Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A Framework For Media Comparison Analysis
A Framework For Media Comparison Analysis
Bryan R. Warnick
Nicholas C. Burbules (?)
University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign
Media comparison research has been a hotly disputed area of educational
research. This research aims at finding significant differences in educational
outcomes between students who are taught using different types of media. Thus,
one group of students will usually be taught using one media, another group will
be taught with a different media, and the results of subsequent tests will be
compared. This research hopes to find, if there is an educational difference
between media, which media are more effective in the process of teaching and
learning. At first glance, this research would seem to be an important helping in
navigating classrooms through the wealth of new media that have recently
become available to educators.
Media-comparison studies, however, have been accused of being both
useless and conceptually incoherent. Media comparison studies are said to be
useless because the majority of such research finds no statistically significant
difference between learning groups. The No-Significant Difference website
(http://teleeducation.nb.ca/nosignificantdifference/) lists 114 studies dating
reference to a common purpose can two media be easily compared. For any
given comparison, two media must be evaluated in terms of a similar goal.
In assessing whether purposes have been achieved, media comparison
studies usually also assume a similar standard of evaluation between the two
media under consideration. It would be difficult to compare two educational
media, for example, if different tests were given to those who used a different
media. Such an act would, of course, confound the variables, thus making a
media comparison problematic. Both groups must be given the same test. Media
comparison studies must operate under a similar standard of evaluation.
Media comparison studies generally look at the common ability of two
different media to develop skills, increase knowledge, or otherwise promote
learning. The experience of two media may be different in many ways one may
increase eyestrain, another may come with a soporific humming noise, another
may be simply new and exciting. Media comparison studies must focus on a
narrow aspect of the media, and generally chooses to focus on the efficacy with
which media promotes an intended given learning outcome. Media comparison
studies must focus on a similar aspect between two technologies.
To the extent that media comparison studies assume similarities in order
to make a comparison, they will also suffer from various problems. Many people
would be quick to point out that the standard of comparison, objective test
scores, may often miss what differences there may be between two media. There
has been some debate, for example, about the differences between actual cadaver
dissection in medical school and anatomical simulations. Empirical research has
reported the usual no significant difference result between simulated
dissection and real dissection when anatomy knowledge is tested by objective
tests. Yet there remain differences between these two experiences, of course. At
the very least, one situation comes with the smell of formaldehyde, the other
doesnt. But there are other differences more closely tied to education: in one
situation there is the knowledge you are working with a dead human body, in the
other you isnt. Perhaps the best way to describe this difference would be one of
mood. There is a different mood between cutting into a human body and
using an anatomical simulation. This mood may or may not make an important
difference to education, but it would be a difficult thing to reduce to an
objective test. Assuming a framework of similarity when it comes to the
standard of objective tests will be problematic when it comes to finding
differences like alternation is mood.
To further underscore this point, consider Clarks medical analogy:
medicine can be delivered to the body in various ways, thorough pills, injections,
suppositories, etc. The manner of delivery, Clark argues, makes no difference to
the healing properties of the medicine. The medium of delivery fails to affect
the medicinal effect of the drug. We may grant this point, but that does not mean
that media of delivery does not matter to healing. Medical instruments also come
with mood. Needles may invoke a prohibitive mood in the patient; he or she
may refuse treatment. If the patient refrains from the medicine because of this
mood, then that can be said to be a factor affecting the healing process. If healing
is comparable to learning, and if media influence mood, then the medical
analogy would support of the point that, contrary to Clark, media matters to
learning. Learning cannot be divorced from things like the mood in which
learning takes place.
Problems also arise when we assume a common purpose for media
technology. Technology always changes the ends of human activity. Technical
ends do not simply remain fixed as means change. Using a new technology
opens up new ends, it does not just increase the speed or efficacy involved in
reaching the old ends; rather, using new technologies influences ones ends. In a
sense, then, existing means have helped to construct existing ends. This fact
often muddies technology comparisons. It would make no sense to evaluate the
difference between automobile-infused cultures with that of a culture that walks
everywhere under the framework of ends constructed in the walking society.
That is, it would make no sense to compare the time it takes to walk to the nearby
drug store with that it takes to drive there, and then declare triumphantly that a
significant difference of 3 minutes had been found. This comparison would miss
everything important about how automobiles change things. The fact that
automobiles exist changes the ends the walker does not have the end of just
going to the drugstore anymore. To take an educational example, consider using
a long division calculator program to teach long division, and then comparing
this to teaching long division through paper and pencil. This is problematic,
because the fact that a long-division calculator program exists changes the end of
the activity. The point of math education may then no longer be learning
algorithms, but may shift to learning how to use the application. Thus, it is not
always helpful to compare different technologies in relation to a common end.
Finally, assumptions about the similar aspects of comparison are also
problematic. The assumed aspect of media comparison studies is usually the
ability to promote an intended learning outcome. Such studies may miss the
aspects that surround the medias ability to promote an intended learning
outcome. The narrow focus may leave out social, cultural, and physiological
differences that may exist between the media. Comparing the ability of a book
and a computer to simply promote an intended learning outcome may leave out
the fact that students learn about their surrounding cultural life by using its tools.
Using computers in schools sends the message that it is good to use computer it
serves as a mark of societal validation (the same holds true for books). Thus,
using a media may promote future economic consumption of that media. If this
is true, this phenomenon would certainly be a type of learning, but it would be
left out in studies focused on the aspect of specific, intended learning outcomes.
