Ian Hart [26 Jul 96.a] seems to be a bit obsessed with the Clark-Kozma Content versus Medium debate. He even states that "the research" backs up Clark and that "we all agree" with him. However, I think he may have missed the point.
I don't have my copies of the relevant articles with me right now, but my recollection is that Clark "proved" that the medium doesn't matter by arguing that any particular teaching method could be carried out using a number of different mediums. He did not at any stage say that the method was not important.
My attempts to analyze learner-computer interaction are focusing on the method of learning (and teaching) not the medium. I happen to be looking at a single medium (the computer) but arguments about whether the same methods could be carried out using another medium are also of interest. (One of my broad research questions is which categories of learning outcome are worth trying to achieve using computer assisted approaches?). Clearly the educator ultimately will choose which medium to use depending on a whole range of factors (not least of which will be cost).