What are some examples of educational software

Educational software in the classroom



1. Definition of terms: educational software
1.1 Media, coding, modalities
1.2 The term multimedia
1.3 The term hypermedia
1.4 Definition of educational software / educational software
1.5 The term interactivity
1.6 Summary

2. Classification of educational software
2.1 Didactic criteria
2.2 Learning theory criteria
2.3 Typology of educational software
2.4 Summary

3. Evaluation of educational software
3.1 The term evaluation
3.2 Types of Evaluation
3.3 Evaluation of educational software
3.4 Examples of empirical methods
3.5 Catalogs of criteria for evaluation
3.5.1 Examples of criteria catalogs
3.5.2 Similarities and differences between catalogs of criteria
3.5.3 Advantages and disadvantages of the criteria catalog
3.6 Summary

4. Description of educational software through metadata
4.1 Definition of terms and function
4.2 Learning Objects Metadata (LOM)
4.2.1 Pedagogical data from the LOM
4.3 Summary

5. New criteria for the description of educational software
5.1 Constructivist learning environments
5.2 The new category "Lessons"
5.3 Examples of evaluated software in the "Classroom use" category
5.3.1 Example: Word processing program (Microsoft)
5.3.2 Example: Lexicon Encarta 2000 plus (Microsoft)
5.3.3 Example: Physikus learning software (Heureka Klett)
5.4 Summary

6. Conclusion and outlook





The euphoria of recent years on the subject of "learning with the computer" is giving way to increasing disillusionment that learning is not being simplified to the extent that it has been repeatedly forecast. The fact that learning software with its new possibilities is replacing other learning materials and revolutionizing previous teaching and thus learning, and making everything faster and easier, is an exaggeration. 'Learning with fun', 'Never again boredom in class' - these statements are now viewed in a more differentiated manner. The hoped-for relief for the individual to acquire knowledge has probably often been disappointed. Because the diversity of the medium alone does not simplify learning. Rather, it provides further learning opportunities and occasions. Constructivist learning theories are mentioned here. If individual learning is not made easier, perhaps the forms of institutionalized learning - teaching by a teacher - will change. One expectation that arose from the additional learning opportunities and occasions was that the teacher could become superfluous in the future. This question can now be answered with a clear no. Nevertheless, there are still many expectations in the new media. However, potentially positive effects can often be seen regardless of the media, because other conditions are more decisive for learning success, such as B. Previous knowledge, learning strategy and learning motivation. So it is less the individual learning that is made easier than the design possibilities of a learning environment are expanded. No software alone is capable of optimally exploiting these possibilities. A teacher is still essential for this. Learning software and other computer applications complete the range of learning materials. Teachers can use them, among other things, to illustrate facts or to use motivational aspects of the computer that not only come into play through the novelty of this medium.

The possibilities offered by the new media can contribute to a diversity in the learning process that additionally supports the absorption and processing of knowledge. Kerres is of the opinion that “the discussion is too limited when individual media systems are used as Alternatives be understood (...). In view of the abundance of media information on offer in the living and learning world, the media 'choice' is not about selectionbut to center the combination of media; it has to be about their dovetailing and integration in the learning environment. "[1]

The questions that arise from this for the teacher are determined by the meaningful addition of the lessons through the diverse possibilities that the new media offer. "Which software is best suited for which phase of the lesson?"; "How can the new possibilities that arise with the new media effectively support the learning phases?"

If a teacher wants to select learning software from the extensive range of offers, he is mostly dependent on recommendations from third parties. These recommendations can come from friends or colleagues, or from institutions that evaluate and award learning software. Once the teacher has made a decision, he must first consider whether the software is suitable for his specific lesson, and second - if so - how it can be implemented so that learning is supported.

The first question can usually be answered using the criteria catalogs that are common today[2] answer. The second, however, is left to the teacher after viewing the software. Because how a teacher organizes his lessons and what he considers useful, of course, remains his task. In this case, the teacher will orientate himself on the properties of the software in order to decide at which point of the lesson he wants to integrate it. The unknowns in this equation are on the one hand the learning model or teaching concept that the teacher has in mind, and on the other hand that on which the learning software is based. These two need to be reconciled. The teacher always starts with the software to decide whether it fits into their own lessons.

