Are Media: “Mere Vehicles”?

The debate over media and methods in instructional design began in 1983 when Richard Clark declared that “media were mere vehicles” and do not influence student learning. He stated that instructional methods were the main determinants of student achievement and that media’s only contribution was on cost and distribution (Hastings & Tracey, 2005). Clark was later challenged by Robert Kozma and other instructional design researchers, asserting that his views were not supported by research nor due to technological advances in media delivery. Here the debate started and continues in a mild form even today. The question remains to educators is: Who is right?

This white paper is meant to inform physical therapy educators about the arguments for and against the premise that the use of media causes learning, specifically those educators are who may have not had experience with using media in teaching and learning. The hope is that these readers will understand the debate regarding media and learning and understand the contributions of each to instructional design.

The central part of this article focuses on Richard Clark’s statement regarding learning and media in 1983:

He argues that educational research has been implemented ineffectively as it has chosen to keep the method of instruction bound to the type of medium in which it is delivered. By doing so, Clark asserts past educational research incorrectly argues that it is the medium that creates the learning and not the method. Clark’s use of the analogy of a prescribed medication highlights this point (Clark, 1983, 1994). A prescription (i.e., method of instruction) delivered in different applications (i.e., different media) have the same effects on the body. Some varieties of applications are more efficient, costlier or more invasive in delivering the medication; nevertheless, they all essentially perform the same task.

Clark’s point is valid in the sense that educational research needs to focus on the combination of method and media in order to learn the most appropriate medium to deliver content efficiently and effectively. His argument that media alone do not create the differences in learning signifies that past researchers have been perseverating on the idea that it is the delivery medium which creates learning. At the basis of Clark’s argument is the lack of rigor in the development of the research studies making these claims. The lack of clarity of the instructional methods used in the experimental and control groups is one of the main points for argument. It is Clark’s claim that when results are found to be significantly different between the groups, then it is due to some inherent principle of the instructional methods used between the groups rather than the type of media that delivered the content. “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” (Clark, 1994, p. 27).

To support Clark’s argument, a group of researchers designed an experiment to test what they called a “methods-not-media hypothesis” (Sung & Mayer, 2013). In the experiment, they controlled for both instructional media (computer learning in a lab or on a mobile device in a courtyard) and instructional method (same lesson either in a continuous format without headings or in segmented lesson with headings corresponding to key ideas) (Sung & Mayer, 2013). The researchers found two effects: a method effect and a media effect. The method effect influenced learning, meaning performance on a test was improved for those with the enhanced, segmented lesson format. The media effect influenced motivation, meaning that the students were more willing to engage in the lesson delivered on a mobile device versus in a computer lab. While motivation is a key element for student engagement in learning, it does not cause learning (Çetin, 2015).

Richard Clark’s most outspoken opponent of his “mere vehicles” statement is Robert Kozma and his view that media comprise a separate variable from, but works in conjunction with, the instructional method to profoundly influence learning (Tennyson, 1994). Kozma’s viewpoint maintains that each type of media (working with a method exploiting the media’s capabilities) will “interact with and influence the ways learners represent and process information and may result in more or different learning when one medium is compared to another for certain learners and tasks” (Hastings & Tracey, 2005, p. 29). The main media source he uses to demonstrate this is through computer-based instruction and user manipulation control (Tennyson, 1994). User manipulation control means that the media (i.e., the computer) will allow the learner to manipulate the information in a sophisticated manner, which will directly influence learning. The media (the computer) and the method (type of instruction) will blend together to allow the learner to have control over his or her learning.

A second dissenting view comes from David Jonassen and colleagues (Tennyson, 1994). In their writing, they also view media (especially computer-based instruction) as being able to influence learning. Their viewpoint differs from Kozma’s in that they view media as being a part of the context of the learning environment, which also includes the method, content, and learner (Tennyson, 1994). Jonassen and colleagues criticize the original debate between Clark and Kozma as being narrow due to the learner being excluded from the argument. They view that media should empower learners to explore content on their own without the encumbering influence of an instructor (Tennyson, 1994). This is in direct opposition to Clark’s view. Clark maintains that teachers can be as effective or better than media when instructing students, if the correct instructional method is used (Clark, 1983, 1994; Tennyson, 1994). Jonassen and colleagues state that the debate and research should shift away from the practice of “instruction- and media-centered to a learner-centered conception of learning” (Jonassen, Campbell, & Davidson, 1994, p. 31).

Sharon Shrock offers another viewpoint on the debate between media and method. She offers that it is not necessary to exclude one process of studying media and method from the other in relation to learning (Schrock, 1994; Tennyson, 1994). She views the debate between Clark and Kozma worthy as it allows educational researchers and instructional designers to “clarify who we are, what we are trying to do, what we know, and how we might best invest the limited resources devoted to future research” (Schrock, 1994, p. 49). She contends that while both original positions have merit, both are flawed. She states that a “single set of stimuli essential to learning” that Clark wants to identify as required for learning is undiscoverable, and that Kozma is strongly biased toward “the mandatory interjection of high tech media” into his research (Schrock, 1994, p. 52).

The arguments presented above support a general theme that educators cannot solely rely on a delivery method or medium to cause learning, they need to ensure that their content accurately represents the information to be learned and is organized in a fashion which promotes it effectively and efficiently. To summarize Clark’s position, educators need to choose the most efficient way to “package essential instructional methods based on available resources and the cost-effectiveness qualities of media attributes for specific learners and learning goals” (Clark, 1983, p. 23). Kozma’s addition is that methods should be used that in conjunction with and exploit the capabilities of specific media to facilitate learning.

Jonassen and colleagues point out that medium and method cannot be considered alone inside the context of the learning environment. The content to be instructed and the learner must be part of that consideration. Without a learner-centered approach, educators will not be as successful using only media or method alone. Shrock adds to the debate the point that media and method should not be studied or used in isolation. She warns that both Clark’s and Kozma’s original positions are flawed as both are biased in their own unique way. Clark is biased to the fact that research is unable to find the “essential elements” which influence learning, and Kozma is biased toward the power of the computer and other instructional technologies to facilitate learning.

This white paper is designed to introduce the arguments made about the essential elements of instructional design, namely choosing specific media or methods to facilitate learning within a chosen environment. Each argument presented had its own unique contributions and flaws that hopefully stimulate thought on how to best approach instructional design. While this debate started over 33 years ago, many of the arguments are still relevant. However, the views need to be placed in the context of today’s technological advances. It is quite possible that it is time to revisit these issues and as Hastings and Tracey point out, maybe “it is time to reframe the original debate to ask, not if, but how media affects learning” (Hastings & Tracey, 2005).