computer dan media

8/13/2019 Computer Dan Media

1/23

AUTHORINGTOOLS:V-r

>v' /'- a :

PARADIGMS, USAGE, AND. . .

AFUTUREIMPLICATIONS ill iti ili

v I

After completing this chapter, you should understand the

following:

The general principles and features^ authoring tools

Why hypermedia is a critical feature of authoring tools

The pedagogical implications of authoring tools as they re-

late to designing hypermedia learning environments

The differences among multimedia authoring tools,

We-ased authoring tools, course management systems

!"#$s%, and content management systems

The evolution of authoring tools from technological andpedagogical perspectives

The leading authoring tools in higher education, &-(, and

corporate sectors

The future implications of authoring tools


2/23

()( "*+T

CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING THREE SCENARIOS:

Classified Training, by Grea !allard: "anagers #f a federal #rgani$ai#n %an #

rain &eir 'ers#nnel #n a (lassified 'r#(ed)re* T&e 'r#(ed)re in+#l+es 're'aring rainees #

ass)e &e r#les #f #n-&e-.#b-raining /O0T1 insr)(#rs #r O0T 'r#gra anagers in disri(#ffi(es a(r#ss &e 2nied Saes* T&e raining )s f#ll#% s'e(ifi( sandards #)lined in &e

OJT Guide.!e(a)se #f &e &ig& se()riy s)rr#)nding &is raining 'r#gra, Web-basedraining /W!T1 &as been r)led #) as an #'i#n* Sand-)' raining &as als# been r)led #) as

a res)l #f &e (#'le3iies ass#(iaed %i& s(&ed)ling s)(& raining in a iely anner a &e

+ari#)s disri( #ffi(es* In addii#n, be(a)se 'r#(ed)res and r#les are di(aed in &e OJTGuide and &ere are (#rre( and in(#rre( %ays #f a((#'lis&ing &e .#b, &e ea as-signed # de+el#' &is raining de(ided &a &e &e#rei(al gr#)nding #f &e raining %ill be

ainly #b.e(i+is* Gi+en &ese (#nsrains, &e ea de(ided &a computer ased instruction!"01% is &e #s a''r#'riae f#ra f#r designing, de+el#'ing, and deli+ering &is raining*T&e 4)esi#ns fa(ing &e ea n#% are as f#ll#%s: W&a a)ring ##l s)ld %e )se #

de+el#' &is raining5 and W&i(& fea)res s)ld %e be l##6ing f#r in an a)ring ##l #

ens)re effe(i+e and effi(ien C!I de+el#'en5 T&e ea ebers se #) # s)dy &e

(&ara(erisi(s #f a)ring ##ls s# &a &ey (an sele( a ##l &a bes fis &eir needs*

Web-En&an(ed Insr)(i#n: A 'r#fess#r in a &ig&er ed)(ai#n insi)i#n %ans #

de+el#' a Web sie # s)''#r &e Inr#d)(i#n # Asr#n#y (lass &a &e ea(&es* T&e

'r#fess#r %#)ld li6e # in(l)de #n &is Web sie #nline res#)r(es f#r s)dens # e3'l#re s#

&a &ey (an beer )ndersand &e 'rin(i'les and (#n(e's )nder s)dy and say ()rren %i&

&e laes de+el#'ens in &e field* He %#)ld als# li6e s)dens # dis()ss &e (#)rse (#nen

#nline in sall gr#)'s and (#llab#- rai+ely (reae Web sies &a inf#r &e general ')bli(

ab#) re(en de+el#'ens in asr#n#y* W&i(& a)ring ##l s)ld &is 'r#fess#r be

(#nsidering5 S)ld &e 'r#fess#r )se a Web de+el#'en ##l #r a C"S5

C#)rse "anageen #r C#nen "anageen Syse5: An insr)(i#nal designer

%#r6ing f#r a large )ni+ersiy &as been as6ed %i& idenifying an #ff-&e-s&elf C"S &a &as

&e f#ll#%ing fea)res: /a1 a '#%erf)l sear(& engine, /b1 a )ser-friendly inerfa(e, /(1 &e abiliy

# generae and s#re learning #b.e(s, /d1 &e abiliy # generae and s#re (#'le3 4)eries,

/e1 &e (a'abiliy f#r )sers # br#%se &e 6n#%ledge base, and /f1 &e abiliy # generae

d#()enai#n #n )ser deand* T&e insr)(i#nal designer &as e3ensi+e e3'erien(e %i&

C"Ss and &eir fea)res b) is n# failiar %i& (#nen anageen syses* T&e

insr)(i#nal designer 're'ares &e f#ll#%ing 4)esi#ns # resear(&: W&a is &e differen(e

be%een a C"S and a (#nen anageen syse5 Are (#nen anageen syses an

e3ensi#n #f C"Ss5 Are &ere #&er naes f#r &ese ##ls #n &e ar6e5 and W&a are

learning #b.e(s5 T# ge sared, &e insr)(i#nal designer '#ss &ese 4)esi#ns # an

ed)(ai#nal e(&n#l#gy Lisser+*


3/23

+uthoring Tools2 aradigms, 3sage, and 4uture 1mplications ()5

+s you egin reading this chapter, thin6 aout these scenarios and your e7perience 8ith authoring tools or "#$s. 4or

e7ample, have you ever had to compare and contrast authoring tools to ma6e an appropriate selection for your organi-

9ation: 1f so, 8hich features did you consider in this comparison: technical: cost: pedagogical: ease of use: *ave you

used an authoring tool to develop instruction: What 8ere some of the pedagogical features of the instructional product:

*ave you used a "#$ as an instructor or a student: What 8ere some of the features that you found particularly

useful:

This chapter covers the general characteristics of multimedia and We-ased authoring tools and

provides a thorough description of their features and instructional implications. The chapter also includes a

description of the evolution of authoring tools from technological and pedagogical perspectives and an

introduction to "#$s as a class of authoring tools specifically designed to develop and deliver online

learning. "ontent management systems are also introduced as tools that facilitate the development of

learning o;ects. The chapter concludes 8ith a discussion of the future implications of authoring tools and

"#$s.

