with Image courtesy of larrycuban.wordpress.com

Co-authored by Ashley Breton & Sam Kirk

The Great Media Debate on the link between media and learning has been going on for decades. This now-famous feud started with an article written by Richard Clark in the early ’80s titled Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media (1983), where he argues “that media do not influence learning under any conditions” (p. 445). Instead, “media are mere vehicles that deliver instruction but do not influence student achievement any more than the truck that delivers our groceries causes changes in our nutrition” (Clark, 1983, p. 445).

Several years later, Robert Kozma, with his Learning with Media (1991) article, challenged Clark’s claim that only instructional methods affect learning and not the medium, stating that “learning with media is a continuous, reciprocal interaction” (p. 182), between the learner and the medium, which can either help or hinder the learning process. Kozma’s constructivist approach to learning saw the use of different media as tools to construct new knowledge: as media can support learners by facilitating connections between abstractions and “the symbolic domains in which they are derived” (Kozma, 1991, p. 188). Although Kozma acknowledged that there is nothing that works for every learner, in every situation, all the time,”[s]ome students will learn a particular task regardless of the delivery device” (Kozma, 1991, p. 205). He, therefore, concludes by modifying Clark’s initial question — does media influence learning with — will media influence learning: and the media versus method debate was born.

This dispute continued into the mid-’90s with the article Media will never influence learning (1994), also authored by Clark, reaffirming his position that the medium is simply a delivery vehicle for the material. While the choice of vehicle may influence the cost or extent of distributing instruction, only the content of the vehicle can influence student achievement. Again, he argues that there is no relationship whatsoever between media and learning. Later that same year, Kozma reframed earlier arguments in his article Will Media Influence Learning? (1994) which insists that if we have found no relationship between media and learning, it is because we have failed to make one. Kozma states, “learning is not the receptive response to instruction’s delivery” (Kozma, 1994, p. 3). Rather, learning is an interplay between the individual, the medium, and the social context in which it is used. In this light, knowledge and learning come from the interaction between cognitive processes and characteristics of the environment. His findings go on to suggest that different media can be used as “a complementary process where representations are constructed and procedures performed, sometimes by the learner and sometimes by the medium” (Kozma, 1994, p. 10). He refuted Clark’s claim that it is the methods that affect learning and not the medium by arguing the strong relationship between the two and the ability of a medium to either facilitate or impede the methods (Kozma, 1994). In a final plea, Kozma asks us to move from “Do media influence learning?” to “In what ways can we use the capabilities of media to influence learning for particular students, tasks, and situations?” (Kozma, 1994, p. 23).

Over three decades later, the Clark-Kozma debate still rages on. As Kozma noted, the “[m]edia capabilities have changed considerably since the time of the studies reviewed by Clark (1983); they will change even more in the near future” (Kozma, 1994, p. 21). And, he was right! When we consider the tremendous technological developments and important social transformations that have taken place since the article that sparked this debate back in the ’80s: everything from learner profile to the types of media available, in addition to our new assumptions on the impact of media on learning, Clark’s firm stance that “[m]edia will never influence learning” (Clark’s 1994 title) is not a view that the authors of this post support. However, we intend to bring some of Clark and Kozma’s viewpoints back into the spotlight by examining an article steeped in techno-determinism on the future of classrooms.

Have you ever come across a headline that stops you in your tracks, something like Violent Video Games are ‘Murder Simulators’ that Train Kids to Kill or Computer games make for ‘fat, stupid, lazy kids’. While shocking and great clickbait, the writers of these types of articles have fallen into the techno-determinism trap, a false inference that ignores the importance of the human element, claiming that technology has a life of its own, wielding power to both shape and influence society (“Techno-determinism”, 2021).

In an article written for the DailyMail.com (UK) titled Could robots replace teachers within 10 years? University vice-chancellor claims humans will only be classroom assistants in the future (2017); the hard techno-deterministic views of educational specialist Sir Anthony Seldon are featured, stating (as the headline suggests) in 10 years, robots will replace teachers. According to Seldon, we should organize ourselves to meet the needs of this technology for “[teachers] will remain on hand to set up equipment, help children when necessary, and maintain discipline. But the essential job of instilling knowledge into young minds will be completely done by artificially intelligent (AI) computers” (Keay, 2017, para 4). He goes on to say that this will make learning more efficient, improve the quality of education, and open up access to all, claiming that “[e]veryone can have the very best teacher and it’s completely personalised. The software you’re working with will be with you throughout your education journey” (Keay, 2017, para. 8). Clark’s (1983) position that there are “no learning benefits to be gained from employing any specific medium to deliver instruction” (p. 445) would put him in opposition to robots replacing teachers. However, Clark (1994) states “we must always choose the less expensive way” (p. 22), so if the media can be replaced by another and achieve the same goals, we must choose the more cost-effective option (Clark, 1994). Indeed, we are not talking about media replacing media. We are talking about a media replacing the human teacher, but it does present the possibility that Clark would side with Seldon based on economics.

