Media and Education by Dr Mohammed Abu Aish

Media and Education

Media and Education Mohammed Abu Aish December 2010

Media and Education Media and Education

The impact of media and technology on educational research is significant. Many of the enthusiastic educators look at new technologies with interest, caution and a question: "Can this technology be used in our practice? " Sometimes we go beyond this question to assumptions about new technologies and the way they will shape our field. Mayer (2005) calls this approach (TechnologyCentered approach to Multimedia). Its famous example is when the motion picture is invented in the early 20th century, Thomas Edison predicted that it will revolutionize our educational systems and in a few years and, it will supplants largely, if not entirely, the use of textbook, a prediction that never became a reality. Similar trends happened with other media like Radio,Television and, even, computers (Mayer, 2005). Unfortunately, many of the educational technology research in the 60s and 70s was based on these assumptions. With time, many researchers started resisting using this approach in educational research because it led to unnecessary research asking the wrong question. Clark (1983) and others argued that most summaries and meta-analyses of media comparison studies clearly suggest that media do not influence learning under any conditions, even in the few cases where dramatic changes in achievement or ability have followed the introduction of a medium. They argued that learning is influenced more by the content and instructional strategy in a medium than by the type of medium itself: "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" (Cark, 1983).

Media and Education

Cark (1983) argued that, it is the instructional methods that matters not the media used to deliver them. He argued that the studies that found differences in learning were confounded, as they did not use same teachers or did not use similar instructional methods. Clark (1983) defines Instructional Methods as the inclusion of one of a number of possible representations of a cognitive process or strategy that is necessary for learning but which students cannot or will not provide for themselves. Effective instructional methods are considered “ necessary” for learning, and to deliver them we must choose the medium or the media attribute that is “sufficient” for learning to occur at the least expensive way and the most speedy fashion. (Clark, 1983).

Sources of Confounding in Media research (1) Uncontrolled methods and content effect: Some Meta-analytic reviews of media research have produced evidence for the positive learning benefits of research with various media, particularly computers. These analyses report an approximate 20 percent increase in final exam scores following computer-based instruction (CBI) when it is compared to traditional forms of instruction (generally live instruction). (Clark, 2001). The researchers who conducted those studies agreed that it is not the computer but the teaching method built into CBI that accounts for the learning gains in those studies. More important, the methods used in CBI can be and are used by teachers in live instruction. (Clark, 2001). Clark reanalyzed a 30 percent sample of the studies used and found that when the same instructional design group produces CBT and presents the live instruction with which it is compared in many

Media and Education studies, there is no achievement difference between the CBT and live conditions (Clark, 2001). (2) Ignoring the effect of Novelty: Is the increased effort and attention research subjects tend to give to media that

are novel to them. This effect tends to disappear with time. Clark (1983) presented many examples where this effect resulted in increased students’ efforts and persistence, especially, in younger students, before it disappear with continued instruction using the same medium. (3) Editorial decisions: Clark (1983) found that many journal editors typically select research that finds stronger effects for newer media for publication.

The new debate: Media Attributes: In the late 70s, new trend in media research emerged, the Media Attributes research. Different researchers argued that it was not the medium which influenced learning but instead certain attributes of media that can be modeled by learners and can shape the development of unique "cognitive processes." . Examples of media attributes are the capacity of television and movies to "zoom" into detail or to "unwrap" threedimensional objects into two dimensions. (Clark, 1983). Clark (2001) questioned the Media attribute research for two reasons: First: Many of the media attributes are not purely associated to specific media but can be reproduced by other media (for example, ways to highlight details other than zooming), or even, by the instructor (eg ability to review a recorded lesson (reviewability), use of

