Media, Messages and Grammar Rules

Photos from morguefile.com

As an educator who once worked in journalism and advertising sales, and now teaches high school courses like media studies and journalism, I am always elated when students gain some understanding of the famous statement: "The medium is the message." To be honest, it is a statement that I sometimes struggle with myself, especially as the speed of change in technology appears to outpace my energy. Nevertheless, when I read over Donald P. Ely's article "The Medium is Not the Message," I found myself sometimes nodding vigorously in agreement and other times shaking my head in confusion. In discussing "delivery systems," Ely argues that many times they actually "get in the way of attaining the learning objectives." I wholeheartedly agree with that statement. Using technology for the sake of using technology can risk attaining learning objectives, and using outdated or poorly designed technology tends to not only deter learning, but causes a lot of frustration and hair pulling for everyone involved.



Yet, I am having a difficult time accepting Ely's observation that "it is not the media that teach; it is the design of the content that determines whether distance learning is successful." Indeed, his observation holds weight when we look at the research behind student engagement and motivation (Lowe et al., 2010; Bulger et al., 2008). Design is a major key. But is not design a major part of the media? While I understand Ely's argument that the content presented to the learner is more important than the medium used to present that content, does not the design, in essence, become part of that medium? True - media does not teach, but if the approach to the design involves, let's say, video demonstrations or audio instructions, are they not media that aid in teaching?

Ely also speaks of teachers and their "vital part" and stresses the importance of "high levels of interactivity" and the importance of feedback in distance education. Again, the research echoes Ely's statements (Badge et al., 2012; Mason, 2011). But what happens if the teacher is replaced?

When we look at the leaps and bounds made in artificial intelligence, it is not crazy to speculate that down the road, people may interact with online avatars for a number of services, which could include education. These avatars could be very hard to distinguish from real human beings. It seems far-fetched, but according to Smart Planet's article "How artificial intelligence will shape our lives," the Port Authority of New York plans to install hologram-like avatars at airports in New York. Additionally, a 2012 experiment by researchers from Google and Stanford has suggested the ability of computers to achieve human-like visual processing skills will most likely not be science-fiction for much longer. So if the teacher is a digitally intelligent virtual avatar, what happens to the argument that the medium is not the message? This, of course, is all speculation and will ultimately bring us right back to the argument about design. Avatars require design, and if the avatar becomes the teacher (the online presence that provides "feedback from an authority," as Ely states), it could be viewed as another medium. But is it a medium that is teaching?

When considering the learning theories and direct instruction, I would argue that behaviourism is aligned closest to direct instruction. It was stated in "An Overview of Direct Instruction" by Nancy E. Marchand-Martella, Ronald C. Martella and Kristy Ausdemore that direct instruction programs "meet the needs of students who struggle academically" and direct instruction "should be used with students who have special needs." The CSCL article "Psychological theories; A brief survey of the changing views of learning," states that in behaviourism the theory "is that the learner is viewed as adapting to the environment...The learner merely responds to the 'demands' of the environment." From my own experience in working with and observing struggling students and special needs students, the main focus is sometimes helping them cope with the demands of the environment around them while they find their niche in that environment so they are empowered as active and contributing members of their community.

In regard to the constructivist approach, I think constructivism is aligned closest because constructivists view "knowledge as a constructed entity made by each and every learner through a learning process...and it (the knowledge) will have to be reconstructed by each person." The constructivist approach provides the learning processes through posing problems, exploring possible answers, and developing products and presentations while stressing more group work over individualized work.

Direct instruction has worked most effectively for me in teaching grammar and sentence structure in writing or English classes, particularly with students who struggle with basic grammar and writing mechanics. I usually will go over a few examples in an exercise that focus on a specific grammar or writing mechanics rule. I will provide students with some hints or ways that may help them remember the rule. I will then instruct them to complete the exercise. Afterward, we go over the exercise to determine how they did which helps me determine who may need extra help and who may be ready for a quiz.

After Dr. Jekyll leaves, then Mr. Hyde comes out, and I will sometimes attempt a constructivist style with grammar and sentence structure lessons. After students have completed a writing piece, I will take one sentence from each of their assignments and type them in a post on my course blog. I will tell the students each sentence has grammar, spelling, punctuation or sentence structure issues. Some sentences may have only one issue, others may have two or more. I ask the students to go through each sentence on their own and revise them. After the revisions are completed, I get them into groups (usually trying to group stronger writers with struggling ones) to share their revisions. They will then divide up the sentences so each group has about the same number. I will ask them to try to come to some consensus on a final group revision for the sentences they have. They present their findings, and the class discusses the revisions and other students offer their opinions on the revisions. It is an interesting activity because many students either see (or have reinforced for them) how words come alive and how, sometimes, the structure and word choice of a sentence can be very subjective. The rules are not always absolute, and two people can revise a sentence and both revisions can be right, but which revision is more effective?

Maybe only Dr. Jekyll knows.