Media Debate: Clark vs. Kozma

My role in the debate was to lay the foundation for Clark's argument, so here it is:


1. The one thing that we must make clear today is the fact that Richard Clark is not opposed to media. As a matter of fact according to Cark he has stated that he believes in the “esthetics of media and its potential for granting very efficient access to a great variety of types of information (as well as its potential for limiting access through centralized control).” http://hagar.up.ac.za/rbo/construct/clark.html. In other words media does have the potential to transmit information if it uses the correct methods. Once again he does not deny the usefulness of media. What Clark does in his argument is to separate media and method and look at them as 2 separate entities.

2. Clark believes that “we do not need to argue for learning benefits from media in order to realize their extraordinary potential. At the same time, we need to be investing much more in the study of methods that influence cognitive processes that characterize complex learning and problem solving. Separating these two questions will liberate the development of both media and instructional design.” http://hagar.up.ac.za/rbo/construct/clark.html. Basically looking at media and method separately will allow us to use media to its fullest potential as long as we are implementing the correct methods. He does not deny the fact that newly produced media can have incredible effects on the way we present information in the future. But if the media is misused and it does not appeal to the human brain and its learning process then it will not have any positive effects on learning.

3. Clark has analyzed meta-analytic reviews of media research in order to support his argument. In a study conducted by Kulik on computer based instruction (CBI) Clark “reanalyzed a 30 percent sample of the studies he used and found that when the same instructional design group produces CBT and presents the live instruction with which it is compared in many studies, there is no achievement difference between the CBT and live conditions” (Clark, 1994, p.24)

4. Clark bases his belief that media and method are separate entities because “the substitution of medium (aka Media) will produce the same or similar learning outcomes, therefore instructional methods are the underlying common elements of all media” (Clark, 1994, p.7) So once again it is the instructional methods used in any comparable technology which influences and promotes learning. His emphasis is always on the methods used.


5. Let’s take a closer look at Clark’s distinctions between media and method. Clark’s metaphor of media has been quite misunderstood. Mostly because of his comparison between media to a delivery truck. His quote says “media are mere vehicles that deliver instruction but do not influence student achievement any more than the truck that delivers our groceries causes changes in our nutrition” (Clark, 1983, p.445). This is merely Clark’s way of explaining his definition of media. He believes that media is a tool used to transport knowledge. Any media can be used depending on the learning goal. It could be seen in the form of videos, software, web based activities, etc. The focus should be on the way the information is presented.

6. Clark defines instructional methods as learning “influences by external events, those events support a cognitive process or structures that are required for learning goals by students who are unable or unwilling to provide them for themselves” (Clark, 1994, p.7) So the methods used to transmit knowledge and promote learning must be based on human cognitive processes in order to be effective. If we do not understand how the human mind works, how could we possibly create effective lessons or activities that will cause students to learn the necessary information? A computer or any other media on its own cannot provide this kind of instruction. The designer behind this tool must create something for learners based on proven cognitive research.

References:
Clark, R. (1983) Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445-449.
Clark, R. (1994) Media Will Never Influence Learning. ETR&D, 42(2), 21-29.
Clark, R. (1994) Media and Method. ETR&D, 42(3), 7-10.
Comments from Richard Clark to participants in the Media and Methods Debate http://hagar.up.ac.za/rbo/construct/clark.html

Teaching with Multiple Intelligence & Technology

This video is a great example of a teacher who understands that his students come to the classroom with multiple intelligences and interest.

A Simple Question (Dempsey ch.1-3)

The focus of these chapters was to provide a deeper understanding of Instructional Design and its origins. Through these readings I learned that the need for this field arose from the necesity of teaching soldiers how to use weapons and machinery used during WWII. This was very intersting to learn because it was a very valuable tool which enabled U.S. troops to quickly learn, master, and use the equipment. That being said I think that one can only assume that Instructional Media has also played a role in preparing for battle in these current wars. Yes the educational implications are wonderful, but what do we do when this knowledge is being used to take lives and destroy communities? Do we have a moral obligation as instructional technologists to speak up about the way our product/media are being used? Or is this all for the greater good and advancement of the field?

