Instructional Technology: Intellectual Debate Clark vs. Kozma
Lee Alan Hanawalt Roher
University of Kentucky
Abstract The purpose of this paper is to discuss the instructional technology debate documented in Richard Clark’s book Learning from Media: Arguments, Analysis, and Evidence (2001). This book is a collection of articles that record the debate between Richard Clark and Robert Kozma. The core of the debate is whether the use of media has an effect on learning. Clark’s stance is instructional technology does not effect learning but only delivers instruction. Kozma argues the aspects of the different technologies engaging learners in different cognitive processes.
Instructional Technology: Intellectual Debate Clark vs. Kozma
Introduction The purpose of this paper is to discuss the instructional technology debate documented in Richard Clark’s 2001 book, Learning from Media: Arguments, Analysis, and Evidence. This book is a collection of articles that record the debate between Richard Clark and Robert Kozma. The core of the debate is whether the use of media has an effect on learning. Media in this debate includes but are not restricted to television, videos, web instruction, and computer programs. I will discuss the scholars’ view, their recommendations for future research, and a conclusion.
Richard E. Clark Richard Clark has analyzed the existing research in the 1970s and early 1980s studying the effect of media’s influence on learning. He concluded the media is only the method of instruction as he boldly states with the title of the first chapter Media are “Mere Vehicles”. Why does Clark claim the instructional technologies are just delivery methods? He refers to problems in the existing research. There are three major confounds existing in the studies that have not been controlled: Instructional method, instructors differences, and novelty.
The confound of instructional method refers to the fact that the instructional methods used in the study are not equivalent and therefore the effect is due to the instructional method, not the media used in the instruction (p. 15). Similarly, different instructors confound, because each teacher is an individual and uses different instructional methods (p. 16). Clark suggests, to control for these variables, a study would need to have the same instructor using the same instructional method with the same curriculum, the control class taught in a traditional method and the experimental group taught through a distance learning format. The third confound is novelty. The newness of the implemented technology might show a spike in achievement (p. 75). Once the newness wares off, the effect will on achievement will also level out. For Clark, the only measure of the effect of instructional technology on learning would be a study designed with the above confounds controlled.
In Clark’s analysis of the data, he later categorizes the goal, of the media studies into two groups: strong media and weak media. Strong media studies aim to show media has an effect on achievement or student learning (p. 72). Weak media studies are in favor of the thought that there exist other attributes of the instructional situation that effect learning, not the use of a particular media (p. 73). The media may provide an advantage that is not psychological but rather an economic advantage (p. 86).
An economic advantage would include the ability to, across the globe, reach more students than a traditional classroom instruction scenario could provide. With making our world and information more accessible, the cost of educating so many is distributed. In a not so global example, a training video can have multiple viewings throughout multiple years. The cost of purchasing the one video or even a series cannot be compared to the cost of having a renowned speaker come in each time a company needs a training session.
Richard Clark, I feel, has examined the instructional technology situation from different vantage points. His bottom line, the delivery method of instruction is not important. In Clark’s later articles, he stays the course. The quality of the instructional design is what will influence learning. Research should not waste resources on studies trying to prove effect on learning.
Robert B. Kozma Kozma publishes his first article disagreeing with Clark in 1991. In the argument, he focuses on media and symbol systems and their effect on learning processes. A particular technology uses particular symbol systems, therefore triggers different cognitive processes.
The reader is lead through a series of research studies on increasingly complex instructional technologies and the symbol systems each incorporates. Kozma starts with a study on books with no pictures. The next group of research is studying texts with pictures. As the media progresses from written text to text with picture, the television is included. The television moves the pictures, and then computer programs allow the learners to actually manipulate the pictures. Kozma reviews the research and results. Each increased feature in the instructional media is equated to an increase in the complexity of the learner processes. He suggests the instructional design should select the best technology for particular learner goals or desired learning processes.
In his 1994 article, Kozma changes the focus of his question. He is suggests to look no longer at the question Clark had addressed, “Does technology effect learning?” Kozma wants to look to the future on instructional technologies, will the technologies effect learning? As Kozma examines new studies, he investigates the role of media in learning. His conclusion remains the same. There are different characteristics existing in the different media that effect learner process in a particular method.
Throughout Kozma’s articles, he equivocates his arguments with what I feel are qualifiers. He states it may be the context or way the media is integrated that has the greatest impact (p. 138). This sounds very much like the instructional design to which Clark was referring. In his conclusion in the Counterpoint Theory article Kozma goes so far to state media may help some students build knowledge and connections while other students may use prior processes and knowledge, and might not need the computer at all (p. 171). This statement truly undermines his previous arguments.
Gary R. Morrison Gary Morrison jumps into the debate with a unique perspective as an article reviewer. He could submit a rejection to Kozma’s paper and let the debate subside. Morrison’s other option is to accept the article and let society have access to his changing theory. Obviously, Kozma’s paper was published and the debate went on. With the publication of Kozma’s reframed debate, Morrison was still compelled to point out that by changing the question Kozma and Clark were no longer talking about the same thing (p. 199).
Recommendations for Future Research Clark and Kozma are at odds for the future too. Although they seem to agree, existing research show no significant evidence in regards to media’s effects on learning. Both researchers still take divergent directions in their recommendations for future research.
Clark suggests research should focus on efficiency including cost effectiveness and the number of learner (p. 29). He also promotes motivation research dealing with cognitive load and student efficacy. The technology can offer a dazzling display of information (p. 291). The instruction needs to be designed in a fashion where the learner is not blinded to the important information due to an overload to the senses. So part of his advise is to conduct research showing why technology should be used at all (p. 63).
Kozma proposes research to examine the particular capabilities of media and effects these characteristics have on the learner (p. 171). In his second paper, he becomes more specific in the goal of research to look at the effect of instructional technology on the learner processes with a goal of implementation in instructional design targeted at school reform and educational improvement (p. 195).
Conclusion Both Clark and Kozma see the importance of designing instruction for future educational uses of technology. Clark looks for systematic development by a diverse group of designers. Kozma suggests investigating the learner process. Examine the characteristics of instructional technologies that trigger different cognitive processes in the learner. Clark and Kozma advocate instructional technologies should be implemented with design.
At the beginning of this reading, I was sure I would disagree with Clark. Very quickly he won me over. I really think Kozma qualifies and weakens his arguments. My study on this debate has helped me organize and clarify my thoughts on distance education. I do not think distance education is better but it offers the instruction to students in a different format giving some flexibility in time.
References
Clark, R. E. (2001). Learning from media: Arguments, analysis, and evidence. In C. Schlosser & M. Simonson (Eds.), Perspective in instructional technology and distance learning. Vol. 1. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
(This paper was submitted to Dr. Gary Anglin, University of Kentucky, for Advanced Topics in Instructional Design assignment.)