Subject: [IFETS-Discuss] Clark et al
morrison.gary@coe.wayne.edu
Date: Tue 20 Jun 2000 - 01:56:45 MEST
From: morrison.gary@coe.wayne.edu Subject: [IFETS-Discuss] Clark et al Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 16:56:45 -0700
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@topica.com
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Betz claims that technology does make a difference. Where is the proof?
I have seen many studies claiming that one form or another of technology
leads to achievement gains, but those studies are typically flawed or ask
the wrong questions (look in many of the journals from various disciplines
outside of instructional technology that focus on instructional practices).
Clark's arguments go beyond the 1980's. His first articles on the topic of
no media effects were in the 1970's. However, he has published more recent
articles on the topic. Just because an article is old, does not mean it has
lost its relevance or impact.
If one looks at the theoretical basis of media communication as described by
Knowlton in the 1960's it is easy to see and understand why a sign vehicle
carrier, technology, will not influence learning. Knowlton built on Morris'
concepts and was the first in the field of instructional technology
(although it was called AV Communication at the time) to suggest that media
comparison studies were futile.
Betz also stated:
"A colleague of mine, who was recently the technology coordinator for a
large
metropolitan school district in the Dallas metroplex, constantly affirms the
value of technology to increase achievement test scores."
Again, what proof do you have the achievement was the result of the
technology? Could it be the result of better state/local benchmarks that
might have been tied to teacher performance ratings that caused the teachers
to teach better that lead to achievement? Simply looking at achievement
scores for a school district has little value other than saying everything
in the school district seems to be helping achievement. It is impossible to
determine the singular effect of technology, the textbooks, school lunch,
teacher, or safety of the school when looking at an overall achievement
test.
I am more concerned with Betz's citing of this his colleague's comment as
proof to refute Clark's argument. Clark's argument are scholarly and based
on published articles in refereed journals, not on second handed comments
that are not backed by data and carefully designed studies.
I disagree with Betz's comments regarding "a timid stance towards
technology...". Rather, we should focus our efforts on designing effective
instructional strategies that will shape learning and affect achievement. It
is the effective strategies that are transferable and usable in many
different forms.
Gary
===========================================
Check out www.nteq.com
Gary R. Morrison
Professor
Instructional Technology Program
Wayne State University
399 Education
Detroit, MI 48202
Voice: 313-577-1679
Fax: 248-888-8545
Subvert the dominant paradigm
---------------------------------------------------------
Forum website: http://ifets.ieee.org/
Forum's contact person: kinshuk@massey.ac.nz
Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.ieee.org/maillist.html
Change your subscription options (digest, vacation hold etc.) at: http://www.topica.com/lists/ifets-discuss/prefs
---------------------------------------------------------
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Tue 20 Jun 2000 - 01:56:58 MEST