Content uploaded by Juhani Tuovinen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Juhani Tuovinen
Content may be subject to copyright.
Multimedia Distance Education Interactions
Juhani E. Tuovinen, Churchill, Victoria, Australia
Abstracts
English: The nature of multimedia interactions in distance education discussions has been approached from many different
perspectives. This article attempts to synthesize approaches based on distance education theory, cognition research and
multimedia development. As a result a composite framework for discussion of mu ltimedia and mul timodal interactions in
distance education context is proposed, which is based on interactions between the instructor, students and content. This
framework should be useful for e stablishing clearer relationships among the existing interaction literature, for classifying
interactions in distance education instructional design, and as a basis for further research.
Français: La nature des interactions multimédia dans les discussions en e nseignement à distance ont éte abordées sous
différents angles. Cet article cherche à faire une synthèse des approches basées sur la théorie de l’enseignement à distance, les
recherches sur la connaissance et les developpements multimedia. On propose un cadre composite pour la discussion des
interactions multimédia et multimodales dans un contexte d’enseignement à distance fondé sur les interactions entre
l’instructeur, les étudiants et le contenu. Ce cadre serait plus utile pour établier des comparaisons plus claires entre les écrits sur
l’interaction pour classer les interactions dans l’élaboration de l’enseignement à distance et pour jeter les bases de recherches
futures.
Deutsch: Die form von multimedia interaktionen in diskussionen über DL ist von vielen verschiedenen seiten her angegangen
worden. In diesem beitrag wird versucht, überlegungen aus der DL-erziehungstheorie, der lernforschung und der multimedia
entwicklung zu vereinen. Als ergebnis wird eine vielfältige struktur zur diskussion von multimedia und multimodal
interaktivitäten in der distance education vorgestellt, die auf interaktionen zwischen dem lehrenden und den studenten sowie
den inhalten beruht. Diese struktur sollte bei der gewinnung klarerer einsichten aus der literatur, bei der einordnung von
interaktionen in DL-unterrichtsdesign und als ausgangspunkt für weitere forschungen hilfreich sein können.
Introduction
The importance of multimedia and the value of interaction in distance education are commonly accepted.
However, both of these concepts and the relationships between them are not always as clear, or as fully elaborated
as we may assume. In this article these issues are examined on the basis of distance education theory and
educational cognition theory. Four main interactions in distance education will be discussed, mainly based on
Moore’s conceptualization (Moore, 1989; Moore and Kearsley, 1996). Each of these interactions will then be
elaborated in terms of the communications media involved and the educational implications of recent cognition
research. The resulting interaction framework for distance education provides a useful basis for discussion of
distance education technologies, techniques and instructional design. It helps to map out issues requiring further
research, and should point out the relationships between existing research and its implications for distance
education practice and theory.
The Moore distance education interaction model
We shall begin with the model of distance education interactions proposed by Moore (1989; with Kearsley, 1996).
He distinguished three main types of interactions in distance education. They are learner–content interaction,
learner–instructor interaction and learner–learner interaction. He argued that articulating and de ning these
interactions would help to dispel some of the misunderstandings that had arisen in the debates about educational
media.
His three interactions model will be used in this paper, although Soo and Bonk (1998) added to this learner–self
interaction, where they highlighted the importance of the learner’s re ections on the content, the ‘self-talk’, in
Education Media International ISSN 0952-3987 © 2000 International Council for Education Media
distance learning. This was treated as an essential aspect of the learner–content interaction process by Moore
(1989). In this discussion we will treat the learner–self interaction as part of the learner–content interaction as
Moore did in the original formulation of these ideas.
Learner–content interaction
Learner–content interaction is without doubt one of the most fundamental interactions in any educational
situations. The intellectual engagement of the learners with material which changes their understanding,
attitudes, etc. is basic to all educational processes (Moore, 1989).
One-way presentation technologies
We could classify the content presentation distance education media and communications technologies available
for this engagement using the media/technology categories developed in a discussion of online learning
(Tuovinen, 1999). The nine categories are text-only, graphics, video, virtual reality, sound, and combinations of
sound with the other elements, as shown in gure 2. Each of the categories in the sequence: ‘text ®graphics ®
video ®virtual reality’ can contain the previous means of communication in the sequence, e.g. in a picture
(graphics) text may incorporated, and a video may convey still pictures and text. Thus as we progress to the media
on the right we move to richer dimensions of educational communication and engagement.
