Educational Technology Research and Development

, Volume 41, Issue 3, pp 63–85 | Cite as

Empirically-based guidelines for the design of interactive multimedia

  • Innwoo Park
  • Michael J. Hannafin


While interest in interactive multimedia continues to grow, thus far its activities have been driven more by technological capacity than research and theory. Typically, guidelines for interactive multimedia design are based not upon empirical evidence, but on the intuitive beliefs of designers. In this article, relevant research and theory are organized within an overarching framework, and their principles and implications for the design of interactive multimedia are derived.


Empirical Evidence Educational Technology Relevant Research Interactive Multimedia Technological Capacity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, D., & Lorch, E. (1983). Looking at television: Action or reaction. In J. Bryant and D. Anderson (Eds.),Children's understanding of television. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, R., Spiro, R., & Anderson, M. (1978). Schemata as scaffolding for the representation of connected discourse.American Educational Research Journal, 15, 433–440.Google Scholar
  3. Ausubel, D. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material.Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 267–272.Google Scholar
  4. Ausubel, D. (1968).Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  5. Baker, W. (1989). Human factors, ergonomics, and usability: Principles and practice. In E. Klemmer (Ed.),Ergonomics: Harness the power of human factors in your business (pp. 179–196). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. Beasley, R., & Lister, D. (1992). User orientation in a hypertext glossary.Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 19(4), 115–118.Google Scholar
  7. Bernard, R. (1990). Effects of processing instructions on the usefulness of a graphic organizer and structural cueing in text.Instructional Science, 19, 201–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Binder, C. (1989). Hypertext design issues.Performance Improvement Quarterly, 2(3), 16–33.Google Scholar
  9. Bossert, W. (1988). The use of technology to improve two key classroom relationships. In R. Nickerson & P. Zodhiates (Eds.),Technology in education: Looking toward 2020 (pp. 275–284). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.Educational Researcher, 18, 32–42.Google Scholar
  11. Bush, V. (1945). As we may think.Atlantic Monthly, 176(1), 101–108.Google Scholar
  12. Callison, D. (1981). Fair payment for fair use in future information technology systems.Educational Technology, 21(1), 20–25.Google Scholar
  13. Calvert, S., Huston, A., Watkins, B., & Wright, J. (1982). The effects of selective attention to television forms on children's comprehension of content.Child Development, 53, 601–610.Google Scholar
  14. Cates, J. S. (1988).Delay of feedback and cognitive task level in practice exercises. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, New Orleans, Louisiana.Google Scholar
  15. Cates, W. M. (1992). Fifteen principles for designing more effective instructional hypermedia/multimedia products.Educational Technology, 32(12), 5–11.Google Scholar
  16. Chiou, G-F. (1992). Situated learning, metaphors, and computer-based learning environments.Educational Technology, 32(8), 7–11.Google Scholar
  17. Chung, J., & Reigeluth, C. (1992). Instruction prescriptions for learner control.Educational Technology, 32(10), 14–20.Google Scholar
  18. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition.Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2–10.Google Scholar
  19. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1991). Technology and the design of generative learning environments.Educational Technology, 31(5), 34–40.Google Scholar
  20. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992). The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design.Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 65–80.Google Scholar
  21. Colbourn, C., & Cockerton-Turner, T. (1990). Using hypertext for educational “help” facilities. In R. McAleese & C. Green (Eds),Hypertext: State of the art (pp. 105–113). England: Intellect Limited.Google Scholar
  22. Conklin, J. (1987). Hypertext: An introduction and survey.IEEE Computer, 20(9), 17–41.Google Scholar
  23. Craik, F., & Lockhart, R. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dempsey, J., & Sales, G. (Eds.). (1993).Feedback and interactive instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  25. Duchastel, P. (1990). Examining cognitive processing in hypermedia usage.Hypermedia, 2(3), 221–233.Google Scholar
  26. Edwards, D., & Hardman, L. (1989). “Lost in hyperspace”: Cognitive mapping and navigation in a hypertext environment. In R. McAleese (Ed.),Hypertext: Theory into practice (pp. 105–125). London: BSP.Google Scholar
  27. Fiderio, J. (1988). A grand vision.Byte, 100, 237–244.Google Scholar
  28. Frase, L., & Schwartz, B. (1979). Typographical cues that facilitate comprehension.Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 197–206.Google Scholar
