Running head: MEDIA & INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY ON STUDENT LEARNING 1

Position on the Impact of Media and

Instructional Technology on Student Learning

Nichole Williams

University of West Georgia

MEDIA & INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY ON STUDENT LEARNING 2

Abstract

In this article, I examine the positions taken by both Richard Clark and Robert Kozma. I

summarize their position on media versus method and give a brief synopsis on where society was

in the technological continuum during their respective time periods. I discuss how John

Sweller’s cognitive load theory and Richard Mayer’s cognitive theory of multimedia learning

might influence the interpretation of their findings. Finally, I use current classroom action

research as well as Sweller’s and Mayer’s cognition and learning research to establish my

position on the debate.

MEDIA & INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY ON STUDENT LEARNING 3

Position on the Impact of Media and

Instructional Technology on Student Learning

There has been on ongoing debate as to whether media has any influence on learning.

The two researchers that have been at the heart of this debate are Richard Clark and Robert

Kozma. Both theorist make fundamental claims regarding the impact media and instructional

methods have on learning. After eleven years of technological advancements in society, Clark’s

generalization, “…that there are no learning benefits to be gained from employing any specific

medium to deliver instruction” (1983, p. 445) faced strong rebuttal. Kozma sought to prove that

there are, “…conditions under which media will influence learning” (1994). While both

researchers support their claims with classroom action research, new investigations on the

process of learning learn sheds some light on the topic.

The Clark versus Kozma Debate

Analysis of Clark’s position

In order to more accurately understand Clark’s claims, I think we need to truly

understand the context and developments that were present during the time his article was

written. Technology, as we define it today, would be completely foreign to someone living in the

50s through part of the 80s. The World Wide Web did not exist and “media” was the buzz word

and it included any form of communicating information (newspapers, film, radio, television,

pictures, computers/gaming consoles, etc). Throughout the article, Clark repeatedly references

his research from the 1980s as well as intellectuals whose findings were based on evidence from

the50s, 60s, and 70s. To put things into perspective it may be helpful to note where we were in

terms of media and technology at the time of these conclusions. According to the timeline

published by Computer History on http://www.computerhistory.org/

MEDIA & INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY ON STUDENT LEARNING 4

the first typewriter and cassette tape were invented in 1961 and 1962. Atari was founded in 1972

and two years later Xerox introduced the PARC Alto. In 1981, IBM introduced the 5150, its first

personal computer. Apple soon followed, launching their Macintosh during the 1984 Super

Bowl. Although things were seemingly on the verge of a new era, by the mid-1980s it had taken

a turn for the worst. In 1983, a reporter for the Boston Phoenix summed it up by noting that

people were realizing that balancing checkbooks and keeping track of recipes were easier with a

calculator and index cards (Mitchell, 1983). By 1987, only 15% of American families owned a

computer, leading to Dan Gutman’s claim that the revolution was “in shambles”. Furthermore,

he explained that, “Software for one computer won’t run on any others. Disks crash.

Documentation is terrible. Software doesn’t load” (1987, p. 52). It is from this era, and earlier,

that Clark pulls research to substantiate his positions.

With public views predicting the demise of computers and programs coupled with

inadequate studies, it is understandable why Clark would concluded that, “Five decades of

research suggest that there are no learning benefits to be gained from employing different media

in instruction” (1994, p. 450). It was vital for Clark to distinguish the difference between media

and methods in regards to research studies. Clark quickly diffused prior research that confused

the two, citing a review from Lumsdaine (1963) that examined a study that compared different

step size in program instruction via television. The study mistakenly considered the medium,

television, as the contributing factor when, in fact, it was the step size (the method). It is

important to note that, based on examples from that article, anytime Clark referenced “media” he

was discussing either visual (pictures, film, television), audio (radio, tapes, recordings), text