The explicit separation of the sound category may appear trivial at rst but recent cognitive research indicates
it is very important to consider the added contribution sound makes to the educational engagement between a
learner and the content. If we consider the structure of the human cognitive architecture it becomes clear that we
have a very small capacity for conscious processing in our central thinking space, usually called the working
memory (Baddeley, 1990; Logie, 1996; Miller, 1956). However, the working memory is thought to consist of
separate processing spaces for visual and auditory information (Baddeley, 1992), which means we have a greater
capacity for problem solving and learning if the information is presented in these two modes rather than in either
mode alone (Mousavi, et al., 1995; Tindall-Ford et al., 1997). Thus we have evidence to support the use of
multimedia, i.e. educational multimodal presentation.
The experiments on multimodal presentation of information indicate that the best bene t is gained when the
information to be learned is complex, i.e. has high element interactivity (Sweller and Chandler, 1994), and when
the two modalities present different aspects of the learning content. When material from different sources needs to
be integrated mentally in a given cognitive task, such as from a picture and text or verbal explanation, the research
indicates that a combined graphic-auditory presentation is better than the graphic-textual version (Mousavi et al.,
1995; Tindall-Ford et al., 1997). This result is best understood in terms of the dual parallel processing capabilities
of the human working memory, where the single modal graphics-text presentation overloads the single visual
working memory loop. In contrast the graphic-verbal separate modal presentation engages both the visual and
auditory processing components of the working memory and enables the learner to deal with more information.
Thus we have solid evidence to indicate importance of multimodal or multimedia presentations of learning–
content to students in the distance education learner–content interactions if the material to be learned is complex.
On the other hand, educational cognition research suggests that if the material is simple, i.e. has low element
Multimedia Distance Education Interactions 17
Learne r Content
Figure 1 Learner–content interaction
Figure 2 Learner–content media interaction dimensions
Text Graphics Vide o VR
Text + Graphics + Video + VR +
Sound Sou nd Sound Sound
Sound
interactivity, then presenting it in multimedia form, especially if exactly the same information is presented both
verbally and in text or graphics, may make learning more dif cult due to the redundancy effect (Bobis et al., 1993;
Chandler and Sweller, 1991).
2-way learner-content interaction via interactive multimedia
In all of the above interactions between the learner and the content, the interaction is assumed to be one-way,
i.e. the content is presented to the learners for their consumption, without the learners affecting the content as
they internalize it (see gure 1). However, the promise of interactive multimedia has always been an active
engagement of the learner with the learning environment, as shown in gure 3. We shall consider how this may
be achieved from the perspective of an educational multimedia designer.
Seven (plus one) levels of multimedia interaction
Sims (1994) argued that a multimedia designer may structure educational software to provide the learner seven
levels of interaction. The designer may con ne the software user to passive interactivity where they can simply
in uence movement through a single sequence of presentations. At the second level the learner may work through
a hierarchy of choices in navigating through presentation screens, and at the third level the operator can update
information in the programme. The fourth level consists of construct interactivity where the user manipulates
objects to achieve a goal. At the fth level the learner participates in a simulated operation of an environment. At
the sixth level of free interactivity, the operator is provided a hyperlinked source of information, which can be
traversed at will. Finally at the seventh level, the learners are able to work in a meaningful, job-related context.
They experience a microworld of the actual operational environment they seek to master.
A further level of interaction may be added to this list. In many educational situations the bene ts of involving
students in creating multimedia as part of their learning is recognized (Blumstengel and Kassanke, 1998; Dunlap,
1998). This constructive activity goes beyond the seven levels suggested by Sims, where the students act to design
the multimedia. Thus eight levels of learner engagement with multimedia content are possible, these levels of are
summarized in table 1.
Are there any empirical guidelines to help choose the level of interactivity desired for given content and students?
Some initial pointers may be gleaned from research into discovery learning and the use of computers in schools.
