The Media Debate - Clark Vs Kozma

Assignment 1: Media Debate
DETC 620 Section 9020 Training and Learning with Multimedia

University of Maryland University College
June 22, 2015
From the 16th to the 21st of June 2015, our class was divided up into two groups for a media debate. The first group supported
Richard Clarks position that media is just a vehicle to deliver training content. The other group argued Robert Kozmas position that
media isnt just a vehicle to deliver content, but can influence learners and facilitate the learning process. The group members for each
group were:
Abrahams, Katherine
Brown, Nicole
Avant, Kamilah
Eves, Victoria
Dunstan, Fawcett
Goodman, Lori
Eichelberger, Joseph
Johnson, Sharlene
Fernandes, Christian
Kruger, Petrus
Flinn, Daryl
Gerrits, Angela
Langhus, Karla
Makina, Antonia
Monroe, Darissa
Njiro, Esther
Lowe, Susan
Mahlori, Xitsakisi
Mc Pherson, Mary
Mitchell, Rebecca
Patterson, Keisha
Preston, Nicol
Smith, Shantel
Simon, Jheroma
Venteicher-Shulman, Kay
Thomas, John
Wingate, Gail
ARGUMENT #1
Media is merely a vehicle of transmission

and does not influence learning.
Print ARG# 1 Media a mere vehicle says clark

DETC 620 9020 Training and Learning with Multimedia (2155) Unit 2: The Media Debate Learning "with" or "via" media?
ARG# 1 Media a mere vehicle says clark

Created by Esther Njiro on Jun 16, 2015 05:52
Subscribed
To KOZMA
Media is merely a vehicle of transmission and does not influence learning.
Kamilah Avant
Posted Jun 16, 2015 08:05
EXPL: Clark states that media is merely a vehicle for content and its transmission does not improve its content or effect learning. It is the instructional
strategies that invoke the learning process or as Clark called them, the technology of instruction.
Clark, R.E. (2001). Learning from Media. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishers.
Victoria Eves
Posted Jun 16, 2015 08:44
BUT:
Learning is not just a response to the instructions delivery; it is a process which is influenced by the learner and the learners environment: media
influences the learning because it creates the experience in which the learning takes place (Kozma, 1994, p. 8)
Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7-19
Katherine Abrahams
Posted Jun 16, 2015 10:18
BUT:
Any teaching method can be delivered to learners by any media and a variety of treatments with various attributes, with similar learning results
(Carter, 1996, p. 32). This begins to demonstrate the replaceability issue-- if one treatment can be replaced by another and yet achieve similar
results, then the cause of the results was "in some shared (and uncontrolled) properties of both treatments" (Clark, 1994, p. 22). It is not the
media itself that has influenced learning.
Carter, V. (1996). Do media influence learning? Revisiting the debate in the context of distance education. Open Learning (February), 31-40.
Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29.
Victoria Eves
Posted Jun 16, 2015 10:28
EVID:
The functions of media influences learning processes - learning is a constructive process where the learner processes and responds to
information, adding to the knowledge in their mental model, and the process is influenced by the experience of learning so influenced by the
media (Kozma, 1994, p. 8)
Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7-19
John Thomas
Posted Jun 16, 2015 13:41
BUT:
We are talking about a simple issue. Media. And its impact on learning. Education is content directed. How content is delivered should not, and
can not influence the content. If the media introduces noise outside of the message being delivered, it must be cancelled as it is not controllable,
measurable and useful. For example. Let's say we send a lesson over the popular method of the 1990, when these papers were written, and we
include an ad for a Nash Rambler. Does that advertisement influence the educational content or does the TV. The TV will deliver what is
transmitted. Except for analog noise in the picture, what is transmitted will be received. We can not anticipate or even measure the impact of the
Nash Rambler on education on the other end. Did the educational content arrive in its transmitted form or not? That is the question at hanc.
Nicole Brown
Posted Jun 16, 2015 14:43
BUT
Content delivery does impact learning, specifically by addressing different learning styles. If someone does not like reading, then wouldn't
media that lets them interact with the concepts impact their learning?
No longer is learning defined as passively accepting content...with the many learning theories that have been developed in recent years
we know that learning is active and dynamic, and what is more active and dynamic than using MANY ways to present content rather than
one? What is more dynamic than using the many types of media surrounding students for them to find the best and easiest way to
connect what they are learning to themselves, thus internalizing what they've learned and leaving a lasting impact?
EXPL
To use your example, someone is learning via the TV...a concept is explained verbally and demonstrated on the screen. More senses are
engaged than if it were simply broadcast over the radio, or illustrated in a book. Students also get the chance to experience a more
varied classroom by seeing non-verbal communication coming from the instructor...figuring out what the instructor finds important by what
he writes on the board or points to during his lesson....etc. By putting someone on TV, you are giving us more than just a voice you are
widening the chance for learning by including a variety of conveyances.
-Renee
John Thomas
Posted Jun 16, 2015 14:56
BUT:
Your time frame reference is in error. You are arguing todays technology against arguments from 21 years ago. Yes today we are
beginning to see more interactive learning where technology may have impacts on learning. immerse technology can impact how
a person feel educational content and it may, or may not, improve learning. But the issue is if media impacts learning. Media
delivers content. Anything outside of its primary mission is noise. If a pretty picture is delivered, even 20 years ago, and that
helped learning, it was the content, not the media that improved learning. No measurable difference can be quantified between a
pretty picture on a piece of paper or a pretty picture on a tv screen. The content is the same.
Angela Gerrits
Posted Jun 16, 2015 15:12
EVID : Clark modernized or updated his claim stating that there are newer technologies that may have been created to
assist learning. However, these technologies provide similar interactions with past teaching technologies, an example he
provides is the flight training pilots undergo. Techonology has updated simulations and training, but the same skills are
aquired wether in real life cockpit of the computer simuilator (Clark, p.25, 1994). The content is the same, regardless of
the media used to delivery that content. Learning outcomes still are achieved.
Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2),
21-29.
John Thomas
Posted Jun 16, 2015 15:37
BUT:
The source material is still 20 years old. Considering that the first ipad was introduced April 3, 2010, technology has
changed the environment for education. Media delivers content no matter the year. And media does influence learning.
Angela Gerrits
Posted Jun 16, 2015 15:52
BUT:
Media may speed the access to learning and information, given the ipad and usage in modern classrooms and homework
assignments. New technology changes the delivery style and speed, however the content remains the same. The same
learning outcomes from a hisotry lesson in a textbook or one delivered via short film on an iPad, contain the same
messages and students have the same general understandings of the event, regarless of the delivery method.
Nicol Preston
Posted Jun 16, 2015 17:32
BUT:
Various media choices within a learning environment impact the content by potentially forcing change to occur within the
content. How content is delivered impacts the learning outcomes if learning styles are considered.
Even if one believes that media is a mere vehicle, educational institutions want to reach learning outcomes. One way to
achieve this is via the use of various media to deliver content. Think of Gagnes taxonomy of learning outcomes and
specifically the nine events of instruction that he proposed. The first is: gaining attention. Stimulus occurs in different ways
for different learning styles. Media assists with this.
Gail Wingate
Posted Jun 16, 2015 19:29
BUT:
There are many methods for "gaining attention" that don't include media. I could stand in a classroom and yell and scream
and get the students' attention. Clark (1983) explains that if different methods can be used to gain attention, for example,
then it's not the media that has influenced learning, but the content.
Also, Clark (1983) states that once the novelty of the media wears off, then students' attention begins to diminish.
Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educa onal Research, 53(4), 445-459.
Lori Goodman
Posted Jun 16, 2015 19:46
BUT:
Can the teacher represent social situations and tasks, such as moral decision making as seen with multimedia in some
gaming systems? Covey (as stated in Kozma, 1991) presents a moral decision case study to show this point. There are
different points of views presented, different perspectives of the situation, the ability to talk with the person in a particular
situation, offering a real-life situation for learning.
Kozma, R. B. (1991). "Learning with media." Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179-212
Nicol Preston
Posted Jun 18, 2015 23:33
BUT:
If a teacher stands in front of a class and 'yells and screams and get the students'attention, what do you think that the
students will remember: the learning material or the teacher's behavior?
Keisha Patterson
Posted Jun 20, 2015 23:09
EVID:
I will have to concur with you Nicol based on the yelling and screaming comment from Gail. I believe when Clark was
explaining that there are different other methods of "gaining attention" from students besides media, I would refer to using
another source of means of conveying information to the students, such as a whiteboard. I would not consider yelling and
screaming as a way to convey information to students. I would say that the focus would be the instructor's behavior rather
the lesson plan that is discussed by the instructor. I would consider this method disturbing and not an instructional
attention getter. However, "learners will benefit most from the use of a particular medium with certain capabilities if the
capabilities are employed by the instructional method to provide certain representations" (Kozma, p.182)
Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179-211.
Keisha Patterson
Posted Jun 20, 2015 22:45
BUT:
John it appears that you contradicted your statement from your earlier posting. You state "how content is delivered should
not, and can not influence the content." When we look at any medium, regardless if the medium support the content or
not, the end result still provide a "cognitive effect" (Kozma, p.181). I disagree.
You also provided an example of a lesson plan delivered through the television with an advertisement of Nash Rambler
conveyed with the lesson plan. The educational content delivered may or may not have been transmitted through its
original form because it depends on the student is receiving the information. Regardless if the information arrived in its
original state is irrelevant.
EVID:
Just to reiterate what Nicole Brown stated to an earlier posting, "A medium can be descirbed and perhaps distinguised
from other media by its capabilities to employ certain symbol systems. This, television can be thorught of as a medium
that is capable of employing representational (i.e. pictorial) and audio-linguistic symbol systems (among others)" (Kozma,
p.181).
Reference
John Thomas
Posted Jun 21, 2015 08:03
BUT:
I posted a position in another rebuttal that I think addresses your point. As teachers all we can do is control content
creation, choice of delivery media and interaction with the student. We can not control the actual learning taking
Keisha,place after the content is transmitted. It is the "cognitive effect" (Kozma, p. 181) that ultimately determines the
success or failure of the education event. Not the media.
Your point about the lack of integrity of information arriving in its original state being irrelevant is puzzling. As teachers
we must control what we can control. If external forces modify content then the educational purpose is impacted. That is
another reason media can not influence learning. Informational integrity.
In this last day of the debate I want to compliment you and all of the Kozma group for the engaging debate and outstanding
treatment of the arguments. The exchanges have been thoughtful, civil and valuable. Good work.
Lori Goodman
Posted Jun 21, 2015 18:17
BUT
As a teacher you can certainly recognize when a learner is struggling and choose a different media that may help the
learner better.
John Thomas
Posted Jun 21, 2015 20:55
EXP:
Where does it say that a different media will influence learning? It would seem that modifying content to fit the struggling
learner is the proven path to success. One could not stop in the middle of a lesson and say, "hold on. I am going to make
a full motion video of this lesson for you and essentially it will have all the same content as I just taught." Creativity in
building content is far more effective in improving learning than a simple switch to a different media.
Esther Njiro
Posted Jun 21, 2015 22:13
In support of Clark
John, You have explained this point exhautively and even when you put bold and repeat what was said before an agreed
view is far from forthcoming. I just wanted to alert you and others that the debate changed after day three to learning with
or via media. This is slightly different than the Clark KOZMA debate as to whether media influences learning. Should we
not all have shifted to the new thread of this debate?Just some thoughts.
<<< Replied to post below >>>
Authored by: John Thomas
Authored on: Jun 22, 2015 2:55 AM
Subject: ARG# 1 Media a mere vehicle says clark

EXP:
Where does it say that a different media will influence learning? It would seem that modifying content to fit the struggling
learner is the proven path to success. One could not stop in the middle of a lesson and say, "hold on. I am going to make
a full motion video of this lesson for you and essentially it will have all the same content as I just taught." Creativity in
building content is far more effective in improving learning than a simple switch to a different media.
Victoria Eves
Posted Jun 17, 2015 05:57
EVID:
To support Renees EXPL above:
Learners can construct the meaning of a story from visual or audio information, but when presented with the two types of
information together, meaning from each source helps to build a fuller, more memorable picture. (Kozma, 1994, p. 192)
Learners listening to an audio story have a tendency to build a picture from memory. The addition of visual information (so the
audio and visual complement each other) supplies important additional information for those with less experience; it aids those
with less of a mental model to draw on to build the picture. (Kozma, 1994, p. 192)
Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development,
42(2), 7-19
Esther Njiro
Posted Jun 17, 2015 10:14
To support Johns point
BUT
Media delivering the same content will not impact learning as it is the methodology and content provided via a medium that
influences learning. Too often delivery technologies were muddled with instructional technologies and methodologies Educators
who neglected to differentiate between methods and media experienced confounding problems and worst of all generating
waste (Carter, 1996, p. 31). It is KOZMA arguments that we have to be wary of by guarding against triumphs of enthusiasm over
substantive examination of structural processes in learning and instruction (Clark, 1994, p.27). What is required is continued
research to find evidence that media does indeed influence learning.
Carter, (1996) reiterated this point by quoting Moore (1993) who admonished for greater attention to course design, instructional
development, and student learning styles. He also pointed out that the media of communication have received considerable
scrutiny but this attention that has not been directed toward learning influence but toward media's efficiencies and effectiveness
associated with factors such as time, cost, and availability (Holmberg 1981).
Carter, V. (1996). Do media influence learning? Revisiting the debate in the context of distance education. Open Learning
(February), 31-40.
Holmberg , B. (1981) . Status and trends of distance education, London: Kogan Page.
Moore, M. 1993. Theory of transactional distance, in Keegan, D. (Ed.) Theoretical Principles of Distance Education, New York:
Routledge, pp.22-38.

Authored by: Nicole Brown
Authored on: Jun 16, 2015 8:43 PM
BUT
Content delivery does impact learning, specifically by addressing different learning styles. If someone does not like reading, then
wouldn't media that lets them interact with the concepts impact their learning?
No longer is learning defined as passively accepting content...with the many learning theories that have been developed in recent
years we know that learning is active and dynamic, and what is more active and dynamic than using MANY ways to present
content rather than one? What is more dynamic than using the many types of media surrounding students for them to find the
best and easiest way to connect what they are learning to themselves, thus internalizing what they've learned and leaving a
lasting impact?
EXPL
To use your example, someone is learning via the TV...a concept is explained verbally and demonstrated on the screen. More
senses are engaged than if it were simply broadcast over the radio, or illustrated in a book. Students also get the chance to
experience a more varied classroom by seeing non-verbal communication coming from the instructor...figuring out what the
instructor finds important by what he writes on the board or points to during his lesson....etc. By putting someone on TV, you are
giving us more than just a voice you are widening the chance for learning by including a variety of conveyances.
-Renee
Victoria Eves
Posted Jun 17, 2015 05:47
BUT:
Adressing John's points regarding TV:
TV and computers both have the capability to show moving pictures and synchronized sound tracks, but the capabilities of the computer
can be employed to allow the user to control and interact with the material in a deeper way than a broadcast on TV could allow (Kozma,
1994, p. 13). The delivery of content should influence learning because it has the potential to enhance the learning experience. we
must think about media not in terms of their surface features but in terms of their underlying structure and causal mechanisms by which
they might interact with cognitive and social processes. (Kozma, 1994, p. 11)
Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2),
7-19
Katherine Abrahams
Posted Jun 17, 2015 22:15
BUT/EVID:
Pang (2009) performed a study in which a video-driven multimedia program was hypothesized to be pedagogically equivalent to a
live, instructor-led program as measured by knowledge gains (p. 3). The results showed that there were small gains with the
multimedia, enough to show that the two delivery modes were pedagogically equivalent. Not only does this show that content can
be delivered with pedagogical equivalence across multiple delivery methods, but that there must be some other attribute(s) that
contribute to learning gains. As Pang (2009) argues, media itself is not transformative, and so to enable learning, meaningful
instructional techniques or methodologies must be used.
Above, learners can interact with a computer and have as much control over their learning experience as per design. However,
the learning experience or gains might be very different if the lesson is left open ended with no objectives or guidance for the
learner.
References
Pang, K. (2009). Video-driven multimedia, web-based training in the corporate sector: Pedagogical equivalence and component
effectiveness. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3), 1-14.
Mary Mc Pherson
Posted Jun 21, 2015 08:44
BUT
Kozma stated that "the processing capabilities of a medium can complement those of the learner" - the medium can facilitate how the
learner processes new information. I can speak for myself that when I have an assigned reading and it's page after page afer page of
heavy text, I want to scream. Throw in a diagram, a table, ANYTHING, it's much more palatable. I'm not buying what Clark is selling.
Mary Lynn McPherson
John Thomas
Posted Jun 21, 2015 09:13
BUT:
Clark is not selling anything. He is simply saying that "scream producing content" is not made better or worse by media. You
prove the point I believe that content being provided by the media is more important than the media itself. "Scream producing"
content in a book is not made better by reading it on a kindle, or projecting it on a big screen, or seeing the text, or graphics
presented on a tv screen. The issue is not the presence or absence of charts, diagrams, tables or anyting. The teacher, or author
creates the content. Don't buy from the creator. By the way, Clark's position does not cost anything. It's free. Just like the
Internet. Right?
Nicole Brown
Posted Jun 17, 2015 10:45
BUT:
Media is not just defined by its technology (as John is doing) but also by its symbol systems. Yes, grainy television screens do not convey as much
information as seeing someone in person -- but that is a technology issue. Technology is used to enable and constrain the two other elements of media:
the symbol system and processes (Kozma, 1991).
Thus, we are comparing apples an oranges...
I am talking about the symbol system involved here. Kozma even addresses TV specifically by saying: "Thus, television can be thought of as a medium
that is capable of employing representational (i.e., pictorial) and audio-linguistic symbol systems (among others)." (Kozma, 1991). While others here are
talking about the size and shape of the television being used...that is important, but only as a framwork for the other elements of media.
So again, I say using media employs many different symbol systems at once, allowing it to address many learning styles.
Angela Gerrits
Posted Jun 17, 2015 18:51
BUT:
Media as used in lessons and activities , regardless of which specific delivery method selected, are simply delivering the instructor's (or
designer's) lesson. This may be dicdatic or consultative, or even collaborative. Although a given media may be able to "employ many different
symbol systems at once" as you state, another types of media will also be able to employ different symbol systems.
Media is often, therefore, interchangeable in a lesson plan. THe media is only utilized to deliver the message or facilitate student learning (Clark,
1983). Regardless of which media is selected TV, online classroom, etc, all offer various symbol systems as you say, but also all lead to the same
learning objectives.
References:
Brown, N. (2015). DETC 620 online debate.
Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445-459.
John Thomas
Posted Jun 17, 2015 21:52
EVID
Pro Clark
One element that is missing from the debate is the relationship of Media and levels of education. Does media have the same learning
element in K-12 as higher education? A student is not a universal known. So a "speak and spell" might work as a tool for learning at one
age but certainly not a PHD level. Clark does not specifically target age groups but his universal statement that media will never influence
learning is inclusive of all media for all ages. In this debate it appears that some of the debaters are focusing on their own target group of
"students." Does media across the ages hold to the same standard? It would seem so. Media used by k-12 or advanced education does
not influence learning at any age for all of the reasons provided
Lori Goodman
Posted Jun 18, 2015 00:45
BUT: (reply to John..Pro Clark)
John, you mention that levels of education have not been mentioned nor has the ability to reach prospective learners or learning
disabilities been discussed. Kozma (1991) does not contend that media alone influences learning, but that the use of abilities and
capabilities of media influence learning based upon the instructional methods chosen in the design. The articles written by Clark
and Kozma were done so prior to the abilities and capabilities of technology, primarily computers and access to the internet today.
John Thomas
Posted Jun 18, 2015 08:25
BUT:
We are debating media does not influence learning. Your point seems to say that Kozma presented his position prior to the technologies that confounded
his argument. Kozma's argument is rendered false because at the time of Clark's paper the availability of confounding technologies was largely absent.
For example, It is easy to look at a computer through todays lenses and try to argue that the media changes content because a general purpose
computer can morph into about any tool and present data in an almost limitless fashion. How can it be that a computer does not influence learning? The
argument set in the 1990s did not fully consider the computer of today and except for a futuristic Dick Tracy watch, the reality of an Apple computer
watch. Even today an Apple watch does not change content. A pretty picture on a watch has the same influence as a pretty picture on a poster board.
So we return to our argument. Media does not influence learning. Today or yesterday. Content alone influences learning for people of all ages or
disabilities. Even today.
Susan Lowe
Posted Jun 18, 2015 17:18
BUT (in favour of Kozma):
The original argument is that media is merely a vehicle of transmission and does not influence learning. I would like to draw attention to the word
learning in this argument. Despite this key word, many of the arguments in favour of this position seem to focus on teaching rather than learning,
which can be confusing matters.
Susan Lowe
Posted Jun 18, 2015 17:18
EVID for BUT (in favour of Kozma):

John (2015) talks of content delivery, as does Katherine (2015) in her reference to Pangs study.
References
Abrahams, K. (2015, 17 June). ARG#1 Media a mere vehicle says Clark [online forum comment].
Thomas, J. (2015, 16 June). ARG#1 Media a mere vehicle says Clark [online forum comment].
Susan Lowe
Posted Jun 18, 2015 17:19
EXPL for BUT (in favour of Kozma):

However, as Vicky (2015) said, learning is a process; as Nicole (2015) said, learning is about internalizing knowledge; as Jonassen et
al (1995) proposed, interaction and being part of a community is key for students, not just one-way instruction; and as Kozma (1994)
emphasized, interaction is essential.
References
Brown, N. (2015, 17 June). ARG#1 Media a mere vehicle says Clark [online forum comment].
Eves, V. (2015, 16 June). ARG#1 Media a mere vehicle says Clark [online forum comment].
Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B. B. (1995). Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in
distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 7-25.
42(2), 7-19.
John Thomas
Posted Jun 18, 2015 17:34
Susan,
BUT: I really think it is a matter of thinking "learning" and typing "teaching". It is easy to forget that the title of this course is "training and learning
with multimedia." Training? It would be interesting to do a word count on this whole discussion and see how many times the word "training" has
been used. You are correct that the argument is about learning, not teaching. Although some would argue learning may not occur without it. So
Clark team. let's make sure we relate to learning as an operative word. That is our argument.
Esther Njiro
Posted Jun 18, 2015 18:56
To KOZMA and Susan,
We need to update the debate and find out where the arguments have reached as was suggested by Hastings and Tracey, (2005). They
suggested a need to change the debate from not if to how media affects learning. p.30. This is because of the unique capabilities of the
computer, in conjunction with the Internet and the World Wide Web, provide unquestionable support for Kozmas argument because only
computers can provide access to databases any time, thousands of miles away. Only computers can foster the development of virtual classrooms
and interactive, anytime, anywhere, learner-controlled training. My take is that Clarks argument is still valid because learning outcomes are only
affected by quality content and well designed instructional strategies and not by the medium of delivery even if it is the MIGHTY computer. The
capabilities of the computer, the Internet and www can be present but unless there are clear instructions and adequate content accessible to all
learners no learning will take place even with Internet and www combined with the computer. Indeed unless all variables are controlled media
comparison studies will never resolve the media effect debate (Clark 1983. 1994).
Reference
Hastings, N.B. and Tracey, M.W. (2005). Does media affect learning: Where are we now? Techtrends Vol 49 (2), pp.28-30 Retrieved from
http://www.ecoisonline.org/file.php/6/Lesson_1_Readings/does%2520media%2520affect%2520learning.pdf

Authored by: Susan Lowe
The original argument is that media is merely a vehicle of transmission and does not influence learning. I would like to draw attention to the
word learning in this argument. Despite this key word, many of the arguments in favour of this position seem to focus on teaching rather than
learning, which can be confusing matters.
John Thomas
Posted Jun 18, 2015 19:17
You have been a major contributor to this debate with many insightful posts and good logic. Thanks for being such a great
Esther,participant in this assignment.
If I understand your post, you are recommending a modification to the argument. If this were just an open discussion with no
impact except learning I would agree. But we are half way through the debate and much effort has been dedicated to the idea that media
does not influence learning. Clark's papers are directed to proving that premise. If we change the argument to "how", then we undermine
the basic requirement to support Clark's position. Since the argument is that media does not influence learning, a change to measure the
ways it does is a problem.
Also, I think both sides will agree that 20 years of technology can change perceptions and capabilities. We are set in the 1990s argument
environment. We can not look at this argument through the eyes of Steve Jobs.
Esther Njiro
Posted Jun 19, 2015 09:51
Hi John,
Thanks for the compliment which applies more to you than me for being a great team leader for the debate preparation of Clark
group.I noted your correction ad realized I may not have communicated clearly.
You seem to have missed the detail of my post which disagreed with the views of Hastings and Tracey, (2005) suggestion to
change the debate from if to how of the media influence to learning citing the computer combination with Internet and www. in
recent times. My take is that Clark's posistion still stands that changes in learning are influenced by variation in method and the
strategies employedto improve these than any type of media. So even your argument of 20 years of technology as having
changed perception there is no evidence that has controlled all other variables yet. For some people the access to these media is
still a major problem. One has to choose the best way to deliver the content and instructional methods package based on
available resources and the cost-effectiveness. Mediai no matter what time we are in is only for delivering..
I was responding to what KOZMA group who kept bringing the issue of the computers..
Authored by: John Thomas
You have been a major contributor to this debate with many insightful posts and good logic. Thanks for being such a
great participant in this assignment.
Esther,
If I understand your post, you are recommending a modification to the argument. If this were just an open discussion
with no impact except learning I would agree. But we are half way through the debate and much effort has been
dedicated to the idea that media does not influence learning. Clark's papers are directed to proving that premise. If we change
the argument to "how", then we undermine the basic requirement to support Clark's position. Since the argument is that media
does not influence learning, a change to measure the ways it does is a problem.
Also, I think both sides will agree that 20 years of technology can change perceptions and capabilities. We are set in the 1990s
argument environment. We can not look at this argument through the eyes of Steve Jobs.
John Thomas
Posted Jun 19, 2015 10:03
Esther,
Well stated. Thanks for the response. Good work.
Regards,
John
Karla Langhus
Posted Jun 18, 2015 20:07
EVID: Media does not enhance learning
EVID: Evidence that media does not enhance learning

According to Clark & Feldon (2005), the lack of evidence demonstrates that any medium or combina-on of media does not enhance learning. Even
Kozma (1994) stated that past research has indicated there is no evidence of media aec-ng learning. It is dicult to compare technologies through
the years with one another and the eec-veness on learning because not all media is created equal and not all learning is designed the same. There
are too many variables to consider to make the argument that all media will enhance learning equally. Therefore to say that all media enhances or
inuences learning is a misconcep-on.
References:
Clark, R. E., & Feldon, D. F. (2005). Five common but ques-onable principles of mul-media. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of
mul media learning (pp. 97-115). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Esther Njiro
Posted Jun 19, 2015 09:54
I agee with you points Karla and that is why this debate goes on as the KOZMA group has not provided evidence of media experiments where all
variables are controlled for us to see the way media influences learning.

