Framing the Clark-Kozma Debate for Instructional Decision-Making In pursuit of my constructivist tendencies in teaching and learning, I aspire to create authentic learning experiences that place a particular importance on discovery and inquiry-based learning. Within these experiences, students can apply their current knowledge and skills to build a unique understanding of the concepts we are exploring together. Because I also subscribe to the idea that social learning is vital to one’s personal construct, integrating a collaborative environment into my classroom is a continuing professional goal. To that end, the emerging technologies I would like to leverage in my classroom include the development of digital Personal Learning Environments (PLE), featuring online collaborative tools, enabled by a ‘Bring your own Device’ (BYOD) policy.
Not only would student choice be instrumental in the documentation and
engagement style within the PLE, their personal choice even applies to the tools they can bring into class. To increase the probability that students will meaningfully construct understandings and frameworks needed to solve real world problems, it is essential to empower them through processes and tools that expose them to new literacies that enable life-long learning. Before projecting the impact and outcomes of PLE, social tools, and BYOD and before integrating these new tools into my teaching, it is essential to view the introduction of new media and technologies through the lens of the Clark-Kozma debate. Using Clark and Kozma’s views as a vetting mechanism, I can avoid the trap that Clark so clearly warns against: the “triumph of enthusiasm” when projecting the impact of a new media or technology. Instead, I can focus on making informed instructional decisions to integrate media that increase the likelihood of student achievement. For the purposes of this assignment, setting aside the few points of commonality between Clark and Kozma allows me the simplicity of focusing solely on how they differ, which is of more engaging importance. As cognitive theorists, Richard Clark and Robert Kozma both explore the impact technology has on the cognitive process and both recognize that some forms of media play a role in learning (Clark 1994). Where they differ, however, is so fundamentally profound that although the debate dates back to 1994, it is still relevant to any educational professional in the modern, digital age. When considering the integration of any media or technology development, thinking through the Clark-Kozma conundrum is an essential practice.
The Clark-Kozma Conundrum According to Richard E. Clark, the choice to use a particular medium over another is a part of a teacher’s method or instructional delivery (Clark 1994). So that although the teacher is utilizing media to aid student achievement, what makes student achievement possible is not the piece of technology, but the combination of the effects of instruction and novelty (Clark 1983). In other words, it is not the media, but what the media is doing that leads to knowledge construction. He argues that the medium is useless without the embedded content, usually mindfully chosen by the teacher, and that no medium has a singular attribute that serves a unique task that cannot be replicated in some other way (Clark 1994). Also known as the “replaceability challenge”, media is simply reduced to surface features that are interchangeable, depending on how they best serve the task at hand Elizabeth Oliver Marsh 22 July 2012
1
and is described as a new approach to existing cognitive processes (Clark 1994, p. 22). Clark does not say that media is without impact in the classroom. In fact, media is integral to the “the cost or extent of distributing instruction” (Clark 1994, p. 23). A new media may mean you can “do” learning faster, but certainly not better, so the choice of medium should always default to the least expensive option. Clark was insistent on establishing the necessary conditions for learning. Accordingly, his research hinged on definite, causal relationships between instructional choice and student performance so that “a specification or recipe for an instructional method” could be developed (Clark 1983, p. 453) and repeated to achieve student success, as if learning is a guaranteed thing so long as the method is done according to the recipe. To better understand this recipe, he urges researchers to avoid being wowed by technology and instead to look at what structural commonalities exist amongst interchangeable media to get to the effective method at heart (Clark 1994). The validity of the replaceability challenge is what makes Clark’s claims, initially made in 1983, still viable in discussions about modern media in the classroom (Clark 1994). However, as modern technology has so rapidly evolved in such short a period of time, Clark’s argument could be leveraged to support the implementation of some of the newest technologies. The most efficient and least expensive way to address some learning tasks in the classroom can be tackled with a multi-purpose, interdisciplinary tool, like the iPad. The cost of combining all the single-purpose tools that a portable device like an iPad encompasses would quickly drive down the overall cost of instruction and classroom tools. In this case, it could be argued that if instructional method is of the utmost importance, and the cheapest tool available should be chosen as the medium, then newer, less expensive, and more multi-purpose tools could be ‘Clark-approved’. Additionally, Clark’s model neglects the unique features that digital tools have that the combination of other substitutes cannot, namely: repeatability and transportability (Reeves 1998). Lastly, Clark’s approach seems too limited in its approach to social and environmental learning. He seems to think that instructional method is what drives student achievement and therefore neglects the “interrelationship among variables such as the use of the computer, teacher talk, social interaction among students, perceived self-efficacy, ability, effort, excitement, and achievement” (Kozma 1994, p.15). In other words, learning does not happen in a vacuum. On the other hand, Kozma believes that learning is