Response to McLuhan's Tetrad Wiki Task

Blog Post # 3

Through an analysis of McLuhan’s life and ideas and through my own personal attempt to apply his tetrad (Laws of Media) to an emerging 2004 technology, I have come to a few realizations. First, McLuhan lived a life dotted with irony. We discussed certain ironic happenings in class, like the fact he studied media while he also became a fixture in media (appearing on television) and the debilitating loss, later in his life, of the ability to speak and read (two things he greatly enjoyed). I came to a realization after reading a piece from a Skinner article entitled McLuhan’s world – and ours. In the piece Skinner describes a 1969 article from Playboy Magazine interviewing McLuhan on his thoughts and ideas. Skinner (2000) describes the article as this:

…Mcluhan’s ideas emerge straightforward and well explained,
in large part due to the interview’s willingness to risk looking dumb
for asking obvious questions. It turned out that many of McLuhan’s
opinions, despite his reputation for being some kind of super scholar
and untimely thinker, were standard radical chic, while others were
radical even by the heady standards of 1969.(p.54)


Skinner’s statement turned me on to the fact that in many ways McLuhan became famous or infamous for the way he delivered his ideas rather then for the ideas themselves. He became an icon of perplexity. Common man tuned into McLuhan not to understand but instead to be baffled. It is ironic that the thing that gave McLuhan notoriety with the public (his complex batty oratory style) was also the thing that limited the public from unlocking his ideas and discredited him among his academic peers.

Second, McLuhan did a great job of coining catch phrase titles for his ideas, with the creation of titles like “the global village”, “media is the message” and “Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man” McLuhan made his ideas catchy and appealing to the common public (the group he really wanted to reach). But, the common public still had to rely on McLuhan’s over the top explanations of the concepts through his writings or oratory lectures to unlock the ideas. Most found this to be frustratingly impossible. I believe McLuhan may have made some headway in reaching the common man with the creation of the laws of media tetrad. Although the laws of media themselves are difficult concepts to understand the tetrad created and organizational structure to the laws, which makes them easier for people to break down, organize and use.

My third realization came after attempting to use the laws of media tetrad to analyze an emerging technology. I continue to use the word “attempting” because I had no idea if I used the tetrad correctly. With some reflection, I have realized that there really is no “correct” answer when using the laws and that they are not really laws at all. (Yet another catch phase developed by McLuhan?) Scientifically a law denotes a fact, something that has been tested (quantitatively and qualitatively) and is known to be true every time. Instead McLuhan really created the theories of media, (never been tested and proved to be correct) which created a theoretical model for understanding the effects of new technologies. I find it very interesting that McLuhan would even choose the words “laws”, because philosophically I don’t believe he created the tetrad to “prove” anything. He instead created them as a tool for man to consciously make their own realizations correct or incorrect about the effects of technologies.


In conclusion, I have come to quite a few realizations after the completion of my McLuhan task and I could go on for quite a bit longer. When it comes to McLuhan there is always more to unlock and realize. Although in many ways I feel like I failed to comprehend more of McLuhan’s than I was able to comprehend. I do leave this task with what I believe is his fundamental life lesson.

“Take time to evaluate the world around you and take the time to consider that everything you do has a consequence in that world.”

References:

Skinner, D. (2000, Winter). McLuhan’s world – and ours. The Public Interest, pp. 52-64.

Blog #2 Clark vs. Kozma

The Late Great Media Debate
Clark vs. Kozma

Does media have an influence on learning?

This question is at the root of an historical debate among educational technologists Richard E. Clark and Robert B. Kozma. The question spawned what many scholars within the field refer to as the method vs. media debate.

Clark’s response to the question can best be summarized by the statement “media do not influence learning” (Clark, 1994), sighting that media is merely the vehicle in which instruction is delivered and can not be responsible for learning gains. Rather, it is the instructional method embedded within the media that allows for these gains (Clark, 1994). Central to Clark’s viewpoint is the idea of replaceability of media and media attributes claiming that “absolutely any necessary teaching method can be delivered to students by many media or a variety of mixtures of media attributes with similar learning results”(Clark, 1994). Clark leaves us with the idea that the answer to the question is an enthusiastic, cut and dry, no. Clark calls us to totally dismiss the idea of media influencing learning and asks us to stop confusing media with method and instead evaluate the instructional method within a presentation on the bases of efficiency, economics and overall satisfaction of meeting desired learning outcomes.

