{"id":349,"date":"2018-10-06T17:56:46","date_gmt":"2018-10-07T00:56:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0060\/?p=349"},"modified":"2018-10-06T20:32:58","modified_gmt":"2018-10-07T03:32:58","slug":"clark-vs-kozma-learning-through-technology-debate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0060\/clark-vs-kozma-learning-through-technology-debate\/","title":{"rendered":"Clark or Kozma or Both? The Great Debate!"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
image: via Learning Online Info \u2013 James Matthew<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

LRNT523 Unit 3 Activity 7<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em>Authors<\/strong>:\u00a0Chad FLINN<\/strong><\/span>,\u00a0Beata KOZMA<\/strong><\/span>,\u00a0Dorothy SIDHU<\/strong><\/span>, and\u00a0Danielle STOKES<\/strong><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Kozma cited Simon (1981) and Glaser (1976) and claims that educational technology is a design science (Simon, 1981, Glaser, 1976 as cited in Clark, 1994), not a natural science. Kozma (1994, p. 2) expresses that we, the people, the instructional designers need to \u2018forge\u2019 the connection between media and learning. If we don\u2019t their educational contribution will be minimal at best.<\/p>\n

In both his articles, Clark (1984, as cited in 1994, p. 2) claimed that \u201cmedia not only fail to influence learning, they are also not directly responsible for motivating learning.\u201d The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (\u201cInfluence | Definition of Influence by Merriam-Webster,\u201d n.d.) defines \u2018Influence\u2019 as \u201cthe power or capacity of causing an effect in indirect or intangible ways\u201d. Clark\u2019s arguments seem to miss the meaning of \u2018influence\u2019 as our articles reveal.<\/p>\n

Both Clark (1994) and Kozma (1994) acknowledge that instructional methods and the chosen media must be aligned to facilitate meaningful learning. In the summaries of the articles below, it can be seen that both Clark and Kozma have valid arguments in the field of pedagogy. \u00a0As we see, the evolution of media (Virtual and Augmented Reality) has shifted its use and potentially a shift in the authors\u2019 views. While there was a time when media may have been no more than a glorified video lecture we are now seeing media influencing assessments, connections, personalized learning, and construction of knowledge.<\/p>\n

The following four articles<\/strong> support and question Clark and Kozma\u2019s arguments and lead to a continued debate on the use of technology and learning and what the future may bring in this field.<\/p>\n

\"\"
image: via Central YMCA<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Is Digital Technology Changing Learning & Teaching? \u00a0The Big Debate from Digifest 2017<\/strong><\/span><\/a><\/h2>\n

With clear opposing viewpoints and strong positional stances between Clark (1994) and Kozma (1994) on the debate of independence versus interdependence amongst learning and media Clark has claimed, \u201c30 percent sample of the studies he used and found that when the same instructional design group produces Computer Based Training (CBT) and presents the live instruction with which it is compared in many studies, there is no achievement difference between CBT and live conditions\u201d (1994, p. 23). Kozma responded with, \u201cknowledge and learning are neither solely a property of the individual or the environment and rather they are the reciprocal interaction between the learner\u2019s cognitive resources and aspects of the external environment (Greeno, 1988 et al. as cited in Kozma, 1994, p. 9) and this interaction is strongly influenced by the extent to which internal and external resources fit together\u201d (Snow 1992 as cited in Kozma, 1994, p. 9).<\/p>\n

In the article, Is Digital Technology Changing Learning & Teaching, a similar debate continues a decade and a half later in 2017 between Neil Morris, who argues FOR that digital technology is fundamentally changing learning and teaching and Amber Thomas, who argues AGAINST the motion.<\/p>\n

