As I read this week’s readings, I began to imagine that this entire discussion about media and learning was actually the script for some Shakespearean type play only one whose artistry was drawn from the field of instructional technology. Perhaps it was like “Hamlet” and his famous soliloquy “To be or not to be”. Only this time that monologue would be called “To media or not to media”. The more I read and thought about what was being argued, I began to think that perhaps a better representational play would be “Much Ado About Nothing”. Finally though, I came to the conclusion that the best play to represent this discussion based on the readings is “The Taming of the Shrew” with media being the shrew that is wrangled in to be able to be able to meaningfully contribute to the process of learning.
I want to first discuss Clark (1994) and his propositions as they are what really are the catalyst to what is being discussed this week. When I first started reading his paper, I could not decide whether I agreed with him or not. I then began to somewhat agree with him as I also can logically acknowledge that “only the use of adequate instructional methods will influence learning” (p. 27). However, he then went on to make the argument that “We need to ask whether there are other media or another set of media attributes that would yield similar learning gains…It cannot be argued that any given medium or attribute must be present for learning to occur, only that certain media and attributes are more efficient for certain learners, learning goals and tasks” (Clark, 1994, p. 22). I then realized that he was arguing that one cannot claim that media have any intrinsic learning value if the learners could learn the same thing some other way. He is arguing that media itself has no influence on learning if other forms of media could have the same influence because this shows that the change in learning was not necessarily brought about by the media. However, this same logical argument could be made for instructional strategies as well. If you could lead learners to the same learning using different instructional strategies, then we cannot say that instructional strategies have any impact on learning.
I see that Clark (1994) is trying to make the point that learning will not be better simply because one used media. This is absolutely true and is something that we would do well to keep in mind especially in today’s culture. We do often make the mistake of assuming that as long as we create learning that incorporates media or is on a media platform then it is going to be effective by the mere fact that we used media. So, in that sentiment, I agree with Clark. I do not agree with him though that media have no intrinsic value for learning. I believe that the strategic use of media is an instructional strategy. Let me give a very basic illustration. As a teacher, I actually had a Black Board (not green chalkboard but rather an old fashioned black one) in my first classroom. This technically was a form of media though a very basic one and it was really all I had. Truthfully, I could have taught without one. However, I was able to use that Black Board to illustrate things to my students that I really could not have done verbally. This board allowed me to be more creative in my instructional strategies especially incorporating the visual aspect or the tactile as I let my students use the board as well. Clark would argue that my media was not what had the impact. I agree that the board sitting there by itself brought no learning value. However, nothing intrinsically has any impact on learning. It is how we use it. I was able to use the Black Board to teach in ways that I could not have without it. Just because a dry erase board or a computer could also have been used to achieve the learning does not take away the value that I gained from this particular media form. To me, Clark is just arguing semantics. It is like arguing that the refrigerator is not what keeps your food cold it is the cold air being circulated in it. Ok, semantically that is true, but you are missing the big point of what value a refrigerator brings to the situation.
I very much liked how Kozma (1994) summed up how we should think about media and its relationship to learning. “I believe that if we move from ‘Do media influence learning?’ to ‘In what ways can we use the capabilities of media to influence learning for particular students, tasks, and situations?’ we will both advance the development of our field and contribute to the restructuring of schools and the improvement of education and training” (p. 18). This provides a much more useful discussion than the primarily semantic one that Clark sought to have.
——————————–
Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. ETR&D, 42(2), 21- 29.
Kozma, R.B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. ETR&D, 42(2), 7-19.
The Learning World Is My Oyster 