Reflective Post #3: Technology Best Practices

•   Clark, R. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459.

Clark’s basic argument throughout his article is that learning, and therefore achievement, are not increased because of media. His basic theory is that the data referenced by various researchers is ambiguous and can be attributed to other factors such as teaching, enjoyment of the novel media and interest rather than to the media itself. He states that no benefits are to be gained from one specific media to deliver instruction. The media changes the delivery of the information, not the achievement of the learner.

If, as Clark asserts, you get ambiguous results when researching different methods of delivery through different forms of media, does that mean they are all equally effective, or does it mean that the media doesn’t matter at all? He states that just because the students find certain methods involving media more enjoyable, doesn’t mean they increase their achievement.

He insists that researchers must separate the method from the medium. Is the new medium more effective or are students increasing their attention because it’s new and entertaining? Clark asserts this doesn’t imply greater achievement. He also states that comparing different methods of media is like comparing a teacher versus teaching. When looking at the effectiveness of a teacher, we are studying their teaching behaviors not the type of teacher.

Clark states that the media attributes can aide in the cultivation of cognitive skills but doesn’t necessarily imply that the media increases achievement. If it is useful, Clark states, it is valuable but not necessarily irreplaceable. One of his main arguments is the failure to replicate results. While one lesson delivered via lecture may produce great results, another lesson on a different topic may get poor results via lecture. This same idea applies to different forms of media and, therefore, because of this failure to replicate, can’t be determined as more or less successful.

Lastly, Clark discussed students’ ability level and how it pertained to their choice of media delivery. For example, he found that students’ perceptions of the difficulty of the media influenced their choice. Text was perceived as more serious whereas delivery via T.V. was considered shallow and easy. Students with high ability also tended to choose the method they felt would allow them to put forth less effort and still achieve success. Lower ability students tended to choose those methods that were less structured and allowed for more discovery-based learning.

Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with Media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179–211.

Kozma’s main assertion is that media can influence learning and achievement. He states that more learning can occur as well as different types of learning by using media. Media aids in building relationships for students between internal and external cognitive environments; it can complement learning. By using media, students can make connections between concrete and abstract concepts.

By using media, Kozma states, students can use different symbol systems and processes in their learning. When students use T.V., they are learning through visual and auditory processes. When using radio, they are only using auditory. He states that different symbol systems work better for different tasks. Just as Clark stated that different approaches to pedagogy depend on the topic, Kozma asserts that the same approach should be used when using technology. He also asserts that learning with media allows for continuous, give-and-take interaction between the students.

Kozma then discusses the various types of media studied and their relevance to learning. Books provide text and pictures. Students must use context clues, the table of context and bold or highlighted words to decipher information. It is even more beneficial when the books include pictures and diagrams. Students who are very knowledgeable in the topic presented process the text faster where novices will process at a slower pace. T.V. as a form of educational media provides a low level of engagement, but does provide simple representations of the information that is beneficial for many students. According to Kozma, it is most beneficial when viewed with a purpose. The combination of visual and auditory processes is beneficial. Students are able to make connections to mental models. He does worn, however, that when faced with an unfamiliar topic through T.V. media it rarely stays in long-term memory. It is best used with familiar topics. Lastly, computers help take an abstract concept and make it more concrete; it provides the tool to make more connections to real-life situations. Students can manipulate the representations on the computer to cement their understanding of connections of these topics.

Multimedia provides a powerful tool for social situation simulations and learning and to make real-life connections for students. For example, students are able to simulate the Vietnam veteran’s decision to live life disabled or die based on the multimedia simulation. It allows the students to be put in real-life situations and problem solve. Through multimedia, students can explore topics in multiple ways. Kozma does caution that it might be difficult for students to decide what to read when as they use multimedia and hypertexts; it may be more beneficial to some students to be told what to read and when instead of searching for what they think they need to learn. Kozma asserts that the best approach is when the medium and method of delivery are integrated.

