Running Head: IMPACT OF MEDIA AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 1

The Impact of Media and Instructional Technology on Student Learning: Clark/ Kozma Debate

Kaitlin Jezequel

University of West Georgia

IMPACT OF MEDIA AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 2

Introduction

The introduction of technology and media into education is not a new phenomenon;

however, the research to determine whether or not the addition of technology and media

contributes to increased levels of student achievement is still up for discussion. Researchers

Clark and Kozma have been debating this issue for years, and there still does not seem to be a

definitive answer to the questions they pose, and the positions they take. By taking a look at

Clark and Kozma’s perspectives through the lens of researchers Mayer and Sweller, there may be

a way to determine how students’ learning can be positively affected by media and technology.

Clark’s Perspective

Richard Clark is firm in his beliefs that, when used in education, media and technology

have “no learning benefits” (1994, p. 21). Upon first glance, this opinion from Clark dating back

to nineties may seem outdated; however, Clark is able to back his opinion with research. Based

on a study, “…mathematics achievement increased at exactly the same rate as it did in districts

where computers were giving drill and practice” (1994, p. 24). There is other more recent

research that supports Clark’s opinion by saying, “…the successful application of educational

technology relies on a balance between the educational technology offered and the readiness of

students for educational technology. Only when these two parts are matched together can the

overall learning of students be enhanced” (Sun et al., 2016, p. 150). This research implies the

information and subject content that technology provides can only be absorbed by students if

they are taught properly and effectively by a teacher to begin with.

According to Clark, if the addition of computers or other media do not increase

achievement of students, it is wiser to go with less expensive teaching modes that do not include
IMPACT OF MEDIA AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 3

technology. However, while the choice of going without technology may have been a viable

budgetary option in the nineties, many school districts have decided to evolve with the times,

perceiving value in technology, and include these financial appropriations in their budgets,

seemingly regardless of the cost.

According to their 2018 budget, the Cobb County School District has an entire

department at the Central Office devoted to technology. The dollar amount allocated for

“educational media services” is over 17 million dollars (Ragsdale, 2017). Based on their

decision to spend a hefty amount to fund technology for the students and teachers within their

district, it seems evident the Cobb County School District likely does not agree with Clark’s

thoughts regarding utilizing technology in an educational setting. This monetary outlay implies

this school district believes the benefits of technology are worth the cost.

Kozma’s Perspective

Robert Kozma’s differing opinion from Clark has caused a much heated debate about

whether or not technology and media have any effect on student achievement. Kozma’s views

essentially state that learning is not the same for every student, and that the addition of media and

technology could help some students learn better in congruence with what would be considered

more traditional teaching via lecture alone. According to Kozma, “…learning is an active,

constructive, cognitive, and social process by which the learner strategically manages available

cognitive, physical, and social resources to create new knowledge” (1994, p. 3). He continues by

saying “…knowledge and learning…are the reciprocal interaction between the learner’s

cognitive resources and aspects of the external environment” (Kozma, 1994, p. 3).
IMPACT OF MEDIA AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 4

Just as there are researchers who agree with Clark’s perspective, there are others whose

views align more with Kozma. According to Kwon (2017), “As technology advances and is

increasingly incorporated into classrooms, it will allow students other opportunities for learning

because they are engaged in activities that are relevant, interesting, and authentic” (p. 40). In

comparison, Clark’s research came to a very dissimilar conclusion regarding the efficacy of

embedding technology and media with the intent of increasing student achievement. It becomes

more evident that Clark’s views appear increasingly dated and old-fashioned, while Kozma’s

thoughts have withstood the test of time.

Sweller’s and Mayer’s Theories

Sweller and Mayer present some intriguing theories that may be used to resolve the Clark

and Kozma debate. Sweller presents the Cognitive Load Theory, which in summary suggests

that instructional design can make all of the difference in whether or not a student’s learning, or

cognitive load, can take place. Sweller states “…that inappropriate instructional designs can

impose a heavy extraneous cognitive load that interferes with learning” (1994, p. 308). Sweller’s

research supports much of what Mayer discovered. Mayer’s work discusses an “…essential

overload scenario, in which the material is so complicated that the learner does not have enough

cognitive capacity to mentally represent it as presented” (Mayer, 2014, p. 62). This translates to

mean if the design and delivery of instructional materials are done so in a way that is out of

order, confusing, or has no flow, a learner may not be able to absorb all of the information being

taught. Applied to embedded technology, Sweller and Mayer’s thoughts both seem to remind

educators that media use must be carefully orchestrated so as not to be distracting from the actual

content.
IMPACT OF MEDIA AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 5

While Sweller referred to his work as the Cognitive Load Theory, Mayer’s theory is

named the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning. This theory “…is based on three

cognitive science principles of learning” (2014, p. 43). Mayer’s research concluded that it

appears people learn differently from one another, and that various parts of the brain are

activated while this learning occurs. His research states, “People learn more deeply from words

and pictures than from words alone” (2014, p. 43). Mayer’s work investigated many principles

of multimedia learning which attempt to explain the variety of ways people seem to learn,

depending on their natural affinities and abilities; it appears he was encouraging the use

technology to enhance cognitive processing.

