A Year 2011 Retrospective Response to<\/p>\n
Clark\u2019s (1994) \u201cMedia Will Never Influence Learning\u201d<\/p>\n
Final Assignment: Scholarly Essay<\/p>\n
By Janet Barker<\/p>\n
For Dr. Stephen Petrina and Dr. Franc Feng<\/p>\n
ETEC 511<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n In 1994, Richard Clark wrote an article stating that media will never influence learning and that any changes in learning attributed to technology were actually the result of a change in methodology of instruction.\u00a0 At the time the article was written, Clark could not have foreseen how integrated technology would become in our society and the effect that would have on learning and education.\u00a0 I would argue that advancements in technology are inseparably linked to changes in methodology, and in fact, the very affordances of technology and media are influencing learning on a daily basis.\u00a0 In addition to this, the prevalence of technology in our culture has changed the essence of the learner and what our students need to learn.<\/p>\n A Synopsis of Clark\u2019s Argument <\/strong><\/p>\n In the article \u201cReconsidering Research on Learning with Media\u201d Clark (1983) presented the argument that media does not influence learning.\u00a0 His article \u201cMedia Will Never Influence Learning\u201d (Clark, 1994) was a response to a critique of the earlier article and reiterates and expands upon many of his original arguments.\u00a0 The following is a summary of the key points from both articles and how they pertained to the state of educational technology at the time they were written.<\/p>\n At the time of Clark\u2019s original article, computer technology was just beginning to make a place for itself in education.\u00a0 According to Clark (1983, 1994), a great deal of research had reported that the use of media was resulting in improved learning.\u00a0 Clark (1983) reviewed the research and came to the conclusion that the vast majority of the research was flawed and would more appropriately have been called research on methods that used media rather than research on the effects of media itself.\u00a0 He argued that any gains attributed to the media were actually caused by the different teaching techniques employed when media was used versus the traditional control groups.\u00a0 Very little research was done where the same teaching methods were used with and then without technology.<\/p>\n Further to this argument, Clark (1994) introduced the concept of the \u201creplaceability\u201d (p. 22) of media.\u00a0 If results found with one media could also be found with another, then there was something in the similarity between what the media did or how it was used that was responsible for the difference in learning.\u00a0 If one media could replace another and cause the same results, then the research needed to investigate what it was about the media that was influencing learning.<\/p>\n Clark (1983) also raised the point that many of the studies were short term and failed to take into account the novelty factor of technology use.\u00a0 Clark (1983) also cited studies indicating that student expectation and self-efficacy played roles in the effect of media.\u00a0 It followed that it was the expectations of the student, not the media itself, which caused the improved results.<\/p>\n Clark (1983, 1994) saw media as a vehicle for instruction.\u00a0 If using media seemed to influence learning, it was the extra effort, organization or improved methodology on the part of the instructor that was responsible for the change.\u00a0 A similar improvement or change in instruction without media would result in similar improvements in learning.\u00a0 While I agree that it is what we do with media that influences learning, Clark\u2019s idea that media is merely a vehicle for instruction is flawed in light of advancements in technology.<\/p>\n The State of Technology in 1983\/1994<\/strong><\/p>\n At time of Clark\u2019s original article, educational technology was beginning to have an impact on the classroom.\u00a0 Video tape, with the convenience of pause, rewind, fast forward and slow motion, was replacing slides and film.\u00a0 Electronic typewriters were replacing manual keyboards and simple calculators had supplanted slide rules.\u00a0 Limited computer labs, with stand alone computers, were available to teach basic, and BASIC, computer programming to students.\u00a0 The backdrop for these changes were space shuttle programs, missiles with programmed trajectories and big businesses, like banks, beginning to use computers to process information.\u00a0 At the heart of many of these changes were the advancements in computer technology.<\/p>\n While progress in computer technology and its assimilation into our society was happening on a large scale, it was still notably absent in homes and individual classrooms. \u00a0The U.S. Census Bureau (2010) reported that in 1984 only 8.2% of households had home computers.\u00a0 \u00a0People used the technology indirectly, for example, via push button phones rather than rotary ones, but the public in general did not interact with the computer systems themselves.<\/p>\n The U.S. Census Bureau (2010) reported that by 1993 22.9% of homes had personal computers.\u00a0 Educational institutes at all levels were making computer labs available to their students, but the internet was in its infancy.