The Clark and Kozma debate has been going on for quite a few years now. When I first started reading on the debate, I though it was recent, but imagine my surprise when I came to find out that the initial debate took place since the early nineties. The basics of the debate argues about the use of technology in an educational setting. Clark first stated that technology is nothing more than a “delivery device” and that it is still up to the teachers to do the teaching. The media is just another tool. Kozma, however sees technology as a little bit more than that. Kozma argues that media could have an impact on a students cognitive skill if presented correctly. He says that any type of media can help the learner access prior knowledge and further helps them understand complex concepts.
When considering which side you are going to take for this debate, you have to also keep in mind that the original debate took place about 25 years ago. Back then, one would have never imagined that such a thing as Youtube, Twitter, or Facebook would ever exist. Yes, the internet existed, but it was so limited that it would have been easier to just stick with old fashioned books. These days however, both students and teachers are so reliant on technology that you would think that Clarks argument has become obsolete and Kozma is the clear winner. Take my own campus for example, we are a 1:1 school, so everyone has their own netbook. Yesterday, I had planned on giving an entire lesson through blended learning, but due to unfortunate circumstances, the internet was out for the ENTIRE school for about three hours. I as an educator, was lost. I had to resort to printing out some articles we can read and work on together and my original lesson had to be postponed. My point is Kozma does seem to be correct when it comes to media being a medium of cognitive growth, but on the other hand, I agree with what Clark said about it should be a delivery device, because technology is never 100% reliable.