But is it also possible to search for software in reverse? Can a teacher who already has his lesson in mind look for learning software that will then support certain phases in his planning? This seems difficult to me with the criteria of the usual catalogs, because these mostly only allow conclusions to be drawn as to whether a lesson and learning software generally fit together: Are there sufficiently powerful computers (technical requirements)? Does the software meet the requirements of my students (anthropogenic and social requirements)? What is the content of the software and which target group is addressed (didactic requirements)? (Further categories of criteria catalogs are presented below.)

The question that remains open is about the specific possibilities of using software in definable units of the classroom: Which software fits into the experimentation phase of the physics class in upper secondary school on the subject of leverage? Which software can be used to check the vocabulary for English lessons in 7th grade in a varied way? In some criteria catalogs there are already approaches that aim to answer these questions. The questions mentioned can also be answered in the experience reports of teachers who have worked with learning software in the classroom. But there is no category in checklists that answers questions about the specific application possibilities in the classroom. There are categories that take didactic, technical and media didactic criteria into account - some also methodological ones - but these criteria are not uniformly systematized. In addition, the widespread catalogs of criteria take the learning theory into account the least, which has come to the fore especially through learning with the PC: constructivism.

The aim of my master’s thesis is to analyze the didactic and methodological categories in criteria catalogs and to develop a new, systematic category for the use of software in the classroom with a special focus on constructivism. The aim is to show which software can meaningfully support which phases of the lesson and which cannot. This should help the teacher understand which phases need more support in order to create an optimal learning environment. Here I orient myself on the model for constructivist learning environments by Jonassen, since the different currents of constructivism are also taken into account here, such as cognitive apprenticeship, cognitive flexibility theory and anchored instruction.

I would like to take my concept of learning software broadly. I will not only consider didactically designed software, but also so-called tools such as word processing programs or the various services of the Internet. In the following, however, I will primarily speak of learning software, as this is mainly classified and examined under learning-theoretical aspects. In the case of programs that are not didactically designed, it is difficult to create these categories. But since they can become part of the lesson at any time, they can be classified in a lesson-theoretical framework, which is the aim of this work. Other terms such as teaching software or programs, learning programs and also educational software[3] I will use synonyms in my sense.

I will start with a definition of educational software and the related terms such as multimedia, hypermedia and interactivity. Learning software is also defined and explained in more detail here.

When classifying educational software, I explain the usual distinguishing features and present the predominant typology of educational software.

A decisive means of recognizing learning software as suitable for one's own circumstances is the evaluation of learning software. This can examine different areas of learning software and evaluate them under different conditions. The keywords are usability, learning objective controls and learning-theoretical or technical characteristics. Tools for evaluating learning software are presented as well as concrete examples of evaluation procedures. It should be made clear at this point that the majority of the evaluation procedures relate to the learning software and not to the use of it in the classroom. Then various criteria catalogs are presented, compared and their categories analyzed.

Another way to describe learning software is metadata. In order to check what metadata can do for the evaluation of educational software and to use its possible advantages, they are considered in a special chapter.

In the penultimate part of my work, I will then present the Jonassen model and work out the criteria of a category in which the areas of the software that belong to the Jonassen learning environment are queried. Missing areas should be provided by the teacher. Conversely, a teacher can use the criteria to search for programs that cover these gaps.

In my analysis, pure learning software - that is, didactically completely structured programs - will play a rather subordinate role. Because a developer cannot possibly foresee the diverse requirements and prerequisites of a class group. The more requirements he tries to meet with learning software, the less it can be used in a general context. This means that the more complex learning software is designed, the more difficult it becomes to fully integrate it into a methodical course of teaching. However, a teacher is not forced to integrate complete programs into the classroom. As with other media, she has the option to choose from parts of the program. Only an article is taken from a foreign-language newspaper, only a part is shown from a film and just as only the exercise part of a learning software can be used in the classroom or a simulation to illustrate a process.

At the end of my work there is a conclusion and an outlook on possible future developments.

1. Definition of terms: educational software

Learning software is a broad umbrella term that I will define in more detail below. The terms multimedia, hypermedia and interactivity associated with learning software are also explained.