Media and Education

(branching) rules in instruction can be done by the teacher even without using media) Second: when the research is replicated, a number of very different media attributes served the same or similar cognitive functions and, thus, none is unique to achieve a specific learning outcome. Clark saw these points as weakness in the claim that suggests that media attributes caused learning: If in any situation where it appears that media or attributes of media have been instrumental in fostering learning gains: We need to ask whether there are other media or another set of media attributes that would yield similar learning gains. And if different media or attributes yields similar learning gains and facilitate achievement of necessary performance criteria in this (replaceability test), then in a design science or an instructional technology, we must always choose the less expensive way to achieve a learning goal. (Clark, 2001). Mayer’s research (2003) supported Clark’s long concern about research talking about learning from media rather than learning with media. Mayer (2003) conducted different studies that controlled for the instructional methods to see if learning with media is different when the instructional methods are the same. The question was: “how to design a multimedia message that promotes understanding and whether design principles that work in one media environment (e.g. learning from books) also work in a different media environment (e.g. learning from computers). (Mayer, 2003). In designing the learning environments, Mayer (2003) used 4 principles of the multimedia learning theory (Mayer, 2001), (Multimedia effect, Coherence effect,

Media and Education

Contiguity effect and Personalization effect). The instructional design principles were the same among the groups but the media used were different. Mayer(2003) found that, results were similar across media. He concluded that: Our results provide four case examples of a straightforward finding: instructional design methods that promote deeper learning in one media environment (such as text and illustrations) also promote deep learning in other media environments (such as narration and animation). This means that good instructional methods can work across media. In short, the principles of instructional design do not necessarily change when the learning environment changes. Active cognitive processing - including selecting, organizing, and integrating mental representations - promotes meaningful learning regardless of whether material is presented by book or computer. In rejecting to a technology-centered approach, I conclude that media environments do not cause learning; cognitive processing by the learner causes learning. If an instructional method promotes the same kinds of cognitive processing across different media, then it will result in the same benefits across media. (Mayer, 2003). Where can Media make a difference in education? In this section, I will arguer that media, makes a difference to the educational process but from another perspective. I totally agree with Clark and Mayer, that, it is the instructional method that promotes learning. I also benefited from the previous research that, we should look at media in education from a different perspective: Learning with media

Media and Education

Clark (2001) emphasized the importance of distinguishing 2 main “technologies”: Instructional design technologies and Delivery technologies. Instructional design technology attempts to specify the needs for and the type of instructional methods needed to achieve learning, it’s heavily based on how we view learning from our psychological, pedagogical and educational backgrounds. Delivery technologies help create the learning environment to deliver these instructional methods using the available resources and attributes (Media attributes) to deliver the instructional methods needed for learning. I agree with Clark that if a clear distinction is not made between the two perspectives, a vicious cycle may start happening in education similar to what we suffer from in medicine when drug companies conduct studies to compare between 2 drugs when the money should be spent to know if either drug is needed in the first place. With the rapid advancement of technologies, media comparison studies could keep going to compare between different technologies or between new technologies and traditional instruction (ipad vs ipod, ipods vs iphones, Traditional Whiteboard vs electronic whiteboards), the potential for bias and conflicts of interests is huge if the instructional methods are not controlled and explicitly clarified. In addition, the comparison could waste time and money if no clear pedagogy is defined and evaluated. I agree with clark that we should not waste money in researching new media hoping to discover learning gains, but I disagree with him that we should stop looking for more” efficient” “vehicles” to carry our instructions. Mayer (2005) proposed looking into Multimedia from another perspective, the learner –centered approach. He proposed that Media research in education should be learner-centered :

