‘Evaluating the suitability of current Authoring Tools for ... · authoring tools therefore an evaluation needs to be planned. Extensive research will be conducted into the suitability

‘Evaluating the suitability of current Authoring Tools for

developing e-learning Resources’

Ashley Hand

H00111819

August 2012

Computer Science

School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences

Dissertation submitted as part of the requirements for the

award of the degree of MSc in Information Technology

(Business)

MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 2

Declaration

I, Ashley Hand, confirm that this work submitted for assessment is my own and is expressed

in my own words. Any uses made within it of the works of other authors in any form (eg.

Ideas, expressions, figures, text, tables and programs) are properly acknowledged at any point

of their use. A list of references employed is included.

Signed: ..........................................

Date: ..........................................


Abstract

There are a number of tools available for structuring and presenting content on the World

Wide Web. This project investigated the suitability of current authoring tools as a way of

developing learning objects – initially for converting existing e-learning resources and

subsequently by creating new learning objects from scratch. The focus of this project has

been the evaluation of the suitability of the tools for the development and provision of

resources in an e-learning environment. Information was collected for the purpose of the

research through the means of Interviews and Surveys. The Interviews were conducted with 4

members of staff from the MACS department. The Surveys were administered online to the

students of the MACS department.

Upon completion of this project a framework has been created which can be used by

developers when selecting an authoring tool for developing an e-learning resource. A

developer can quickly identify the attributes and features of each tool from the framework. It

must also be an efficient and helpful method to a developer for choosing a suitable tool to

author an e-learning resource. The Framework is divided into two parts, a table which

summaries all the features and attributes of each tool in detail and secondly the more specific

decision trees. There are three separate decision trees which are distinguished in terms of the

developer’s level of programming experience. These follow a sequential flow and provide the

user with a recommendation of which tool to choose at the end of a series of decisions and

attributes. The framework was evaluated using respondents of the survey and Interviews.

Upon completion of this project a number of conclusions have been drawn and

recommendations for future research are included. We have seen a widespread deployment

and evolution of information technology within recent years especially in the area of Online

learning (e-learning). There has been a huge growth in Open educational resources and

Online courses therefore the demands for authoring tools is consistent. The findings of this

Dissertation outline these high demands and propose a method to choosing a tool when

developing e-learning resources.


Acknowledgements:

I would like to thank my supervisor Rodger Rist for his support and guidance throughout this

project and my year at Heriot Watt. Without the excellent guidance and feedback I received it

would have been difficult to complete this project successfully.

I would also like to thank the following members of staff for their contributions to my

project, Sandy Louchart, Lisa Scott and Santiago Chumbe. The responses and help I received

were greatly appreciated.

To all my classmates and friends whom I have met this year, thank you for your support

advice and hard work. This year would not have been the same without you all.

Finally I would like to thank my family and friends for their constant support. I would like to

thank my parents for giving me the opportunity to do my Masters degree, without their

constant support and advice this would not be possible.


Table of Contents

Declaration ............................................................................................................ 2

Abstract ................................................................................................................. 3

Acknowledgements: .............................................................................................. 4

Chapter 1: Introduction ..................................................................................... 8

1.1 Aims, Objectives and Project Description: .................................................. 8

1.2 Introduction: ................................................................................................. 9

Chapter 2: Literature Review: ........................................................................ 10

2.1 Authoring Tools: ........................................................................................ 10

2.2 E-Learning: ................................................................................................ 14

2.3 Learning styles and Needs: ........................................................................ 17

2.4 Usability-.................................................................................................... 20

2.5 Characteristics of a ‘Suitable’ Authoring Tool: ........................................ 22

2.6 Web content Accessibility guidelines and Authoring tools accessibility

guidelines: ........................................................................................................ 24

2.7 Other Important Standards which must be adhered to by Authoring tools

and e-Learning resources: ................................................................................ 29

2.8 The authoring tools: ................................................................................... 30

2.9 Literature Review Conclusion: .................................................................. 33

Chapter 3 – Research Requirements and Methods ....................................... 34

3.1 Requirements Analysis / Methodology ..................................................... 34

3.2 Discussion of Professional Legal and Ethical issues - .............................. 37

3.3 Risk Management Plan: ............................................................................. 39

Chapter 4 – Methods and Results ................................................................... 41