1.1 Media, coding, modalities

"In colloquial language, the term medium usually means a means or a mediator or something 'mediating'."[4] So pretty much anything can be a medium for something else. A more precise clarification of the terminology is appropriate here in order to also be able to define the term multimedia more clearly. Weidenmann is of the opinion that "the term 'multimedia' ... is as widespread as it is unsuitable for scientific discourse."[5]. He calls for a "more differentiated terminology"[6]. Tulodziecki and Steinmetz therefore differentiate between two further categories - in addition to that of the medium:

- the modes of representation of the media (encodings)
- and the senses addressed by them (modalities).
The medium only describes the carrier for communicative content; This means, for example, technical devices such as a tape. An expanded distinction through the form of representation offered by a medium and the senses addressed by a medium makes it easier to use the term medium and thus improves understanding. The following table illustrates the possible distinction between the three categories mentioned[7]:

Figure not included in this excerpt

illustration 1

1.2 The term multimedia

"Media technologies that were previously operating separately are growing together: Thanks to digitization, any of the known media information can be processed on the computer: multimedia systems are created."[8]

Kerres names two characteristics for multimedia: On the one hand, the connection of different media on the basis of digital technology, e.g. video, recording and playback devices, communication options - just Multi media. Secondly, Kerres emphasizes interactivity as 'media technology', which results from the technical possibilities of the computer and the interaction of the various media in one device. “New media technologies are emerging: those that should be mentioned here in particular interactive mediain which the convergence of media, computer and communication technology becomes particularly clear. "[9]

"Wanting to clearly determine the necessary and sufficient features of a multimedia system," continues Kerres, "is problematic in view of the variety of existing definitions, but also the rapid technical advancement."[10]

The interactivity of multimedia programs is also emphasized by others: "Multimedia is a technology that enables the user to interact with a multiple media system using a computer."[11], "The user is actively involved and can design the process according to his wishes."[12]

Steinmetz chooses a technical view for the definition of the term multimedia: For him, multimedia systems are a combination of time-dependent (continuous) and time-independent (discrete) information. For example, a computer-controlled slide show with several projectors (time-independent) and a tape playback (time-dependent) is a multimedia system, whereas a film in which audio and moving image information is linked to a time axis is not a multimedia system. "A multimedia application must therefore be able to process at least one discrete and one continuous medium."[13]

Rudolf Kammerl suggests that "the individual services of the Internet (...) should also be viewed as individual media."[14] Since the Internet services have different focuses - in the World Wide Web (WWW) there are images, animations and texts; synchronous communication in chat; asynchronous communication for e-mails; data exchange with FTP - this view makes sense.

1.3 The term hypermedia

To explain the term hypermedia, I'll start with hypertext. In contrast to hypertexts, there are linear texts. A text forces a complex thought into a linear order. And only in this order can the thought be resumed. A picture description makes this clear: It must start at one point in the picture and then, following a scheme, describe the parts of the picture one after the other. This can be compared to looking at the picture in the dark with a small flashlight. Perceiving the picture as a whole is only possible by looking directly at it.

"A hypertext system is essentially characterized by the non-linear concatenation of information."[15] This means that within a text, certain passages refer to other texts. A simple example is footnotes in books. They can contain explanatory information about a passage in the text or references to other books. The difference with the PC is the faster access to further information. There is no need to go to the library.

The term hypermedia now means that the further information is not only textual, but is presented with different media. This media can be sound recordings or films. Steinmetz illustrates the relationship between multimedia, hypertext and hypermedia in the following figure[16]:

Figure not included in this excerpt

Figure 2

1.4 Definition of educational software / educational software

What is educational software now? Baumgartner emphasizes the following characteristics:[17]

- A specific didactic concept was implemented
- It has a certain learning content as its subject (e.g. a language)
- It is aimed at a more or less clearly defined target group
- The didactic construction is determined by the program authors

Baumgartner understands "learning software as those programs that have been specially developed and programmed for learning purposes."[18]

A broader term is used to distinguish it from other programs: educational software. The term also includes learning software, but extends the range to software that is used for learning. "Educational software ... is not a specific type of software, but represents a way of using the programs."[19] This means that educational software should be seen more as part of a complex learning environment, e.g. as part of the lesson structure. An original newspaper text on a CD-ROM supports learning in the context of foreign language lessons. But the text itself does not teach; Only in the learning environment does the text acquire a role that supports learning.