Authored by: Karla Langhus
Subject: EVID: Media does not enhance learning
EVID: Evidence that media does not enhance learning

According to Clark & Feldon (2005), the lack of evidence demonstrates that any medium or combina-on of media does not enhance
learning. Even Kozma (1994) stated that past research has indicated there is no evidence of media aec-ng learning. It is dicult to compare
technologies through the years with one another and the eec-veness on learning because not all media is created equal and not all
learning is designed the same. There are too many variables to consider to make the argument that all media will enhance learning equally.
Therefore to say that all media enhances or inuences learning is a misconcep-on.
References:
Clark, R. E., & Feldon, D. F. (2005). Five common but ques-onable principles of mul-media. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of
mul media learning (pp. 97-115). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lori Goodman
Posted Jun 19, 2015 19:13
EVID: (against Clark)
Esther, you say the debate continues because Kozma group has not shown that media influences learning. Part of this problem is that
research has not caught up to new media and the ability to evaluate based on the attributes of media. However, Curtin, Finn,
Czosnowski, Whitman,a nd Cawley (2011) have published an example of where media in addition to teacher training did improve learning
outcomes. The study includes pharmacy students who were given instruction via teacher and a mannequin-based simulation and
outcomes were evaluated. The students who were exposed to the computer-based (added media) training showed improved learning
outcomes.
Lori
Curtin, L. B., Finn L. A., Czosnowski, Q. A, Whitman, C. B., & Cawley, M. J. (2011). Computer-based simulation training to improve
learning outcomes in Mnnequin-based simulation exercises. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 75(6), 113 http://dx.doi.org
/10.5688/ajpe756113
John Thomas
Posted Jun 20, 2015 09:21
EVID
We are progressing in this debate and a major issue seems to be proof. A story may be in order related to real world
observations close to home and the use of best of practice.
In the prep stage of this debate two of the Clark group submitted detailed accounts of instances where they were using media in
their teaching and the media being used was removed/changed. One had transparencies professionally prepared and used, the
other a variety of good quality media. In both cases after the functioning media was removed and basic simple tools were used,
blackboard and slides, there was no change in learning observed.
These were certainly not controlled studies. But when active teachers relate their experiences that agree with the argument,we
need to take notice. The real world experiences relate to the appearance of fancy media improving learning when in fact the real
cause of the "eye candy" improvements is novelty. A student who is asked "what did you think of the media presented content"
will likely say "I loved it." Not because it influenced learning but because the student is being graded and it is not nice to criticize
the instructor's work.
If the Kozma group honestly looks at their work, they may have similar stories about the use of media. Does media really
influence learning? The proof may be as close as your own experience. Even today with so many media choices, media funding
is based on wishful thinking. It is all very confounding.
Nicole Brown
Posted Jun 21, 2015 17:47
EVID:
Ok, here is a story that might explain what I'm arguing here:
I took a class, great instructor...but he had a background physics and I do not. He presented knowledge based in a
physics frame of reference (aka, everything related back to physics) using his voice and the chalkboard
I was lost.
I broke out the CD-ROM that came with our book (yes, I'm showing my age). It presented everything in nearly the same
manner, using the same words, etc. BUT also included moving examples of the ideas presented...
I switched out the content in the medium it was originally presented (live and on the chalkboard) and replaced it with an
interactive medium.
Now I understand that chalkboard and computer are vastly different "technologies" and that it could be argued that chalk
and chalkboards are not tech at all...but if "media does not enhance learning" how did I get the concept when I could play
with the model...when I couldn't when he just explained it?
Food for thought.
John Thomas
Posted Jun 21, 2015 20:47
BUT:
How much was was "novelty learning" and how much was complex content rejection? Content that challenges the mind
can be difficult no matter the media.
As I understand, you took the class, endured the sound of scratching chalkboard and then you "broke out the CD-ROM"
Could your improved learning and attitude about the content have been affect by repetition? Not the change in media. It
is difficult to believe that even a physics frame of reference presentation could improve learning as much as you inferred.
Would a football frame of reference been better? No. I would vote for "it was better the second time around" and not the
media that influenced learning.
Kay Venteicher-Shulman
Posted Jun 21, 2015 22:35
BUT: (Response to BUT - John)
While use of novelty learning for those students that prefer it, provides a dimension to the learning environment that
provides learning that meets the multi-sensory needs of the learner. This can even be achieved through books that offer
some type of optical illusion. Learning that provides a hands-on, visual stimulus/brain imaging appeal to the learner who
prefers multi-sensory input (Laurent, 2011, para. 4).
It appears that maybe Nicole is one of those indivduals that requires stimulation beyond audio and chalkboard diagrams.
Those may appear mundane to most learners. The use of some media which offers both appropriate audio and
stimulating visuals. Visuals that maybe contain a 3-D effect that the learner can manipulate such as with virtual googles...
This would then cause processing/storing within the hippocampus of new sensory impressions and commit to long term
memory. The use of media transcended lecture learning to enable Nicole to experience behaviorist-cognitist learning that
may be influenced by novelty learning initially but also the need to experience stimulating visuals beyond the ability of
standard lecture without augmentation of media (Fenker & Schutze, 2008, para. 6-8).
References
Fenker, D. & Schutze, H. (2008, December 17). Learning by surprise. Scientific American. Retrieved
from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/learning-by-surprise/
Laurent, C. (2011, December 20). Change things up with novelty learning. Education Week - Teacher. Retrieved from
http://www.edweek.org/tm/articles/2011/12/19/fp_laurent2.html
Esther Njiro
Posted Jun 20, 2015 11:27
Hi Lori
BUT
Your argument supports is what Clark stated and our group has been stressing with evidence and counter arguments.
Computer simulations requires a careful design considerations of (i) learner-centered, assessment centered,
knowledge centered and community centered issues (Holton, n. d). It is not the media of the computer but the
methods and instructions that are well designed to allow effective learning. The computer simulations are an
instruction strategy based on information and feedback from learners. The complex relationships and interactions
between knowledge, assessment, learner, and community-centered issues on the one hand and perceptual, cognitive,
social, and metacognitive design strategies on the other hand need further exploration.
Gokhale, (1996) stated this very clearly that it is the effective integration of computer simulation into traditional
lecture-lab activities that enhance the performance of the students.
Once again Lori and your KOZMA group the need to control for other factors has not been considered in your
statement.
Gokhale, A.A. (1996). Effectiveness of computer simulation for enhancing higher order thinking. Journal of
Industrial Teaching Education 33(4) (Summer) Illinois State University Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu
/ejournals/JITE/v33n4/jite-v33n4.gokhale
Holton, D. (n.d.) How People Learn with computer simulations. Retrieved from
https://www.academia.edu/227734/How_People_Learn_with_Computer_Simulations

Authored by: Lori Goodman
Subject: EVID: Media does not enhance learning
EVID: (against Clark)
Esther, you say the debate continues because Kozma group has not shown that media influences learning. Part of this problem is
that research has not caught up to new media and the ability to evaluate based on the attributes of media. However, Curtin, Finn,
Czosnowski, Whitman,a nd Cawley (2011) have published an example of where media in addition to teacher training did improve
learning outcomes. The study includes pharmacy students who were given instruction via teacher and a mannequin-based
simulation and outcomes were evaluated. The students who were exposed to the computer-based (added media) training
showed improved learning outcomes.
Lori
Curtin, L. B., Finn L. A., Czosnowski, Q. A, Whitman, C. B., & Cawley, M. J. (2011). Computer-based simulation training to
improve learning outcomes in Mnnequin-based simulation exercises. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 75(6), 113
http://dx.doi.org/10.5688/ajpe756113
Argument #2
The processing capabilities of a medium can

complement those of the learning the medium can
facilitate processes the learner is doing, or assist the
learner in things they cant do.
Print ARG #2 - Processing Capabilities of a Medium Complement Learning says KOZMA

ARG #2 - Processing Capabilities of a Medium Complement Learning says KOZMA

Created by Kay Venteicher-Shulman on Jun 16, 2015 08:27
Subscribed
To CLARK
Good morning!
ARG #2 The processing capabilities of a medium can complement those of the learning the medium can facilitate processes the
learner is doing, or assist the learner in things they cant do.
Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research. 61(2). 179-211.
Victoria Eves
Posted Jun 16, 2015 08:31
EXPL:
The processing capabilities of media help to add to, modify, and refine learners mental models, thus influencing learning (Kozma, 1991,p.182)
Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179-211
Susan Lowe
Posted Jun 16, 2015 10:32
EVID: Salomon (1998) highlights that if the processes are clear and fall within what Vygotsky (1978) calls the zone of proximal development,
then the learner will be able to add them to their own ways of processing information. (Kozma, 1991, p.182)
Reference
Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of educational Research, 61(2), 179-211.
Esther Njiro
Posted Jun 16, 2015 11:38
Victoria,
EVID # 2. There are no learning benefits obtained from utilizing any specific media to deliver instructions as consistent evidence shows. There
are a number of very different media attributes that serve the same function as what is claimed and there is no single media attribute that serves
a unique cognitive effect for some learning task p. 22. Such attributes as processing capabilities which Victoria Eves of KOZMA group is talking
about are proxies for some other variables that are instrumental in learning gains. Clark goes on to say that what we need to ask is whether
there are other media or other set of media attributes that would yield similar learning gains than those you have picked and chose the less
expensive.
Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 34-38. E-learning

Authored by: Victoria Eves
Subject: ARG #2 - Processing Capabilities of a Medium Complement Learning says KOZMA
EXPL:
The processing capabilities of media help to add to, modify, and refine learners mental models, thus influencing learning (Kozma, 1991,p.182)
Victoria Eves
Posted Jun 17, 2015 04:50
BUT:
Esthers post states that there are no learning benefits to be gained from using one media type over another. I would like to highlight that
all media have inherent differences in their capabilities to influence learning. Media can be analyzed in terms of their cognitively relevant
capabilities or attributes (Kozma, 1994, p.11; citing Salomon, 1978).
Kozma (1994, p. 11) states that each medium can be given a profile (based on its capabilities or attributes) and this profile used to
analyze if a particular medium is a suitable choice for presenting certain information, or performing certain interactions.
Each medium has a set of characteristics and instructional designers can employ the capabilities of different media to help learners
engage with and understand the content. Learners benefit most when media capabilities are used to enhance the key aspects of the task
(Kozma, 1991, p. 182).
This returns us to the original argument that the processing capabilities of the media can facilitate processes and assist the learner.
7-19.
Esther Njiro
Posted Jun 17, 2015 08:50
EXPL
Obviously by 1983 capabilities of benefiting from media were a point that has amply been made by Clark group and hopefully you
have agreed. By then media regardless of its varieties, attractive features and bloated advertised superiority did not influence
learning as confirmed by a series of meta- analyzes in five decade. It is only recently when emerging technologies have combined
with media focussing attention on critical methods of designing instructions recognizing the context of task, learner aptitudes and
attributions (Clark, 1983, p. 447) that media has started to interact meaningfully with learning. Before these developments what
you are calling medias facilitative role was easily done by an assistant instructor and learning was possible then so long as the
content to be taught was sound.
Reference

Authored by: Victoria Eves
BUT:
Esthers post states that there are no learning benefits to be gained from using one media type over another. I would like to
highlight that all media have inherent differences in their capabilities to influence learning. Media can be analyzed in terms of their
cognitively relevant capabilities or attributes (Kozma, 1994, p.11; citing Salomon, 1978).
Kozma (1994, p. 11) states that each medium can be given a profile (based on its capabilities or attributes) and this profile used to
analyze if a particular medium is a suitable choice for presenting certain information, or performing certain interactions.
Each medium has a set of characteristics and instructional designers can employ the capabilities of different media to help
learners engage with and understand the content. Learners benefit most when media capabilities are used to enhance the key
aspects of the task (Kozma, 1991, p. 182).
This returns us to the original argument that the processing capabilities of the media can facilitate processes and assist the
learner.
42(2), 7-19.
Victoria Eves
Posted Jun 18, 2015 04:46
EVID (to support my BUT, and respond to Esther's EXPL)
Media has always influenced learning it is not dependent on time. Kozma (1991, p. 185-186) discussed how learners
interacted with text and pictures, and how the use of one or the other or the two options combined influenced how
students assimilated the information. Kozma (1991, p.186) states that learners with prior knowledge were able to rely
mostly on text and prior knowledge, whilst students with less prior knowledge found the addition of images helpful. The
use of text and images is unlikely to be subject to the needless promotion of features and advertising as Esther EXPL
suggests.
Carter (1996, p. 34; citing Hillman et al., 1994, p. 33) states evidence suggests that learner-interface interaction does
effect learning. The media provides the interface - whether it is low tech, and classified as dated, or high tech and
up-to-date.
Carter, V. (1996). Do media influence learning? Revisiting the debate in the context of distance education. Open
Learning (February), 31-40.
Angela Gerrits
Posted Jun 16, 2015 16:04
BUT:
The role of facilitator and assisting the student is one in which the instructor fulfills. The instructor may utilize various media along the way, but it is the
instructor facilitiating learning.
Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 34-38
Xitsakisi Mahlori
Posted Jun 17, 2015 09:54
EVID:
To support a statement made by Victoria (BUT), Kozma (1994) discusses the use of computers in the ThinkerTools project and the use of television in the
Jasper project as an examples of the advantages brought by using one media over another . While doing the ThinkerTools project, learners benefited
from the use of computers to convey the content because the capabilities of the medium were used to provide representations and perform or model
operations that were salient to the task and that the learners had difficulty providing for themselves. (Kozma, 1994, p. 13). The learners in the Jasper
Project also benefited from the use of television because it was more relevant to their project. These examples are valid proof that there are benefits to
be gained from using one media type over another.
Reference
Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7-19.
Xitsakisi
Nicole Brown
Posted Jun 17, 2015 10:25
BUT:
(in response to Angela)
Learning is more than just passively accepting knowledge from an instuctor. Shuell, says that new knowledge is created when the learner interacts
with knowledge in the environment and adds that knowledge to already established memory (Kozma, 1994).
Salomon and Salomon, Perkins, & Globerson go so far as to say that there is a connection between cognitive processes and the enviroment (Kozma,
1994).
This means that the environment in which learners gain knowledge impacts that knowledge...if that environment contains media, then surely that
media is impacting the way students learn. Not just simply from what the professor is providing in their lecture as instructor facilitated learning seems
to suggest.
-Renee
Katherine Abrahams
Posted Jun 17, 2015 11:00
BUT
I do agree that students are not passive in their process; they do have choice in the way they interact with their environment, and how/what they
choose to interact with.
This ability to choose though can lead to perhaps a learner bias.Clark (1983) argues that students may choose media carrying methods resulting
in less learning for them, while under the assumption that particular instructional methods will allow their most efficient use of effort (p. 455).
Knowledge gained is therefore is not necessarily because of the media, but because of learner interest, persistence, or increased effort with the
perception that newer media will yield higher learning gains.
Xitsakisi Mahlori
Posted Jun 18, 2015 06:21
BUT
In response to Katherine
It is indeed true that students may choose media that result in less learning. But, this is not an absolute truth. Clark (1983) says that "by
mistake students choose those media carrying methods that inadvertently result in less learning for them" (p.455). This indicates that it is
not a case of media being incapable of influencing learning, but a case of a learner that made a mistake on the choice of media. Also
learners make that choice based on their interest, rather than thinking ahead on the processing capabilities of the chosen medium.
Reference
Xitsakisi
Esther Njiro
Posted Jun 19, 2015 09:57
That is why we are saying effort be put on improving instructions so the learners do not make the mistake no matter what media
they use.
Authored by: Xitsakisi Mahlori
BUT
In response to Katherine
It is indeed true that students may choose media that result in less learning. But, this is not an absolute truth. Clark (1983) says
that "by mistake students choose those media carrying methods that inadvertently result in less learning for them" (p.455). This
indicates that it is not a case of media being incapable of influencing learning, but a case of a learner that made a mistake on the
choice of media. Also learners make that choice based on their interest, rather than thinking ahead on the processing capabilities
of the chosen medium.
Reference
Xitsakisi
John Thomas
Posted Jun 18, 2015 08:34
BUT:
This relates only to the velociy of delivery of content, not improvements in content suposed by the medium. A pie thrust in one's face does not taste any
better at 1 mile per hour or 10 miles per hour.
Karla Langhus
Posted Jun 18, 2015 20:26
BUT: The use of media can cause redundancy effect
BUT : The use of media can cause redundancy eect

According to Kalyuga, Chandler and Sweller (2000), the redundancy eect, the use of two mediums such as a text and voice can impede the learning
process due to the cogni%ve overload by processing the same informa%on twice, taking twice as long. The redundancy eect can also be applied for
experienced learners who are forced to listen or view the same content without the ability to "skip" or "ignore" the content, inhibi%ng learning
because the learner believes they already know the content being presented to them. Therefore the medium can inhibit the learner.
References:
Kalyuga, Chandler, & Sweller, (2001). Learner experience and eciency of instruc onal guidance (pp. 5-22)
Jheroma Simon
Posted Jun 21, 2015 10:04
BUT:
(In response to Xitsakisi)
Clark (1983) says that "by mistake students choose those media carrying methods that inadvertently result in less learning for them" (p.455). Yes, the
learners made the mistake of choosing the wrong type of media but if we eliminate our dependence on media to teach content and use it more as an
enhancer, there will be no problems with learners choosing the wrong media.
Reference
John Thomas
Posted Jun 21, 2015 10:22
EVD
Your response to Clark relates to the choice of media affecting learning, not the media itself. I did not fully understand how choice of media can be a
mistake or actually result in less learning. If we have a full motion video we want to present to students we can show it on a tv, encode and show it on a
laptop, tablet, cell phone or see it projected on a film projector. It is the same video and if the educational content is the same, it should result in no
learning difference. That's because the media do not influence learning. I believe we can not eliminate our dependence on media just because someone
does not like seeing a learning module on an ipad. There is no wrong media if the content is the same. From that point of view, Clark probably should
have expanded the statement. It does not change the facts but is not fully supported after careful reading. We are on the same side here. I just wanted
to clarify as I see the issue.
Argument #3
In 1983, Clark presented his now classic stance that

then-current summaries and meta-analyses of media
suggest that media do not influence learning under any
conditions. Many of Clarks arguments were based on
measurements of perceived learning gains, with the
results that no studies could show significant learning
gains from media over traditional instruction for a
variety of reasons. In 1994, Clark revisited his position
and addressed again why in the ten years that had
passed, there was still no definitive proof that media
influenced learning.
Print ARG: Media does not influence learning.

ARG: Media does not influence learning.