4.1 Methodology / Gathering of data:.............................................................. 41

4.2 Findings ...................................................................................................... 44

4.3 Staff / Subject Experts Interviews and Questionnaires: ............................ 52

4.4 Analysis of Results: ................................................................................... 56

Chapter 5: Development of the Framework................................................... 58

5.1 Definition of Requirements: ...................................................................... 58


5.2 Stages of Development: ............................................................................. 59

5.3 Beginners Framework: ............................................................................... 67

5.4 Intermediate Framework: ........................................................................... 68

5.5 Experienced Programmers Framework ..................................................... 69

5.8 Evaluation of the Framework .................................................................... 70

Chapter 6: Conclusions and Future Recommendations ............................... 72

6.1 Summary .................................................................................................... 72

6.2 Recommendations for further research and developments ....................... 73

References: ......................................................................................................... 75

Websites Accessed: .......................................................................................... 76

Bibliography: ..................................................................................................... 77

Appendices: ........................................................................................................ 78

Appendix A: Interview/ Survey Questions to ask members of staff. .............. 78

Appendix B: Survey for Students involved with the use of authoring tools and

the development of online resources. .............................................................. 80

Appendix C: Project Plan ................................................................................ 82


Table of Figures:

Figure 1: Model for learning Activity ................................................................. 16

Figure 2: Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle .................................................... 18

Figure 3: Resources to encourage a multiple approach to learning .................... 19

Figure 4: Authoring tools used for development ................................................ 44

Figure 5: Level of Programming Skills .............................................................. 45

Figure 6: Resources used when choosing tools .................................................. 47

Figure 7: Resource Accessibility ........................................................................ 48

Figure 8: Would you use your chosen tool again ............................................... 49

Figure 9: Perceptions of the Framework ............................................................. 50

Tables:

Table 1- Accessibility Guidelines ....................................................................... 25

Table 2: Authoring tools Accessibility Guidelines ............................................. 27

Table 3: Risk Management Matrix ..................................................................... 39

Table 4: Authoring tools - Features and Properties ............................................ 60

Table 5: Authoring tools - Features and Properties ............................................ 64


Chapter 1: Introduction

Topic Title: “Evaluating the suitability of current authoring tools for developing e- learning

resources”

1.1 Aims, Objectives and Project Description:

- To define authoring tools and research literature associated with these tools.

- Identify the various authoring tools available for developing e-learning resources and

investigate each tool in terms of suitability.

- Identify e-learning resources that have been developed to date and with what tools.

- Investigate the usability and design criteria for e-learning resources to ensure this

criterion is met during resource development.

- Investigate learning styles and learning needs of individuals to determine what

requirements should be taken into account when designing for learning.

- Define a criterion that outlines what a suitable authoring tool is.

- After reviewing all the relevant literature associated with the above points determine a

suitable, realistic and achievable plan and commence the second part of the

dissertation.

- The focus of this project is to evaluate the current tools to determine suitable

authoring tools therefore an evaluation needs to be planned. Extensive research will

be conducted into the suitability of the tools and also into what developers deem to be

suitable tools.

- Create a framework for evaluating the various authoring tools. This framework must

be able to be understood by the author when deciding on what tool to use. It must also

be of benefit to someone who is unsure about what tool to use providing a fast method

of evaluating and selecting a tool.


1.2 Introduction: This topic as outlined in the above abstract forms the basis of my Masters Dissertation. The

aim of this project is to investigate the current authoring tools available for the development

of learning resources and programs and to evaluate these tools. Upon completion I aim to

have developed a suitable framework for the evaluation of the various authoring tools. This

framework must be able to be used by designers and developers when selecting the

appropriate tool for authoring a learning object. In order to develop this resource extensive

research is required. The aim of this literature review is to collect data and review the

literature available that supports this topic. The body of this report will contain a review of a

number of different types of literature based around the following subjects: Authoring tools

and their definition and uses, the tools which are currently available for the authoring process,

e-learning and e-learning design including the principals of effective e-learning design. It will

also include a review of the literature associated with learner’s needs and the various learning

styles. Usability and evaluation literature is examined to determine the usability guidelines

for effective e-learning resources. The literature available regarding Accessibility guidelines

and other industry standards will also be reviewed, summarised and critically evaluated in the

proceeding report. This report will contain a drafted set of guidelines for suitable authoring

tools based on the findings in the literature that has been examined.

