Making distance learning E.R.O.T.I.C.: Applying interpretation principles to distance learning

Distance learners are self-directed learners traditionally taught via study books, collections of readings, and exercises to test understanding of learning packages. Despite advances in e-Learning environments and computer-based teaching interfaces, distance learners still lack opportunities to participate in exercises and debates available to classroom learners, particularly through non-text based learning techniques. Effective distance teaching requires flexible learning opportunities. Using arguments developed in interpretation literature, we argue that effective distance learning must also be Entertaining, Relevant, Organised, Thematic, Involving and Creative—E.R.O.T.I.C. (after Ham, 1992). We discuss an experiment undertaken with distance learners at The University of Queensland Gatton Campus, where we initiated an E.R.O.T.I.C. external teaching package aimed at engaging distance learners but using multimedia, including but not limited to text-based learning tools. Student responses to non-text media were positive.

Evaluation of an internet-based physical activity intervention: A preliminary investigation

The Internet has the potential for delivering innovative, interactive physical activity (PA) interventions to large numbers of people. This study was designed to test the efficacy. of ant Internet intervention that consisted of a Web site plus 12 weekly e-mail tip sheets, compared with a waiting list control group. The Internet intervention was theory based and emphasized clear, graphical presentation of PA information. Sixty-five (30 intervention and 35 control) sedentary adult employees of several large hospitals (9 men and 56 women) were randomly assigned to 1 of the 2 study arms. Of the 65 participants, 57 completed the 1-month follow-up, and 52 completed the 3-month follow-up. At both 1 and 3 months, those in the intervention group were significantly more likely to have progressed, in stage of motivational readiness for PA than participants in the control group: 1 month, chi(2)(1, N = 52) = 4.05, p