  29. Gagné, R. (1985).The conditions of learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  30. Gagné, R., Wager, W., & Rojas, A. (1981). Planning and authoring computer-assisted instruction lessons.Educational Technology, 21, 17–26.Google Scholar
  31. Gaines, B., & Vickers, J. (1988). Design considerations for hypermedia systems.Microcomputers for Information Management, 5(1), 1–27.Google Scholar
  32. Gallegos, A. (1987). Technology in the classroom: Anotherlook.Educational Technology, 27(7), 15–18.Google Scholar
  33. Gay, G. (1987). Interaction of learner control and prior understanding in computer-assisted video instruction.Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 225–227.Google Scholar
  34. Gay, G., Trumbull, D., & Mazur, J. (1991). Designing and testing navigational strategies and guidance tools for a hypermedia program.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 7, 189–202.Google Scholar
  35. Gopher, D., Weil, M., & Siegel, D. (1989). Practice under changing priorities: An approach to the training of complex skils.ACTA Psychologica, 71, 147–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gray, S., & Shasha, D. (1989). To link or not to link: Empirical guidance for the design of non-linear text systems.Behavior Research, Instruments, and Computers, 21(2), 326–333.Google Scholar
  37. Hamilton, R. (1990). The effect of elaboration on the acquisition of conceptual problem-solving skills from prose.Journal of Experimental Education, 59, 5–17.Google Scholar
  38. Hannafin, M. (1989). Interaction strategies and emerging instructional technologies: Psychological perspectives.Canadian Journal of Educational Communications, 18(3), 167–179.Google Scholar
  39. Hannafin, M. J. (1992). Emerging technologies, ISD, and learning environments: Critical perspectives.Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 49–63.Google Scholar
  40. Hannafin, M. J. (1993).The cognitive implications of computer-based learning environments: A conceptual framework. Report to the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, AL/HRTC, Brooks AFB, Texas.Google Scholar
  41. Hannafin, M. J., & Colamaio, M. (1987). The effects of variations in lesson control and practice on learning from interactive video.Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 35, 203–212.Google Scholar
  42. Hannafin, M. S., Hannafin, K., & Dalton, D. (1993). Feedback and emerging technologies. In J. Dempsey & G. Sales (Eds.),Feedback and interactive instruction (pp. 263–286). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  43. Hannafin, M. J., & Hughes, C. (1986). A framework for incorporating orienting activities in computer-based interactive video.Instructional Science, 15, 239–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hannafin, M. J., Peck, K., & Hooper, S. (in press).Advanced design concepts for emerging educational technologies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  45. Hannafin, M. J., & Rieber, L. (1989). Psychological foundations for instructional design for computer-based instructional technologies: Part I.Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(2), 91–101.Google Scholar
  46. Hativa, N., & Lesgold, A. (1991). The computer as tutor: Can it adapt to the individual learner?Instructional Science, 20, 49–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Heller, R. (1990). The role of hypermedia in education: A look at the research issues.Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 22(4), 431–441.Google Scholar
  48. Jonassen, D. (1986). Hypertext principles for text and courseware design.Educational Psychologist, 21(4), 269–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Jonassen, D. (1989). Hypertext as instructional design.Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(1), 83–92.Google Scholar
  50. Jonassen, D., & Wang, S. (1993). Acquiring structural knowledge from semantically structured hypertext.Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 20(1), 1–8.Google Scholar
  51. Jones, W. (1987). How do we distinguish the hyper from the hype in non-linear text? In H. Bullinger & B. Shackel (Eds.),Human-computer interaction. New York: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  52. Kearsley, G. (1988). Authoring considerations for hypertext.Educational Technology, 28(11), 21–24.Google Scholar
  53. Kinzie, M., & Berdel, R. (1990). Design and use of hypermedia systems.Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(3), 61–68.Google Scholar
  54. Kozma, R. (1987). The implications of cognitive psychology for computer-based learning tools.Educational Technology, 27(11), 20–25.Google Scholar
  55. Landauer, T. (1988). Education in a world of omnipotent and omniscient technology. In R. Nickerson & P. Zodhiates (Eds.),Technology in education: Looking toward 2020 (pp. 11–24). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  56. Lanza, A. (1991). Some guidelines for the design of effective hypercourses.Educational Technology, 31(10), 18–22.Google Scholar