\u00a0 The U.S. Census Bureau did not begin to ask questions about internet access until 1997 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010).\u00a0 The home computer and software were becoming more readily available, but the majority of the computers were isolated from one another.\u00a0 The connectedness afforded by the internet had begun, but was not well established in the average person\u2019s home or classroom.<\/p>\n It is important to establish the state of technology at the time Clark wrote his papers in order to understand the type of technology to which he was referring and the affordances it would have offered educators.\u00a0 The common technology of the 1980\u2019s and 1990\u2019s allowed educators to produce the traditional lessons, only with more ease.\u00a0 Video tape was easier to manipulate and create than filmstrips, but it did essentially the same thing.\u00a0 Technology might have changed the pace of learning, but most of what was achieved with technology could also have been achieved with more traditional methods.<\/p>\n Clark\u2019s argument that it was the change in teaching methodology accompanying the integration of technology that resulted in learning gains by the students was well documented in his article.\u00a0 His discussion of the research available when he wrote the original two articles is well laid out and accurate.\u00a0 The research of Clark\u2019s time and, in fact, much of the current research support Clark\u2019s basic argument that it is what we do with technology in education that results in the changes in learning (Means, 2010).\u00a0 However, what educators are beginning to do with technology is quickly becoming inseparable from the technology itself.<\/p>\n The State of Technology in 2011<\/strong><\/p>\n The state of technology in 2011 is dramatically different than it was in 1994.\u00a0 The integration of the internet into society has changed how we obtain, view and contribute to information.\u00a0 Web 2.0 and 3.0 technology is based on connectedness and interaction with technology.\u00a0 Technology grows and changes in response to our use of it.\u00a0 For example, del.icio.us, an online bookmarking resource, predicts what other sites the user might be interested in based on information it has gathered from previous users (Alexander, 2006).\u00a0 Global communication is almost instantaneous and people around the world meet online to collaborate on projects and information pages.\u00a0 The current generation of teenagers and young adults have grown up in a culture where information is available at the click of a button.<\/p>\n The affordances of this new technology have created opportunities for educators to develop online and blended learning environments with capabilities that go beyond anything Clark could have imagined.\u00a0 Current technology has also changed society\u2019s expectations of what students need to learn, as well as the expectations of the students themselves.<\/p>\n The Affordances of Modern Technology<\/strong><\/p>\n To list all of the affordances of modern technology and their actual and potential impact on education is beyond the scope of this paper.\u00a0 Instead I will focus on the ability of technology to encourage deeper learning through immediate feedback, differentiated instruction, student collaboration and knowledge building. \u00a0\u00a0The degree to which these methodologies are successfully implemented in education relies on the appropriate use of technology.\u00a0 It is my intent to show that while the changes in learning may be a result of changes in methodology, it is the affordances of technology that make those changes feasible.<\/p>\n The importance of immediate feedback is not a new educational concept (Black & William, 1998).\u00a0 Providing each student prompt, informative feedback is a common goal amongst teachers, but one that is difficult to achieve.\u00a0 Many studies identify the important role of immediate assessment feedback (Jenkins, 2004; Gibbs & Simpson, 2005; Means, 2010).\u00a0 While this may be possible for a teacher to do in small class settings, it is very difficult to provide in large classes.\u00a0 Technology can provide feedback to students immediately as well as automatically report these results to the teachers, allowing teachers to spend time adapting lessons and strategies to better meet the students\u2019 needs.<\/p>\n In addition to providing immediate feedback, technology has the capability to suggest areas of improvement that the student might find helpful based on the student\u2019s responses.\u00a0 Students arrive at courses with varying levels of skills.\u00a0 Through a variety of learning management systems, teachers can create links that take students to sites that help build the missing pieces or to enrichment activities that allow the student to go beyond the intended learning outcomes for the course (Perkins & Pfaffman, 2006).\u00a0 This creates a greater degree of differentiated instruction than would be logistically possible during structured class time.\u00a0 Other online programs and tutoring systems provide links or practice based on what other students who have given similar responses have found helpful.\u00a0 The program interacts with the student by modifying its next step based on the previous response and on responses from past students.