had the second face-to-face session of MID803 today.
we were tasked to debate the positions of Clark and Kulik / Kozma with regards the extent to which media influences learning.
it's quite topical because there's currently this question with regards the extent to which Chinese can be taught using English. i think one's position on this would betray one's allegiance to either Clark (yes it can) or Kulik / Kozma (no it can't). so we raised questions about the functions and purposes of language (mere acquistion of grammar and vocabulary, or something else (eg, socialisation / enculturation)?).
my main takeaway and learning point is that Clark's 'method' would be of greater service were it divided into 'procedure' (eg, orienteering, Structured Academic Controversy) and cognitive process (the black box of the mind); in other words, externalities and internal goings-on.
with this further 'schism' (to use Clark's vocabulary), I would agree with Kozma et al that the learning outcome for a given method is indeed media-dependent. this is because the learning is dependent upon the procedure, and the procedure, in turn, both delimits and is delimted by the choice of medium (eg, the usage of SAC delimits the choice of medium to, inter alia, handphones with texting-capabilities, and, conversely, the procedural steps of the SAC are delimited by the nature of the mobile technology (which allows full-duplex synchronous texting with delayed reading) respectively).
our position won the debate - for the first time since she instituted it, according to Prof Bopry :-)
she also gave the flattering comment that she had gained new insight into this twenty-year-old issue :-)
Technorati Tags: cognition, discourse, education, learning, media, technology