Running Head: POSITION ON THE IMPACT OF MEDIA ON STUDENT LEARNING 1

Position on the Impact of Media on Student Learning

Megan Standley

University of West Georgia

POSITION ON THE IMPACT OF MEDIA ON STUDENT LEARNING 2

This paper reviews the debate of Richard E. Clark and Robert B. Kozma on whether

learning can be, or is, influenced by media. The sides of each argument are examined through the

writings of Clark and Kozma themselves as well as from writings of their colleagues and other

professionals in the field. The theory of cognitive load by Sweller and thoughts on cognitive load

and multimedia use by Mayer are taken into consideration before I position my opinion in

alignment with Kozmas. Media can have an influence on learning and the acquisition of

knowledge when research-based methods and programs are utilized.

POSITION ON THE IMPACT OF MEDIA ON STUDENT LEARNING 3

The Clark/Kozma Debate

Richard Clark (1994) argues that the medium by which instruction is delivered has no

influence on the amount of learning that takes place. He believes that the instructional method

used in any given media is what causes students to learn, not the actual medium itself (Clark,

1994). The example is given that an educational computer game shows that students have

progressed in the learning of a certain topic, therefore it appears as though the computer had a

great impact on their learning (Clark, 1994). However, the computer game involved the students

doing rote practice of a skill and it was that instructional method that caused progress, not the

actual computer itself (Clark, 1994). The same progress could have been gained from the use of

rote practice in an environment that was not using computers (Clark, 1994). Clark and Estes

(1999) concede to the fact that technology can contribute to learning in some instances, but that

these are contained instances that cannot be transferred to other areas, making it not useful across

education as an effective practice.

Robert Kozma (1994) argues against Clark and believes that media can influence

learning. He explores how learning is an interaction between the learners cognitive abilities and

the environment in which they are learning (Kozma, 1994). Kozma (1994) stresses that just

because there is incomplete evidence of a relationship between learning and media does not

mean one cannot be forged and used to the advantage of teachers and students. He discusses

the pros of using media, such as allowing students to manipulate images and properties of images

(Kozma, 1994). He references the thoughts of Baggett (1989) who claim these interactive models

are more memorable than those constructed with text (Kozma, 1994, p.11). Learning just from

text can also be difficult for learners whose reading ability is lower than that of the text being
POSITION ON THE IMPACT OF MEDIA ON STUDENT LEARNING 4

read (Kozma, 1994). After multiple interactions with media models, students are able to visualize

correct models on their own which proves that they have learned the concept (Kozma, 1994).

Kolderie and McDonald (2009) as well as Christensen, Horn and Johnson (2011) praise the use

of educational technology for being able to individualize instruction to each students learning

style as opposed to a one-size-fits-all model where students either keep up or fail.

Theories on Cognitive Load by Sweller and Mayer

Two theories that can be examined while reviewing the debate of Clark and Kozma are

John Swellers theory of cognitive load and Richard E. Mayers cognitive theory of multimedia

learning. Swellers (1988) theory of cognitive load says that some types of problem solving can

get in the way of learning, depending upon the learners current schema, or familiarity with the

topic. For someone who is not an expert on the content, the amount of cognitive use needed to

solve a problem is not available because room is taken up by trying to understand the

foundational parts of the topic (Sweller, 1988). Hypothetically, Clark would argue that the

cognitive capacity of a novice learner (most students in the elementary to high school range)

does not have space for the learning of the use of a technological medium in addition to the

content the medium is trying to teach, therefore making technology not only ineffective to

learning, but inhibitive. Also, the use of multiple medias for learning could also inhibit learning

in some cases (Ayers, 2015). Richard Mayer conducted much research on multimedia learning

and the multimedia principle which claims that the use of both text and pictures (multimedia), as

opposed to just one of these, is more assistive to learning (Ayers, 2015). This supports Kozmas

argument that the use of media is helpful to learners by reducing extraneous processing to

open more cognitive space for new knowledge (Ayers, 2015, p.631).
POSITION ON THE IMPACT OF MEDIA ON STUDENT LEARNING 5

Medias Positive Impact on Learning

There can be a definite positive impact on student learning when the use of technology is

involved, but as with most things, there is a time and place for everything. A good balance of the

use of research-based instructional technology partnered with a learners schema derived from

non-technologically-based instruction will have the desired effects of Clark and Kozma: learning

and knowledge. Multiple factors should be taken into consideration when determining if a

particular media will influence learning including the age and maturity of a student (Ayers,

2015). A particular manipulative program with high user freedom functionality may work better

for more mature learners, while a very structured, linear program, or no technology and direct

teacher instruction, may prove more effective for immature learners. From the research I

reviewed, along with my personal experiences, Kozmas argument seems more valid.

Clark/Kozma Debate Over Time and Today

The arguments of both Clark and Kozma are embodied within teachers and educational

leaders still today. Some believe, like Clark, that media can be useful here and there for specific

instances, such as review of material, but that it should not be counted on as a sole means of

instruction. This negative attitude was listed as a second-order barrier to learner-centered

technology in An and Reigeluths (2011) study of teachers opinions on technology-enhanced,

learner-centered classrooms. Others side with Kozma and are proponents of learning through

media. This is evident within the last fifty years not only in studies and surveys of educators and

their use of technology, but also from personal observation from within a public school district

(Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich 2010). We are encouraged on what seems a weekly basis to

integrate more technology into our instruction and to trade in the traditional teacher-focused
POSITION ON THE IMPACT OF MEDIA ON STUDENT LEARNING 6

classroom model of days of old for a student-centered classroom that utilizes differentiation for

each learner. Students have been given Chromebooks and teachers have been given access to

interactive instructional websites such as USATestPrep.com. These pushes come from the top of

the educational ladder of the district and the state from someone who, supposedly, is educated on

the latest educational research and resources which promote instructional technology use. The

arguments of both Clark and Kozma would be slightly different in the present decade as

computer programming has made leaping progress since their articles. Their research would

revolve around computers specifically, not media in general. Clarks argument may focus more

on the validity of online courses verses traditional teacher-led instruction. It would also focus on

the design aspect of educational technology and which types of delivery method would transfer

best across each subject area. If Kozma were making his arguments in the present decade, he

would have a great deal more research with which to back his stance.
POSITION ON THE IMPACT OF MEDIA ON STUDENT LEARNING 7

References

An, Y. & Reigeluth, C. (2011). Creating technology-enhanced, learner-centered classrooms: k-12

teachers beliefs, perceptions, barriers, and support needs. Journal of Digital Learning in

Teacher Education, 28(2), 54-62.

Ayers, P. (2015). State-of-the-art research into multimedia learning: a commentary on mayers

handbook of multimedia learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29. 631-636.

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.

Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., & Johnson, C. W. (2011). Disrupting class: How disruptive

innovation will change the way the world learns. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology, Research and

Development, 42(2), 21 - 29.

Clark, R. E. & Estes, F. (1999). The development of authentic educational technologies.

Educational Technology, 5-16.

Ertmer, P. & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2010). Teacher technology change: how knowledge,

confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in

Education, 42(3), 255-284.

POSITION ON THE IMPACT OF MEDIA ON STUDENT LEARNING 8

Kolderie, T. & McDonald T. (2009). How information technology can enable 21st century

schools. The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation.

Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational

Technology, Research and Development, 42(2), 7 - 19.

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cognitive

Science, 12, 257-285.