\u00a0 Technology, in essence, is capable of creating a program tailored to individual students in a way that is not possible by human teachers outside of one-on-one or very small group instruction.<\/p>\n Current literature also gives evidence of the importance of student collaboration to create deeper learning, to increase student engagement, and to move beyond acquiring knowledge to participating in knowledge building (Barab & Duffy, 2000; Scardamalia, 2004).\u00a0 Technology provides the opportunity for this type of collaboration through the use of online, asynchronous communication.\u00a0 Although student collaboration occurs outside of technology, research is increasingly documenting the positive impact that asynchronous, online communication can have on students\u2019 deeper learning processes (Bhatti & Montiel, 2010; Kramarski & Mizrachi, 2006; Scardamalia, 2004).<\/p>\n As technology and the internet have advanced, online learning spaces do more than move content and delivery online.\u00a0 As mentioned above learning management systems provide easier and greater opportunity for differentiated instruction.\u00a0 New programs such as Technology-Enabled Active Learning (TEAL) developed at MIT use technology to help students construct abstract concepts.\u00a0 TEAL allows students to construct their own knowledge of electromagnetism using interactive technology.\u00a0 Electromagnetism has traditionally been difficult for many students to understand because it is invisible and difficult to visualize.\u00a0 Research into this program has shown promising improvements in student achievement (Belcher & Dori, 2005).<\/p>\n While the basic principles behind online collaboration and technology assisted visualization may be theoretically possible without technology, they are impractical.\u00a0 Teachers cannot give immediate feedback the way computers can.\u00a0 It is logistically impossible to respond to hard copies of journals in a classroom setting the way that it can be done in an online blog.\u00a0 As the affordances of technology have changed, our ability to change how we teach and plan has also grown.\u00a0 Clark raised the issue of \u201creplaceability\u201d (Clark, 1994, p. 22) \u00a0\u2013 if we can replace one technology with another and get the same results, it is what we are doing rather than the technology that is influencing learning.\u00a0 However, if the technology is what is making those changes in methodology possible, or even probable, then I would argue that it is technology that is influencing the learning whether or not it can be replaced by a different technology.\u00a0 The question changes from \u201cCould the learning take place without technology?\u201d to \u201cWould the learning take place?\u201d\u00a0 Perhaps, as Clark suggests, we cannot separate the results of studies on media use from change in methodology, but media is often the tool that allows us to change our methods, thereby influencing the learning that takes place.<\/p>\n Society\u2019s Changing Expectations<\/strong><\/p>\n New jobs are constantly being created, and technology is changing the way we communicate and connect with each other. We need to modernize the way students are educated so they are prepared for the world, not only as it is now, but will be in the future. (British Columbia Ministry of Education, 2011a, http:\/\/www.bcedplan.ca\/theplan.php)<\/p>\n When Clark wrote his original papers, very few people, if any, had any clear idea of the role technology would take in the year 2011.\u00a0 In a recent interview, Sir Ken Robinson is quoted as saying \u201cTechnology is advancing at a headlong rate of speed. It’s transforming how people work, think, and connect. It’s transforming our cultural values.\u201d (Azzam, 2009).\u00a0 Technology that used to be available only to scientists and big business has become something most individuals use daily and is only growing in prevalence.\u00a0 The International Society for Technology in Education states that teachers should \u201cdevelop technology-enriched learning environments\u201d with the goal of fostering educationally rich, flexible learning environments (ISTE, 2008).\u00a0\u00a0 As technology becomes increasingly prevalent in our society, students need to learn how to interact with the technology appropriately and need skills related to technology (Premier\u2019s Technology Council, 2010).<\/p>\n In their document, \u201cBC\u2019s Education Plan\u201d, the British Columbia Ministry of Education (2011) refers to the changing needs of today\u2019s students and the different skills that they will need to survive in our world.\u00a0 It states that \u201cWe must make better use of technology in education so our young people will be equipped to use it effectively and ethically.\u201d (British Columbia Ministry of Education, 2011, p. 3) and that they:<\/p>\n … will encourage smart use of technology in schools, better preparing students to thrive in an increasingly digital world. Students will have more opportunity to develop the competencies needed to use current and emerging technologies effectively, both in school and in life.\u201d (British Columbia Ministry of Education, 2011b, p. 7).<\/p>\n Students used to need to learn specific content and how to find information.\u00a0 Now, with the amount of information available on the internet, they need to learn how to assess it for pertinence and veracity (Barnacle & Dall\u2019Alba, 2005; Holcomb, Philbeck, & Tingen, 2011; Premier\u2019s Technology Council, 2010).