Kozma’s (1994) response to the question instead reframes the debate asking, “Not do, but will, media influence learning?” Kozma, instead of taking a definitive position of yes or no, looks optimistically at media and the development of new media as having the potential to influence learning. He states, “If there is no relationship between media and learning it may be because we have not yet made one” (Kozma, 1994). Kozma prefers to look at media not as a mere vehicle or an inert deliverer of instruction. He rather sees media as the conveyer, through which the learner interacts with unique attributes of the media during learning. The reciprocal interactions allow for the learner to actively, constructively, cognitively, physically and socially interact with the information held in the media (Kozma, 1994).

The debate within media and learning discussed by Clark and Kozma fundamentally continues to hold its value today. However, we must be cognizant of the fact that media and the technology within media has grown significantly over the past 20 years. I feel it is not at all inappropriate to continue the reformation of this debate, asking instead, “Has media influenced learning?” In reforming the question, in hopes of bringing the debate to the present, we must focus on the major technological developments in media over the last 20 years. The largest and most significant development within media must be attributed to the diversification and advances of the computer (Hastings & Tracey, 2005). In my opinion, the advancements of the computer and computer programs do not dismiss Clark’s debate that the methods within the presentation of the material is central. However, it does call into question his replacability challenge to media. I feel that the computer has revolutionized the replacability of media because the computer has become the most efficient, and to a degree, the least expensive means for delivering sound instructional methods. It is my feeling that the development of the computer and the way we use computers supports Kozma’s viewpoint that media has the ability to develop unique attributes that can influence learning and that are non-replaceable with other media. I feel that today’s computer has the unique capability (i.e., internet) to interact with the learner and allow the learner to develop social and cognitive processes by which knowledge can be constructed (Kozma 1994).





Bibliography:

Clark, R. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research
& Development, 42(2), 21-29.

Hastings, N., & Tracey, M. (2005). Does media affect learning: Where are we now?
TechTrends, 49(2), 28- 31.

Kozma, R. (1994) Will media influence learning. Educational Technology Research &
Development, 42(2), 7-19.

Blog Assignment 1: History of Technology's Use in Education

History Repeating Itself?

The history and development of technology’s use within education has followed an all to familiar path inevitably succumbing to the same fate as many practices and philosophies within education. Unfortunately in many ways practices of technology in education have developed and fizzled similarly as things like phonics vs. whole language, New Math, Roberts English, Homogeneous grouping, and cooperative learning. Placing many of technologies past approaches and developments into a category referred to as educational trends. The overwhelming pattern in education of creating educational trends stems from the basic fact, learning communities (teachers, students, parents, administrators and government officials) are desperate to find the end all be all answer to educational success. This inevitably leads to a path of adoption of new philosophies and models and an even quicker withdraw of support for their use within education once desired outcomes are not produced or a new idea comes along.

This pattern of support and withdraw is evident within the history of technology’s use in education and can be observed from as early as its initial conception in the early 20th century (Reiser, 2001). During the early 20th century learning community believed that each sequential technological advance of the time period would revolutionize the way we taught and took great efforts to promote the current hot button trend integrating school museums, visual instruction and audio instruction. Unfortunately for the people of the early to mid 20th century none of these practices fulfilled their expectation and were slowly written off or pushed aside to be used only as supplemental materials. This common theme within technology’s use in education has continued even into the later 20th century with the adoption and withdraw of television as a instructional media and has continued with the leaps and bounds growth of computer technology (i.e. CAI, PLATO, desk top publishing software, Internet). A great revolution in the integration of instructional technology into education came during the mid 20th century when research programs begin to analyze the uses of audio visual media in education and knowledge of the principles of learning were integrated into the design of materials. Marking a shift in the emphasis on using technology materials for learning rather than teaching (AECT, 2004).

Can technology in education ever be truly integrated?
I feel that the problem with integrating technology into education is all based on are expectation. We have learned from experience that no one thing will revolutionize education, its just does not work that way. We must remove are focus on the next big thing to hit education but instead use all of our resources as tools to help meet the needs of diverse learners.



References:

Association of Educational Communications and Technology. (2004, October).
The Definition of Educational Technology: An analysis and explanation of the
concept. Chapter 1.

Reiser, R.A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part I: A
history of instructional media. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 49(1),53-65.

Ely, Donald P. (1997). The Field of Educational Technology: Update 1997.
A dozen Frequently Asked Questions. ERIC Digest. Syracuse, NY: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Information and Technology. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED413889)

Blog Up and Running

Just a test !! Busy with reflection?