© 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency. Published by
Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 38 No 4 2007

623–636
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00670.x

Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Oxford, UKBJETBritish Journal of Educational Technology0007-1013© 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency2006
384623636Original Articles

Instructional elements in CBIBritish Journal of Educational Technology
The impact of instructional elements in computer-based
instruction

Florence Martin, James D. Klein and Howard Sullivan

Florence Martin is a recent graduate of the doctoral program in educational technology at Arizona State
University. She has a bachelor’s degree in electronics and communication engineering from Bharathiyar
University, India, and a master’s degree in educational technology from Arizona State University. James
D. Klein is a professor in the Educational Technology Program at Arizona State University, Tempe. He
serves as a member of the International Board of Standards for Training, Performance and Instruction.
Previously, he served as the development editor of Educational Technology Research and Development.
He has been recognized as an outstanding alumnus of the Instructional Systems Program at Florida State
University. Howard Sullivan is a professor in the Division of Psychology in Education at Arizona State
University. He was the founding research editor of Educational Technology Research and Development.
He was selected by the ASU Graduate College as the 2002 ASU Outstanding Doctoral Mentor. His
academic career is profiled in the Leadership Profiles section of the 2004 Educational Media and
Technology Yearbook. Address for correspondence: Florence Martin, 2220 West Dora Street, Mesa,
AZ85201, USA. Tel: (480) 650-6926; fax: (480) 965-7193; email: florencemartin@gmail.com.
James D. Klein, Arizona State University, Division of Psychology in Education, PO Box 870611, Tempe,
AZ 85287-0611, USA. Tel: (480) 965-0349; fax: (480) 965-0300; email: James.Klein@asu.edu;
Howard Sullivan, Division of Psychology in Education, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-
0611, USA. Tel: (480) 965-0348; fax: (480) 965-0300; email: sully@asu.edu

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of several elements of instruction (objectives,
information, practice, examples and review) when they were combined in a
systematic manner. College students enrolled in a computer literacy course
used one of six different versions of a computer-based lesson delivered on the
web to learn about input, processing, storage and output of a computer. The
six versions of the program consisted of (1) a full version that contained
information plus objectives, practice with feedback, examples and review, (2)
a version without objectives, (3) one without examples, (4) one without
practice, (5) one without review and (6) a lean version containing information
only. Results indicated participants who used one of the four versions of the
computer program that included practice performed significantly better on the
posttest and had consistently more positive attitudes than those who did not
receive practice. Implications for the development of computer-based
instruction are explored.

624

British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 38 No 4 2007

© 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.

Introduction

For many years, advocates of the systems approach to design have indicated that an
effective instructional program includes elements such as pre-instruction, content pre-
sentation, learner participation and follow through (Dick, Carey & Carey, 2005; Reiser
& Dick, 1996; Sullivan & Higgins, 1983). Pre-instructional activities are used to moti-
vate learners and inform them of the objectives of a lesson. Content presentation pro-
vides learners with information and examples directly related to the objectives of the
program. Learner participation allows students to practice skills and knowledge
taught in the program and is usually combined with feedback. Follow-through activi-
ties such as a review of key information are used to help learners retain their new
knowledge.
These elements represent desirable conditions in an instructional program and increase
the probability of successful learner achievement. Each element has been the subject of
a substantial body of research. However, many of these elements may produce a much
different effect when they are studied individually than when they are combined into a
more complete set. As Hannafin (1987) noted, some design strategies that have positive
effects when used in isolation may be diminished or negated when used in combination
with more powerful techniques.
A research design that incorporates the elements of instruction into a complete version
of an instructional program, and then systematically deletes selected elements from
other versions, has the potential to identify the elements that are effective in promoting
student learning. That type of design was used in the present research. The elements
that were directly incorporated into the present study were objectives, information,
examples, practice with feedback and review. Research literature on each of these ele-
ments is briefly reviewed below.

Objectives

An instructional objective is a statement that describes an intended outcome of instruc-
tion (Mager, 1962). According to Ausubel (1968), stating an objective at the beginning
of instruction will help the individual learners to structure their own learning. Reiser
and Dick (1996) state that, ‘At a fairly early stage, learners should be informed of what
it is that they are going to be able to do when they finish the instructional process. By
knowing what will be expected of them, learners may be better able to guide themselves
through that process’ (p. 48).
Some researchers have found that instructional objectives improve learning. Kaplan
and Simmons (1974) reported that performance on information relevant to an objec-
tive was high when instructional objectives were used as orienting stimuli or as a
summary/review upon prose learning. Staley (1978) found that the provision of objec-
tives facilitated learning but that presenting objectives by subsets had no advantage over
presenting the entire set at once. Research on effectiveness of objectives in computer-
based cooperative learning indicated that students who received instructional objectives
performed significantly better on posttest items than students who received either