Despite a very hectic production week I've been following Steve's paper and the ensuing lively discussion.
In the early part of the week I found much of the discussion was hard to follow. Firstly because so much information came flooding in and not want to get left behind, found myself reading some of answers before I had fully read the paper itself. I realized that for me complex papers are too long to read on screen, so I printed the discussion out. Reading from a sheet of paper is very different and I found myself able to re-read sentences, and occasionally putting the paper down and reflecting on what I'd read. My comprehension increased. Of course this supports Steve's experiment--and that learners remember more from text. I do not have any problem with this conclusion, nor in "disproving" Clark's infamous hypothesis (discussed for several weeks in graduate class).
The problem I do have, is that in controlling the conditions of presentation, I feel that the attributes of both "print" and "audio" media were changed. Maybe Steve has a convincing argument but in my humble opinion, text is not the same as print, audio is not the same as tape. Yet early in the week it seemed that the terms were used interchangeably. I have yet to print out the second half of the week, which currently totals around 70+ pages, and maybe some of these issues have been addressed, but, for me, Jeff Oliver [20 Oct 96] hit the nail on the head early on in the discussion, when he suggested that the experiment appeared to be testing sensory input.
Printed text does not automatically move to the next screen (computer text can but does not have to). You can move back a sentence, or a phrase, or even walk around the room while you reflect.
The inherent weakness of stand-alone audio as a teaching medium is reflected in a supposedly ancient Chinese saying (which hung on my boss's wall for the first twelve years of my career):
If I hear I forget,
If I see I remember,
If I do I know.
In current training jargon-speak this has later been quantified as "you remember only 20% of what you hear, 40% of what you see and hear, and 70% of what you do." (I think, but I'm not so sure if the percentages are correct, because I only heard them!) Because of its inherent weakness audio, for learning (not enjoyment), is most often used when the learner has either the ability to control the rate of input (through stop, pause, and replay) and/or is required to work through learning materials with a workbook for practice and exercises.
Classroom lectures (primarily audio) are more effective when they use visual media (overhead projectors, whiteboard, or computer presentations) as well. There are very few learning situations where audio is used alone. The only "pure" example that I can think of is where audio cassettes are used for "training" salespersons in the car while they are traveling (this may be an authentic environment, but it is not a learning environment).
Thanks Steve, and others who contributed to a great discussion. I've enjoyed all that I have printed out and will surely later comprehend that which I have only skimmed on-line.