richardson


 

 

 
Australian Journal of  
Educational Technology 
 
The medium and the message 

Lesley Richardson 
University of Southern Queensland 

 
From discussions expounding the virtues of interactive multimedia (IMM) 
appearing frequently in the popular press, education and training 
literature, conference presentations and seminars, it could be construed that 
IMM is being heralded as the answer to training and education needs for 
the 1990s, but what does the phenomenon offer trainers and/or educators, 
striving to achieve cost efficient and effective learning? It seems reasonable 
to suggest that developments in the understanding of teaching and learning 
methods that enhance and nurture cognitive skill acquisition are what 
underlies the potential contribution of IMM to improved learning 
effectiveness. 

 
The effectiveness of media based delivery methods on improving the 
learning outcome of students and trainees, has been the concern of 
researchers for some time. It can be argued (Clark, 1983, 1990; Jonassen, 
1985, 1991) that it is the underlying structure of the subject content, the 
overall curriculum design and the instructional design of the learning 
experience that results in effective learning rather than the medium used 
to deliver the message, so interactive multimedia is no more or no less 
effective that other media. 
 
It may be helpful to clarify what is meant by interactive multimedia. 
Richardson (1993) uses the term multi-media (with the hyphen) to 
described audiovisual installations or presentations, that used a 
combination of several different types of media, for example, film, 35 mm 
slides, videotapes, audiotapes, print etc.; the term interactive multimedia 
(without the hyphen) is used to refer to the delivery of information from a 
variety of media sources passing through a computer and providing 
learner control of and interaction with, the information flow. 
 



2 Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 1995, 11(1) 

It is surmised that the contribution made by IMM is that it provides a 
seamless delivery platform when moving between strategies of 
presentation or between media representations (Hedberg, 1989). This 
paper will reflect on these issues by discussing approaches taken to the 
selection and use of media since the 1950s, some specific design features 
pertinent to IMM and current uses of IMM. 
 
Which medium to use? 
 
Methods of media selection have formed part of various theories, systems 
and conceptual models of instructional design for several decades. Media 
comparison studies carried out in the 1950s and 60s were searching for 
evidence that one medium was more effective than another for various 
learning tasks (Mielke, 1968; Machula, 1978), however the desired results 
were not forthcoming and most reviews of these studies have 
acknowledged that using a particular medium did not contribute any 
benefit to learning outcome (Lumsdaine, 1963; Levie and Dickie, 1973). 
 
The 1970s and 80s saw studies into media effectiveness fall into two 
strands; one which grew out of the media comparison studies resulted in 
the development of media selection models, and another which 
concentrated on media attributes and their relationship to information 
processing. By no means did these strands have absolutely clear 
boundaries. 
 
Media selection models 
 
Medium selection models suggested two categories of criteria for 
identifying appropriate media. One was based on administrative or 
economic concerns such as: 
 
• cost, availability and technical quality (Gerlach and Ely, 1971).  
 
• cost, availability, ease of use, familiarity with the media and potential 

maintenance problems (Gagne & Briggs, 1974).  
 
• practical constraints, both administrative and economic (Romiszowski, 

1988). 
 
The second category was concerned with instructional issues such as: 
 
• cognitive appropriateness, level of sophistication, (Gerlach and Ely, 

1971)  



Richardson 3 

• estimated effectiveness, anticipated acceptability to the learner (Gagne 
& Briggs, 1974)  

 
• the choice of instructional method, the type of learning task, the 

characteristics of the student (Romiszowski, 1988). 
 
Within their model Gagne & Briggs (1974) proposed matching the stimuli 
characteristics of the medium with the stimuli needed by the learning 
event. Gerlach & Ely's (1980) selection guidelines also suggested 
considering the relationship between the media characteristics and the 
instructional outcome, whereby "a high degree of transfer from the 
learning situation will occur if the content and procedures of the medium 
elicit responses which are very similar to or identical with the desired 
terminal behaviour" (p.150). This reflects Dale's Cone of Experience model 
(1954) which equated categories of media with the type of learning 
experience. However, despite the suggested instructional considerations, 
an assessment of research studies on types of media used in instruction 
conducted by Campeau (1974) concluded that decisions regarding the 
purchase of media devices had been based on considerations of cost, 
availability and user preference rather than on evidence of instructional 
effectiveness. 
 
