Well, here we go...
Clark states that media do not influence learning, while Kozma argues that media has a great impact on learning. I think from the time frame the argument began, both scholars had valid points. Clark points out that learning MUST happen in the least expensive way, with broad reach. Kozma claps back with a "Hold on, kid! We've barely scratched the surface on relevance, process and data collection!"
Kozma argues that learning is a response to what is already known, combined with a construct of new information that is processed and stored in relation to factors already present.
What these guys agree on is there are no concrete data measurements on which to rely.
Despite this great debate, here we are in 2024, and I think media hugely influences learning. The ability of technology to simulate open heart surgeries, flight, physics, economic patterns...really any academic field, any service field, has exploded. There are innumerable resources available to find out information and learning anything new will activate prior knowledge regardless of the delivery method of those findings.
Perhaps the delivery method can be most efficient with further instruction. For instance, if you want to learn how to paint a hot air balloon, you might want advice from an art teacher who can point you in the direction of a website designed for amateur painters. But even without a personal reference, a novice painter could easily search for resources that would coach one through a first time painting exercise. In this example, even if a person's painting turned out to look more like a sunset than a hot air balloon, would they not have learned how to use certain brushes, palettes, canvases? No! Regardless of how their painting turned out, they would receive a wealth of knowledge to use for their next project, and that transfer of knowledge IS learning.