an ongoing construct, in which the learner builds understanding through their interaction with the environment, the medium, and the teacher and her methods, with media playing a vital and equal part within the learning process. Kozma’s is often considered a “technocentric” theory, which he describes as a misconception of his position (Kozma 2000, p.19). Instead, he argues that the learning environment, of which media is a definitive part, best influences student achievement. This is a more holistic approach to learning, treating the outcome of student learning as a result of the ongoing cognitive conversation between the learner and the method, medium, and environment in which learning takes place. Whereas Clark wants to create a situation in which learning is certain, Kozma establishes the case to create an environment in which learning is probable (Kozma 1994). Kozma cites several cases that indicate successful Elizabeth Oliver Marsh 22 July 2012
2
results of studies involving new media in the classroom. However, as Clark points out in his rebuttal, the studies were not designed to measure the claims made in Kozma’s claims about the effectiveness of media and therefore cannot be used to substantiate his argument (Clark 1994). The most problematic limitation of Kozma’s argument is that it is all-encompassing and therefore, seemingly immeasurable. His theory is staged in such a way that EVERYTHING affects learning. Because it is not any one factor but the combination thereof, the challenge of proving or disproving this theory would be tremendous in its undertaking and inconclusive in its results. Because any factor or combination of factors can lead to student success, building a repeatable formula to ensure learning would be impossible. Instead, the resulting research could only suggest a series of possible conditions that may increase the probability of resulting in student learning. In the end, both researchers call for the same next step to truly assess how media impacts learning-- that ongoing research be focused on the “structural” or the causal mechanisms beyond the surface of the elements necessary for learning (Clark 1994, Kozma 1994). In the nearly two decades since this debate began, neither argument has been wholly proven nor refuted. Even in Kozma’s more recent publications, he still calls for effective and meaningful research to determine the true impact technology has on student learning (Kozma 2000). Given this philosophical deadlock, it is important that in the planning stages of selecting a useful digital tool or piece of technology, both approaches are taken into consideration. To help me in these planning stages, I have developed a framework approach to ensure that I am choosing a technology to enrich the student experience and not incorporating the use of technology just for technology’s sake. Into this framework, I have couched the Clark-Kozma theories, along with some considerations based on my participation in the Two Summers program (see attachment). Below, I’ve applied this framework to the three emerging technologies I would like to integrate into my teaching practices.
Personal Learning Environments (PLE) Student-centered learning environments continue to grow in popularity and prominence in the establishment of best practices for teaching. In fact, the National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) reference individualized learning for students via the teacher performance standards on developing “technologyenriched learning environments that enable all students to pursue their individual curiosities and become active participants in setting their own educational goals, managing their own learning, and assessing their own progress.” (NETS-T 2008) The development of a personalized learning environment is central to putting into practice the belief that learning is an individual and differentiated process for each of us. Processing stimuli (television, Internet, teachable moments, experiences, fellow classmates), connecting it to what is known, and creating a new and unique understanding is such an internalized process that it can only be assessed using a formative approach. The introduction of a PLE would provide students with a platform to share what they Elizabeth Oliver Marsh 22 July 2012
3
already know and to display their continual progress in approaching new content and challenges. PLEs provide an external, evidentiary record of that internal process, allowing the teacher to identify key developments in student understanding and to redress any misconceptions that may have formed in the process. If the PLE is designed and integrated in a meaningful way, it can also serve as a summative assessment when considered as a whole. Learners in this more personalized environment need a place to reflect, build, edit, collaborate on and share their learning journey. In my classroom, I imagine the PLE as taking the shape of an ePortfolio, serving as a collection of key developmental assignments. As formative assessment, these pieces must illustrate the learning process, progress towards skills and content mastery, and must incorporate collaborative experiences, with clearly demonstrable outcomes to measure learning. Because the emphasis is on personalization, depending on the age and experience of the student body, student choice should dictate the tool used in ePortfolio construction: GoogleSites, Weebly, WordPress, WikiSpace. The focus in the PLE is less about the choice of an appropriate tool for creation but on the collection of meaningful pieces of original work, showing a development in understanding. Encouraging students to find a tool that appeals to their learning preference may solicit a sense of personal ownership in their work and would create a challenge for students, as they investigate how to accomplish tasks in this digital environment. Some standardizing guidelines should be established, in terms of structure, organization and content requirements, but direct instruction on the use of that tool eliminates the possibility of discovery learning and problem-solving within an online platform. As part of the student construct, developing those discovery skills will help them as they encounter new creation tools.