•   Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Thinking Technology: Toward a Constructivist Design Model. Educational Technology, 34(4), 34–37.

Jonassen’s article explained the constructivist model and how it pertains to learning. The basic tenets of constructivism are to have students “construct their own reality based on their perceptions of experiences, mental structures and beliefs”. Each learner bases his or her knowledge on prior frameworks.

A constructivist model includes multiple realities, avoids oversimplifying the topic, construction of knowledge, authentic tasks, connection to a real-world environment, time for reflection, context and content knowledge and collaboration. With this model, the learning outcomes are unpredictable; the focus is on the design of the environment rather than the pre-conceived learning outcomes.

This type of learning allows for the “three C’s”: context, collaboration and construction. It is process oriented for students. The teacher ‘s role is more of a coach or mentor instead of the guru with all of the answers. Jonassen does state that different situations require different models of instruction.

Redefining Equity: Meaningful Uses of Technology in Learning Environments

Chapman, Robbin

Chapman discusses the meaningful uses of technology in the learning process with focus on constructionist models. This model of learning provides for an active student who uses the technology tool to help them reach their learning goal. This type of learning will produce meaningful content, activities that motivate the student to explore and incorporate the students’ support systems to enhance their learning.

According to the constructionist model, students connect better to activities and learning that are meaningful to them and connected to their life. Technology is viewed as an expressive tool that helps them make these connections. The design of these lessons provides an opportunity for reflection.

Also discussed were the various inequities as they pertain to technology. Not only do lower-income school districts struggle to provide opportunities for their students, but there are many stereotypes that interfere as well. For example, girls and minorities may be perceived as not “tech-savvy” and only interested in technology for entertainment or consumer purposes. One way to combat these inequities is through the Community Technology Centers and the Computer Clubhouse. These are opportunities for public access to technology. The Computer Clubhouse even provides girls only days to provide these opportunities for girls to use the technology without the influence of the boys. The article’s main focus was to open a discussion on how to make technology more equitable for all learners.

Reflection

I sensed the common theme through all of these articles was that, whether you use technology or not, different learning outcomes require different methods of instruction. I also felt a connection to the idea that technology offers a way to connect students to their learning and their real-life.

I found myself agreeing with Kozma in the debate. I agree that technology can not only provide lessons that are engaging and provide real-life connections, they can also get students excited about what they’re learning in a way that textbooks or lecture can’t. I liked Kozma’s idea that students have more success when their learning is evaluated in the same way it was presented. I had never made that connection before. It made me stop and think about the way my lessons are delivered and assessed.

Clark’s main focus was on levels of achievement but I believe learning is so much more than that. If, by using technology, I can get students excited about math that is just as valuable as their score on a test. Just because their level of achievement doesn’t increase through the use of technology that doesn’t necessarily indicate that their learning or knowledge didn’t increase. Maybe, through using technology, a teacher can ignite a spark that wasn’t there before, regardless of how they score on a test.

Constructivism focuses on the individual learner and allowing them explore and make connections to their life; they are also the driving force in the instruction rather than the teacher. By using technology, teachers can have greater success in providing these constructionist approaches to learning. I found myself thinking that it would be difficult to construct these lessons. Typically, when I design a lesson, I have a specific math goal in mind that I want the students to accomplish. In this constructivist design, I would need to provide the opportunity for students to create their own learning; I would focus on the exploration rather than the goal. I think that design will be a challenge for me, especially in math. I often use exploration in my lessons, rather than just telling them the process or formula, but I still have a specific goal in mind. However, I do agree that by providing these opportunities in the classroom, we can help students construct their learning and make connections to their life. 

As for the first question asked by Dr. Angelone, does technology make a difference in the learning process or could you teach just as well without it? I have been teaching for 16 years and, in the beginning, had very little access to technology. So, yes, I can teach without it but I believe that, with the use of technology, my lessons are more engaging, my students can easily dive deeper into content and topics that would have been difficult without it, and I enjoy teaching with it much more than without it.