Impact of Media and Instructional Technology on Student Learning

Running Head: IMPACT OF MEDIA AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY ON

STUDENT LEARNING

Impact of Media & Instructional Technology on Student Learning

Leigh-Ann Danley
University of West Georgia

Impact of Media and Instructional Technology on Student Learning

Introduction
In 1983 Richard Clark published his first article that claimed that media are mere vehicles that
deliver instruction but do not influence student achievements any more than the truck that
delivers our groceries causes changes in our nutrition. (Clark, 1983). Despite criticism, this has
remained Clarks stance for the better part of 30 years. His claim asserts that the media is not the
message and that it is methods which influence learning. He believes that any benefit from
media in education is one of cost or time: meaning that the cost of using certain media could
possibly be lower and that students may learn material more quickly through certain use of
media than others. (Clark, 1994, p22). Not only does he claim that media dont influence
learning in any way, but they are also not directly responsible for motivating learning. (Clark,
1994, p.23). Clark argues that the only true influence on learning is in the methods used by the
facilitator and that media could be one of those methods. His assertion that any necessary
teaching method could be designed into a variety of media presentations is based on his claim
that there is no single media attribute that serves a unique cognitive effect for some learning
task. (Clark, 1994, p. 22) Clark uses the replaceability test as evidence of his claim. He
argues that if the knowledge can be obtained through various media or method then media is not
essential to learning and it does not influence learning. Clark bases this argument on the fact that
there is no compelling evidence in the past 70 years of published and unpublished research that
media cause learning increases under any conditions and urges that researchers stop spending
vast amounts of money exploring this relationship until new theories are suggested.
Almost ten years later, in 1991, Robert Kozma took on the debate to Clarks original
1983 article and concluded that various media have distinct systems and capabilities and can
provide the learner with a unique experience. (Kozma, 1991) Kozma contends that the

Impact of Media and Instructional Technology on Student Learning

questions should be changed from Do media influence learning? to In what ways can we use
the capabilities of media to influence learning for particular students, tasks and situations?
(Kozma, 1994, p. 23) Doing this would alter the discussion and provide improvement in
education and training.
Clark and Kozma have spent more than a decade volleying back and forth on this issue
and there still remains no concrete answer that either one is correct. Kozma is optimistic that
media will influence learning and that simply because there has yet to be a relationship between
media and learning is perhaps only due to the fact that we have not yet made one (Kozma, 2004,
p 2). While it is true that no relationship exists Clark is basing his own arguments on research
that was conducted in the 1990s and with the rapid changes in technology, it is hard to determine
if his claims would still be true today and perhaps the relationship that Kozma is looking for
could be found in todays educational society.

Impact of Media and Instructional Technology on Student Learning

Impact of Media & Instructional Technology on Student Learning

Even though the claims of Clark and Kozma were established in the 80s and early 90s
the relevance of the conversation remains today. Marc Prensky labels the 21st century learners as
Digital Natives. They are learners who have never known life without the internet, a smart
phone or a video game that so closely resembles real life one can hardly tell a difference (and
judgment based solely on violence in society today neither can many others). Todays learner is
surrounded by media. They record their lives on youtube, yet they have figured out how to turn
a tool previously deemed for entertainment into an educational resource. They are quick to
google an answer rather than ask an expert or research via a book. Interestingly enough, these
tools werent around 20 years ago when Kozma replied to Clark, much less when Clarks initial
claims were made. The term native is particularly important because if todays students are the
natives then the older generations (teachers) are the immigrants who speak an outdated language
and struggle to integrate technology into the classroom (Prensky, 2001). The traditional roles of
the student and teacher have changed. The teacher is now a designer in the student centered
classroom and the student is in control of his/her own learning.
With technology invading the classroom, one must stop and consider current theories
relevant to the original debate. Sweller developed the cognitive load theory which, simply put,
measures the effects of working memory load on the performance of learners. While Clark and
Kozma debated if media could influence learning, Sweller and Mayer were studying learning
itself. Sweller asserts that instructional design could be used to reduce cognitive load (the total
amount of mental effort being used) thus increasing learning. Sweller and Mayers theories have
begun to be more and more accepted and have served to change the way instructional designers
develop education. This has a direct effect on media in education. In order to reduce cognitive

Impact of Media and Instructional Technology on Student Learning

load designers have started to reduce the amount of on screen text to no more than 150 words
and present information in small meaningful chunks (Mayer, 2005, p.122).
With Clark focusing so heavily on the idea that only adequate instructional methods will
influence learning, and Kozma relying on the idea that in order for learning to occur media must
be present and therefore learning cannot occur without media, the debate continued into the 21st
century. However, Jonassen, Campbell and Davidson have also weighed in on the debate:
We delude ourselves when we manipulate attributes of the medium and expect these
manipulations to have a predictable effect on a process as complex as learning. We
certainly cannot know which affordances (to use Clark's terms) are "necessary" let alone
"sufficient" causes for learning (Jonassen, Campbell & Davidson, 1994, p. 25).
Every learner is different, every task is complex, every situation is contingent and there is not
always a right or wrong. Media content has expanded, the digital learner is here to stay and
literacy has been redefined. This creates an environment that the digital immigrant has to
embrace. As stated before the role of the teacher is now one of a designer and as such design
becomes the most important factor in learning.
Clark and Kozmas debate is over and the winner has been decided. It is both of them.
Media (technology) and method are both equally important to the learner; however they are even
more important when considering design. The design of the class will largely impact how
students today learn. Clark was correct in his claim that method was most important, but in
todays classroom there cannot be method without technology. The digital natives wont allow
it.

Impact of Media and Instructional Technology on Student Learning

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. ETR&D Educational Technology
Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29.
Jonassen, D. H., Campbell, J. P., & Davidson, M. E. (1994). Learningwith media: Restructuring
the debate. ETR&D Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 31-39.
Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with Media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179-211.
Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. ETR&D
Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7-19.
Mayer, R. E. (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge, U.K.:
Cambridge University Press.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.

Impact of Media and Instructional Technology on Student Learning