In this sense, general electronic tools such as word processing programs or the Internet with its various services can also be educational software.

The extent to which educational software can be integrated into lessons to support learning should be shown in addition to the use of the learning software and made clear by the description with criteria.

1.5 The term interactivity

Interactivity is increasingly seen as a fundamental property of multimedia learning programs.

The term interactivity originally comes from social psychology and means a reciprocal, related behavior of two or more people. With regard to multimedia, this understanding is extended to computer systems. Interactivity describes the possibilities for intervention in the program flow by the user. Thus, the user is not just a recipient, he can also intervene in the communication process, change it and adapt it to his needs.

Interactivity can be implemented using the following features, which are listed here according to increasing interactivity[20]:

- “Access certain information, select, turn the page;
- Yes / No and multiple choice answer options and branching to corresponding additional information;
- Marking certain pieces of information and activating corresponding additional information;
- Free entry of complex answers to complex questions with intelligent tutorial feedback (Socratic dialogue);
- Free, independent dialogue with a tutor or with learning partners with the help of multimedia and hypermedia systems. "

The possibilities of active communication and the resulting individual way of working on a program make freely designed, individual learning possible. This creates the possibility that motivation and learning success can be increased through self-directed and problem-oriented learning. These are components of the constructivist learning paradigm. The possibilities of the new media seem to be able to meet the conditions of this learning theory particularly well. Later it will be shown that learning with the computer can not only promote interactivity, but also meet other conditions of a constructivist learning environment (based on the Jonassen model).

1.6 Summary

The terms multimedia, interactivity and learning and educational software are not used uniformly in common parlance. However, a more precise distinction is necessary in order to understand the new possibilities of electronic media and to integrate them into everyday school life. If a more precise determination is successful, the various offers can be differentiated, their potential recognized and integrated into a learning concept in the classroom to support them. It is precisely the possibilities of interactive, hypermedia use of computer programs that make it possible to support constructivist learning models. It enables the learner to interactively adapt the program to his or her individual learning habits. The learning speed of the learner determines the pace, the learner determines his learning path - so he can set his own priorities and thus decide for himself how long he will work on which area. The hypermedia connection of the learning content enables the learner to find his own mental model in the structure of the learning content and to expand it with its help. Since the learning content is also offered in multimedia form, such a learning program also serves different types of learners who sometimes feel addressed by audio-visual presentations or other forms of presentation.

2. Classification of educational software

There are different approaches to dividing educational software into classes. The most common approaches to classifying educational software are shown below:

2.1 Didactic criteria

The didactic criteria help to assess whether a learning software meets general didactic criteria and whether the software is suitable for the respective lesson.

Didactic criteria are:

- Learning goals
- Learning content (subjects, topics of professional development, etc.)
- Forms of interaction (see point 2.3)
- Learning theory models (see point 2.2)
- Requirement level for the learners (beginners, advanced, etc.)
- Social learning situation (school, further education, at home, etc.)
- Technical framework conditions (performance level of the PC, transmission rate of the internet connection, etc.)

These criteria describe the properties of software. They help the teacher to assess whether a software is suitable for their own teaching and what requirements must be created in order to use this software. In a later chapter I will examine to what extent these categories also support the teacher in planning his or her lesson; in other words, to be able to estimate which specific learning phases are supported by the software and which have to be covered by the teacher. Diepold's catalog of criteria is based very closely on didactic criteria[21].

2.2 Learning theory criteria

Educational software is always based on a theoretical learning model, regardless of whether the author intended it or not. The structure of the program and the design of the user interface determine how the learner uses the program.

Here, too, no absolute agreement can be found with just one criterion. Parts of a learning program can be more constructivist, such as an introduction in which the learner decides which learning path to take by independently discovering the content and tasks; whereas a middle section accompanied by a tutor is based more on the cognitivistic approach and the concluding exercises on the stimulus-response scheme of behaviorism.