WHAT ARE A2THORING TOOLS5+uthoring toolsare soft8are tools that enale instructional designers, educators, teachers, and learners to

design interactive multimedia and hypermedia learning environments 8ithout 6no8ledge of programming

languages.


4/23

"*+T

media, and animations and seGuencing them into interactive programmed instruction modules !*all, (DD%.

1n ??5, more than CF authoring tools 8ere availale, many of 8hich no longer e7ist. Those that

survived have een adapted for delivery of training over the 1nternet and are sometimes referred to as

1ntemet-enaHed authoring tools ecause traditional authoring tools 8ere not initially designed to author

content for the We.

1n ??), &o9el reported that aout FD commercial multimedia authoring tools 8ere availale, not

counting highly speciali9ed niche tools. #ost of the mar6et share at that time 8as spread among the most

popular tools2 1con+uthor !y +imtech%, $uper"ard !y +llegiant Technologies%, Iuest !y +llen

"ommunication%, the Tool0oo6 11 line !y +symetri7, 8hich is no8 "lic6(earn%, @irector and

+uthor8are !oth y #acromedia%, and mTropolis !y m4actoryJ &o9el, ??)%. #acromedia claimed to

o8n DK of the authoring mar6et et8een its t8o tools !@irector and +uthor8are%, and @irector possily

dominated the mar6et share. Ather tools 8ith a loyal follo8ing included *yper"ard !y "laris, 8hich is

no8 +pple%, Aracle #edia A;ects, #ediaTool !y +pple%, and "ourse0uilder !y @iscovery $ystems%.

"ETA8HORS AND 8ARADIG"S 2NDERL7ING

A2THORING TOOLS+uthoring tools accomplish their tas6s through the use of a certain methodology or paradigm that reGuires

a type of heuristic or algorithmic thin6ing similar to that of programming languages !$iglar, ???%.

7amples of these paradigms include the scripting metaphorJ the card scripting metaphorJ iconic, orflo8, controlJ the frame metaphorJ hypermedia lin6ageJ the hierarchical o;ect metaphorJ tagging andthe cast score metaphorJ !&o9el, ??)J $iglar, ???J see Tale .%.

Lou can thin6 of each paradigm as an organi9ational structure that facilitates the design of

instructional materials and learning activities. @epending on the paradigm of a specific authoring tool, the

design approach, development time, instructional capailities, and learning curve !ease of use% could vary

8idely from those of other authoring tools. *ederg and *arper !??% emphasi9ed this point y stating,


5/23

+uthoring Tools2 aradigms, 3sage, and 4uture 1mplications

AUTHORINGPARADIGM DESCRIPTIONOF

PARADIGM

EXAMPLESOF

AUTHORING TOOLS

Scriptin !"t#p$%r Resebles a 'r#graing lan TenCORE Lang)age

g)age in &a i in+#l+es s'e(ifying all edia eleens by

file nae and inera(i#ns by (#ding

A)ring Syse

C#r&'(criptin !"t#p$%r 2ses an inde3 (ard sr)()re #r Hy'erCard, S)'erCard,

a b##6 ea'r # lin6 eleensHy'erS)di#, TenCORE,

T##l!##6 IIIc%nic, %r )l%*, c%ntr%l 2ses i(#ns # re'resen inera(i#ns C#)rse!)ilder, A)r%are

and* lin6s &e se4)enially in a fl#% I(#nA)r, A)r%are

line &a de'i(s &e res)l AainFr#!" !"t#p$%r 2ses i(#ns # s'e(ify inera(i#ns S#ryS'a(e, Digial C&isel,

and lin6s &e (#n(e')ally # As#)nd, ;)es, ")liedia

'r#+ide a sr)()ral fl#% F)si#n

Hi"r#rc$ic#l %+"ct 2ses an #b.e( ea'r s)(& as Da$$ler Del)3e, D#(en,

!"t#p$%r #b.e(-#riened 'r#graing, %&i(& Tr#'#lis, "ediaS%ees,

is +is)ally re'resened by ebedded T##l!##6 II Insr)(#r, ;)es

#b.e(s and i(#ni( 'r#'eries Ne


6/23

+uthoring Tools2 aradigms, 3sage, and 4uture 1mplications ())

hypermedia lin6s in computer-ased instruction or computer-assisted instruction !"01/"+1% is often referredto as interactivity.*ypermedia has played a fundamental role in generating interactivity in "01/"+1, allo8ing

the user to e7ercise some control over the learning environment y selecting menu items, clic6ing on

o;ects, and selecting linear or nonlinear paths in a lesson !"hou, (DD5%. With the move to 1nternet and

We- ased communications technologies, interactivity too6 on a ne8 meaning, 8hich e7tended interaction

to learner-learner and learner-group modes as discussed in "hapter . 1n addition, learner-content

interaction has een e7panded to include We resources in a variety of formats providing a richer

learning e7perience.