  57. Lanza, A., & Roselli, T. (1991). Effect of the hypertextual approach versus the structured approach on students' achievement.Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 18(2), 48–50.Google Scholar
  58. Laurilard, D. (1987). Computers and the emancipation of students: Giving control to the learner.Instructional Science, 16, 3–18.Google Scholar
  59. Levie, W., & Lentz, R. (1982). Effects of text illustrations: A review of research.Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 30, 195–232.Google Scholar
  60. Linda, S. (1988).Optical disk formats: A briefing. Syracuse, NY: Eric Clearinghouse on Information Resources. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 303 176)Google Scholar
  61. Luther, A. (1991).Digital video in the PC environment. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  62. Marchionini, G. (1988). Hypermedia and learning: Freedom and chaos.Educational Technology, 28(11), 8–12.Google Scholar
  63. Mark, L. S., Warm, J. S., & Huston, R. L. (Eds.). (1987).Ergonomics and human factors: Recent research. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  64. Marsh, E., & Kumar, D. (1992). Hypermedia: A conceptual framework for science education and review of recent findings.Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 1, 25–37.Google Scholar
  65. Mason, R. (1984). Ergonomics: The human and the machine.Library Journal, 109, 331–332.Google Scholar
  66. Mayer, R. (1979). Can advance organizers influence meaningful learning?Review of Educational Research, 49, 371–383.Google Scholar
  67. Mayer, R. (1984). Aids to text comprehension.Educational Psychologist, 19(1), 30–42.Google Scholar
  68. Mayer, R. (1989). Models for understanding.Review of Education Research, 59, 43–64.Google Scholar
  69. Merrill, D. (1980). Learner control in computer based learning.Computers and Education, 4, 77–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Merrill, D. (1987). The new component design theory: Instructional design for courseware authoring.Instructional Science, 16, 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Miller, G. (1986).Adult students, technology, and general education: New tools for curriculum reform. College Park, MD: University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  72. Morris, S. (1987). New technologies in education.Education and Computing, 3, 239–257.Google Scholar
  73. Nelson, T. (1988). Managing immense storage.Byte, 100, 225–238.Google Scholar
  74. Nelson, W., & Palumbo, D. (1992). Learning, instruction, and hypermedia.Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 1, 287–299.Google Scholar
  75. Norman, D. (1988a). Infuriating by design.Psychology Today, 22(3), 52–56.Google Scholar
  76. Norman, D. (1988b).The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  77. Norman, D., Gentner, S., & Stevens, A. (1976). Comments on learning schemata and memory representation. In D. Klahr (Ed.),Cognition and instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  78. Oren, T. (1990). Cognitive load in hypermedia: Designing for the exploratory learner. In S. Ambron & K. Hooper (Eds.),Learning with interactive multimedia: Developing and using multimedia tools in education (pp. 126–136). Redmond, WA: Microsoft Press.Google Scholar
  79. Ortony, A. (1975). Why metaphors are necessary and not just nice.Educational Theory, 25, 272–277.Google Scholar
  80. Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and deep structure in the recall of English nominalizations.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10, 1–12.Google Scholar
  81. Park, O-C. (1991, August). Hypermedia: Functional features and research issues.Educational Technology, 24–31.Google Scholar
  82. Philips Interactive Media Systems. (1991).Producers handbook of multimedia authoring for CD-I. Los Angeles: Author.Google Scholar
  83. Pichert, J., & Anderson, R. (1977). Taking different perspectives on a story.Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 309–315.Google Scholar
  84. Polson, P., & Lewis, C. (1990). Theory-based design for easily learned interfaces.Human-Computer Interaction, 5, 191–220.Google Scholar
  85. Posner, M., & Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). Facilitation and inhibition in the processing of signals. In P. Rabbit & S. Dornic (Eds.),Attention and performance V. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  86. Reeves, T., & Harmon, S. (1991). What's in a nameHypermedia.IICS Interact, 3(1), 28–30.Google Scholar
  87. Reigeluth, C., Merrill, D., Wilson, B., & Spiller, R. (1980). The elaboration theory of instruction: A model for sequencing and synthesizing instruction.Instructional Science, 9, 195–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Reynolds, S. B., & Dansereau, D. F. (1990). The knowledge hypermap: An alternative to hypertext.Computers and Education, 14(5), 409–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Rohwer, D. (1980). An elaborative conception of learner differences. In R. E. Snow, P-A. Federico, & W. E. Montague (Eds.),Aptitude, learning, and instruction: Vol 2. Cognitive process analyses of learning and problem solving (pp. 23–46). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  90. Rohwer, D., & Bean, J. P. (1973). Sentence effects and noun-pair learning: A developmental interaction during adolescence.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 15, 521–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Ross, S., & Morrison, G. (1988). Adapting instruction to learner performance and background variables. In D. Jonassen (Ed.),Instructional designs for microcomputer courseware (pp. 227–245). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  92. Salomon, G. (1979). Media and symbol systems as related to cognition and learning.Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 131–148.Google Scholar