In the following, the three most important epistemological approaches are presented and explained with short examples:


Behaviorism is limited to the investigation of observable and measurable behavior and understands the learning process as an associative connection of stimulus and reaction. Problem situations are solved through trial and error. According to the behaviorists, all behavior can be broken down into stimulus-response units. The classic example are Pavlov's dogs, in which the stimulus from the food triggers the salivary response. Pavlov replaced this stimulus with a sound signal that he let out before the feeding. After a while, the dogs responded to the acoustic stimulus by salivating without even seeing the food. The schools and implications of behaviorism are diverse and far-reaching. Well-known representatives are Thorndike, Watson and Skinner.[22]

For a behavioristic learning strategy, this means that certain information and tasks must be presented to the learner in media form as stimuli in order to trigger a desired behavior. In the field of learning software, this view can be found in the so-called "drill and practice" models. The learner is presented with stimuli, such as the question of how they feel in language lessons. The learner's reaction is now shown to him through constant repetition (practice) the answer options "drilled in" (drill) and strengthened by positive reinforcements. The learning paths are usually divided into many small learning steps. The fact that this learning method is more suitable for changing spontaneous behavior patterns or as a method of practicing motor skills can be seen from the non-observance of human thought processes. Human learning in most cases is more complex and requires more complex approaches.

In practice, such programs usually look like that the successful completion of tasks leads to a reward. This reward can be a short game, a certificate that is only awarded when a certain number of points is reached, or the first place in a list of the best. Often the reward is limited to a fanfare or a short animation, or a story that has been started is only continued after a task has been successfully completed.

This type of tutorial can be effective when a subject can be acquired through repetition: a typewriter tutorial, for example, or even a vocabulary or maths trainer. Due to the multimedia environment, such a program can be more motivating than a textbook.

In a drill and practice program, the learner receives an immediate reaction to his input. However, the program only differentiates between right and wrong behavior; 'Correctly meant' is not taken into account. The individual and social requirements are also ignored.

In addition, it should of course be remembered that learning vocabulary is not the only thing you need to master a foreign language. Other skills cannot be learned through a drill and practice program.


Cognitivism is based on the theories of Piaget and Brunner. In contrast to behaviorism, cognitivism deals with the internal processes of the brain, namely with the process of information processing. So it's not just about mastering rules, but also about the ability to analyze problems, formulate and test hypotheses. The learner solves problems by either recombining existing knowledge or by creating a new rule. To do this, the initial situation and goal must be precisely defined[23].

Cognitivism assumes that the brain actively interprets the environment; so learning is also an active process. A certain stimulus should therefore no longer produce a desired behavior - as in behaviorism, but here it depends on suitable problem-solving methods. New behavior is learned through an intensive examination of the relevant situations. In a framework with certain factors, problems are given that must then be solved by the learner. The focus here is not on the right solution, but on finding a suitable solution method. The program thus turns from the decisive 'teacher' to the observing and helping tutor. Sequences of instruction and alternative decisions serve as a method of a cognitively motivated program.

Programs that follow cognitivism offer a guided introduction to a topic and show connections and procedures. It is often a figure, a tutor, who guides the learner through the material and takes on a role model. The material is mostly conveyed in authentic situations. Often tutorial systems are used as an introduction to the operation of complex programs. Individual functions are shown and explained to the learner in the original environment of the program. This is followed by problems that the learner should now solve independently by linking and applying what has been explained.

The disadvantages of a cognitively motivated learning program are, on the one hand, the strict structure and course of such a program, which do not give the learner the opportunity to approach the topic associatively; and secondly, here too, social aspects of learning are not taken into account.


Constructivism assumes that there is no reality that can be independent of the observer. That is, reality is actively constructed by each individual through constant interpretation. The key difference to cognitivism is that constructivism sees the brain as a closed system that organizes itself. It is primarily concerned with itself and only to a small extent with processing information and stimuli from the environment. For example, human ears do not perceive music, but rather sound waves. These sound waves are only 'constructed' by the brain to music[24].