This report will also include a summary of the professional, legal and ethical issues which

may arise throughout this project and the procedure in place to ensure that these issues are

adhered to. The Requirements analysis and methodology for this project discusses the field

research conducted as part of the dissertation. It discusses the deliverables and how they are

achieved and what resources were required to achieve these. A brief discussion of risk factors

relating to the project is also included and the procedures which are put in place to mitigate

risk. On conclusion of the literature review the report will then document the research

conducted and the findings from the Interviews and Surveys. A framework to evaluate the

suitability of these tools is developed and evaluated. The Dissertation concludes with

recommendations for future research and Conclusions.


Chapter 2: Literature Review:

2.1 Authoring Tools:

There are a number of definitions available to define an authoring tool, some of which are

listed below:

Hetrick, T 2012 defines a course authoring tool as a program used for creating or authoring e-

learning courses. The courses are then delivered through a selected electronic system.

According to Ritter, S & Blessing, S 1998 an authoring tool is usually considered to be

responsible for the creation of all elements of the learning environment, including the student

model, domain knowledge, user interface, and the evaluation and reporting facilities.

The WC3 Initiative has defined Authoring tools as software services that people use to

produce Web pages and Web content.

With the widespread deployment and evolution of information technology and computing it

is no surprise that there is a huge shift towards educational content and courses being offered

online or with the aid of a computer. From the process of course creation to placing the

course online or to course delivery a tool is needed to author the course. Authoring tools are

used to create e-learning courses and also web content along with web pages and other

systems which are used on electronic devices such as computers and mobiles. The degree of

complexity associated with authoring tools varies depending on the task at hand and also the

tool which is being used. According to Wilde, R 2004 the development of high quality digital

content involves a combination of knowledge expertise, instructional design knowledge and

technical skills. By contrast however there are a number of inexpensive but effective

authoring tools available to develop effective online learning resources and systems. Wilde, R

2004 has divided these tools into different categories depending on their various uses:

1) Single Purpose Tools: designed for basic uses rather than a suite of varied tools.

2) Activity Creation Tools: designed to produce single small stand alone interactive activities

that can be incorporated into courses.

3) Course development and presentation tools: specifically designed for developing and

presenting courses online and training programs. They are typically organised around specific

concepts, lessons and modules.

4) General Presentation tools: designed for presentation of multimedia content with specific

but not exclusive uses in online education.


5) Testing and assessment tools: designed to produce tests quizzes and other types of

activities relating to assessment for online delivery.

Authoring tools have also been categorised into 3 different types:

- WYSIWYG editors – What you see is what you get editors. With this type of editor

you work entirely in an interface that resembles a desktop publishing program. These

programs are best suited for those with little experience who want a great site that is

not difficult to build.

- Media Rich authoring tools which allow web based content to be placed onto the web.

- Pure code based editors – with these tools users work directly with raw HTML editors

and decide the layout and organisation of the code. A user would require significant

technical skills for this type of authoring.

- Compound editor – this combines both WYSIWYG and Code based editors. Most

tasks are completed in the WYSIWYG editing mode but you can then switch from the

word processor-style editing window to a source code view to modify the page’s

underlying HTML.

It would be unusual to find a single authoring tool which will meet all the criteria required to

develop an e-learning system or resource on a single system. The authoring task is

multifaceted and therefore it is not likely that a single system will achieve the goal. However

Ritter and Blessing 1998 propose that learning environments should be considered to be

composed of several different components therefore authoring tools can be separated to be

directed at each component. This proposal is questionable, although I agree it would be

difficult to find a single authoring tool for a full system the aim of this investigation is to

evaluate the various tools and provide a means of demonstrating to developers the most

suitable tools that meet the majority of requirements of a task.

