The Great Media Debate is a decades-long discussion about whether the medium through which educational content is delivered directly affects learning outcomes. Richard E. Clark sparked the debate in 1983, arguing that the quality of the instructional method is what influences learning, and that the medium (video, text, computer, etc.) is merely a vehicle for content delivery. Clark asserted that while various media have different attributes, instructional content can be adapted to any medium so learning outcomes are comparably met.
Eight years later, in 1991, Robert Kozma countered Clark’s argument, suggesting that different media have varying attributes that allow for the enhancement of learning alongside effective pedagogical approaches. Clark vigorously reasserted his stance in 1994, with Kozma following suit in the same year, and The Great Media Debate had found its footing. Thirty years later, it would be interesting to know if Clark and Kozma would defend their positions in the same way, given how dramatically the educational-technology space has evolved since 1994. This ongoing debate is particularly relevant as educational technologies are often marketed as revolutionary. Understanding these different viewpoints helps us to better evaluate the promises made by creators and advocates of new technologies (2020, Weller, p. 181).
The Future of Educational Media
According to Clegg (2023), Meta, the parent company of the social-media platform Facebook, believed that the next big evolution of the internet is its “metaverse”, which leverages virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and mixed-reality (MR) experiences, collectively known as Extended Reality (XR). Clegg argued that VR can influence comprehension, retention, engagement, and motivation amongst students, and that the metaverse offers immersive environments that facilitate meaningful interactions with content and peers, bridging geographic and economic divides (Clegg, 2023).
Clark could be sceptical of Clegg’s claims, and might argue that XR is simply a variant of video. He might further claim that VR, AR, and MR are merely media attributes whose successes are owed to the instructional methods used rather than the technologies themselves. Kozma might counter that the XR medium shatters Clark’s rigid perspective of media by incorporating the psychomotor domain of learning in ways previously never thought possible—pushing beyond the dimension of video and allowing learners to physically move through space and interact with objects. Kozma could cite modern research, such as that of Lin et al. (2024), to support claims of XR’s efficacy in learning over other media. Regardless of one’s stance, XR and the metaverse are poised to be disruptors in education, reshaping how learners can interact with educational content.
One of the biggest new revolutionary promises is artificial intelligence (AI) and its possibility to reshape education and society as a whole. In “The rise of AI-enhanced learning: Education for the digital age,” Tewari (2024) explored the transformative potential of AI in education, projecting significant integration by 2027, with the e-learning market expected to exceed $460 billion. He asserted that AI technologies will be considered the linchpin in the evolution of education, as it seamlessly integrates with traditional teaching methods to provide engaged, dynamic, and personalised learning experiences. Tewari (2024) noted that one of the key strengths of AI is its ability to collect and apply data on the learner’s performance, preferences and past experiences to create customised learning paths. He emphasised that one of the unique opportunities that AI provides is that it can make learning more accessible by enhancing opportunities for marginalised and remote populations. (Tewari, 2024).
Clark might critique Tewari’s optimism for AI, maintaining that while AI can enhance efficiency and engagement, its impact on learning outcomes depends on the pedagogical strategies employed rather than the technology’s features. Conversely, Kozma may be more supportive of the transformative potential of AI in education, which aligns with his belief that media technologies can actively influence learning through their unique capabilities (Kozma, 1994). Modern media considered, while Clark might see AI as just another tool in the shed, Kozma would possibly argue it’s the Swiss Army knife of educational technology—if used correctly, of course.
The Future of The Great Media Debate
If 2024 were to see another round of The Great Media Debate between Clark and Kozma, it would sound much different today. Clark’s (1983, 1994) consideration of computers’ abilities reflects the technological zeitgeist of the 1980s and ‘90s. In the four decades since The Great Media Debate commenced, a learner can now virtually visit Rome and experience a detailed exploration of the Pantheon as it looked during its prime, explore the vast savannahs of Kenya, and dive to the coral reefs of Raja Ampa. (Joseph, n.d.). Troves of high-quality information is available at internet users’ fingertips. AI is teeming with potential as widespread adoption has taken root. Kozma would likely draw upon contemporary evidence to bolster his argument that media themselves influence learning outcomes. He might point to how AI’s ability to provide personalised learning experiences and XVR’s capacity to create immersive educational environments aligns with his view that the characteristics of some media can actively enhance learning where other media simply cannot. Clearly, this debate now lies against the backdrop of a vastly different media landscape than what was thought possible in 1994. The sophistication of modern media might finally force Clark to reassess his previous stance on the role of media in learning.
Should The Great Media Debate continue for another 30 years, it will certainly continue to be swayed by revolutionary technology and an evolving understanding of pedagogy and instructional methods. Given the rapid pace at which our modern, technology-infused world changes, it is difficult to imagine how this space might look three decades from now. As current breakthroughs suggest that extending the human lifespan and healthspan is becoming more feasible (Garmany et al., 2021), Clark and Kozma might find themselves engaged in this debate for much longer than they ever thought possible.
References
Adobe Stock. (n.d.). Chess faceoff of both knights horses on top of a chess board in front of a black background surrounded by pawns of both sides [Stock image]. Adobe Stock. https://t.ly/8aTuO
Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445-459. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543053004445
Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29. https://t.ly/l37Eu
Clegg, N. (2023, April 12). How the metaverse can transform education. Meta. https://t.ly/gJU0s
Garmany, A., Yamada, S., & Terzic, A. (2021). Longevity leap: mind the healthspan gap. npj Regenerative Medicine 6(57). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41536-021-00169-5
Joseph, P. (n.d.). 10 of the best virtual reality travel experiences. TravelMag. https://t.ly/rN7W_
Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179-211. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543061002179
Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning: Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7-19. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30218683
Lin, X., Li, B., Yao, Z., Yang, Z., & Zhang, M. (2024). The impact of virtual reality on student engagement in the classroom: a critical review of the literature. Frontiers in Psychology(15)1360574. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1360574
Tewari, G. (2024, February 13). The rise of AI-enhanced learning: Education for the digital age. Forbes. https://t.ly/J0UXJWeller, M. (2020). 25 Years of Ed Tech. Athabasca University Press.
Weller, M. (2020). 25 Years of Ed Tech. Athabasca University Press.
Leave a Comment
