Reflective Post #3 Clark vs. Kozma, Constructivism, and Equity

Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media:

In his article, Richard Clark, sets out to inform people that the perception of media use in the classroom does not necessarily promote academic growth.  Clark suggests that media does not influence the achievement or ability, but rather the curriculum is responsible for the growth.  Clark cites several researchers and projects to prove his theory that media involvement doesn’t necessary correlate with academic growth and achievement.  He points to several experiments, where the media is incorporated and the results have little to no variation throughout.  Clark also adds that throughout the studies where a positive result occurred from the added media it was the various instructional methods that impacted the achievement, not necessarily the media.  Clark points out several studies in which student attitudes were taken into consideration.  The experiment showed that students who “thought” there was a test about the material scored higher than the students who thought the lesson was more for “entertainment.”  Similar results were found in experiments involving student achievement and enjoyment, thus backing up Clark’s claims.

Learning with Media:

In this article, Robert Kozma presents his challenge to Richard Clark’s article.  Kozma argues that media can influence the achievement of students by increasing the amount of learning and the variety of methods used to achieve said learning.  Kozma also states that “The relationship between the internal and external cognitive environments is explicitly addressed by the emerging discussion of distributed cognition.  Kozma also compares learning with different types of media (books, TV, computers, and multimedia).  He touches of the pros of utilizing all of these different types of media for one topic and the impact it can have on a student.  Each type of media offers a different symbol system and can positively influence a student’s understanding based on their best learning methods.  To conclude, Kozma states that some students will learn the material no matter what media it is being presented in while other students need to take advantage of a medium’s characteristics to build understanding.  Kozma ends by saying “Ultimately, our ability to take advantage of the power of emerging technologies will depend on the creativity of designers, their ability to exploit the capabilities of the media, and our understanding of the relationship between these capabilities and learning.”

Thinking Technology: Toward a Constructivist Design Model

Jonassen explains the basics of constructivism and the way it should look in a classroom.  Constructivism is where students “construct their own reality based on their perceptions of experiences, mental structures, and beliefs.”  The experiences a child goes through help them gain knowledge about the world around them.  Using previous experiences, the students gain an understanding through trial and error and collaboration with peers.  Constructivism focuses on real world knowledge through authentic tasks.  In the article, Jonassen describes the teacher’s role as a type of facilitator who promotes collaboration when dealing with a new experience.  The lessons are “driven” by the students, with the only thing being set in stone certain parameters (to reach the end goal), so the direction of the class is fairly adaptable.

Redefining Equity: Meaningful Uses of Technology in Learning Environments:

Robbin Chapman introduces the article by explaining how important technology can be for a classroom, but also how it can create a divide among the “haves” and “have-nots.”  The goal is to bridge the digital divide so students have equity in access and understanding of technology.  The equity also includes making meaningful use of technology, not just having fair access to technology.  To help meet that equity Chapman uses the constructionist approach that “children learn most effectively through active design and development of projects meaningful to them and the community around them.  Chapman addresses the issues school districts face: low-income, outdated technology, and underutilization of technologies.  To fight against these inequities, Chapman suggests the use of Community Technology Centers and The Computer Clubhouse Model.  These resources can help reduce the inequities and provide students with a curriculum that promotes technological fluency and a meaningful curriculum that relates to their interests.

Response:

                After reading the Kozma vs. Clark debate I believe the side of Kozma fits better with the experiences I’ve had in the classroom thus far.  While Clark does have valid points that the curriculum does have a major impact on the achievement of a student, I feel he really underplays the effects various media can have on the material.  I know we measure achievement by testing students so they can display their knowledge, understanding, and growth.  However, if a student is engaged in a lesson I think that means as much, if not more, than any test score could.  For example, I just assigned a project to my math class where students had a budget of $120.00 to spend on a birthday party for them and 4 friends.  They were in charge of making all arrangements, buying decorations, invitations, food, etc.  The students used the internet, newspapers, magazines, grocery stores, etc. to research what items to buy and how much the items would cost.  The main objective was to have students using addition and multiplication of decimals to find the total cost for their party.  I know there were several students who made mistakes in calculating, and several others who would not be able to show “achievement” on a test over adding/multiplying decimals, but all of the students were engaged in the project through the use of media.  The students were using their available resources and engaged in the project (which doesn’t happen all the time in math).  They were still utilizing skills they will likely use in the future.  Skills that may or may not be “tested” on an achievement type test.

                Jonassen’s article raised some very good points about incorporating constructivism into the classroom and how the use of technology can help enhance a student’s experiences.  When I think of constructivism I think of how off topic my own class can get at times and I feel that certain subjects cannot be taught with as much constructivism as others.  I understand that constructivism theory is set on engaging the students with real-world tasks so they can define the experience in their own way.  I also think back to my college course on theories and pedagogy, and we talked about incorporating constructivism without inputting your own ethical ideals.  This is something I feel would be very hard to do as an educator.  If a problem breaks out unrelated to the subject, it would be very hard to stand back and let the students figure out the problem without inserting my ideals and understandings.

                In Chapman’s article, I like how in depth the look at equity is.  We are not just talking about every child having a device to use, but also, how every child is using the device.  The example relating to the gender constraints when females and males were working at the CTC was eye opening.  Inequities are everywhere, and certain parameters need to be set to help ensure everyone has equal opportunities.