1

Clark vs. Kozma

The Impact of Media and Instructional Technology on Student Learning

Clark vs. Kozma Debate: Whats My Position?
MEDT-8463-E02
Barbara C. Miller
 2
Clark vs. Kozma

The debate between Richard E. Clark and Robert B. Kozma is a 20th century debate

about, Does media influence technology? This debate sparked interest amongst educators on

the effects of media and instructional technology on learning. These two intellectuals had very

similar but disturbingly different opinions on the matter. Clark who believes that

media/technology has absolutely no effect on learning under any conditions, and never will

stated technology not only does not influence learning, but it will never influence learning, and

that media is neither sufficient for nor necessary to learning (Clark, 1994). Kozma who believes

that media can effect learning states, to understand the role of media in learning we must

ground a theory of media in the cognitive and social processes, we must define media in ways

that are compatible and complementary with these processes, we must conduct research on the

mechanisms by which characteristics of media might interact with and influence these processes,

and we must design our interventions in ways that embed media in these processes (Kozma,

1994). In this paper I will examine their views and state my position on the topic.

Clarks position

The main idea of Richard Clarks argument was that there is a distinct difference between

instructional method and learning, and media is an instructional method. Clark believes that

media also known as technology is just a method of delivery, and does not directly influence the

amount of information retained nor student success or mastery of standards and learning

material. Clark believes, that 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 ( Clark, 1994) To back up his statement Clark used the research of Gavriel

Salomon and others, that proved that multiple forms of media could produce the same amount of
 3
Clark vs. Kozma

cognitive processing or learning amongst learners, which lead Clark to believe If there is no

single media attribute that serves a unique cognitive effect for some learning task, then the

attributes must be proxies for some other variables that are instructional in learning gains (

Clark, 1994).

Kozmas Position

Robert Kozma agreed with Clark to the extent that no definite connection between

learning and media had been proven yet, but disagreed with him because he believed that with

due time the connection will be found. He believed that Clarks statement should be revised,

perhaps the appropriate question is not do but will media influence learning (Kozma, 1994)

Kozma position was based off the fact that he believed that because technology is changing over

time, the connection will eventually be discovered. Kozma stated that if there is no relationship

between media and learning it may be because we have not yet made one (Kozma, 1994).

Kozma believed unlike Clark that learning is not a response to instructional delivery but a

cognitive process.

My Position

Like Kozma I believe that learning is an active, constructive, cognitive and social

process by which the learner strategically manages available cognitive, physical, and social

resources to create new knowledge by interacting with information in the environment and

integrating it with information already stored in memory (Kozma, 1994), but my position in this

debate leads more towards the views of Clark. Like Clark I believe that media is an instructional

method, or tool, a very important instructional method but none the less only an instructional

method. Clark defines instructional method as, any way to shape information that activates,
 4
Clark vs. Kozma

supplants or compensates for cognitive processes necessary for achievement or motivation

(Clark, 1994). Media in the classroom opens up the door for so many different types of learning

to take places and increases the amount of ways that teachers and educators can deliver

information, and it increases the number of instructional methods teachers can use to promote

learning. But media, solely alone does not cause the learner to learn, and learning can take place

with out media.

According to the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning developed by Richard

Mayer, learning takes place under these three assumptions. First there are two channels for

learning auditory and visual, secondly the brain has limited space, and lastly learning is an active

process of filtering, selecting, organizing and integrating information. If this is true, then it

furthermore proves my point that technology and media are instructional methods and can not

alone cause learning. There is no way that technology and technology alone, or better yet one

particular type of technology can cause these 3 things to happen in order for learning to take

place. I do believe that technology/media has made learning easier and more accessible. When

used properly technology can reduce the size of information, include pictures and words and also

filter and organize information to make it easier for retention, so learning can happen. The

cognitive load theory states that cognitive space in the working memory formerly known as the

short term memory is limited. If the learning at hand causes for too much space at one time them

learning will not take place. Again this is where I feel like instructional media aids the learning

process, it allows educators the ability to reduce and make thoughts and ideas more compact so

they can be processed into memory, but is not the sole reason for learning.

In their 2002 book Integrating Computer Technology into the Classroom, Gary R.

