Overview of the Media-Method Debate
Clark’s central thesis is that “there are no learning benefits to be gained from employing any specific medium to deliver instruction” and that “time-saving gains from one or another medium are shown to be vulnerable to compelling rival hypotheses concerning the uncontrolled effects of instructional method and novelty” (1983). Kozma (1991), however, argues that “media are distinguished by cognitively relevant characteristics of their technologies, symbol systems, and processing capabilities” and that it is the characteristics of the media as well as the instructional designs that employ them that influence “the structure, formation, and modification of mental models that lead to effective learning.” Whereas Clark argues for a cessation of media comparison studies on account of evidence indicating that instructional methods are what drive learning, Kozma maintains that since media interacts with instructional methods, greater or different learning may result when media are compared for certain learners and tasks.
Analysis of Clark
There are three main points worth discussing: 1) contrary to an underlying assumption presented throughout Clark’s work, not all learning is attained through formal instruction, 2) significant differences in media effects become apparent when we consider new media that has arisen since Clark’s original thesis — primarily the Internet, and 3) productive comparison can be made among the unique affordances of the various media, which oftentimes dictate outright which media to use within a particular learning context – especially within non-traditional learning environments. For this latter point, we shall consider the cases of learning on the road (i.e. while driving) and online learning. At this point, we shall also bring into the discussion Kozma’s arguments.
Not all learning is formal
One interesting point Clark makes is in his discussion of the time savings gained with computers. Here he argues that time savings of new media is not due to an inherent time-saving quality present in the media itself, but rather is due to the greater effort invested in designing and developing instruction using the new media, which results in more effective instructional methods for students in the new media treatments. In the case of formal instruction, this could very well be so. However, when it comes to self-guided learning, we see a very different picture.
For autodidacts, the desire to learn in the most time-saving manner possible is frequently a factor that determines which self-study products to buy. Mobile apps or computer programs are frequently selected, for instance, when they present the affordance of having little to no initial learning curve. Thus, absent of formal instruction, the attributes and affordances of a particular medium do indeed influence learning. However, where Clark is justified is in his observations that learners tend to put more effort into novel media, but once the novelty wears off and the media becomes familiar, they drop it and, most likely, learning gains diminish as a result. Although the medium does have a learning affect for self-learners, Clark’s argument regarding novel media remains potent.
The Internet
What is interesting is that Clark conducted his research in 1983 before the Internet came into common usage. However, at the time of the current writing, the Internet has been a source of both “time-saving gains” in teaching and learning for over two decades. Thus, the argument for unsustainable effects due to novelty is untenable in the case of the Internet. Such time-saving gains is a commonly appreciated affordance in both formal and informal instructional settings.
Furthermore, the fact that the Internet provides affordances of immediacy is a sustainable cause for its success as a medium for learning. For instance, just the other day in the EME 4406 course, there was a discussion on the origin of the terms assess and evaluate. After presenting the origin of assess as coming from the Latin assidere meaning “to sit beside”, the instructor requested the students to look up the origin of evaluate, whereupon half the class had an answer in under a minute. This kind of just-in-time learning based on “time-saving” was simply not possible before the Internet. In times past, this learning would have been done after class, when the relevance of the definition would have been decontextualized and lacked the social reinforcement available at the time the media was used. As in this case, if the instructor takes careful consideration of the affordances of the media in the course of developing his or her instructional methods, the chosen media could in fact lead the discussion in unanticipated ways that enhance the learning experience and promote notable learning.
