Reframing the media effectiveness in 2009Presentation Transcript
Reframing the Debate in 2009: Web 2.0’s Effect on Learning.
Does media have the ability to influence learning? “The debate is, and always has been, about the ability of more than one medium to support a selected instructional method, whether or not any given medium has the capabilities that cannot be replicated by another medium, and the validity of the research” (Hastings, 2005, p. 30). The Debate
Debate originated in 1983 when Clark stated that media has no learning benefit. Kozma challenged Clark's in 1991 and 1994. Clark (1994) responded to Kozma's criticism with his paper “Media Will Never Influence Learning”. Since then, there has been few responses to the debate and the original question has not been answered. Background
The Media Effectiveness Debate Clark: Media will never influence learning (1994) Kozma: Will media influence learning? (1994) Hastings & Tracey: Does media affect learning? (2005). Affect (v)= influence Effect (v) = bring about/accomplish Effect (n) = result, accomplishment Effectiveness (n) = the ability to bring about an effect
Definitions: Media Clark: “mere vehicles that deliver instruction but do not influence student achievement…” (1994, p. 22). Kozma: “media can be analyzed in terms of their cognitively relevant capabilities or attributes (Salomon, 1978). These include a medium’s technology, symbol systems, and processing capabilities”(1994, p. 11).
Bates & Poole: use previous Kozma quote (2003, p. 48). Moore & Kearsley: “It is technology that is the vehicle for communicating messages, and the messages are represented in a medium” (2005, p. 6). Fahy: “The generic term tools can be used to avoid unnecessary distinctions between media and modes of teaching and learning” (2008, p. 173) Media Cont’d
Clark: “the provision of cognitive processes or strategies that are necessary for learning but which students can not or will not provide for themselves”(1994, p. 27).
Kozma: “complex interrelationships among media, method, and situation” (1994, p. 17).
Clark: according to Tennyson “does not directly enter into the debate any notions about learning theories” (1994, p. 24). Kozma claims Clark works from a behaviorist framework (1994, p. 8). Kozma: “an active, constructivist, cognitive and social process by which the learner strategically manages available cognitive, physical, and social resources to create new knowledge…” (1994, p. 8). Learning
Clark: Quantitative Research Methods According to Bates & Poole, Clark considers “quasi-experimental, comparative research to be the only valid research methodology” (2003, p. 71). Locatis: (on studies that compare the same method with different media) “these studies have only controlled for media differences in the sense that one might control for differences between a sprinter and paraplegic by sticking the sprinter’s legs in casts” (2007, p. 12). Kozma: Bases conclusions on only two studies. Research
Clark’s Position (1983) Media has no learning benefit Media is a delivery truck 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” (1983, p. 445). Instructional methods have been confounded with media It is the instructional methods which influence learning any teaching method could be implemented using a variety of media Media only influences cost and distribution Media comparison studies are not successful
certain media can affect learning and motivation due to their unique attributes Does not argue that media alone influences learning, rather that media’s ability to influence learning is dependent upon the instructional methods used and how they exploit the attributes of the media (Hastings, 2005). This may result in more or different learning when one medium is compared to another for certain tasks or learners (Kozma, 1994). “If there is no relationship between media and learning it may be because we have not yet made one” (Kozma, 1994, p. 7). Kozma’s Position (1991, 1994)
Kozma identifies five capabilities of media that facilitate learning (Hastings, 2005): the ability to represent moving objects on the screen allows students to manipulate objects the ability to present complex contexts which generated dynamic mental images the ability to search and display information the ability to present a visual and social context for the story Kozma’s Position Cont’d
Clark’s Response (1994) Questions that media has unique attributes that cause learning “If there is no single media attribute that serves a unique cognitive effect for some learning task, then the attributes must be proxies for some other variables that are instrumental in learning gains” (1994, p. 22). “It cannot be argued that any given medium or attribute must be present in order for learning to occur, only that certain media and attributes are more efficient for certain learners, learning goals and tasks” (p. 22). All methods needed for learning can be delivered by a variety of media and attributes (p. 26). “Media and their attributes have important influences on the cost or speed of learning but only the use of adequate instructional methods will influence learning” (p. 27).
No research to support that media alone or its attributes are responsible for learning increases “Kozma (1994) agrees with me that there is no compelling evidence in the past 70 years of published and unpublished research that media cause learning increases under any conditions” (p. 25). Challenges Kozma and other colleagues in this area to find evidence of any medium or media attributes that are not replaceable by a different set of media and attributes to achieve similar learning results Clark’s Response Cont’d
computers affect learning computers are capable of supporting instructional methods that other media are not believe that the attributes of modern media, are not replaceable and do affect learning agree that some media are interchangeable the focus should not be if, but how media affect learning the unique capabilities of the computer and the Internet support Kozma's argument Hastings and Tracey (2005)
About Web 2.0 Phrase coined by Tim O’Reilly in 2004. A new generation of Internet-based services and tools based on the interactive platform, in which content is created, shared, remixed, repurposed, and passed along. Significance “ Web 2.0, particularly social media, represents a fundamental revolution in communication no less important or transformative than the invention of the Guttenberg printing press” (Fryer, 2006, p.2).
“Online tools and platforms that people use to share opinions, insights, experiences, and perspectives with each other. Social media can take many different forms, including text, images, audio, and video. Popular social mediums include blogs, forums, podcasts, and wikis." What is Social Media? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media
Reframing the Debate in 2009: Web 2.0 Media is not the same
Certain media characteristic permit certain method. Certain media attributes are necessary for specific learning task, learning situations and learners characteristics.
Cobb’s study (1997) indicates that efficiencies in learning due to different mixes of media, symbolic modes and media attributes. Some media and symbolic modes lead to quicker and or less demanding learning and performance outcomes than other media or symbolic modes for some people and some learning tasks.
