Running Head: THE IMPACT OF MEDIA AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY ON 1

STUDENT LEARNING

The Impact of Media and Instructional Technology on Student Learning

Mallorie Hyatt
University of West Georgia
IMPACT OF MEDIA AND INSTRUCTIONAL
TECHNOLOGY 2

Introduction

The debate between Richard Clark and Robert Kozma centers on the impact of media and

instructional technology on student learning. Media is defined as “the means by which

information is conveyed from one place to another” (Education Encyclopedia, n.d). Instructional

media can include traditional media, mass media, and electronic instructional media (Education

Encyclopedia, n.d). Instructional technology, however, “includes practical techniques of

instructional delivery that systematically aim for effective learning, whether or not they involve

the use of media” (Gagne, 2013). Clark argues consistently that the impact of media is

negligible, and always will be. Kozma argues that media does have a positive impact, positing

that the use of media in instruction can enhance learner outcomes.

The Clark-Kozma Debate

Clark’s Position

In 1983, Clark published research in his article “Reconsidering Research on Learning

from Media” positing that “media do not influence learning under any conditions” (Clark, 1983,

p. 445). Brandon Koehler’s summation of Clark’s position in this research was that “the medium

utilized to deliver instruction is only a delivery vehicle for content, and student outcomes are

influenced by some other aspect of instructional methodology” (Koehler, 2016, p. 35). Clark

believes that it is instructional methods (any way of delivering content that enhances

achievement or motivation) that have the most profound impact on student learning and that “any

necessary teaching method [can] be designed into a variety of media presentations (Clark, 1994,

p. 22).

A major focus in Clark’s argument is the concept of replaceability, or “whether there are

other media, or another set of media attributes that would yield similar learning gains” (Clark,
IMPACT OF MEDIA AND INSTRUCTIONAL
TECHNOLOGY 3

1994, p. 22). Essentially, Clark postulates that if similar learning gains can be achieved, then it is

some other variable, not the media, that are the cause for success (Clark,1994). According to

Clark, “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” (Clark, 1994, p. 22).

Kozma’s Position

Robert Kozma’s answer to Clark’s position was that media do, in fact, influence learning,

and furthermore, “if there is no relationship between media and learning it may be because we

have not yet made one. If we do not understand the potential relationship between media and

learning, quite likely one will not be made” (Kozma, 1994, p. 2). Kozma asserts the importance

of identifying, understanding, and building the media-learning relationship in education in order

to unlock the highest potential for student learning (Koehler, 2016).

To support his position, Koehler discusses two cases of successful interaction in two

educational environments. One of these cases centered around the use of computer-based

ThinkerTools in instruction of Newtonian mechanics in a 6th grade learning environment.

Students used the computer-based program to successfully conduct experiments, hypothesize,

synthesize, and draw conclusions related to physics. Kozma then compared the success of this

group to other groups who learned the same content through traditional media, finding that the

group who used ThinkerTools “demonstrated significantly greater improvement and scored

significantly higher” (Kozma, 1994, p. 7).

Kozma reiterates in his argument the importance of possibilities in the future where

media is concerned and asserts that to continue advancement and improve educational outcomes

for students, those in the field of educational technology must continually implore: “In what
IMPACT OF MEDIA AND INSTRUCTIONAL
TECHNOLOGY 4

ways can we use the capabilities of media to influence learning for particular students, tasks, and

situations” (Kozma, 1994, p. 23).

Relevant Theories

Cognitive Load Theory

According to John Sweller, “one function of learning is self-evident: to store automated

schemas in long-term memory” (Sweller, 1994, p. 298). In his research, Sweller extensively

explored factors that influence learning (schema acquisition and automation), focusing on

Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller, 1994). Sweller presented this theory in his 1988 research in his

article “Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning.” Cognitive Load is “the

amount of information that working memory can hold at one time. […] [S]ince working memory

has a limited capacity, instructional methods should avoid overloading it with additional

activities that don't directly contribute to learning” (Mind Tools, 2016). Sweller found that heavy

cognitive load in problem solving may inhibit actual learning, and suggesting that “cognitive

effort expended during conventional problem-solving leads to the problem goal, not to learning”

(Sweller, 1988, p. 283). Sweller postulation that a heavy cognitive load that does not contribute

to schema acquisition impedes learning, therefore instructional methods and activities included

in instruction must be implemented with this cognizance (Sweller, 1988).

Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning

Mayer defines his Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning as “theory of how people

learn from words and pictures” (Mayer, 2014, p. 67). This theory is supported by what Mayer

refers to as a fundamental hypothesis that “multimedia instructional messages that are designed

in light of how the human mind works are more likely to lead to meaningful learning than those

that are not so designed” (Mayer, 2014, p. 43). The term “multimedia message” refers to
IMPACT OF MEDIA AND INSTRUCTIONAL
TECHNOLOGY 5

information conveyed to learners with words and pictures with a goal of enhancing learning and

is not media specific (Mayer, 2014).

Mayer’s theory posits that multimedia learning occurs within the working memory (p.

53) and is built on the criteria of theoretical plausibility, testability, empirical plausibility, and

applicability. It is also based on three assumptions. First, is the dual channels assumption that

“humans possess separate channels for processing visual and auditory information” (Mayer,

2014, p. 47). Second is the limited capacity assumption that “humans are limited in the amount

of information that can be processed in each channel at one time” (Mayer, 2014, p 47). Finally,

the third is the active processing assumption that “humans are limited in the amount of

information that can be processed in each channel at one time” (Mayer, 2014, p. 47)

Resolving the Debate

In considering the Clark-Kozma debate on media, the implications of Sweller’s Cognitive

Load Theory is that “the design of learning materials which must, if they are to be effective, keep

cognitive load of learners at a minimum during the learning process” (Solomon, n.d.) This theory

seems to have more relevant applications to Kozma’s position that media positively influences

learning because utilizing media in instruction provides new opportunities to reduce the

cognitive load for learners and enhance opportunities for schema acquisition and automation.

Mayer’s Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning also seems more relevant to Kozma’s

position. Mayer’s assumptions of dual channels, limited capacity, and active processing taken

into consideration with the design of instruction that reflects how the human mind works to

foster authentic and meaningful learning experiences align well with Kozma’s position.

Kozma’s position has also been bolstered by the passage of time and technological

advances. Researchers such as Hastings and Tracey assert that the question of “if” has become
IMPACT OF MEDIA AND INSTRUCTIONAL
TECHNOLOGY 6

irrelevant due to the rapid ascension of modern technology, stating that factors such as “high-

speed, portable, reasonably priced computers, the Internet, and the World Wide Web have

changed the face of how, when, and where learning occurs. [Current media] does affect learning.

The question is no longer if; the question is how” (Hastings & Tracey, 2004, p 2).

Other researchers question the relevance of Clark’s position as well. One example is

Katrin Becker of Mount Royal University. Her criticism of Clark’s stronghold on his position

that media does not influence learning in any context. In research shared at a 2010 conference,

Becker refers specifically to his reassertion of this position in 2007 about serious games in the

classroom. Becker dismisses Clark’s position as outdated and biased, and states that “While this

position may have been defensible nearly three decades ago, to fail to acknowledge the

monumental character of the changes brought on by technological developments in the last

decade is to reveal a complete lack of understanding of New Media” (Becker, 2010, p. 2.)

Becker, along with J.R. Parker and Ben Sawyer, initially challenged Clark’s dismissal of

serious games as “lacking credibility” as educational tools in a 2008 rebuttal article from

Educational Technology entitled “Re-Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media.” The

authors refute claims made by Clark, stating that “this is a common error in Clark’s assessment:

the use of aged and inappropriate work” (Parker, Becker & Sawyer, 2008, p. 40). The authors

later acknowledge that while “there is still much to be done, […] it will not be done by ignoring

the potential of the technologies now at our fingertips” (Parker, Becker & Sawyer, 2008, p. 43).

