From Ingredients to Recipes. . . and Back: It's the Taste That Counts

[ ] Steven M, Ross

CONCLUDING THE MEDIA INFLUENCES SPECIAL ISSUE

[] The last issue of ETR&D (Vol. 42, No. 2, 1994) featured a revisit to the "media influ- ences" debate, with lead articles by Robert Kozma and Richard Clark, and reactions by David Jonassen and associates, Gary Morrison, Robert Reiser, and Sharon Shrock. Judging by the consistent positive feedback we've received from readers, along with the selection of a live version for presentation at a symposium at the 1995 AECT annual meeting, the special issue was successful in stimulating/renewing serious reflection about the role of media in educa- tional theory, research, and practice. As sev- eral readers noted, a strength of this particular collection of articles was the diversity of the perspectives expressed: Kosma on media capa- bilities, Clark on why media do not influence learning, Jonassen et al. on constructivist (learner-centered) perspectives, Morrison on research perspectives, Reiser on instructional design perspectives, and Shrock on the logic and practical implications of the debate issue and its main arguments.

As a "master of ceremonies" for the debate, I have thus far remained neutral regarding the different views expressed by the participants. However, in also carrying out my editor's role for the journal, I had the opportunity to read each manuscript multiple times as it evolved through the various stages in the publication process. I had anticipated that each reading would bring me closer to personal resolution regarding which perspective (Kosma's or Clark's) was the more convincing. Surpris- ingly, the opposite effect occurred. Each time I considered either position, I became increas-

ingly convinced of its merits while maintaining my positive feelings about the alternative view. Given the goal of resolution, and the idea that the two positions ostensibly represented con- flicting sides in a "debate," I found this reac- tion disturbing. I grappled with the idea that we really weren't encountering a debate at all, but receiving (as Gary Morrison suggested, last issue) two sets of arguments on two different questions---what might more aptly be labeled a forum. Before concluding this introduction, I 'd like to share a few thoughts on this reaction.

In 1989, Morrison and I wrote a paper for the seminal issue of ETR&D in which we sug- gested some directions for future educational technology research (Ross & Morrison, 1989). In describing how educational technology dif- fers from other behavioral sciences in its goals and interests, we addressed three types of dis- tinctions: basic psychology fields versus educa- tional technology; basic versus applied research; and internal versus external validity. We associated the left member in each pair with theory building via the identification of causal relationships between treatments (instructional strategies) and performance (learning) outcomes. We associated the right term with improving applied instruction via the evaluation of commonly used and cutting- edge delivery systems in real-life contexts. Our main point was that the educational technol- ogy field benefits from both approaches. Accordingly, from a more scientific, positivistic perspective, Clark is correct in arguing that media studies are limited for isolating the instructional strategies or essential "ingredi- ents" that cause gains in learning. But, from an applied perspective, Kozma is also correct in supporting the design of media-based delivery

ETR&D, Vol. 42, No. 3, 1994, pp. 5-6 ISSN 1042-1629 5

6 ETR&D, Vo142, No. 3

systems (like ThinkerTools) by systematically selecting and combining effective strategies/ingre- dients.

At the risk of becoming hungrier for food than for argument, consider an analogous situ- ation applied to cooking. Knowing how indi- vidual food ingredients affect taste is obviously important for creating effective recipes. Ulti- mately, however, the "proof of the pudding" will be how appetizing diners find the resul- tant mixture of ingredients. New recipes regarded as "can't miss," based on established principles regarding their component ingredi- ents, may be inedible failures, while more cre- ative combinations may be fortuitously delicious. When a recipe is a success, we can applaud the chef for his/her expertise, while hoping that the chef won't claim that the recipe itself caused the tastiness of the dish. As culi- nary scientists, we know that the true causative agents were the ingredients. But as connois- seurs of good meals, we also know that ascer- taining the specific contribution of each ingredient may be less important than docu- menting the recipe, establishing the replicabil- ity of its outcomes, and experimenting with variations to determine whether the dish can be improved or prepared more efficiently (eas- ier and less expensively). In performing the lat- ter two tasks, we are likely to learn much useful information about the effects of ingredi- ents as well.

Building successful recipes from individual ingredients is hampered by many unknown and uncontrollable factors, some dependent on chemistry and others on idiosyncratic human tastes and active digestive processes (as Jonassen et al. 's reaction might remind us, last issue). Increasing our knowledge about ingre- dients (a la Clark) helps us to prepare tastier

and more nutritious meals, but so does increas- ing our knowledge about recipes (~ la Kozma and Reiser). However, in pursuing these two types of knowledge, we should follow Shrock's logic and neither investigate ingredient effects exclusively in test tubes (and never on plates), nor haphazardly throw a bunch of ingredients together and hope for pot luck over pot disas- ter. In applied domains, like cooking, good research utilizes systematic scientific methods, while striking a balance between internal valid- ity (control) and external validity (generalizabil-

ity).

I offer the above as food for thought (par- don the expression), without knowing how Clark or Kozma will react to the ideas expressed. I am pleased, nonetheless, to give both of them some of the last words in the form of brief rejoinders that each wrote after having the chance to reflect on the various papers in the special issue. A capsule reaction paper by the invited discussant, Robert Tenny- son, follows to close the forum. Finally, two papers, by Flagg and Ertmer et al., which are not part of the forum, conclude the research section of this ETR&D issue. [ ]

Steven M. Ross is Research Editor for Educational Technology Research and Development and is in the Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Research Department at the University of Memphis.

REFERENCES

Ross, S.M., & Morrison, G.R. (1989). In search of a happy medium in instructional technology research: Issues concerning external validity, media replications, and learner control. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37 19-34.