Context specific affordances
Elsewhere, Clark argues that media are simply “vehicles for instructional methods” and the delivery of content or “mere conveyances for the treatments being examined”. To substantiate his claims, he cites studies finding that “learning objectives can be attained through ‘instruction presented by any of a variety of different media” (Levie & Dickie, 1973). However, these findings leave much to be desired once we take into account that not all instruction and learning methods are conducted within the context of traditional brick-and-mortar classroom settings with students of equal interest, motivation, and engagement. Instead, we must acknowledge that since each student learns differently, having media that provide affordances that uniquely cater to a particular learner’s needs is definitely important to promote learning. For instance, nowadays, with over 6.7 million U.S. students taking online classes, the issue for universities is not whether to offer online classes, but how to implement them (Bird, 2014). Therefore, the medium (i.e. the Internet) has become an inseparable part of the method of online instruction, and not merely mere a “conveyance for the treatments being examined”. Without this medium with its unique affordances of flexible learning, portability, and perhaps asynchronous instruction, the method (i.e. online learning) would cease to exist as well.
Likewise, although there have been multiple methods of instruction targeting those who have need to learn while driving, the options for media are quite limited. Since instruction in this context is limited almost solely to live or recorded audio, claiming that “learning objectives can be attained through ‘instruction presented by any of a variety of different media” (Levie & Dickie, 1973; Clark, 1983) is actually overreaching, particularly if the daily commute is the sole context for structured learning. Since audio-only delivery is the affordance that learners on the road need most, this affordance may actually be the sole factor influencing learning, since other media attributes like use of visual channel images are simply not options given the learning environment. Thus, because the media has become an indispensable element for this type of learning context, any corresponding methods of instruction are subjugated to the affordances of the media and not the reverse.
Thoughts on Kozma
Kozma (1991) argues that media is more than simply a vehicle for delivery as Clark claims. Kozma views the learner as “actively collaborating with the medium to construct knowledge” and not as some passive recipient to which knowledge is delivered by one means or another. Kozma shows how correctly using each medium has a different impact on a learner’s cognitive skills. He defines media as “its technology, symbol systems, and processing capabilities” and views medium and method to be complementary in the effective design of instruction. In his conclusion, Kozma states that “both are part of the design” and that Clark is creating an unnecessary division between the two. He adds that “the medium enables and constrains the method; the method draws on and instantiates the capabilities of the medium… a good design will integrate them… Many of these methods would have been difficult or impossible to implement in other media. (1991, p. 205)
In effect, it appears that Kozma takes a broader look at media than does Clark. While Clark emphasizes the systematic organization of instructional methods that may or may not include particular media, Kozma feels no compulsion to subjugate the medium to the method and chooses instead to recognize that the “interdependence” of media and method can produce uniquely effective learning environments which cause the two to be indistinguishable at times (cf. learning on the road) and that learning “consists of relationships between cognitive, social, and affective processes” in addition to the various aspects of the environment. Like McLuhan (1962, 1964) who stated that “the medium is the message”, Kozma takes a similar approach in regard to his view of media as being an inseparable part of the method. In a very real way, the media we use with our methods become an extension of who we are as educators and as learners.
Closing Remarks
In sum, the debate between Clark and Kozma seems a bit uneven in favor of Kozma. Whereas Clark maintains a rather narrow emphasis on the primacy of instructional methods that may incorporate various media options to deliver a message to the learner, Kozma sees learning as a result of the learner engaging with the media to construct knowledge through proper use of the properties and affordances of the media to improve learning — i.e. how media works in tandem with method to inform design…or to inform new pedagogical methods entirely, as is the case of the Internet and online learning and audio-only media and learning on the road.
References
Bird, K. (2014, February 19). Online vs. Traditional Education: The Answer You Never Expected. Retrieved November 5, 2015.
Clark, R. (1983). Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media. Review of Educational Research 53(4), 445-459.
Kozma, R. (1991). Learning with Media. Review of Educational Research 61(2), 179-211.
Levie, W. & Dickie, K. (1973). The analysis and application of media. In R Travers (Ed.), The second handbook on research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally.
McLuhan, M. (1962). The Gutenburg Galaxy. The Making of Typographical Man.
McLuhan, M. (1964). The medium is the message. Hardwired, San Francisco, 8-9.