A comprehensive overview of media issues presented by Schramm (1977) 
included comment on the complexity of media selection, the role of media 
in education in general, the economic considerations and influences for the 
use of different media and where the research into media selection and 
effectiveness had led and may lead in the future. Schramm argued that 
studies to 1977 told less about what had been learned than about what 
needed to be learned. He concluded that media selection did and probably 
always would depend on local conditions rather than universal systems of 
selection. Schramm suggested that learning was affected more by what 
was delivered rather than by how it was delivered (p.273). He speculated 
that ... cool hard reason and economics of scale would see decisions based 
on which medium would do what was needed within the limits of what 
was available (p.276). 
 
Media attributes 
 
The study of the attributes of media and their relationship to information 
processing during learning was undertaken with the expectation that the 
attributes were an integral part of the medium and a link between the use  
 



4 Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 1995, 11(1) 

of media and learning would be established, and that using the attributes 
of media would serve as a model for cognitive skills development (Clark, 
1975; Salomon, 1974; and Olson & Bruner, 1974). 
 
However, Clark (1983) pointed out the media attribute idea faced many of 
the same problems as the media comparison notion. As different media 
could present the same attributes, the media attribute could not be seen as 
an independent "media" variable. Salomon (1979) is cited by Clark as 
presenting some evidence that media attributes as a symbol system could 
"cultivate the mastery of specific mental skills by activating or overtly 
supplanting the skill"(p 452). The issue taken up by Clark was whether 
these attributes (symbol systems) were exclusive or necessary to learning. 
Clark concluded that symbolic elements that can be produced by various 
media could create sufficient but not necessary conditions to teach 
required cognitive skills. He went on to say that media are vehicles for 
delivering instruction but do not directly influence learning. 
 
Similar conclusions were drawn by Moore, Wilson and Armistead (1986) 
after tracing the history and development of media-related research. From 
their studies they suggested that students learn from any medium and that 
media per se do not have a substantial impact on learning. 
 
So by the mid-80s the debate continued, research continued to show no 
significant difference in learning outcome based on the medium of 
delivery of the learning experience. Choice of medium was seen as a 
process of matching attributes of a medium of delivery to the desired 
learning outcome. Why should interactive multimedia be any different 
from other media? 
 
Developments in technology and interactivity 
 
The difference might be found in the rapid development of a new 
generation of technologies with two major new features: first, the capacity 
to store large amounts of data in a form that is quick and easy to access; 
and second, access to the data is put into the hands of the learner. These 
two features are essentially the result of developments in computing and 
coincide with the size and cost of hardware decreasing while speed and 
storage capacity increase. 
 
The feature of learner control promises the most exciting changes in 
educational media and has led to the prominence of the use of the term  
 



Richardson 5 

interactivity. Interactivity implies an input/response relationship between 
the student and the IMM program. The interactivity could be simply a 
navigational tool which allows the student to move through the stored 
data, or it may require the student to engage in higher order problem 
solving where feedback to the input will dictate the path taken. Although 
interactivity in this sense implies learner control of the pathways taken 
through the learning material, in essence the pathways available are very 
much the dictates of the instructional program designer (Sandery, 1993). 
This suggests that it cannot always be assumed that IMM programs allow 
students freedom to pursue learning content in the sequence they prefer. 
 
Interactivity also implies the active involvement of the student with the 
learning material, where the student for example, engages in active 
thinking or physically completes an activity rather than being a passive 
observer. Research has shown that active involvement by the student with 
"hands-on" activities (Okey et al, 1988; Wittig, 1992) or active information 
processing (Jonassen, 1985) has led to better comprehension and retention. 
It is reasonable to assume that the instructional effectiveness of the 
interactivity element of interactive multimedia relies on the powerful 
instructional interactions embedded in the course design (Reeves, 1992). 
 
