Abstract
In Rethinking University Teaching Diana Laurillard classifies educational media, including the various uses of computers in education, into four categories: discursive, adaptive, interactive and reflective. This review discusses the consistency and usefulness of the classification. After summarising her development of a model of the teaching and learning processes in Higher Education, the relationship of the classification to the model is examined. First, the classification is mapped to the twelve processes in the model. Then, the described uses of various media for supporting these processes are correlated with their place in the classification. In this test of consistency with the model the classification is found to be only partly accurate. The shortcomings are discussed. Finally, other classifications are briefly considered and a framework for a pedagogically useful classification is described.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
BarkerP. (1987). Author Languages for CAL. London: Macmillan.
BostockS.J. & SeifertR.V. (1986). Adult learning with microcomputers, in S.J.Bostock & R.V.Seifert, eds., Microcomputers in Adult Education (pp. 18–35). London: Croom Helm.
GagneR.M. (1985). The Conditions of Learning. New York, London: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
HawkridgeD., NewtonW. & HallC. (1988). Computers in Company Training. London: Croom Helm.
KozmaR.B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research 61(2): 179–211.
LaurillardD. (1993). Rethinking University Teaching: A Framework for the Effective Use of Educational Technology. London: Routledge.
Laurillard, D. (1994). Teaching and technology: which leads? Alt-N, July, pp. 5–7.
LeeM. (1994). Towards an abstract model for the classification of tutoring systems, in M.Thomas, T.Sechrest & N.Estes, eds., Deciding Our Future: Technological Imperatives for Education, Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Technology and Education. March 1994, London, Volume 2 (pp. 1097–1099). Texas: The University of Texas at Austin.
MartonF. & RamsdenP. (1988). What does it take to improve learning?, in P.Ramsden, ed., Improving Learning: New Perspectives. London: Kogan Page.
O'SheaT. & SelfJ. (1983). Learning and Teaching with Computers. Brighton: Harvester.
RomizowskiA.J. (1993). Developing interactive multimedia courseware and networks: some current issues, in C.Latchem, J.Williamson & L.Henderson-Lancett, eds., Interactive Multimedia (pp. 57–78). London: Kogan Page.
ShuellT. (1992). Designing instructional computing systems for meaningful learning, in P.Winne & M.Jones, eds., Foundations and Frontiers in Instructional Computing Systems (pp. 19–54). Berlin: Springer Verlag.
SparkesJ.J. (1983). On choosing teaching methods to match educational aims, in D.Sewart, D.Keegan & B.Holmberg, eds., Distance Education, International Perspectives (pp. 251–256). London: Croom Helm.
SteinbergE. (1989). An introduction to hypermedia issues, systems and application areas. International Journal of Man Machine Studies 33: 121–147.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bostock, S.J. A critical review of Laurillard's classification of educational media. Instr Sci 24, 71–88 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00156004
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00156004