Week 2: Media differences - why or why not?

(Created on Jan. 12, 2007)

Articles Read:

Clark, R E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-30.

Salomon, G. (1989). Learning from texts and pictures: reflections on a meta-level. In H. Mandl & J.R. Levin (Eds.) Knowledge acquisition from text and pictures (pp. 73-82). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Cobb, T. (1997). Cognitive efficiency: Toward a revised theory of media. Educational Technology Research & Development, 45(4), 21-35.

Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445-459. [The article that started it all...]

Petkovich, M., & Tennyson, R.D. (1985). A few more thoughts on Clark’s ‘learning from media.’ Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 33(2), 146. [First response to Clark...]

MacNeice, L. (1965). Conversation. In M. Roberts (Ed.). The Faber book of modern verse (pp. 250 - 251). London: Faber and Faber.

MacNeice, L. (1965). Snow. In M. Roberts (Ed.). The Faber book of modern verse (p. 250 - 251). London: Faber and Faber.

Summary:

This week’s articles are mainly about a debate on the role of media in learning. There are two sides. Clark believed that media do not play any role in learning. It is the instructional method not media that can make a difference in learning. Media can only affect the cost-effectiveness, as different media yield similar learning gains. In Clark’s own words, “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” (1983, p.445). Many researchers disagreed with Clark’s arguments and one of the most forceful responses was from Cobb. He pointed out three problems in Clark’s arguments. The first is that if we follow Clark’s logic, the basis of method decisions is also cost and efficiency, just as it is for media decisions. The second is that though different media may lead to similar product. The process also matters. One media can be more cognitive efficient as compared to others, as it can be less effortful than another, more likely to succeed with a particular learner, or interacting more usefully with a particular prior-knowledge set. The third is that Clark’s analogies of comparing media specialist to truck driver, and later to physician showed that though sometimes media choices are remote to learning, there are times when media choices are “as intimate with it as forms of medicine are to the ill and wounded”.

My Opinions:

I believe that media can but not necessarily have an effect on learning. The degree of how media affect learning depends on the interactions of a set of variables including: the nature of media, the nature of learner, the nature of task, and the situation, as stated by Salomon (1989). Based on the interactions of these variables, the effects of media on learning can go from one end of the spectrum (almost no effect) to the other end (crucial effect). To use one of Clark’s analogies as an example: “Some forms of medicine are faster, more ‘pure’”. If the patient is not in a critical condition, any forms of medicine will probably cure the patient. However, if the patient is dying, the forms of medicine surely make a difference. Less efficient one may even cause the death of the patient --- This means certain amount quantitative difference (processing efficiency) can result in qualitative change (different product).

My Questions:

It seems that I cannot quite understand the two poems… :(

Possible questions for discussion:

a. Could you think of an example where a particular kind of media has a significantly effect on learning?

b. What are some possible ways for media to affect learning? (Cobb has mentioned two ways: one is that media may change the way of processing information; the other is that media may improve learning by offloading cognitive work.)