Login or register for free to remove ads.

Effects of Objectives, Practice, and Review in Multimedia Instruction Article

, , Arizona State University, United States

Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia Volume 17, Number 2, ISSN 1055-8896 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA


This study examined the effects of instructional elements (objectives, information, practice with feedback, and review) on achievement, attitude, and time in a computer-based, multimedia program. Undergraduate college students used the multimedia lesson to learn about artists and their painting styles. Results indicated that practice had a significant effect on achievement while objectives and review did not. Participants who used the program with practice performed significantly better than those who did not receive practice. Student responses to the attitude survey showed that they were sensitive to the presence or absence of the instructional elements investigated in this study. Participants who used the lean program (information only) had the lowest overall attitudes. Results of paired comparison questions on the attitude survey revealed that participants perceived information, practice, and review to be more helpful than objectives. Turning to time, participants who received the full program spent the most amount of time working though the multimedia lesson and those who received the lean program spent the least amount of time. Implications for designing multimedia instruction are discussed.


Martin, F. & Klein, J. (2008). Effects of Objectives, Practice, and Review in Multimedia Instruction. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 17(2), 171-189. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.




  1. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Using rich media wisely. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill-Prentice Hall.
  2. Delgado, A. R., & Prieto, G. (2003, February). The effect of item feedback on multiple-choice test responses. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 73-85.
  3. Dick, W., Carey, L. M., & Carey, J. O. (2005). The systematic design of instruction, (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.
  4. Driscoll, M. P. (2007). Psychological foundations of instructional design. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill-Prentice Hall.
  5. Forcier, R. C., & Descy, D. E. (2002). The computer as an educational tool, (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River: NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
  6. Foshay, W. R., Silber, K. H., & Stelnicki, M. B. (2003). Writing training materials that work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
  7. Gagné, R. M (1985). The conditions of learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
  8. Gagné, R. M., Wager, W.W., Golas, K.C., & Keller, J.M. (2005). Principles of instructional design (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.
  9. Kruse, K., & Kevin, J. (1999). Technology-based training: The art and science of design, development and delivery. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  10. Kulhavy, R. W., & Stock, W. A. (1989). Feedback in written instruction: The place of response certitude. Educational Psychology Review, 1(4), 279-308. Mager, R. F. (1997). Preparing instructional objectives (3rd ed.). Atlanta, GA: Center for Effective Performance.
  11. Martin, F., Klein, J., & Sullivan, H. (2007). The impact of instructional elements in computer-based instruction. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(4), 623–636.
  12. Mason, B.J., & Bruning, R. (2001). Providing feedback in computer-based instruction: What the research tells us. Retrieved February 15, 2004, from http://dwb.unl.edu/Edit/MB/MasonBruning.html
  13. Mattiske, C. (2001). Train for results: Maximize the impact of training through review. Warriewood, NSW, Australia: Business and Professional Publishing. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  14. Merrill, J. (1987). Levels of questioning and forms of feedback: Instructional factors in courseware design. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 14(1), 18-22.
  15. Merrill, M. D. (2002) First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43-59.
  16. Morrison, G.R., Ross, S.M., & Kemp, J.E. (2006). Designing effective instruction (5th ed.) New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  17. Mory, E. (1992). The use of informational feedback in instruction: Implications for future research. Educational Training Research and Development, 40(3), 5-20.
  18. Reiser, R. A. (2007). A history of instructional design and technology. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill-Prentice Hall.
  19. Reiser, R. A. & Dick, W. (1996). Instructional planning: A guide for teachers (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  20. Richey, R. (2000). The legacy of Robert M. Gagné. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED445674)
  21. Smith, P.L. & Ragan, T.J. (2005). Instructional design (3rd ed.).Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
  22. Sullivan, H. J., & Higgins, N. (1983). Teaching for competence. New York: Teachers College Press.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@editlib.org.

Feedback and Suggestions please email info@editlib.org or use our online feedback form.