Advertisement

Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate

  • Robert B. Kozma
Research

Abstract

This article addresses the position taken by Clark (1983) that media do not influence learning under any conditions. The article reframes the questions raised by Clark to explore the conditions under which media will influence learning. Specifically, it posits the need to consider the capabilities of media, and the methods that employ them, as they interact with the cognitive and social processes by which knowledge is constructed. This approach is examined within the context of two major media-based projects, one which uses computers and the other, video. The article discusses the implications of this approach for media theory, research and practice.

Keywords

Posit Educational Technology Social Process Media Theory Medium Influence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baggett, P. (1989). Understanding visual and verbal messages. In H. Mandl & J. Levin (Eds.),Knowledge acquisition from text and pictures (pp. 101–124). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  2. Beagles-Roos, J., & Gat, I. (1983). Specific impact of radio and television on children's story comprehension.Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(1), 128–137.Google Scholar
  3. Bransford, J., Sharp, D., Vye, N., Goldman, S., Hasselbring, T., Goin, L, O'Banion, K., Livernois, J., Saul, E. and the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992).MOST environments for accelerating literacy development. Presentation at the NATO Advanced Study Institute on Psychological and Educational Foundations of Technology-Based Learning Environments, Kolymbari, Crete.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, A. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings.Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buchanan, R. (1989). Declaration by design: Rhetoric, argument, and demonstration in design practice. In V. Margolin (Eds.),Design discourse (pp. 91–109).Google Scholar
  6. Chi, M., Feltovich, P., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices.Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, R. (1985). Confounding in educational computing research.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1(2), 137–148.Google Scholar
  8. Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media.Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459.Google Scholar
  9. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992). An anchored instruction approach to cognitive skills acquisition and intelligent tutoring. In J. W. Regian & V. Shute (Eds.),Cognitive approaches to automated instruction (pp. 135–170). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, M. &. Nagel, E. (1934).An introduction to logic and scientific method. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  11. Cuban, L. (1986).Teachers and machines. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  12. De Corte, E. (1993).Psychological aspects of changes in learning supported by informatics. Paper presented at the meeting on Informatics and Changes in Learning, Gmunden, Austria.Google Scholar
  13. Dick, W. & Carey, L. (1990).The systematic design of instruction (3rd ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Co.Google Scholar
  14. Dole, J., Niederhauser, D., & Hayes, M. (1991).The role of reading in conceptual change in science. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
  15. Dubin, R. (1969).Theory building. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  16. Duffy, T. & Jonassen, D. (1992).Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. (1993).Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Glaser, R. (1976). Components of a psychology of instruction: Toward a science of design.Review of Educational Research, 46(1), 29–39.Google Scholar
  19. Goodman, N. (1976).Languages of art. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
  20. Greeno, J. (1988). Situations, mental models, and generative knowledge. In D. Klahr & K. Kotovsky (Eds.),Complex information processing (pp. 285–318). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Guttman, L. (1969). A general nonmetric technique for finding the smallest coordinate space for a configuration of points.Psychometrics, 33, 465–506.Google Scholar
  22. Hlynka, D. & Belland, J. (1991).Paradigms regained: The uses of illuminative, semiotic and post-modern criticism as modes of inquiry in educational technology. Englwood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  23. House, E. (1991). Realism in research.Educational Researcher, 20(6), 2–9.Google Scholar
  24. Information Infrastructure Task Force. (1993).The National Information Infrastructure: Agenda for action. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce.Google Scholar
  25. Kerr, S. (1989). Technology, teachers, and the search for school reform.Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(4), 5–18.Google Scholar
  26. Kozma, R. (1991). Learning with media.Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179–212.Google Scholar
  27. Kozma, R. &. Croninger, R. (1992). Technology and the fate of at-risk students.Education and Urban Society, 24(4), 440–453.Google Scholar
  28. Larkin, J. (1983). The role of problem representation in physics. In D. Gentner & A. Stevens (Eds.),Mental models (pp. 75–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Meringoff, L. (1982).What pictures can and can't do for children's story understanding. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.Google Scholar
  30. Neuman, D. (1989). Naturalistic inquiry and computer-based instruction: rationale, procedures, and potential.Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(3), 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989).The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in school. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Pea, R. (1992). Augmenting the discourse of learning with computer-based learning environments. In M. L. E. De Corte & L. Verschaffel (Eds.),Computer-based learning environments and problem solving (pp. 313–344). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  33. Pea. R. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.),Distributed cognitions. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Perkins, D. (1993). Person plus: a distributed view of thinking and learning. In G. Salomon (Ed.),Distributed cognitions (pp. 88–110). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Polya, G. (1957).How to solve it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Reigeluth, C. (1989). Educational technology at the crossroads: New mindsets and new directions.Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(1), 67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Resnick, L. (1987). Learning in school and out.Educational Researcher, 16(9), 13–20.Google Scholar
  38. Richey, R. (1992).Designing instruction for the adult learner. London: Kogan.Google Scholar
  39. Ross, S. & Morrison, G. (1989), In search of a happy medium in instructional technology research: Issues concerning external validity, media replications, and learner control.Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(1), 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Salomon, G. (1978).Interaction of media, cognition, and learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  41. Salomon, G. (1991). Transcending the qualitative-quantitative debate: The analytic and systemic approaches to educational research.Educational Researcher, 20(6), 10–18.Google Scholar
  42. Salomon, G. (1993). No distribution without individuals' cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.),Distributed cognitions (pp. 111–138). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Salomon, G., Perkins, D., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies.Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2–9.Google Scholar
  44. Schön, D. (1987).Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  45. Shuell, T. (1988). The role of the student in learning from instruction.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13, 276–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Siegler, R. & Crowley, K. (1991). The microgenetic method.American Psychologist, 46(6), 606–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Simon, H. (1981).The sciences of the artificial (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  48. Snow, R. (1992). Aptitude theory: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow.Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 5–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Spiro, R. & Jehng, J. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the nonlinear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. N. Spiro & R. Spiro (Eds.),Cognition, education, and multimedia (pp. 163–206). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  50. Stix, G. (1993). Domesticating cyberspace.Scientific American, 269(2), 100–110.Google Scholar
  51. Van Haneghan, J., Barron, L., Young, M., Williams, S., Vye, N., & Bransford, J. (1992). The Jasper Series: An experiment with new ways to enhance mathematical thinking. In D. Halpern (Eds.),Enhancing thinking skills in the sciences and mathematics (pp. 15–38). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  52. White, B. (1984). Designing computer activities to help physics students understand Newton's laws of motion.Cognition and Instruction, 1(1), 69–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. White, B. (1993). ThinkerTools: Causal models, conceptual change, and science education.Cognition and Instruction, 10(1), 1–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Whitehead, A. N. (1929).The aims of education. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  55. Winn, W. (1989). Toward a rationale and theoretical basis for educational technology.Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(1), 35–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Winn, W. (1990). Some implications of cognitive theory for instructional design.Instructional Science, 19(1), 53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert B. Kozma
    • 1
  1. 1.the Center for Technology in LearningSRI InternationalMenlo Park

Personalised recommendations