Continuing the Media Effects Debate?

Educational research has engaged in contradictory media comparison studies for decades (Tripp & Roby, 1996). Whenever I read about the history of technology and media in education (such as Bishop, n.d.), I notice the common theme of a lack of guidelines: guidelines for the instructional design of media and guidelines for the implementation of media. Instead of trying to resolve the media effects debate, I think that providing designers, educators, and learners with effective guidelines is the more productive conversation for us to have in 2006. After all, Clark (1994) admitted that his claim that instructional methods and not media account for learning gains is a hypothesis and not a conclusion. Therefore, I contend that researchers might find it more worthwhile to focus on guidelines. One possible approach is for researchers to focus on organizing and interpreting media comparison findings in light of the "new" information we have on things such as learner-centered design approaches, multimedia learning, and, dare I say, the unique, attributes of computers.

Updating the Debate with New Information
Learner-centered, constructivist designs generally employ different assessment methods from those employed in behaviorist designs. For instance, student learning outcomes could take the form of collaboratively designed artifacts or multimedia portfolios based on a student’s desired learning goals. These assessment methods reveal the irrelevance of effects arguments that have behavioral assessment roots. In fact, Kozma (1994) argued that the studies that Clark (1994) cited about media’s influence were based on a stimulus/response paradigm. Learner-centered designs would also challenge Clark’s instructional method as “active ingredient” claim. From a learner-centered, constructivist framework, a designer’s instructional method cannot be the key ingredient. The “active ingredient” must be something relevant, meaningful, and unique to the learner. Furthermore, we have new information about multimedia learning. Mayer (2001) has proposed a viable cognitive theory of multimedia learning that accounts for both “structural” and “surface” features of various media. His theory is the result of organizing and interpreting the findings of various media comparison studies conducted over the years. Concerning unique attributes, Hastings and Tracey (2005) made a cogent case for the non-replicable capabilities of computers. (They also made a good case for refocusing the conversation from if to how media affects learning.) In short, they maintained that only computers can give 24/7 access to databases all over the world and create the conditions for the development of virtual classrooms.

Gaining Insight into Research Design from the Debate
As I look back at the Clark (1994) and Kozma (1994) debate from a 2006 vantage point, I see a useful contribution to current and future research design. For example, researchers are reminded to take care in attributing changes in learning outcomes to media alone. Clark contended that variations in methods are connected to outcomes, and it is difficult to control for all other variables. This is an important caution to researchers. Further, Kozma did a good job delineating the implications for both theory and research. Overall, it seems that both of their arguments are more relevant to us today as critiques of past media comparison studies, pointing to design weaknesses that we can learn from. For example, Clark made the case that we can learn from “negative evidence.” It’s good for us to not only look at what worked as well as what did not. From Clark, researchers can learn not to make the mistake of letting the enthusiasm for a medium overshadow building a substantive research design. In conclusion, our energy in 2006 is best spent devising guidelines that, as Kozma (1994) expressed, define the appropriate uses of a medium’s capabilities in ways that influence learning for particular students, in particular contexts, performing particular tasks.

References
Bishop, M. J. (n.d.). A short review of the history of technology in education. Unpublished manuscript.

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

Hastings, N. B., & Tracey, M. W. (2005). Does media affect learning: Where are we now? TechTrends, 49(2), 28-30.

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

Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tripp, S. D., & Roby, W. B. (1996). Auditory presentations and language laboratories. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (p.821-650 ). New York: Macmillan.