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.