(books, newspapers, magazines), or computer based (think drill-and-practice or green screen

modules). In addition, Clark delineates a clear difference between a medium and “its attributes,”
MEDIA & INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY ON STUDENT LEARNING 5

or “symbols” (using the latter two terms interchangeably). In his opinion, if an attribute can be

accomplished by any other medium then, in essence, a specific medium cannot be credited with

that attribute in regards to research studies. He uses the symbolic animated arrows and zooming

as examples (1994, p. 452). Since the same elements could be accomplished using different

media, Clark argues that media can only be a “vehicle” by which instruction may be delivered

(1994). This theory lends itself to his argument that “…it is the method of instruction that leads

more directly and powerfully to learning” (1994, p. 449). In addition, any study that did show

gains, Clark downplayed as results of uncontrolled effects such as novelty, different content, or

instructional methods. Clark noted Schramm’s report on “instructional television” in El

Salvador as support for his claim (1994, p. 445). In this study, education was drastically

reformed with the introduction of the television in underserved rural schools. However, there

were other factors involved that likely contributed to the success.

Analysis of Kozma’s position

Kozma’s article was written over ten years after Clark’s findings. Between the time the

two publications were released, great technological advancements had been made. Societal

interactions, in terms of technology, were beginning to take shape and form what we would later

call, 21st Century America. Cell phones and texting were common. The World Wide Web was in

full swing and Yahoo search engine was on the verge of being introduced to the public. The

educational system was beginning to make the connections that businesses had realized for

years; it was possible to transfer greater information at quicker speeds, to anyone with computer

access. Kozma recognized the need to not only revisit Clark’s conclusion but to take it a step

further and indicate that if there are no known connections between media and learning, we

should “forge” some, or else risk sitting by idly, watching the rest of the world advance (1994, p.
MEDIA & INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY ON STUDENT LEARNING 6

2). It is important to note that Kozma also redefines some vital supporting concepts and terms

from Clark’s article due to the new advancements and understandings in technology (in my

opinion, these alone are grounds for considering this debate futile). For example, Clark uses the

“attributes of media,” theory to help substantiate his position. However, Kozma asserts that there

is a difference between a medium’s capabilities and the variability of its use (1994). He clarifies

that a medium’s attributes “…are its capabilities” and it is the cluster of these, or its profile, that

distinguishes one medium from another (1994, p.13). He goes on to explain that Clark’s

assertion of isolating media from other factors, such as method, is unnecessary since both are

relevant to instructional design. Rather, he suggested that media capabilities combined with

instructional methods and cognitive processes would result in learning.

Two studies Kozma used to support his claims were ThinkerTools program (White, 1993)

and Jasper Woodbury Series (Van Haneghan, Barron, Williams, Vye, & Bransford, 1992). With

ThinkerTools, the students developed an understanding of Newton’s Laws by manipulating the

computer, using a simulated version of complex scientific procedures, without needing to

understand and impart Newton’s actual scientific formulas. The Jasper project used videodisk to

portray scenarios needed for solving real-world problems. The videos were able to compensate

for student limits such as the lack of prior knowledge or mental limits in visualizing complex

settings. Both cases resulted in increased student scores when compared to others using more

textual media.

Cognition and Learning Theories

Cognitive load and multimedia learning

John Sweller is credited with developing the cognitive load theory (1988). Cognitive

load is the amount of effort being put forth by the working memory. Sweller states that we have
MEDIA & INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY ON STUDENT LEARNING 7

a limited capacity in this area. He also emphasis the need for chunking or “schemas” in long-

term memory, and that “schema acquisition and automation” are the real goals (1994, p. 301).

Building upon his research is Richard Mayer’s Theory of Multimedia Learning. While Sweller

emphasized reducing the cognitive load by using more schemas, Mayer’s work suggests that

cognitive load could be reduced by utilizing the sensory memory channels more efficiently.