Medium and message is interconnected
Cannot have a message without medium. Some medium work better with some messages.
Unique Capabilities & Attributes of Web 2.0 Source: Dion Hinchcliff’s Web 2.0 Blog
Reframing the Debate in 2009: Web 2.0 A medium by itself teaches User learns from Web 2.0 by becoming: A writer, publisher (Blogger, wiki) A Designer, producer (Podcast, iTunes) An Expert (Wikipedia) A Broadcaster (YouTube, Google video) An Editor/Critic of the network (wiki) Syndicated Ability to Read/Write Distributed Content User in control of the Conversation Pull not Push
Reframing Cont’d Support Social Network that other media can not Provides the abilities to connect with anyone, anywhere in the world. Ease of participation -Low costs, less time. Research: facilitate group work, learning from peers reflective learning and relationship building increase user engagement and Interaction Cotterill (2007).
Reframing Cont’d Improve Cognitive Efficiency Ability to think critically and develop cognitive skills such as reasoning, perception, and intuition. Web 2.0 can engage student in the “critical thinking process” and improve their “cognitive and social skills” through the knowledge construction process. Learning with computers and multimedia allows learner to develop the skill to: connect symbolic expressions (such as graphs) to the actual world manipulate dynamic, symbolic representations of abstract, formal constructs construct more accurate and complete mental representations of complex phenomena Kozma (1994).
Learningwith Web 2.0: improve Cognitive Efficiency Collaborating, Learning Together Producing Designing Re-mixing Mashing Sharing Uploading Commenting Annotating Blogging Tagging =Categorizing Organizing Bookmarking Validating Searching/ Googling J. Bruner, 1960 B. Bloom, 1956
Impact On Web 2.0 on Education Source: http://www.slideshare.net/zvezdan/web2-seminar
Needs more research and study. Web 2.0 can enrich learning experience. Web 2.0 can democratize learning. Web 2.0 can provide a new “context” to support new technology and sound pedagogical practice. Summary
Mobile Learning Research Using mobile technology to support workplace language training: http://eslau.ca. Canadian Network for Innovation in Education (CNIE) 2008 Award in Excellence and Innovation in Use of Learning Technology “ Mobile technologies hold great promise in delivering interactive and multimedia content for the development of language and workplace skills for worker and can achieve possible learning outcomes” (Ally, 2009). Application To Media Effectiveness Debate: Example One CBC News Video
Brain Imaging Research using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI): http://news-info.wustl.edu/tips/page/normal/7440.html "We were excited to see that differences in brain activity patterns between people could be explained in part by differences in learning strategy use." (Kirchoff, as cited in Murphy-Niederkorn, 2006) Application To Media Effectiveness Debate: Example Two
Example Two Cont’d Possibilities: Measure brain activity in learners accessing content through diverse media. Does using text-based medium for learning activate different parts of brain to visual-based medium? If yes, what implications might this have to proving that media effect (bring about)/affect (influence) learning?
Internet High School Supports Clark’s position Media influences cost and distribution Difficult or impossible to do a study to find evidence of that the media used are not replaceable by a different set of media and attributes to achieve similar learning results Application To Media Effectiveness Debate: Example Three
Further Information Digital Reading Room on Media Effects Debate
References Ally, M. (2009, June 16 ). Personal Interview. Bates, A., & Poole, G. (2003). Effective teaching with technology in higher education: Foundations for success. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Clark, R, E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445-459) Clark, R, E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology, Research Development, 42(2), 21-29. Retrieved June 17, 2009, from MetaPress database. Cobb, T. (1997). Cognitive efficiency: Toward a revised theory of media. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(4), 21-35. Retrieved July 30, 2009, from Springerlink database. Cotterill, Using Web 2.0 To Support PDP, 2007. Fahy, P.J. (2008). Characteristics of interactive online learning media. In T. Anderson & F. Elloumi (Eds. 2nd Ed.), Theory and Practice of Online Learning (pp. 169-199). Retrieved June 23, 2009, from http://wwwaupress.ca/books/120146/ebook/07_Anderson_2008_Fahy-Online_Content.pdf
References Cont’d Fryer, W.A. (2006). Welcome to Web 2.0 . Web 2.0 - Tools for the TEKS: Integrating Technology in the Classroom. Retrieved June 17, 2009, from http://www.wtvi.com/teks/web2/ Hastings, N., & Tracey, M. (2005). Does media affect learning: Where are we now? TechTrends Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 49(2), 28-30. Retrieved June 17, 2009, from Springerlink database. Hinchcliff, D. (2007). Social media goes mainstream. Retrieved August 5, 2009, from http://web2.socialcomputingjournal.com/social_media_goes_mainstream Kozma, R. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research & Development, 42(2), 7-19. Retrieved June 17, 2009, from MetaPress database. Kozma, R. (1994). The Influence of Media on Learning: The Debate Continues. Retrieved June 17, 2009, from http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/aasl/aaslpubsandjournals/slmrb/editorschoiceb/infopower/selectkozmahtml.cfm
References Cont’d Locatis, C. (2007). Why media matter: Media effectiveness from a performance perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 20(1), 9-22. Retrieved June, 17, 2009, from http://www.lhncbc.nlm.nih.gov/lhc/docs/published/2007/pub2007058.p Moore, M.G., & Kearsley , G. (2005). Distance education: A system’s view (2nd, ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Murphy-Niederkorn, B. (2006). Brain imagining identifies best memorization strategies, details differing parts of brain used in each. Retrieved June 30, 2009, from http://news-info.wustl.edu/tips/page/normal/7440.html O’Driscoll, J. (2009). Mobile ESL. Retrieved June 17, 2009, from, http://eslau.ca