Sachet Lawrence

MEDT 8463
Dr. Haynes

Position Paper on Impact of Media on Learning

There have been many media comparison studies throughout the years. One popular

debate was sparked by Richard Clark and Robert Kozma regarding the usefulness of studying the

type of media used in learning tasks. Clark claims that media does not influence student

achievement, they are just vehicles that deliver instruction. He also argues that different media

accomplish the same learning goals, therefore there is nothing inherently unique about them. It is

the instructional method rather than the media itself that causes learning to take place. Kozma

argues that we need to reframe the question of whether media causes learning and ask how can

we explain the relationship between media and learning? Kozma states that certain media may in

fact possess particular characteristics that may make them more or less suitable for learning

tasks. Neither Clark nor Kozma negate the benefits of media itself, but disagree on the extent that

it is necessary to achieve academic gains.

I agree with Clark on two fronts; one is that media itself does not influence student

achievement. Media is indeed a vehicle that can be used to deliver instruction. Media can aid in

instruction but cannot replace good instructional strategies either by a human being or embedded

within that media. Now that we have established that media in itself does not influence student

achievement, it brings me to the second fact that it is the instructional method that influences

student achievement. One of the premises for my belief is stated in Clarks article “Media Will

Never Influence Learning,” when he talked about how pilots learned they skills they needed to
fly a plane. He stated, “people learned to fly planes before computers were developed and

therefore the media attributes required were neither exclusive to computers nor necessary for

learning to fly (Clark, 25).” Clark also makes another useful analogy about medicine prescribed

by a physician. He says that the different forms of medicine are similar to different media.

Medicines may be given in the form of a tablet, liquid, or injection but the important thing is that

they contain the active ingredient that we need; they will produce more or less the same effects.

The only difference is the delivery in which we take them which may get the active ingredient to

our bodies faster, slower, more “pure,’ or “diluted,” and some at a greater or less cost to the

patient (Clark, 26). For this cause the medium and the method are not one an the same and they

need to be researched and evaluated as such. As a result, Clark disagrees with Kozma that we

should not separate medium and method in instructional research. Clark states that our failure to

separate the two results in great confusion and waste in this important and expensive research

area. He goes on to say “many educators and business trainers are convinced that they must

invest scarce resources in newer media in order to insure learning, performance or motivational

gains (Clark, 27).” I find this to be true, because if the researchers are looking in the wrong

direction for results they will miss the mark and feel more money has to be spend on newer

technology when we have all we need being put to waste.

Although I agree with Clark, Kozma makes some valid claims as well in his article “Will

Media Influence Learning? Reframing the Debate.” Clark says no more effort should be wasted

on the question of media effects on learning until “a new theory was developed (Clark, 22).”

Kozma may have a new theory up his sleeve to combat Clark’s claim, or at least tries to lead us

in the right direction. Kozma says that “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, 7).” This begs the

questions of whether or not Clark had seen the relationship between media and learning. If he

has not, then the Kozma’s article may help inform his claim. The discrepancy can be in the way

Clark and Kozma describe learning. Clark seems to describe learning primarily as a receptive

response to instructional delivery, whereas Kozma says learning is an “active, constructive,

cognitive and social process (Kozma, 8)” by which the learner creates new knowledge by

integrating it with information already stored in memory.

Kozma examines the relationship between learning and media by using the interaction

between information and processes in the mind and in the environment. One of the environments

he uses is ThinkerTools which is a computer-based program that aims to develop students’

understanding of physics and scientific modeling. The computer program consists of four

modules that get increasingly challenging. This connects to Kozma’s definition of learning in

regards to the constructive, cognitive process of learning, drawing on stored information to

create new knowledge. As students progress through each module, it gets more complex, but

they require less assistance because they are able to draw on their prior knowledge to make new

connections and create new knowledge. That is indeed what learning is about.

Kozma seems to tap into Richard Mayer’s Multimedia Learning Theories as well as John

Sweller’s Cognitive Load Theory, both of which are discussed in the article “Learning Science in

Immersive Virtual Reality” by Jocelyn Parong and Richard E. Mayer. This article gives a greater

understanding of the relationship between media and learning as it describes the instructional

effectiveness of teaching scientific knowledge using immersive virtual reality versus a desktop

slideshow as media. Based on the article, a well designed slide show has greater instructional

benefits according to Mayer’s coherence principle because it contains less extraneous material to
distract learners. Also, according to Mayer’s segmenting principle, people learn better when a

lesson is presented in segments rather than as a continuous unit (Parong & Mayer, 786). A well

designed slideshow supports Mayer’s cognitive theory of multimedia as well as Swellers

cognitive load theory whereas, an immersive VR does not. The article states that “adding

materials and features…can create extraneous processing in the learner….that is not relevant to

the instructional goal (Parong & Mayer, 786).” As a result, “there may not be enough remaining

capacity…aimed at making sense of the essential material (Parong & Mayer, 786).” This shows

that Clark and Kozma’s claims were both right but their claims also had opportunities to learn

from and inform each other. Kozma was right in that different media do in fact have attributes

that contribute to learning more or less than others, as Kozma rightfully pointed out. Thus

Clark’s claim that all media are relatively the same is not entirely true. However, Clark was right

that the instructional method is what is most important as we can see in Mayer’s segmenting

principle. The way information is delivered makes a significant difference in whether or not

learning will take place and to what effect.

 References

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

Research and Development, 42(2), 21 -29.

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

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

Mayer, R. E., & Parong, J. (2018). Learning Science in Immersive Virtual

Reality. Journal of Educational Psycology,110(6), 785-797. Retrieved April 01, 2019.