Incorporating Allan Pavio’s research on dual-coding (1986), Mayer asserts that information is

perceived either visually or auditorily (2014). It is then processed via working memory and

stored in long-term memory using prior knowledge. Although there is a limited capacity for each

channel, the two can work simultaneously so, splitting information between the two channels

could increase the amount of information stored in long-term memory at one time while reducing

the load on working memory. Mayer then developed multimedia principles that helped to reduce

the stress placed on the sensory memory.

Cognition Theories and the Debate

Sweller’s and Mayer’s theories show greater support for Kozma’s claim, that both media

and method should be used conjointly to increase learning. By using a combination of visual and

auditory or verbal and nonverbal methods, the cognitive load is reduced. Although there may be

other contributing factors, this aspect alone would explain the success Kozma discussed in the

Thinker Tools and Jasper projects.

It is difficult to see how Clark’s position could be supported by either Sweller or Mayer.

As Kozma noted, Clark employed the outdated “stimulus and response” method (1994), which

does not recognize the multifaceted acclimation of knowledge. I do believe that Clark’s focus

may have seemed more relevant during the early 80s, when media in education was new and not

well defined. However, in trying to find all of the ways that media was useless, he missed the
MEDIA & INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY ON STUDENT LEARNING 8

opportunities to see a glimmer of its future possibilities. He wasted time believing media should

be stripped down to a single attribute in order to be studied, rather than constructing a more

appropriate definition of the word or concept.

Conclusion

My Position

In starting my teacher career in 1999 (when we still used chalkboards and VCRs), I

experienced the transition from basic, black and white resources to more dynamic and interactive

media. I witnessed the frustration caused by underdeveloped, unreliable, and unfamiliar

hardware, as well as the excitement caused by the successful implementation of fresh and

innovative technologies. I agree with Kozma’s generalization that media can be used to

influence learning. It doesn’t take a research study to validate the fundamental increases I’ve

seen in student engagement, the complexity of products they produce, and the depth of questions

my students now ask. The standards have remained relatively unchanged, but the tools with

which to teach them have definitely evolved. While this is a broad view, not worthy of any

quantitative study, there has been research that supports such claims. Maya Escueta, Vincent

Quan, Andre Nickow, and Philip Oreopoulos recently completed an evidence-based review on

the effectiveness of technology-based approaches (2017). They used data from two sources,

online programs that provided immediate feedback and a software-based math curriculum. The

online program had an effective size of 0.18 standard deviation, and the software-based program

improved scores by 0.63 standard deviations in seventh grade, and by 0.56 standard deviations in

eighth grade (2017, p. 88). They concluded that “…computer-assisted learning can be quite

effective in helping students learn, particularly with math” (2017, p. 88).

MEDIA & INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY ON STUDENT LEARNING 9

While on the surface it appears that both Clark and Kozma seemed to have found

evidence that supported their positions, it is Kozma’s argument that is the most compelling.

Clark’s position has simply become outdated for the complexity of technology today.

Completely isolating media from instructional methods and then stripping them down to a single

attribute in order to solely measure its effects on learning would be like measuring reading

fluency by separating words into individual letters and timing the syllables read. We don’t

perceive words in literature in isolated segments, nor do we interact with media using isolated

attributes. I think Kozma’s sums it up nicely when he declares that, “If media are going to

influence learning, method must be confounded with medium” (1994).

MEDIA & INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY ON STUDENT LEARNING 10

References

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

Research, 53(4), 445-459.

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

Kozma, R. (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. The Cambridge Handbook of

Multimedia Learning. (pp. 43-71). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive
Science, 12(2), 257-285.

Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning
and Instruction, 4 (4): 295-312.

Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.

Escueta, M., Quan, V., Nickow, A. J., & Oreopoulos, P. (2017). Education technology: An
evidence-based review. (NBER Working Paper No. 23744). Cambridge, MA: National
Bureau of Economic Research.

Gutman, D. (1987). What happened to the computer revolution? Commodore Magazine, 8 (9):
53-56.

Mitchell, P. (1983, September 6). A summer-CES report. The Boston Phoenix, pp. 4.