A Contemporary Look at Richard Clark’s “Mere Vehicles ...” Free

Richard Clark’s 1983 paper stating that, “media are mere vehicles” sparked an impassioned debate about the impact of media on learning. Clark reiterated his position in 1994, but numerous researchers have attempted to refute his affirmation that specific media are irrelevant in the acquisition of knowledge. Media technology has impregnated nearly every aspect of our contemporary lives and as such, have become modes of communication outside and inside the learning environment. This white paper will explore the influence of media technology in education, including current evidence on each side of the debate. It is targeted to physical therapy clinicians and those involved in physical therapy academia.

Richard Clark posited that it is not media and technology that facilitate student learning but rather that these are merely tools through which content can be delivered, and that it was the substance of the learning that is paramount to the medium of delivery. After thorough review of the current literature at the time, including several meta-analyses, Clark suggests that there is not one specific medium or technology that is superior to another. This is not to say that he was averse to technology, but simply that student performance was not maximized through one form of media over another (Clark, 1983). Clark states that he is not the first to make this claim; Lumsdaine 2 decades earlier concluded that the benefits of media were purely economic (Clark, 1994). Clark goes on to contest nearly all aspects of the research on media of the time, including media attributes and effect sizes, finally declaring that research on media and learning be discontinued “unless a novel theory is suggested” (Clark, 1983).

After Clark’s initial dissertation in 1983, Kozma attempted to refute his statement by declaring “if there is no relationship between media and learning it may be because we have not yet made one” (Kozma, 1994). This commenced the debate over the effects of media in education.

Clark cited several studies both in 1983 and again in 1994 that showed that media did not have an impact on learning outcomes. These studies (Kulik & Kulik, 1986; Kulik, Kulik, & Cohen, 1980) suggested little direct influence of media on learning, but Clark himself (and the study authors) state that there were many confounding factors that could not be controlled for. This appears to be the case for much of the research that existed at that time, leading Clark to suggest that unless all of these factors could be accounted for, research on media in education should be halted (Clark, 1983, 1994). Plagued with these issues, one can understand how Kozma would suggest a “reframing” of the research design (Kozma, 1994).

Kozma was one of the first to take direct aim at Clark’s position, citing research that showed that computers increased student motivation and the time they spent on learning activities (Kozma, 1991, 1994). He theorized that individual attributes may overlap several different types of media, making it more difficult to study. It was his suggestion that future research attempt to address the complexity of the learning experience, rather than abandon it altogether as Clark seems to advocate (Kozma, 1994).

If media are defined as a way to convey or express something, technology can be considered a specialized form of media (Hastings, 2005). What constitutes technology in the contemporary classroom differs greatly from decades past. However, the definition of instructional technology is critical to accurate appraisal of the literature surrounding media and learning (Shaffer & Resnick, 1999). Devoid of a clear definition of instructional technology, it would not seem that we can scientifically investigate whether instructional technology is beneficial in the learning process. Further, due to the enormous diversity in media and technology, the quality of systematic reviews or meta-analyses becomes clouded. For example, the comparison of an educational tool utilizing a high-speed Internet connection to one using a dial-up connection would not be equivalent.

It has been nearly 35 years since Clark’s paper, and technological advances in the 21st century can allow the creation of learning experiences that were unimaginable in the 1980s. Interactive software, virtual reality, Skype, and GoToMeeting are just a few of the contemporary options that enable educators to broaden learning experiences. Research has continued to study the effects of media on learning since that time. Indeed, in a second order meta-analysis that included 25 meta-analyses, Tamim et al. (2011) found a small positive effect in favor of technology. Bernard et al. (2014) also found that blended learning was superior to classroom instruction, but acknowledged the challenge in defining a blended/hybrid learning experience. These findings were echoed by Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, and Jonesin (2009) a meta-analysis suggesting that blended instruction offered a modest advantage over traditional classrooms, but that “the online and [traditional] classroom conditions differed in terms of time spent, curriculum, and pedagogy” (Means, 2009, p. 19). Myriad other studies have come to similar conclusions, with the recognition that learning is a complex task (Hastings, 2004; Sung & Mayer, 2012).

This complexity of learning is influenced by the depth of capacity of human sensory perception. Traditional sensory stimulation such as visual and auditory can combine to improve learner retention, but social and emotional stimulation can also have a dramatic effect on learning capacity (Plass, Heidig, Hayward, Homer, & Um, 2012; Leutner, 2014; Park, Flowerday, & Brünken, 2015). In fact, the cognitive affective theory of learning with media (CATLM) has suggested that students need to be motivated in order to fully explore their cognitive resources (Park et al., 2015). Therefore, regardless of the use of media or traditional classroom, there are innumerable other factors that may be shaping learning outcomes.

Clark (1994) stated that “media will never influence learning” (p. 21). In recognition of the intricacy of both the human brain and the progress of scientific research, this statement in and of itself would seem to violate the very tenets of the scientific method. At the foundation of scientific research is constant change, and to make such a sweeping conclusion simply because the research has not found a consistent answer seems overreaching. Clark uses the analogy of medication in his 1994 report, declaring that the shape of the pill matters not; it is “only if [it] contains the active ingredient required to help us.” Placebo research would suggest that this is not the case, and similarly it would seem to be the case with media and learning (Wan, Woods, Salgado-Montejo, Velasco, & Spence, 2015). Perhaps these are some of reasons that it has been difficult to find conclusive evidence in the literature with regard to technology. There is little redundancy across the literature, making it difficult to ascertain conclusions.

Both Clark and Kozma recognized that the content of the learning experience was important, and that reality has persisted into current times. Whether it is the provision of an academic learning experience or a home exercise program, educators and physical therapists should keep in mind a few tips. Content remains the foundation of the educational experience. What is being taught, including the appropriateness for the audience, is critical to achieving positive outcomes. The instruction of advanced skills or knowledge, for example, prior to the acquisition of the preliminary building blocks would likely result in negative outcomes despite the medium. The breadth of multimedia continues to expand, and despite lack of conclusive evidence of one form of media over another, media can be used as a tool to deliver content. Multimedia should be buttressed with rigorous pedagogical processes regardless of teaching environment. Of note is also the attitude of the instructor regarding the media he or she is presenting. With the exponential pace of growth in multimedia, educators may be obliged to keep up with the flow, resulting in the feeling of endless course or plan alterations. A resistance to this could certainly result in poorer outcomes (Rienties, Brouwer, & Lygo-Baker, 2013).

Technology should not be looked upon as a panacea for the learning experience. From primitive cave drawings to modern virtual reality, media have been used to enhance learning. Conceding that the current literature does not appear to endorse one “vehicle” over another for promotion of achievement in learning does not mean that we should give up our enthusiasm for finding the medium (or media) that do. The evidence on learning styles would suggest that the infusion of technology might facilitate enhanced learning in a specific cluster of the student population, or in a particular environment or state of mind. Perhaps this will be the focus of the literature as we move forward.