I did not mean anything disrespectful or profound by my sweeping, admittedly flippant assertions in support of Tripp's important contribution to understanding the nature of media differences. I was trying to offer some small contrast to the preceding onslaught. As an adherent to no particular method and an advocate of mixed-methods research, though, I face a very practical problem.
For purposes of remotely observing, recording, and qualitatively analyzing learner use of text-based information in a study of autotelesis during computer use, I have elected to move the text from printed book form to an online (i.e., "hypertext") form. The text (thus the content) is the same, yet "delivered" in different vessels. However, the online form is not only less familiar to subjects than print, but it is also more difficult to use because of properties intrinsic to the computer-as-delivery-medium.
I find that I have a growing concern with my initial assumption that providing the information (i.e., "instruction") online will affect subjects' motivation in the same way that I have reason to believe the same or similar information will affect subjects' motivation when it is provided on paper. (I've done a couple of previous studies using the print version, but had no way to accurately monitor information use.) It has by no means been established that online or "hyper" text is equivalent to print or paper-based text, so my concern arises in the context of how the change from one medium to another will affect subjects' motivational states while interacting with the computer.
At least two issues present themselves. The first is the difference in the interface--an issue of ease of use, a presumptive variable in motivation. The second is the relation between ease of use and cognitive organization--however one may characterize that. How does the design of the online interface (limited by the physical properties of the computer as medium) support understanding, clarity, learning--or, alternatively, confuse? And, what is the difference between this and the "onpaper" interface that is more familiar (but also has certain limitations)?
Several design approaches are possible. Many variables may affect the answers to such questions. Even the naming of buttons linking portions of the text can affect clarity or confusion, which, in turn, may affect motivation. (Remember, I decided to present the instruction online to make it possible to record and observe how subjects use the information, not because I thought it is superior way to present the information/instruction. It is just prohibitively difficult to remotely observe how subjects use a book.)
It is obvious that the two media demand different skills and offer different possibilities for and constraints on learning. Comparing them is difficult enough (maybe impossible). How the differences between the two media affect such variables as motivation and learning is even more difficult and complex. However, this complexity is exciting to confront--not an occasion for despair.