  93. Salomon, G. (1984). Television is “easy” and print is “tough”: The differential investment of mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions and attributions.Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 647–658.Google Scholar
  94. Seyer, P. (1989, February). Performance improvement with hypertext.Performance & Instruction, 22–28.Google Scholar
  95. Simpson, A., & McKnight, C. (1990). Navigation in hypertext: Structural cues and mental maps. In R. McAleese & C. Green (Eds.),Hypertext: State of the art (p. 72–83). England: Intellect Limited.Google Scholar
  96. Smeaton, A. (1991). Using hypertext for computer-based learning.Computers in Education, 17, 173–179.Google Scholar
  97. Spiro, R., Coulson, R., Feltovich, P., & Anderson, D. (1988). Cognitive flexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. InTenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 375–383). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  98. Spiro, R., & Feltovich, P. (1991). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext.Educational Technology, 31, 24–33.Google Scholar
  99. Spiro, R., & Jengh, J. (1990). Cognitive flexibility, random access instruction, and hypertext: Theory and technology for non-linear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.),Cognition, education, and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 163–205). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  100. Staggers, N., & Norcio, A. (1993). Mental models: Concepts for human-computer interaction research.International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38, 587–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Stanton, N., Taylor, R., & Tweedie, L. (1992). Maps as navigational aids in hypertext environments.Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 1, 431–444.Google Scholar
  102. Steinberg, E. (1977). Review of student control in computer-assisted instruction.Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 3, 84–90.Google Scholar
  103. Steinberg, E. (1989). Cognition and learner control: A literature review, 1977–1988.Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 16, 117–121.Google Scholar
  104. Tennyson, R. D., & Christensen, D. (1988). MAIS: An intelligent learning system. In D. Jonassen (Ed.),Instructional designs for microcomputer courseware (pp. 247–274). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  105. Tobin, K., & Dawson, G. (1992). Constraints to curriculum reform: Teachers and the myths of schooling.Educational Technology Research and Development, 40, 81–92.Google Scholar
  106. Tolhurst, D. (1992). A checklist for evaluating content-based hypertext computer software.Educational Technology, 32(3), 17–21.Google Scholar
  107. Torok, A. (1984). Ergonomics considerations in microcomputing.Microcomputers for Information Management: An International Journal for Library and Information Services, 1, 229–250.Google Scholar
  108. Tripp, S.D. & Roby, W. (1990). Orientation and disorientation in a hypertext lexicon.Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 17(4), 120–124.Google Scholar
  109. Tsai, C. (1989). Hypertext: Technology, application, and research issues.Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 17(1), 3–14.Google Scholar
  110. Wager, W., & Gagné, R. (1988). Designing computeraided instruction. In D. Jonassen (Ed.),Instructional designs for microcomputer courseware. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  111. Wei, C-L. (1991). Hypertext and printed materials: Some similarities and differences.Educational Technology, 31(3), 51–53.Google Scholar
  112. White, R., & Gagné, R. (1974). Past and future research on learning hierarchies.Educational Psychologist, 11, 19–28.Google Scholar
  113. Whitehead, A. (1929). The aims of education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  114. Wickens, C. (1992).Engineering psychology and human performance (2nd ed.). New York: Harper-Collins.Google Scholar
  115. Wilson, B., & Jonassen, D. (1989). Hypertext and instructional design: Some preliminary guidelines.Performance Improvement Quarterly, 2(3), 34–49.Google Scholar
  116. Wittrock, M. (1974). Learning as a generative process.Educational Psychologist, 11(2), 87–95.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Innwoo Park
    • 1
  • Michael J. Hannafin
    • 1
  1. 1.the Instructional Systems Program, Department of Educational Researchat Florida State UniversityTallahassee

Personalised recommendations