The article by Richard E. Clark re-examines the research on the influence of media on learning, challenging the common belief that specific media formats enhance learning. Through a review of meta-analyses and other studies, Clark argues that there is no consistent evidence that different media formats significantly impact learning outcomes. He suggests that any perceived benefits are likely due to uncontrolled factors such as instructional methods and novelty rather than the media itself. Clark also critiques current theories of media attributes and symbol systems, suggesting that they are more useful for instructional design than for explaining learning outcomes. He recommends future research focus on necessary characteristics of instructional methods and learner attributions and beliefs about media. The article concludes with a call to avoid media comparison studies unless novel theories are proposed, emphasizing the importance of understanding the cognitive processes underlying effective instruction.The article by Richard E. Clark re-examines the research on the influence of media on learning, challenging the common belief that specific media formats enhance learning. Through a review of meta-analyses and other studies, Clark argues that there is no consistent evidence that different media formats significantly impact learning outcomes. He suggests that any perceived benefits are likely due to uncontrolled factors such as instructional methods and novelty rather than the media itself. Clark also critiques current theories of media attributes and symbol systems, suggesting that they are more useful for instructional design than for explaining learning outcomes. He recommends future research focus on necessary characteristics of instructional methods and learner attributions and beliefs about media. The article concludes with a call to avoid media comparison studies unless novel theories are proposed, emphasizing the importance of understanding the cognitive processes underlying effective instruction.