Created by Katherine Abrahams on Jun 16, 2015 09:04
Subscribed
In 1983, Clark presented his now classic stance that then-current summaries and meta-analyses of media suggest that media do not influence learning
under any conditions (p. 445). Many of Clarks arguments were based on measurements of perceived learning gains, with the results that no studies could
show significant learning gains from media over traditional instruction for a variety of reasons. In 1994, Clark revisited his position and addressed again why
in the ten years that had passed, there was still no definitive proof that media influenced learning (p. 22).
References
Shantel Smith
Posted Jun 16, 2015 10:14
BUT:
Although Clark was unable to find studies which could show significant (perceived) learning gains using media, incorporating media into instruction can
can enhance and influence learning. Hillman et al. (as cited in Carter, 1996) explains how learner-interface interactions effect learning (p. 34). Carter
(1996) goes on and citing Simpson, explains that the act of interaction (writing, or interacting with technological media) has the ability to alter the brains
biochemical structure, this in turn, influences short and long term learning (p. 34).
Carter, V. (1996). Do media influence learning? Revisiting the debate in the context of distance education. Open Learning (February), 31-40
Kamilah Avant
Posted Jun 16, 2015 11:33
BUT:
According to Clark instruction is what specifically impacts the learning. Instructional method is the provision of cognitive processes or strategies
that are necessary for learning (Clark, 1983). Any necessary teaching method can be delivered to students by many medium. Clarks opinion is
that various media achieve the same cognitive goal and therefore the media is not unique the teaching and learning objective. Motivation
depends on learners beliefs and expectations.
Clark, R. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53 (4), 445-459.
Sharlene Johnson
Posted Jun 16, 2015 11:52
EVID:
In support of Kozmas argument that media does influence learning, many studies have been conducted since the 1991 and 1994 articles were
published. One such study was conducted between teachers who were trained in applying technology, equipped with several classroom
computers; and teachers who were not computer savvy, but were aided by classroom computer (Heath et al., 2000). Both groups were analyzed
based on creating a constructivist learning environment for their students. The study revealed that the non-technical teachers, who only had one
computer, did minimally change their practice to include media. The teachers who were given more computers used their technology training to
enhance learning with the computers as expected. In this case media did influence the constructivist learning environment for both groups.
Heath, M., Burns, M. Dimock, K., Burniske, J., Menchaca, M., Ravitz, J. (2000). Applying technology to restructuring and learning. Final Research
Report, Southwest Educational Development Lab. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED448977.pdf.
John Thomas
Posted Jun 16, 2015 12:20
BUT: Clark
The issue here is the nature of the media being used. I believe your are saying that media is the message or content. Media as defined in this
debate is the vehicle used to carry content. And in this environment we have to draw on many disciplines. Perhaps the most important is
communications theory.
Back in 1945 Shannon wrote, "The fundamental problem of communication is that of reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately a
message selected at another point."[1] Claude Shannon (1916-2001)
He postulated communications theory which is actually gamine to this debate. Shannon said
"One of the basic postulates of information theory is that information can be treated like a measurable physical quantity, such as density or mass.
The theory has widely applied by communication engineers and some of its concepts have found application in psychology and linguistics.
The basic elements of any general communications system include
1. a source of information which is a transmitting device that transforms the information or "message" into a form suitable for transmission by
a particular means.
2. the means or channel over which the message is transmitted.
3. a receiving device which decodes the message back into some approximation of its original form.
4. the destination or intended recipient of the message.
5. a source of noise (i.e., interference or distortion) which changes the message in unpredictable ways during transmission."
In an educational setting, anything in the communications media that affects the educational content is considered noise related to the media.
(Item 5)
So while our argument is that media does not influence learning, it actually can not influence learning or it will be considered noise and should be
canceled out of the educational event.
Clark introduces another dimension and goes so far as to say that studies are confounded. This position may be because there is so much
"noise" in the transmission and use of educational content by any media.
Edu, N. (2015, June 16). Claude Shannon. Retrieved June 16, 2015, from http://www.nyu.edu/pages/linguistics/courses/v610003/shan.html
Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development
Darissa Monroe
Posted Jun 16, 2015 12:29
EVID:
To support ClarkKozma attempts to provide support through studies but also contridictes himself and reflects the bias Clark mentions. Clark states, that
new media mediums will attract bias from its own advocates that claim improved learning and stimulation was achieved due to popular
media but research results conclude that regardless of the media approaches (radio, television, computer-assisted) instruction, no
significant difference was found for specific media outlets over the other to promoting learning (Clark, 1983) p. 447
When evidence was discussed, showing outcome scores where enhanced due to changes in mediums, the active ingredient is an
uncontrolled aspect of the content or instructional strategy rather than the medium (Clark, 1983,p.447). Learning can be attributed to
other variables outside of the delivery method. External variables are more likely to be attributed to learning and the influence of
learning than media.
Darissa Monroe
Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Educational Research 53(4). pp.445-459. Retrieved From,
http://www.uky.edu/~gmswan3/609/Clark_1983.pdf
John Thomas
Posted Jun 16, 2015 12:43
EVI
In classic communications, that variable could be classified as "noise." Only the media is being examined. Either it delivers the
content in tact, like a wagon, or it does not. By definition our position is correct. Actuall "noise" can be either positive or negative.
But it is still "noise" for the purposes of this debate.
John Thomas
Posted Jun 16, 2015 13:12
Darissa
EVI,
I am on your side and would like to add that "variables outside of the delivery method" are referred to as "noise." Noise is chaotic,
uncontrolled and often defines meaningful measurement. Content is measurable and controllable. It can not impact the
message.
Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Educational Research 53(4). pp.445-459. Retrieved From,
Mary Mc Pherson
Posted Jun 16, 2015 12:40
EVID - Kozma hoists Clark on his own petard (the petard being "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" (Clark, 1983).
Kozma actually AGREES with this metaphor in his later work (1994) but points out that viewing before and after pictures of a town hit by a
tornado clearly illustrates the cause and effect, (or stimuli and response), but no insight into the causal mechanism. Kozmo concludes by
stating that Clark's yardstick is an inappropriate measure (in other words, Clark's methodology is inappropriate) (1994).
I was VERY struck by Clark's argument using the medication metaphor (because I'm a pharmacist). I even remember sucking in my
breath and thinking "Oh no, I'm on the wrong team!" But I'm NOT on the wrong team. Clark's (1994) argument was that regardless of how
you give a medication (oral, rectal, parenteral), it's the MEDICATION that gets the job done, not the drug delivery system. He had me
going for a minute, I'll admit. But there is SO much more to this than the stimulus (e.g., introducing a tablet or capsule into the body) and
the response (e.g., effect of the medication on the body). Simply swallowing a tablet doesn't explain the outcome - we need additional
insight into the causal mechanism. It's the same with the use of media - we need a better yardstick upon which to measure the impact of
media to determine how these "underlying processes that produce events" (Kozma, 1994, p. 14) produce effects.
7-19.
John Thomas
Posted Jun 16, 2015 13:06
BUT:
Your example proves the point that the media can not change the content or it is considered contaminated. Just as the
communications theory I submitted where any thing that modifies the content is considered noise. Anything that modifies the
content of the medicine, like an attached bacteria or virus, is an anomaly and must be canceled out because pharmacist do not
deliver contaminated medicine.
The issue of the results of the delivery of the content is critical. Clark posts that content is critical, just like medicine. However, in
our profession, we really can not control every outcome of the delivery of content. One student may become an physician, and
another receiving the same educational content may turn out the be a mass murderer. So the content is separate from the media.
If the media delivers the goods, it has done its job. Don't blame the media for mass murder.
Joseph Eichelberger
Posted Jun 16, 2015 14:24
BUT - learning is not the same as medication. When we administer medicine, we're doing so to produce a specific effect within a
patient. When we teach, we're starting with knowledge - content - and transmitting that to the learner. At the end, we want our
learning outcomes to resemble our content. HOW we get there is irrelevent, and this is the heart of Clark's argument. It's not
about the tools we use to teach, it's about the teaching. At the end of a course of medication, you don't want your patient to
resemble your drug.
Clark (1994) says "Media and their attributes have important influences on the cost or speed of learning, but only the use of
adequate intructional methods wil influence learning" (p.27). A good analogue would be watching the news. An event occurs, it
doesn't matter whether you learn about it from the newspaper, the radio or CNN, in the end what matters is the accuracy of the
information that is transmitted and your understanding of the event afterward. Clark goes on to say that "...any necessary
teaching method can be delivered to students by many media or a variety of mixtures of media attributes - with similar learning
results."
He's right. In the end, we measure learning in terms of testable, verifyable and quantifiable learning outcomes. We start with
content, we transmit that knowledge to a learner, and then we test the learner to determine if the knowledge assimiliated. The
road you take to get there is irrelevent, what matters are the outcomes, and those outcome are based entirely, solely and
completely on the content being taught, not in the way it's shown to the student.
A student can be said to have learned something if, at the end of the process he can create the content you started with. Simply
reading a textbook or viewing a multimedia presentation does not equate to learning.
Nicole Brown
Posted Jun 17, 2015 11:05
BUT:
The road you take to learning DOES matterif it were meandering or not maintained the learning is delayed. With media, learning is much more direct - a
superhighway as opposed to a dirt track.
Kozma examined many studies that show symbol systems of certain media connect mental representations to the real world, allowing learners to better connect to
the material than those without that media (Kozma, 1991).
In addition, Kozma examined studies on media processing and found media can modify learners' mental models (Kozma, 1991).
Nicole Brown
Posted Jun 17, 2015 11:11
EVID:
Rusted and Coltheart and Stone and Glock both did studies that found that that recall was better when text and pictures were both used (Kozma, 1991).
Pressley, Schallert, and Levie and Lentz agree that pictures with text particularly help poor readers (Kozma, 1991)aka modifying learners mental models.
Joseph Eichelberger
Posted Jun 17, 2015 11:23
BUT - back to Nicole:
The argument isn't "can we teach without media?" Trying to frame the argument that way is the only way Kozma's position is defensible, so I get
that. The argument, however, is that no specific media provides a distinct advantage over another, and what matters is the quality of the content
being taught.
Clark never says you can teach without using media, that's ridiculous. A teacher standing in front of a class lecturing is using media, albeit the
medium of their voice in an audio presentation. They may also use other media types to supplement their oral instruction. All of that is media,
no one disputes that. The argument that Clark is that there are multiple ways to arrive at the destination, all of them valid, as long as the material
being taught is of decent quality. Conversely, Kozma appears to argue that any knowledge, regardless of the quality of the content, can be
transmitted effectively if only you can find that 'silver bullet' medium that does the trick.
Teaching without media is assuming that a magic bridge between learning objectives and learning outcomes can be made without the
intercession of an instructor, that students will osmotically assimilate knowledge by proximity rather than by instruction. Clark never says or
implies this, in fact he says quite clearly (1994) that "...absolutely any necessary teaching method can be delievered to students by many media
or a variety of mixtures of media attributes - with similar learning results."
Clark never says media isn't necessary, he says there's no substantive difference between appropriate media types.
John Thomas
Posted Jun 17, 2015 15:00
EVID
Joe,
Very good argument and it contributes to the basic argument that media does not influence learning. A key element in this argument is
related to teaching but it also central to the result of learning. Content delivered by TV has the same effect on learning as the same
content delivered on film, as the same content delivered through DVD, as the same content delivered through an ipad. The media does
not affect learning. The content does. It seems that the Kozma responses confound the argument by comparing apples to oranges
related to media. It may more convenient to view a video on an ipad at the beach but that in itself does not guarantee learning or is better
than a video delivered on a flat screen tv at home. The media does not influence learning.
Regards,
John
Nicole Brown
Posted Jun 17, 2015 15:35
BUT:
Actually, that is not true...content delivered via TV is different than content delivered via: DVD, computer, tablet, etc.
The TV can't be rewound like a DVD...or intracted with like a computer.
That means the information presented via the television should be viewed as a one-shot, static presentation of knowledge.
Whereas, the information in a DVD, while static, is able to be reviewed. And a computer, can not only be reviewed but intracted
with.
I know what you are going to say: BUT the content is always the same and the content is king!
BUT Kozma is right when he says that the presntation has an impact on the conetent...a BAD teacher can inhibit learning but
alternative content presentation can help it. I may not be able to understand what my Astronomy teacher means when he says
"Altazimuth mounting", but if I see a GIF of a telescope moving from horizon to horizon and up and down I get the idea.
Nicole Brown
Posted Jun 17, 2015 15:38
BUT:
(to add to the above)
I'm not arguing which media is best either, but that all of them offer the possibility of increasing learner comprehension
and deepening impact of knowledge imparted (thus addressing and disagreeing with the original argument that media
does not impact learning).
John Thomas
Posted Jun 17, 2015 16:14
BUT:
Technology such as Digital Video Recorders and ipads may be used to manipulate content. The user may do this to suit
time and content requirements. Pausing a presentation does not change the content. It is agreed that manipulating
content to improve learning is desierable but the media doe not impact learning. The manipulated content does. Media
does not impact learning.
John Thomas
Posted Jun 17, 2015 16:22
BUT:
Do you have scientific evidence that proves that your example of "Atlazimuth mounting?" You have added another
element to the learning mix. Animation. Also, a verbal statement may be considered media but you are comparing apples
to oranges. The argument is not that one media is better than another. It is if that media does not influence learning. Not
the choice of media. That is another argument. The dialog would be different if we were arguing that "the choice of media
impacts learning."
Lori Goodman
Posted Jun 17, 2015 21:22
EVID: (responding to John about "Atlazimuth mounting")
Research by Raucher, Gordon, Shaw, and Ky at the University of California at Irvine in 1993 (as stated in Nathan &
Robinson (2001) did show a casual relationship between listening to music and abstract reasoning performance. College
students were divided into three groups: listening to Mozart, listening to a relaxation tape, or silence. A significant
increase in performance of a spatial temporal IQ task was found in the Mozart group and not the other two (Nathan &
Robinson, 2001). This research has even been duplicated by Rauscher et al. in 1995 (as stated in Nathan & Robinson
(2001). This certainly opens the door to the possibility that media can, and does influence learning.
Nathan, M. & Robinson, C. (2001). Considerations of learning and learning research: Revisiting the "Media Effects"
debate. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12(1), 69-88.
Joseph Eichelberger
Posted Jun 17, 2015 17:50
BUT you actually just argued Clark's point.
The content in your example is "a student will be able to explain how an altazimuth mount works". A teacher giving an
unclear oral presentation is a form of media; it's a method of knowledge transfer. In this case, an oral presentation is
probably not the best format. A GIF showing how an altazimuth mount works, and then comparing it, say to a German
equitorial mount, can much more clearly illustrate the idea. A diagram showing the same could be just as effective. As
could an interactive web presentation where the student can manipulate the functions of the mount. The content "show
the student an altazimuth mount" is unchanged, but what you've done is found an appropriate media type that better
illustrates the content.
As to your other point about a TV presentation vs. a DVD or web presentation - technology has existed for decades to
allow for "time shifting" television programs. Individual student capabilities aside, generally recording a replaying a TV
broadcast is feasible and done regularly.
John Thomas
Posted Jun 18, 2015 14:39
BUT:
Joe,
I certainly hope that I argue Clark's point. I am on Clark's side. Your participation is great. Keep up the quality
responses. We are ahead according to my calculations.
By the way wikipedia says "Consumer digital video recorders ReplayTV and TiVo were launched at the 1999Consumer
Electronics Show in Las Vegas, USA."(2015) I calculate that as 1.5 decades. I know it seems that DVRs have been
around a lot longer but the reality is that many advances of technology are relatively current. That is the problem with the
Kosma arguments. While the arguments were published years before a lot of this new technology was invented, the
Kozma folks present their side in reference to todays technology. Of course the same holds true as it did back then. The
media does not influence learning, and no conclusive studies have been presented to counter that argument. The
arguments against are confounded.
Digital Video Recorders. (n.d.). Retrieved June 18, 2015, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_video_recorder
John Thomas
Posted Jun 17, 2015 16:32
BUT:
With all due respect, inferring that meandering or unmaintained content will be improved by the media is illogical. The position I believe you are
stating is "go ahead and create bad content. The media will fix it." The mind certainly should be able to identity bad content no matter the media.
Since the media does not fix content, it has no influence on learning. The poor student receiving junk content will not become a better student
because of the media. Media does not influence learning.
Susan Lowe
Posted Jun 17, 2015 19:14
BUT (to Clark, in favour of Kozma):
Lets go back to the original argument: ... media do not influence learning under any conditions. Many of Clarks arguments were based on
measurements of perceived learning gain... (Katherine, 2015). It is interesting to see this discussion start to move away from learning and towards
teaching, for example: When we teach, we're starting with knowledge - content - and transmitting that to the learner. At the end, we want our learning
outcomes to resemble our content (Joseph, 2015). ...But do we? Is it about what teachers want, or about what students want and need?
Behaviourism implies the dominance of the teacher (Atherton, 2013) but as Kozma states, a behaviourist approach is rather out-dated (Kozma, 1994, p.
17). In fact Joseph (2015) admits that simply reading a textbook or viewing a multimedia presentation does not equate to learning. As we learnt from
Mayer (2009) knowledge is personally constructed by the learner and cannot be delivered in exactly the same form from one mind to another (Mayer,
2009, p.17). Indeed Mayer (2009) favoured the view of multimedia learning as knowledge construction because it relates more to how people learn less
drill and practice, more application of knowledge.
Now, not taking a behaviourist approach does not necessarily mean chaos. Kozma is not proposing we "go ahead and create bad content. The media will
fix it" as John (2015) suggests. Kozma sees learning as taking place when methods, technologies and actions by the learner come together (Carter,
1996, p.32). It is the connections and relationships between the learner and his/her environment that lead to learning. This is consistent with Cormier
(2010) who advocates networking and promoting independence amongst learners.
So, back to the original argument. As Nicole (2015) says The road you take to learning DOES matter Given learning occurs when methods,
technologies and actions by the learner come together (Clark, 1996), media can then in fact influence learning.
References
Abrahams, K. (2015, June 16). Re: ARG: Media does not influence learning. [online forum comment].
Atherton, J. S. (2013). Learning and Teaching; Behaviourism [On-line: UK] Retrieved from http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/behaviour.htm
Brown, N. (2015, June 17). Re: ARG: Media does not influence learning. [online forum comment].
Cormier, D. (2010). What is a MOOC? Available from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW3gMGqcZQc
Eichelberger, J. (2015, June 17). Re: ARG: Media does not influence learning. [online forum comment].
Mayer, R. E. (2009) The promise of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer, Multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp.3-27). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Thomas, J. (2015, June 17). Re: ARG: Media does not influence learning. [online forum comment].
John Thomas
Posted Jun 17, 2015 21:17
BUT: Supporting Clark's position.
One area we agree on is that the focus is on learning. Teaching is at one end of conduit and learning is at the other. Teachers use media to
teach. Media delivers content deemed critical for learning by the teacher. The teacher expects that the content is delivered in tact as created and
not influenced by the media. So yes. While "teaching" comes into the discussion, it is all about the results and learning.
Joseph Eichelberger
Posted Jun 17, 2015 20:50
BUT...
I'm going to borrow some of your sources here.
Your own quote speaks in support of Clark's argument. To quote Mayer (2009) again, knowledge is personally constructed by the learner and cannot be
delivered in exactly the same form from one mind to another (p.17) - individual learners will respond to different methods according to their own learning
styles and abilities. This does not represent a trend or an absolute, it represents a large number of individual responses that are uncorrelated.
The reality is that in teaching, yes, the outcomes matter. The only question is how the students reach those outcomes, and Clark's stance is that it
doesn't matter, as long as the outcomes are met. If you want a student to learn a specific discrete piece of knowledge, you have to develop a plan to
transmit that knowledge to the learner. Sometimes, you can point the student in that direction and let them find the answer, as in constructionism, but the
end result is that you've created the desired outcome, you've created a condition for them to reach that outcome, and then you can test test their learning
with an evaluative instrument. I guess you could equate it to a question of efficiencies, with the knowledge to be gained as the baseline, and the delta of
the student's knowledge as demonstrated in formative and summative assessments would be the measurable value. Kozma's assertion necessarily
implies that media selection alone can influence the rate and efficiency of learning, even perhaps above and beyond the quality of the original content. To
Clark (1994), the quality of the content will determine the delivery method, and the sum of those parts, if used effectively, will inform the student's final
outcome (p. 27). As you said in quoting Carter (1996), the learning is the sum of all parts, however, media is not the major influence over student
learning, the quality of the material being taught is.
Lori Goodman
Posted Jun 18, 2015 01:42
EVID: (reply to Joseph)
I agree with you that in teaching, outcomes matter. You said the only question is how the students reach those outcomes and that Clark's stance
is that it doesn't matter how the outcomes are met. What you don't mention is the level of outcome, do you mean some of the content was
learned, most of content was learned, or all of the content was learned. I think we can all agree that the highest level of outcome would be
desired.
Clark's (1983, 1994) position is that media are interchangeable, Kozma (1991, 1994) supports that unique attributes influence learning. Curtin,
Finn, Czosnowski, Whitman, and Cawley (2011) support the stance that media does in influence learning seen by providing improved (higher)
learning outcomes. Curtin et al.(2011) show that College Pharmacy students completing a computer-based simulation prior to a
mannequin-based simulation increased learning outcomes versus students who just received the same content via the mannequin-based
simulation. So media is not interchangeable in this situation to reach the same outcome.
So, should we stop at the mannequin-based simulation content delivery option or take advantage of unique attributes of computers that propel the
learning outcomes? I say, take advantage of the unique attributes and realize that media can and does influence learning.
Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445-459
Curtin, L. B., Finn, L. A., Czosnowski, Q. A., Whitman, C. B., & Cawley, M. J. (2011). Computer-based simulation training to improve learning
outcomes in mannequin-based simulation exercises. American Journal of Pharmmceutical Education, 75(6), 113. http://dx.doi.org/10.5688
/aipe756113
Karla Langhus
Posted Jun 18, 2015 21:05
BUT: Not all media is created equal

Back to Lori
Not all media is created equal nor all course designs, therefore using the College Pharmacy students as an example of what is
expected or a standard in the use of media is se!ng any learning ins"tu"on and teacher up for failure. In specic niches of educa"on
and learning cases to nd out what will work best, the use of media or just lecture based learning, most studies have concluded that
there is not enough evidence to generalize the statement that media does inuence learning because there are too many variable to
consider during the study. According to Pridmore, Bradley and Mehta (2010), a study in which the comparison of an IT course using
two instruc"onal methods, lecture and mul"media, they found that they needed to do addi"onal research because the study was
inconclusive and actually created more ques"ons than answers. I believe what Clark is sta"ng that in the past it has been dicult to
state that media does inuence learning because media is constantly changing and the impacts can either be posi"ve or nega"ve
depending on the other variables. The constant change of media and the variable make it impossible to state that ALL MEDIA WILL
inuence learning.
References:
Pridmore, J. L., Bradley, R. V., & Mehta, N. (2010). Methods of Instruc"on and Learning Outcomes: A Theore"cal Analysis of Two
Approaches in an Introductory Informa"on Technology Course. Decision Sciences Journal Of Innova"ve Educa"on, 8(2), 289-311. doi:
10.1111/j 1540-4609.2010.00258X
Lori Goodman
Posted Jun 19, 2015 19:32
BUT: (Back to Karla)
We agree on several points: all media is not created equal and that additional research is needed. Kozma does not state nor
support that ALL MEDIA influences learning in all situations. Kozma states that the "capabilities of a medium can make a
difference in learning, but learning is contingent upon how well the capabilities correspond to the particular learning situation--the
tasks and learners involved--and the way the capabilities are used in the implementation of the instructional design" (Nathan &
Robinson, 2001, p. 6). What can be further evaluated in the pharmacy student study is exactly how the attributes of the added
media influenced learning. This can be accomplished once we have the proper tools to evaluate this to apply to new media of
today.
Thanks for your response.
Nathan, M. & Robinson, C. (2001). Considerations of learning and learning research: Revisiting the "media effets" debate.
Journal of Interactive Research, 12(1), 69-88
Argument #4
Information we obtain via visual media is more

memorable, thus influencing our ability to remember
what we have learnt and to build a mental model.
Print ARG#4 Information obtained via visual media is more memorable says KOZMA
ARG#4 Information obtained via visual media is more memorable says KOZMA
Created by Susan Lowe on Jun 16, 2015 10:51
Subscribed
ARG#4 Information we obtain via visual media is more memorable, thus influencing our ability to remember what we have learnt and to build a mental
model. (Kozma, 1991, p. 191)
Reference
Shantel Smith
Posted Jun 16, 2015 11:46
EXPL:
Kozma (1991) describes how visual representations contain more information which can be linked to what is already in long term memory (p. 191).
Kozma (1991) then explains the study in which children who saw the video of the Fisherman and His Wife were able to draw more detailed and accurate
pictures than those who only heard the story (p. 192).
Reference
John Thomas
Posted Jun 16, 2015 14:47
BUT:
Using a student sitting in front of a TV is not a good example because the Media has done its job of delivering content to the viewer. What the
student sees on the screen is exactly what was sent by the TV station or on a DVD. What happens past that process is outside the realm of the
media. No amount of screaming, conversation or other distractions can be attributed to the TV media. If Billy hits Frank over the head with a
book, don't blame the media. Media does not cause books to hit heads.
Angela Gerrits
Posted Jun 16, 2015 15:47
BUT:
Learning from visual representations also includes text. Kozma himself refers to the benefits of learning from symbols such as text as being
benefitial, and affecting the "long-term memory...by constructing a new schema" for novice readers or learners (Kozma, p. 183, 1991). Therefore
it is only a subsect of the learning population that this holds true, it is not a universal truth.
Reference:
Mary Mc Pherson
Posted Jun 16, 2015 12:23
EXPL:
Learning from a visual presentation for children is enhanced through use of non-"normal adult" voices (e.g., using peculiar voices, etc.) as shown through
segments of Sesame Street (Anderson, Lorch, FIelds and Sanders, 1981; in Kozma, 1991, p. 190). Sixth grade students rated TV as an easier medium
from which to learn than books (Salomon, 1984; in Kozma, 1991, p. 190). Students also learn better from TV when told that it is for educational purposes
(vs. entertainment) (Krendl, Watkins, 1983; in Kozma, 1991, p. 190).
Mary Lynn McPherson
Joseph Eichelberger
Posted Jun 16, 2015 14:42
BUT - in this example, we're looking at only two media options: video and oral narration. I would argue that other media types that provide visual
cues would be just as effective as the video, such as showing illustrations to match the text, using a filmstrip (remember those?) or giving
students a pamphlet of vignettes. Each of these choices could be as effective as the video, if not moreso. The question here isn't really whether
or not the media was the deciding factor in student learning, it's whether or not the media types chosen were appropriate to the desired learning
outcomes. Clark (1994) addressed this, saying,
"Whenever you have found a medium or set of media attributes which you believe wil cause learning for some learners on a given task, ask
yourself if another (similar) set of attributes would lead to the same learning result." (p.28).
So the question is not whether or not the medium is influencing the learner, it's whether or not an apporpriate medium was chosen to support the
content being delivered.
Kamilah Avant
Posted Jun 16, 2015 16:39
Joseph,
EXPL: I agree with your post and whether or not an apporpriate medium was chosen to support the content being delivered. Clark insists
that tools are vehicles of instructional method and must be chosen carefully according to precise instructional goals (Clark, 1994) He
stresses the importance of instructional designers knowledge that there are a variety of tools that will produce a desired learning goal.
Clark uses the replacement tes as a way to measure effective learning and states that whenever you have found a medium or set of
media attributes which you believe will cause learning for some learners on a given task, ask yourself if another (similar) set of attributes
would lead to the same learning result and conversely "if you suspect that there may be an alternative set or mix of media that would give
similar results, ask yourself what is causing these similar results (Clark 1994, p, 28).
Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence iearning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29. doi
10.1007/BF0229908
Victoria Eves
Posted Jun 17, 2015 06:43
BUT (supporting ARG #4)
To address Josephs point In the BUT post above regarding:
So the question is not whether or not the medium is influencing the learner, it's whether or not an appropriate medium was
chosen to support the content being delivered. (Eichelberger, 2015).
If you are suggesting that the medium chosen to deliver the content must be appropriate and also support that content, then it
follows that the choice of media has an influence on that content.
Whilst I agree that the medium chosen must support the instructional goals (as Kamilah highlights in the EXPL post above) the
characteristics of each medium must also be considered as to how they will enhance the learning experience. Kamilah also
mentions the importance of the instructional designer knowledge surrounding media choice. In this vein, Carter (1996, p.32; citing
Jonassen et al. 1994, p.37) states that Media were facilitators aiding in the construction of knowledge and were deemed part of
an inclusive design, i.e., as intellectual partners in the knowledge construction process (p.38). The designer must understand
how the choice of media influences the learning, or, in other words, plays a part in the knowledge construction process of the
learner.
To bring this discussion back to the original argument, the designer needs to understand how to use visual media effectively to
communicate the content visual representations contain more information that can be linked to that already in long term memory
(Kozma, 1991, p. 191) thus influencing how effectively students learn.
Avant, K. (2015, June 16). ARG4 [online forum comment].
(February), 31-40.
Eichelberger, J. (2015, June 16). ARG4 [online forum comment].
Joseph Eichelberger
Posted Jun 17, 2015 11:08
BUT - in reply to Victory:
The one constant in this equation that cannot change is the content. You cannot alter the material being taught to
accomodate the instructional methods. You must tailor the delivery method to ensure that the content is delivered in an
appropriate medium for the subject matter.
If you're an art teacher and you're teaching about the works of Picasso, audio is probably not a good media choice. You
don't alter the content because you really like podcasts and are intent on making one, you choose a medium of
transmission that makes sense to the subject matter. At the end of the day, the medium isn't influencing the content, as
Kozma suggests. If you're using an appropriate media for teaching, one is as good as another, and this is the crux of
Clark's argument. Clark (1994) makes the point that as long as the media are appropriate to the subject material, there
really isn't a measurable difference in outcomes. In the example abote, any sort of visual media is appropriate because
you're showing something to students, however, among those appropriate media types, there is not one that will give
appreciable, consistent advantages over another. Sure, some may prefer to look at a printed version over an online
version, but that amounts to personal preference, not a quntifiable and reproducable advantage for one or the other.
Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2),
34-38.
Victoria Eves
Posted Jun 18, 2015 05:59
EVID to my BUT in support of ARG#4
As soon as we start discussing media choice, this infers that the media the instructor chooses has an influence on how
learners respond to and engage with that content. If media truly didnt influence the learning, then one could deliver using
any medium to achieve the same results without this consideration. Carter (1996, p. 32) states that the appropriate
selection and use of media nurtured and ameliorated cognitive processing. One medium may be more suitable for
some content type or given task than another and aid the learner in forming mental models in different ways.
As Kozma (1994, p. 11) states, each medium can be assigned a profile based on its capabilities, and this profile examined
to see how it can aid the learner in understanding content and in the building of their own mental models.
The content remains constant, but the way in which it is delivered has an impact on how effectively the student learns
from that content. Carter (1996, p. 32) stated that media were tools that enabled cognitive resources. Why would the
designer ignore the benefits of utilizing a tool that would enhance learning?
Carter, V. (1996). Do media influence learning? Revisiting the debate in the context of distance education. Open
Learning (February), 31-40.
Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 42(2), 7-19.
John Thomas
Posted Jun 18, 2015 09:06
BUT:
The argument is not that one media is better than another. It is that a media chosen will not influence learning. Obviously
a message delivered by smoke signal is less effective because the rate of transmission is much slower than other
potential choices. But the message and content transmitted by the smoke signal is more critical in this debate than the
media. Granted the use of smoke signals in the classroom is not recommended.
Also, what tools were available in 1996? Not the ipad. Your position is confounded.
Darissa Monroe
Posted Jun 18, 2015 11:03
EvidIn support of John:

Media can restructure and enhance the learning process by delivering instruction but it is up to the
learner to be successful in the retaining of what is being received. Clark (1983), The choice of the vehicle
might influence the cost or extent of distributing instruction, but only the content of the vehicle can influence
achievement (p.455)
Argument analogy: You can dress up a pinto/car with lights and new paint (new media outlets and delivery
methods) but its about what is under the hood that will make it run and for how long (the learners abilities to
study and want to understand what is being delivered to perform successfully).
Darissa Monroe
Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning with media. Review of Educational
Research, 53(4), 445-459.
Victoria Eves
Posted Jun 19, 2015 05:40
BUT (in support of ARG#4)
In reference to the posts from John and Darissa:
Kozma (1991) states that: learners will benefit most from the use of a particular medium with certain capabilities (as
compared to the use of a medium without these) (Kozma, 1991, p.182). Its important to note that media, or tools
(Carter, 1996, p. 32) can be low tech or high tech. Tools can be something as simple as a printed book (I think, available
before 1996), or a complex online environment. Sues (2015) BUT post in ARG#9 expands further on what we mean by
media.
If we take the example of a printed book that features words and pictures, the author can capitalize on the capabilities of
the medium, as Kozma (1991) describes: Authors can use the stability of text and pictures in books and knowledge of
comprehension processes to design structures within their books that support and facilitate learning. (Kozma, 1991, p.
188).
The medium used to deliver the content (and how its capabilities have been employed to enhance that delivery)
influences how the learner engages with the content, and how learning takes place. The most effective medium for the
task communicates the content in the most effective way and enables learners to learn more successfully. Various
aspects of the learning processes are influenced by the cognitively relevant characteristics of media: their technologies,
symbol systems, and processing capabilities. (Kozma, 1991, p. 205).
Lowe, S. (2015, 19 June). BUT for ARG#9 [online forum comment].
John Thomas
Posted Jun 19, 2015 07:53
BUT:
I believe that your post supports the Argument that media do not influence content and that content is more important than
media. Your use of a book as media is appropriate to prove that media do not influence learning. A book is an inert
object with sheets of paper printed with words and pictures only. It can not, and will never interact with the reader except
for the exciting content the writer posts on the pages. And the material of which the book is constructed, the color of the
ink, the size of the letters are all a part of content. They simply modify the content. The physical book does not.
Now if we were talking about an ipad, created well past the publication of Clark's position, we may have a more spirited
discussion. The user can use the functions of the ipad to modify the content presentation, like enlarging text and turning
pages real time But that is all content oriented. The media remains in tact and does not in itself modify the content.
So media do not influence learning.
Victoria Eves
Posted Jun 20, 2015 09:16
BUT:
Without the book (the medium) the content would not exist. How the information is displayed on the page also influences
how the learner interacts, understands and engages with the content. With the ipad comes the ability to edit content and
interact with it in ways that were not possible with the book. Both types of media influence the content. Without them the
content would not exist and the learner would not be able to engage with it.The various capabilities of media can be
employed by instructional designers (depending on the task or situation) to enhance the learning and benefit the
learner. (Kozma, 1991, p. 182)
Joseph Eichelberger
Posted Jun 20, 2015 13:47
BUT:
Categorlically false. Wihtout the book, the content is still the content. Algebra continues to exist, regardless of whether
it's written in a book or not. Knowledge doesn't exist only because it's in a book.
As far as being able to edit things only because they exist in an ipad - this can also be accomplished with a PC or laptop.
Or even with paper, scissors and glue, an activity my 1st grade daughter is regularly given as a homework assignment.
The students are given elements of a narrative and actually use scissors and glue to cut them out, identify their text
features and glue them into a worksheet. Presto.. low-tech ipad.
Knowledge (which is the content) exists regardless of and independent of the media used to transmit it to the learner.
Antonia Makina
Posted Jun 20, 2015 07:05
Dear Mary Lynn McPherson

Clark makes it very clear that , the capacity of television (not the television) or movies to "zoom into detail, to unwrap 3
dimensional objects into other dimensional objects is what makes students learn. Do you now see the strength of Clark'
points.
Unique "cogni%ve processes" can be shaped by certain media a&ributes(Salmon,1979).
Xitsakisi Mahlori
Posted Jun 19, 2015 08:09
EVID
in support to Kozmas position
Greeno (as cited in Kozma, 1991) who studied a relationship between text, pictures, cognitive structures and the process of
learning proposes a theoretical framework that knowledge is best attained through a physical situation (pictures) rather than
the physical property (text -only) of the learner. This is evidence that proves information obtained via visual media is more
memorable.
Xitsakisi
John Thomas
Posted Jun 19, 2015 08:21
BUT: That is a matter of efficiency of the media. Not the influence on learning. A super efficient media is no better than an inefficient media if
learning does not occur in either situation. It is the content that must be evaluated. Not the efficiency of the media. Media do not influence
learning. Content does. One word in content can totally change a lesson. No amount of tweaking of the media will do the same.
Xitsakisi Mahlori
Posted Jun 19, 2015 09:16
BUT:
In support of Kozma
BUT: content may be excellent, however if it is delivered in a less engaging manner, it yields poor results.
Content that involves the use of visual media, drives engagement and learner engagement simultaneous
promotes learning. This is supported by Kozma (1991) Learning through text only," increases the likelihood that
such information surviving in short term memory.
Reference
Christian Fernandes
Posted Jun 19, 2015 10:17
BUT: ARG#4 Information obtained via visual media is more memorable says KOZMA
BUT:
Clark (1994) supports finding a variety of media that best effectively be used to transport the content. The media is nothing
without the content. He also argues that the instructional method used also plays a factor. One particular piece of visual media
might be engaging to some learners as they are visual learners, but what about other types of learners who learn best by
manipulation, listening, or reading and writing. By relying on the media (which may not suit the learners needs) to drive
engagement and promote learning, the instructional method is removed and the learner might not reach the learning objective.
An educator using a variety of media as part of their instructional method can best deliver content.
Reference:
Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational technology research and development, 42(2), 21-29.
Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02299088#page-1
Nicole Brown
Posted Jun 19, 2015 12:34
BUT:
You contradict yourself, Chris...you say media is nothing without content, THUS any media could be used interchangably
with another without having any impact at all on the learning.
BUT you say using a variety can best deliver content...which is to say that some media is better than others at delivering
content (AKA: media does have an impact on learning -- which is not this argument, but still a valid point). :)
Christian Fernandes
Posted Jun 19, 2015 13:03
No contradiction. If we use Clark's model that media is the method of transportation, then each media is a different
delivery vehicle. Some media will get learners to the learning outcome rapidly while others more slowly. The key is that
the media helps the student reach the desired training outcome. During the instructional design process, designers need
to look at all relevant media. Clark (1994) calls for using the best media vehicle available (taking cost and efficiency into
consideration). He highlights this when he writes, "Of course it is important for instructional designers to know that there
are a variety of treatments that will produce a desired learning goal. However, the utility of this knowledge is largely
economic. The designer can and must choose the less expensive and most cognitively efficient way to represent and
deliver instruction" (p. 22).
Susan's initial argument stated, "Information we obtain via visual media is more memorable, thus influencing our ability to
remember what we have learnt and to build a mental model." This makes a case that visual media needs to be present
for learning to occur. A point Clark contends, "It cannot be argued that any given medium or attribute must be present in
order for learning to occur, only that certain media and attributes are more efficient for certain learners, learning goals and
tasks" (p. 22).
Reference:
John Thomas
Posted Jun 19, 2015 15:37
BUT:
It should be noted that All media present content in essentially the same manner. When, we look at the computer screen,
it is the same as looking at a TV, or an ipad, or cel phone. It is rectangular, is lighted (except for kindle) has an on and off
button and may present text, pictures or moving pictures. Even projectors mimic the tv screen. And they all seek to be
similar to paper, except that paper is portrait mode and tv is landscape. So if a reasonable person were shown content on
any of those presentations of content, it would be difficult for them to differential the differences except for size, brilliance,
and motion. So content presented by not influenced by the media since they all have similar origins and presentation
format. In the final analysis, media do not influence learning. If a person learns with a TV presentation, then learning will
be the same on any of the media since the content is the same. Content is the key to learning, not the media.
Reference:
Xitsakisi Mahlori
Posted Jun 19, 2015 23:27
EXPL
It is essential to take cognizance of the argument. Kozma (1991) is not claiming that text do not aid
learning, he is merely saying that information obtained through visual media is more memorable.
The quest is not to distinguish different mediums (Tv or iPad or cell phone), but to argue that using
visual aids makes it easier for information to be memorized. It was proven that information
represented visually is represented differently in memory (Baggett, as cited in Kozma, 1991).
Reference
Xitsakisi
Shantel Smith
Posted Jun 21, 2015 18:39
BUT:
Walker felt media were not only contextual but a requisite ingredient of content. (Carter, 1996, citing Walker, p. 36).
Reference
Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445-459
Antonia Makina
Posted Jun 20, 2015 06:56
Lovely. Are you then agreeing that according to Clark "What influences learning is the "content and instructional strategy in a media ,not the type of
media"?
(Schramm,1977; Levie&Dickie, 1973)Clrk&Salmon, 1986)
Argument #5
Kozma states that evaluating the impact (if any) of

media in learning has been evaluated in a "less than
optimal" fashion over the past 70 years. It is time for a
new paradigm. Research to date has been evaluated
form the behaviorist standpoint, however media stimuli
likely have an impact on cognitive, affective and social
processes (by which learning occurs), NOT the stimuli
and responses of the behavioral paradigm, such as Clark
has used as his bully pulpit to dismiss the impact of
media.
Print ARG5 - Clark is barking up the wrong tree

ARG5 - Clark is barking up the wrong tree

Created by Mary Mc Pherson on Jun 16, 2015 12:28
Subscribed
ARG5 - Kozma states that evaluating the impact (if any) of media in learning has been evaluated in a "less than optimal" fashion over the past 70 years. It
is time for a new paradigm (1994). Research to date has been evaluated form the behaviorist standpoint, however media stimuli llikely have an impact on
cognitive, affective and social processes (by which learning occurs), NOT the stimuli and responses of the behavioral paradigm, such as Clark has used as
his bully pulpit to dismiss the impact of media (1994).
Lynn McPherson
Christian Fernandes
Posted Jun 16, 2015 13:32
BUT - Clark is barking up the wrong tree
BUT
The true paradigm of a learning event is that the students reach a learning outcome where they meet the training goals and objectives. If Kozma was
correct and media itself did effect the learning environment, then Clarks Replaceability Challenge would be his own undoing and prove Kozma correct.
Clarks (1994) simple premise of asking, whether there are other media or another set of media attributes that would yield similar learning gains
should be easily disproved if media had such an influential role in learning (p. 22). If so, then comparative classroom studies would highlight some
noticeable gap in learning outcomes between students who received training using one type of media over another. However, after nearly 20 years, no
such correlation between types of media and learning outcomes has been determined.
Reference
Darissa Monroe
Posted Jun 16, 2015 13:40
EVID
Kozma (1991) states, whether or not a mediums capabilities make a difference in learning
depends on how they correspond to the particular learning situation, the tasks
and learners involved- and the way the mediums capabilities are used by the
instructional design I believe that he contradicts statements regarding the
influence of media and outside influence.
As Clark stated, bias will occur with those interested in particular from its own advocates that claim improved learning and
stimulation was achieved due to popular media (Clark, 1983). The influence appears to be external from the media medium and
rather contingent upon the learners
abilities as well as their learning situation. He also contradicts his stance by stating, many learners, perhaps most, can and
frequently do useful representations and operations for themselves from the information externally available regardless of the
medium used (Kozma, 1991, 182). This statement corresponds to Clarks statement of where the influence actually is from and
not from what medium used.
Darissa Monroe
Clark, R.E (1983). Reconsidering reserach on learning from media. Educational Research 53(4), 445-459. Retrieved from,
Kozma, R.B. (1994). Learning with media. Educational Research, 61(2), 179-211
Darissa Monroe
Posted Jun 16, 2015 13:44
Learning gains are not attributed to the influence on media.
Darissa
John Thomas
Posted Jun 16, 2015 14:34
EVI For Clark
Chris,
Well crafted and presented argument. One point should be added about timing. Back in 1994 Kozma talked about 70 years of research. That
places the base starting in the 20s. Kozma's paper is already 21 years old and states research starting 90 years old. For the purposes of this
debate, current media can not be a reference point for judgment of the impact of media. The primary media back then was not the Internet or
most of the current content delivery systems. So your point about learning outcomes is well taken. Not only is the educational content drastically
different when 21 years ago, the media was probably very "noisy."
Darissa Monroe
Posted Jun 16, 2015 13:40
Angela Gerrits
Posted Jun 16, 2015 15:58
BUT:
Cannot instructional designers and instructors approach a medium, such as an online classroom, from a behaviorist or other educational philosophy
approach such as cognitivist? If different approaches are possible in design and instruction, it cannot be the media which has the impact on learning
outcomes.
Susan Lowe
Posted Jun 16, 2015 18:14
EXPL (in favour of ARG5):
The research on which Clark is basing his assertions is flawed according to Kozma (1994, p.15) because it only considers cause and effect, not the
causal mechanisms. How we should be carrying out research includes using think-aloud protocols, eye fixations and log files, for example, to see how
learners interact with the learning content and media (Kozma, 1994, p.15) rather than just responding to them, as Lynn says. Further, Jonassen,
Campbell and Davidson (1994, in Carter, 1996) recommended a focus on (what they called) the mediated learning process, so again the process of
learning is what should be evaluated, not just the end result.
In fact, Clark himself (1983, p.448) talked of old ways (box scores) and new ways (meta-analyses) of carrying our media research, and he admitted that
different approaches produced different results. If, as Angela says [...] instructional designers and instructors [can] approach a medium [...] from a
behaviorist or other educational philosophy approach such as cognitivist, then the same should apply to research methods, shouldnt it?
References
Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research 53(4), 445-459.
Gerrits, A. (2015, June 16). Re: ARG5 - Clark is barking up the wrong tree [online forum comment]
McPherson, M. (2015, June 16). Re: ARG5 - Clark is barking up the wrong tree [online forum comment].
Gail Wingate
Posted Jun 16, 2015 19:53
BUT
Clark is not addressing the protocols, per se. Clark (1983) is saying that the variables were not identical across a study. For example, Clark
(1983) explains that different taught the same material differently, thus, how can one tell if it's the media that influenced the learning, or the
instructor. Specifically, Clark (1983) proves his argument by invalidating studies that support the use of multimedia with what he describes as
confounding (p. 450). Confounding (Clark, 1983, p. 450) is an overarching term that describes the reasons and influences that differentiate
the context of the studies in which the multimedia is used, thus, negating the results of the study. Hence, the core of Clarks (1983, 1994)
argument, is that there is no existing, scientifically sound study that proves multimedia uniquely causes learning.
Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never inuence learning. Educa onal Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 34-38.
Gail Wingate
Posted Jun 16, 2015 19:53
BUT
Clark is not addressing the protocols, per se. Clark (1983) is saying that the variables were not identical across a study. For example, Clark
(1983) explains that different taught the same material differently, thus, how can one tell if it's the media that influenced the learning, or the
instructor. Specifically, Clark (1983) proves his argument by invalidating studies that support the use of multimedia with what he describes as
confounding (p. 450). Confounding (Clark, 1983, p. 450) is an overarching term that describes the reasons and influences that differentiate
the context of the studies in which the multimedia is used, thus, negating the results of the study. Hence, the core of Clarks (1983, 1994)
argument, is that there is no existing, scientifically sound study that proves multimedia uniquely causes learning.
Lori Goodman
Posted Jun 16, 2015 21:41
EXPL: (in favor of ARG #5)
Clark believes that learning and knowledge comes solely from within the individual, this is a narrow view. Kozma believes that learning
does not only take place within the individual but also in the external environment which includes media as well as other people.
Therefore, researchers need to use different methodologies such as: teaching experiments, clinical interviews, analyses of videotapes,
action research studies, ethnographic observations, software development studies, and computer modeling according to Lesh, Lovitts, &
Kelly (as stated in Nathan & Robinson, 2001) in order to move away from the behaviorists roots for evaluation and consider learning as
an interaction between cognitive processes and characteristics of the environment (Kozma, 1994, p. 8) as originally noted by Lynn.
Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development 42(2),
7-19.
McPherson, M. (2015, June 16). Re: ARG5 - Clark is barking up the wrong tree [online forum comment].
Nathan, M. & Robinson, C. (2001). Considerations of learning and learning research: Revisiting the Media Effects debate. Journal of
Interactive Learning Research, 12(1), 69-88.
Mary Mc Pherson
Posted Jun 17, 2015 07:52
EXPL (in favor of ARG #5)
Lori - I'm struck by your explanation, and reminded of a discussion going on in a second class I'm taking this semester. Clark's
position seems VERY behaviorist/cognitivist - stimulus and response. So much is going on inside the "meat machine" (Marvin
Mindsky, MIT professor), that's it's hard to say which aspect of media may be influencing that internal process (as Kozma posits).
What's REALLY interesting, is that in a later work, a different Clark, A. (2001, p. 7) was titillated by the "ugly" but striking image of
the "meat machine."
Clark, A. states "This notion of the brain as a meat machine is interesting, for it immediately invites us to focus not so much on the
material (the meat) as on the machine: the way the material if organized and the kinds of operations it supports...What we
confront is thus both a rejection of the idea of mind as immaterial spirit-stuff and an affirmation that mind is best studied from a
kind of engineering perspective that reveals the nature of the machine that all that wet, white, gray, and sticky stuff happens to
build" (Clark, A., 2001, p. 7).
I interpret this as turning away (a bit) from behaviorism, and heading toward cognitivism. This opens the door to consider that
perhaps we have been assessing the impact of media incorrectly for the past 70-100 years. Perhaps Kozma is right after all - a
new paradigm would allow us to more fully evaluate the impact of one or more media delivery systems.
So take that Clark, R.E.!
Ref: Clark, A. (2001). Mindware: An introduction to the philosophy of cognitive science. New York: Oxford University Press.
Daryl Flinn
Posted Jun 18, 2015 22:26
Supporting Gail's argument:
The Hawthorne Studies were conducted in the early part of the Twentieth Century. They were undertaken to understand what motivated
workers to deliver their best work. The conclusion was that when additional attention is paid to a group or to a situation, the attention
alone will result in improved results. The obvious problem is increased attention is non sustainable. Clark refers to this as a "novelty effect
(p. 450)." Once the novelty wears off, any increase in learning will disappear. This supports Clark's assertion that it is the underlying
methodology of the lesson that results in the learning.
Argument #6
Without media, content cannot be represented or

communicated.
Print ARG#6 - Content is dependent on media

ARG#6 - Content is dependent on media

Created by Victoria Eves on Jun 17, 2015 06:52
Subscribed
Without media, content cannot be represented or communicated (Carter, 1996, p. 34; citing Simpson, 1994).
Shantel Smith
Posted Jun 17, 2015 10:31
EVID:
Simpson (as cited in Carter, 1996, p. 34) explains that content exists because media is there to convey the content and enable communication. Different
media capabilities enable different forms of communication (p. 34). In turn these different forms of communication have different effects on the learner.
Carter (1996) (citing Simpson, p. 34) describes how the more interactive the media, the more likely the biochemical organization of neural groups in the
brain is influenced/built/adapted by the act of interacting with the learning.
Sharlene Johnson
Posted Jun 17, 2015 11:48
for Kozma -EVID: Kozma suggests that media provides a framework for learners to form a collaboration and construct knowledge (Kozma, 1991). The
learner has to process the symbols delivered by the media in order for it to be delivered. If the message is not processed, it has not been
received. Therefore the media has influenced learning by causing a mental interaction.
Christian Fernandes
Posted Jun 17, 2015 10:33
BUT: ARG#6 - Content is dependent on media
BUT:
Clarks isnt objecting the notion that media should be used to deliver training content to the learner. Clark contends that a successful learning outcome
isnt dependent on any one media used to present the training content. Clark (1994) states that, The problem with the media attribute argument is that
there is strong evidence that many very different media attributes accomplish the same learning goal (p. 22). An instructional design team could
construct an expensive computer program to deliver dynamic content which directs a learner to a learning outcome. Or, an instructional design team
could construct detailed printed hand-outs with pictures and text which also directs the learner to a learning outcome. The use of the computer program
might get the learners to the learning outcome faster, but the fact that all students will reach the desired learning outcome proves that media is just a
delivery system for the content.
Clark, Richard E. "Media will never influence learning." Educational technology research and development 42.2 (1994): 21-29. Retrieved from
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02299088
Christian Fernandes
Posted Jun 17, 2015 15:18
EXPL: BUT: ARG#6 - Content is dependent on media
EXPL: Clark (1994) makes an analogy about medicine to represent his position on media influence. I want to make a more simplified analogy
using a fence and some paint (p 26). Two homeowners have identical fences in their backyards. Both fences are in an equal state of disrepair
and require a fresh coat of paint. Both homeowners buy the same paint, but one homeowner decides shell apply the paint using an expensive
and efficient paint sprayer. The other home owner cant afford a sprayer, so instead he uses a paint brush because it is more cost effective. The
homeowner with the sprayer is able to paint her fence in a few hours while her neighbor takes all day. However, by the end of the day both fences
have been painted.
In this analogy the fences in disrepair represent the training need. The paint is the training content that must get delivered. The sprayer and the
paint brush are the media. The actual painting of the fence equates to the instructional method. And lastly, the painted fences embody the desired
training outcome.
So, the end result was the same, but the method used was different. Clark notes that, It is method which is the "active ingredient" or active
independent variable that may or may not be delivered by the medium to influence learning (p. 26). He concedes that the learning experience will
differ based on what media is selected. The homeowner who used the fancier sprayer obviously had a much different experience completing the
project as her neighbor, but they both reached the same end state.
If media was allowed to dictate or influence the instructional method, it could prevent students from reaching desired training outcomes. What if it
were decided that because the sprayer was superior to the paint brush that only the sprayer could be used to apply the paint. This would mean
the one homeowner who couldnt afford that sprayer wouldnt be able to reach his goal even though a paint brush would meet his needs. By
fixating on the media, the focus is removed from desired outcome. Again, Clark expresses this when he writes, The problem with the media
attribute argument is that there is strong evidence that many very different media attributes accomplish the same learning goal (p. 22).
To illustrate the role of media, Ill take the analogy one step further. What if the paint (good training content) was replaced with honey (bad training
content)? The sprayer and the paint brush (the media) are certainly the correct tools and would be able to apply the honey, but because the
honey cant be used as a paint, the goal of painting the fence (the desired training outcome) will never be reached. The training content is key, the
media (no matter how wonderful and innovative) just varies the training experience.
paint.jpg (127.42 KB)

paint.jpg (494.59 KB)
Joseph Eichelberger
Posted Jun 17, 2015 17:56
OFF TOPIC: I wish this had a like button. That illustration is brilliant and perfectly illustrates Clark's point. Well done!
Nicole Brown
Posted Jun 19, 2015 12:55
Sadly, this image is an oversimplified version of what is being presented here...
Let's go back to Clark's original example of a truck delivering groceries: what if the person getting the groceries lived on an island? By
insisting that the vehicle of delivery has no impact on the groceries the food is going to be all wet when (and if) it arrives, and no one likes
wet bread (Becker, 2015).
To address the example in your image...what if the fence was on a widow's walk that has no interior access? Yes, you could get a ladder
and climb up there and paint it with the paint brush...but why not find a vehicle meant for this kind of thing? A sprayer with an extension,
perhaps?
Becker, K. (2015). The Clark-Kozma Debate in the 21st Century. Retrieved from: http://www.academia.edu/462857/The_ClarkKozma_Debate_in_the_21st_Century
Christian Fernandes
Posted Jun 19, 2015 14:18
BUT: EXPL: BUT: ARG#6 - Content is dependent on media
Clark (1994) doesn't contend that just any media can deliver the training content. He just points out that when designing a course
there is a variety of treatments that will produce a desired learning goal (p. 22). If the truck isnt capable of delivering groceries
to an island, then get a boat. Clark wouldnt claim that a training video with Japanese narration would effectively help those who
didnt speak Japanese to reach their desired learning goal. He is warning against those designers who would believe that training
content can't be presented to the student without a specific piece of media. Like there are those who would ignore the fact that a
paint brush will work and is all that they can afford because they feel they need (not want) the sprayer.
While I dont have a scholarly example, I can provide personal one While I was teaching, I and the other instructors normally
used a PowerPoint presentations filled with videos, pictures, and animations to teach lessons. However, during a conversion over
to a new Windows operating system, all the computers in the schoolhouse crashed. Several instructors petitioned our boss to
cancel all the classes because without the presentations they couldnt teach their classes. My boss refused to cancel the classes
and challenged us to find other media. In the end, we all ended up dusting off the back-up overhead projectors and used the
projector coupled with white board illustrations to teach our lessons. It was more work for the instructors, but in the end we were
able to convey all the course material to our students and their test scores were equivalent to their peers who attended the
courses with PowerPoint slides. The experience was certainly different, but the fact that the learning goals were reached proves
that no one particular media was responsible for the outcome.
Reference:
(Side-note: The image is certainly a simplified version (I think calling it an oversimplified version was a little harsh, but maybe Im
being a little too sensitive). However, I would argue that it does sum up Clarks main points of his Replaceability Challenge pretty
effectively whether or not you agree with it. I felt like I needed to defend the image because I was pretty proud when I completed
and posted it. I felt like I finally got to use some multimedia in my multimedia class!)
Karla Langhus
Posted Jun 17, 2015 11:08
BUT : The choice of media affects distribution and cost
According to Mayer (2009), the media is the use of two mediums, text and pictures. A book is not a media, therefore the content can be represented
or communicated in a book. According to Clark (1983), the choice of media aects the distribu&on and cost of the instruc&on, but not the outcome
of the learning. Therefore, content can be represented or communicated in a book.
References:
Mayer, R.E. (2009). The promise of mul&media learning. In R.E. Mayer (Ed.), Mul media learning (2nd ed., pp. 3-27). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Fawcett Dunstan
Posted Jun 17, 2015 15:39
BUT: Content is dependent on media
BUT:
According to Clark, the replaceability test determines if media does influence learning. If similar results for learning can be achieved using other
"attributes" beside media, then it cannot be media that causes the learning (Clark, 1994, p. 22).
Reference
Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. ETR&D, 42(2), 21-29.
Susan Lowe
Posted Jun 17, 2015 17:10
EXPL (in favour of ARG#6):
The point is that media plays a key role in learning because without media, content cannot be represented or communicated. Now, Kozma (1991 and
1994) is not suggesting that the representation or communication of content equates to simply being a vehicle of delivery as Clark (1983 and 1994)
argues. What Kozma (1994) is focussing on is the potential offered by media, and the choices this opens up for learners of all types and for different
learning approaches.
So, as Christian (2015) actually emphasises in the fence-painting example, the key is in the much different experience. As Shantel (2015) says these
different forms of communication have different effects on the learner. Our study of Mayer (2009) revealed his recommendation that presentation mode
(verbal and/or pictoral) and/or the sensory modalities (auditory and visual) be exploited so as to provide different channels through which to communicate
the instructional message. Everyone learns in a different way, has different preferences and expectations. Being able to provide learning experiences that
appeal to and work for a range of learners therefore is key... and media facilitates this process.
Further, Kozma is not suggesting media should be allowed to dictate or influence the instructional method as Christian (2015) states. In fact, Kozma
says the very opposite in his 1994 article: media must be designed to give us powerful new methods... (1994, p.16). It is the capabilities of media that
Kozma is keen to explore, and to have instructional designers and other educationalists embrace the potential media can offer learners in their various
tasks and situations (Kozma, 1994, p.18).
References
Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research 53(4), 445-459.
Fernandes, C. (2015, June 17). Re: ARG6 Content is dependent on media [online forum comment].
Smith, S. (2015, June 17). Re: ARG6 Content is dependent on media [online forum comment].
Joseph Eichelberger
Posted Jun 17, 2015 18:05
BUT - Clark never argues that you can teach without using media. That's logically impossible. Clark's argument is that the choice of media is
irrelevant and does not affect learning outcomes.
You start with a concept - let's say our learning objective is "Students will be able to explain that igloos are made from snow and ice."
You can then choose a variety of ways to tranfer that knowledge to a student. You can show them a picture of an igloo. They can watch a video
about igloo construction. You can tell them "igloos are made from snow and ice."
At the end, you present them with :
1. An igloo is made from:
a. bricks and mortar
b. wood and steel
c. hopes and dreams
d. snow and ice
If the majority of your students select the correct answer, we've successfully taught them. The way was irrelevant, all of those media types lead
the student to acquire the knowledge we want them to have.
Since this is turning into a debate of analogies, I offer the following:
Clark says "I want to build a house, what tools do I need?" where Kozma says "I've got these tools, what can I build with them?"
Lori Goodman
Posted Jun 17, 2015 22:37
BUT: (reply to Joseph)
How do you know if the method or media was the reason most of the students answered correctly? If the method stayed the same and
the media changed and all the students answered correctly, would media now have an influence on learning?
I think we agree that both Clark and Kozma see supporting cognitive representations and processes as mediators of learning. Where
things get a bit fuzzy is what they each call support. Clark labels support as method, whereas Kozma labels it as media (Nathan &
Robinson, 2001, p. 8). Nathan and Robinson (2001) posit that even though Clark and Kozma agree that cognitive processes are
necessary to learning, they have different views on learning which impacts the learning theories, pedagogy, and methodological
implications for instructional design.
Kozma's stance is that information vital to the learner is tied to the choice of media and not just method as supported by Clark. Media and
method are "mutually supportive and constitutive of one another" (Nathan & Robinson, 2001, p. 10) and therefore supports that content is
dependent on media and media does influence learning.
7-19.
Nathan, M. & Robinson, C. (2001). Considerations of larning and learning research: Revisiting the "Media Effects" debate. Journal of
Interactive Learning Research, 12(1), 69-88.
Side note: I like your creativity in your analogy...not saying I agree...but koodos to your creativity.
Nicole Brown
Posted Jun 19, 2015 13:09
BUT:
While you are defending Clark, you are doing it in an LMS which is encouraging collaboration among students and actually
facilitating this debate.
Are you saying that a TV presentation of these two arguments would have the same impact?
A radio presentation?
A computer game?
(As an aside as well, I had to respond to John's very salient point: I think we've finally, in this one analogy, hit on the main
difference between these two arguments...and I can see how both of them are equally important and necessary for education.)
Daryl Flinn
Posted Jun 20, 2015 09:30
BUT:
To be even-handed, can Kozma's theory be defended using pre-existing methodologies or techniques? If Kozma uses
documents, even delivered electronically, that is still an old method. Isn't a Ted Talk really just a lecture that has been
archived and distributed online? Our discussion here is no more interactive than what could be achieved through a group
email, or even through letters, copied and mailed to all participants. This is faster, but is it better for learning?
Authored on: Jun 19, 2015 13:09
Subject: ARG#6 - Content is dependent on media
BUT:
While you are defending Clark, you are doing it in an LMS which is encouraging collaboration among students and
actually facilitating this debate.
Are you saying that a TV presentation of these two arguments would have the same impact?
A radio presentation?
A computer game?
(As an aside as well, I had to respond to John's very salient point: I think we've finally, in this one analogy, hit on the main
difference between these two arguments...and I can see how both of them are equally important and necessary for
education.)
John Thomas
Posted Jun 20, 2015 09:48
EVID:
Daryl,
Good points, If we were to measure learning through the genesis of Distant Learning, correspondence courses, and
compare it with modern media what would we find? Several thing for sure. The drop out rate would be high in both
cases. In both cases, content in its original form, is likely book based. And in the final analysis, if the student does not
actively accept the requirement for study and understanding, no learning will occur, no matter the media. A
correspondence course text thrown in a wastebasket is no better than a computer with a blank screen.
There has been discussion about learning theories impact on this argument. In any case, learning is action based. The
student has to take action to learn. The student has to turn on the computer or open the book. Action influences learning,
not media.
Joseph Eichelberger
Posted Jun 20, 2015 13:53
BUT - back to Nicole
This is an apples to oranges comparison. The LMS has a feature that TV, radio and computer games lack : two-way
interactivity. You need to choose a comparable, appropriate media type that will accomplish the same learning goals. If
your learning goals are to have students respond to something, then one-way media choices aren't going to work. Ergo:
TV presentation? No. Skype session? Yes!
Radio presentation? No. Conference call? Yes!
Computer game? Maybe, but better to say "Interactive simulation" - yes!
Alternate comparable media types, thus proving Clark's replacability test.
Argument #7
Kozma explains that audio visual presentation methods

increase comprehension. When audio and visual
information are presented together, learners are able to
gain different levels of knowledge from each type of
information and this aids the building of mental models.
Print ARG#7
ARG#7
Created by Shantel Smith on Jun 17, 2015 10:05
Subscribed
Kozma (1991 explains that audio visual presentation methods increase comprehension ( p. 191). When audio and visual information are presented
together, learners are able to gain different levels of knowledge from each type of information and this aids the building of mental models.
Reference
Karla Langhus
Posted Jun 17, 2015 10:45
BUT: Cognitive Overload
BUT - According to Wang & Gearhart (2006) the use of media can cause cogni ve overload on the learner, if the content is not properly organized to
convey the message. Therefore, without proper guidance and organiza on of content , media alone does not increase comprehension.
References:
Wang, H. & Gearhart, D. L. (2006). Designing and developing web-based instruc on. Upper Saddle River, N. J.: Pearson
Nicole Brown
Posted Jun 17, 2015 12:21
BUT:
MANY studies have been done on learning with audio and visual presenations, and none of them found the combination of audio and visual
representations resulted in lower recall than using one representation alone (Kozma, 1991).
Nicole Brown
Posted Jun 17, 2015 12:22
EVID:
Meringoff, 1982; Nugent, 1982; Baggett and Ehrenfeucht, 1982, 1983; Beagles-Roos and Gatt, 1983; Gibbons, et al., 1986; Hayes and Kelly,
1984; Hayes, Kelly, and Mandel, 1986 Meringoff, 1982; Pezdek and Hartman, 1983; Pezdek, Lehrer, and Simon, 1984; and Pezdek and
Stevens, 1984
(all cited in Kozma, 1991)
Fawcett Dunstan
Posted Jun 17, 2015 14:51
BUT:
BUT:
By Kozma's own admission in one of his hypotheses about the influence of audio and video on learning, learning actually goes down when both audio
and visual information are in competition for mental capacity in the brain.
Reference
Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research (61)2, 179-211.
Lori Goodman
Posted Jun 17, 2015 22:57
BUT:
BUT:
According Kozma (1991) there are two hyposthesis that can occur, the one you mentioned being based on the learners knowledge level and long
term memory; and the other being that the information presented with these two symbol systems may work together to increase comprehension.
Many studies, as Nicole mentions above, supports the latter.
Xitsakisi Mahlori
Posted Jun 18, 2015 05:47
BUT:
EXPL
Fawcett, what Kozma mentioned was one possibility out of the two presented hypothesis. As Lori mentioned, we are in agreement with ARG#7,
that "audio visual presentation methods increase comprehension" (Kozma, 1991, p. 191). Indeed Kozma admitted the combination of audio and
video learning may cause competition. Competition may not always be viewed as a negative aspect when processing information, but rather a
factor that is dependent on the mental capacity of the learner.
Reference
Xitsakisi
John Thomas
Posted Jun 18, 2015 09:13
BUT:
BUT
Incresed comprehension is not learning. I can comprehend the numbers of 2 and 3 but not learn that added together they equal 5.
Lori Goodman
Posted Jun 19, 2015 19:40
BUT:
BUT:
Comprehension is not just identifying two digits called "2" and "3", it is understanding an act such as 2 + 3 = 5. Therefore an
increase in comprehension is learning.
Darissa Monroe
Posted Jun 18, 2015 10:57
But:
It may be true that comprehension can be increased by media outlets, however, the idea of learning is up for debate regarding media's influence. Media
being the vehicle that delivers instruction is the delivery method but not of influence. Achievement is not guaranteed by visual presentations or other
media outlets. Clark states, "learning seems to result from factors such as task differences, instructional methods, and learner traits but not the choice of
media for instruction" (Clark, 1992 p.812). The idea is, we must separate the relationship between instructional strategies methods and media. Learning
advanatges from the use of particular mediums are not defined, no solid evidence.
Darissa Monroe
Clark, R. E. (1992). Media use in education. In M.C. Alkin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Research (pp.805-814). New York: Macmillan.
Shantel Smith
Posted Jun 21, 2015 18:32
BUT:
The different sorts of information are able to convey different details. The visual side may convey representation, whilst the audio side
communicates sounds, expression, and meaning from human voice (Kozma, 1991, p. 191-192). As stated above, not all learners will experience
cognitive overload. If they have some level of knowledge regarding the subject then the introduction of multiple forms of media can enhance
learning by tapping into the different parts of the brain.
Argument #8
Winn says relationships between media, method, and

situation favour constructivist models of learning and
look to the future of instructional design, rather than
past models based on a behaviorist approach.
Thus the capabilities of media influence what a designer

can do, and enable constructivist and connectivist
approaches to designing learning.
Print ARG #8: Media and a Constructivist Approach

ARG #8: Media and a Constructivist Approach

Created by Nicole Brown on Jun 17, 2015 16:03
Subscribed
Winn says relationships between media, method, and situation favour constructivist models of learning and look to the future of instructional design,
rather than past models based on a behaviorist approach (Kozma, 1994, p. 17).
Thus the capabilities of media influence what a designer can do, and enable constructivist and connectivist approaches to designing learning. (Kozma,
1994, p. 17)
Susan Lowe
Posted Jun 17, 2015 17:27
EVID (in favour of ARG#8):
The design of the learning and use of media is influenced by the knowledge, goals and influence of the learners - media enables the conversation
between the learner and the learning. (Kozma, 1994, p. 17)
Reference
Victoria Eves
Posted Jun 18, 2015 07:29
EVID in support of ARG#8
Opportunities for enhancing learning in a holistic sense may be missed if instructors/educators continue to ignore the relationship between
content and medium (Carter, 1996, p. 37). Ignoring this relationship and the effect it has on learning eschews consideration of the broader
social and political contexts (Carter, 1996, p. 37; citing Evans and Nation, 1993, p. 199).
Carter, V. (1996). Do media influence learning? Revisiting the debate in the context of distance education. Open Learning (February), 31-40
Angela Gerrits
Posted Jun 17, 2015 18:14
BUT:
Newer media, such as computers and online classroom environments can also support past learning theories such as behavioral or cognitivist.
Instructional designers and/or instructors can take past approaches and simply utilize the new media to deliver the content in a different way.
Angela Gerrits
Posted Jun 17, 2015 18:20
EVID:
An example is military training provided on online servers and computer tests or games. An additional example is the use of participation grades
in an online classroom, being disclosed every week. This produces negative punishment and positive reinforcement, essential elements of
behaviorist theory (Harasim, 2012).
Reference:
Harasim, L (2012). Learning theory and online technologies. [e-book]. New York, NY: Routledge. Retrieved from Amazon.com
Susan Lowe
Posted Jun 18, 2015 08:48
The job of the designer is to use the capabilities of the media to create learning that generates conversations, which in turn, influence the
learning. (Kozma, 1994, p. 17). The key thing here is the focus on the capabilities of media. As Angela (2015) says, media can support a
range of learning and teaching approaches, and this is why media can influence learning.
References
Gerrits, A. (2015, 17 June). ARG #8: Media and a Constructivist Approach [online discussion forum].
Kozma, R.B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2),
7-19.
Shantel Smith
Posted Jun 18, 2015 20:37
EVID (in favor of Kozma)
Knowledge and learning are the result of the interaction between the learners cognitive resources and the external environment
(Greeno,1998; Pea, 1993; Perkins, 1993; Salomon, 1993 as cited in Kozma, 1994, p. 8) and this is influenced by how well the
internal and external resources fit together according to Snow (as cited in Kozma, 1994, p.8). As the designer creates the
environment using media, the student creates learning through experiences enhanced by the resources (media) that is used.
Kozma, R.B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development,
42(2), 7-19.
Fawcett Dunstan
Posted Jun 18, 2015 20:57
BUT: ARG #8: Media and a Constructivist Approach
BUT:
Even if we were to categorize media into one of the newer learning theories, such as constructivism or connectivism, the fact still remains that there is no
proof that media influences learning in any way, except to be a vehicle for delivering knowledge.
Reference
Victoria Eves
Posted Jun 19, 2015 07:14
BUT: ARG #8: Media and a Constructivist Approach
BUT in support of Kozma:
The very existence of the newer learning theories demonstrates that media does influence learning. To give an example, connectivism theory is
enabled by the mediums influence over the content. Carter (1996, p.36; citing Edwards, 1994, p. 16) tells us that current developments in
society, distance education, and media literacy.. . (Carter, 1996, p.36; citing Edwards, 1994, p. 16) mean we should look closely at how the needs
of learners are being influenced, developed, and expressed via media. Without this online forum (the media enabling the learning) we would not
be having this debate that is spanning time zones and continents.
Argument #9
Content is more critical than media.
Print ARG #9
ARG #9
Created by Jheroma Simon on Jun 17, 2015 23:49
Subscribed
To Kozma
ARG:
Content is more critical than media
Jheroma Simon
Posted Jun 17, 2015 23:51
EVID:
EVID
Kozma (1991) states that learning is viewed as an active, constructive process whereby the learner strategically manages the available cognitive
resources to create knowledge by extracting information from the environment and integrating it with information already stored in memory (p. 179).
Jheroma Simon
Posted Jun 17, 2015 23:53
EXPL
Information received regardless of the form of medium is more important than the medium used.
Victoria Eves
Posted Jun 18, 2015 06:20
BUT
BUT to ARG#9
Carter (1996, p. 34) discussed the study by Simpson (1994) that related to how interactive technologies influenced the biochemical
organization of the neural groups in the brain that controlled thinking and creativity. The more interactive the technology, the higher the
probability that learning would happen due to the active environment it was occurring in and how that influenced the chemical
organization of the brain.
How learners receive information is as important as the information they are assimilating.
Carter, V. (1996). Do media influence learning? Revisiting the debate in the context of distance education. Open Learning (February),
31-40
John Thomas
Posted Jun 18, 2015 08:49
BUT
BUT:
We are not debating learning theory. We are debating provable results of media influence learning. There are none. Media
delivers content. Individuals process content. It makes no difference what kind of media is used. The content will be delivered in
its intended form, and the media does not impact learning. Content does. We have yet to see definitive proof from the Kozma
group that media influences learning. Any additions or subtractions to the content delivered by media must be considered to be
"noise" and canceled as it is not controlled, chaotic and unpredictable.
Darissa Monroe
Posted Jun 18, 2015 11:16
BUT
Support John
EXPL
As Clark stated, there are inconstancies regarding the influence of mediums on learners ability to perform.
Kozma stated his views regarding a collaborative effort to mediums and external variables with learners but
he provided inconstancies to make his point that learners use mediums as an influence to learn. Learning can
take place based on the learners abilities first and the presence of any additional methods are tools to deliver
but not means to succeed.
Darissa Monroe
Gail Wingate
Posted Jun 18, 2015 12:37
EVID
Support Darissa
Clark (1983) proves that there are inconsistencies in the studies that analyzed when he highlights what he calls
"confounding" (p. 450) variables. Clark (1983) defines confounding (p. 450) as the reasons and influences that
differentiate the context of the studies in which the multimedia is used, thus, negating the results of the study. Hence,
the core of Clarks (1983, 1994) argument, is that there is no existing, scientifically sound study that proves multimedia
uniquely causes learning. In other words, the procedures and variables that were set by each study left open the
possibility for inconsistencies, such as using different teachers to perform the study, thus challenging the veracity of the
study results.
References
Fawcett Dunstan
Posted Jun 18, 2015 11:54
BUT
But:
Also, as Clark (1994) mentions, did the study by Simpson control for teaching method? In other words, the study would be more
plausable if the identical study were done without media and with direct instructional method in order to test whether or not neural
groups in the brain that controlled thinking and creativity also influenced biochemical organization. This is the point that Clark
keeps mentioning. The study can only prove media influence on learning if two identical studies were done and instructional
method were eliminated. If that cannot happen, then the study is either confounded or there may be other variables or "attributes"
that may be influencing the study.
Reference
Clark, R. E.(1994). Media will never influence learning. ETR&D, 42(2), 21-29.
Darissa Monroe
Posted Jun 18, 2015 12:00
BUT
In addition to Fawcett,
But:
Clark states, whenever you have fund a medium or set of media attributes which you believe will cause
learning for some learners on a given task, ask yourself if another or similar set of attributes would lead to the
same learning result (Clark, 1994 p.28).
Clark, R.E (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research
and Development, 42(2) pp.21-29
Jheroma Simon
Posted Jun 18, 2015 18:55
EVID
"studies on infants and toddlers suggest that these young children may better understand and learn from real-life
experiences than they do from video" (Kirkorian, et al, 2008, p.39).
Kirkorian, H.L., Wartella, E.A., & Anderson, D.R. (2008). Media and Young childrens learning. Future of children,18(1),
39-61. Retrieved from: http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/docs/18_01_03.pdf
John Thomas
Posted Jun 18, 2015 19:29
BUT Interactive limits in learning
Content terminates at the end of the Media. For example a TV presents an image to a viewer. There is no interaction with the TV
beyond a picture being received by a viewer. Any interaction is with the content and content impacts learning. The day when a
TV reaches out and grabs a student by the arm and says "you have to learn this" will be a remarkable day. Until then, Media does
not influence learning. It is all at arms length.
Fawcett Dunstan
Posted Jun 18, 2015 12:54
EVID:
EVID:
Salomon (1979), quoted in Clark (1994), also defines instructional method as a way to organize information that encourages, substitutes, or
makes up for cognitive activities necessary for success (p. 23). Often-times, in order for students to learn and retain new information, they need a
connection to past knowledge. When students do not have past knowledge to connect to this new information, it is the instructional method that
bridges this gap so as to achieve learning. Thus, the instructional method is critical to learning. Thus, media transports the information but does
not bridge the gap in learning as well.
Reference
John Thomas
Posted Jun 18, 2015 16:28
I found it. Thanks.
Susan Lowe
Posted Jun 19, 2015 05:17
Content is more critical than media. Critical for whom and in what way? Given the assignment task is to debate the impact of media on learning, then
presumably it is for learners with a view to facilitating their learning (as opposed to teachers to facilitate their teaching).
What do we mean by learning? Learning is not just about reciting facts and figures in a written test environment to show the teacher that the students can
repeat what the teacher said. We need students to be able to make use of the knowledge, applying it to other contexts and using it in real-life situations
as relevant to them (not to their teacher).
What do we mean by media? John (2015) refers to television. However, media is not just what Garrison calls ancillary media which do not provide for
two-way communication, but can include multimedia. Mayer (2009) advises that multimedia technology can aid human cognition. Kozma (1994)
advocates the same and discusses the processing capabilities of media which enable a student to manipulate content perhaps organise it, share it or
transform it. So while content is a required ingredient for learning to occur, it is not enough in itself. What the learner does with the content is key. What a
learner is able to do with the content is not down to a teacher or an instructional method, but down to the possibilities provided by media.
References
Garrison, G. R. (1985). Three generations of technological innovation in distance education. Distance Education, 6(2), 235-241.
Thomas, J. (2015, 18 June). ARG#9 [online forum comment].
Susan Lowe
Posted Jun 19, 2015 05:18
EVID for BUT (in favour of Kozma)
The Thinker Tools project (Kozma 1994) enabled students to input content.
Reference
Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media inuence learning? Reframing the debate. Educa onal Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7-19
Susan Lowe
Posted Jun 19, 2015 05:19
EXPL FOR EVID FOR BUT (In favour of Kozma):
While in this example of the Thinker Tools project (Kozma, 1994) it is content that students were able to input, it is not only the subject
matter of that content that was learned - the experience of manipulating content is a learning outcome in its own right. As Vicky (2015)
says, how a learner receives information is key. Learners receiving information via media have the opportunity and facility to manipulate
that information (content). This means that media are critical.
References
Eves, V. (2015, 18 June). ARG#9 [online forum comment].
7-19.
Victoria Eves
Posted Jun 19, 2015 06:36
EVID for ARG#9 - supporting Sue's BUT in favor of Kozma:
As Kozma (1994, p. 8) discusses, the act of learning is an active, constructive and social process by which the learner
strategically manages available cognitive, physical and social resources to create new knowledge by interacting with information
in the environment and integrating it with information already stored in memory.(Kozma,1994, p. 8; citing Shuell, 1998).
Enabling this interplay of processes, resources, and environment is the medium. Therefore it is as critical as the content.
42(2), 7-19.
Xitsakisi Mahlori
Posted Jun 19, 2015 07:03
EXPL
When Clark (1983) asked the question ; do media influence learning? His answer was no and he elaborated that media is a mere vehicle that transports
learning. It is from this view that Jheroma argues that content is more critical than media. Instead of defending whether media is more important than
content, Kozma (1994) proposed to re-look at the question that was asked by Clark (1983). Kozma (1994) suggests that instead of looking at do media
influence learning, the question should be "will media influence learning" (Kozma, 1994, p. 7). By looking at what is currently happening in education
since the millennium and technological improvements, one should be able to answer this question.
References
John Thomas
Posted Jun 19, 2015 07:35
ARG #9 Timing
BUT
We live in a time of change. And your point about looking at what is currently happening in education is valid. However, for the purpose of this
debate we have to frame our discussion on the papers in the time frame they were written. As I mentioned in a previous post, at a time in history,
the belief was that the world was flat. Some still believe that by the way. The Flat Earth Society still exists.
The logic Clark used to prove his argument in the 90's was based on his academic world. There was nothing comparable to the interactive
educational model we study today. It is possible that he could not even imagine how the ipad, iphone, 4K TV and other technology have changed
the educational world. For this discussion though, we argue the Clark view that media does not influence learning. No matter how we define the
terms.
Lori Goodman
Posted Jun 19, 2015 19:20
ARG #9 Timing
BUT:
ARG# 9 Timing
John, you are abosolutely correct we do live in a time of change. I do not believe that this debate has to focus only on the time frame that
the original articles from Clark and Kozma were written, that was just a starting point for the ongoing debate. As research tools for
evaluation become more sophisticated to evaluate more than just behaviorist learning outcomes we will see how media is influencing
learning.
Lori
John Thomas
Posted Jun 19, 2015 20:09
ARG #9 Timing
Lori,
We have a problem. My understanding of the assignment is that we start with a level playing field. Both sides were given a
position and we were to argue based on the contents of Clark and Kozma writings. To introduce information based on modern
technology to argue either way seems a bit unfair. The Clark argument takes a fixed position on the influence of media on
learning. It is rigid.
With billions of dollars spent on media related technology over the last 20 years it becomes difficult to sort out the effect of media
to disprove Clark's position. There is a whole new suite of media, communications devices, theories and standards for
education. It is not fair to attempt to transfer today's advanced technology to the original writings on either side. The burden to
disprove Clark is on the Kozma side. And the deck is a bit stacked against that since over and over it has been stated that there
is insufficient evidence and that the Kozma arguments are "confounded."
So it is appropriate for the Kozma side to acquiesce and accept the fact that insufficient evidence exists to prove Clark's position
invalid.
Lori Goodman
Posted Jun 19, 2015 20:35
ARG #9 Timing
BUT: (response to John)
I believe that there is evidence, as has been pointed out during the debate. Do you appose hypothesis because they are
not proven beyond a reasonable doubt? As trainers and learners we apply learning theories, interventions, and even
program planning or course design based on theory hypothesis. A hypothesis being a supposition or proposed
explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. Both Clark and Kozma
agree that further research is needed in the realm of learning evaluation, but a hypothesis provides a starting point for
further research. This in no way supports Clarks stiff position that media will never influence learning, quite the
opposite--even limited evidence is proof. I believe you are looking for a "high" level of proof now for something that needs
improved research tools to apply to media today.
Thanks for the response
John Thomas
Posted Jun 19, 2015 21:47
ARG #9 Timing
BUT:
Excellent points. In a debate, we bring our effort to support our position to the greatest extend possible. It is all for the
purpose of learning. As we read through the Kozma positions we see basic weaknesses, but that is to be expected
because of the lack of tuned research tools. Also, general interest in fully pursuing classic but highly specialized academic
arguments face competition from more contemporary studies. So, a lack of adequate research is understandable.
We are 2/3rds in to the debate. To move to summary, could you and the Kozma group summarize the 3 best proofs from
your position to refute the Clark argument? Our discussion format can get a bit difficult to follow.
You have been a major player on the Kozma side. And your work is respected. Good job.
Lori Goodman
Posted Jun 21, 2015 18:24
ARG #9 Timing
John,
I have found this exercise to be very interesting and I feel I have learned a lot. Thank you for your kind words and your
dedication to the Clark team with your excellent, well thought out responses...you have been a formidable opponent.
Lori
As far as your question, I will check with the team as to summary.
John Thomas
Posted Jun 21, 2015 22:00
ARG #9 Timing
Lori,
It has been a fun exercise. We have a few more to go.
I don't know know all of the stats but I do know you kept us on our toes and you made major contributions to the debate.
Great work.
Regards,
John
Argument #10
The combined use of visual and auditory symbol systems