8RI"AR7 CLASSES OF A2THORING TOOLS+uthoring tools can e classified according to several variales for e7ample, type of au thor or adopter

!e.g.,Ecorporate developer vs. teacher educator%, type of delivery medium !e.g., "@-A# vs. 1nternet%,

type of operating system !Windo8s vs. #acintosh%, type of scripting metaphor, cost, ease of use, range of

user ase !e.g., learners, instructors, developers%, level of technical support, type of interface, mar6et

share, media capailities, and instructional design capailities. 1n this chapter, 8e classify authoring tools

according to the type of deliveryM medium !"@-A# vs. We ased% and the type of instruction

produced relative to the specific features of the delivery medium !e.g., "01 vs. W01%. 4igure .

represents this classification.

"@ .A# 0ased +uthoring Tools We 0ased +uthoring Tools

1nternal lin6ing "losed system

!ounded% Tool-ased interface

1nteractive media $tale content

"omputer-ased instruction 4ocus

on content delivery $tand-alone

instruction

7ternal lin6ing Apen system

!unounded% 0ro8ser interface

+ctive or collaorative media

@ynamic content We-ased

instruction 4ocus on

communication Pet8or6ed

instruction

1nternet-

naled

+uthoring

Tools

4igure . "lasses of +uthoring Tools


7/23

() "*+T

+ccording to 4igure ., t8o primary classes of authoring tools e7ist2 "@-A#- ased authoring

tools !also 6no8n as multimedia authoring tools%and We-ased authoring tools. 4rom an instructional product

perspective, "@-A#-ased authoring tools are primarily used to develop "01, and We-ased authoring

tools are primarily used to develop W01. "01 is instruction or course8are typically delivered on a "@-

A# or from a mainframe computer to a des6top computer through a local area net8or6 !B+P% rather

than over the 1nternet !*all, (DD%. "01 is considered the precursor to W01, 8hich is instruction or

course8are delivered over the 1nternet or the We. "01 and W01 can e contrasted according to several

instructional variales, such as staility of learning content, type of instructional activities, and scope of

interaction, among others. 1n Tale .(, 8e provide e7amples of the instructional attriutes of "01 and

W01 y comparing the features and instructional products associated 8ith the use of "@-A#- ased and

We-ased authoring tools. We also include in this tale the features instructional products associated

8ith the use of course management systems !"#$% 8hich are discussed in the ne7t section. +lthough the

future of most "@-A#-ased

Table 9*> 4eatures of +uthoring Tools

CATEGORYCDROM-+#("& #0t$%rint%%l(

/E3a'les in(l)de Hy'erCard,

A)r%are, T##l!##6 II, Dire(#r1

GENERALFEATURES

Ha+e a ##l-based inerfa(e

Are )sed %i& CD-RO" and +ide#dis(

e(&n#l#gies

Ha+e a cl%("& (y(t"! /d#es n#

all#% &e )ser # g# bey#nd &e

b#)ndaries #f %&a is &ere1

Ha+e generally sable (#nen

Ha+e #sly inernal lin6ing? (#)ld

&a+e e3ernal lin6s re4)iring firing )' a

br#%ser

Can be Inerne-enabled &r#)g&

'l)g-ins

Re4)ire insallai#n? &eref#re, are

#'eraing syse de'enden

Re4)ire a see' learning ()r+e f#r &e

de+el#'er # a6e f)ll ad+anage #f &eir

fea)res

Are )sed #sly by de+el#'ers and

insr)(i#nal designers # 'r#d)(e

insr)(i#nal s#f%are

D# n# &a+e s'e(ifi( insr)(#r #r

learner ##ls /#nly de+el#'er ##ls1

INSTRUCTIONAL

PRODUCTS OR MODELS

C#')er-based #r (#')er-

assised insr)(i#n /C!I@CAI1

Si)lai#ns

Gaes

"i(r#%#rlds

T)#rials

Indi+id)ali$ed insr)(i#n

8r#graed insr)(i#n

Self-(#nained inera(i+e #d)les

M#(t"ry l"#rnin

Canned #r sand-al#ne insr)(- -

i#nal 'r#d)(s

Sandard esing 'r#gras /e*g*, SAT1

Crieri#n-based esing


8/23

+uthoring Tools2 aradigms, 3sage, and 4uture 1mplications

()?

CATEGORY

1"+'+#("& #0t$%rin t%%l(

/E3a'les in(l)de Fr#n'age,

Drea%ea+er, Claris H#e8age,

H#eSie1

C%0r(" !#n#"!"nt (y(t"!(

/E3a'les in(l)de WebCT,

!la(6b#ard, T#'Class, Bir)al-2,

LearningS'a(e1

GENERAL FEATURES

22222222222222222222222222222222222222222

Ha+e a br#%ser inerfa(e

Are )sed %i& Inerne-based e(&-

n#l#gies

Ha+e an Op"n (y(t"! /all#%s &e

)ser # g# bey#nd &e b#)ndaries

&r#)g& e3ernal lin6ing # &e W#rld

Wide Web1

Are e3ensible /'#enial f#r e3-

ending &e f)n(i#naliy #f e3ising

fea)res %i) .e#'ardi$ing &e

'erf#ran(e #f &e ##l1

Ha+e dynai( (#nen

Enable a(i+e #r (#llab#rai+e edia

Re4)ire a see' learning ()r+e f#r

&e de+el#'er # a6e f)ll ad+anage #f

&eir fea)res

Are )sed by a +ariey #f )sers #

de+el#' Web sies f#r )li'le ')r-

'#ses

D# n# &a+e s'e(ifi( insr)(#r #r

learner ##ls

Ha+e a br#%ser inerfa(e

Are )sed %i& Inerne-based e(&-

n#l#gies

Ha+e an #'en syse

Are easy # )se

Ha+e dynai( (#nen

Enable a(i+e #r (#llab#rai+e

edia

Ha+e s'e(ifi( ##ls f#r insr)(#rs,

learners, and adinisra#rs

Ha+e ebedded (#)ni(ai#n

##ls /e-ail, dis()ssi#n f#r)s, gr#)'