The most alarming thing about this article is that Seldon reveals that he, too, is alarmed by the prospect of robots one-day replacing teachers but asserts, “[t]he technology’s already beginning to arrive […] and already beginning to transform schools” (Keay, 2017, para. 23). Seldon’s statement appears to say that the technology is developing independently from social concerns, which is a typical techno-determinist stance. But, Seldon’s statement raises another issue.

To date, there are very few studies that directly compare human and robot teachers, so it is unclear how much better a human teacher performs than a robot. Clark (1994) might call out Seldon, asking him to produce the evidence that shows this new technology is indeed transforming schools. Clark (1994) might also argue that robots lack credibility in educational applications due to limited research. But, Kozma (1994) might warn Clark that his mindset in educational technology is still not growing with the times. Kozma’s (1994) point-of-view might be more hopeful, saying that with the rapid pace of technological change and innovation, robots will introduce robust, new symbol systems, processing capabilities, and methods that closely match the mental representations we need to learn. However, if robots successfully replace teachers in 10 years, as Seldon contends, there is a chance this new medium might not be worth it. Even if robots perform significantly better than standard (human-led) methods, they also have the potential to produce adverse side-effects or societal issues, like human de-socialization, for instance. We could then conclude that any efficacy goals that might be driving this innovation might be moving future classrooms in the wrong direction. What will the classrooms of the future look like if we go along with Seldon’s claim that robot teachers are inevitable?

In a blog post by Stanford professor Larry Cuban titled, Classrooms of the Future (2020), he asks what future classrooms will look like and provides visuals of some of the far-fetched fantasies that society has held, going as far back as 1910. Cuban (2020) gives a convincing example of the present where technology and hybrid learning are perhaps successful. He cites one school in New York City, David Boody Intermediate School, where students receive tailored lessons with their own day-to-day playlist, based on data compiled from students’ tests, diagnostic assessments, and past performance. Essentially, human teachers and teaching assistants are only there to “monitor, adapt, and enrich” lessons (Cuban, 2020, para 2).

Cuban (2020) uses the example of David Boody Intermediate School as a launching pad to a new fantasy and quotes one journalist heralding that “[t]he classroom of the future probably won’t be led by a robot with arms and legs, but a digital brain may guide it” (para. 7). Cuban then gently lands us back to earth by explaining that this too is only a fantasy and that although technology is ever more present, massive and disruptive change is not on the horizon soon.

Cuban (2020) provides some concrete examples of autonomous technology in education that go as far back as the 1950s but points out that our brick-and-mortar schools of today still look remarkably like the ones from 100 years ago. In his view, even a pandemic that sparked the most significant online shift in human history will likely go back to how it was pre-pandemic once everyone has gotten vaccinated and herd immunity kicks in. Cuban professes that many teachers are committed to using technology to influence learning outcomes. However, there is little evidence to support that greater investment in technology yields substantial returns in terms of student achievement and improvements in teaching quality. He adds, when we go back to the old ways of learning, once all the hype of a technology dissipates and predictions fade, society will come to their senses and realize that education is a human endeavor, something far from the capabilities of, say, a robot.

In summary, robots substituting human teachers is an especially rare situation when we compare it to the uses of other instructional technologies. Here, a robot is being proposed as a single medium or presentation method used to the exclusion of all others. But, it is a mistake to think that such plasticity is subject to some kind of determinism, that we now have this technology, we will be on this path, with no freedom, no choice, and we can not do anything about it. Robots, as with any technology, do not develop with a logic of their own: they are artifacts made by humans for humans and not the other way around. In the end, Kozma was right, “[i]f we do not understand the potential relationship between media and learning, quite likely one will not be made” (Kozma, 1994, p. 2).  Media has impacted what we learn, why we learn and shapes the context in which learning takes place. Media and methods, as we see it, mutually shape and influence learning. However, if we, as future educational technologists, are unable to agree on the relationship between media and learning, we could “find ourselves on the sidelines of our own game” (Kozma, 1994, p. 2) and autonomous robots running the show.

References

Clark, R. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445-459. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543053004445

Clark, R. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299088

Cuban, L. (2020, December 15). Classrooms of the future [blog post]. Retrieved from https://larrycuban.wordpress.com/2020/12/15/classrooms-of-the-future/

Keay, L. (2017, September 10). Could robots replace teachers within 10 years? University vice-chancellor claims humans will only be classroom assistants in the future [online newspaper], DailyMail.com (UK). Retrieved from https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4871230/Robots-replace-teachers-10-years-says-academic.html

Kozma, R. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179-212. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543061002179

Kozma, R. (1994). Will media influence learning: Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299088

“Techno-determinism” (2021, September 2). In Wikipedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_determinism