Roadside assistance

Technology supported learning has long been a contested terrain, and there are at least two views about its effects. The first, a long established claim, is that all technology is neutral, and that 'media are mere vehicles that deliver instruction, but do not influence student achievement, any more than the van that delivers our groceries can cause change in nutrition'. This view, first propounded by Richard Clark (1994) was widely accepted, warning as it did of the dangers of failing to differentiate between methods and media. As a result of Clark's position, many researchers decided not to study differences between students whose learning was supported by technology and those who had none, because it was considered a waste of time.

Clark's view was strongly opposed by the likes of Robert Kozma (1994) who countered that media can never be neutral, and that it would be foolish to stop research into the differences that might exist. Kozma's argument was an echo of the work of Marshall McLuhan who was famously quoted as saying 'We shape our tools and thereafter, our tools shape us.'  Kozma considered that media and method were intimately linked and continued to call for more research into the effects of media and technology on learning. The question remains - what exactly does influence learning, and which side of the argument should we believe? Are some media better than others at supporting learning, or are they, as Clark argues, all completely neutral?

We can examine a long history of almost 70 years of studies into the differences between learning with, and without technology. Again there are two views here about the effects of media and technology on learning.  There is an argument that there is no significant difference (Merisotas and Phipps, 1999) and there are those who hold that there actually is a significant difference (both examples are collated on this website run by Thomas Russell). Recent work on the affordances of technology and other media factors by the likes of Koumi (1994) have cast doubt on Clark's position. Hastings and Tracey (2005) also challenge Clark's view by suggesting that new technologies such as networked computers can and do affect learning in a number of ways. They call for a reframing of the debate to ask not if, but how media influence learning.  So are we to conclude that the 'media is neutral' theory has been overhauled by new and richly interactive technologies? Was Clark's original argument framed against technology that has now advanced sufficiently to render his views obsolete? It certainly appears as though Richard Clark's delivery van has broken down... but what do you think?

References

Clark, R.E. (1994). Media will Never Influence Learning. Educational Technology Research and Development,42(2), 21-29.
Hastings, N. B. and Tracey, M. W. (2005) Does media affect learning? Where are we now? TechTrends, 49(2), 28-30.
Koumi, J. (1994). Media Comparison and Deployment: A Practitioner’s View. British Journal of Educational Technology, 25(1), 41-57.
Kozma, R. (1994). A Reply: Media and Methods. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(3), 11-14.
Merisotas, J. P. and Phipps, R. A. (1999) What's the difference? Outcomes of distance v. traditional classroom-based learning. Change. 31 (3): 13-17.

Image by Museum Wales


Roadside assistance by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.