results in as much, or more recall than either mode
alone.
Print Arg# Combined use of media

Arg# Combined use of media

Created by Rebecca Mitchell on Jun 18, 2015 12:26
Subscribed
The combined use of visual and auditory symbol systems results in as much, or more recall than either mode alone (Kozma, 1991, p. 191)
Sharlene Johnson
Posted Jun 18, 2015 12:55
EXPL (in support of Mitchell's ARG for Kozma)
Learning from a visual presentation for children is enhanced through use of non-normal adult voices (e.g., using peculiar voices, etc.) as shown through
segments of Sesame Street (Anderson, Lorch, Fields and Sanders, 1981; in Kozma, 1991, p. 190). Sixth grade students rated TV as an easier medium
from which to learn than books (Salomon, 1984; in Kozma, 1991, p. 190). Students also learn better from TV when told that it is for educational purposes
(vs. entertainment) (Krendl, Watlkins (1983); in Kozma, 1991, p. 190).
Sharlene Johnson
Posted Jun 18, 2015 13:00
EVID (in support of Mitchell's ARG for Kozma)
These studies compared a video (visual + auditory) to the decomposed audio and visual presentations separately. The results showed
noninferiority or superiority of the video. Regarding Clarks position that other media (e.g., pictures) or instructional design techniques may have
led to the same or an enhanced result, Kozma posits that isolating that single dependent variable (which Clark holds as the holy grail) is too
simplistic an approach.
Daryl Flinn
Posted Jun 18, 2015 22:15
BUT:
Students may be more attrached to delivery methods such as television, and the students may choose television over other methods. In fact,
learning may occur, but there is no way to determine whether delivery via television is superior to any other method. It is the methodology of the
underlying lesson that should be credited with learning. Clarke goes further and states that "student interest does not result in more learning and
overall appears to actually result in significantly less learning that would have occurred in 'instructor led' courses."
Clark, R. E. & Feldon, D. F. (In press for 2005). Five common but questionable principles of multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. (Ed.) Cambridge
Handbook of Multimedia Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications
/clark_five_common.pdf

Subject: Arg# Combined use of media
EXPL (in support of Mitchell's ARG for Kozma)

Learning from a visual presentation for children is enhanced through use of non-normal adult voices (e.g., using peculiar voices, etc.) as shown
through segments of Sesame Street (Anderson, Lorch, Fields and Sanders, 1981; in Kozma, 1991, p. 190). Sixth grade students rated TV as an
easier medium from which to learn than books (Salomon, 1984; in Kozma, 1991, p. 190). Students also learn better from TV when told that it is
for educational purposes (vs. entertainment) (Krendl, Watlkins (1983); in Kozma, 1991, p. 190).
Gail Wingate
Posted Jun 18, 2015 12:57
BUT
Kozma (1991) himself says that these systems can only influence learning based on the capabilities that are employed by the instruction design.
Clark (1983) distinguishes between instructional design and delivery technology. "Delivery technologies influence the cost and design of instruction of
information" (Clark, 1983, p. 23) and instructional design will "influence student achievement" (Clark, 1983, p. 23) by its focus on the content.
Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educa'onal Research, 61(2), 179-211.
Katherine Abrahams
Posted Jun 18, 2015 13:03
EXPL
EXPL
In addition to Gail's note above, the studies mentioned above would need to control for the learning content and delivery method, preferrably also
controling the aspects of the instructional design methods prior to presenting the test groups with different media. Clark has continually said that
studies generally fail to control for many of these aspects, and so data gathered cannot conclusively determine that it is the medium alone that
has produced learning gains (Clark, 1994, p. 25).
Sharlene Johnson
Posted Jun 18, 2015 13:14
BUT - back to Gail
(in support of Kozma)
An instructional designer's job is not just to deliver content via technology, but to translate pedagogical practice into the instruction in order to
produce a learning experience. So, if the system/media/technology allows the learner to construct additional knowledge by its delivery of material,
then that media has influenced learning.
Angela Gerrits
Posted Jun 18, 2015 18:24
BUT - back to Gail
BUT:
An instructional designers job is to create a meaningful learning expereince which produces results. Media usage selected may be
different based on the instructional designer, the individual's presence, and the budget allowed for media. Clark emphasized the cost
portion of this poin, stating "media have differential economic benefits but no learning benefits" (p. 21, 1994). If print media, televised or
computerised media deliver the same message and result in positive learning outcomes it is not the media itself that has altered learning.
Financial concerns may be a deciding factor in which technology and sybol systems to utilize.
reference:
Clark, R. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research & Development, 42(2), 21-29.
John Thomas
Posted Jun 18, 2015 19:47
EXP - back to Gail
EXP
Cost issues are a part of the rush to judgment related to media helping or influencing learning. When decision makers approve
budgets for educational support, they need bolstering data to justify an expenditure on media. Since there is no viable study data
to validate that media influences learning, decisions are often based on assumptions. These assumptions over time become self
verification arguments. This explains Clark's observation that "differential economic benefits do not equate to learning benefits.
Katherine Abrahams
Posted Jun 18, 2015 21:40
EXP - back to Gail
EXP
Supporting the above point, Clark (1983) has mentioned as well that a bias exists with newer media, or an 'excitement' for
an institution to receive an update to technology (p. 449). This 'excitement' can lead to higher efforts given to instructional
design of materials that can in turn create higher quality presentations; if learning benefits come from this, it is not
necessarily due to the media, but to the attention and effort put into designing effective content.
John Thomas
Posted Jun 19, 2015 17:09
EXP - back to Gail
EXP:
So we could probably argue that media do not influence learning but over the top excitement about the possibilities of new
education technology might.
Daryl Flinn
Posted Jun 20, 2015 09:37
EXP - back to Gail
Absolutely John. It has been empirically proven that novelty drives interest. Interest is not learning, and assigning credit to
a delivery system rather than the underlying strength and design of the lesson iteslf will lead to a misleading result.
Subject: EXP - back to Gail
EXP:
So we could probably argue that media do not influence learning but over the top excitement about the possibilities of new
education technology might.
John Thomas
Posted Jun 18, 2015 22:00
BUT
There is little argument about the effect of multimedia and the possibilities of improved communication and content transfer. The argument is that media
does not influence learning. Not if visual and auditory symbols result in more recall. It seems to me that is a separate argument not related to the
primary claim by Clark as assigned.
Gail Wingate
Posted Jun 20, 2015 21:46
EXPL
Clark's (1983) main point in support of my rebuttal is that the studies examined at that time did not actually prove their
results because the the processes were not consistently implemented. For example, the content could not be taught
consistently by different instructors, because the context the individual instructor brought to his/her efforts caused the
content to be presented differently (Clark, 1983).
And even with today's most compelling technology, such as simulations, Artino and Durning (2012) explain that further
studies are needed to prove media's effect on learning, because current studies do not take into account the learner's
existing expertise, the time it takes to master the content in question, and the learner's motivation to learn.
While there may be a tremendous amount of anecdotal evidence, until the scientific studies account for all of the
different factors that influence learning, we can never say for sure that media has influenced the learning.
Ar'no Jr., A.R. & Durning, S.J. (2012). 'Media will never inuence learning': but will simula'on? Medical Educa on, 46,
630-635. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04270.x
Argument #11-1
Media enhances not influences learning.
Print ARG # 11
ARG # 11
Created by Jheroma Simon on Jun 18, 2015 18:58
Subscribed
To Kozma
Media enhances not influences learning.
Jheroma Simon
Posted Jun 18, 2015 19:07
EXPL
Enhance is defined as- to increase or improve (something). (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enhance)
Influence is defined as- the power to change or affect someone or something : the power to cause changes without directly forcing them to happen.
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/influence)
The use of media is supplemental to the content being taught. You can use media as a different approach to teaching but in the end the content is more
valuable than the medium used.
For example, learning the alphabet. We were taught songs, there were posters on the walls in the classroom, etc. They were all enhancements to the
learning process, they did not have the power to change students actually knowing the letters of the alphabet.
http://www.merriam-webster.com
Shantel Smith
Posted Jun 18, 2015 21:11
EXPL
BUT:
Media are tools that enable cognitive resources - using the correct tools help learners develop their cognitive processing (Carter, 1996, p.32).
Although the tools may be supplemental to other content, the media enhances the learning capabilities because it effects cognitive processing
more than instruction without media.
Daryl Flinn
Posted Jun 18, 2015 21:50
EXPL
BUT:
Clark states that media or a mix of media must be present but it is the method of instruction that caused the learning (Clarke, 1994, p. 26).
Media is not part of the method, but is a delivery system for the method. Clarke refers to media as a "surface features of a learning
system" Multiple delivery media can be effective, but without a properly designed lesson, the media alone will not result in learning.
Subject: EXPL
BUT:
Media are tools that enable cognitive resources - using the correct tools help learners develop their cognitive processing (Carter, 1996,
p.32). Although the tools may be supplemental to other content, the media enhances the learning capabilities because it effects cognitive
processing more than instruction without media.
(February), 31-40.
Fawcett Dunstan
Posted Jun 18, 2015 21:23
EXP: ARG # 11
EXP:
Clark paraphrases Salomon (1979) as stating that it is not media itself that influences learning but certain attributes, such as the zoom feature in
television. However, since many different media can accomplish the same goal, i.e., zooming in, then no specific media can be said to influence
learning. The attributes may enhance learning, but they do not influence learning itself.
Reference
Argument #11-2
The capacity of some media, in conjunction with the

methods that take advantage of these capacities, will
influence the way that learners process information
and, thus will influence learning.
Print Kozma - ARG 11

Kozma - ARG 11
Created by Nicol Preston on Jun 19, 2015 00:44
Subscribed
The capacity of some media, in conjunction with the methods that take advantage of these capacities, will influence the way that learners process
information and, thus will influence learning (Kozma, 1991 p.179) .
Reference: Kozma, R. (1991). Learning with media, Review of Educational Research, 61(2) pp. 179-211. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.umuc.edu/stable/1170534?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Nicol Preston
Posted Jun 19, 2015 00:48
EVD:
In a 1982 study of 250 third- to sixth-grade students, Saracho found that even though the students did not like the reception of lessons via computer, they
learned more from computer based lessons over other media choices (Clark, 1983, p. 455). This study supports Kozmas belief that media influences
learning.
References:
Clark, R. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Education Research 53(4). Retrieved from http://www.uky.edu/~gmswan3
/609/Clark_1983.pdf
Saracho, O. (1982). The effect of a computer assisted instruction program on basic skills achievement and attitude toward instruction of Spanish
speaking migrant children. American Educational Research Journal 19(2), 201-219. Retrieved from http://links.jstor.org
/sici?sici=0002-8312%28198222%2919%3A2%3C201%3ATEOACI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T&origin=JSTOR-pdf
Daryl Flinn
Posted Jun 20, 2015 09:20
BUT:
Is a 1982 study on computer aided learning relevant? I argue that it is evidence of the phenomena of computers being more attractive to students
than books. The interest in the new media is what is relevant, and that interest does not result in a better learning technique. Your evidence does
not support Kozma's claim that the media influences learning, just that it influences student interest.
Clark, R. E. & Feldon, D. F. (In press for 2005). Five common but questionable principles of multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. (Ed.) Cambridge
Handbook of Multimedia Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications
/clark_five_common.pdf
Subject: Kozma - ARG 11
EVD:
In a 1982 study of 250 third- to sixth-grade students, Saracho found that even though the students did not like the reception of lessons via
computer, they learned more from computer based lessons over other media choices (Clark, 1983, p. 455). This study supports Kozmas belief
that media influences learning.
References:
Clark, R. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Education Research 53(4). Retrieved from http://www.uky.edu
/~gmswan3/609/Clark_1983.pdf
Saracho, O. (1982). The effect of a computer assisted instruction program on basic skills achievement and attitude toward instruction of Spanish
speaking migrant children. American Educational Research Journal 19(2), 201-219. Retrieved from http://links.jstor.org
/sici?sici=0002-8312%28198222%2919%3A2%3C201%3ATEOACI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T&origin=JSTOR-pdf
Nicol Preston
Posted Jun 20, 2015 14:33
BUT:
All evidence is relevant: pro or contra. Are we not using computer-aided learning within this debate? Does the computer not assist with
our learning within this course? Does the computer not aid to the learning in all online programs offered today? Computers are esential
wo the learning in our world today. Preference is what is truly not relevant.
Daryl Flinn
Posted Jun 21, 2015 20:42
We are using computers, but other than speed, it is no different than corresponding using letters or post cards. Whether the
computer assists in access does not address learning, and more imporantly does not prove greater learning. Is this superior to
well delivered lectures before a group of students? In some cases, possibly, but in others it is definitely inferior. No matter how
quickly people jump in this disussion, it probably inferior to a dynamic face to face discussion that the members of this class could
have if we were all present in the same classroom.
Whether computers are essential isn't the debate topic. Computers are essential to a distance education program that requires
them. This lesson is desgined in the way that is most appropriate to what the professor is trying to achieve. If the debate were to
be done by us posting images or symbols as arguments or rebuttals it would be very ineffective even if delivered over state or the
art technology and viewed using virtual reality goggles.
Therefore, it is lesson design, not the media that allows us to interact with the lesson and each other that is powerful.

Subject: Kozma - ARG 11
BUT:
All evidence is relevant: pro or contra. Are we not using computer-aided learning within this debate? Does the computer not assist
with our learning within this course? Does the computer not aid to the learning in all online programs offered today? Computers
are esential wo the learning in our world today. Preference is what is truly not relevant.
Posted Jun 21, 2015 21:21
EVID:
Daryl,
While there are some of us in the debate who remember snail mail with letters and post cards, and as much as I am
feeling really old by mentioning, correspondence course(s) sent through the USPS and delivered to my mail box... I do not
remember receiving anything beyond paper materials and BTW the mail was really slow - book rate mail.
Much of the material would have benefited significantly had it been media enabled. I have seen experienced
improvements in content presentation through different media formats that both explained and demonstrated diverse
topics such as military maneuvors, DOD acquisition, and life saving skills. Some of the content actually utilized different
media formats in the single presentations depending on the type of training (i.e., CAL, hybrid DE course using real time
group collaboration and VTC for lectures). Numerous times I utilized software such Adobe Connect to watch and
participate/ask questions in live lectures with the USNWC and then could access later to rewatch to complete homework.
While lesson design is extremely important, the media is important. While the training above would benefit from being on
computer or television use of PowerPoint or video would be great, add audio, then it would be best. Give the training via
only audio with no video, value concepts would be lost with the amount of detail necessary.
As you stated, it would have been great to be able to conduct this debate in a more real time scenario with a different
media format. I would be good with using virtual reality googles but since we are not, I must admit as an FYI I am terrible
at Pictionary so I am glad we contributed using the written word (my preference).
Susan Lowe
Posted Jun 19, 2015 04:51
EXPL (in favour of Kozma - ARG 11)
The capacities of media can be seen, according to Kozma (1991 and 1994) in terms of their technology, their symbol systems and their processing
capabilities. The processing capabilities enable a medium to operate the "symbol systems" such as text, pictures, numerals. Learners who are enabled to
take advantage of these processing capabilities, by having the opportunity to learn via media, will be able to edit the text, move the pictures around and
share numerals with a peer, for example. This on-hands experience of processing the information can improve learning.
References
Victoria Eves
Posted Jun 19, 2015 06:57
EVID In support of ARG#11:
According to Carter (1996, p. 33; citing Jonassen et al., 1994, p. 31), the learning environment (provided by the medium) has a direct influence on
the learning experience and the learners cognitive development. The media facilitates the learners involvement in the learning process, as Sue
(2015) highlights in her EXPL hands-on experience can be enabled by the medium and this leads to more effective learning. Research
indicated that the more interactive the media (not just behaviorally interactive, but cognitively interactive as well) the higher the probability that
learning would take place because the interactivity enabled chemical changes in the learner's brain that subsequently influenced how they
learned (Carter, 1996, p34).
Lowe, S. (2015, 19 June). EXPL for ARG#11 [online forum comment].
Posted Jun 20, 2015 14:21
EXPL
Changes from traditional K-12 classroom to a blended station learning environment has offered one major urban school district the
opportunity to change from a traditional underperforming to one with a brighter future in the nations capital. The District of Columbia
Public Schools (DCPS) went from classroom technology that was strictly a supportive tool role to one of an integrated component of
instruction (Lautzenheiser & Hochleitner, 2014, p. 3). DCPS originally received a STEM education grant from Google and has grown
funding since with the continued success.
Three schools, a middle school and two elementary schools were chosen to us Spatial Temporal Math (ST Math) which provides a visual
versus language based instructional software program to augment traditional math instruction. Students using the ST Math achieved a
gain of 17% versus those a gain of 4.5% on the DC Comprehensive Assessment System over a one year school period. This success
prompted DCPS to expand the number of participating schools the following school year. Math is focused on common core math.
Reading and an e-library are coming next (Lautzenheiser & Hochleitner, 2014, pp. 5-6).
The blended learning pilot programs come with significant challenges due to the schools with student populations that have significant
academic challenges. Two schools selected, a middle school and a high school, had significant levels of low performance with the middle
school having 28% math proficiency and 42% reading proficiency. Use of a schedule of assessments (i.e., daily mini-quiz) provided
analytics that recommended modalities for each student such as teacher-led instruction with either peer-to-peer work or independent
study or small-group work coupled with virtual practice. While score for improvement were mixed over the year, it should be noted that
many of these students came into the program, many with significant pre-grade-level skills and scores. The Teach to One (TTO) started
in 2012.
The high school program was not the greatest success due to students not having the computer skills necessary to succeed in the
blended-learning efforts. Tech books were used strictly as a replacement for textbooks. The high school selected for participation in the
blended learning suffers from extremely high truancy (only 5 out of 30 desks occupied in a classroom). Students did not have sufficient
tech skills to support the teacher-led and online instruction (Lautzenheiser & Hochleitner, 2014, p. 11) which was determined to have not
created new online limited learning experiences.
The high program and middle school programs would benefit from significant computer skills training for students. While the elementary
schools had similar hurdles with tech skills training for the students, the teachers felt that the outcome in the blended environment
provided a significant enhancement and score improvements when evaluating learning levels.
Reference
Lautzenheiser, D. K. & Hochleitner, T. (2014, January). Blended learning in DC public schools: How one district is reinventing its
classrooms. American Enterprise Institute. Retrieved from http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/-blended-learning-in-dc-publicschools_084713921628.pdf
Posted Jun 20, 2015 15:07
EVID in support of ARG#11
ST Math offers learners an interactive software program that provides a visual representation of math concepts. It focuses on
"cognitive and computational neuroscience, mathematics and eduation" (MIND, 2013c). By using "spatial-temporal reasoning
ability," (MIND, 2013a) the learner can conduct problem-solving exercises through "mental representations in short-term memory
(working memory and neuropathologies),...evolve them in both space and time, thinking multiple steps ahead" (MIND, 2013a).
ST Math works on neuroscience principles of using software scaffolded games, visual puzzles and representation, and intuative
language free game play that together provide an activity which strengthens neural connections while learning new concepts
(MIND, 2013b).
References
MIND Research Institute. (2013a). Reimagining math education. [Web page]. Retrieved from http://www.mindresearch.org/stmath
MIND Research Institute. (2013b). ST Math: The leader in visual math education. [Web page]. Retrieved
from http://www.mindresearch.org/stmath/features/#interactive
MIND Research Institute. (2013c). Scientific discovery. [Web page]. Retrieved from http://www.mindresearch.org/science/
Gail Wingate
Posted Jun 20, 2015 20:50
BUT:
Victoria and Kay's evidence and explanation cite current research using current technology. As John has posted on
several occasions, our debate is based on the technology available during the time Clark and Kosma's articles were
published. At that time, technology did not prove to offer any significant evidence of influencing learning (Clark, 1983;
Clark, 1994). Today's technology may prove differently, but still, technology is nothing without the content presented in the
appropriate context. As Clark (1983) stated, if the content can be taught using different types of mediums, then it's the
content that's important not the medium. Today, I can still teach my son how to add and subtract using paper and pencil,
and achieve the same results as current software programs.
Xitsakisi Mahlori
Posted Jun 20, 2015 21:22
EXPL:
Gail, this was predicted by Kozma (1994) that media will influence learning. He said this while addressing a question
asked by Clark (1983); do media influence learning? Instead of merely answering whether media influences learning,
Kozma (1994) suggested that the question be: will media influence learning? We are leaving proof that indeed media did
influence learning and it is still influencing learning. The articles presented by Victoria and Kay are evidence to support
that indeed media did and does influence learning as predicted by Kozma 21 years ago.
Reference
Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 42(2), 7-19.
Xitsakisi
Jheroma Simon
Posted Jun 21, 2015 10:25
BUT:
Instructional strategies, the methods in which content is delivered, are the main factors that influence learning. With the
evidence presented by Nicol, was there a group of learners who were taught the content without the use of media?
Without this knowledge, there is no way to defend that media influenced their learning but rather that the computer was a
better tool than the other media used. As for Kay's evidence, I understand the need to "integrate" technology and other
"stations" within the classroom but they are only stations where students spend a set amount of time per day using the
tools to enhance what they learned from the instructor. Those stations do not teach the students but rather offer support to
the content the instructor has already delivered.
Posted Jun 21, 2015 13:08
EXPL Cont'd in response to Jheroma (in support of Kozma)
Jheroma, I agree that given that the Kay example is strictly stations where students spend time using the tools to enhance
what they learned from the instructor. The scenario was were teachers would instruct or provide lecture. Given the
cognitivist instruction theory for teaching, it was found that due to the limitations to human short-term memory, especially
in relationship to 'lectures', learning must be reinforced. The stations in this case provided an environment beyond lecture
where the students could take basic concepts and create learning through constructivist/connectivist learning theory in
self-learning construction and group learning applications. In this case, it seems that this learning building/growth goes
beyond enhancing the concept to committing it to long term memory/mastery.
Posted Jun 21, 2015 16:00
EVID (Cont'd on behalf of Nicol)
The 1982 study that Nicol references of the 256 third through sixth grade students were students similar to those in the
study which Kay referenced (D.C. Public School (DCPS) students). This study was made up of Spanish-speaking migrant
children who just as the DCPS students were high risk students from five different schools (vice the normal one school
used in most studies). This study consisted of ESOL students where the first year of school is spent learning English prior
to beginning regular grade studies.
The study divided the group in half with half receiving computer assisted instruction (CAI) and the other half not receiving
CAI. Both groups were in class from 30 October through 21 March (consistent with the migratory worker schedule) and
received the same instruction from the teacher, textbooks and workbooks, and classroom activities. The teacher would
introduce the basic concept/skills, demonstrated examples of the concept, and encourage/promoted discussion of the
concept.
The group which participated in CAI received 3 additional hours of CAI per week for a total of 60 hours per academic
period. The CAI was divided into reading, language, and math. If the student demonstrated the ability to perform the
task, the next performance level. The CAI exercises provided assessment of the students ability to the teacher. This drill
and practice of exercises falls withing the behaviorism learning theory with external positive reinforcement as the student
advanced to more difficult levels.
The end result was that while different gains were experienced in the different grades for the different areas of study, the
CAI participants did show a positive impact in achievement gains in the different areas. Another factor found was that
non-CAI participants had higher levels of favorable attitudes towards computers. The CAI participant non-favorable
attitudes toward the CAI can be attributed to the different learning preferences or a perceived view that the CAI
participation was for remedial reasons and therefore had a negative stigma attached. Thos non-CAI participants could
have perceived the participation as an desirable, innovative program that was not available to them. The study showed
that the supplement learning experience provided higher achievement for the CAI participants in all areas than the
non-participants.
Reference:
Saracho, O. (1982). The effect of a computer assisted instruction program on basic skills achievement and attitude toward
instruction of Spanish speaking migrant children. American Educational Research Journal 19(2), 201-219. Retrieved from
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8312%28198222%2919%3A2%3C201%3ATEOACI%3E2.0.CO%3B2T&origin=JSTOR-pdf
Nicole Brown
Posted Jun 21, 2015 17:27
BUT:
I went back and looked at our assignment, Gail...no where in there does it say we have to base our argument on the
technology avaiable during the time of publication of the articles.
It says the debate is classic...yes, but it does not say that we have to constrain ourselves to the thinking of that time. That
would offer no sort of advancement to this debate at all...as technology evolves so should this debate, and it does. Even
using current technology, it is hard for either one of us to conclusively prove we are in the right or the other is wrong. This
debate continues to be useful and relevant and points to something that Kozma says over and over: We SHOULD find a
way to connect media and education, we should look for it and we should implement it to best make use of the media that
is everywhere.
John Thomas
Posted Jun 21, 2015 21:14
BUT
In keeping with Clark's characterization of studies, it would seem to me that the study sample was skewed toward a
non-standard group and confounded. I would not like to make a financial decision based on this study. A group of
non-english speaking children of migrant workers seems non standard. It would be difficult to attribute any learning
determinations with confidence. Perhaps in specific geographic areas this study may be more relevent.
Posted Jun 21, 2015 21:57
John,
I would have a hard time selecting a region of the world. Here is a quick list from Wikipedia that has migrant workers (I
know it is from Wikipedia but it was the quickest source I could find).
1. Canada
2. China
3. European Union
4. Finland
5. India
6. Indonesia
7. United Arab Emirates
8. Latin America
9. Malaysia
10. Singapore
11. South Korea
12. Thailand
While 2005 estimates of migrant workers only numbered in the population size comparable to that of Brazil, sooner or
later the different geographic areas will need to be able to conduct this study as the changes to the peer competitors and
proto-peer competitors occur.
The study in question was actually one conducted on a larger scale of all non-English speaking children of migrant
workers than previously done and was conducted all in a specific area. I am sure it garnered greater information than
expected which would help with future studies especially in identifying variable that should be observed and documented
before, during, and after the study.
Wikipedia (2015, May 15). Migrant worker. [Web page]. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migrant_worker
John Thomas
Posted Jun 21, 2015 22:08
Kay,
Thanks for the response. As teachers we all have to be inclusive and consider how best to meet the challenges no matter
the media.
Argument #12
Evaluating the impact of media in learning has been

