Lesson 8: Contemporary Issues in IDT

In this lesson, you will examine several issues and controversies in the field of IDT and how they have evolved over time. Please read the articles that accompany these debates and issues as you will be asked questions about them at the end of this lesson.

Instructional Media Debate

In 1983, Richard Clark published a controversial article called Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research. In that article, he asserted that research suggests that media do not influence learning under any conditions. Clark stated 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). This means that it does not matter whether media is delivered face-to-face or online, or whether it is delivered using a television. For that reason, Clark strongly argues against conducting media comparison studies. The goal of media comparison studies is to compare the effectiveness of different media at promoting learning. An example of a question answerd in a media comparison study would be: Is online instruction as effective as face-to-face instruction?

Clark states that media do not influence achievement any more
than the truck that delivers groceries causes changes in nutrition.

Clark argued that any effects that are found in media comparison studies can be explained by rival hypotheses. For example, effects could be caused by educational reform, specific instructional methods that were used, content differences, or by novelty. In addition, biased editorial decisions may favor research showing larger effect sizes for newer media.

In 1991, Robert Kozma published a response to this article. Kozma suggests that students can learn from media because of particular characteristics of media. An example of a characteristic or attribute would be the fact audio and visual symbol systems can be presented simultaneously in video. Kozma believes that these attributes can be used in ways that they may either inhibit or enhance learning. For example, images and audio may be used together to promote learning, while they could also be used in ways that they may distract the learner (for example, by showing images that do not align with the audio). According to Kozma, Clark creates an unnecessary schism between medium and method. Kozma states that both are part of design. Within a design, the medium enables and constrains the method and the method draws on the medium. In addition, while Clark suggests that instruction is delivered to learners by a medium which results in learning, Kozma believes that the learner actively collaborates with the medium to construct knowledge.

In 1994, Robert Kozma submitted another article for review for the journal ETR&D about this topic. He suggested inviting Clark to write a rejoinder in the journal if the publication decision would be positive. In the end, Clark decided to accept that invitation and the editors and reviewers of the journal also decided to comment on the topic at hand. This resulted in a special issue of the journal on the instructional media debate. In that special issue, Robert Reiser (1994, p. 45) also challenged Clark’s views and his grocery analogy. He wrote:    

I would say that the successful delivery of instructional methods (the groceries) is dependent, in part, on the attributes of the medium (the vehicle) used to deliver them. For example, the successful delivery of corrective feedback requires the use of a medium that can analyze a learner's response and provide feedback that directly addresses the nature of that response. Or, returning again to Clark's truck analogy, the successful delivery of frozen foods requires the use of a vehicle with refrigeration.

According to Reiser (1994), media (vehicles) can have specific attributes that can enhance specific types of learning,
just as the refrigeration in an ice cream truck can aid in the successful delivery of frozen goods.

Please read Kozma and Clark’s articles that were published in the special issue of ETR&D in 1994:

• Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? ETR&D, 42(2), 7-19.
• Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. ETR&D, 42(2), 21-29.

While you may think that this instructional media debate seems dated, it is still relevant to this day as some researchers still conduct media comparison studies. For example, while some people still conduct studies on whether the use of iPads could be more effective than other types of instruction, other researchers in the field of IDT discourage researchers from conducting these types of studies for reasons that Clark mentioned in his writings.  

Instructional Systems Design Debate

Another debate in the field of IDT is the debate on the instructional design process. This debate started by an article by Gordon and Zemke published in 2000 entitled Attack on ISD. Please read this article.

• Gordon, J., & Zemke, R. (2000). The attack on ISD. Training, 37(4), 42-53

In this article, these authors voice criticisms of instructional system design. This article caused a lot of disagreement and controversy in the field of IDT and resulted in a response by Zemke and Rossett in 2002 entitled A Hard look at ISD. It even resulted in a special issue in the Performance Improvement Journal published in August 2002 (Vol 41, No 7) in which other researchers countered the claims made by Gordon and Zemke with evidence that ISD is still alive and well. Please read one of the articles of this special issue to see how Ruth Clark addresses some of the criticisms and also provides some ways to make ISD more effective.

• Clark, R. C. (2002). Applying cognitive strategies to instructional design. Performance Improvement, 41(7), 10-16. doi:10.1002/pfi.4140410704

While Gordon & Zemke (2000) provide criticisms but not necessary solutions, Clark (2002) did provide ways to improve ISD. More recently, Boling and Smith (2018) also address some different ways to look at the field. They provide some alternative and expanded ways to view our field and the practice of design. They claim that expert instructional designers do not always end up using existing ISD models (in their article they describe them process models) and that such models may even inhibit the development of design expertise. They therefore provide a variety of alternative ways to look at design. They state that our field does not need to present itself as a science in order to be seen as a legitimate field (Boling & Smith, 2018). Please read more about this in the following chapter of the textbook by Reiser and Dempsey and as you read it think about the way they define the field of (instructional) design and the perspectives they provide:

• Chapter 39: Changing Conceptions of Design.