Research on discovery learning in a computer environment indicates that if the learning content is demanding,
i.e. has high element interactivity, unless the students have good domain schema they will not bene t as much
from free exploration as from more structured study, such as practice with worked examples (Tuovinen and
Sweller, 1999). However, the same study also indicates that once the students have adequate schema in the
domain, an exploration approach is at least as good, and may even be better, than a more structured approach,
18 EMI 37:1 – DISTANCE EDUCATION
Learne r Content
Figure 3 Two-way learner–content interaction
Table 1 Eight levels of 2-way interaction with multimedia
Level Learner–multimedia interaction
1 Passive, 2-way ow control
2 Choices from a hierarchy
3 Information update control
4 Construction with components
5 Participation in simulation
6 Navigation of hyperlinked information
7 Operation in a microworld
8 Multimedia creation
indicating the bene ts of increasing student control of learning and ‘fading’ of tutorial support as they master
particular content area (Cox and Cumming, 1990).
Another study found that the benets gained from students constructing educational multimedia (level 8 activity)
was related to their skills with the authoring environment (Wallace and Tuovinen, 1992). Thus if the students
are expected to bene t from constructing educational multimedia, as suggested at the eighth level of interaction
above, they will need to be familiar with the software authoring environment and processes (Blumstengel and
Kassanke, 1998).
Schwier’s (1993) taxonomy of multimedia interactions also recognizes the highly structured multimedia learning
environments, like the worked examples practice discussed previously. He would call it a prescriptive environment.
He also identi es a democrati c learning environment, where the students are proactive, very similar to levels six and
eight identi ed in table 2. Although he discusses the relative merits of these environments for different students
and course aims, he does not appear to explicitly recognize the need for students to move from the prescriptive to
the democratic environments as they progress. He also describes a third multimedia learning environment, a
cybernetic environment, where mutual adaptive interactions occur between the learning system and the learner.
This might be equivalent to the seventh level of interaction in table 1. However, an important feature of this
environment is the availability of various forms of hints and assistance from the learning system. Such learning
systems may use articial intelligence to monitor and assist the students and perhaps interface with the students
via virtual reality. Thus the key aspects of Schwier’s taxonomy appear to be covered in table 1 and the discussion
of the various media in gure 2 deals with some of his media dimensions.
Instructor–learner interaction
The second of Moore’s interaction categories focuses on the instructor–learner interaction. Research indicates
this dimension is vitally important for distance students without onsite teacher support (Braggett et al., 1995;
Brown, 1996; Stephenson, 1997–98). The communication between the instructor and the learner may employ
any combination of the nine media/technology categories shown in gure 2 but is by de nition two-way in
nature, rather than one-way. Thus whether the student and the tutor exchange messages via mail, email, phone,
voicemail, or participate in audiographic sessions, videoconferences, or even in real-time virtual reality activities,
they are engaged in an interchange of information in two directions.
Some instructor–learner exchanges are synchronous and others asynchronous in nature. All the learner–content
interactions are synchronous, but in many of the instructor–learner engagements time delays add a further
complicating dimension. Usually the longer the time delay, the less effective the feedback, as shown in the exchange
of distance education materials (Biner et al., 1997) and feedback on assignments (Roberts, 1996). So it appears the
asynchronous mode is less desirable, but the possible time delays in many types of tutor-student meeting systems
Multimedia Distance Education Interactions 19
Table 2 Social and instructional interactions in educational sessions (Gilbert and Moore, 1998)
Social interactions Instructional interactions
Body language Communication of content
Greetings, socializing Setting objectives
Exchanging personal information Questioning
Scheduling Answering
Logistics Exchanging information
Class management Pacing
Sequencing
Branching
Adapting
Evaluating
Individualizing
Handling responses
Con rmation of learning
Controlling navigation
Elaboration
– even with the most modern technologies, such as email exchanges, online newsgroup discussions, etc. – may have
some real advantages. When complex issues are discussed, for example, the participants need time to thoroughly
digest new information and formulate considered replies. Thus both asynchronous and synchronous tutor-learner
sessions need to be considered in planning total distance education programmes, as well as the characteristics of
the media to be utilized.
In the choice of the instructor–learner interaction mechanisms the evidence from the multimodal research
discussed in the rst part of this paper needs to be considered. Katz (1999), for example, found that video-
conferencing was a more effective and acceptable method of learning from an instructor at a distant site than
interactive internet or audiographic communication. It appears that the combined visual and auditory aspects of
the lecturer’s performance, i.e. the social and the instructional interactions listed in table 2 (Gilbert and Moore,
1998), were conveyed most effectively by the videoconferencing system. The broad thrust of the Katz study may
be predicted on the basis of Mousavi et al. (1995) and Tindall-Ford et al. (1997) results discussed earlier.
Learner–learner interaction
Moore’s third interaction dimension, learner–learner communication, is recognized as an important factor for
students’ success in distance education (Benson and Rye, 1996; McGill et al., 1997). There is a vast literature on
group and collaborative learning outside the distance education context (Webb and Palinscar, 1996), which may
be used as a basis for the development of learner–learner interactions, as well as the emerging literature on this
issue in the distance education context (Chiappini et al., 1999; Freeman and Capper, 1998; Milter and Stinson,
1999; Ribbons and Hornblower, 1998; Spector et al., 1999). Essentially the importance of this mode of interaction
needs to be acknowledged in educational planning for distance education to ensure appropriate learner–learner
collaborative activities are explicitly organized for the situations where such learning is bene cial (Bourdeau and
Bates, 1997; Burke et al., 1997; Coombs and Smith, 1998; Luetkehans and Nailey, 1999; May, 1993; Webb and
Palinscar, 1996).
All the media/technologies available for the learner–content and instructor–learner interaction may also be used
for learner–learner interaction. These interaction systems would mostly be two-way in nature but may be either
synchronous or asynchronous. The same considerations of immediacy bene ts and the competing need for
adequate time for deep consideration of complex issues apply as in the instructor–learner interaction. In fact,
often the instructor–learner and the learner–learner interaction mechanisms are the same. At major Australian
distance education universities (such as Charles Stuart University and Monash University) internet forums or
discussion groups (newsgroups) are routinely available for use in all distance education subjects for combined
instructor–learner and learner–learner communications.
Burke et al. argue that in learner–learner interaction both cognitive and social interaction aspects are important.
Thus rather than simply focusing on the capability of the interaction facility to communicate cognitive content,
its capacity to emotionally support students is also important. If we take this issue seriously, then we may begin
to question the value of only providing shared staff–student discussion areas, such as web forums or staff-led
videoconferences, because the students often feel inhibited from discussing real concerns and obtaining the
affective support they need. Pearson (1999), for example, found that allowing students to participate anonymously
in computer conferences increased their participation signi cantly and added value and quality to their
communications. Similarly the students in Freeman and Capper (1998) study bene ted from anonymous web-
based role play.
The value of multimodal interaction, already noted in the above two interaction contexts, needs to be kept in
mind for learner–learner communications. In fact, in the development of interactive multimedia for distance
education, the need for learner–learner (and/or instructor–learner) interaction can be satis ed by incorporating
distance collaborative communications learning activities among students into the content itself, as well as
employing multiple modal communications. For example, it is quite feasible to develop interactive distance
education software at any of the seven levels suggested by Sims (1994) and add to it links to text-only (Feldmann-
Pempe et al., 1999), sound-only (Kötter et al., 1999), text and graphics, graphics and sound (Steeples and
Goodyear, 1999), desktop videoconferencing (Trentin and Benigno, 1997), or virtual reality (Jackson et al., 1999)
collaborative online communication and online computer supported collaborative work (CSCW) environments.
Such software could be supplied on CD-ROMs or on a Web server and would allow students to collaborate in
learner–learner communications sessions, either in real time or asynchronously, via networked computers. An
example of this approach is the ‘DreamTeam’ synchronous CSCW Web environment where the presentation and
collaboration functions are closely integrated (Roth and Unger, 1998).