This means that learning is not a passive absorption and storage of information and perceptions, but an active process of knowledge construction. The learner draws on already existing experience, applies this knowledge and thus generates new knowledge. The focus is no longer on an authoritarian teacher image - as in behaviorism - or the observing and helping tutor - as in cognitivism - but rather the individual experience of the learner. As an aside, three approaches should be mentioned here that relate to the design of computer-aided learning worlds[25]:

- 'cognitive apprenticeship': Here, learning is designed as a master-apprentice relationship. The master guides the student and withdraws more and more.
- 'cognitive flexibility theory': A complex content is presented on the basis of an authentic case in order to enable different approaches and to make the knowledge applicable in other situations.
- 'anchored instructions': Tasks are set in a large context, e.g. in the form of an interesting, complex and realistic story. This is how 'anchors' are created; that is, points of contact between existing knowledge and the new knowledge

A program on a constructivist basis therefore offers less guidance and instruction, but instead causes and suggestions to gather authentic experiences in a complex environment. Thus, the learner has a lot of freedom, but also a lot of personal responsibility for their own learning success. An example of constructivist learning programs are simulations of economic relationships in companies or natural relationships in ecosystems. The variables can be changed automatically and the mechanisms are accessible to the user from the observable reaction of the system. The more complex such a system is, the more opaque the reactions and thus the mechanisms can be recognized.

Learning in a constructivist learning environment therefore leaves some users feeling disoriented and overwhelmed. The additional personal contribution to the exploration of such a program, which is also very complex, can lead to confusion on the part of the learner without assistance, which makes learning success questionable.

2.3 Typology of educational software

The most common differentiation of educational software is the division into types. Here, too, hardly any educational software is assigned to just one type. Several types can be covered by one educational software. With this type of typology, it makes sense to also refer to educational software at this point. This was not possible with the previous classifications, as they are based on learning theory and didactic criteria; However, by definition, educational software does not have to be didactically constructed.

The following subdivision appears with different accentuations and differentiations by different authors (Thomé 1989, Baumgartner / Payr 1994, Bodendorf 1993, Leufen 1996a, LSW 1994a).


"Tutorials represent a learning subject in one or more ways and serve as an introduction to a field of knowledge"[26] or in the operating functions of a program. "As a rule, the learning sections have a linear structure, which means that the learners are guided relatively tightly."[27]

Exercise programs (drill and practice)

Exercise programs test existing knowledge through questions. There is feedback on the answers. At the end of the program there is an overall evaluation. "The two classic use cases (...) are: (...) placement test (...) and (...) final test."[28]

Intelligent tutorial systems (ITS)

In contrast to tutorials, the ITS adapts to the requirements of the learner. Course sections and dialogues are created flexibly and put together according to the user's input. Due to the complexity of such programs, they are still not widely used.

Simulation programs

Simulation programs represent real processes or objects in model form. The learner has the opportunity to change different parameters in this model and to observe the reactions of the system. Examples are flight simulators or changes in an ecosystem. Simulation games also fall into this category. Business games are very complex simulation programs that are designed so that you can work with them in groups. The group analyzes and plans their approach and examines the effects of these steps in the simulation game.

Playful learning programs

This category also appears in the literature (Leufen 1996a, Bodendorf 1993, Hoelscher 1994), but it is not clearly delimited. Bodendorf emphasizes "challenge, curiosity and imagination"[29] as motivational reasons and concludes, "Game systems are therefore very often based on simulation models".[30] Leufen makes it very brief: "In addition to the learning elements, playful learning programs also contain game situations."[31]

A more general formulation by Bodendorf seems to me to be most appropriate: “Play systems (...) use the game (...) as the packaging of a didactic concept. (...) This is also the main difference (...) to so-called computer games, which have pure entertainment value. "[32]

At this point I add categories for educational software that are not educational software. In other words, software that has not been prepared didactically, but can serve as a didactic tool in a learning environment.

(Multimedia) information systems

Leufen (1996b) makes a distinction here between data stocks / databases and hypermedia working environments. Data stocks / databases contain information on specific topics. In order to be able to use databases effectively, a search function and tools for access and further processing are required. If the database contains information on different media, one speaks of multimedia information systems. Electronic catalogs in libraries are an example.

