Witnessing the global spreading of internet networks including web 2.0 services, and observing its assessment by present public opinion as well as scientific community, we notice a growing interest in sound argumentation and methodology towards a modelling of this process through activity theory in particular. More precisely, as for the general impact of New Media2 the scientific discourses of activity theorists seem to lack theoretical clarification even of concepts, which are most commonly in use. Our central question therefore is: Is it correct to call the ongoing spreading of New Media a revolution? And if so, what does that mean to us and what does it mean to learning and learning institutions in particular?
But instead of plunging directly into the immense and unmanageable discussion on “computer and learning” we at first try to understand what the term of New Media stands for. What are “media”? And what is new about them? Is there any difference between digitalization and all those technical devices based on it? Is technology and “medium” all the same? If not, what is a medium?
But if you start asking the New Media discussion for clearness of notions you will immediately meet the same vagueness concerning the term “revolution”, and come subsequently to the conclusion that any quest for understanding “media revolution” has to start with the definition of its basic concepts.
Therefore I’ll present our findings and arguments with some short theses based on four theoretical definitions concerning:

1. What is a medium?
2. What is a revolution?
3. What is a medium revolution?
4. What is and why do we need a transition theory?

Based on this theoretical framework I try to show its benefits for concrete empirical studies especially in the field of learning.