20 EMI 37:1 – DISTANCE EDUCATION
Instructor–content interaction
Moore’s (1989; with Kearsley, 1996) model of three types of distance education interactions has provided a useful
framework for the above discussion. However, from an instructor’s point of view the conventional deadlines
of distance education often bar the inclusion of relevant up to date time-changing information. If lecturers are
used to being able to change the lecture content up to the last minute, they often feel constrained by the long lead
times required for the preparation of printed, audio-visual or computer-based distance education materials. Some
new technologies, such as the internet and voicemail, may be used to overcome these irritations. In fact these
technologies provide a new dimension in distance education instructor–content interaction.
The rst way that distance education content may be made more timely for the students is by careful separation
of the web-content or voicemail presentations into two parts: invariant content; and changing content.
The content which does not vary during the course needs to be provided to the web-designer or prepared for
voicemail delivery in good time, just as the printed distance education notes and readings must be provided
for the distance education departments in adequate time for typing, printing, collation and timely dispatch to
students. In contrast, the second type of content may be altered by the lecturer as new information becomes
available. The possibility and shape of the varying content and the mechanisms for its inclusion need to be
planned at the time of the invariant material preparation. Thus lecturers may have the chance of adding web
hotlinks to new relevant material while the course is in progress, or provide voicemail comments on new
developments in the course.
An even better method of allowing the lecturer to change the web content before and during the course is to
present the instructional web materials via a web database (McNaught et al., 1998), such as the TopClass Web
classroom building system (McCormack and Jones, 1998). In this case there are also the stable and variable
aspects of web learning content. When a database is used to contain the learning content to be delivered to the
students via the web, then the shape and structure of the database must be carefully designed before the course
begins. However, once the database structure – including the student and instructor interfaces – have been
designed then the rest of the content control and maintenance may be handed to the instructors. They can add
the content at the pace that best suits their students’ learning needs and allows the staff to include up to date
information.
If the staff can interact with the content during the course the learning material can be more timely or include
motivating current information not available at the beginning of the course. The material may also be adapted to
suit expressed student needs, perhaps indicated by feedback from the students via discussion forums, etc. (Pearson,
1999). As well as responding to the expressed student needs by changing the learning content dynamically, the
instructor-learner interactions may be modi ed. So the students may be assisted in more than one way, thereby
probably suiting a greater range of student learning styles and coping better with individual differences.
Total interaction model
Taking a holistic view of the distance education interactions we develop a single model which may be represented
as shown in gure 4. This model suggests the following implications for instructional design in distance education:
1. In planning a distance education programme all the four interaction aspects must be addressed. This model
may form the basis of an instructional design checklist.
2. The means for interaction may include nine forms of media/technologies, which may be synchronous or
asynchronous and 1- or 2-way in nature.
3. The more demanding and complex the content, the more bene cial the multimodal interaction in content
presentation, instructor–student interaction and learner–learner interaction.
4. The learner interaction with multimedia content may be at eight different levels.
5. Optimal learning activities depend on the students’ prior knowledge. For students with minimal background
more structured learning activities are required.
6. Multimedia may be designed to incorporate learner–learner and/or instructor–learner interactions via the
internet using multiple modalities and either synchronous or asynchronous communications.
Many aspects raised in this paper have not yet been thoroughly researched, and so some of the conclusions and
recommendations can only be tentative. For example, the educational bene ts of the instructor–content
interaction during the course have not been thoroughly researched. The implications of multimodal methods of
instructor–learner and learner–learner interactions have not been comprehensively studied in realistic distance
education contexts. What are the comparative bene ts and disadvantages of synchronous and asynchronous
Multimedia Distance Education Interactions 21
instructor–learner and learner–learner interactions? What are the optimal ways of including instructor–learner
and learner–learner interactive activities in distance education multimedia? Questions such as these are demand
answers. The intention of this paper is to provide ideas for action, both in distance course and multimedia
development and for research into educational interactions.
References
Baddeley, A (1990) Human memory. Theory and practice, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Baddeley, A (1992) Working memory, SCIENCE, 255, 556–559.
Benson, R and Rye, O (1996) Visual reports by video: an evaluation, Distance Education, 17, 117–131.
Biner, P, Barone, N, Welsh, K and Dean, R (1997) Relative academic performance and its relation to facet and
overall satisfaction with interactive telecourses, Distance Education, 18, 318–326.