##ls1

Are )sed 'riarily # anage and

deli+er #nline learning in ed)(ai#nal

insi)i#ns and e-learning in (#r'#rae

seings

INSTRUCTIONAL

PRODUCTS OR MODELS

2222222222222222222222222222222222222222

Single Web 'ages and inegraed

Web sies f#r inf#rai#n 'resenai#n

# s)''#r (lassr## insr)(i#n

Sr)()red Web sies res)ling in a

+ariey #f f#ras f#r Web-based

insr)(i#n /W!I1

8ers#nal and insi)i#nal e

'ages

Web ')blis&ing

Organi$ai#n #f Web-based re-

s#)r(es

C#'le3 aniai#ns and inera(-

i#ns %&en )sed %i& &ig&-le+el

s(ri'ing lang)ages /e*g*, 0a+a,

0a+as(ri', C334

Disan(e ed)(ai#n 'r#gras

C#)rse%are /W!I1

n#%ledge ne%#r6s

Asyn(&r#n#)s and syn(&r#n#)s

learning en+ir#nens

Disrib)ed learning en+ir#nens


9/23


10/23

+uthoring Tools2 aradigms, 3sage, and 4uture 1mplications (

discuss the technological and pedagogical implications of authoring tools as they relate to the three classespresented in Tale .(.

Te(&n#l#gi(al I'li(ai#ns

"onnectivity"@-A#-ased authoring tools 8ere primarily designed for soft8are developers and ecame

popular mechanisms for supporting the production of "01, in 8hich learners interact primarily 8ith an

instructional program to gain mastery of a certain s6ill or 6no8ledge !&os8it9, ??%. +s discussed

previously in this chapter, the 1nternet shifted the focus of interactivity from interaction 8ith an

instructional program to interaction 8ith other learners across time and place !&earsley $hneiderman,

??%. This shift from local or predefined interaction to gloal interaction gave irth to the principle of

gloali9ation discussed in "hapter . Rloali9ation is a conseGuence of the net8or6ed configuration of the

1nternet, 8hich enaled increased connectivity and access to resources, events, and various tas6s through

the use of e-mail, discussion oards, and other 1nternet-ased technologies that facilitate asynchronous

learning and information delivery. $useGuently, authoring tools evolved to accommodate the shift to

gloal interaction. 4or e7ample, "#$s no8 include 1nternet-ased communications technologies under an

integrated structure, 8hich ma6es designing collaorative activities that are time and place independent

easier and 8idens the scope of teacher-learner and learner-learner communication. +s a result of these

capailities, pedagogical models such as distriuted learning, 6no8ledge net8or6s, asynchronous learning

net8or6s, and virtual communities !discussed in "hapter % egan emerging.

*ypermedia e7tensiilityThe We has also dramatically altered the concept of hypermedia,8hich is a crucial

attriute of the interface of an authoring tool, as discussed previously in this chapter. *ypermedia has

evolved from a predetermined, finite internal lin6ing structure contained 8ithin the oundaries of a

learning system to an infinite e7ternal lin6ing structure that 6no8s no oundaries. This technological

development greatly impacted the nature of instructional content and instructional resources. "@-A#-

ased authoring tools have commonly relied on stale content to or;gani9e and structure instruction, 8hich

is mainly 8hy the resulting learning system is ounded and program centered. The We shifted the focus

from accessing materials on ounded delivery media, such as "@-A#s, to accessing unounded, or dy-

namic, information through a net8or6 of gloal resources on the We !"lar6 >Byons, ???J *ederg,

0ro8n, +rrighi, ??)%. "#$s no8 include features and components that allo8 instructors and learners

to modify content and contriute resources, 8hich has resulted in fle7ile and active information

structures. +s a result of these capailities, the nature of instructional content and instructional resources

has changed from a 8ell-defined and stale 6no8ledge ase to an unfiltered and dynamic informa tion

ase. !$ee "hapter for a comparison of traditional and We-ased learning environments.%


11/23

"*+T

Riven the preceding discussion, do you thin6 the "lassified Training scenario presented at the eginning of this chapter

calls for a 8ell-defined and stale 6no8ledge ase or a dynamic information ase: "an the instructional designer

predetermine hypermedia structures 8ithin this 6no8ledge ase: 1n the second scenario, We-nhanced 1nstruction, is the

professor relying on stale or dynamic content: "an the professor predetermine hypermedia lin6ing structures 8ithin this

6no8ledge ase:

Level and ease of useThe advent of the We also created the need for tools to developWe pages, 8hich egan 8ith simple te7t editors that created *T#B files and evolved to We-ased

authoring tools that continued to gro8 in functionality and integrated more user features and 1nternet-

ased technologies. With the launching of "#$s, the learning curve dropped sharply as the interface

ecame more template controlled !


