The strengths and weaknesses of our four authoring systems are described in terms of their power, ease of use, and productivity. Productivity aids for graphics and logic, tern plating functions, lesson testing, including menu and icon structures are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
LocatisC. and CarrV., Selecting Authoring Systems, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 12: 2, pp. 28–33, 1985.
2.
YoungJ. L., The Case for Using Authoring Systems to Develop Courseware, Educational Technology, 24: 10, pp. 26–28, 1984.
3.
AttalaE., Evaluation of Authoring Systems, Proceedings of the 29th ADCIS International Conference, Oakland, CA, pp. 201–206, 1987.
4.
PollackJ., Authoring Courseware: No Skills Necessary?, Educational Technology, 25: 11, pp. 44–48, 1985.
5.
GillinghamM.MurphyP.CresciK.KlevenowS.Sims-TuckerB.SladeD., and WizerD., An Evaluation of Computer Courseware Authoring Tools and Corresponding Assessment Instrument for Use by Instructors, Educational Technology, 26: 9, pp. 7–17, 1986.
6.
LocatisC.CarrV., and AlfredK., Using a Lesson-Element Keystroke Oriented Approach for Estimating Authoring Tool Efficiency, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 15: 1, pp. 23–28, 1988.
7.
MacKnightC. and BalagopalanS., An Evaluation Tool for Measuring Authoring System Performance, forthcoming, 1988.
8.
MacKnightC. and BalagopalanS., An Assessment of the Flexibility of Authoring Systems, forthcoming, 1988.
AvnerA.SmithS., and TenczarP., CBI Authoring Tools: Effects on Productivity and Quality, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 11: 3, pp. 85–89, 1984.
