Arguments:
While summarizing the Kozma v. Clark debate via blocks of text is the traditional method for displaying their main objects and arguments, the infographic below offers a much more succinct and visually appealing way of doing this.
Position:
Upon reviewing both the arguments and counter-arguments of Kozma and Clark, it is evident that Kozma offers a much more friendly and realistic argument regarding learning with media. As a learner and user of many forms of media over the course of the years (VHS tapes, televisions, cassette tapes, CD players, smartphones, laptops, etc) it is evident, from my own experiences, that media allows users to consume more forms of learning and that the two have a reciprocal relationship within the twenty-first century.
While Clark does well in defending his position through urging the separation of media and method attributes (with regards to causes of learning) as well as the detaching of delivery and design technologies from each other, his argument is much more confined to specifics. Instead of looking at the larger picture of a user’s relationship with media (and how it may change), he is more concerned with the lack of positive proof of media as the sole influencer and the defining of highly specific parameters. It is evident that Clark views media as a vehicle for learning rather than an influence (p.26). He hints that it is not the “active ingredient” in learning but likens it to a pill or tablet that is ingested by users so that they may obtain the method which will cause learning (p. 26).
In contradiction to Clark’s defined specifics, Kozma allows for a more holistic approach to the topic. He supports his more fluid argument by starting that media and methods must work together for the ultimate success of the learner (p. 16) but that as learners begin to utilize their resources within the learning process, in this case media, that instruction must also become a part of the equation (p. 11). This instruction creates guidelines for users and structures their interaction with whichever form of media they are using (p. 11). Examples of these structures can be found within Kozma’s examples and include learning techniques (scaffolding, priming, etc) frequently and successfully used outside of media (p10, 12). While this seems to strengthen one of Clark’s arguments (naming that it is types of instruction which influence learning, not media), I have interpreted it to actually strengthen the more reciprocal approach between media and methods championed by Kozma. The approach is more interactionist in its thinking and embraces the two elements to create a tool that is more efficient in its aims. As an educator, I feel it is my duty to give my students efficient tools, even if they are a combination of varying elements.
While summarizing the Kozma v. Clark debate via blocks of text is the traditional method for displaying their main objects and arguments, the infographic below offers a much more succinct and visually appealing way of doing this.
Position:
Upon reviewing both the arguments and counter-arguments of Kozma and Clark, it is evident that Kozma offers a much more friendly and realistic argument regarding learning with media. As a learner and user of many forms of media over the course of the years (VHS tapes, televisions, cassette tapes, CD players, smartphones, laptops, etc) it is evident, from my own experiences, that media allows users to consume more forms of learning and that the two have a reciprocal relationship within the twenty-first century.
While Clark does well in defending his position through urging the separation of media and method attributes (with regards to causes of learning) as well as the detaching of delivery and design technologies from each other, his argument is much more confined to specifics. Instead of looking at the larger picture of a user’s relationship with media (and how it may change), he is more concerned with the lack of positive proof of media as the sole influencer and the defining of highly specific parameters. It is evident that Clark views media as a vehicle for learning rather than an influence (p.26). He hints that it is not the “active ingredient” in learning but likens it to a pill or tablet that is ingested by users so that they may obtain the method which will cause learning (p. 26).
In contradiction to Clark’s defined specifics, Kozma allows for a more holistic approach to the topic. He supports his more fluid argument by starting that media and methods must work together for the ultimate success of the learner (p. 16) but that as learners begin to utilize their resources within the learning process, in this case media, that instruction must also become a part of the equation (p. 11). This instruction creates guidelines for users and structures their interaction with whichever form of media they are using (p. 11). Examples of these structures can be found within Kozma’s examples and include learning techniques (scaffolding, priming, etc) frequently and successfully used outside of media (p10, 12). While this seems to strengthen one of Clark’s arguments (naming that it is types of instruction which influence learning, not media), I have interpreted it to actually strengthen the more reciprocal approach between media and methods championed by Kozma. The approach is more interactionist in its thinking and embraces the two elements to create a tool that is more efficient in its aims. As an educator, I feel it is my duty to give my students efficient tools, even if they are a combination of varying elements.
In summation, I agree (to some extent with Clark) that media is not the sole factor to influence learning; however, Kozma’s highlighting of the integrated nature of learning, media and instruction is not only more appealing but more practical. Within learning, every educator knows that parameters and instructions must always be given and that one particular media may not work with a specific method. The beauty of the relationship between media and its influence on learning is the variety of efficient ways it will interact with learners and users.
I like your interpretation of Clark's view ~ that he is not seeing the larger picture. Like you, I agree that Clark makes a valid point that media is not the sole factor to influence learning, but as you pointed out media is definitely a useful tool in helping progress to the final goal. As teachers, we've learned about the different ways students learn and have been encouraged to include as many of these in our instruction as possible. Media has the same affect. For some students, Clark's perspective is very plausible - they can learn just as well through other meaningful instructional opportunities; however, for many students in our classrooms today, they need collaboration, opportunities to engage actively in their own learning, and a variety of media mediums to integrate their grade level standards into real world situations.
ReplyDelete