12/23

+uthoring Tools2 aradigms, 3sage, and 4uture 1mplications (

Therefore, courses initially designed for traditional learning environments !see "hapter % and lat

transformed to a We-ased format using a "#$ 8ill more li6ely undergo a pedagogical reengineeri

that is more constructivist and less instructivist !@aagh $chmitt, ??%. The presence of 1nternet-as

communication tools, collaorative tools, and We pulishing tools in "#$s is ma6ing such pedagogi

implications possile. *o8ever, the use of "#$s, or any authoring tool, could still result in a str

instructivist approach if the potential of the tool features is not effectively integrated into the learni

design. +s Tiedemann !(DD(% contended,


13/23

(Q "*+T

(DDD%.*o8ever, 8hen ta6ing the mind-set of a professional We developer responsile for a medium-

si9ed companyMs We efforts, Aliver ist of 1ntemetWee6!??% selected three We-ased authoring

tools that 8ere deemed po8erful enough to develop cutting- edge pages yet visual enough to do so

Guic6ly and easily. The three tools 8ere #icrosoftMs 4rontage, +doeMs age#ill, and #acromediaMs

@ream8eaver. 4rontage ran6ed first in terms of eing an all-in-one professional-level design and

management tool, and age#ill and @ream8eaver follo8ed closely ehind. 1n a (DDD roundup of We-

ased authoring tools, @ream8eaver 8as given first place y the editors of " #aga9ine !#endelson, (DDD%

for advanced site design, 8ith an average user rating of ?/D, and 4rontage 8as given first place for

asic site design, 8ith an average user rating of )/D. +llaireMs *ome$ite received an honorale mention

in the same issue and, ecause of its thorough code-editing tools, 8as highly recommended for developers

8ho prefer complete control over their *T#B code.

1n a more recent survey conducted y $ecurity$pace in Nanuary (DDQ, the follo8ing We-ased

authoring tools 8ere listed in descending order of percentage of usage2 00dit, #acromediaMs

@ream8eaver, +rachnophilia, $tarAffice, *T#Bed, +llaireMs *ome$ite, 4rontier, and +nalog

!$ecurity$pace.com, (DDQ%. The $ecurity$pace survey 8as ased on a sample si9e of (,CC(,?Q( pages

do8nloaded from ,Q?5,F)C We sites. *o8ever, authoring tool usage 8as detected on only 5F,DD sites

!(.K of all sites visited% ecause, as in the (DDD survey, the names of We-ased authoring tools are

not al8ays inserted into the We page #T+ tag generator and thus may not have een pic6ed up y

the survey. Therefore, 6eep in mind that usage statistics are not al8ays accurate. 1n addition, as ne8

We-ased authoring tools continue to emerge, ne8 ratings and mar6et shares 8ill emerge as 8ell.

2sage Saisi(s and Raings #f C"Ss

"#$s represent yet another share of the mar6et that clearly lies in the education sector ecause the main

goal of these tools is to facilitate the management and delivery of online courses to support e-learning

and distance education programs. + survey conducted y the 3.$. @epartment of ducationMs Pational

"enter for ducational $tatistics !P"$J Be8is, 4arris, $no8, Bevin, ???% revealed that the numer

of distance education programs increased y )(K from ??Q-??F to ??)-?? and that an additional

(DK of the institutions surveyed at the time planned to estalish distance education programs 8ithin the

ne7t 5 years. The P"$ also reported that .C million students 8ere enrolled in distance education

courses in ??)-??. 1n an Actoer (DDD industry research report, duventures.com 1nc., a leading

independent e-learning industry analyst firm, pro;ected that the higher education e-learning mar6et 8ould

gro8 from SQ illion to S illion y (DD5 !$to6es, vans, Rallagher, (DDD%. 1n (DD5, the P"$

reported that, since the mid-??Ds, distance education course enrollments had nearly douled, to aout 5.

million !Waits >Be8is, (DD5%.

The usage survey tool 8as determined y e7amining the We page #T+ tag generator. #T+ tags are *T#B tags that

descrie the contents of a We page. The names of We-ased authoring tools are not al8ays inserted into #T+ tags.


14/23

+uthoring Tools2 aradigms, 3sage, and 4uture 1mplications (F

Pot surprisingly, institutions and faculty memers are feeling pressure to offer We-ased courses to

meet economic and student demands. The recent proliferation of "#$s is in ans8er to these demands.

7amples of "#$s and B#$s that cropped up to meet e-learning education and training demands in oth

the higher education and the corporate sectors include We"T, 0lac6oard, "onvene, manet, lement

&, eal ducation, e"ollege.com, @ocent, &no8ledgelanet, "entra, $mart4orce, $6ill$oft, $ymposium,

Top"lass, We#entor, eWe, We "ourse in a 0o7, 1nternet "lassroom +ssistant, 1ngenium, Botus

Bearning$pace, $oft+rcMs 4irst"lass, $erf, duprise.com. and Virtual-3. Bandon !(DDD% reported that as

many as D? course management soft8are pac6ages 8ere on the mar6et. *o8ever, many of the e-learning

providers have een ought out through mergers and acGuisitions or have collapsed as a result of fic6le

mar6ets and untried usiness models !*arris, (DD(%, 4or a more comprehensive list of authoring tools and

a comparative analysis of their technical features, visit the duTools We site at

http2//888.edutools.info/course/ .

2sage Saisi(s in Hig&er Ed)(ai#n

1n the higher education sector, We"T !We"T.com, (DDD% 8as the 8orldMs leading provider of

integrated e-learning systems for higher education, serving more than (,CDD colleges and universities in

more than D countries 8orld8ide. +t that time, 0lac6oard also claimed that it 8as the leading provider

of 1nternet infrastructure soft8are for e-education, 8ith (,5DD clients and a user ase of. more than F.Q

million individuals 8orld8ide !0lac6oard.com, (DDD%. 1n the Actoer (DDD industry report mentioned

previously, duventures.com reported that 0lac6oard had estalished the strongest mar6et position in the

higher education e-learning industry !$to6es et al (DDD%. The same report also indicated that We"T had

reached a si9ale share of this mar6et and that 8ith its partnership 8ith Thomson Bearning, it 8as in an

e7cellent position to match or even surpass 0lac6oard in the coming months. *o8ever, in (DD5,0lac6oard 8as named the most popular e-learning platform in 3.$. higher education, 8ith QCK of the

mar6et, compared 8ith 5FK for We"T !@un 0radstreet, (DD5%. +ccording to this mar6et analysis,

We"T and 0lac6oard have clearly emerged as the top commercial online learning providers in higher

education, 8hich has resulted in 8hat 0lac6oard "hairman #atthe8 ittins6y descried as


15/23

(C "*+T

@espite this uncertainty, Trondsen argued that $mart4orce has emerged as an industry leader in B#$s

ecause of its smart acGuisition strategy !*arris, (DD(%. $ince ???, $mart4orce has acGuired several e-

learning vendors and providers, ranging from those that support interactive technologies and collaorative

tools to those that manage content y using learning o;ects technology !discussed suseGuently in this

chapter%. Trondsen claimed that through such acGuisitions and mergers, $mart4orce can promote an

architecture that integrates and manages three platforms simultaneously technology, content, and services

reali9ing that customers 8ant a total e-learning solution !*arris, (DD(%.

W&a Is a iller A''li(ai#n5

With $mart4orce possily emerging as a dominant corporate e-learning provider and 0lac6oard andWe"T currently perceived as dominant higher education online learning providers, the Guestion remains

8hether a


16/23

+uthoring Tools2 aradigms, 3sage, and 4uture 1mplications ()

in multiple conte7ts !Wiley, (DD(%. The idea is to adopt some or all of the nonproprietary technical

standards that #assachusetts 1nstitute of Technology !#1T%, $tanford, and others are developing as part of

the Apen &no8ledge 1nitiative. This initiative involves developing online teaching technologies and course

materials that are shareale and reusale so that they can e delivered to the learner on an as-needed

and ;ust-in-time asis. 1n addition, these technical standards 8ill enale B#$s and "#$s to handle all

types of digital content. 4or instructional designers, this means uilding small instructional components

!6no8ledge o;ects% that can e reused multiple times in different learning conte7ts !Wiley, (DD(%. The

instructional and training enefits of learning o;ects technology include !a% increased efficiency 8ith

regard to training development cycle times, !% the potential for increased effectiveness and

personali9ation of training, and !c% consistency in design and development tas6s !0annan-itland. @aagh,

#urphy, (DD(%.

C#nen "anageen Syses

+s a result of learning o;ects technology, a ne8 reed of authoring tools, 6no8n as content management

systems,or learning content management systems !B"#$s%,

has emerged. The emphasis of B"#$s is on managing content through the creation of learning o;ects,

instead of managing courses, 8hich is the primary goal of a "#$. B"#$s are no8 allo8ing practitioners

to create and manage learning o;ects that can e served to the learner at the appropriate time, 8hich

ma6es them a


17/23

"*+T

technologies !e.g., synchronous and asynchronous communication tools% and e7tend its user ase and

instructional design capailities.

F2T2RE I"8LICATIONS OF A2THORING TOOLS+s discussed at the eginning of this chapter, the aim of traditional authoring tools !i.e., "@-A#-ased

authoring tools% is to automate entirely or partially the course8are construction process y supporting

tas6s such as the aility to create screens and screen o;ects such as menus and uttons, lin6 content to

other content, and seGuence material !0ell, ??%. *o8ever, the lac6 of specific design principles oftenrestricts the 6inds of instructional designs these tools support, 8hich leads largely to the creation of sim -

plistic drill and practice programs or uninteresting tutorials !*odger, ?F%.


18/23

+uthoring Tools2 aradigms, 3sage, and 4uture 1mplications (?

8hich 8ill have een created 8ith much guidance from the tool itselfM !0ell, ??, p. )C%. #urray

!??% further emphasi9ed this shortcoming of traditional authoring tools y stating that "hristensen, ?%. 1n the case of authoring tools,

the goal of an 1T$ 8ould e to support the designer of the learning environment instead of the learner.

4or e7ample, an intelligent instructional design e7pert system 8ould e emedded in the authoring tool to

allo8 designers to spend more time designing at the conceptual and pedagogical level instead of focusing

on the features of the tools, so that more engaging instructional designs could e produced !oson,

(DDD%.

T&e Ob.e(-Oriened A''r#a(& # A)ring Syses

The second approach proposes that ne8 metaphors for authoring tools need to e developed to match

current instructional practices and theory !*ederg >*arper, ??%. *ederg and *arper !??% added

that, currently, most authoring tools limit the designer to the preprogrammed modules of the tool and to

the underlying assumptions of highly structured instructional design models. 1n other 8ords, the paradigm

or metaphor of an authoring tool can guide or restrict the types of instructional designs possile. 4or

e7ample, authoring tools for the construction of We documents !We- ased authoring tools% offer a

page metaphor 8ith hyperte7t as the dominant lin6ing structure, 8hich enales more of a top-do8n

design process than that of the screen metaphor of more traditional, or less comple7, multimedia authoring

tools such as *yper$tudio, 8hich supports a more linear or seGuential design process !*ederg et al.,

??)%. Therefore, the need for ne8 authoring metaphors that are less restrictive and that allo8 users to

implement more fle7ile instructional design is imminent.


19/23

(?D "*+T

+ccording to &o9el !??)%,


20/23

+uthoring Tools2 aradigms, 3sage, and 4uture 1mplications (?

environments. The learners as producersconcept supports a generative, or constructivist, approach to learning,

in 8hich learners are using technology tools as cognitive tools to generate their o8n learning and

construct 6no8ledge !$ims, ??F%. *ederg et aO. !??)% argued that if the learnerMs activities are

regarded as the central focus in an educational conte7t, learners should e thought of as soft8are

!course8are% producers rather than soft8are users in the development of educational soft8are for oth

ounded "@-A# titles and unounded We-ased resources. These researchers proposed the integration

of learner tools into authoring systems that allo8 users, for e7ample, to organi9e information in a

meaningful 8ay y positioning elements on the screen, creating ne8 lin6s, and generating multimedia

o;ects.

$uch cognitive tools could include a noteoo6 in 8hich to copy, edit, and format te7tJ a visual

graphics tool 8ith 8hich to create mar6er uttons that point to multimedia elements such as video, audio,

or pictures and enale the learner to manipulate these elementsJ and a cognitive mapping tool !concept-

mapping tool% that allo8s fle7ile information representation !*ederg *arper, ??%. #any "#$s

include a range of learner tools that are often underused ecause of the vendorsM insistence on

promoting the instructor and administrative capailities of the system. "hapter ? covers learning tools at

length and provides several e7amples of ho8 learners can use these tools as cognitive tools to guide their

learning and understanding. *o8ever, current "#$s need to greatly improve to include the learner

functionality that *ederg and *arper proposed.

Bearning o;ects technology has the potential to support this generative learning approach y placing

the authoring system or tool that supports the development of learning o;ec ts in the hands of the learner

instead of the designer !0annan-itland et al., (DD(%. With regard to a specific learning goal, the learner

could e instructed to define, configure, adapt, and generate learning o;ects and therey contriute to

the design of an educational or a training application, and, in the process, construct ne8 6no8ledge and

understanding of related content. +s mentioned previously, companies producing "#$s are eginning to

support the construction of learning o;ects y teaming up 8ith pioneers in the e-learning industry 8ho

have ta6en on the challenge of managing content through B"#$s and/or y e7tending the capailities of

their current authoring system to support the creation and delivery of learning o;ects. @epending on 8ho

creates, assemles, and lin6s these o;ects, the pedagogical philosophy of the learning environment can

vary from an instructivist approach to a constructivist approach, 8hich results in either a directed or an

open-ended learning environment.

S2""AR7Whatever the current state of authoring tools may e, the pedagogical goal of an au thoring tool,

according to *arasim !???%, is


21/23

(?( "*+T

support the active construction of 6no8ledge. 1n the last chapter of this oo6, 8e focus on ho8 "#$s

can e used to support these teaching and learning practices. We selected four "#$s that 8e elieve

represent the current uses of "#$s in higher education, &-(, and the corporate sectors. They are

We"T, 0lac6oard, Virtual-3, and Botus Bearning$pace. "hapter ? covers the features and functions of

these tools and provides e7amples of ho8 these features support the implementation of the instructional

strategies and models discussed in "hapters F and C.

-xsu?-' CHA8TER S2""AR7

This chapter covered the general features and principles of authoring tools and the metaphors and scripting

paradigms underlying their functionality. *ypermedia 8as distinguished as a fundamental principle that characteri9es

authoring tools y their aility to produce hypermedia learning environments such as computer-ased instruction

!"01% and We-ased instruction !W01%. T8o primary classes of authoring tools 8ere identified2 "@-A#-ased

authoring tools and We- ased authoring tools. The evolution of authoring tools 8as discussed from technological

and pedagogical perspectives, leading to the development of course management systems and learning content

management systems. + tale 8as provided listing the general features and associated instructional products of "@-

A#-ased authoring tools, We-ased authoring tools, and course management systems. The chapter also provided

a mar6et analysis of the leading authoring tools in these three categories. Bast, future implications of authoring

tools 8ere discussed in terms of !a% the potential of intelligent tutoring systems, !% learning o;ects technology,

and !c% the concept of learners as producers of hypermedia learning environments, for supporting the development

of more po8erful and fle7ile authoring systems.

* LEARNING ACTIBITIES

The 3Bs for the We sites referred to in the follo8ing activities are availale from the companion We site for

this oo62 http2//888.prenhall.com/daagh.

. Ro to the $tardust We site and The 0lac6out $yndrome We site. 1nteract 8ith these instructional

modules 8ith a classmate or on your o8n. @o you thin6 these modules are e7amples of "01: W01: or

perhaps "01 delivered over the We: 1f you need help determining ho8 to characteri9e these

instructional modules, revisit Tale .( and compare the instructional features of each module 8ith the

features and products listed in columns ( and 5 of the tale. +lso, e7amine 8hether each module

capitali9es on the inherent features of the We !see Tale C.( for a list of these features%. "ould either

$tardust or The 0lac6out $yndrome have een delivered on a "@-A# 8ithout losing any of its

instructional effectiveness:

1f the lin6s to these We sites are ro6en or no longer availale, go to the home page of The N+$AP ro;ect or

the home page of The #ystery $pot !see the companion We site for these 3Bs%
http://www.prenhall.com/dabbaghhttp://www.prenhall.com/dabbaghhttp://www.prenhall.com/dabbagh


22/23


23/23

"*+T

0ell, 0. !??%. 1nvestigate and decide learning environments2 $peciali9ing tas6 models for authoring tool design.

Nournal of the Bearning $ciences,)!%, CF-DF.

0lac6oard.com. !(DDD%. +out 0lac6oard. etrieved Nuly 5, (DD from 00.com.

"hapman, 0., >*all, 0. !(DD%. +uthoring tool strategies2 "hoosing tools that match your companyMs e-leaming initiative.

$unnyvale, "+2 randon-hall.com.

"hou, ". !(DD5%. 1nteractivity and interactive functions in We-ased learning systems2 + technical frame8or6 for

designers. 0ritish Nournal of ducational Technology, 5Q!5%,(CF-()?.

"lar6, . "., Byons, ". !???%. 3sing We-ased training 8isely. Training, 5C!)%,F-FC.

"raney, B. !??C%. We page authoring tools2 "omparison and trends. 1n @. . aitt 0. Neapes !ds.%, 3nline

1nformation ?C2 roceedings of the (Dth 1nternational Anline 1nformation #eeting, Bondon!pp. QQ)-QF(%. A7ford, 3&2

Bearned 1nformation. !1" @ocument eproduction $ervice Po. @QC)%

@aagh, P. *., 0annan-itland, 0., >$ilc, &. 4. !(DD%. edagogy and We-ased course authoring tools2 1ssues

and implications. 1n 0. &han !d.%, We-ased training, !pp. 5Q5-5FQ%. ngle8ood "liffs, PN2 ducational

Technology ulications.

@aagh, P. *., >$chmitt,-N. !??%. edesigning instruction through We-ased course authoring tools. ducational

#edia 1nternational, 5F!(%,DC-D.

@avidson, W. N. !??5%. $R#B authoring tools for technical communication. Technical "ommunication, QD!5%,QD5-QD?.

@un 0radstreet. !(DD5%. $ales and mar6eting solutions.etrieved +ugust 5D, (DD5, from http2//888.9apdata.com/

4iderio, N. !?%. + grand vision2 *yperte7t mimics the rainMs aility to access information Guic6ly and

intuitively y reference. 0yte,(:!D%, (5)-(QQ.

*all, 0. !(DD%. +uthoring tools (DD2 + uyer's guide to the est e-leaming content development applications.etrieved +ugust

(), (DD(, from http2//888.randon-hall.com *arasim, B. !???%. + frame8or6 for online learning2 The Virtual-3.

1 "omputer, 5(!?%QQ-Q?. *arris, . !(DD(%. -learning2 + consolidation update. T @ #aga9ine, FC!+%()-55.

*arrsch, #. !(DD5, Nuly/+ugust%. $$2 The ne7t 6iller app for education. The Technology $ource.

etrieved +ugust , (DD5, from http2//ts.mivu.org*ederg, N 0ro8n, "., >+rrighi, #. !??)%. 1nteractive

multimedia and We-ased learning2 $imilarities and differences. 1n 0. *. &han !d.%, We-ased instruction!pp. Q)-

F%. ngle8ood "liffs, PN2 ducational Technology ulications.

*ederg, N., > *arper, 0. !??%. Visual metaphors and authoring. etrieved #arch (?, ??, from

http2//888.immll.uo8.edu.au/-N*ederg/1T4A3#.html .

*odges, N. A. !?F%. @eveloping your o8n microcomputer course8are 8ith authoring tools.

$ocial ducation, Q?!%, F?-C(.

*untley, N. $., >+lessi, $. #. !?)%. Videodisc authoring tools2 valuating products and a process.

Aptical 1nformation $ystems,)!Q%, (F?-(.

&aso8it9, +. !??%. Tools for automating instructional design.$yracuse, PL2 1" "learinghouse on 1nformation and

Technology. !1" @ocument eproduction $ervice Po. @Q(D5DQ% &earsley, R., $hneiderman, 0. !??%.

ngagement theory2 + frame8or6 for technology-ased teaching and learning. ducational Technology, 5/!F%,(D-(5.

&eep, "., #cBaughlin, T. !??F%. The electronic layrinth2 The rhetoric of lin6 traversal.

etrieved Nanuary C, (DD, from http2//;efferson.village.virginia.edu/ela/hflDDQQ.html &o9el, &. !??)%. The

classes of authoring programs. media rofessional, D!)%,(-5Q, 5C-Q5. Bandon, 0. !(DDD%. "ourse management systems.

etrieved #ay (DDD from http2// 888.edutools.info/course/inde7.;sp
http://www.zapdata.com/http://www.brandon-hall.com/http://ts.mivu.org/http://www.immll.uow.edu.au/-JHedberg/ITFORUM.htmlhttp://www.immll.uow.edu.au/-JHedberg/ITFORUM.htmlhttp://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/elab/hfl0044.htmlhttp://www.edutools.info/course/index.jsphttp://www.zapdata.com/http://www.brandon-hall.com/http://ts.mivu.org/http://www.immll.uow.edu.au/-JHedberg/ITFORUM.htmlhttp://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/elab/hfl0044.htmlhttp://www.edutools.info/course/index.jsp

computer dan media

Documents