Skip to main content
Log in

Does media affect learning: where are we now?

  • Features
  • Published:
TechTrends Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Conclusion

A careful review of the arguments and counter arguments presented by Clark (1983; 1994) and Kozma (1991; 1994), responses published in the past 20 years (Jonassen, Campbell & Davidson, 1994; Morrison, 1994; Reiser, 1994; Shrock, 1994) and existing instructional design literature (Morrison, Ross & Kemp, 2001; Reiser & Dick, 1996; Smith & Ragan, 1999) indicates there is, and always has been, significantly more agreement on this subject than the debate would indicate.

Clark never said that a textbook could deliver an instructional method requiring the use of a 3-dimensional graphic representation as effectively as a computer, nor did Kozma maintain that the computer was the only medium with the capabilities to do so. Both acknowledged that the two instructional components — the instructional methods and the delivery medium — must be aligned to facilitate learning.

The debate is, and always has been, about the ability of more than one medium to support a selected instructional method, whether or not any given medium has capabilities that cannot be replicated by another medium, and the validity of the research. We believe that today, in 2005: • Computers are capable of supporting instructional methods that other media are not • Computers, by means of their unique capabilities, affect learning • Computers are often the most cost-effective, efficient delivery method for any given unit of instruction We also: • Acknowledge the limitations of media comparison studies • Acknowledge the need to align the message, the medium and the learning task • Agree that some media are interchangeable and • Support the use of the most cost-effective, efficient delivery method for any given unit of instruction We believe that after 22 years it is time to reframe the original debate to ask, not if, but how media affects learning. We agree that media comparison studies are inherently flawed and support the argument that we must identify research designs that will provide answers to this question in significantly less time.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References and suggested readings

  • Carroll, J.B. (1963). A model of school learning.Teachers College Record, 64, 723–733.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media.Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. (1994). Media will never influence learning.Educational Technology, Research and Development, 42(2), 21–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinich, R., Molenda, M. & Russell, J. (1982).Instructional media and the new technologies of instruction. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D.H., Campbell, J.P., Davidson, M.E. (1994). Learning with media: restructuring the debate.Educational Technology, Research and Development, 42(2), 31–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, J.M. (1987). The systematic process of motivational design.Performance and Instruction, 26(10), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R. (1991). Learning with media.Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate.Educational Technology, Research and Development, 42(2), 7–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, G. (1994). The media effects question: unresolvable or asking the right question.Educational Technology, Research and Development, 42(2), 41–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, G., Ross, S. & Kemp, J., (2001).Designing effective instruction (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, R.A. (1994). Clark’s invitation to the dance: an instructional designer’s response.Educational Technology, Research and Development, 42(2), 45–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, R.A. & Dick, W. (1996).Instructional planning: a guide for teachers (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrock, S.A. (1994). The media influence debate: read the fine print, but don’t lose sight of the big picture.Educational Technology, Research and Development, 42(2), 49–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. & Ragan, T. (1999).Instructional design. Upper Saddle river, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyack, D. & Cuban, L. (1995).Tinkering toward utopia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willis, J., Johnson, D. L. & Dixon, P. (1983).Computers, teaching and learning: An introduction to computers in education. Beaverton, OR: Dilithium Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hastings, N.B., Tracey, M.W. Does media affect learning: where are we now?. TECHTRENDS TECH TRENDS 49, 28–30 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02773968

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02773968

Keywords

Navigation