Blog # 2 Clark/Kozma Debate
Richard Clark and Robert Kozma agree that in 1994, there was “no compelling evidence in the past 70 years of published and unpublished research that media cause learning increases under any conditions” (Clark, 1994). This fact is essential to understanding the focus of this debate. The authors look at the topic from polar opposites. Clark looks at the history of media and learning and takes the stance that because there has not been a relationship defined in the past, there isn’t a relationship to be made. Kozma, on the other hand, looks forward. His position focuses on building a relationship that hasn’t previously existed.
We have the benefit of reviewing the debate twelve years after the articles were published. Advances in technology come faster and more often than they did in 1994. I focused on this point in my first blog entry. With this in mind, Kozma’s position seems to be correct. His argument acknowledged that at the time, we were at a point where emerging media could begin to influence the educational process. Clark’s position was concrete, as shown in his title, Media Will Never Influence Learning. In Clark’s argument, there is no room for change.
Does this mean the debate is no longer valid? Have we answered Kozma’s question of Will Media Influence Learning? It is hard to discount the impact computers have had on the learning process. As Hastings and Tracey have shown, the internet grants access to mass amounts of information through search engines and public databases (2005). This one media supports the Kozma argument and further exposes the flaw in Clark’s argument. Change is a part of life, especially in technology. Closing the door on the possibility of change doomed Clark’s position.
Last week’s class illustrates where we stand today. As Dr. Bishop stated, we don’t even need to go to the library anymore (2006). We can gain instant access to information and resources to support our arguments or research using the computer and available databases. If we examine this example using Clark’s argument, we would need to ask if we could get the same access from another source. The answer is simply no. Even going to the library and searching through old journals and micro-fiche for weeks or months could not give us the same results we can get in an hour using the internet. The media is not interchangeable as Clark insists.
The state of media and its uses in the educational environment are very different then when Clark originally wrote his article Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media in 1983. Hastings and Tracey want to “reframe the original debate to ask, not if, but how media affects learning” (2005). I would agree that this is a valid question in 2006 and should be answered. Only then will our field be able to close the Clark/Kozma debate. Only by answering this new question can we answer Kozma.
References
Bishop, M.J, (2006, September). LST401 Class 2.
Clark, Richard E. (1994). Media Will Never Influence Learning. Education Technology, Research and Development. 42(2), 21-29.
Hastings, Nancy B., & Tracey, Monica W. (2005). Does Media Affect Learning: Where Are We Now. TechTrends. 49(2), 28-30.
Kozma, Robert B. (1994). Will Media Influence Learning? Reframing the Debate. Educational Technology, Research and Development. 42(2), 7-19.
We have the benefit of reviewing the debate twelve years after the articles were published. Advances in technology come faster and more often than they did in 1994. I focused on this point in my first blog entry. With this in mind, Kozma’s position seems to be correct. His argument acknowledged that at the time, we were at a point where emerging media could begin to influence the educational process. Clark’s position was concrete, as shown in his title, Media Will Never Influence Learning. In Clark’s argument, there is no room for change.
Does this mean the debate is no longer valid? Have we answered Kozma’s question of Will Media Influence Learning? It is hard to discount the impact computers have had on the learning process. As Hastings and Tracey have shown, the internet grants access to mass amounts of information through search engines and public databases (2005). This one media supports the Kozma argument and further exposes the flaw in Clark’s argument. Change is a part of life, especially in technology. Closing the door on the possibility of change doomed Clark’s position.
Last week’s class illustrates where we stand today. As Dr. Bishop stated, we don’t even need to go to the library anymore (2006). We can gain instant access to information and resources to support our arguments or research using the computer and available databases. If we examine this example using Clark’s argument, we would need to ask if we could get the same access from another source. The answer is simply no. Even going to the library and searching through old journals and micro-fiche for weeks or months could not give us the same results we can get in an hour using the internet. The media is not interchangeable as Clark insists.
The state of media and its uses in the educational environment are very different then when Clark originally wrote his article Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media in 1983. Hastings and Tracey want to “reframe the original debate to ask, not if, but how media affects learning” (2005). I would agree that this is a valid question in 2006 and should be answered. Only then will our field be able to close the Clark/Kozma debate. Only by answering this new question can we answer Kozma.
References
Bishop, M.J, (2006, September). LST401 Class 2.
Clark, Richard E. (1994). Media Will Never Influence Learning. Education Technology, Research and Development. 42(2), 21-29.
Hastings, Nancy B., & Tracey, Monica W. (2005). Does Media Affect Learning: Where Are We Now. TechTrends. 49(2), 28-30.
Kozma, Robert B. (1994). Will Media Influence Learning? Reframing the Debate. Educational Technology, Research and Development. 42(2), 7-19.
posted by mcavallaro at 2:40 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home