Section 4 :
The Future of Media and Technology in Schools
Section 4 :
The Future of Media and Technology in Schools
What We Know
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Overall , fifty years of educational research indicates that media and technology are effective in schools as phenomena to learn both from and with . Historically , the learning from or tutorial approaches have received the most attention and funding , but the with or cognitive tool approaches are the focus of more interest and investment than ever before . Preliminary findings suggest that in the long run , constructivist approaches to applying media and technology may have more potential to enhance teaching and learning than instructivist models . In other words , the real power of media and technology to improve education may only be realized when students actively use them as cognitive tools rather than simply perceive and interact with them as tutors or repositories of information .
At the same time , there is a paucity of empirical evidence that media and technology are any more effective than other instructional approaches . This is because most research studies confound media and methods . Fifteen years ago , Richard E . Clark , a professor of instructional technology at the University of Southern California , ignited a debate about the impact of media on learning with the provocative statement that “ media do not influence learning under any conditions ” ( Clark , 1983 , p . 445 ). He clarified this challenge by explaining that media and technology are merely vehicles that deliver instructional methods . It is instructional methods , the teaching tasks and student activities , that account for learning . Clark maintained that as vehicles , media and technology do not influence student achievement any more than the truck that deliver groceries changes our nutrition . He concluded that media and technology could be used to make learning more efficient ( enable students to learn faster ), more economical ( save costs ), and / or more equitable ( increase access for those with special needs ).
Robert Kozma , Principal Scientist at the Center for Technology in Learning , SRI International , has challenged Clark in the debate about the impact of media and technology on learning . He argued that Clark ’ s separation of media and methods creates “ an unnecessary and undesirable schism between the two ” ( Kozma , 1994 , p . 16 ). He recommended that we move away from the questions about whether media and technology impact learning to questions concerning the ways can we use the capabilities of media and technology to influence learning for particular students with specific tasks in distinct contexts . This recommendation supports the call for more applied research described earlier in this report .
Both Clark and Kozma present important ideas . It is evident that the instructional methods students experience and the tasks they perform matter most in learning . The search for unique learning effects from particular media and technologies is
32