Computer based instruction (CBI) incorporating the interactive 
involvement of students through drill and practice, tutorial instruction, 
evaluation of student test performance, directing to appropriate 
instructional resources, recording student progress, providing a problem 
solving tool, generating student requested data to illustrate models and 
the executing of student developed programs, was the bases for a meta-
analysis of CBI conducted by Kulik & Kulik (1991). Their analysis shows 
positive outcomes in student learning when using CBI as opposed to 
conventional classroom teaching, a reduction in instruction time and 
positive effects on attitude to instruction and towards using computers. 
Larsen (1992) argues that through the interactivity features of IMM, the 
learners' experiences are matched to their own learning style and 
consequently leads to increased learner satisfaction. Dejoy & Mills (1989) 
found that if opportunities were not available for adult learners to impose 
their learning strategies on the courseware, they became frustrated and the 
quality of the learning experience diminished. 
 
 
 
 
 



6 Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 1995, 11(1) 

Design and applications of interactive multimedia 
 
Pedagogical design and the design of the interface between student and 
the technology are identified as the two elements that must be considered 
for the design of interactive multimedia instruction (Try, 1994). The 
coming together of these elements can help to refine the contents of the 
program, through, for example, the look and feel of the interface being 
designed to give clues that act as advanced organisers, or the use of visual 
metaphor, where access to a notebook function is through an icon 
representing the spiral binding of a notebook. 
 
In teaching, research has shown that multi-sensory input enhances 
learning (Reese, 1983; Wills, 1990), and IMM can be seen as facilitating this 
input as it can provide a range of visual and aural sensory representations. 
Multi-sensory options enable the instructional design to provide a number 
of ways of presenting material which cater for a student's preferred 
learning style, for example engineering theory can be presented in a 
graphic form and/or as mathematical formulae. (Pemberton et al, 1994) 
 
The power of IMM can be demonstrated to enable the presentation of 
scenarios that otherwise would not be available, where mistakes can be 
made without hurting real people. The convergence of media and 
computing in, for example, interactive video, has been used not only for 
skills training but also for decision making and problem solving situations 
such as in the British Airways operations training program called "Who 
Owns the Problem" (Bayard-White 1986). In this program a number of 
situations are presented where the trainee is put into a decision making 
position anywhere within the organisational hierarchy. The feedback as to 
the economic outcome, operational impact on the company and personal 
effect on other workers of the decisions made is instant and 
comprehensive. For example, a cut hand could eventually result in a five 
hour aircraft delay and cost the company $220,000. Although the program 
presents no "right" answers, it succeeds in raising an awareness of safety 
issues and the consequences of everyday decision making. The instant 
feedback feature of interactive video is cited by Bayard-White (1986) as a 
factor in improving training, as it enables students to see, respond and 
check answers without delay. 
 
In describing another training program on interpersonal communications 
skills, Bayard-White (1986) sees interactive video making a contribution to 
shortening the time taken to develop the necessary skills and reduce  
 



Richardson 7 

inefficiencies in the work place, by removing trial and error in the real 
situation. From these examples it is again clear that IMM is a powerful and 
flexible tool for delivering education and training. The combination of the 
pedagogical design and the flexible features of the medium can lead to 
effective learning. 
 
Criteria for evaluating IMM 
 
In assessing the contribution of IMM to effective learning it is helpful to 
consider by what criteria programs could be evaluated. Dejoy & Mills 
(1989) provide an evaluation checklist as part of a study of the nature of 
educational interaction between individual adult learners and interactive 
instructional material. A distinction is made between elements which 
relate to the learning process(content and instructional strategies) and 
elements which support the delivery of the instructional material 
(instructional presentation, documentation and technical). Reeves (1992) 
examines the pedagogical dimensions of interactive learning systems 
through a number of continua covering epistemology, pedagogical 
philosophy, underlying psychology, goal orientation, instructional 
sequencing, experiential value, role of instructor, value of errors, 
motivation, structure, accommodation of individual differences, learner 
control, user activity and cooperative learning. When the position on the 
continua of an interactive learning program is represented graphically, it 
provides an effective profile by which to assess the character of the 
program and its appropriateness for a particular educational situation. 
Reeves is seeking to swing the emphasis for design and selection away 
from the media elements and towards the pedagogical elements. It is the 
ability of the medium to represent and present these dimensions that 
could form the bases for selection of means of delivery. 
 
