Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Nickey Grandea
Beginning in 1983, an interesting debate took root between Richard E. Clark and Richard
Kozma regarding whether media impacts learning. According to Clark (1994), media does not
cause learning, rather instructional methods induce learning. Clark (1994) states 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” (pg. 22). Any of the attributes
of media that are useful to learners can be replicated with another form of media or by a live
Kozma disagrees with Clark. Kozma (1994) brings a different perspective to the debate
in his article entitled “Will Media Influence Learning? Reframing the Debate.” He maintains
that “if there is no relationship between media and learning it may be because we have not yet
made one” (Kozma, 1994, p. 7). Kozma goes on to say that if we remain closed minded to the
relationship, its potential will never be realized. According to his article, “media capabilities
have changed considerably since the time of the studies reviewed by Clark (1983); they will
change even more in the near future” (Kozma, 1994, p. 17). This prediction has certainly come
While I agree that instructional methods are integral to learning, I share Kozma’s view
that technology brings unique qualities and characteristics to the classroom that would not be
available otherwise. As Kozma (1994) stated, media and methods should not be separated
because they are both parts of the instructional design (p. 16). “In good design, a medium’s
capabilities enable methods and the methods that are used take advantage of these capabilities”
(Kozma, 1994, p. 16). Instructional designers must create learning experiences that use the
IMPACT OF MEDIA 3
technology available to its fullest capability and pair it with the most appropriate instructional
strategies in order to optimize learning. The capabilities of media are constantly changing and
improving, so the methods of incorporating media into classroom lessons must also change and
improve constantly. Because our students are “digital natives,” they expect technology to be part
of every experience, including their educational experiences. According to Moffat, “asking them
to be unplugged is like asking them to hurt themselves” (2013, p. 28). Students are much more
incorporate the technology they are accustomed to using into the classroom, we create
opportunities to improve their digital literacy. When the Clark Vs. Kozma debate originated,
these resources were not available for use. As the technology changes, so must the way we use it
in schools.
Sweller’s Cognitive Load Theory provides some clarification for the reasoning behind
using technology and media to create optimum learning environments. Sweller (1994) explains
that imposing a heavy load on the working memory creates more difficulty for the learner.
Allowing technology to alleviate this load allows learners to increase their problem solving
ability and to transfer information to new situations more easily. Technology, when used to its
fullest capacity, provides multiple ways to reduce this load on the working memory. As
discussed by Kozma (1994), Thinkertools provides a mental model, or “automated schema”, for
students to help them understand the interaction between forces and motion (Sweller, 1994,
p.289). Experienced scientists use this mental model intuitively; novice students do not possess
this ability. The Thinkertools program provides this accurate model, allowing students to
manipulate the forces and motion accurately, instead of using a possibly inaccurate mental model
or incomplete schema that they create based on their prior knowledge and understanding of the
IMPACT OF MEDIA 4
topics. Their cognitive load is therefore reduced by utilizing the technology appropriately. The
technology creates conditions by which learners can access information that would have
processing auditory input and verbal representations and a visual/pictorial channel for processing
visual input and pictorial representations” (p. 44). Thinkertools allows learners to utilize both
channels to reduce the cognitive load, thus facilitating learning. Kozma (1994) also refers to the
Jasper Series in his article (p. 12). Students were presented with a real world scenario via video
disk that included a series of problems that needed to be solved. The technology, in this case,
“presents complex, dynamic social contexts and events to help students construct rich, dynamic
mental models of these situations,” instead of relying solely on their own prior knowledge
(Kozma, 1994, p. 12). The students involved utilized information in the scenario to solve the
problems successfully and were able to transfer the skills used to solve the problem to new
situations. The students created the schema required to move that information into their long
term memory. When skills and knowledge transfer to new situations, learning has occurred. By
providing the information to students in a real world scenario, with both audio and visual
components, students were able to more easily use the information and transfer it to new problem
situations.
“Seeing oneself gain progressive mastery strengthens personal efficacy, fosters efficient
“students to control the pace of the program ... explore content and create their own routes
through the material,” students become more confident in their own abilities to learn (Zheng,
2009, p. 793). According to Bandura (1993), self-efficacy is one of the most important variables
in learning. Utilizing multimedia technology in the classroom has a positive impact of self-
In conclusion, all new technology will likely be met with skepticism. Therefore, the
debate between Richard E. Clark and Richard Kozma is still relevant today. One could continue
to argue that methods are more important than media to student learning and achievement.
However, if media and methods are properly combined and used to their greatest capability, the
highest student acheivement will result. As teachers of “digital natives,” we must embrace the
References
Moffat, D. (2013, May 31). Clark and Kozma debate is it still relevant. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 42(2), 21 -29
Cognitive Load Theory (John Sweller). (n.d.). Retrieved July 02, 2017, from
http://www.instructionaldesign.org/theories/cognitive-load.html
Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (Mayer). (2016, October 23). Retrieved July 03, 2017,
from https://www.learning-theories.com/cognitive-theory-of-multimedia-learning-
mayer.html
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia
learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.
Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7 -19.
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning
and Instruction, 4(4), 295-312. doi:10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5
Zheng, R., McAlack, M., Wilmes, B., Kohler-Evans, P., & Williamson, J. (2009). Effects of
multimedia on cognitive load, self-efficacy, and multiple rule-based problem
solving. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(5), 790-803.