COMPARING TECHNOLOGIES: PROBLEMS AND POSSIBILITIES
Suppose we wanted to compare the speed of traveling by horse with the
speed of traveling by car. This seems to be an easy experiment: designate a
beginning and end point, and time how long it takes to reach the end point using
the two travel techniques. Indeed, it seems we dont even have to do the
experiment traveling by car is obviously much faster than traveling by horse.
But consider if I was mounted on a horse, riding around the cattle car of a
moving train. In this context, it seems that I could both truly say I was traveling
by horse (in the context of a moving car) and that I was traveling faster than a car.
This thought experiment, though, need not be so silly consider that the car has
broken down. Then traveling by horse is faster than traveling by car (in the
context of a broken-down car). The use of a technology cannot be divorced from
the context in which the technology finds itself. The physics of a tool
underdetermines its context of use.
What does this mean? At first glance, it would seem to make any general
statements comparing two technologies impossible. Since contexts are always
variable across two or more situations, it makes no sense to make any general
political neutrality. This comes from the fact that technologies can suggest a
context of use. By having a single keyboard, computers suggest a context of
solitary use, rather than group work (although groups can, of course, awkwardly
use a single computer keyboard). Thus, although technologies may still be used
awkwardly in a wide variety of contexts, their designs often suggest one context
over another.
Moreover, even the awkward contexts of use are not indefinitely variable.
Some contexts of tool use are impossible, for example, because of the physics of a
tool. One could not, no matter how inventive one was, use a fork made entirely of
plastic to cut through a diamond. Thus, plastic forks will never by found in the
context of being used for diamond cutting. Furthermore, something may be
technically possible, but never arise because it presents contradictions in practice.
For example, it may be possible to use motor oil to build a bathtub, assuming
temperatures were low enough to carve a bathtub out of frozen motor oil.
However, in such a context to make the physics work, no one would want to use
this bathtub to actually take a bath it would be too cold.
If we were to take an example of this type of limitation on normal uses
from education, we could turn to an example by Clark. As he attempts to show
that one task can be performed by several technologies, he writes:
Many writers seem to suggest that these methods are somehow intrinsic to
a given medium. My argument is that the usual uses of a medium do not
limit the content it is capable of presenting. Computers can present
realistic, real-time documentary information [like a television], and
television can present semantically dense simulations [like a computer].
While it may be true that educational methods can be replicated by TV and
computers, it is not true that a book could ever present real-time documentary
information the delays of the publishing process forbid it. Thus, not all
methods can be replicated by in all media, although any one method may be
replicated by multiple media. While educational media might not have any one
intrinsic method, there may exist certain methods that any one media
intrinsically cannot have. Technologies cannot be used in an infinite variety of
contexts for an infinite variety of purposes.
So, with these two factors limiting context use in mind, how are we to find
normal contexts of use? First, it is important that normal contexts of use cannot
be found by consulting the intentions of a designer. Often technologies are used
in contexts (and for purposes) that are vastly different than what was intended
on being designed. Instead, to find normal uses, the best thing to do is look at
how people actually use the technology. Sometimes, there will be a fact of the
matter with regard to a technologys context of use. From my observations
around campus today, I found that bicycles are more often used in the purpose of
traveling to class than as a weapon; I also found that single seat bicycles were
much more common than multiple seats, etc. If I were comparing bicycles with
another technology, such observations would serve as my assumed context of
normal use.
Having said that, there should be added to caveats. First, if a fact of the
matter is indeed found concerning a normal context of use, it is important to note
that this may change abruptly. It may have been true 10 years ago that the
normal use of classroom computers was for drill-and-practice exercises.
Although this still may be a widely shared context of use, it can no longer be
assumed that this is the normal context of use. Second, with regard to
information technologies, it is doubtful that any one relatively stable normal
context of use can ever be stipulated. If a thing is broken down into data and
reconstituted into virtually, then the thing breaks free from any limitations
placed upon it by physics. If the idea of a palm-tree is digitized and placed in
a virtual world, it can be planted and flourish on an iceberg. The thing can be
refigured and reshaped to fit almost any context.
FURTHER ISSUES IN MEDIA COMPARISION
One of the major points raised by critics of media comparison research is
that economic differences between two media should be separated from
differences in learning. Clark writes, for example, Media may have important
influence on the cost or speed of learning but only the use of adequate
vehicle. Any one teaching and learning procedure will actually consist of
multiple methods methods of delivery (media), methods of attention-holding
and motivating, methods of evaluation, etc.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper has raised several points that may be of help to those trying to
compare various media.
To compare any two things, one must find a comparative framework
built on similarity. The similarity often assumed for media comparison
studies is problematic in assuming similarities among the purposes,
aspects, and standards of comparison of different media. Purposes change
as new media is introduced, objective tests may be impotent to find
differences in things like mood between media, and the ability to
promote intended learning is too narrow an aspect.
Comparing two technologies is also to compare contexts of use. When
attempting to make general comparisons about media, the context of use
must be stipulated. Although it may be difficult to find normal uses of
technology, certain characteristics of technologies make it a theoretical
possibility. To find normal uses one must turn to observations of how
technologies are actually used, and not rely to the intentions of designers.