Katrin Becker is critical of Clark’s stronghold on his position that media does not

influence learning in any context, referring specifically to his reassertion of this position in 2007

about serious games in the classroom. Becker dismisses Clark’s position as outdated and biased,

and states that “While this position may have been defensible nearly three decades ago, to fail to
IMPACT OF MEDIA AND INSTRUCTIONAL
TECHNOLOGY 7

acknowledge the monumental character of the changes brought on by technological

developments in the last decade is to reveal a complete lack of understanding of New Media”

(Becker, 2010, p. 2.)

Conclusion

In the analogy heard ‘round the world, Richard Clark notably surmised, perhaps

infamously, that “media are mere vehicles that deliver instruction but do not influence student

achievement any more than the truck that delivers our groceries causes changes in our nutrition”

(Clark, 1983, p. 445). His assertions that only content can influence achievement have seemingly

narrowed over the passage of time, falling more and more out of relevance as we progress in the

21st century. Alison Carr-Chellman and Gordon Rowland countered Clark’s delivery truck

analogy in their book, Issues in Technology, Learning, and Instructional Design: Classic and

Contemporary Dialogues, stating that with this thinking, “effectiveness is judged only on the

volume of groceries delivered. In other words, we test to see if the grocery truck actually

delivered the groceries— not if they were nutritious, or if they rotted on the front porch, or if

they were eaten. Those, metaphorically, are more critical aspects of the process, and should lead

us to more broadly examining learning” (Carr-Chellman & Rowland, 2017, p. 32). Facilitating

life-long, meaningful learning experiences goes beyond content delivery. Learning is a complex

and multifaceted process, and especially in the 21st century classroom, effective instruction that

cultivates authentic learning absolutely includes media as a integral component of the learning

process—as it absolutely should.

IMPACT OF MEDIA AND INSTRUCTIONAL
TECHNOLOGY 8

References

Carr-Chellman, A. A., & Rowland, G. (2017). Issues in Technology, Learning, and Instructional

Design: Classic and Contemporary Dialogues. New York: Routledge.

Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational

Research,53(4), 445. doi:10.2307/1170217

Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology, Research and

Development, 42(2), 21 - 29.

Education Encyclopedia. (n.d.). Media and learning: Definitions and summary of research.

Retrieved April 12, 2018, from http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2211/Media-

Learning.html

Gagne, R. M. (2013). Instructional technology: foundations. Routledge.

Hastings, N. B., & Tracey, M. W. (2005). Does media affect learning: where are we now?

TechTrends, 49(2), 28-30. From http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/coe_aos/15

Becker, Katrin. (2010). The Clark-Kozma Debate in the 21st Century.

Koehler, B. (2016). Richard Clark's "Mere Vehicles" debate. Distance Learning, 13(3), 35-39.

Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational

Technology, Research and Development, 42(2), 7 - 19.

Mayer, R. E. (2014). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. Mayer, R. (Ed.), The Cambridge

Handbook of Multimedia Learning 2nd Ed. (pp.43-71). New York, NY: Cambridge

University Press.
IMPACT OF MEDIA AND INSTRUCTIONAL
TECHNOLOGY 9

Mind Tools. (2016). Cognitive load theory: Making learning more effective. Retrieved from

https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/cognitive-load-theory.htm

Parker, J., Becker, K., & Sawyer, B. (2008). Re-reconsidering research on learning from media:

Comments on Richard E. Clark's "Point of View" column on serious games. Educational

Technology, (1), 39.

Soloman, H. (n.d.). Cognitive load theory. Retrieved from

http://instructionaldesign.org/theories/cognitive-load/

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning. Cognitive

Science, 12(2), 257-285. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4

Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning

and Instruction, 4(4), 295-312. doi:10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5