<\/p>\n It is clear that society\u2019s expectations for what students need to learn has changed since Clark wrote his articles in 1983 and 1994. The advancements in technology are not just influencing how students learn, but what skills they need to learn to survive in our society.<\/p>\n Student\u2019s Changing Expectations<\/strong><\/p>\n Students are also developing new expectations of education (Becker, 2011).\u00a0 Technology is integrated into their lives.\u00a0 In a study surveying over 39,000 post-secondary students, Shannon Smith and Judith Caruso (2010) report that 9 out of 10 students accessed text messaging and social networking daily and that of those surveyed who reported using technology, 53% used it to collaborate on class work.<\/p>\n Clark (1994) refers to \u201csufficient\u201d and \u201cnecessary\u201d conditions in his paper.\u00a0 What may have changed is what modern students consider sufficient and necessary when it comes to technology in the classroom.\u00a0 Smith & Caruso (2010) found that 55-60% of students prefer a \u201cmoderate\u201d amount of information technology (IT) in the classroom, while less than 5% of students prefer no IT.\u00a0 While no definition of \u201cmoderate\u201d is provided, it is clear that student expectations around technology and what is necessary have changed since Clark wrote his paper.\u00a0 Although, as Clark (1983) stated, increased student engagement using technology may be a result of their expectations, technology is now so integrated into our students\u2019 lives that we risk losing their engagement altogether by ignoring their expectations.<\/p>\n The Future of Technology<\/strong><\/p>\n While Clark could not have predicted in 1994 where advancements in technology would take us, other authors of his time were making the argument that a shift in mindset towards an interactive theory of educational technology was needed (Kozma, 1994).\u00a0 We are not able to predict the future of technology any more than Clark was, but that trend in theory towards media being more than neutral vehicles for the transmission of learning is growing (Barnacle & Dall\u2019Alba, 2005).<\/p>\n Other trends indicate the growing prominence of technology in our learning environments.\u00a0 There is a current move towards cloud technology, or internet based programs and Web 2.0 and 3.0 technology (Adelsberger et al., 2011; Knobel & Lankshear, 2008; Morris, 2010).\u00a0 According to Caruso & Smith (2010), the trends in the ECAR study suggest that \u201ccloud-based resources are making substantial inroads into students\u2019 academic lives\u201d (p. 13).\u00a0\u00a0 Accessing information and courses online is commonplace. Before the rise of technology, academic information was only available in certain locations, such as libraries, and from face-to-face instruction.\u00a0 Now, anyone can learn just about anything online.\u00a0 That is not to say that facilitated learning is not more effective, just that knowledge and transfer of information and technique is now available to anyone, anywhere, anytime \u2013 not just at school.<\/p>\n Changing where and how learning can take place, changes the learning that does take place. \u00a0By changing the learning that is taking place, technology influences learning.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n Clark\u2019s (1983, 1994) argument that it is what we do with technology that influences student learning is valid.\u00a0 Many of the learning gains attributed to technology use are the result of changes in methodology.\u00a0 However, as technology and its integration into society have advanced, separating the changes in methodology from the technology itself has become more challenging.\u00a0 Changes in affordances of technology have allowed us to make changes in our teaching methods. Changes in student and societal expectations and use of technology have resulted in changes in what students need to know and the type of world for which we need to help them prepare.<\/p>\n Clark uses the analogy of a produce delivery truck to explain his point.\u00a0 He states, \u201cThe best current evidence is that media are mere vehicles that deliver instruction but do not influence student achievement any more than the truck that delivers our groceries causes changes in our nutrition\u201d (Clark, 1983, p. 445).\u00a0 However, if our system relies so heavily on the vehicle that without it delivery is not made, then the vehicle does influence our nutrition.<\/p>\n The interdependence of media and our society have fundamentally changed the learning environment for our students.\u00a0 While this change from traditional methods to new, media-afforded opportunities is only beginning, all indications are that it will continue to grow.\u00a0 Kozma (1994) states that, \u201cOur media theories and research must reflect both the capabilities of media and the complexities of the social situations within which they are used\u201d (p. 14).\u00a0 Clark\u2019s statement that media will never influence learning no longer reflects what media is capable of or the complexity of our society.\u00a0 Media does, has and will continue to influence learning.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n References:<\/p>\n Adelsberger, H. , Ehlers, U., & Schneckenberg, D. (2011). Web 2.0 and competence-oriented design of learning–potentials and implications for higher education. British Journal Of Educational Technology<\/em>, 42<\/em>(5), 747-762.