The scope and flexibility of IMM as a delivery system are highlighted by 
Reynolds & Ehrlich (1992) when proposing their decision model and 
checklist for the design of IMM. Their design model is based on other 
traditional instructional system design models, however the issue of 
selection of delivery mode does concentrate on an understanding of what 
IMM can contribute to the educational process. 
 
 
 
 
 
 



8 Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 1995, 11(1) 

Conclusion 
 
The strength of IMM would seem to lie in its ability to bring together 
educational "best practice" such as strong pedagogical design features, 
multi-sensory delivery, student meta-cognitive self monitoring assisted by 
instant feedback, and student control over the pacing of information flow 
and the pathways followed which in essence moulds the program to the 
student's preferred learning style. 
 
Such checklists and dimensions profiles as mentioned can be used as a 
valuable guide by the teacher/instructor for selecting courseware and by 
the educational designer when developing courseware: however, one 
cannot help but be concerned that available resources could still over ride 
the best pedagogical intentions. 
 
In the future the pedagogical design elements will be of even greater 
importance as technologies converge with computer networking such as 
Internet, and on-line access for students, video conferencing and even 
virtual reality, the technologies will capture the educational imagination 
and compound the challenge for the educational designer. 
 
References 
 
Bayard-White, C. (1986). An Introduction to Interactive Video. London: 

Council for Educational Technology. 
 
Campeau, P. L. (1974). Selective review of the results of research on the use 

of audio-visual media to teach adults. AV Communications Review, 22(1), 
5-40. 

 
Clark, R. E. (1975). Constructing a taxonomy of media attributes for 

research purposes. AV Communications Review, 23(2), 197-215. 
 
Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconstructing research on learning from media. 

Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445-459. 
 
Clark, R. E. and Sugrue, B. M. (1990). North American disputes about 

research on learning from media. International Journal of Educational 
Research, 14(6), 507-520. 

 
Dale, E. (1954). Audio-Visual Methods in Teaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart 

and Winston. 
 



Richardson 9 

Dejoy, Judith K. and Mills, Helen H. (1989). Criteria for evaluating 
interactive instructional materials for adult self-directed learners. 
Educational Technology, February, 39-41. 

 
Gagne, R. M. and Briggs, L. J. (1974). Principles of Instructional Design. New 

York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston. 
 
Gerlach, V. S. and Ely, D. P. (1971). Teaching and Media: A Systematic 

Approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 
 
Gerlach, V. S. and Ely, D. P. (1980). Teaching and Media: A Systematic 

Approach. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 
 
Hedberg, J. G. (1989). Rethinking the selection of learning technologies. 

The Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 5(2), 132-160. 
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet5/hedberg2.html 

 
Jonassen, D. H. (1985). Interactive lesson design: A taxonomy. Educational 

Technology, 25(6), 7-17. 
 
Jonassen, D. H. (1991). What are cognitive tools? In Piet A. M. Kommers et 

al (Eds), Cognitive tools for learning. Berlin: Springer-Verlag in 
cooperation with NATO Scientific Affairs Division. 

 
Kulik, Chen-Lin C. and Kulik, J. A. (1991). Effectiveness of computer based 

instruction: An updated analysis. Computers in Human Behaviour, 7, 75-
94. 

 
Larsen, R. (1992). Relationship of learning style to the effectiveness and 

acceptance of interactive video instruction. Journal of Computer-Based 
Instruction, 19(1), 17-21. 

