Bear with us as we (Jenn Fortin and Tara Domaas) take a little collaborative and creative freedom with this blog post:
Setting the stage: An old dusty bar, California, 1994. Two men, Richard Clark and Robert Kozma are sitting at the bar, swirling their drinks and begin a lively debate.
Clark takes a swig of his whiskey and says, “Did you know that students these days just don’t listen to us teachers? They would rather plunk away on their computers than hear what we have to say?”
Kozma picks his glass up, shrugs, and says, “You know Clark, I think they might actually learn a thing or two from those computers. The other day, one of my students showed me the most creative video I have ever seen! Something you would see on the T.V.. He said he edited it on the computer in the library.”
Clark pushes his glasses up on his nose and takes another drink. “The way technology is going, I don’t think it is going to mean much in terms of instruction. It is simply a vehicle to deliver what we teach. Don’t you think so?”
Kozma scratches his head, and taps his glass. “I think I have to disagree with you on this one friend. Learning emerges from the interaction between learner, content, and medium. There are endless opportunities to use technology to have a teachable moment. For example, I submitted my first post on a bulletin board the other day. You wouldn’t believe it! I got a message from a person in Australia! They gave me a suggestion as to what software I should look into for next year!”
One can only imagine what would have happened if this scene actually occurred in real life. The great debates of Clark and Kozma are still relevant in today’s ed-tech world. Simply put, Clark believed that Media does not influence learning; while Kozma argued that Media can influence learning.
Both of us (Tara and Jenn) are immersed in educational environments, and while we both appreciate Clark’s perspective, we both strongly agree with Kozma. We have seen first hand how technology can influence learning. One example is when students use the “read aloud” feature on their computers which allows students who struggle with reading to find success and build learning using technology.
Here is an example of techno-deterministic thinking: Putting sign language AI into users’ hands — Google DeepMind. This article focuses on how AI is helping bridge the communication gap for people who communicate with sign-language. The application of such a powerful technological tool would be life altering for so many people. We imagine that Clark might cross his arms at this article and say something to the effect that, “Learning gains come from the instructional method”. While Kozma might say something more like, “Media possess unique characteristics that can support different learning processes.”
This is another example of techno-deterministic thinking: Technological Determinism and Human Freedom This article speaks of the potential of AI. Zimmerman (2026) pointed out that while philosopher Martin Heidegger feared that we would become overwhelmed by the enframing technological industrial society, we could choose, like Aristotle, to see things the other way: that technology comes from us and is thus of us. Or, as philosopher Ernst Kapp put it, that technology represents a “tool so fundamentally and intimately affiliated with the human being that he finds himself beholding something of his own being in the creation of his hand, his world of representation embodied in matter.” This capacity to project our very being into the material world gives us power over our fate. When we think of what Clark might say to this one it would be, “Technology should be selected based on practical concerns such as cost, access, and efficiency.” Meanwhile, Kozma might respond with, “Technology choices should consider educational affordances and how the medium supports learning goals.”
Back to the stage: The bartender wipes down the counter and calls for last orders.
Clark stands, tossing a few bills onto the bar. “In fifty years, they’ll still be arguing about this.”
Kozma laughs. “I hope so. It means they’re still thinking.”
Outside, neither man notices the future rushing toward them. They do not see students collaborating across continents, software reading text aloud to struggling readers, AI translating sign language, or classrooms connected in ways that would have seemed impossible in 1994.
As Clark and Kozma disappear into the California night, their debate continues, not in a bar, but in every classroom, staff room, and educational technology course where educators ask what role technology should play in learning. The debate may never be settled completely, but perhaps that’s the point. The question is not whether technology matters, but how we choose to use it to create meaningful learning opportunities.
References
Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299088
Google DeepMind Sign Language Team. (2026, August 12). Putting sign language AI into users’ hands. Google DeepMind. https://deepmind.google/blog/putting-sign-language-ai-into-users-hands/
Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299087
Zimmerman, E. (2026, August 14). Technological determinism and human freedom. Palladium. https://www.palladiummag.com/2026/08/14/technological-determinism-and-human-freedom/