The three main points included by Morris in favor of learning and teaching are changing due to technology are the flexibility and accessibility of learning<\/strong>, way learners gain knowledge<\/strong>, and interaction with others<\/strong>. Morris suggests, \u201cNone of these were even imaginable before we started to integrate digital technology into education\u201d<\/strong> (Morris, 2017, p. 4). Morris sees these three points as interconnected to digital technology changes in learning and teaching. In Morris\u2019s first point<\/em> on flexibility, he describes how learners are able to access learning from anywhere, anytime and any pace. The options between blended, hybrid and fully online allow learners to have a choice and they can integrate it as seen best into their lives. \u00a0This, in turn, sees several benefits which could include; increases in enrollment, greater participation, higher motivation and satisfaction. His second point<\/em> explains how learners are gaining competencies through the use of technology, where they are expected to not only use technology but as well as hone in on skills around massive amounts of information and ability to search, refine, categorize and understand (Morris, 2017). These are all directly useful for future employment, as these are some of the skill seeked out for tomorrow\u2019s workforce. The third point<\/em> Morris discusses is how learners are able to interact with peers and teachers residing globally, in turn enabling advocacy around inclusion and diversity, cultural awareness, and globalization.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, Morris describes these changes give educators more diversity in their approach to support learners and provide more opportunities to be more inclusive in their teaching methods. Additional benefits raised by Morris is with digital technology, educators can create more interactive, engaging, flexible learning materials in a variety of digital and multimedia formats, as well as make them online and compatible with mobile devices. Finally, the ability to communicate as educators through the use of digital technology allows for higher and greater interaction with learners, communicating in more ways and not limited to classroom and meetings face to face.<\/p>\n

Amber Thomas sees things in a similar viewpoint as Clark. She expresses that, \u201cdrivers for change in teaching and learning in higher education are socio-economic, related to the way student fees are funded, changes in the job market, the currency of a degree and the skills people need. \u00a0As a result of those drivers, we see technologies used in particular ways\u201d<\/strong> (Thomas, 2017, p. 8). Thomas takes a pretty clear stance that digital is the endpoint and the real efforts are within the design and development by instructional designers and architects of the content to create a great digital course, emphasizing it\u2019s about the real structures in the learning designs, course objectives, and learning outcomes.<\/p>\n

She continues to emphasize that the learning is about conversations with academics and educators around what the course is about, how the learning is designed, what is it designed to do, how teams will be structured and allocation of time put aside for running an activity. Thomas explicitly went on to say, \u201cThose are not technical concerns and can be quite disappointing for those who believe that we have the magical pixie dust of technology to scatter of their courses for them\u201d (Thomas, 2017, p. 12).<\/p>\n

The tensions between interconnectedness and interdependence between technology, media, digital and learning versus them as stand-alone and a silo pillar continue to be debated a decade later. As we continue to see greater exposure with technology in the space of learning, more demands for mobile learning, personalized learning plans, alongside with artificial intelligence and classrooms and training facilities outfitted with advanced systems and technologies for learning, it will be interesting to see if this necessary and inevitable relationship finds a cohesiveness where designing and developing great learning goes hand in hand with digital technology.<\/p>\n

\"\"
image: via Launch Academy Tutoring Company<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Changes that will shape the classroom of the future: Making Education fully Technological<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

When it comes to the great media debate between Clark and Kozma, there was a time when Clark would have had the upper hand. Clark\u2019s ideas that media are \u201cmere vehicles that deliver instruction but do not influence student achievement\u2026\u201d (1983, as cited in 1994, p. 445) would hold true in an age where lectures may just be transferred to video or at the very most a computer simulation could mimic a situation that could easily be shown in front of a class. As time and education have changed so has the media that we use today in our classrooms and the usefulness of this media.<\/p>\n

It would seem that Dunwill may find more in common with Kozma than with Clark if they were to meet. Dunwill\u2019s article discusses four changes that will shape the classroom of the future and in it brings about some interesting points that may have Clarks face turn red. Dunwill first outlines how the layout of the school will change. While most of the changes are aesthetic and are there to help students focus their attention, items such as interactive projectors, private workstations and group collaboration stations may be bringing about what Kozma predicted:<\/p>\n

This capability presents the prospect of interactive video integrated with access to large multimedia databases distributed among people in offices, classrooms, and living rooms all over the world. (1994, p. 2)<\/em><\/p>\n

With YouTube and Interactive video, we see Kozma\u2019s predictions come to fruition.<\/p>\n

Dunwill goes on to discuss Virtual and Augmented Reality. Classes that generally have no access to field trips are now able to visit art galleries or museums and as Dunwill (2016) points out in his article, \u201cthe students are each given a pair of inexpensive virtual reality headsets that have been constructed largely from cardboard and a glove.\u201d This expense seems to defy Clark\u2019s argument that \u201cthe designer can and must choose the less expensive and most cognitively efficient way to represent and deliver instruction\u201d (1994, p. 2). It would seem that having access to virtual and augmented reality may open up new worlds to students who may never have been able to have access before.<\/p>\n