 
Levie, W. H. and Dickie, K. (1973). The analysis and application of media. 

In R. Travers (Ed.), The second handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: 
Rand McNally. 

 
Lumsdaine, A. (1963). Instruments and media of instruction. In N. Gage 

(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally. 
 
Machula, R. (1978). Media and affect: A comparison of video-tape, 

audiotape and print. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 7(2), 167-
185. 

 



10 Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 1995, 11(1) 

Mielke, K. (1968). Questioning the questions of ETV research. Educational 
Broadcasting Review, 2, 6-15. 

 
Moore, D. M., Wilson, L. and Armistead, P. (1986). Media research: A 

graduate student's primer. British Journal of Educational Technology, 
17(3), 185-193. 

 
Okey, J. R., Santiago, R. S. and Peters, C. L. (1988). Incorporating 

Instructional Theory in Instructional Design. Paper presented at the 
International Conference of the Association for the Development of 
Computer-Based Instructional Systems, Philadelphia. 

 
Olson, D. and Bruner, J. (1974). Learning through experience and learning 

through media. In D. Olson (Ed), Media and symbols: The forms of 
expression, communication and education, (73rd Yearbook of the NSSE). 
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

 
Pemberton, P. F., Richardson, L. and Duncan, C. T. (1994). Games 

machines and interactive tertiary education. Paper presented at the 
IEEE First International Conference on Multimedia Engineering 
Education. Melbourne: University of Melbourne. 

 
Reese, S. D. (1983). Improving audience learning from television news 

through between-channel redundancy. Paper presented at the Annual 
Meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass 
Communication. Corvalis, August 6-9. 

 
Reeves, T. C. (1992). Effective dimensions of interactive learning systems. 

Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Information Technology 
for Training and Education. Brisbane: University of Queensland. 

 
Reynolds, L. and Ehrlich, D. (1992). Multimedia in industry and education. 

A decision model for design. Proceedings of the International Interactive 
Multimedia Symposium. Perth: Curtin University of Technology. 
http://www.ascilite.org.au/aset-archives/confs/iims/1992/reynolds.html 

 
Richardson, L. (1993). Media Mix: Options for Study Material. Staff 

development papers No 5. Toowoomba: Distance Education Centre, 
University of Southern Queensland. 

 
Romiszowski, A. J. (1988). The selection and use of instructional media: for 

improved classroom teaching and for interactive individualized instruction. 
2nd ed. London: Kogan Page. 

 



Richardson 11 

Salomon, G. (1974). What is learned and how it is taught: The interaction 
between media, messages, tasks and learner. In D. Olson (Ed), Media 
and symbols: The form of expression, communication and education, (73rd 
Yearbook of the NSSE). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

 
Salomon, G. (1979). Interaction of media, cognition and learning. San 

Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 
 
Sandery, P. (1993). Interactive Multimedia. Stimulus paper prepared for a 

national interactive multimedia forum. Canberra, August 4-5. 
 
Schramm, W. (1977). Big Media Little Media: Tools and Technologies for 

Instruction. London: Sage. 
 
Try, K. (1994). The role of technology, particularly multimedia in 

education. Presentation to the Board of Curriculum Studies. Sydney. 
 
Wills, L. (1990). A Program to Develop Vocabulary Success through Multimedia 

Techniques. M.S. Practicum, Nova University. 
 
Wittig, K. (1992). Keywords for Science Education: Alive and Active. Teaching 

guide, Loudonville: Siena College. 
 

Contributor: Lesley Richardson is Head of Media Services at the University 
of Southern Queensland. With colleagues at USQ, she has recently 
undertaken an interactive multimedia development project assisted by 
CAUT (the Committee for the Advancement of University Teaching). Her 
address is Media Services, Distance Education Centre, University of 
Southern Queensland, Post Office Darling Heights, Toowoomba, 
Queensland 4350, Australia. Email: lesleyr@usq.edu.au 
 
Please cite as: Richardson, L. (1995). The medium and the message. 
Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 11(1), 1-11. 
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet11/richardson.html