evaluated in a less than optimal fashion over the past
70 years. It is time for a new paradigm.
Print ARG#12 The impact of media in learning has been evaluated in a less than optimal fashion ,
Kozma says.
ARG#12 The impact of media in learning has been evaluated in a less than optimal fashion , Kozma
says.
Created by Xitsakisi Mahlori on Jun 19, 2015 07:44
Subscribed
Evaluating the impact of media in learning has been evaluated in a less than optimal fashion over the past 70 years. It is time for a new paradigm (Kozma,
1994).
John Thomas
Posted Jun 19, 2015 07:56
BUT:
Does that mean that Kozma has adopted Clark's position and has given up because there is insufficient evidence to prove his position?
Xitsakisi Mahlori
Posted Jun 19, 2015 08:02
EXPL
John, No. Kozma (1994) has stated that the impact of media has been under-estimated due to the ways it has been evaluated.
The methods of evaluating the impact of media in the past 70s have been less optimal; hence Clark assumes that Media does not
influence learning.
Reference
42(2), 7-19.
Xitsakisi
John Thomas
Posted Jun 19, 2015 08:15
BUT: That proves Clark's point. In a debate, if adequate proof does not exist to counter the argument, then the argument must be true.
The Flat Earth Society example I gave in another post is an example. The society has created a position that the earth is flat. But we
can prove that argument wrong in lots of verifiable ways. "When was the last time you fell off the end of the earth?" So if Kozma says
there has not been enough proof to prove Clark wrong, the argument on its face must be accepted. Media do not influence learning.
Xitsakisi Mahlori
Posted Jun 19, 2015 23:53
EVID:
Kozma does not say there has not been enough evidence to prove Clark wrong, he states that Clark does
not have tangible proof to conclude that media does not influence learning. In other words, Kozma (1994)
concludes that Clark' s yardstick is an inappropriate measure, same as the methodology used in the past
70 years to test whether media impacts learning. Kozma (1994) further points out that this is the same as
viewing before and after pictures of a town hit by a tornado (which clearly illustrates the cause and effect,
or stimuli and response), but no insight into the causal mechanism.
Reference
Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 42(2), 7-19.
Xitsakisi
Posted Jun 19, 2015 10:04
EXPL
BBC Media argues that positive impacts are seen through media uses regarding health communications. Research changes can fill evidence
gaps to answer population/societal affects from the media.
A call for research changes include research and evaluation researchers embedded with the design and implementation team and available for
programme delivery would provide greater in-depth answers. Challlenges to include research budget and capacity as well as the use of control
groups and attribution .
Research design metrics can measure impact of with greater accuracy on short segments compared to longer segments. It is difficult to assess
impact through social networks while individual effects are easier to see when using randomised control trials. This loses the slow small changes
and leaves open to chance of outside influence and attribution claims. Changes to research methodology will provide increased insight into the
level of success with media impact in learning and the design and implementation teams.
References
BBC Media Action. (2015). Transforming lives through media around the world. [Web page]. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaaction
/publications-and-resources/research/working-paper/working-paper-evidence
Abraham-Dowsing, K., Godfrey, A. & Khor, Z. (2014, July). Reframing the evidence debates: a view from the media for development sector.
(BBC Media Action: Research Dissemination Series Issue 07). Retrieved from http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rmhttp/mediaaction/pdf/research
/working_paper_reframing_the_evidence_debates.pdf
John Thomas
Posted Jun 19, 2015 10:13
BUT:
I believe that your response has to do with current research methods and results. For our argument, no studies definitively prove the
Kozma case that media influences learning, in the context of our debate. Studies designed to sell current technology abound and I have
bought lots of them. Quite frankly many of the media I might purchase even today don't replace good old hard work and study. And the
media does not change the content. Reading a document off my kindle is no better than reading off my computer, than reading off my
Note 4 cel phone, or reading off my laptop. A little more convenient but not better. Media do not influence learning. Content does.
Darissa Monroe
Posted Jun 19, 2015 17:42
EVID
to support John:
Clark (1994) states Gavriel Salomon and others argued that it was not the medium which influenced learning but instead certain attributes
of media that can be modeled by learners and can shape the development of unique "cognitive processes."(p.22.)
In addition, research is proving that media not only fail to influence learning, they are also not directly responsible for motivating learning.
Clark, (1994) states, New cognitive theories which attribute motivation to learners' beliefs and expectations about their reactions to external
events -- not to external events alone. There is compelling research evidence that students' beliefs about their chances to learn from any
given media are different for different students and for the same students at different times.
This will continue to prove that the research from studies and student results are not solid evidence. Proving Clarks stance on the
inconsistent studies and outcomes. Variables need to be taken into account when considering students learning and success rate from
delivery methods and content absorption.
Darissa Monroe
Clark, R.E (1994) Media will never influence learning. ERTD. 42(2) pp.21-29
Rebecca Mitchell
Posted Jun 20, 2015 00:43
EXPL: Kozma explains if there isnt a documented relationship between media and learning, as Clark (1983 and 1994)
suggests, perhaps it is because we havent made one yet. (Kozma, 1994, p.7) At the time of Clarks argument,
instructional design, and consequently its research, was primarily based on a behaviourist approach (stimuli and
responses). However, we understand now, learning is more than that it is an active, constructive, cognitive and social
process (Kozma, 1994, p.8).
Antonia Makina
Posted Jun 20, 2015 06:51
We claim that there are no unique contributions of media attributes.

Various media achieve the same cognitive goal and therefore the media is not unique.
WE challenge the Kozma group to prove if there existed a unique media attribute that is not
replaceable by another. Nothing has been properly proven yet.
Xitsakisi Mahlori
Posted Jun 20, 2015 19:45
BUT:
Antonia, The argument raised is: evaluating the impact of media in learning has been evaluated in a less than optimal
fashion over the past 70 years. It is time for a new paradigm (Kozma, 1994). In that sense, nothing has been proved in an
optimal way that media has no impact in learning. However, to answer your question of the unique contribution of media
attributes, Kozma (1994, as cited in Vicky, ARG#2 BUT) states that each medium can be given a profile (based on its
capabilities or attributes) and this profile used to analyze if a particular medium is a suitable choice for presenting certain
information, or performing certain interactions.
Kozma(1991) further explains that each medium has a set of characteristics and instructional designers can employ the
capabilities of different media to help learners engage with and understand the content. This is thouroughly discussed n
ARG#2, on a BUT message by Vicky.
Xitsakisi
Xitsakisi Mahlori
Posted Jun 20, 2015 19:56
BUT:
The argument is " Evaluating the impact of media in learning has been evaluated in a less than optimal fashion over the
past 70 years. It is time for a new paradigm (Kozma, 1994). This is a request from Kozma to Clark for proof that media
has no impact on learning. Vicky on ARG#2BUT, discusses how various media achieve different cognitive goals. I cite her
below to address Antonia's request for proof.
"Kozma (1994, p. 11) states that each medium can be given a profile (based on its capabilities or attributes) and this
profile used to analyze if a particular medium is a suitable choice for presenting certain information, or performing certain
interactions.
Each medium has a set of characteristics and instructional designers can employ the capabilities of different media to help
learners engage with and understand the content. Learners benefit most when media capabilities are used to enhance the
key aspects of the task (Kozma, 1991, p. 182).
This brings returns us to the original argument that the processing capabilities of the media can facilitate processes and
assist the learner" (ARG#2 - BUT posted by Vicky 17/6/15).
Xitsakisi
Posted Jun 21, 2015 19:14
EVID:
Given that the evaluation of the impact of media in learning has been evaluated in a less than optimal fashion, it is time for a
new paradigm (Kozma, 1994). Current advancements in research provide for gaining more information from studies. While I
understand that you feel 'good old hard work and study' are better than 'current technology', one size does not fit all. With that in
mind, why not invest in the best media options to meet the learning needs beyond strictly reading a document.
So:
Technology advancements continue to enrich the media and its attributes enabling greater influence on individual learning. This
creates a need to go beyond research of the "instructional method and media attributes,...include... learner characteristics"
(Yang,K., Wang, T., & Chiu, M., 2014, pp. 1088-1089). Learner characteristics provide a view beyond technology studies and
cognitive psychology to provide feedback for research methodologies such as with neuroscience and eye-tracking technology.
These technologies will allow a new focus and investigation into technology-enhanced learning.
Kozma (1994) discusses the potential benefits of the analytic approach in research where the observations are observed not just
before and after but during the process. Kozma gives a simple example of eye fixations and log files of observation of the
learners behaviors during the research (p. 15). While almost 20 years ahead of his time in this suggestion, eye tracking is now
included in some research as discussed above. Kozma (1994) also encourages use of Salomons use of quantitative methods to
track interrelationships of variables, also a point in Yang et al. research suggestions. The potential research benefits that could
identify the media attributes that provide the greatest 'bang for the buck' to learners is being identified.
References
Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development.
42(2). 7-19.
Yang, K., Wang, T. & Chiu, M. (2014). How technology fosters learning: Inspiration from the "media debate". Creative Education.
5. 1086-1090. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2014.512123.
Argument #13
Kozma discussed several studies where he concluded

that computers influence the learners mental
representations, thereby aiding them in learning the
content provided.
Print ARG#13 (supporting Kozma) Media influences the learner's mental representations
ARG#13 (supporting Kozma) Media influences the learner's mental representations

Created by Sharlene Johnson on Jun 19, 2015 08:59
Subscribed
Kozma discussed several studies where he concluded that computers influence the learners mental representations, thereby aiding them in learning the
content provided (Kozma, 1991, p. 199; Hastings and Tracey, 2005, p. 29).
Reference
Hastings, N. B., & Tracey, M. W. (2005). Does media affect learning: Where are we now?. Techtrends Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning,
49(2), 28-30.
Nicole Brown
Posted Jun 19, 2015 12:40
EVID:
In Buchanan's study designers use a medias capabilities to create an interactive learning environment for students (Kozma, 1991).
John Thomas
Posted Jun 19, 2015 16:16
BUT:
We can all agree that todays computers enable interaction, and provide a novelty effect. But the argument is set and placed on the papers written in the
1990s. We must argue from that view point.
I would love to introduce research that shows that total immersion does improve a learning event by involving the sense, cutting off noise, allowing a fully
interactive environment and learning by doing in a virtual world. Even motor memory is improved for pilots, and engine mechanics who can see and
touch parts being assembled. But that distorts our debate. It does though still beg the question about proof of Kozma's arguments. Some how we may
want to believe, (or be required to believe) the argument. But the key is responding to the request to have provided proof that media does influence
learning in the context of the Clark paper. Because we all know media do not influence learning. If so. Prove that they do. .
Lori Goodman
Posted Jun 19, 2015 19:54
BUT: (John's argument we are to discuss past times)
I do not see anywhere in the Assignment that we are to only discuss what media was available in the 80's ad 90's for this debate. The
assignment does acknowledge the the readings may be "out-dated" but provide fundamental questions in understanding Clark's and Kozma's
positions.
Why do you believe the research you mention distorts the debate? Because Clark's and Kozma's view on learning differs so does thier approach
to instructional design, including epistemological, pedagogical, and methodological implications and the use of media for learning (Nathan &
Robinson, 2001).
Nathan, M. & Robinson, C. (2001). Considerations of learning and learning research: Revisiting the "media effects" debate. Journal of Interactive
Learning Research, 12(1), 69-88
Posted Jun 21, 2015 07:41
BUT: (Addt'l comment to John's argument we are to discuss past times for continuation of Lori's post).
There did not appear to be limitations to the assignment of materials to be used (date). To the contrary it would appear that since the Clark and
Kozma articles were published over time, it would seem logical that the debate would continue over time and not halt with time.
Kozma (1994) states that an understanding between learning and media must be made to understand the relationship or "one will not be made"
(p. 7). Further, Kozma (1994) posits that "telephone, cable television, and digital computer technologies will merge" (pp. 7-8) based the then
works of Stix in 1993 who foretold of the information, communications, and entertainment industry evolving with the development of the internet
and that the education field should not leave to chance of being on the outside by dismissing future value of this capability.
As Lori states, the readings are from the 80's and 90's but a greater value of Kozma's and Clark's positions can be made through the cognitive
process in this exercise to create/make the case with knowledge and information available to the class members. This is fundamental to Kozma's
argument of building and constructing knowledge that are presented through advancements in educational technology that continue today.
Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Education Technology Research and Development. 42(2). 7-19.
Angela Gerrits
Posted Jun 19, 2015 22:33
BUT
While Kozma stated that "the use of pictures with text increases recall", this was for "poor readers" not all students (p.185, 1991). This means that it may
be effective for some population but cannot be generalized. This does not need to occur using a computer, rather it is avaialble with instrucot drawings on
a blckboard, print media, etc. Whether we discuss the time period of the articles or today, computers are not uniquely affecting learner outcomes as
instructors have been able to present pictures and words in many other forms.
Reference:
Nicole Brown
Posted Jun 21, 2015 18:27
BUT:
If you know there are poor readers in your classroom, why would you just teach to ones which are good readers?
If use of pictures and text increases recall in one population, wouldn't we use it in an effort to keep them with the rest of the class?
While Sharlene's inital argument says computers, her title and my evidence points more broadly at media in general. So, no computers are not
uniquely impacting learning outcomes (I would argue many media are impacting learning outcomes)...but computers offer a unique opportunity for
instructors to add interactivity to their classes and to better understand what they are being taught. I'm reminded of the picture one of my
teammates (Keisha) posted which said we remember 90% of something we say and do a week later, as opposed to 20% of what we hear. It's all
about active learning.
Argument #14
Computers allow learners to connect symbols to the real

world.
Print ARG # 14 Computers allow learners to connect symbols to the real world says Kozma
ARG # 14 Computers allow learners to connect symbols to the real world says Kozma
Created by Lori Goodman on Jun 19, 2015 20:17
Subscribed
ARG # 14
Computers allow learners to connect symbols to the real world (Kozma, 1991)
Lori Goodman
Posted Jun 19, 2015 20:17
EXPL:
An important part of learning is acquiring and understanding of the relationship between various symbol systems and the real world they represent
(Kozma, 1991, p. 195)
Lori Goodman
Posted Jun 19, 2015 20:18
EVID:
Computers can process information in different ways, thus influencing the mental representation and cognitive processing of learners. Computers and
multimedia can help learners construct, structure, and modify mental models to relate to the real world (Kozma, 1991).
John Thomas
Posted Jun 20, 2015 08:37
BUT:
I do not see proof or discussion that differentiates the computer as a content creator and the computer and multimedia as a delivery
mechanisms. The issue is media influencing learning not the potential ability of computers and multimedia as content creation aids. The abilities
of computers to process information, construct, structure and modify content for transmission to students are not the issue. if a teacher does not
use a computer, he or she can use pencils and paint to create content. A Mona Lisa created on a computer may be as good as the original but
that is not the issue.
Good question though. When does a computer become media and when does it become a content creation tool. Use of a computer to create a
photoshop rendition of a graphic should not be considered the use of media for this discussion. It is a fine line. The tool has not changed but its
function has. After the picture has been modified in photoshotp and shown to a student on the computer screen/tv/ipad/projection system, and
others, then the issue of media influencing learning is active.
But media does not influence learning, content is critical and so far the arguments are confounded by the studies.
Posted Jun 21, 2015 00:01
EVID:
John and Lori,
While the following may not be a complete answer and the field is still developing here is my response.
1. Experimental learning offers new applications that can apply learning theories to produce computer-supported collaborative learning
(Drotner & Schroder, 2010, p. 241). This scenario is created with user-driven meta-design that will allow for digital content creation (the
creation, sharing, and use of user-generated content (Drotner, K. & Schroder, K. C., 2010, p. 249)). An example of content creatation is
use of multi-path video capability that allows interaction between computer and users to create many versions offering different
perspectives and alternative representations (Drotner & Schroder, 2010, p. 215). This book offers that the digital creation should be
looked at for its value for participation, creative communication, and the generation of content (Martin, 2011, p. 175). This allows for
learner created artifacts from the digital content creation capability.
2. Another digital content creation opportunity is the mobile-assisted language learning (MALL) which provides asynchronous
collaborative mobile learning which utilizes the coupling of language input and output, and of the learners creative/generative usage of
the learnt vocabulary in alternative contexts (Wong & Looi, 2010, p. 423). Rosetta Stone, Inc. uses similar interactive software through
multiple learner learning environments using neuroscience technology (Rosetta Stone, 2015). While this technology is still evolving with
MALL and Web 2.0 Second Language Acquisition (SLA) e-literacy which offer pedagogical benefits of these tools in foreign language
instructionimproving learners reading, writing, speaking, and listening skills (Jee, 2012). While there are still shortcomings/errors in
the workings of specific cases such as idiom pages/cultural context meanings that require human interpretation to the language. This
also is supported through the varios Web 2.0 blogging methods.
3. Another example of digital content creation is Watson (a.k.a. Mr. IBM/a little humor here.). Watson is computer that incorporates
cognitive computing technologies by embracing capabilities of digesting information/data set using an algorithm developed to identify the
answer.
Reference
Drotner, K. & Schroder, K. C. (2010). Digital content creation: Perceptions, practices & perspectives. Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. New
York, NY. Retrieved by https://books.google.com/books?id=uGgTHLa4jT8C&pg=PA245&lpg=PA245&
dq=computer+as+content+creator+for+learning&source=bl&ots=a2E4GTqb7C&sig=wdciXDmOF5r_JW8aJSJwwh6Ib5w&hl=en&
sa=X&ei=B8WFVYf4AoOEyQSsiJmYAg&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&
q=computer%20as%20content%20creator%20for%20learning&f=false
IBM Watson. (2015). Watson University Program. [Web page]. Retrieved from http://www.ibm.com/smarterplanet/us/en/ibmwatson
/watson-university.html
Jee, M. J., (2010). Web 2.0 technology meets mobile assisted language learning. International Association for Language Learning
Technology. 41(1). Retrieved from http://www.iallt.org/iallt_journal/web_20_technology_meets_mobile_assisted_language_learning

