, 2016). Another concept which was introduced in one of the articles, is that of gaming personality. Gaming personality is a change in socialization behavior and emotion that is brought upon strictly by gaming. Within the interactive environment personalities change and cannot be replicated by other forms of media (Tu et.al 2015, p. 209). As instructional designers we can use this information to create effective learning using gamification. This satisfies Clark’s position confirming that an attribute is not found in another source of media, nor are the results shared by another as the results are determined by the gaming personality which are only found in the gaming context. Furthermore, the ability for technology to enhance the learning of students, such as predictive speech and read and write, gives the student independence to learn on their own and at their own pace. Clark argues that “only the use of adequate instructional methods will influence learning” (p. 27) but the use of technology has now allowed students to be able to not only complete learning outcomes, but to do so in a more personalized manner.
Although not directly stated, games today are relatively inexpensive and many provide online educational gaming for free online such as the Khan Academy (https://www.khanacademy.org/). Considering the ubiquity of computers we can assume that such learning methods as these are indeed cost effective, even though Clark argues that the investment in media outweighs its gains in learning (p. 27). The FTC’s and Renwick’s articles point to the societal gains that have been afforded through accessibility to education, enhancing learning outcomes globally (Forbes Technology Council , para. 9; Renwick, para 11). Furthermore, technology has allowed the education industry to be more cost efficient and, by passing on savings to the learner as scholarships, media use has contributed to accessibility financially as well as socially (Forbes Technology Council , para. 6).
Cortez adds, students who need to work together more, increase their ability to communicate and collaborate, allowing them the ability to improve social skills above and beyond their peers. This insight has been noticed and discovered outside of the realm of education in students who also participate in casual gaming and disputes one of the main concerns expressed by Renwick.
Clark states that quantitative data must exist for media to be proven to have an impact. Tu et.al (2015) use primary research to help form define different aspects of gamification in order to create a model to support educators in how to best implement gamification into their educational practices. Additionally, Cortez collected quantitative evidence showing that more Q2L students scored at proficient levels, demonstrating that increased learning had taken place. We may argue that quantitative data does exist.
When talking about motivation Tu et.al refer to Self Determination Theory (SDT) and Fogg Behaviour Model (FBM) in order to determine where motivation comes from and how to best utilize and foster motivation in a gaming environment. Gamification is described as being at the center of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation determined by SDT and of motivation, ability and trigger as stated in FBM. SDT and FBM determine that motivators come from within the learner and use in game environmental events as a catalyst. This now fulfills Clark’s rules on motivation that must come from internal beliefs in regards to external events.
We believe media and instructional design can be one of the same and comparing some of the views from different sources has provided a useful counter argument to Clark’s claim that media use does not afford learning, as all of our authors have provided a comprehensive list of several reasons to think otherwise. We want to reiterate Renwick, who agrees that it is important to use media wisely in the classroom, but once used wisely, it is clear it is beneficial to learning environments.
References:
Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29.
Cortez, M. (2016). 3 Ways Video Games Can Help Students Thrive. EdTech Magazine. Retrieved from https://edtechmagazine.com/k12/article/2016/09/3-ways-video-games-can-help-students-thrive
Forbes Technology Council (2018, March 28). Cutting-Edge Education: 13 Ways To Leverage Technology For Learning [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2018/03/28/cutting-edge-education-13-ways-to-leverage-technology-for-learning/#7c3e495c3919
Liu, Z., Nersessian, N., J. & Stasko, J.,T. (n.d.) Distributed Cognition as a Theoretical Framework for Information Visualization. Retrieved from https://www.cc.gatech.edu/~stasko/papers/infovis08-dcog.pd
Renwick. (2015). A Principal Shares Tech Benefits for the 1:1 Skeptic. EdTech Magazine. Retrieved from https://edtechmagazine.com/k12/article/2015/12/principal-shares-tech-benefits-11-skeptic
Tu, CH., Sujo-Montes, L.E. & Yen, CJ. (2015). Gamification for Learning. In: Papa R. (eds) Media Rich Instruction. Springer, Cham