Blumstengel, A and Kassanke, S (1998) A hypermedia learning environment by students for students, paper
presented at the EDMEDIA & ED-TELECOM 98, Freiburg, Germany.
Bobis, J, Sweller, J and Cooper, M (1993) Cognitive load effects in primary-school geometry task, Learning &
Instruction, 3, 1–21.
Bourdeau, J and Bates, A (1997) Instructional design for distance learning. In S Dijkstra, NM Seel, F Schott and
RD Tennyson (eds) Instructional Design: International Perspectives, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 369–397
Braggett, E, Retallick, J, Tuovinen, JE and Wallace, A (1995) Distance Education Project NATCAP. Report on the
establishment of Telematics delivery systems in one priority cluster area in NSW. 1993–94, Charles Stuart University,
Wagga Wagga.
Brown, KM (1996) The role of internal and external factors in the discontinuation of off-campus students, Distance
Education, 17, 44–71.
Burke, C, Lundin, R and Daunt, C (1997) Pushing the boundaries of interaction in videoconferencing:
a dialogical approach, Distance Education, 18, 350–361.
Chandler, P and Sweller, J (1991) Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction, Cognition and Instruction, 8,
293–332.
22 EMI 37:1 – DISTANCE EDUCATION
Figure 4 Distance education four interaction models
Chiappini, G, Chiccariello, A and Gibelli, C (1999) Collaborative teacher training through telematics, paper
presented at the Communication and Networking in Education: Learning in a Neworked Society, Aulanko,
Finland.
Coombs, SJ and Smith, ID (1998) Designing a self-organized conversational learning environment, Educational
Technology, 38, 17–28.
Cox, R and Cumming, G (1990) The role of exploration-based learning in the development of expertise, paper
presented at the Computers in Education, WCCE90, Sydney.
Dunlap, JC (1998) Encouraging lifelong learning with learner-constructed Web-based performance support
systems, paper presented at the EDMEDIA & ED-TELECOM 1998, Freiburg, Germany.
Feldmann-Pempe, B, Mittrach, S and Schlageter, G (1999) Internet-based seminars at the Virtual University: a
breakthrough in open and distance education, paper presented at the ED-MEDIA 1999, Seattle, Washington.
Freeman, MA and Capper, JM (1998) An anonymous asynchronous web-based role play, paper presented at the
ASCILITE’98, Wollongong.
Gilbert, L and Moore, DR (1998) Building interactivity into web courses: tools for social and instructional
interaction, Educational Technology, 38, 29–35.
Jackson, RL, Taylor, W and Winn, W (1999) Peer collaboration and virtual environments: a preliminary
investigation of multi-paticipant virtual reality applied in science education, paper presented at the ED-
MEDIA 1999, Seattle, Washington.
Katz, YJ (1999) The comparative suitability of three ICT distance learning methodologies for college level
instruction, paper presented at Communications and Networking in Education: Learning in a Networked
Society, Hämeenlinna, Finland.
Kötter, M, Rodine, C and Shield, L (1999) Voice conferencing on the internet: creating richer on-line
communities for distanc learning, paper presented at the ED-MEDIA 1999, Seattle, Washington.
Logie, RH (1996) The seven ages of working memory. In JTE Richardson, RW Engle, L Hasher, RH Logie,
ER Stoltzfus and RT Zacks (eds) Working Memory and Human Cognition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 31–65.
Luetkehans, L and Nailey, ML (1999) Facilitating virtual learning teams in online learning environments, paper
presented at the ED-MEDIA 1999, Seattle, Washington.
May, S (1993) Collaborative learning: more is not necessarily better, The American Journal of Distance Education, 7,
39–50
McCormack, C and Jones, D (1998) Building a Web-based Education System, John Wiley, New York.
McGill, TJ, Volet, SE and Hobbs, VJ (1997) Studying computer programming externally: who succeeds? Distance
Education, 18, 2, 236–256.
McNaught, C, Whithear, K, Browning, G, Hart, G, and Prescott, J (1998) The best of both worlds: redeveloping
a multimedia project for the Web, paper presented at the EDMEDIA & ED-TELECOM 98, Freiburg,
Germany.
