Media will never influence learning (Richard E. Clark)

Clark’s argument that learning is not influenced by the media is, at first, a hard pill to swallow. Clark suggests that media does not influence learning but demonstrates that structural processes are superior and that methods provide the entire basis for learning. For me this is hard to believe, as we live in an age where most of the information is transformed through different types of media. Therefore this must have an impact on how we understand and learn content and processes.

 

As I read the first article, it’s hard to forget about the millions of people who cruise Youtube every night searching for things that interest them and learning new skills. In this scenario, Youtube seems like an obvious catalyst for new knowledge and learning in the participants. However, Clark comes to a different conclusion. Clark argues that it is method and not media that leads to learning, and that if learning occurs through media it is because of the method of instruction used in that particular medium. However, I believe this to be false.

 

Connecting this to my own life, I learn through many mediums that demonstrate knowledge through different lenses. For instance, I love podcasts and they distribute knowledge and how to learn through different ways such as telling stories, timelines, fiction and non-fiction writing and factual information. I have also learned many skills through YouTube, such as how to fix my car, play the guitar and an endless amount of other skills. These are two very different types of media that relay information in very different ways. The key part of learning from such a vast expanse of mediums is the ability to learn things you want to learn. The idea of choice cannot be overlooked. I believe that this factor is essential in allowing media to be a major part and motivator of learning.

 

Reading this article, you have to keep in mind that it was published in 1994. His work stretched back into the early 80’s so his basis and framework is based around a time when technology was still in its infancy. In the article, he is already defending his theories and findings in 1994.

 

Photo by Florian Klauer on Unsplash

Kozma (Will Media Influence Learning? Reframing the Debate)

Kozma immediately caught my attention with his article. Clark’s article riled me up by making grand statements about media providing limited learning opportunities, however, Kozma opens up the floor to possibility and the changing of the times. This article is still published in 1994 but seems to understand that technology is growing and becoming part of society at a high rate. I appreciated the progressiveness of his writing.

Another aspect that I appreciate is how media and technology can target a select group of people who need extra support. This reinforces the idea that just like not every child needs glasses, not every child needs the latest technology and programs, but it can be a tool to aid students towards success, if needed.

Photo by Paul Skorupskas on Unsplash

The debate 

The back and forth of Clark and Kozma reminds me of the relationship I have formed with my Father, concerning education. He is a retired teacher, who prided himself on the hard-knox approach of old school teaching and is constantly reminding me that his way is much superior than the “fluff” we are using today. To hear it from him, handwriting, memorization and repetition is the key to success.

 

I, on the other hand, am trying to implement more and more technology into my class because I see the amount of technology that students use on a daily basis and recognize the merit of it. Just like the debate, I can acknowledge that there are some pros on each side, but the process of learning is changing. For instance, I see that students are becoming worse at traditional skills such as handwriting, spelling and writing essays. On the other hand, students are becoming versed in writing code, understanding strategies of video games and generally are good at problem solving skills. These skills do not unequivocally trump traditional thinking but in the modern world they do hold huge weight and importance.

 

In the debate, Clark argues that most media is just a “vehicle” for the teaching method that leads to learning, however, Katrin Becker (the author of the article) appears to believe that Clark is overusing this analogy. I can relate to Becker when she says that all vehicles are not the same (boats, planes, cars) even though they can help you get from one place to another. I, like Becker, believe that technology as a vehicle is multifaceted and has many possibilities in how it can help learning.

 

I also like that Becker does not claim that technology is the save-all answer to education, but instead acknowledges that it has a role to play. Instruction is still a driving force in learning and will always have a place in education, but the fact is that instructional practices need to use technology, because it also has its role to play. It is becoming too large in society and in culture, to veer away from it now. We must use technology as a tool to help us assist individuals to find what works for them and to find success in their education.

 

Photo by Shelagh Murphy on Unsplash

Featured Image: Photo by Icons8 team on Unsplash

Clark, R.E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development. 42 (2),  21-29. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299088 

 

Kozma, R.B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development. 42 (2), 17-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299087 

 Becker, K. (2010). The Clark-Kozma Debate in the 21st Century. Paper presented at the Canadian Network for Innovation in Education 2010 Conference. Published under Creative Commons. (http://mruir.mtroyal.ca:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11205/143/clark_kozma_21century.pdf?sequence=1)