Multiple Intelligence Theory

Summary:

This theory was developed by Dr. Howard Gardner an education professor at Harvard University. His theory states that people have a broad range of intelligences, eight to be exact. Those intelligences include: linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal (social skills), intrapersonal (self-reflective), and naturalist. “MI theory also stresses that the interaction among these intelligences is important for understanding how people’s minds work” (Gardner and Moran, 2006, p.228)
Gardner established his theory by researching the findings of studies done in the areas of “…cognitive and developmental psychology, differential psychology, neuroscience, anthropology, and cultural studies” (Gardner & Moran, 2006, p.227) By using these findings he established eight criteria needed to determine the intelligences included in his theory.
The criteria includes the “potential isolation by brain damage, the existence of idiots savants, prodigies and other exceptional individuals, an identifiable core operation or set of operations, a distinctive development history, along with a definable set of 'end-state' performances, an evolutionary history and evolutionary plausibility, support from experimental psychological tasks, support from psychometric findings, and susceptibility to encoding in a symbol system. (Gardner, 1983, p.62-69).

Implications on Education:
Our current school system is set up to focus most of the days learning on reading information from a given text, then taking a written exam based on that information. However the reality is that most of us learn through a variety of ways which include speaking, manipulating objects, observing, interaction, drawing, etc. This is why Gardner calls “… on educators to take advantage of this multiplicity of intelligences. Teachers should fashion teaching and learning so that all students have the chance to learn and to demonstrate what they have learned-not just those students who happen to be gifted with words and numbers’ (Gardner, 2000 p.33).
“It should be stressed that Gardner himself has never put for an educational recipe grown out of MI theory. At most, he has indicated some general implications- individualizing education, approaching topics through multiple entry point – that are consistent with the theory” (Gardner and Moran, 2006, p.229) It is up to educators to decide if doing the aforementioned is beneficial to one’s classroom and overall student learning.
In order to use the Multiple Intelligence theory an educator must “…first state their educational goals and values. Only when educators clearly state and agree upon their larger goals- to teach for understanding, to prepare individuals for the world beyond school, to develop each person’s potential fully, and to make sure that students master core knowledge- does it make sense to ask ‘ can MI be useful in pursuit of this goal? If so how?” (Gardner, 1997, p.21).

Implementation of Technology:
It is very possible to relate or connect technology to MI theory as long as educators set a clear goal and select appropriate media to help them achieve that goal. One example given by Gardner states that if an educator’s goal is to teach students about the Civil War the teacher can use the internet and videos. Through this media one could present documents, photographs, films and even interactive activities that can engage all students. “The new technologies make the materials vivid, easy to access, and fun to play with- and they readily address the multiple ways of knowing that humans possess” (Gardner, 2000, p.35).


References
Gardner, Howard (1983) Frames of Mind: The theory of multiple intelligences,p.62-6 New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1997) “Multiple Intelligence as a Partner in School Improvement”. Educational Leadership v55, p.20-21.
Gardner, H. (2000) “Can Technology Exploit Our Many Ways of Knowing?”. The Digital Classroom. p.33-35
Gardener, H., & Moran, S. (2006) “The Science of Multiple Intelligence Theory: A Response to Lynn Waterhouse”. Educational Psychologist,41 (4), 227-232

Professional Organizations

Association for Educational Communications & Technology
The mission of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology is to provide international leadership by promoting scholarship and best practices in the creation, use, and management of technologies for effective teaching and learning in a wide range of settings
http://www.aect.org/


International Society for Technology in Education
ISTE provides leadership and service to improve teaching, learning, and school leadership by advancing the effective use of technology in K–12 and teacher education. We support our members with information, networking opportunities, and guidance as they face the challenge of transforming education.
http://www.iste.org/


I learned that being part of either one of these organizations would be very beneficial because they keep you up to date with changes in technology, provide you with networking opportunities to meet with people in the profession who could potentially hire you or collaborate with you. The professional development gained through the conferences would also develop my skills in this field. The only downside is the cost of membership, registration, and accommodations to these events.

Case Study

The communications barriers come from the individual’s philosophies. Dr. Oakes focuses on how learning happens as an interaction between students during their discussions in which they share their ideas. Everyone is validated and there are no right or wrong answers. However, as an Instructional Designer Denny’s view of the learning process is very systematic. He believes their must be specific objectives to be met, a way to evaluate, and assess the success of the project/assignment.
Dr. Oakes explained the task in her own terms without very specific guidelines in order to provide Denny with the freedom to be actively involved in constructing his own materials through experience and his prior knowledge. She was facilitating his understanding of the project without telling him verbatim what she wanted.
Denny on the other hand is used to receiving detailed instructions on what is need and what the outcomes should be. He is use to being guided by the specific process of creating these instructional plans. There is no way for him to use his regular formula to resolve this issue, he is challenged to think outside his box.