Media and Education

Learner-centered approaches begin with an understanding of how the human mind works and ask, “How can we adapt multimedia to enhance human learning”. The focus on using multimedia technology as an aid to human cognition The premise underlying learner- centered approach is that multimedia design that are consistent with the way the human mind works are more effective in fostering learning than those that are not. Mayer (2005). With the introduction of Mayer’s Multimedia Learning Theory, the way of looking into multimedia has changed since the 70s, Mayer theory of Multimedia learning (2001) does not talk about multimedia as TV and Computers but rather talks about “Multimedia presentations” and how they can be used to foster learning. Mayer’s (2005) definition of Multimedia is shifted to become “ presenting words (in any form: printed or spoken text) and pictures (in any form: photos, illustration, animation or videos). Multimedia learning then becomes: “building mental representations from words and pictures.”. Mayer theory helped merge the research on multimedia with the research of cognitive science and instructional design. (Mayer, 2005). The question changed from (How can Multimedia cause learning?) to become (From our understanding to how people learn, How can we adapt Multimedia Presentations to foster meaningful learning?) (Mayer, 2005) Different Multimedia presentations from this perspective act as cognitive tools to facilitate our instruction. If we have to choose between different tools to deliver the instruction, we will choose tools that are cheap, reliable, readily available, easy to use by

Media and Education the teacher and the student and most important, efficient in achieving the same learning outcome. Clark conducted his research in the 70 and 80 when Media had issues with reliability, ease of use, availability and cost. Major part of Clark’s argument was the (replacibility) test, which states that (if learning is found to happen with a medium, one should ask him/herself if the same result could happen by using another medium or another medium or media attribute.(Clark, 2001). In addition to the scientific nature of Clark’s argument, major implication of the replacibility test in Clark’s argument is

economical and is related to the cost effectiveness of using different media in instruction. This brings the discussion to another new level, the issue of efficiency.

The issue of Efficiency I want to expand here on the issue of efficiency, an important aspect of multimedia use in instruction. It is important to note that Clark admitted that some media is more efficient in instruction. Clark (2001) quotes: 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. This allows the discussion, and our mental set as theorists, to shift from media attributes as causal in learning to media attributes as causal in the cost-effectiveness of learning. We have to remember that at the time of Clark’s research the issue of cost effectiveness was a major factor in choosing different media in instruction. Time has changed and the freedom in choosing between different media has become better. The

Media and Education widespread use of the Internet and the increased use of technology in our daily lives

cannot be ignored. There is more freedom to use different media in instruction. I am not talking here about choosing between a simple whiteboard and an advanced electronic whiteboard, I am talking here between choosing between 2 available mediums when both are available and affordable(by the teacher or the institution), When one is easier, convenient and more efficient to use (eg. The missy Chalk versus using PowerPoint in my own laptop). I don’t think Clark focused enough on efficiency to the same degree he focused on cost effectiveness. In my field, time is an important factor since the curriculum to be covered is huge and the available time for instruction is limited, so, the issue of efficiency becomes of extreme importance. A common example is lectures, only few physicians still use the white board in their teaching simply because preparing a lecture on PowerPoint can save them more time and, considered, more efficient medium to deliver the same instructional methods. Both mediums are capable of delivering the same instructional method but one is more efficient than the other, (ability to use the same lecture again, email to the students.etc). so, I claim here that certain media are more efficient than others, any they may make a difference to the learning process in other “non cognitive” functions like time and ease of access and reuse..etc. and their choice is not supposed to be only limited to their cost. Looking at media from other perspectives: In the previous discussion, the role of Media in Education and instruction was examined from a purely cognitive theoretical perspective. With the evolution of social theories of learning, another perspective of looking into different media as cultural tools

Media and Education

is emerging. The emergence of the field of CSCL and its emphasis on social collaborative learning that is mediated by computers and technology, is yet another perspective of looking into the role of multimedia in education. More research is coming on the role of computers in encouraging students’ collaboration, motivation and co-construction of knowledge. Further discussion of CSCL is beyond the scope of this paper. Conclusion Media does not cause learning; it carries the instructional methods that we design based on our views of how people learn. Different Media serve are tools that can help us deliver the instruction and help our students learn. Instructors should use the right tool that is reliable, efficient and fits their students’ needs.

References Clark, R. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445-459. Clark, R. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: using the same instructional design methods across different media, Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 125-139. Mayer, R. E. (2005). The Cambridge Hanbook of Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.