Megan Li and Tim Wong

For this unit, we have been exploring the great media debate. The great media debate started in the 80s and centered on media’s impact on learning. On the one hand, Clark (1994) viewed media as a delivery tool for knowledge. He found that there were no learning benefits to the use of technology and that the media is a “mere vehicle that delivers instruction but does not influence student’s achievement any more than the truck that delivers our groceries causing changes in nutrition” (Clark, 1983, p. 445). On the other hand, Kozma (1994) believed that the debate should be reframed to “will media influence learning” (p. 2). Kozma (1994) viewed media and learning as an interaction between learners’ environments and their cognitive processes (p. 3), including the media used for instruction. He suggests that there is no relationship between media and learning because one has not been made yet (p. 3). For this post, we have been asked to find two articles that show techno-deterministic thinking and consider how the two opposing sides of the great media debate would respond to these articles.

Technology in the Classroom

In this article Scott (2022) reports on the use of iPads and other technologies in the use of schools in Richmond, BC. The schools are using the technologies to participate in learning challenges like creating QR codes that link to information about different plants and ponds in a local park. They are also using iPads along with 3D printers and green screens to promote creative uses of technology.

Clark may argue that this school’s media and technology is irrelevant. However, what is relevant is the way the teacher taught the material. The teacher could have employed various media to transfer the same knowledge i.e., make pamphlets instead of QR codes for the park. He would rest his statement on Schramm (1977, as cited in Clark, 1994), who claimed, “learning is influenced more by the content and instructional strategy in a medium than by the type of medium” (para. 2).

To counter Clark, Kozma may argue that these new technologies have allowed teachers to develop new methods and pedagogies to use them effectively. The use of technology would allow students to construct new knowledge further. He would argue that learning is ” an active, constructive, cognitive and social process by which the learner strategically manages available cognitive, physical, and social resources to create new knowledge by interacting with information in the environment and integrating it with information already stored in memory” (Clark, 1994, p. 3).  

Adapting workplace learning in the time of coronavirus

Kshirasagar et al. (2020) state that workplace capability building is critical and cannot be paused. This article discusses how workplace learning has been affected during the pandemic and what steps companies can take to engage virtual learning through different technologies. There are six best-practice actions indicated in this article that help maintain the benefits of workplace learning programs and help build a new foundation for effective virtual learning. For this activity, we will focus on one of the six practices, “adapt in-person learning delivery,” to illustrate the debate between Clark and Kozma.

Kshirasagar et al. claim that a good participant experience depicts good learning sessions. A good participant experience means that the technology has been tested and there is no technical issue during the session. The technology used during the session keeps participants engaged and energized. For example, keep the video/webcam option on participants’ computers active to create a cohesive environment, and use online input tools such as polling to facilitate engagement or features like virtual breakout rooms to simulate the in-person experience.

Clark argues that technologies we use for teaching and learning do not influence learning achievement. Clark could argue in the example above that the technologies did not affect the learning experience in either a positive or negative way. However, what was affecting the learning was how the technologies and lessons are designed, which in turn impacts employees’ capability building in an organisation. Kozma claims that technologies offer opportunities for changing the ways that we do things. He would agree that the adoption of virtual/ digital learning at the workplace “opens an opportunity to promote existing digitally enabled portfolios of learning offerings as a way to help colleagues during challenging times” (Kshirasagar et al., 2020). 

References:

Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 43(4), 445-459. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543053004445

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

Kozma, R.B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2). https://doi-org.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/10.1007/BF02299087

Kshirsagar, A., Mansour, T., McNally, L., & Metakis, M. (2020, March 17). Adapting workplace learning in the time of coronavirus. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/adapting-workplace-learning-in-the-time-of-coronavirus  

Scott, H. (2022, March 4). Technology in the classroom. Toronto Star. https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2022/03/04/technology-in-the-classroom.html