White Paper: Modern-Day Media Versus “Mere Vehicles”

Instructional media generally refers to any medium for conveying information such as computers, books, television, newspaper, and mobile apps. Media and technology have significantly influenced our worlds, especially in education and healthcare delivery. Without distance learning solutions (media) such as videoconferencing and virtual classrooms, learning and educational occurrences would be jeopardized for a whole generation due to pandemics like COVID-19. Did Richard Clark recognize the (essential) role of media in the midst of such outbreaks that could threaten educational achievements and change the learning experience for all students from elementary grades to professional colleges when he compared media (medium) to “mere vehicles” (Clark, 1983, p. 445)?

Clark’s critical remarks about the role of media in facilitating learning sparked a major controversy among many scholars inside and outside of the field of educational technology. This white paper will examine media debate in general and analyze Clark’s position from physical therapy education and practice perspectives. Additionally, the paper will also examine if Clark’s position holds with modern-day media affordances during a time of healthcare disasters such as Covid-19, when the medium of learning appears to have taken the front seat.

For those who may not be familiar with Clark’s work, he is an internationally renowned expert in the field of educational technology and had profound effect on research involving complex learning, performance motivation, and use of technology in instruction (USC Rossier School of Education, 2017). When many scholars were focused on finding and incorporating best media (medium) for instruction delivery on presumed learning benefits, Clark did not only scrutinize but refuted and restrained such claims (Clark, 1983). He compared media and technology in the realm of (facilitating) learning and improving students’ achievements to a truck that delivers groceries but has no effect on one’s nutrition and health (1983, p. 445). Further, in response to Salomon’s argument that media attributes such as the capability to zoom and unwrap a threedimensional into two dimensions may play a role in learners’ cognitive processes, Clark (1994, p.22) suggested that no form of technology was superior to another (replaceability test). Thus, he questioned the worth of rather poorly designed research studies aiming to find the elusive holy grail (media). Clark called the drift in scientific rigor in the field of educational technology a tendency to “scientize” the craft (Clark, 1998, p. 10).

However, Clark (1994, p. 21) recognized the economic advantages of media use. Instead of converging research efforts to find best media and attributes (symbol systems) that causes learning, instructional designers should choose the least expensive and most cognitively efficient way to deliver education. For instance, there would not be any additional benefits of reading from an e-reading device such as iPad over a textbook.

Robert Kozma, a proponent for media research and its utility in the educational world, disagreed with Clark’s instructional technology assessments. Early on in his paper, Kozma (1994, pp. 7–8) pointed at the future of technology with capabilities of telephone, cable television, and digital computer combined into one large multimedia device, which could change the way cognitive and social processes of knowledge work. Kozma’s conceptual reasoning goes beyond finding if (current) media influences learning to will (advanced) media affect learning?

Learning (Kozma, 1991, p. 180) is an indirect function of interaction between cognitive processes and characteristics of the environment (media). It is important to analyze media in terms of their cognitively relevant capabilities or attributes such as a medium’s technology, symbol systems, and processing capabilities. Kozma (1994, pp 9–11) elaborated on his position through two examples (ThinkerTools and The Jasper Woodbury Series). He demonstrated how unique attributes of media (computer and television respectively), when paired with appropriate instruction methods, can assist students in associating their understanding of solving problems in complex contexts to real worldlike situations and, thus, complement learning. Further, Kozma (1994, p. 13) underlined the distinction between an attribute as a capability of a medium, which is always present, and a variable as the property of a thing that may be present in a degree. Establishing such specific foundations helps shed some light on differences in processing capabilities between students using video-based and audio-linguistic delivery modes to influence complex cognitive and social processes (variables). Finally, for educational technologists, Kozma (1994, p. 8) underlined the imminent need to forge a relationship between media attributes and learning through continued research and integrate such attributes into delivery medium to enhance teaching and learning.

In response to Kozma’s research, Clark (1994, p. 25) questioned the quality of evidence of the examples mentioned above. The ThinkerTools study did not control for confounding variables such as curriculum and instructional methods, while in the Jasper Series study, the control group did not receive equivalent instruction. Further, Clark (1994) questioned if such means and their economic burden justified the end (learning problem-solving skills).

With technology evolution, the idea of integrating novel devices to enrich learning experiences is not new. Nowadays, ereading technology (Biancarosa & Griffiths, 2012, p. 157) offers many tools for mitigating many literacy challenges, but can these tools be used to deliver rich and meaningful content? In a meta-analysis, Takacs et al. (2014) compared the effects of multimedia stories on young children’s comprehension and vocabulary against the support an adult provides during traditional storybook reading. They found no significant differences between learning outcomes. In another research study Allen et al. (2015, p. 138) did not find any advantage for improving vocabulary with the iPad (versus picture books) in children with autism spectrum disorder. Additionally, the results of the mapping test revealed that the medium of presentation did not impact children’s extension of labels from pictures to real objects, which again supports Clark (1983, p. 445) assertions that media do not influence learning under any condition.

Comparing different technologies without any change in instructional method would not cause any significant change in student outcomes. On the contrary, utilizing advanced multimedia technologies to find new ways to teach and communicate may result in effective learning. In a “method-not-media study” (Sung & Mayer, 2013), two groups of students received 11 narrated slides with a script of 800 words either on a desktop computer in a lab or on a mobile device in a courtyard. For the instructional method, students received either a continuous lesson with no headings (standard group) or a segmented lesson in which the learner had the control to go onto the next slide with each slide having headings corresponding to a key idea (enhanced group). The results favored the enhanced group on a transfer test, regardless of medium, while motivational ratings were better for both methods in the mobile group. Another study (Parong & Mayer, 2018) using virtual reality headsets validates similar findings, where the difference in motivation between groups could be attributed to the novelty of headsets and hand controllers (versus PowerPoint); however, newer technology did not cause enhanced learning.

Numerous well-designed research studies have been conducted since 1983 to either prove or refute the role of media in learning. However, Clark’s claims have endured both the test time and the rigorousness of the research. Is it the time for a moratorium on comparative media research and embracing Clark’s statements as not controversial but exceptional and his contributions as compassionate (albeit unyielding) efforts to expedite educational technology?

Knowledge of such debates is important for physical therapy educators and clinicians when employing different media and technologies to reach out to students and patients through learning management systems and telemedicine. It may seem an obvious choice for educators to choose the most advanced technology while teaching a generation of digital natives. However, Clark’s position should serve as an important reminder to improve methods and not become consumed with the ideas of best media available. Further, it is critical to understand that Kozma did not necessarily contend Clark’s claims but instead emphasized that medium can be more effective if employed with appropriate instructional methods (Hasting & Tracey, 2005).

Similarly, for clinicians, it is important to recognize that technology, when used appropriately, can serve all stakeholders equally well. Many physical therapists are forced to use telehealth to provide care during the COVID-19 pandemic, for which most of us may not have been well prepared. We might have relied excessively on medium (advanced technologies), whereas not identifying areas to progress (methods to utilize technologies for patient care effectively). Let this media debate and unfortunate pandemic circumstances be our reminder to find the right balance between methods and modes to deliver the best care to people we serve.

I conclude with a quote from John Dewey (1906): “We never educate directly, but indirectly by means of the environment. Whether we permit chance environments to do the work, or whether we design environments for the purpose makes a great difference.”