Running Head: CLARK-KOZMA DEBATE POSITION PAPER 1

Clark-Kozma Debate Position Paper

Ashley Calloway

University of West Georgia

 Clark-Kozma Debate 2

Introduction and Summary of the Debate

The Clark-Kozma debate examines the influence that media has on learning. Richard

Clark argues that media has no effect on learning, and will never have any effect on learning.

Robert Kozma seeks to reframe Clark’s argument and instead discusses the possibility that media

will influence learning.

Clark’s (1994) argument rests on the premise that method, rather than media, is what

influences learning. The key to his argument is what he refers to as a replaceability test. He

challenges his colleagues to find evidence of a medium that produces learning that is not

replaceable by different medium. He defines the difference between instructional design and

delivery technology. “Delivery technologies influence the cost and access of instruction and

information. Design technologies make it possible to influence student achievement” (p. 23).

He asserts that many people confuse the two technologies, which has caused difficulties in

studying the contributions of media to learning. Clark acknowledges the counter-arguments

against his notion that media does not influence learning. He refutes these arguments by noting

that they downplay the role of teaching method or they do not pass his replaceability test. In

other words, Clark argues that the achievement boosts mentioned in the counter-argument’s

studies can be explained by instructional method, and that the learning outcomes of media in the

counter-arguments are replaceable by other media. Clark insists that method and media should

be considered separately, and that not doing so creates flawed research.

Kozma (1994) claims that the real question is whether media will influence learning. He

discusses the importance of considering the potential relationship between media and learning.

Kozma claims that not doing so will have negative consequences for learning with media that

will be available in the future. Kozma goes on to describe two successful interactions between
 Clark-Kozma Debate 3

media and learning. The first one is the ThinkerTools experiment, which was based on teaching

Newtonian mechanics to a group of sixth-graders. ThinkerTools allowed students to go through

several phases via computer that were designed to build their understanding of the material. The

computer program modeled the content for the student in a way that mimicked how experts think

about it in their heads. The program was successful and showed significant learning among the

group of students. The second study involved the Jasper Woodbury Series, which allowed

students to gain understanding of real-world situations in which they would need to solve

complex mathematical problems. Kozma discussed how the series provided context and

integrated problem solving skills, which allowed the group of students to successfully apply their

knowledge. Kozma suggests that the media involved in both of these studies were crucial to the

students’ learning outcomes. Kozma goes on to discuss media theory and how technology such

as computers influence the users. He also states the importance of identifying causal elements

that produce learning outcomes and to think about the complex underlying processes that make

events happen. Kozma also addresses Clark’s assertion that method and media should be

considered as separate entities. Kozma argues that method and media should be integrated in

order to influence learning, and that traditional models of instructional design do not account for

relationships among media, method and situation. He states that designers must change their

approach and account for these relationships in order for future media to engage students and

influence learning.

Considering the Clark-Kozma Debate Today

The Clark-Kozma debate is still relevant in today’s educational world. The use of

technology for instruction or to supplement instruction is discussed at length in schools across

the country and around the world. Clark’s assertion that instructional method, and not media,
 Clark-Kozma Debate 4

creates learning still seems a reasonable argument in certain contexts. However, I hesitate to

agree with his claim that media never influences learning. I believe that there are situations

today where media does influence learning. For this reason, I believe that Kozma’s question

about looking at the context of a situation to determine if media will influence learning is more

helpful and realistic for today’s educators.

Technology has no doubt come a long way since 1994 when the Clark and Kozma

articles were written. As Kozma predicted, we are in a situation where telephone, cable

television, and digital computer technologies have merged (p. 7). This fact has many

implications on how learning occurs in schools. Teachers are now tasked with creating lessons

that successfully integrate technology and develop digital literacy, which is an important skill for

21st-century learners. Greene, Yu and Copeland (2014) define digital literacy as the need for

students to not only be able to search and manage, but also to scrutinize and integrate digital

information. I believe that it is impossible for students to learn digital literacy without using

technology, and in fact, the media used to teach it is itself part of the teaching method. Kozma

suggests that media and method would need to be integrated in order to cause learning, and

teaching digital literacy is one example that supports his suggestion.