As the article continues to discuss Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) and other online options, such as Khan Academy, Dunwill again mentions that students have free access to courses that contain interactive video elements and if they are motivated enough can move beyond a typical education in the time it takes to finish high school. It is interesting that Dunwill also mentions that the use of media could also be a form of assessment for some students. \u00a0Instead of having to put together a traditional research paper, the student could show evidence of learning by recording a video or using web tools to create timelines. It seems as though media is not just a delivery method anymore but can is used as an assessment tool.<\/p>\n

As the article concludes, the author is careful to point out that media\/technology is not going to replace teachers. There will always be students and professions to which a more traditional educational experience is necessary. Dunwill cautions that educators need to start thinking about how the entire model of education needs to be redesigned to become more centred on the student. It echoes Kozma\u2019s statement:<\/p>\n

The combined capabilities of these media and the access to a range of social situations and processes that they bring provide designers with powerful new tools that they can use to construct their designs. (1994, p. 22)<\/em><\/p>\n

There was a time when media was a mere vehicle for the delivery of information, yet as we see philosophies of education change, so too are we seeing how useful media can be to education. \u00a0The question is no longer does media influence education but instead the focus should be on how can we design our courses so that it becomes media becomes a much more interactive element for our students.<\/p>\n

\"\"
image: via PixelEdge Digital Publishing Software Blog<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Are Apps Becoming the New Worksheet? Lee Skallerup Bessette<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

In his article, Bessette tries to decipher the difference between old-style school worksheets and school Apps on computers by giving a personal recollection of his own kids\u2019 experiences at school. He notices a familiar scenario when his daughter school work, although on a computer, was very similar to his experiences of school work such as worksheets, and rote learning. The computer apps his daughter was using was just a recreated version of the same activities that teachers have been using for generations (Bessette, 2017). They were more colorful and entertaining, but simply produced the same type of material, and interestingly the praise of music or singing offered her the positive feedback that again could have been from a human, the teacher.<\/p>\n

With the summary of the author\u2019s daughter\u2019s experience of learning with technology, we would think that this would align with Clark\u2019s (1994) article where it is believed that regardless of the media the student will have similar learning outcomes. Bessette continues his experiences with his son\u2019 learning, which, as it turns out appears to be very different than his daughters. His son prefers technology games that are more creative, open-ended, and have problems that allow him to experiment (Bessette, 2017), experiences that potentially are unique to technology? Kozma (1994) would suggest that the environment and the cognitive processes his son experiences (playing these games for example) displays the potential for a media and learning relationship. The learning experience would then lead to more creative ways and motivation for his son to continue with his learning.<\/p>\n

Bessette continues to suggest that institutions need to break away from old practices, and engage outside the classroom walls, and help \u201cmake your classroom into a microcosm of those communities\u201d (Bessette, 2017). Here the relationship, between the community and technology, again is important to student learning. Bessette offers a suggestion of taking apart technology, learning how the technology works, and how to speak the language. By doing this, the students are learning how things work and now potentially given room for a new creative level? Could this new understanding and engagement of learning and environment \u201ctip the balance in favor of learning?\u201d (Kozma, 1994). If we stick to Clark\u2019s theory, then Bessette\u2019s kids will not learn anything different than with his teacher many years earlier without technology.<\/p>\n

If we are looking for a future that is bright, innovative, and creative, shouldn\u2019t we follow the hope Bessette has for his children\u2019s future of education, and the urgency Kozma has that we need to believe in the capabilities of media to influence learning to see that future come to fruition?<\/p>\n

\"\"
image: via Tech Broiler by Jason Perlow<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The Next Web: 7 tech innovations that are drastically changing the way people learn<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Clark (1994) wrote that media would never influence learning, and as a response, Kozma (1994, p. 2) expresses that we, the people, the instructional designers need to \u2018forge\u2019 the connection between media and learning; if we don\u2019t their educational contribution will be minimal. Miller (2017) seemingly agrees with Kozma and claims that the seven tech innovations mentioned in the article are significantly changing the way people learn. As Kozma (1994, p. 3) described \u201c[t]he medium is an inert conveyor of an active stimulus to which the learner makes a behavioral response.\u201d These innovations will influence learning when thoughtfully integrated into the instructional design in the planning stage.<\/p>\n