Literacy Focus: NETS-S Addressed: 1A, 1B, 6A, 6B, 6C, and 6D (NETS-S 2007) Because the intention of the PLE (ePortfolio) is to clearly demonstrate student understanding and growth over the course of the year, I expect that student products will provide a clear gauge for evaluating student success in the development of new, digital literacies. In the field of innovation, I intend for students to express their creativity not only in their choice of PLE tool, but also in their design and construction of their PLE. Although the requisite content will be determined by the teacher-designed rubric, the students will also be assessed on their personalization and creative design of their PLE.
While students may be familiar with other word
processing, presentation, and video editing software, using a PLE to bring all of those seemingly disparate pieces would require them to apply previously acquired skills in a new way, with a new process. Students will also demonstrate the ability to use technology systems, selecting the most effective option, and trouble-shooting when necessary.
THROUGH the Clark-Kozma Lens: The technology to implement in this case is an ePortfolio, which would be brought to life through a webbased program such as Weebly or GoogleSites. Because the ePortfolio is intended to be student-constructed and to display student work in order to inform the formative evaluation of learning, I do believe that this tool, when Elizabeth Oliver Marsh 22 July 2012
4 Â
used as described above, can impact learning as a independent medium. While I intend to create some frames and expectations for the materials students display in their ePortfolios, student engagement with this tool would be primarily investigative. As students continue to experiment with the tool of their choice, their ability to operate within the program improves, as does their ability to evaluate and edit the visual design and make the necessary self-corrections to improve the overall quality of their product. This understanding grows in a way that I could not replicate through any method of instruction as effectively as the interaction with the medium itself could.
From Clark’s perspective, the online portfolio could certainly be replaced with the tangible
portfolio, as a collection of learning artifacts gathered into a paper folder. What the learner would miss in that case is the construction of an authentic, original creation, displaying their growth over time requiring a personal awareness and the ability to evaluate the most important artifacts. The paper portfolio could not possibly compete with the learning opportunity offered through the use of an online portfolio.
Social Collaboration as an Element of PLE To further enrich the PLE, it is essential to include a collaborative element. The value of collaboration in learning has become even more important, as our access to and use of socially connected media continues to grow, and allows us to benefit from the wealth of knowledge and skills that students bring to the classroom. Using synchronous and asynchronous tools to foster cooperative work towards a common goal ensures that the learning experience transcends the classroom, allowing for classroom time to be better utilized for other F2Fdependent activities. The introduction of this tool could help to address issues that teachers have always faced in multi-student assignments, e.g. one student completes all the work, students do not adhere to expectations about respect, or one domineering student derails the success of the group. Using online collaboration could provide great insight into the group dynamic, allowing the teacher to address individual student shortcomings and target skill building with students that require support. To independently evaluate the contributions of each student, I would like to create meaningful and well-constructed assignments that get at the real targets of collaboration: developing effective methods of communication, reaching a consensus, working towards a common goal as a group, and determining the best way to ensure whole group involvement. I would also like to develop a more effective system that measures the constructive collaborative contribution that an individual student makes. To help me achieve these goals, I would like to better leverage GoogleDocs. Its efficiency and reliability is proven through its popularity among teachers; the Centre for Learning & Performance Technologies have rated GoogleDocs in the top five of their Top 100 Teaching Tools for three consecutive years (Top Tools 2011). I also have had some previous successes using this tool as a sharing platform for my students in the past, but have not used it to assess cooperative contributions, as discussed above.
My use of GoogleDocs for
collaborative learning was also occasional, and not a systematic method of developing and exercising cooperative skills towards a learning objective. As I delve into creating PLEs as a formative assessment piece,
Elizabeth Oliver Marsh 22 July 2012
5 Â
GoogleDocs could be the ideal tool to measure student progress in the area of constructive membership in a team setting.