Another area where media directly influences learning is the increased use of educational

computer games. There are certainly some computer games that are used today that can be seen

as a tool for rote memorization and thus could easily be replaced by other instructional methods.

However, there are also games that are specifically designed to facilitate learning and engage

learners in ways that would not be possible using other methods. Becker (2010) discusses the

complex design of many games and simulators and how certain lessons simply could not be
 Clark-Kozma Debate 5

taught without using technology. She cites the space program and the simulators that they use as

an example (p. 3).

Cognitive Load, Multimedia, and the Clark-Kozma Debate

John Sweller’s 1988 study on problem solving led him to create cognitive load theory,

which suggests that instructional design can be used to decrease cognitive load in learners.

Richard Mayer worked off of Sweller’s premise and created the cognitive theory of multimedia,

which suggests that the human brain learns best when information is presented with words and

images together. Both of these theories are relevant to the Clark-Kozma debate, and I believe

that they support Kozma’s argument that media capabilities have changed and will continue to

change, and that it is up to designers to create media that is capable of influencing and

maximizing learning.

Leahy, Marcus, Sweller, and Wong (2012) discuss two types of cognitive load. The first

is intrinsic cognitive load, which is the cognitive load of the information to be learned. The other

type is extraneous cognitive load, which is the cognitive load caused by the instructional design

practice. Intrinsic cognitive load is simply a necessary part of the learning process, but Mayer

(2014) suggests that extraneous cognitive load interferes with learning and should thus be

eliminated (p. 42). Mayer’s sentiments about reducing extraneous cognitive load are echoed by

other researchers. “Designers should strive to eliminate, or at least minimize, extraneous

cognitive load: processing that takes up mental resources, but doesn't actually help users

understand the content” (Whitenton, 2013, para. 7). If we accept this as truth, then it supports the

idea that media can and does influence learning. Furthermore, it supports the idea that media and

method should be considered together by media designers, which refutes Clark’s claim that the

two should be separated.

 Clark-Kozma Debate 6

One could argue that the two scenarios described by Kozma (ThinkerTools and the

Jasper Woodbury Series) are examples of multimedia that are designed to reduce cognitive load,

or at least to minimize extraneous cognitive load. Additionally, both products use a variety of

words and images, which means that they are examples of Mayer’s multimedia theory in action.

Mayer and Moreno (2003) state that the best way to improve instruction is to begin with

research-based knowledge of how people learn (p. 51). ThinkerTools allowed students to go

through phases of understanding that are designed to replicate how experts themselves think

about the subject matter. This would not be possible without designers that consider the process

of how learning occurs. Also, the Jasper Woodbury Series provides important context for

problem solving scenarios. Again, this medium was designed with the learning process in mind.

Although I agree with Clark that instructional method has an important influence on

learning, I do not agree that media has no impact on learning. I agree with Kozma’s idea that

media must be designed to give us new methods, and that methods must in turn take advantage

of a medium’s capabilities (p. 16).

 Clark-Kozma Debate 7

References
Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology, Research and
Development, 42(2), 21 - 29.

Greene, J.A., Yu, S.B. and Copeland, D.Z. (2014) “Measuring Critical Components of Digital
Literacy and their Relationships with Learning”, Computers & Education, Vol. 76, pp.
55‐69.

Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational
Technology, Research and Development, 42(2), 7 - 19.

Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia
Learning. Educational Psychologist,38(1), 43-52. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3801_6

Mayer, R. E. (2014, May 5). Research-Based Principles for Multimedia Learning. Lecture
presented at Harvard Initiative for Learning and Teaching, Boston.

Whitenton, K. (n.d.). Nielsen Norman Group. Retrieved March 18, 2017, from
https://www.nngroup.com/articles/minimize-cognitive-load/

Wong, A., Leahy, W., Marcus, N., & Sweller, J. (2012). Cognitive load theory, the transient
information effect and e-learning. Learning and Instruction,22(6), 449-457.
doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.05.004