Morrison and Deborah L. Loather described technology integration as the process of using
 5
Clark vs. Kozma

application software (for example, spreadsheets, databases, and web browsers) as tools to help

students learn problem solving. The key words in this description is tools to help. Which

describes technology as a form of media and an instructional method/tool used to increase

student success.

In the Anytime Anywhere Learning project, students were split into two separate

classrooms. One classroom where each student received a laptop and the other in a traditional

classroom. The students who were in the the classroom with the laptops were more likely to use

different types of instruction methods with the use of the computers (problem-based learning,

cooperative learning, facilitation, and sustained writing), and these students performed higher on

a writing sample. The difference in scores according to the authors Steven M. Ross, Lowther,

and Robert T. Plants (who investigated the school district study), was based on the increase of a

student centered and the multiple instructional method use created by teachers rather than the

computer technology alone. Which proves my point that technology alone does not cause

learning, there are several things that effect if learning takes place, but what it does is increase

the possibilities in the classroom.

Conclusion

In conclusion I do agree with Clark that technology is a great aid to instructional

methods, it offers new ways of teaching for teachers and more possibilities of learning to

learners. But if media is not used in an effective instructional manor it serves absolutely no

purpose which is why I disagree with Kozma, I dont believe with time we will find a way to

prove that media is the cause of learning. For several reasons, my first reason is schools and

school districts have been increasing the use of media as an instructional method for decades, but

still no proof that it is a direct cause of learning. In 1920s the increased the number of
 6
Clark vs. Kozma

educational movies that were being produced, in 1940s they increased radio presences in

classrooms, in 1960s they increased the presence of televisions in the classroom, in the 1990s

the increased the number of computers in classroom, and in the 2010s the insured that the ratio

of student to laptops was 3 to 1. Still no researched based proof is available. My second reason is

not all media is good media, for learning to take place. The type of media you use should be

based on the learning goal. An educator has to look at there intended goal and choose the best

choice of media to make sure cognitive learning takes place based on several learning theories

behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism, designed based and 21st century skills. Studies have

found that the forced and improper use of media can actually harm learning. In an article written

by Kenraeo Toyama, she states that media can help good schools do some things better, but

they do nothing positive for underperforming schools. This means, very specifically, that efforts

to fix broken schools with media or to substitute for missing teachers with media invariably fail

(Toyama, 2011). Lastly like Clark I believe that there are too many forms of media to use to pin

point that one particular media was the cause of cognitive learning on any task and this is why

there will never be valid proof of learning.

 7
Clark vs. Kozma

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

and Development, 42(2), 21 29 Retrieved October 20, 2015 from

http://www.usq.edu.au/material/unit/resource/clark/media.htm

Kozma, R. B. (1994). Media influence learning? Refraining the debate. Educational Technology

Research and Development, 42(2), 7 - 19. Retrieved October 20, 2015, from

http://mmtserver.mmt.duq.edu/mm416-01/gedit704/articles/kozmaArticle.htm

Loather, D.L.; Morrison, G.R. (2002). Integrating Computer Technology into the classroom

New Jersey: Prentice-Hall

Mayer, Richard. (1997). "Multimedia Learning: Are We Asking the Right Questions?"

Educational Psychologist 32 (1):119. Retrieved October 20, 2015, from

http://www.uky.edu/~gmswan3/609/mayer_1997.pdf

Salomon, Gavriel. (1984). "Television Is 'Easy' and Print Is 'Tough': The Differential Investment

of Mental Effort in Learning as a Function of Perceptions and Attributions." Journal of

Educational Psychology 76:774786. Retrieved October 20, 2015, from

http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2211/Media-Learning.html
 8
Clark vs. Kozma

ROSS, S. M.; Morrison, G. R.; Lowther, D. H.; and Plants R. T. LANTS. (2000). "Anytime,

Anywhere Learning: Final Evaluation Report of the Laptop Program." Retrieved October

20, 2015, from www.nteq.com/Research/Year1.pdf.

Toyama, K. (2011). There Are NO Technology Shortcuts to Good Education. Retrieved October

20, 2015 from http://edutechdebate.org/ict-in-schools/there-are-no-technology-shortcuts-

to-good-education/

In their 2002 book Integrating Computer Technology into the Classroom, Gary R. Morrison and

Deborah L. Loather