Possible Resolve

The Clark and Kozma Debate will likely continue to be argued and discussed within the

field of education as long as decisions need to be made about technology efficacy, student

learning outcomes, and budgetary allocations for media. However, using Sweller and Mayer’s

works as a reference, a resolution between the Clark and Kozma perspectives may possibly be

found. Sweller suggests that people have various maximum cognitive loads that their brains can

handle before they are unable to consume or process any more information. Sweller also

elaborates on the idea that meaningful instructional design is imperative for students to be able to

learn as much as possible, but with a conscious effort to avoid exceeding maximum cognitive

load. This can be interpreted to support including focused technology within classrooms as a

vehicle to increase student outcomes.

Complementing this perspective, Mayer suggests people learn better with the use of

pictures in congruence with words while trying to absorb new concepts or facts. If the two

theories of Sweller and Mayer were applied concurrently, the instructional design of lessons,
IMPACT OF MEDIA AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 6

particularly those with properly inserted technology, have the distinct possibility of directly

impacting students’ learning in a positive fashion. Instructional designers who accept Mayer’s

principles regarding students’ different approaches to learning, and heed Sweller’s advice to be

wary of pushing students beyond their cognitive load can likely benefit from the best of both

worlds. The addition of new research shows “…most emerging technologies support learning

that is personalized, situated, authentic, and collaborative” (An, 2012, p. 802). Using this

statement as a springboard, educators can strive to create instructional approaches harvesting the

ideas from these researchers that encourage the best practice use of technology by not just using

tech for its own sake, instead integrating media or technology in ways that honor students’

learning needs.

Clark’s side of the debate is as simple as him describing “…that people learned to fly

planes before computers were developed and therefore the media attributes required to learn

were obviously neither exclusive to computers nor necessary for learning to fly” (1994, p. 25).

This thought seems not only blunt but outdated because it does not appear to consider the needs

of all learners, nor acknowledge the dramatic potential of online resources available today when

compared to Clark’s research publish date of 1994. With careful and deliberate integration of

multimedia principles intended to create proper instructional design, media and technology could

have a way of benefitting all learners. Based on Kozma’s own research, “traditional models of

instructional design do not address the complex interrelationships among media, method, and

situation” (1994, p. 21). Bates agrees with the sentiment of Kozma by saying “…many media

are better than one [because] this allows learners with different preferences for learning to be

accommodated, and to allow subject matter to be taught in different ways through different
IMPACT OF MEDIA AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 7

media, thus leading to deeper understanding or a wider range of skills in using content” (2015, p.

241).

Using available media and technology for today’s learners can be done in a way that

provides the best learning experience for all students. Incorporating Mayer’s multimedia

principles into Sweller’s ideas of instructional design and cognitive load are imperative for

helping student achieve to the best of their abilities. Although Kozma was published over 20

years ago, he appeared to imagine a future with media available to students and teachers alike,

and seems open to “the field of educational technology reexamining its foundational assumptions

and questions” (1994, p. 23).

Clark’s findings that seemingly disparaged using technology were also reported during a

time of dial-up internet connections, but it would be interesting to discover if he would have a

different perspective regarding the value of technology in a 21st century classroom, where

wireless connections, email, and search engines are literally available in the palm of a person’s

hand. With the ever growing need for digital literacy in today’s jobs and careers, there are many

researchers who believe “…a mixture of digital literacy skills and critical knowledge about

digital literacy should be a central part of students’ school experience” (Preston et al., 2015, p.

182). Technology in education is here to stay, and if students’ various learning styles are

considered and planned for, this reexamination of education and use of media and technologies

could promote higher learning are preparedness for all.

IMPACT OF MEDIA AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 8

References

An, Y. (2012). Chapter 58 Learner-Centered Technology Integration. In Encyclopedia of E-

Leadership, Counseling, and Training (Vol. 1, pp. 797-807). Hershey, PA: Information

Science Reference. doi:10.4018/978-1-61350-068-2.ch058

Bates, T. (2015). Teaching in a Digital Age. Retrieved April 19, 2018, from

https://westga.view.usg.edu/d2l/le/content/1531873/viewContent/24652021/View.

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

Development, 42(2), 21-29. Retrieved April 19, 2018, from

https://westga.view.usg.edu/d2l/le/content/1531873/viewContent/24652005/View.

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

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

Kwon, H. (2017). Effects of 3D Printing and Design Software on Students’ Overall

Performance. Journal of STEM Education, 18(4), 37-42. Retrieved April 20, 2018.

Mayer, R. E. (2014). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. Mayer, R. (Ed.), The Cambridge

Handbook of Multimedia Learning 2nd Ed. (pp. 43-71). New York, NY: Cambridge

University Press.

Preston, J. P., Wiebe, S., Gabriel, M., McAuley, A., Campbell, B., & MacDonald, R. (2015).

Benefits and Challenges of Technology in High Schools: A Voice from Educational

Leaders with a Freire Echo. Springer Science & Business Media, 46, 169-185.

doi:10.1007/s10780-015-9240-z
IMPACT OF MEDIA AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 9

Ragsdale, C. (2017). CCSD 2018 Budget. Retrieved April 19, 2018, from

http://www.cobbk12.org/centraloffice/finance/2018Budget/

Sun, S., Lee, P., Lee, A., & Law, R. (2016). Perception of Attributes and Readiness for

Educational Technology: Hospitality Management Students’ Perspectives. Journal of

Hospitality & Tourism Education, 28(3), 142-154. Retrieved April 20, 2018, from

http://articles.westga.edu:2081/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=16&sid=d98a610a-3744-

4870-b957-9bd8b3636175@sessionmgr4006