TechTrends

, Volume 49, Issue 2, pp 28–30

Does media affect learning: where are we now?

  • Nancy B. Hastings
  • Monica W. Tracey
Features

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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and suggested readings

  1. Carroll, J.B. (1963). A model of school learning.Teachers College Record, 64, 723–733.Google Scholar
  2. Clark, R. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media.Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clark, R. (1994). Media will never influence learning.Educational Technology, Research and Development, 42(2), 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Heinich, R., Molenda, M. & Russell, J. (1982).Instructional media and the new technologies of instruction. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Keller, J.M. (1987). The systematic process of motivational design.Performance and Instruction, 26(10), 1–8.Google Scholar
  7. Kozma, R. (1991). Learning with media.Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kozma, R. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate.Educational Technology, Research and Development, 42(2), 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Morrison, G. (1994). The media effects question: unresolvable or asking the right question.Educational Technology, Research and Development, 42(2), 41–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Morrison, G., Ross, S. & Kemp, J., (2001).Designing effective instruction (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
  11. Reiser, R.A. (1994). Clark’s invitation to the dance: an instructional designer’s response.Educational Technology, Research and Development, 42(2), 45–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Reiser, R.A. & Dick, W. (1996).Instructional planning: a guide for teachers (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Smith, P. & Ragan, T. (1999).Instructional design. Upper Saddle river, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  15. Tyack, D. & Cuban, L. (1995).Tinkering toward utopia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Willis, J., Johnson, D. L. & Dixon, P. (1983).Computers, teaching and learning: An introduction to computers in education. Beaverton, OR: Dilithium Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nancy B. Hastings
  • Monica W. Tracey

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations