The purpose of this quantitative descriptive comparative study was to investigate and explore the usage of multimedia instructional tools (MMITs) in an integrated business applications course to determine if there was a statistically significant difference in the gain scores between the pretest and posttest scores of high school students who used the computer method vs. the traditional paper and pencil method in an integrated business applications course. Motivational belief subscales that included intrinsic value, self-efficacy, and test anxiety were also investigated to determine whether the use of the MMITs would result in a change in the motivation of students within an integrated business applications course. Two high schools in a school district located in South Carolina were used to provide data on the effects of multimedia instructional tools on students' knowledge in an integrated business applications course. This study was a quantitative descriptive comparative study. The theories examined for this quantitative descriptive comparative study included the constructive learning theory, motivational theory, cognitive theory of multimedia learning, formative assessment, and retention theory. Descriptive statistics and central tendency were used in the study (mean, median, mode), variability and dispersion (range and standard deviation), and distribution. A paired samples t-test and an independent samples t-test on a pretest and posttest were used to test the null hypotheses and to reject or fail to reject the null hypotheses. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to find any differences in students' perceptions on the motivational belief subscales (intrinsic value, self-efficacy, and test anxiety) as measured by the Revised Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire for Secondary Students (RMSLQ). The results of the data analysis showed minor statistical significance of the analysis of variances between the high school students in the integrated business applications course who used the computer method vs. the traditional paper and pencil method. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]