Literacy Focus: NETS-S Addressed: 2A, 2B, 2D. (NETS-S 2007) I expect the student outcomes to show a progress in the following new literacies: working as a group towards the creation of an original work, exhibiting a positive relationship toward using technology to work together, communicating a clear, effective message, and “interacting, collaborating, and publishing with peers.” (NETS-S 2007, p.1)
THROUGH the Clark-Kozma Lens: Clark’s take on possible substitutes for the use of GoogleDocs as a collaborative tool include group time in class, with the use of paper and pencil. The limiting factor with this alternative is that it must be synchronous and is therefore not legitimate. Using telephones to collaborate could work, although viewing the same material is not an option and teams could be no larger than two, unless group calling is utilized. Cooperating through a video conferencing program, like Skype would be an excellent option, but as with telephones, there would be no record of the contributions made by members of the team, making assessment difficult. In light of Clark’s views, GoogleDocs may have no better, cheaper alternative for the intended learning objectives and is therefore the optimal tool in this case. Taking Kozma’s claims into consideration, GoogleDocs is an excellent example of the combination of technology (the tools), the method (collaborative learning tasks), and the environment (online and everywhere). It is through this lens that the use of this tool clearly becomes ineffective as a learning tool, isolated from the method and environment. Because it is an effective tool only when taken as the sum of its parts, GoogleDocs would not necessarily impact student learning when taken as an independent variable in the learning process. It is only with the combination of a meaningful instructional task, a cohort of peers, and with the digital tool, that the learning intended in this activity could take place.
Extending PLE with Bring your Own Device (BYOD) Employing a BYOD policy is essential to making my PLE plan work. For the purposes of this study, BYOD should encompass any smartphone, tablet (with Internet capabilities), or laptop. While levels of technology integration vary from school to school, BYOD would help to address issues with equitable access. Additionally, its implementation would also foster student-centered learning and more efficient and meaningful assessment and evaluation. In pursuit of leveling the technological playing field, the growing body of students with access to devices can be a financial asset to schools. Current systems may not provide access for all students, but integrating a BYOD policy would help to bridge the digital divide. Students who have materials at home can bring them in, freeing up the school’s current resources for use by students who do not have resources at home. Providing more equitable access to a learning platform means accessibility to resources and materials for each student that can be used for continuous assessment, both of learning and for learning. With an Elizabeth Oliver Marsh 22 July 2012
6
individual learning platform, teachers can plan, teach, and assess based on needs and abilities of students, without the barriers that currently exist with access to resources. As with all new programs, there are some anticipated complications. Having multiple operating systems, different machines, applications that are specific to machines means that learning activities may be limited to those available as cross-platform applications or web-based activities.
Literacy Focus: NETS-S Addressed: 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D. (NETS-S 2007) Because these devices are platforms to access endless media that you can connect to, use and develop, a case could be made that the literacies addressed through the use of a digital device such as a smartphone or iPad include all of the NETS-S standards, when used in a meaningful way. With that argument acknowledged, the student outcomes I would particularly like to target are those to do with digital citizenship. The use of a personal digital device requires the personal responsibility and appreciation for when and how to use that device. Whether the question is framed as an ethical one (take a picture of a test for another student) or a social one (receive and sent text messages during class), the teachable moment is in the decision-making. As we discussed in class, it is a matter of life-long learning when it comes to choosing the appropriate use of your digital device as a professional.