Martin, B. (2011). Kirsten Drotner & Kim Christian Schrder (eds.) Digital Content Creation Perceptions, Practices & Perspectives. New
literacies and digital epistemologies Series, Vol. 46. New York: Peter Lang. 2010. Mediekultur : Journal Of Media And Communication
Research, (50),
Rosetta Stone. (2015). About us. [Web page]. Retrieved from http://www.rosettastone.com/about
Wong, L. -., & Looi, C. -. (2010). Vocabulary learning by mobile-assisted authentic content creation and social meaning-making: two case
studies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 421-433. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00357.x
Shantel Smith
Posted Jun 21, 2015 18:01
BUT to the But of ARG #14 (For Kozma)
Simpson concluded interactive technologies combined symbolic representations into a form of symbolic language resembling
the functioning of the brain. He recommended that content and medium should not be separated, but were interrelated. (Carter, 1996,
citing Simpson, p. 34). The student (instead of the teacher) may use the computer to create/modify a picture of Mona Lisa in Photoshop,
which in turn combines content and medium used. Regardless of the function, whether to create content or learn content, the media has
allowed the student to connect symbols to the real world.
(February), 31-40.
Daryl Flinn
Posted Jun 21, 2015 21:07
But? Was the point of the lesson improved by manipulating the image? If the course was about manipulating an image utilizing
Photoshop, then probably so. But if the lesson were about DaVinci as an artist, or 16th Century Italian artwork, modifying that
picture likely amounts to little beyind self-entertainment. Clark's point isn't that media isn't needed. It clearly is. His point is that
there is a best way to deliver content that will hopefully result in learning, and that is not proven to be dependent on the preferred
method of the student.
Subject: ARG # 14 Computers allow learners to connect symbols to the real world says Kozma
BUT to the But of ARG #14 (For Kozma)

Simpson concluded interactive technologies combined symbolic representations into a form of symbolic language resembling
the functioning of the brain. He recommended that content and medium should not be separated, but were interrelated. (Carter,
1996, citing Simpson, p. 34). The student (instead of the teacher) may use the computer to create/modify a picture of Mona Lisa
in Photoshop, which in turn combines content and medium used. Regardless of the function, whether to create content or learn
content, the media has allowed the student to connect symbols to the real world.
(February), 31-40.
Posted Jun 21, 2015 23:27
BUT:
Daryl,
"A picture is worth a thousand words." Author Unknown.
I would think that yes, there are times when manipulating the image would improve the lesson. Visual manipulation would
speak to the visual learning and seeing/participating in the visual demonstration, maybe even doing the dramatic
presentation or simulating a real experience if the interaction is of a significant nature for the level of involvement.
Keisha Patterson
Posted Jun 21, 2015 23:20
BUT:
If using a pencil is not influencing students to learn, the idea concept would be endorse visual aids, such as computers and multimedia to
allow learners to connect to what is feasible to their learning styles. Also, according to Carter, "distance educators in particular often find
themselves located in technology-intensive situations, involved in the planning, design, or facilitation of courses employing a variety of
media" (Carter, p.30). Having a variety of media allows the learner to connect and embrace the real world of technologies.
EVID:
According to "Roschelle, Pea, and etc" states that computer-based applications that encouraged students to reason deeply about
mathematics increased learning, whereas applications that attempted to make repetitive skill practice more entertaining for students
actually seemed to decrease performance.
Reference
(February), 31-40.
Roschelle, J., Pea, R., Hoadley, C., Gordin, Douglas, Means, Barbara, (2000). Changing How and What Children Learn in School with
Computer-Based Technologies, 76-80,
Xitsakisi Mahlori
Posted Jun 22, 2015 02:16
EVID:
In support of Kozma.
Pictures are very effective in assisting learners to simulate real world experiences, as Kay mentioned. This is even more beneficial to younger children
who do not have sufficient world knowledge to general mental models. To support this (Kozma, 1991) indicates that children benefit mostly from pictures
to aid a process of understanding.
Reference
Xitsakisi
Argument #15
"media studies confound data."
Studies performed to validate the influences of media

on the learning environment do not include controls to
eliminate other variables and are thus unsound.
Print ARG #15

ARG #15
Created by Darissa Monroe on Jun 20, 2015 07:44
Subscribed
ARG
"media studies confound data."
Studies performed to validate the influences of media on the learning environment do not include controls to eliminate other variables and
are thus unsound.
Darissa
Darissa Monroe
Posted Jun 20, 2015 07:45
EVID
The presense of strong studies and successful results are not evident and in turn create misperceived data to support the notion that
media, as a delivery method, has an influence on learning attainment.
Clark states, positive evidence is accepted easily because it confirms our expectations and helps to attract research support. Based on the
meta-analyses of media research and studies regarding differences in mediums, Clark (1983) also states that the results are sporadic or
causal connections between media and achievement. Due to the nature of results, findings could be misleading or factor in other external
variables that may promote active learning and achievement when learners are faced with media mediums compared to learning
outcomes. Media learning resources and outlets can provide information quickly and assist with the auditory and visual methods of
taking in presented material/information but clear cut evidence has not ruled out what other variables can attribute to fostering enhanced
learning.
Media can provide content and support to learning but the performance of learners is based on motivation, response to learning mediums,
and perception and understanding of material.
Darissa Monroe
Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Educational Research 53(4), 445-459. Retrieved From,
Katherine Abrahams
Posted Jun 20, 2015 10:02
ARG #15 - EVID
EVID
In a study of 'box scores versus effect size' based upon the Postlethwait audio tutorial instruction studies, 15 out of 42 results reported differences in the
audio tutorial approach over conventional instruction methods (11 of those favoring audio tutorial, and 4 of those favoring conventional instructional
method). While this looks as though audio tutorial methods produce learning benefits over conventional methods, Kulik (Kulik, Kulik, & Cohen, 1979)
reported that the difference is actually about 1.6 points on a 100-point scale, which is not statistically significant (Clark, 1983, p. 443).
This supports Clark's point that media studies often find that there is no significant difference in learning regardless of the media employed. As for the
reasons why media studies do not demonstrate that media cause learning--Clark argues that studies conducted fail to properly control variables of a
study, including instructional methods (down to who creates the content), and therefore that data gathered cannot conclusively determine that media
attributes are the cause of learning.
John Thomas
Posted Jun 20, 2015 10:18
ARG #15 - EVID
EVID:
That is a solid support contribution. The argument continues to support Clark's position.
Katherine,
Antonia Makina
Posted Jun 20, 2015 10:29
Dear Kozma group
Clark makes it very clear that , the capacity of television (not the television) or movies to "zoom into detail, to unwrap 3
dimensional objects into other dimensional objects is what makes students learn. Do you now see the strength of Clark' points.
Unique "cogni&ve processes" can be shaped by certain media a'ributes(Salmon,1979).
Toni
Angela Gerrits
Posted Jun 20, 2015 21:41
EVID
As stated in the argument, controls are not in place in experiments heralded for their evidence of media as influential to learning outcomes. This provides
a "problem of external validity", a requisite for other experiments both scientific and social (Clark, 452, 1983). Data from research as highlighted by
Kozma show that there are differential learning outcomes from the techniques/mediums utilized. An example is the 1989 Kuntz, Drewniak, Schott
experiment of introduction of meteorology through a tree diagram or still photographs to university students (Kozma, p.186-187, 1991). Kozma claims that
students with no prior knowledge of the subject were able to make new "mental models" and attributes this to solely the media used to deliver the
information (p. 187, 1991). However, not all factors are held constant outside of the medium used. Text was provided with the still photos, a digram, or
alone. The selected students had various majors in the social science fields, and the amount of higher education, or individual degree progress, and
therefore level of exposure to new ideas or disciplines and critical thinking skills, were not accounted for. The teaching method itself and testing are not
described by Kozma. Therefore, the results are inconclusive as to if media is actually impacting the learning of students. There is also a disparity, as
Kozma claims novice students benefit from the difference in media, but those with prior constructs are not affected.
Reference:
Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Educational Research 53(4), 445-459
Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research. 61(2), 179-211.
Keisha Patterson
Posted Jun 21, 2015 00:11
BUT:
Let's "reframe" the concept that media confound data. Really? As Clark states, the appropriate question is not do, but will media influence learning. Yes.
As an instructional designer for my institution, I can not present course with no media incorporated in a course. Will students be able to be successful in
course without media, possibly. However after going through multiple online courses without media designed in the course, reports shows that media
does influence the information conveyed in the course. Many students surveyed that "media" helped them to become successful in their course because
it reinforced the information clearly.
EVID:
Media will only make a significant contribution to learning in our schools if their application is designed into complex social and cultural environments of
learning and made widely accessible, especially to those students most risk of school failure (Kozma, p. 17). Also, I was able to find an image to support
my argument. The image below describes the "cone of learning" (Dale). The image show how, we tend to remember (learn) from what we see than
reading. So, media does influence learning. Edgar Dale states the concept of multimodal learning explains that people are more likely to learn and
retain information when it is presented in multiple modalities such as written (visual) and aural (auditory) at the same time.
Jain, R. (2010, May 10). 7 Ways to Use Psychological Influence With Social Media Content. Retrieved June 21, 2015, from
http://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/7-ways-to-use-psychological-influence-with-social-media-content/
rjconeoflearning.jpg (186.88 KB)
Angela Gerrits
Posted Jun 21, 2015 05:55
BUT:
Clark does not argue that some media is required. In fact, he states "some form of medium is required to deliver instruction, some form of a
symbol system must [also] be employed to construct a treatment" (1983, p.454). We, and Clark, are not arguing that a course can be successfully
run without a medium in which to deliver that instruction. What we are proposing here is simply that the type of media used does not result in
higher or varied levels of learning outcomes. Learning will occur with different media and studies that prove otherwise do not hold constant other
variables of the experiments. Therefore it cannot be stated that one media actually is influencing the learning outcomes, besides as a method for
delivery, unless or until the other variables are controlled.
Reference:
John Thomas
Posted Jun 21, 2015 07:41
EVID
Well said Angela.
The reason the media do not influence learning is because the content remains the same for all media as created by the Instructor. For
example if we are teaching physics and we want to demonstrate centrifugal force with a ball on a string we have many ways to show that.
We can be in the same room in a fact to face environment. We can use film to record the experiment and show it using a film projector a
school room. We can record it with a video camera and play it back in the same room with using a playback machine and a tv. We can
also encode it and put it on the Internet for playback remotely. This last media is important because we are introducing a whole different
set of transmission variables, and capabilities. The computer is just a transmission and receive device. It does not modify the content.
The laws of physic demonstrated by the video have not changed. The content of the experiment have not changed. So the media do not
influence the resulting learning or lack of learning.
What does influence learning is the educational content from the instructor that accompanies the demonstration. "Why does the
experiment work? What can we learn from the experiment? How does this impact our daily life?" None of these element of educational
content are impacted by the media.
As an aside. We always try different ways to say the same thing and to teach in the clearest and most productive manner. We all look for
the silver bullet. We search for that one phrase that will set off a cascade of understanding and learning with the student. We have over
the past few days argued vigorously both sides of the issue. Somewhere in the over 200 post lies the truth. But in the final analysis. I do
think that I get it. Clark does have a point. Media do not influence learning, even today, even with technology. It is difficult to argue
against it because of the way the argument is phrased. And with the way he state that the data to disprove his position are confounded
and do not disprove his statement.
We can generate all kinds of examples to prove the points Clark presented from our perspective, but it does not change the fundamental
validity of the premise that media do not influence learning, content does, and data to the contrary are confounded.
Darissa Monroe
Posted Jun 21, 2015 08:56
EVD
support for Clark
Clark agrees there is influence.. to other sources BUT not to learning.
Clark (1994) states, ,Delivery technologies influence the cost and access of instruction and information.
Regarding this arguement of studies not being solid equating to unrealiablity of arguements and outcomes, Clark
(1994) states, In every attempt to replicate the published media attribute studies, a number of very different media
attributes served the same or similar cognitive functions. This point is critical to my argument. If there is no single
media attribute that serves a unique cognitive effect for some learning task, then the attributes must be proxies for
some other variables that are instrumental in learning gains.
Darissa
Mary Mc Pherson
Posted Jun 21, 2015 08:47
EVID - you go Keisha, playing the Confucius card! Kozma also stated "when audio and visual information are presented together, learners are
able to gain different levels of knowledge from each type of information and this aids the building of mental models."
Lynn
John Thomas
Posted Jun 21, 2015 14:01
BUT
A silent movie of old benefited with the addition of sound. But the content of the silent move was not influenced by the fact that the movie
was silent. In fact, the piano in the theater and the additional elements to offset the lack of sound were a part of the package, but not the
media. Some silent movies may in fact be better than the explicit content of many of todays movies. A good story line triumphs in any
case, no matter the media.
Related to that. Audio book content is not influence by the fact that you are playing the sound on your very old walkman, very new
iwatch, cel phone, ipod, ipad or any other payback device . The media do not influence the learning, or the enjoyment of the story line for
that matter. So good books on tape are good no matter the media.
Nicole Brown
Posted Jun 21, 2015 16:11
BUT:
Lets come at this another way
The Kozma team is arguing that the type of media selected does make a difference in the classroom, thus makes a difference
on the content.
We keep arguing the positive, but lets take a moment and look at it in the negative.
Carter (1996), hints that there are potentially negative impacts from some educational technologiesbut we could take this out
of the classroom and examine real negative impacts from different technologies
Television is sending an unhealthy body image to our children. In a study done by Becker, et al. (2002) young Fijian girls (after
being exposed to Western television) began demonstrating eating disorders. SURELY the content of Western television isnt
impossible beauty standards? And SURELY these countries had radio before television, so theyve been exposed to Western
culture and ideasso why didnt they have eating disorders earlier? It makes one believe that the medium used to present
these shows is impacting the content and providing a subtle subtext.
References
Becker A.E., Burwell, R.A., Herzog, D.B., Hamburg, P., & Gilman, S. E. (2002) Eating behaviours and attitudes following
prolonged exposure to television among ethnic Fijian adolescent girls. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 180(6), 509-514. DOI:
10.1192/bjp.180.6.509
(February), 31-40.
Lori Goodman
Posted Jun 21, 2015 18:16
BUT
If i watch a silent movie and then watch a movie with sound and I am able to learn more, meaning I was able to answer more
questions, comprehend more, etc. then did media influence the content?
I agree with you that a silent move may in fact be better today, that is the point Kozma is trying to make. Not every situation or for
every person will media make a difference, but for some it may. This does not mean that silent movies are bad, it means the best
or most appropriate media needs to be chosen for the specific learning needs of the learner...not for the teacher and teaching.
Just making the distinction that I think we had all agree earlier that we are talking about learning and not teaching.
Lori
John Thomas
Posted Jun 21, 2015 22:23
EVD
Lori,
Talkies are better. But each media has its own path and set of environments. This is a good for the last post. Our
students will be the beneficiaries. Learning is the key.
Regards,
John
References
(n.d.). Retrieved June 18, 2015, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ influence
(n.d.). Retrieved June 18, 2015, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enhance
Abraham-Dowsing, K., Godfrey, A. & Khor, Z. (2014, July). Reframing the evidence debates: a view from the media for
development sector.(BBC Media Action: Research Dissemination Series Issue 07). Retrieved from
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rmhttp/mediaaction/pdf/research/working_paper_reframing_the_evidence_debates.pdf
Artino Jr., A.R. & Durning, S.J. (2012). 'Media will never influence learning': But will simulation? Medical Educa_on, 46,
630-635. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04270.x
Atherton, J. S. (2013). Learning and Teaching; Behaviourism [On-line: UK] Retrieved from
http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/behaviour.htm
BBC Media Action. (2015). Transforming lives through media around the world. [Web page]. Retrieved from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaaction/publications-and-resources/research/working-paper/working-paper-evidence
Becker A.E., Burwell, R.A., Herzog, D.B., Hamburg, P., & Gilman, S. E. (2002) Eating behaviours and attitudes following
prolonged exposure to television among ethnic Fijian adolescent girls. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 180(6), 509514. DOI:10.1192/bjp.180.6.509
Becker, K. (2015). The Clark-Kozma Debate in the 21st Century. Retrieved from:
http://www.academia.edu/462857/The_Clark-Kozma_Debate_in_the_21st_Century
(February), 31-40.
Clark, A. (2001). Mindware: An introduction to the philosophy of cognitive science. New York: Oxford University Press.
Clark, R. E. (1992). Media use in education. In M.C. Alkin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Research (pp.805-814). New
York: Macmillan.
Clark, R. E., & Feldon, D. F. (2005). Five common but questionable principles of multimedia. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The
Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 97-115). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, R.E. (2001). Learning from Media. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishers.
Cormier, D. (2010). What is a MOOC? Available from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW3gMGqcZQc
Curtin, L. B., Finn L. A., Czosnowski, Q. A, Whitman, C. B., & Cawley, M. J. (2011). Computer-based simulation training to
improve learning outcomes in Mannequin-based simulation exercises. American Journal of Pharmaceutical
Education, 75(6), 113 http://dx.doi.org/10.5688/ajpe756113
Digital Video Recorders. (n.d.). Retrieved June 18, 2015, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_video_recorder
Drotner, K. & Schroder, K. C. (2010). Digital content creation: Perceptions, practices & perspectives. Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.
New York, NY. Retrieved by
https://books.google.com/books?id=uGgTHLa4jT8C&pg=PA245&lpg=PA245&dq=computer+as+content+creator+for+lea
rning&source=bl&ots=a2E4GTqb7C&sig=wdciXDmOF5r_JW8aJSJwwh6Ib5w&hl=en&sa=X&ei=B8WFVYf4AoOEyQS
siJmYAg&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=computer%20as%20content%20creator%20for%20learning&f=false
Edu, N. (2015, June 16). Claude Shannon. Retrieved June 16, 2015, from
http://www.nyu.edu/pages/linguistics/courses/v610003/shan.html
Fenker, D. & Schutze, H. (2008, December 17). Learning by surprise. Scientific American. Retrieved from
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/learning-by-surprise/
Gokhale, A.A. (1996). Effectiveness of computer simulation for enhancing higher order thinking. Journal of
Harasim, L (2012). Learning theory and online technologies. [e-book]. New York, NY: Routledge. Retrieved from Amazon.com
Hastings, N.B. and Tracey, M.W. (2005). Does media affect learning: Where are we now? Techtrends Vol 49 (2), pp.28-30
Retrieved from
http://www.ecoisonline.org/file.php/6/Lesson_1_Readings/does%2520media%2520affect%2520learning.pdf
Heath, M., Burns, M. Dimock, K., Burniske, J., Menchaca, M., Ravitz, J. (2000). Applying technology to restructuring and learning.
Final Research Report, Southwest Educational Development Lab. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED448977.pdf.
Holmberg , B. (1981) . Status and trends of distance education, London: Kogan Page.
Holton, D. (n.d.) How People Learn with computer simulations. Retrieved from
https://www.academia.edu/227734/How_People_Learn_with_Computer_Simulations
IBM Watson. (2015). Watson University Program. [Web page]. Retrieved from
http://www.ibm.com/smarterplanet/us/en/ibmwatson/watson-university.html
Industrial Teaching Education 33(4) (Summer) Illinois State University Retrieved from
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JITE/v33n4/jite-v33n4.gokhale
Jain, R. (2010, May 10). 7 Ways to Use Psychological Influence with Social Media Content. Retrieved June 21, 2015, from
http://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/7-ways-to-use-psychological-influence-with-social-media-content/
Jee, M. J., (2010). Web 2.0 technology meets mobile assisted language learning. International Association for Language Learning
Technology. 41(1). Retrieved from
http://www.iallt.org/iallt_journal/web_20_technology_meets_mobile_assisted_language_learning
Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B. B. (1995). Constructivism and computer-mediated
communication in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 7-25.
Kirkorian, H.L., Wartella, E.A., & Anderson, D.R. (2008). Media and Young childrens learning. Future of children,18(1), 39-61.
Retrieved from: http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/docs/18_01_03.pdf
Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research. 61(2). 179-211.
42(2), 7-19
Laurent, C. (2011, December 20). Change things up with novelty learning. Education Week - Teacher. Retrieved from
http://www.edweek.org/tm/articles/2011/12/19/fp_laurent2.html
Lautzenheiser, D. K. & Hochleitner, T. (2014, January). Blended learning in DC public schools: How one district is reinventing its
classrooms. American Enterprise Institute. Retrieved from http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/-blendedlearning-in-dc-publicschools_084713921628.pdf
Martin, B. (2011). Kirsten Drotner & Kim Christian Schrder (eds.) Digital Content Creation Perceptions, Practices &
Perspectives. New literacies and digital epistemologies Series, Vol. 46. New York: Peter Lang. 2010. Mediekultur: Journal
of Media and Communication Research, (50),
Mayer, R. E. (2009) The promise of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer, Multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp.3-27). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
MIND Research Institute. (2013a). Reimagining math education. [Web page]. Retrieved from http://www.mindresearch.org/stmath
MIND Research Institute. (2013b). ST Math: The leader in visual math education. [Web page]. Retrieved from
http://www.mindresearch.org/stmath/features/#interactive
MIND Research Institute. (2013c). Scientific discovery. [Web page]. Retrieved from http://www.mindresearch.org/science/
Moore, M. 1993. Theory of transactional distance, in Keegan, D. (Ed.) Theoretical Principles of Distance Education, New York:
Routledge, pp.22-38.
Nathan, M. & Robinson, C. (2001). Considerations of learning and learning research: Revisiting the "Media Effects" debate.
Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12(1), 69-88.
Pang, K. (2009). Video-driven multimedia, web-based training in the corporate sector: Pedagogical equivalence and component
effectiveness. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3), 1-14.
Pridmore, J. L., Bradley, R. V., & Mehta, N. (2010). Methods of Instruc"on and Learning Outcomes: A Theore"cal Analysis of Two
Approaches in an Introductory Informa"on Technology Course. Decision Sciences Journal Of Innova"ve Educa"on, 8(2),
289-311. doi: 10.1111/j 1540-4609.2010.00258X
Roschelle, J., Pea, R., Hoadley, C., Gordin, Douglas, Means, Barbara, (2000). Changing How and What Children Learn in School
with Computer-Based Technologies, 76-80,
Rosetta Stone. (2015). About us. [Web page]. Retrieved from http://www.rosettastone.com/about
Saracho, O. (1982). The effect of a computer assisted instruction program on basic skills achievement and attitude toward
instruction of Spanish speaking migrant children. American Educational Research Journal 19(2), 201-219. Retrieved from
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8312%28198222%2919%3A2%3C201%3ATEOACI%3E2.0.CO%3B2T&origin=JSTOR-pdf
Wang, H. & Gearhart, D. L. (2006). Designing and developing web-based instruc_on. Upper Saddle River, N. J.: Pearson
Wikipedia (2015, May 15). Migrant worker. [Web page]. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migrant_worker
Wong, L. -., & Looi, C. -. (2010). Vocabulary learning by mobile-assisted authentic content creation and social meaning-making:
two case studies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 421-433. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00357.x
Yang, K., Wang, T. & Chiu, M. (2014). How technology fosters learning: Inspiration from the "media debate". Creative
Education.5. 1086-1090. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2014.512123.

The Media Debate - Clark Vs Kozma

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Media Debate - Clark Vs Kozma

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Assignment 1: Media Debate

DETC 620 Section 9020 Training and Learning with Multimedia

Media is merely a vehicle of transmission

Print ARG# 1 Media a mere vehicle says clark

ARG# 1 Media a mere vehicle says clark

Subject: ARG# 1 Media a mere vehicle says clark

<<< Replied to post below >>>

EVID for BUT (in favour of Kozma):

EXPL for BUT (in favour of Kozma):

<<< Replied to post below >>>

EVID: Evidence that media does not enhance learning

<<< Replied to post below >>>

EVID: Evidence that media does not enhance learning

<<< Replied to post below >>>

The processing capabilities of a medium can

Print ARG #2 - Processing Capabilities of a Medium Complement Learning says KOZMA

ARG #2 - Processing Capabilities of a Medium Complement Learning says KOZMA

<<< Replied to post below >>>

<<< Replied to post below >>>

BUT : The use of media can cause redundancy eect

In 1983, Clark presented his now classic stance that

Print ARG: Media does not influence learning.

ARG: Media does not influence learning.

BUT: Not all media is created equal

Information we obtain via visual media is more

EvidIn support of John:

Dear Mary Lynn McPherson

Kozma states that evaluating the impact (if any) of

Print ARG5 - Clark is barking up the wrong tree

ARG5 - Clark is barking up the wrong tree

Without media, content cannot be represented or

Print ARG#6 - Content is dependent on media

ARG#6 - Content is dependent on media

paint.jpg (127.42 KB)

Kozma explains that audio visual presentation methods

Winn says relationships between media, method, and

Thus the capabilities of media influence what a designer

Print ARG #8: Media and a Constructivist Approach

ARG #8: Media and a Constructivist Approach

Content is more critical than media.

Thomas, J. (2015, 18 June). ARG#9 [online forum comment].

The combined use of visual and auditory symbol systems

Print Arg# Combined use of media

Arg# Combined use of media

<<< Replied to post below >>>

EXPL (in support of Mitchell's ARG for Kozma)

Media enhances not influences learning.

The capacity of some media, in conjunction with the

Print Kozma - ARG 11

<<< Replied to post below >>>

Evaluating the impact of media in learning has been

We claim that there are no unique contributions of media attributes.

Kozma discussed several studies where he concluded

ARG#13 (supporting Kozma) Media influences the learner's mental representations

Computers allow learners to connect symbols to the real

Technology. 41(1). Retrieved from http://www.iallt.org/iallt_journal/web_20_technology_meets_mobile_assisted_language_learning

BUT to the But of ARG #14 (For Kozma)

"media studies confound data."

Studies performed to validate the influences of media

Print ARG #15

Dear Kozma group

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen