The Clark Debate

1

Assignment T-2

Fischler Graduate School of Education & Human Services

Programs in Instructional Technology & Distance Education (ITDE)

1750 NE 167th Street

North Miami Beach, Florida 33162-3017

Programs in Instructional Technology and Distance Education

Assignment Evaluation Form

Study Area (Courses):ITDE 8009

Due Date:July 12, 2004

Student Name:James L. Mowery, Louise Wilcox, Cynthia Eschenburg, Bob Raichle, and Deanna Romano

Cluster: 23

Faculty Name:Dr. Anglin

Today’s Date:July 10, 2004

Assignment Number/Title: Assignment T-2

Faculty Decision:Next Response Due:

Additions Required

Rewrite Required

Approved/Grade: ______

Below Standard

Midterm Examination

Final Examination

Comments:

1

Assignment T-2

This page intentionally left blank.

1

Assignment T-2

The Clark Debate: “No Significant Difference”

Assignment T-2

ITDE 8009

James Mowery, Louise Wilcox, Cynthia Eschenburg, Robert Raichle, and Deanna Romano

ITDE 23, Nova Southeastern University

Submitted electronically

Context

The Assignment Statement

Assignment T-2: Critical Analysis of the Media[1] Effects Debate (15 Points): The media effects debate will be reanalyzed in light of your status as an advanced doctoral student. The debate was introduced during your first course in the ITDE program. This 10-page paper will present your current understanding of the debate and its impact on the field of instructional technology and distance education. You should review Richard Clark’s keynote address at the 2000 ITDE Summer Institute and his writings in his book, Learning from Media. Be sure to discuss the positions of those who disagree with Clark’s position.
Introduction

The “Great Media Debate” revolves around more than a decade of research that has been done in an attempt to prove or disprove that media makes a difference in the achievement levels of students. On the surface, it appears that Richard Clark (2001) has become almost synonymous with the debate since his statement that, “… most current summaries and meta-analyses of media comparison studies clearly suggest that media do not influence learning under any conditions.” What began as an attempt to determine the effectiveness of media for increasing efficiency of education may have turned into a face-off between Clark and his supporters on one hand and opponents of Clark on the other hand. Certainly our first exposure to this debate as neophytes in the world of ITDE may have led us to this conclusion. But is this really the central issue in the debate and if it is, should it be? If one looks beneath the surface of this debate, other positions emerge that merit our attention and Clark, himself, has some engaging ideas that might just advance the profession of ITDE into the next decade.

Clark, in his keynote address at Nova Southeastern University (2002), explains that an “incubation period” of approximately twenty years may be needed from the initial statement of a new idea until it is understood and can be applied. He uses this concept to explain the lifespan of the media debate. He anticipates that at some point an agreement will be reached among the professionals in the field and then research will move on to other problems that need to be addressed. He welcomes the debate, however, because he believes it is essential to the development of new theories. “It is only by deliberately thinking through the most basic questions related to our profession that we will advance, building a foundation knowledge for the future” (Clark, 2000). It is important in any discussion of the media debate to focus on the results of the research, which may or may not be flawed, on the purpose of the research and on the process of research. As advanced doctoral students, this is the deeper insight that we now possess, perhaps because many of use are now engaged in our own dissertation research.

Clark suggests that there are some general concepts about applied research that should be front and center in the media debate. First, it is essential to identify the problem. The problem statement is fundamental to the momentum behind research, which is to gain new information to solve problems. This is the basis for all dissertations. Second, Clark suggests one consider possible solutions to the problem. The purpose is to test the possible solutions, not think up an intervention that serve as sound bites and look for a problem with which to connect the solution…problem first, solution second, research third. Relate research to theories. One needs to consider the active ingredients of an intervention; those that have an impact on the problem. Always make a compelling case against the interventions. Argue with yourself and try to prove yourself wrong if you can (it is OK if you do). Finally, remember that circumstances change and evolve, particularly as new problems surface that drive new research and new interventions. What underpins the ongoing debate, then, is as much a discussion of the research surrounding media, its inherent value, the problem it is trying to solve, the research methods and the efficacy of the results. Before taking a closer look at the opposing sides in the debate, what follows is an original perspective regarding the problem that drives the debate and drives the research regarding the use of media in education.

The Holy Grail

Our collective consideration was given to entitling this paper, “In search of the Holy Grail” or “The Silver Bullet”, or some other title that implies that researchers are working to identify media that will solve all challenges with respect to student learning. To some degree the debate continues because there are so many who do not want to believe Clark but want to believe there is a ”magic” medium that will revolutionize education and learning. In reality, Clark does not state that no such medium exists. Clark rather states that there has not been any valid, reliable research to support the premise that such a medium exists. A closer look at our opening quotation of Clark will identify this difference. But why would there be a quest for such a silver bullet? Clark suggests that purposeful research should be undertaken to find solutions to practical problems. But what are some of those problems?

With all that we have studied during our coursework and other readings, it is painfully clear that the profession of teaching/training/instructional design is not easy. Developing lesson plans is not easy. Motivating students is not easy. Learning is not easy. The very fact that it requires great effort has been cited as a confounding condition in some of the media debate research. Because teachers spend more time developing lessons that incorporate the novel media, it is believed that their effort in lesson planning, not the media, results in more effective learning by students. If the media truly made a difference, then perhaps there is some medium that would make learning so easy and/or the design of instruction so easy that one could design instruction, prepare lesson plans and build programs in just a matter of minutes. Now that medium would have instant appeal and would make whoever developed it richer than Bill Gates. But beyond the effort, the factor of time needs to be considered and that is another reason the drive to identify a positive impact of media continues.

All this work takes time. Since time is finite and time is money, and since education is to some degree a business, an effective, efficient tool would represent a significant return on investment. In previous coursework we discussed the learning machines of the 1950’s. The goal of the machines was to make better use of the teacher’s time by having machines “instruct” students in rote tasks in order to allow teachers time to engage students in the higher level thought processes that were best monitored by the skillful teacher.

Although time, effort and money are certainly reasons that motivate the continuation of the debate and accompanying research, the emergence of the ITDE field in which technology, instructional techniques and distance education have joined hands, is also a driving force in this debate just as it is itself affected by the debate. In today’s educational environments, media are the centerpiece of distance education. Many cash-strapped school systems envision media as their salvation and embrace any research that will support that position (something Clark warns against). A media solution that is easy to work with, saves time and attracts more tuition-paying students is likely to be successful. But the bottom line is also closely linked to student achievement and learning outcomes. Educators continually work toward the goal of improving the effectiveness of their instruction in order to promote learning in their students.

We believe that the debate continues because the best minds in the field can not yet come to an agreement. There is not yet a common theoretical foundation based upon reliable and valid research to definitively answer the question. Perhaps this is one example of the infancy of the profession of ITDE. The solid theoretical base so important to the emergence of a profession is still dependent on research strategies from other more established professions such as psychology. The field of ITDE may need to develop new research techniques that are better suited to the heavy dose of technologly-driven media that is sprinkled into today’s learning environment. Now, onward to the debate itself and why it appears to be at the heart of instructional technology and distance education.

Media and ITDE

Media definitely matters in ITDE. Early distance education programs taught as correspondence courses did not grow rapidly and attract many students. Today’s distance education programs are flourishing because of the technology component and the media available. Peterson’s Guide to Distance Learning Programs, has a section on “Delivery Media.” Media are essential for the delivery of content over time and space. (

Clark suggests that what really matters is “…how the teacher/designer translates cognitive process features into a symbol system the learner can understand.” How that symbol system is delivered does not affect learning outcomes. But, it may be more efficient, or more cost effective, or more interesting…but in the final analysis, it is the methods developed and employed by the teacher that makes a difference in learning or achievement of stated learning outcomes. No matter what the medium, there is always another medium that could accomplish the same thing. Therefore, in Clark’s view, methods and teachers/designers influence student achievement, not media. Those in the ITDE profession may be wise to focus attention on how media can be matched with method, not replace it. It stands to reason, however, that media does matter, but perhaps not in the ways that researchers were originally trying to prove.

In studies where student achievement was identified, other factors were not controlled such as the medium’s novelty, which enticed the student to spend more time with the information. Since solid research has identified time with content as a relevant ingredient, it is believed that the extra time and effort, not the medium, itself, led to the achievement gain. In order for research to definitely determine that the medium made the difference, the content and method must be controlled and only the medium must be different. To date, this has not been done effectively.

Clark suggests that the better debate may now be about the economic benefits that can be derived from different media. But, media needs to be secondary to instructional design. It is more important to study methods that influence cognitive process than media that presents content and engages learners.

Kozma (1994) agrees with Clark that studies have been inadequate but believes that research should be continued. The debate is not entirely about Clark’s view about media but about Clark’s view about continued research on the effect of media on learning. Both recognize that confounding variables such as learning styles and motivation need to be addressed with better research techniques.

Koumi (1994) also believes that research should be redirected away from the question of media and to “developing criteria for using media for best effects.” It is more important to ask, “What are the unique qualities of certain media and how can methods be linked to media?” Clark insists media is not a part of methods but certainly the two may be linked. All agree that research should focus on best use, not on comparisons of media. Although media may not influence achievement, media may influence motivation or speed of delivery which may influence achievement.

Clark (1983) acknowledges Glaser and Cooley’s view that suggests educators are better off using any acceptable medium and focusing on what psychologists have learned about learning. Use the medium that works in proven learning situations, styles, etc. Clark (1983) described the perspective of Levi and Dickie as suggesting that learning objectives are attained through instruction presented by a variety of media and the important questions to ask are about which medium may facilitate the accomplishment of specific learning objectives. What works well for one objective may fail miserably for another. This brings us full circle to some additional thoughts by Clark.

It is essential to look at the impact of the interventions discussed in the research. Are they solving the identified problems of learners or making matters worse? Clark cites some research examples of “solutions” that are actually making things worse for students. He charges that use of subject matter experts, once heralded as an essential step forward, now shows evidence that at least 50% of the information they convey to novices is incorrect. Teamwork projects (cooperative learning) that were designed to increase motivation and thinking in students have proven that all members of the group work less hard than they would if they were working individually (other research suggests that the harder one works the more one gets from the experience). Regarding media, the positive results might be a reflection of the very small percentage of situations in which students learn and like what they are learning. Media might help with the “like” phenomenon, but not the learning itself. On the other hand, newer media may be appealing, making it appear that the material to be mastered is simpler. This, in turn, may cause the student to spend less time with it, invest less energy in it and consequently decrease mental effort…an essential ingredient of learning.

There are other theories, based upon research, that suggest media can actually make things worse for the learner. Cognitive load theory suggests that learners process information from working memory to long-term memory using both a visual and auditory channel. Poorly designed CBT will exceed one or both channel’s capability to process this information. For example, if a student is expected to watch an onscreen animation while listening to a narrator and reading text, both the video and audio channel will be overloaded (the video because you have to watch the animation and read the text, the audio because you have to listen to the narration and convert the text into an audio input)

This brings us back to Clark’s thoughts on media affecting learning or media being used by course designers in a way that affects learning. A medium in the hands of an expert designer can have a positive impact on learning. The same medium in the hands of a poor designer can have a negative impact on learning.

So, perhaps the more important question is: should the research on the effect of media in learning continue or not? Is it ineffective? Should it be redirected? Is it time to move on to other things more important and to research with fewer confounding variables? Perhaps research time, energy and dollars would be better spent expanding the knowledge base regarding other theories that impact learning with which media can be linked or used as a tool. For example, Clark explains that learner control of the learning environment was once considered preferable to program control. However, research now indicates that learner control is more effective for students as long as they have some prior knowledge of the subject matter. Would it be better to look at media and student control or media control of the learning environment? Clark also links “Cognitive Efficiency” research to future media research. Do media increase the speed of learning, rather than the learning itself? If they do, this could be significant and help with some of the problems the authors of this paper described, regarding time, energy and money, that warrant the attention of researchers. Even training design should be subject to research. Does the integration of sound and pictures increase the amount of information that people can keep in the minds, hence affecting learning? Media effect and screen design could certainly link with this research. Even research on persistence, which appears essential for learning, may have ties to media.