Miller, GA (1956) The magical number, seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing
information, Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.
Milter, RG and Stinson, JE (1999) Electronic collaborative learning architecture: spanning time and distance in
professional development, paper presented at the ED-MEDIA 1999, Seattle, Washington.
Moore, MG (1989) Editorial: three types of interaction, The American Journal of Distance Education, 3, 1–6.
Moore, MG and Kearsley, G (1996) Distance Education: A Systems View, Belmont: Wadsworth.
Mousavi, S, Low, R and Sweller, J (1995) Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation
modes, Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 319–334.
Pearson, J (1999) Lurking, anonymity and participation in computer conferencing: data from a case study on an
initial teacher education course, paper presented at the Communications and networking in education:
Learning in a networked society, Aulanko, Hämeenlinna, Finland.
Ribbons, RM and Hornblower, BFP (1998) Virtual collaboration: using email to provide exible learning and
support environments, paper presented at the ASCILITE’98, Wollongong.
Roberts, D (1996) Feedback on assignments, Distance Education, 17, 95–116.
Roth, J and Unger, C (1998) ‘DreamTeam’ – a synchronous CSCW environment for distance education, paper
presented at the EDMEDIA & ED-TELECOM 98, Freiburg, Germany.
Schwier, RA (1993) Learning environments and interaction for emerging technologies: implications for learner
control and practice, Canadian Jounal of Educational Communications, 22, 163–176.
Sims, R (1994) Seven levels of interactivity: Implications for the development of multimedia education and
training, paper presented at the APITITE 94, Asia Paci c Information Technology in Training and Education
Conference and Exhibition, 28 June–2 July 1994, Brisbane, Australia.
Soo, KS and Bonk, CJ (1998) Interaction: what does it mean in online distance education?, paper presented at the
EDMEDIA & ED-TELECOM 98, Freiburg, Germany.
Multimedia Distance Education Interactions 23
Spector, JM, Wasson, B and Davidsen, PI (1999) Designing collaborative distance learning environments for
complex domains, paper presented at the ED-MEDIA 1999, Seattle, Washington.
Steeples, C and Goodyear, P (1999) Enabling professional learning in distributed communities of practice: descriptors for
multimedia objects, paper presented at the ED-MEDIA 1999, Seattle, Washington.
Stephenson, S D (1997–98) Distance mentoring, Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 26, 181–186.
Sweller, J and Chandler, P (1994) Why some material is dif cult to learn, Cognition and Instruction, 12, 185–233.
Tindall-Ford, S, Chandler, P and Sweller, J (1997) When two sensory modes are better than one, Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3, 257–287.
Trentin, G and Benigno, V (1997) Multimedia conferencing in education: methodological and organizational
considerations, Educational Technology, 37, 32–39.
Tuovinen, JE (1999) Research framework and implications for online multimedia education practice based on
cognition research, paper presented at the Communications and Networking in Education: Learning in a
Networked Society, Aulanko, Hämeenlinna, Finland.
Tuovinen, JE and Sweller, J (1999) A comparison of cognitive load associated with discovery learning and worked
examples, Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 334–341.
Wallace, A and Tuovinen, JE (1992) Linking computers to curriculum: a rethink of logistics, paper presented
at the ACEC’92 Computing the Clever Country? Proceedings of Australian Computers in Education
Conference, Melbourne.
Webb, NM and Palinscar, AS (1996) Group processes in the classroom. In DC Berliner and RC Calfee (eds)
Handbook of Educational Psychology, Macmillan, New York, 841–873.
Biographical note
Juhani Tuovinen, is currently the Senior Research Fellow in Interactive Multimedia at Monash University’s
Centre for Learning and Teaching Support and the Director of the Centre for Multimedia and Hypermedia
Research. Previously he was a secondary teacher, then lecturer in education at Charles Stuart University, working
in both on campus and off campus modes. Research interests are in pedagogy and technology of distance and
exible learning.
Address for correspondence
Juhani E. Tuovinen, Centre for Learning and Teaching Support, Monash University, Churchill, Victoria, 3842
Australia; e-mail: juhani.tuovinen@celts.monash.edu.au
24 EMI 37:1 – DISTANCE EDUCATION