Miller (2017) listed practical scenarios for 3D printing, gamification and VR as excellent examples for learning by doing, aka experiential education, which captures attention and helps to spark imagination and learning. Data-tracking is used in every field in our lives and can serve education very well as algorithms and \u201cbig data\u201d can guide both blended and online program development. Analyzing data provides the possibility for a customized learning experience, and it already proved its impact in reducing the dropout rate. Massive open online courses have increased accessibility to learning, allowing anyone with an internet connection to attend classes, even at graduate level.<\/p>\n

There is a debate whether it \u201cdemocratizes\u201d the education or not; however, they place more responsibility on the students to take care of their education and search out things that can help them instead of being told what to do by their instructors. The introduction of different tablets at school allows teachers to facilitate the classroom rather than manage the learning of the students. Learners have greater engagement with their learning, collaboration with peers\u2019 increases, and teachers can monitor individual progress effectively. Skype is not a new technology, it is now 15 years old, but by connecting learners with teachers and tutors, including Virtual Field Trips, talks from Guest Speakers, and live collaboration projects, it provides greater engagement with learning, collaboration with peers\u2019 increases, and teachers can monitor individual progress effectively. When students are put in charge of their learning, they become more engaged and have a higher chance of retaining what they study. By creating more opportunities for everyone to learn through engaging, hands-on experiences, these tech innovations can improve education for all.<\/p>\n

The new media, the innovations people have developed serve a crucial and valuable part in being able to share learning resources across the world and between diverse demographics, but it still requires sound instructional design and methodology (Kozma, 1994). It is vital to understand, especially when choosing to invest in new technologies for instruction, that the work and effort necessary to develop content will not be reduced. 3D printing, simulations, artificial intelligence, Skype and MOOC are exciting as well as a cost-effective way of teaching. What can we call an influence on education if not these?<\/p>\n

Could these tools be replaced by other tools and methods, or other delivery forms? Certainly. Is this what Clark (1994) meant by media being \u201cmere vehicles\u201d of delivery in learning? Did he consider whether other tools and methods would provide the same level of engagement, motivation, and timeliness for learners? Probably not this way, as these innovations were not present then.<\/p>\n

References<\/strong><\/p>\n

Bessette, L. S. (n.d.). Are apps becoming the new worksheet?. Retrieved\u00a0from http:\/\/hybridpedagogy.org\/apps-becoming-new-worksheet\/<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning.\u00a0Educational Technology Research and Development, 42<\/em>(2), 21-29.<\/span><\/p>\n

Dunwill, E (2016, March 16).\u00a04 changes that will shape the classroom of the future: making education fully technological<\/em>. Retrieved from https:\/\/elearningindustry.com\/4-changes-will-shape-classroom-of-the-future-making-education-fully-technological<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Definition of influence by Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Retrieved from https:\/\/www.merriam-webster.com\/dictionary\/influence<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning: Reframing the debate.\u00a0Educational Technology Research and Development, 42<\/em>(2), 7-19.<\/span><\/p>\n

Miller, L. (2017). 7 tech innovations that are drastically changing the way people learn. Retrieved from https:\/\/thenextweb.com\/contributors\/2017\/09\/11\/7-tech-innovations-drastically-changing-way-people-learn\/<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Morris, N. & Thomas, A. (2017, March 15). \u00a0Is digital technology changing learning & teaching? \u00a0The big debate from digifest 2017. Retrieved from https:\/\/www.jisc.ac.uk\/news\/is-digital-technology-changing-learning-and-teaching-15-mar-2017#<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

LRNT523 Unit 3 Activity 7 \u00a0Authors:\u00a0Chad FLINN,\u00a0Beata KOZMA,\u00a0Dorothy SIDHU, and\u00a0Danielle STOKES. Kozma cited Simon (1981) and Glaser (1976) and claims that educational technology is a design science (Simon, 1981, Glaser, 1976 as cited in Clark, 1994), not a natural science. Kozma (1994, p. 2) expresses that we, the people, the instructional designers need to \u2018forge\u2019 … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Clark or Kozma or Both? The Great Debate!”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":102,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-349","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-lrnt523"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0060\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/349","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0060\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0060\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0060\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/102"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0060\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=349"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0060\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/349\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":359,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0060\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/349\/revisions\/359"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0060\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=349"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0060\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=349"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0060\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=349"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}