<\/p>\n Alexander, B. (2006).\u00a0 Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning? Educause Review, 41<\/em>(2), 32-44.<\/p>\n Azzam, A. M. (2009). Why creativity now? A conversation with Sir Ken Robinson. Educational Leadership<\/em>, 67<\/em>(1), 22-26.<\/p>\n Barab, S. A. & Duffy, T. (2000). \u00a0From practice fields to communities of practice. \u00a0In D. Jonassen and S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments.<\/em> \u00a0Mahweh, NJ: \u00a0Lawrence Erlbaum.<\/p>\n Barnacle, R., & Dall\u2019Alba, G. (2005). \u00a0Embodied knowing in online environments.\u00a0 Educational Philosophy and Theory, 37<\/em>(5), 719-744.<\/p>\n Becker, B. (2011). Get your head in the clouds. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian<\/em>, 30<\/em>(1), 57-60.<\/p>\n Belcher, J. & Dori, Y. (2005). How does technology-enabled active learning affect undergraduate students’ understanding of electromagnetism concepts? Journal of The Learning Sciences<\/em>, 14<\/em>(2), 243-279.<\/p>\n Bhatti, U., & Montiel, M. (2010). Advanced mathematics online: Assessing particularities in the online delivery of a second linear algebra course.\u00a0 Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 13<\/em>(2). Retrieved from http:\/\/www.westga.edu\/~distance\/ojdla\/summer132\/montiel_bhatti132.html<\/a><\/p>\n Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan<\/em>, 80<\/em>(2), 139-44.<\/p>\n British Columbia Ministry of Education (2011a). BC\u2019s Education Plan (website)<\/em>.\u00a0 Viewed online at \u00a0http:\/\/www.bcedplan.ca\/welcome.php<\/a><\/p>\n British Columbia Ministry of Education (2011b). BC\u2019s Education Plan (pdf)<\/em>.\u00a0 Retreived online from http:\/\/www.bcedplan.ca\/assets\/pdf\/bc_edu_plan.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n Caruso, J. D., & Smith, S. D. (2010).\u00a0 The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2010 (Research study vol. 6).\u00a0 EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research<\/em>, Boulder, CO.\u00a0 Retrieved online from http:\/\/www.educause.edu\/Resources\/ECARStudyofUndergraduateStuden\/217333<\/a><\/p>\n Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research<\/em>, 53<\/em>(4), 445-59.<\/p>\n Clark, R. E. (1994).\u00a0 Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42<\/em>(2), 21-29.<\/p>\n Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2005).\u00a0 Conditions under which assessment supports students\u2019 learning.\u00a0 Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1<\/em>(1), 3-31.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n Holcomb, L. B.,\u00a0 Philbeck, L., & Tingen, J. (2011). Developing classroom web sites for 21st century learning. Kappa Delta Pi Record<\/em>, 47<\/em>(2), 88-90.<\/p>\n International Society for Technology in Education (2008). NETS for Teachers<\/em>.\u00a0 Retrieved from: http:\/\/www.iste.org\/standards\/nets-for-teachers-2008.aspx<\/a><\/p>\n Jenkins, M. (2004).\u00a0 Unfulfilled promise: Formative assessment using computer-aided assessment.\u00a0 Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1<\/em>, 67-78.<\/p>\n Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2008).\u00a0 The \u201ctwoness\u201d of learn 2.0: Challenges and prospects of a would-be new learning paradigm.<\/em>\u00a0 Closing keynote presented at the Learning 2.0:\u00a0 From Preschool to Beyond, Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ.<\/p>\n Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42<\/em>(2), 7-19.<\/em><\/p>\n Kramarski, B. & Mizrachi, N. (2006).\u00a0 Online discussion and self-regulated learning: Effects of instructional methods on mathematical literacy.\u00a0 The Journal of Educational Research, 99<\/em>(4), <\/em>218 \u2013 230.<\/p>\n Means, B. (2010). Technology and education change: Focus on student learning.\u00a0 Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42<\/em>(3), 285 \u2013 307.<\/p>\n Morris, R. D. (2010). Web 3.0: Implications for online learning. Techtrends: Linking Research And Practice To Improve Learning<\/em>, 55<\/em>(1), 42-46.<\/p>\n Perkins, M., & Pfaffman, J. (2006).\u00a0 Using a course management system to improve classroom communication.\u00a0 Science Teacher, 73<\/em>(7), 33-37.<\/p>\n Premier\u2019s Technology Council (2010).\u00a0 A Vision for 21st<\/sup> Century Education<\/em>.\u00a0 Retrieved online from http:\/\/www.gov.bc.ca\/premier\/attachments\/PTC_vision%20for_education.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n Scardamalia, M. (2004). \u00a0CSILE\/Knowledge Forum\u00ae. \u00a0In Education and technology: \u00a0An encyclopedia <\/em>(pp. 183-192). \u00a0Santa Barbara: \u00a0ABC-CLIO.<\/p>\n U.S. Census Bureau (2010).\u00a0 Appendix Table A: Households with a computer and internet use: 1984 to 2009.<\/em>\u00a0 Retrieved online November 26, 2011 from http:\/\/www.census.gov\/hhes\/computer\/<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A Year 2011 Retrospective Response to Clark\u2019s (1994) \u201cMedia Will Never Influence Learning\u201d Final Assignment: Scholarly Essay By Janet Barker For Dr. Stephen Petrina and Dr. Franc Feng ETEC 511 \u00a0 \u00a0 Introduction In 1994, Richard Clark wrote an article … Continue reading
<\/strong><\/p>\n