For myself, I see both sides. Growing up as a kid born in the 90s, I was not raised surrounded by media. We had a couple TV's in our home, did not get a desktop computer until I was in upper elementary school, and my teachers (until middle school, approx) still used old school projectors that rolled around on a cart. Teachers were challenged a bit more to use different and unique methods to get through to their students, however I have always been a visual learner, and as the years went on and technology grew, I felt I was able to become more successful in the classroom when technology was utilized in the right way. Math was never a strong subject for me, and I remember several computer-based games that I loved, but taught me math. My parents even credit many of these games for helping me improve in the area of math.
I take Kozma's side and agree with his stance, and here is why. In my personal experience, with math, and utilizing these computer games to help improve my skills in this area, I also realize that I needed more than just using media to be successful in math. I chose Kozma because I like his question and his idea of shifting this to how can we utilize media to influence learning, and I answer that by saying no relying on the media. My teachers and my parents did not rely on the media methods to help me improve in math, these used media as supplemental material, I still needed the instruction from the teacher. I think Kozma's argument supports this the best.
Good post!!! Central to this debate is a realization that there is a different point of view on the role of technology in learning. It is worth noting that both Clark and Kozma agree on the fact that technology does play a significant role in learning, but the view on the role of technology they hold makes them different. Clark is not an anti-media but anti-oversimplifying the question: does technology influence learning, i.e., technology per se influences learning. Clark argues that this is an unanswerable question, since the media attributes that influence learning (i.e., Kozma's position) are easily replaceable by a different set of media. Clark views that technology in and of itself can not be an independent variable that can explain the causality of the impact, but instead a mediating variable that can explain the relationship with the impact. On the other hand, Kozma views that technology can be an independent variable that causes a direct impact on learning because of its unique attribute.
ReplyDeleteDrawing from such a different position, we have a different approach to technology in learning. For those who side with the Clark’s position, they might be more interested in how technology mediates learning as an intellectual partner that helps students engage active learning, but for those who side with Kozma’s, they might be interested in using a particular technology because they believe that its unique attribute eventually leads to an impact on learning. The bottom line is it’s really a very different world and perspective.