1

Understanding Instructional Technology

Damon Andrew Smith

College of Education, Georgia Southern University

ITEC 8133: Trends & Issues in Instructional Technology

Dr. Nihan Agacli Dogan

Fall 2021
Damon Smith: Understanding Instructional Technology 2

Clark’s Arguments

Clark begins his work by pointing out that attempts to define the impacts of media on

learning have been included in educational research for a very long time. He notes that these

attempts hope to quantify learning gains attributable to specific media and led to the “media

selection” model of research. He then initiates the central argument of his research which is that

“most current summaries and meta-analysis of media comparison studies clearly suggest that

media do not influence learning under any conditions” (Clark, 1983, p. 445). Throughout his

research, Clark cites several previous research efforts made in studying a wide range of media

and their overall impacts on learning. He notes how the results of these research efforts were

presented and are interpreted as supporting media’s impact on learning but cautions against a

possible publication bias inflating media’s positive impact on learning.

Clark argues that a variety of confounding factors are responsible for any perceived

differences in learning outcomes. First, Clark notes that method outweighs media in instruction

by saying “there is evidence in these meta-analyses that it is the method of instruction that leads

more directly and powerfully to learning” (Clark, 1983, p. 449) and “it seems not to be media but

variables such as instructional methods that foster learning” (Clark, 1983, p. 449). He cites

specific instructional methodologies that can be delivered through a variety of media formats and

yield similar benefits regardless of media.

Another confounding factor Clark discusses is a novelty element for newer media. He

notes “a small and positive effect for newer media over more conventional instructional sources”

(Clark, 1983, p. 448). In essence, students are excited to try new learning tools and may initially

be more engaged as a result. This heightened engagement is what causes increases in

Damon Smith: Understanding Instructional Technology 3

achievement, but over time this increased engagement diminishes as they become more familiar

and comfortable with the tool (Clark, 1983).

Clark also discusses a new way to research the impacts of media on instruction when he

discusses studying the “attributes” of media and their impact on the learning process. These are

basically functions within the media. He gives the example of being able to zoom into details of

an object or “unwrap” a three-dimensional object into its two-dimensional form. Because

attributes/functions are not unique to specific media though, he dismisses their relevance to the

comparison argument. He closes this discussion by noting that “it now appears that the media

attribute question has many of the same problems that plagued the media comparison issue”

(Clark, 1983, p. 451).

Clark concludes his research by again stating that “it seems reasonable to assume,

therefore, that media are delivery vehicles for instruction and do not directly influence learning”

(Clark, 1983, p. 453). He does note, however, that certain elements of various media might be

capable of fostering learning in students that lack certain skills, and the selection and

appropriateness of these media elements should be identified through the instructional process.

Kozma’s Arguments

In his rebuttal to Clark, Kozma argues confounding frameworks have prevented true

examination of potential learning differences offered by media. Kozma notes that “if there is no

relationship between media and learning it may be because we have not yet made one” (Kozma,

1994, p. 7). Properly framing the inquiry into this suspected relationship is a time sensitive

matter because technology will continue advancing and progressing and if researchers do not

grasp now what is integral to this relationship, the gap will only continue to widen potentially
Damon Smith: Understanding Instructional Technology 4

making this body of research unable to be pursued. To move this forward, Kozma proposes the

social and cognitive aspects of learning may be the key to reframing the evaluation of whether or

not media is impactful.

Kozma poses two instructional environments (ThinkerTools and The Jasper Woodbury

Series) that emphasize “the interaction between information and processes in the mind and those

in the environment as a framework to examine the potential relationship between learning and

media” (Kozma, 1994, p. 8). A large takeaway from Kozma is that how media is structured to

interact with these processes is what matters!

To support this takeaway, Kozma notes computers were able to help learners in the

ThinkerTools scenario because the computer was able to meaningfully represent objects in

motion in an experiential way and take input from learners as they worked through the exercises.

Videodisks were able to help learners in the Jasper project because students were able to be

exposed to a larger, richer amount of information than they would have been able to through text

and the media allowed it to be a more realistic, engaging learning experience. Kozma notes many

educational pitfalls that could show up if learners had to gather the same information through

text alone. Kozma notes that videodisks provide a visual and social nature to the story, which is

more likely to allow learners to use situation-based prior knowledge. The purposeful match

between the content and the capability of the media chosen is what enhanced learning. This is the

crux of Kozma’s argument – when media attributes are appropriately matched to the social and

cognitive processes needed for the specific learning, then we can see the true impact of media

(Kozma, 1994).
Damon Smith: Understanding Instructional Technology 5

Smith’s Rejoinder

Both authors make points supporting their respective stances that I can agree with based

on my own experience. Having taught engineering & technology for eleven years, I do agree

with Clark that a novelty effect can be at play. You see it all the time with new technologies

being pushed at yearly conferences and new trainings developed and delivered based on those

new technologies. They are the newest “fad” until something else comes along to replace them.

There is pressure to be “up-to-date” and implement the newest tools, but in my experience, it is

not the tool itself that will engage students in the long run. I also think Clark is right to note that

the instructional method is a very influential factor. In my current role helping teachers integrate

technology, I do believe that good teaching and a skilled teacher are still integral to instructional

success despite the tool being used.

Ultimately, however, I agree with Kozma because I think media can have a significant

impact on student’s learning when it enhances the instructional experience by making the

learning more realistic and applicable to their real-world context. For example, I used a computer

program called West Point Bridge Designer to reinforce major structural engineering concepts

with my students. By using this program, students can visualize and interact with information

they have been learning in class. The learning goals of the unit are achieved because real-world,

interactive elements bring the concepts to life instead of being just text on a page or a teacher’s

presentation. I certainly see why these two perspectives are at the foundation of our field, much

like the nature versus nurture debate in psychology. I think both views offer key elements to be

considered when understanding instructional design.

Damon Smith: Understanding Instructional Technology 6

References

Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of educational

research, 53(4), 445-459.

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

technology research and development, 42(2), 7-19.