The discussion of learning from different media is fascinating, however, my problem with accepting the findings of experiments such as that described by Steve Tripp is the very fact that they are experiments (i.e., the result of contrived situations).
That learning is a complex phenomenon I do not doubt for an instant. That parts of that complex equation can be isolated and measured I am not so sure--the ideas of complex interactions and inter-dependencies would worry me. That any one part of the complex equation could be isolated, measured in a contrived, experimental situation and still produce generalizable results, I would have to doubt.
I am one of the camp that believes learning is quite importantly dependent on motivation, perceived relevance, and a number of individual factors. Personally I feel happier with Cris Brack's [29 Oct 96] interpretation of different media serving different purposes in specific situations. You can use any medium in a "good" or "bad" manner related to the situation in focus. The examples of sensory impairment illustrate that. But, how do you account for the fact that students may find an experimental activity trivial, irrelevant, or uninteresting and still rely on the findings?