“Hypermedia working environments present a multimedia, topic-related database. This is - in contrast to databases - networked according to factual and meaningful contexts. "[33] Examples are multimedia lexicons or many city information systems.


[1] Kerres, M. (2000): Computer-aided learning as an element of hybrid learning arrangements. In: Kammerl, R. (Ed.): Computer-assisted learning. Munich, p. 25f.

[2] see link list in the bibliography of this work

[3] see Baumgartner, P. (1995): Didactic requirements for (multimedia) learning software. In: Issing, L .; Klimsa, P. (Ed.): Information and learning with multimedia. Weinheim, p. 244

[4] Tulodziecki, G. (1997): Media in upbringing and education. Basics and examples of action and development-oriented media education. 3rd edition, Bad Heilbrunn, p. 33

[5] Weidenmann, B. (1995): Multicoding and multimodality in the learning process. In: Issing, L .; Klimsa, P. (Ed.): Information and learning with multimedia. Weinheim, p. 65

[6] ibid. P. 65

[7] ibid. P. 67

[8] Kerres, M. (1998): Multimedia and Telemedia Learning Environments. Conception and development. Munich, p. 81

[9] ibid. P.81

[10] ibid. P.81

[11] Issing, L.J. (1994): From media didactics to multimedia didactics. Educational Science 22. p.267

[12] Borner, W .; Schnellhardt, G. (1992): Multimedia. Basics, standards, sample applications. Munich. P. 18

[13] Steinmetz, R. (1993): Multimedia technology. Berlin. P. 17

[14] Kammerl, R. (2000): Media didactic and media educational perspectives on learning with the Internet. In: Kammerl, R. (ed.): Computer-assisted learning. Munich. P. 133

[15] Steinmetz, R. (1993): Multimedia technology. Berlin. P. 357

[16] ibid. P. 356 fig. 11-6

[17] see Baumgartner, P. (1995): Didactic requirements for (multimedia) learning software. In: Issing, L .; Klimsa, P. (Ed.): Information and learning with multimedia. Weinheim, pp. 241-252

[18] ibid. P. 244

[19] ibid. P. 245

[20] Haack, Johannes (1995): Interactivity as a characteristic of multimedia and hypermedia. In: Issing, L. J .; Klimsa, P. (ed.): Information and learning with multimedia, pp. 151-166. Weinheim. P. 153.

[21] see www.educat.hu-berlin.de/mv/criteria.html

[22] See Thissen, F. (1999): Learning theories and their implementation in multimedia learning programs - analysis and evaluation. In: BIBB Multimedia Guide Vocational Training. Berlin.

[23] See Kammerl, R. (2000): Computer-assisted learning - An introduction. In: Kammerl, R. (ed.): Computer-assisted learning. Oldenbourg. P. 13.

[24] See Thissen, F. (1999): Learning theories and their implementation in multimedia learning programs - analysis and evaluation. In: BIBB Multimedia Guide Vocational Training. Berlin.

[25] see Law, L.-C. (1995): Constructivist Instructional Theories and Acquisition of Expertise Research Report. No. 48, March. Munich.

[26] Leufen, S (1996b): Software offerings for teaching and schools. In: Bertelsmann Foundation, Heinz Nixdorf Foundation (ed.): New media in schools. Projects - concepts - competencies. P. 25.

[27] Rudolf, C. (1999): Traditional forms of teaching, computer-aided learning and learning with the Internet in comparison. In: INBAS: Learning with new information and communication technologies: Learning software and learning with the Internet. Frankfurt / M. P. 16.

[28] Bodendorf, F. (1993): Computers in company training. Munich. P. 73.

[29] ibid. P. 77

[30] ibid. P. 77

[31] Leufen, S (1996b): Software offerings for lessons and schools. In: Bertelsmann Foundation, Heinz Nixdorf Foundation (ed.): New media in schools. Projects - concepts - competencies. P. 27

[32] Bodendorf, F. (1993): Computers in company training. Munich. P. 77.

[33] Leufen, S (1996b): Software offerings for teaching and schools. In: Bertelsmann Foundation, Heinz Nixdorf Foundation (ed.): New media in schools. Projects - concepts - competencies. P. 27

End of the reading sample from 86 pages - top