THROUGH the Clark-Kozma Lens: Robert A. Reiser’s opinion on the role of media in learning is that certain media serve as an enabling factors for certain methods and that without a certain type of media, some methods would be impossible (Reiser 45). Such is the case with BYOD within the PLE. To view BYOD through Clark’s lens, it is important to examine whether the task at hand could be addressed through an interchangeable (and less expensive) medium. In evaluating alternate possibilities, very few options present themselves as legitimate. If I want students to be able to conduct Internet research, participate in a collaborative document through GoogleDocs, take a picture of a team-created model, annotate the design process used, and submit it digitally for assessment, each of the tasks described could certainly have a variety of replaceable alternatives. However, few of the options considered have the same all-in-one appeal that a smartphone, iPad, or even a laptop has. When leveraging a multi-purpose tool, there is some cost reduction and efficiency in not having to purchase and manage the different tools (and their corresponding USB cords). Given that at least 23% of children ages 12-17 currently own a smartphone, predictions indicate smartphone ownership among the same group to increase to 40% by the fall of 2012 (Pew 2012). Allowing students to BYOD would lessen the strain on current technology resources in school, with minimal expenditure on the schools part, which is an appealing fact for the followers of Clark. From the Kozmian standpoint, the effectiveness of the BYOD program would also be based on the environment in which it was utilized. Within a clearly implemented BYOD program, a school could build a culture in which students are constantly learning from and with their devices. Creating a culture of digital, interactive learning would certainly impact student achievement. Teachers in a BYOD environment may be Elizabeth Oliver Marsh 22 July 2012
7 Â
more comfortable and confident about the use of technology, modeling creative and challenging ways to leverage media for life-long learning. Although the development of such an environment would have confounding impact on Kozma’s study (which is it, the method, the media, or the environment?), the result would be improved student learning. In this particular case, the technology alone would not be sufficient to improve student achievement. To engage students in the learning process, appropriate content and instructional methods must be employed. In the case of PLEs and BYOD, Clark’s analogy of the milk truck serves as a fitting description of the mobile device (Clark 1983). The PLE is the milk and the device is the truck; although the milk can’t get to its destination without the truck, the truck plays little or no role without the milk. Although the technology is an enabling factor for the PLE to be successful, the smartphone, as integrated into the program described above, cannot stand alone as an effective tool for learning.
The ultimate lesson in reading through the Clark-Kozma debate is not that you must align your choice directly with one camp or the other or even agree with either approach to the influence of media in learning. It is in the asking of the question that we, as educators, can make more informed decisions about the methods and materials with choose to use with students. Because each choice should be aimed at improving student learning and providing students with every opportunity to construct a personal understanding of the our world, to take a reflective and mindful approach to instructional decisions is central to creating conditions that foster powerful student learning.
Elizabeth Oliver Marsh 22 July 2012
8
The Clark-Kozma Frame Intended Medium Description
Cost
Surface Features (Clark 1994) or Attributes (Kozma 1994) Technology (Kozma 1994) Symbol systems(Kozma 1994) Processing capabilities (Kozma 1994) Efficiency characteristics (Clark 1994)
METHODS (C and K) What you are going to do with it?
Intended Student Outcomes NETS-S
Common Core Standards (State Standards)
Replaceability Challenge Interchangeable Media (Clark)
Cost
What properties do the interchangeable variables share? (Clark 22)
Why not one of the interchangeables?
Possible Unintended Influences Include any external/environmental influences here.
Measurability? (Clark and Kozma) Quantatitve Data
Elizabeth Oliver Marsh 22 July 2012
Qualitative Data
9 Â
Works Cited R.E. Clark (1983). Reconsidering Research on Learning Review from Media. Review of Educational Research, 53 (40), 445-459. Clark, R.E. (1994) Media Will Never Influence Learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29. Kozma, R. B. (1994) Will Media Influence Learning? Reframing the Debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7-19. Reiser, R.A. (1994) Clark’s Invitation to the Dance: An Instructional Designer’s Response. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 45-48. Kozma, R.B. (2000). The relationship between technology and design in educational technology research and development: A reply to Richey. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(1), 19-21. Hastings, NB and Monica W Tracey (2005) Does Media Affect Learning: Where Are We Now. TechTrends, 49(2), 28-30. Reeves, T.C. (1998). The Impact of Media and Technology in Schools: A Report Prepared for The Bertelsmann Foundation. The Impact of Media and Technology in Schools. Retrieved from the University of Georgia’s Educational Psychology and Instructional Technology Department at http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CGYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2 Fit.coe.uga.edu%2F~treeves%2Fedit6900%2FBertelsmannReeves98.pdf&ei=uaIMUIvuE6fq0gG2y8GJBA&usg=AF QjCNFldsix-UWiVZZkF8E7UPrfk1Eg3g Teens, Smartphones & Texting (2012). Pew Internet and American Life Project, Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Teens-and-smartphones.aspx Top Tools: Google Docs (2011). Centre for Learning & Performance Technologies Retrieved from http://c4lpt.co.uk/top-tools/top-100-tools/top-tools-google-docs/ NETS·S © 2007 International Society for Technology in Education. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-students.aspx NETS·T © 2008 International Society for Technology in Education. Retrieved from Elizabeth Oliver Marsh 22 July 2012
10
http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-teachers.aspx
Elizabeth Oliver Marsh 22 July 2012
11 Â