comps reading - Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media

Drawing analysis and conclusion from the current summaries and meta-analyses of media comparison studies, Richard E. Clark in this paper has a fundamental point to argue: media do not influence learning under any conditions; it was not the medium that caused the change but rather a curricular reform that accompanied the change. To validate such statement and to make clear the relationship between media and learning, Clark has an interesting and self-explanatory analogy: media are mere vehicles that deliver instruction but do not influence study achievement any more than the truck that delivers our groceries causes changes in our nutrition; the choice of vehicle might influence the cost or extent of distributing instruction, but only the content of the vehicle can influence achievement.

This assertion stays true when we question why different media are exploited to facilitate leaning: most of time the exploitation of media on learning is to serve "efficiency" purpose, to save time, effort, and money. There are people arguing that media with its interesting and novel interface and function provided can ignite and sustain learners' learning interests. Clark addressed such "novelty effect" for new media, though may promote learning interest in the first place, tends to disappear over time.

Clark in this paper brings up the concept of "media attribute/attribution," which he considers the connection bridging media and learning. It is this media attribute that influence learning (notice that what means by learning here is not learning content per se but "the way that information is processed in learning.") Clark provided some media attributes examples such as zooming to explicate his idea. Media with diverse attributes can serve different learners' needs, for example, a child with low cue attending ability might learn the cognitive skill of "zooming" into stimulus details (Salomon, 1974a).

The promise of the media attributed approach is based on at least three expectations:

1. the attributes were an integral part of media and would provide a connection between instructional uses of media and learning
2. attributes would provide for the cultivation of cognitive skills for learners who needed them
3. identified attributes would provide unique independent variables for instructional theories that specified causal relationships between attribute modeling and learning.

While media attribute research may contribute ti instructional design, it is difficult for theory development.

One final argument Clark makes is about enjoyment, achievement, and choice of media: the relationship between media preferences and learning achievement seems antagonistic (Saracho, 1982; Machula, 1978-1979; Clark, 1982). Learners tend to choose media that serve their needs best to facilitate their learning. Sometimes such needs could be for the convenience and ease of learning, under this circumstance, learners believe through media exploitation, they can save time / effort / money invested on their learning. As they have such mindset, it is likely that they invest less effort than required when employing their preferred media on learning, thus the learning achievement decreases. Same situation happens to both higher and lower ability students. Such antagonistic relationship explains attention needs to be paid when employing media on learning, for media is like a double sworded knife.