Mere Vehicles

Media is an integral part of educational technology and has advanced over the years; however, the media and learning debate persists. Each new medium attracts its advocates who claim to improve learning (Robinson & Nathan, 2001). In his paper Reconsidering Research on Learning From Media, Clark (1983) stated, “the best current evidence is that media are mere vehicles that deliver instruction but do not influence student achievement any more than the truck that delivers our groceries causes changes in our nutrition” (p. 445). Not all scholars agree with this statement, but many accept Clark’s assertion that media does not influence learning (Artino & Durning, 2012). It is necessary to understand the role of instructional methodology combined with other factors because learning occurs when information is presented, not the medium in which it is delivered. Comparing Clark’s ideas of learning to other contemporary educators highlights the debate between media and learning and its relation to physical therapy education.

This white paper is directed at health care professionals and educators. It is specifically targeted to physical therapists, occupational therapists, speech and language pathologists, and nurses by addressing the two main stances of the media and learning debate and its contribution to the role of educational technology. It also aims to familiarize health care professionals with the key factors and instructional methods that positively influence learning and transfer of knowledge.

Clark argues that media does not influence learning, which is evident in most recent summaries and meta-analyses of media comparison studies. The analogy of a delivery truck to explain that learning is caused by content rather than the delivery medium is how Clark argues his position. Further, Clark argues that media comparison study results are mistakenly interpreted as media efficacy instead of content efficacy. Clark states that with the advent of newer media types, the research questions have remained the same. As more studies are released, more ambiguous data promotes the premise that learning occurs due to the media used; however, no significant differences have been found in these studies. Learning is attributed to factors associated with the content and/or instructional strategy that cannot be controlled for rather than the medium used.

Another point Clark makes is the unambiguous and unanimous nature of the overviews of the past comparison studies. When the results of these studies are combined, they provide strong evidence that the causal connection found between media and achievement in the media comparison studies is confounded. Clark states that when comparing two media, subject matter content and method of instruction remain the same, and only the media can differ (Materi, 2001). The two most common sources of confounding that cause uncontrolled effects are instructional method differences between two treatments and a novelty effect for newer media.

The method and media confusion is evident when studies are subjected to metaanalysis. Different teachers or instructional designers give different instructional methods and content to the treatment compared in the meta-analysis. If this is true, it is difficult to attribute the gain to the medium or the differences between the media, content, and method. When the same instructor or team uses contrasting treatments, and if the effect of media tends to disappear, then the lack of difference can be caused by greater control of nonmedium variables. Evidence suggests that the method of instruction is known to have a more direct and powerful effect on learning. When instructional programs focus on essential methods rather than medium, one can explain more significant learning variance (Clark, 1983).

The other confounding factor is the novelty effect, which is the increased effort and attention research subjects tend to provide when they come across new media. Achievement gains can be caused by increased attention paid by students, which leads to more effort and persistence. If the gains are due to the novelty effect, they diminish as students familiarize themselves with the new medium. Despite advertised superiority and attractive features, there are no learning benefits attributed to the use of different media in instruction (Clark, 1983).

According to Clark, media and symbols are operational vehicles for methods that reflect cognitive processes required for learning. The instructor decides to determine an appropriate medium when all the cognitive features enable a student to learn. If the student is successful, cognitive translation occurs regardless of the medium or the symbol system used. Through this method, Clark highlights the attributes of media that can be easily replicated in another medium with the same benefits.

Kozma disagrees with Clark’s view. Kozma suggests that media and method are inherently inseparable. Kozma states that Clark’s statement about delivery trucks creates an “unnecessary schism between medium and method” (p. 205). Kozma proposes an alternate theory of learning where the learner extracts information from the environment using available cognitive resources. This information is then integrated with the existing information already stored in one’s memory (Kozma, 1991).

Kozma’s view focuses on the role of media in learning where media can provide representations or model certain operations that are salient to a learning task, which generally learners either cannot or are unable to perform by themselves. Kozma claimed media to be an integral part of the instructional design process, analyzes various media, and outlines their strengths and weaknesses. Kozma concluded that when a media is carefully chosen for a learner, the learner will be able to construct knowledge based on the strength of the media and also calls for the continuation of media comparison studies (Materi, 2001).

Koumi (1994) disagrees with Clark’s statement stating the comparison studies are flawed due to a practical problem. Koumi states that the studies lack control of production quality between the two media, and the competence of the production team is not taken into account. The studies also fail to account for the learning style of students, the purpose for which the medium was used, and the students’ attitude towards different media (Materi, 2001). Koumi suggests instead to develop and refine criteria for media selection to achieve the best effect. Kozma would likely support Koumi because various media have unique qualities which should be used to their fullest, and methods cannot be transferred from one medium to the other.

Clark’s claim, which focuses on the instructional method rather than the media, remains widely supported in education. Media attributes may not contribute to learning but probably contribute to the cost-effectiveness of learning. The choice of media depends on an affordable and efficient way to deliver information to the learner. These perspectives can be correlated in physical therapy education. It is necessary to understand the various factors that influence learning in order to improve student outcomes.

The cognitive load theory discusses limitations in human cognition, which can limit learning and performance (Artino Jr & Durning, 2012). It is important to address and understand the application of the cognitive load theory as physical therapy education advances because each student’s ability to learn will vary and requires a different instructional methodology to promote learning. As educators, we have to focus on the major learning domains, namely, cognitive, affective, and psychomotor.

Veneri (2011) studied the effectiveness of computer-assisted learning in physical therapy education. Even though computer-assisted learning might deliver content effectively compared to traditional instruction methods, further studies are warranted because of small sample sizes, limited content topics, limited computer assisted learning tools, and limited data collection methodologies in this study.

Artino and Durning (2012) claimed that knowledge transfer depends on the amount of time required to learn the task and the type of practice used. The use of software has led to the completion of many tasks where it is difficult to engage a human instructor. Technology is a costeffective and efficient delivery strategy (Laing, 2015). Another factor often ignored in medical education is student motivation. It affects the amount of time students are willing to devote to learning and the types of cognitive and metacognitive learning strategies they utilize. The debate also provides insight into the need for effective use of instructional resources and how these resources require a commitment of staff and students (Laing, 2015).

Clark’s debate emphasizes that learning occurs because of factors other than media. Therefore, it is important to understand the instructional method used, the instructor’s level of expertise, and motivation when considering learning and educational technology. Every year, educational institutions and private companies spend millions of dollars implementing new educational technologies (Materi, 2001). These resources are best spent when viewing education holistically. For this reason, other confounding factors which affect learning should be addressed. The media and learning debate would likely continue over the years; however, researchers should worry less about comparing media and instead focus on making the best use of each (Materi, 2001). As we become more conscious educators, we are more likely to address students’ voices, the ones who are most affected by instruction, and assist them when their motivation wanes. This understanding of the media debate would help improve the educational environment of the future. For physical therapists and physical therapy education programs, Clark’s work is important because it is necessary to develop effective teaching methodologies to sustain students’ interest and enthusiasm for learning and engage them as active learners (Veneri, 2011).