There are a number of content types that the authoring tools must be capable of creating in

order to develop a successful educational resource. According to a report written by

Blackhall, L for the College of Engineering and Computer Science in the Australian National

University the authoring tools must be capable of handling, storing and delivering content

types such as Audio, Video/Animation, Text, Equations, Images and References. They must

also be extensible and flexible to ensure new content types can be incorporated as they

become available.

Kuo, Y-H & Huang, Y-M (2009) discussing authoring types of content generation approach

quote Simon et al, (2005) who introduces three different authoring types as described below:


Multiple Authoring: this approach generates multiple versions of content to fit each

specific electronic device used by learner to access course content. Content generated

by this approach have better exchangeability among learning platforms as well as

higher management costs.

Single Authoring: this approach provides a single source code implementation of the

user interface that is valid for all devices. In addition it is a feasible way to generate

adaptable learning content but its functionalities and design usually depend on the

mark-up language.

Flexible Authoring: This approach freely combines the Multiple Authoring and Single

Authoring approaches to produce adaptable learning materials. Content creators can

create truly flexible materials which can be adapted to a variety of circumstances.

It is important to take these approaches into consideration when choosing an authoring tool. It

will depend on the content of the course that a developer wishes to produce and also the

degree of interoperability that is required among systems.

E-learning can be delivered through a variety of platforms such as the web, standalone

interfaces, portable devices eg, Smartphones and the iPad and also Learning management

systems (LMS). Descy, D 1998 discussed the benefits of delivering courses over the Web. He

identified that Web based instruction is easier to deliver as browsers are user friendly and

internationally recognised. Web based courses are easy to update by changing the template it

is based upon. This means the course materials will be up to date. It is easy to control access

to web based materials through the use of usernames and passwords. They are also not

platform specific and can be operated on a variety of different systems eg. Windows, UNIX

or Mac. Web based courses are flexible and open up new opportunities for learners as they

are not location or time specific. For the purpose of this project it will be evaluating the tools

which create e-learning resources therefore the above benefits such as the interoperability and

ease of update should be reaped by developers.

He speaks about the virtual plethora of authoring tools which have been and are still being

developed for designing and placing courses online. Some of these tools require extensive

knowledge and expertise for their use but others are simply based on templates. Templates

are predesigned but customizable series of blanks to fill in that will display the information in

a predetermined pattern. Some of the tools which will be examined later in the report offer

templates to its designers and do not require a large amount of expertise for their use eg.

Dreamweaver whereas other tools such as C++ editors require expertise and knowledge. This


level of previous knowledge and experience becomes a large deciding factor when selecting

an authoring tool. To summarise, the essential components of authoring systems are:

Facilities that allow developers to create a course in an attractive way.

Support for linking the content together, thus creating a course.

Support for developers to design questions in the best suitable manner for the course.

Response analysis systems that validate student’s answers and provide useful

feedback.

Ability to use materials on the Internet.


2.2 E-Learning: For the purpose of this project it is necessary to investigate and discuss e-learning and the

relevant literature related to it. Authoring tools are used to develop e-learning systems

however there are a number of things a developer must be familiar with regarding e-learning

before selecting the correct tool.

Definitions:

E-Learning has been defined as ‘learning facilitated and supported through the use of

information and communications technology (ICTS, ILTS)’ – JISC

Learning technology is defined as the application of technology for the enhancement of

learning, teaching and assessment. Technology includes computer based multimedia

materials and the use of networks and communications systems to support learning. - Rist, R

Hewer, S. (1996).

E-Learning as an instructional content or learning experience delivered or enabled by

electronic technology is placed at the crossroad between information and communication

technology and education. - (Granic, A 2008)

E-Learning may involve the use of a variety of technologies such as computers, software

including assistive software, interactive whiteboards, Virtual learning environments and

learning activity management systems. According to JISC e-learning can cover a variety of

activities from supporting learning to blended learning to learning which is delivered entirely

online or with the use of computers. With the continual evolution of technology, we are

increasingly moving towards a digital generation whose capabilities regarding technology are

much greater than previous generations. Technology is a huge part of society and people lives

with majority of people interacting daily with computers either for social networking, e-

commerce, collaborative websites such as wikis, virtual reality simulations and other uses.

Just as technology has been advancing so has learning and learning activities. A learning

activity as defined by Beetham, H (2007) is an entity that is meaningful to the learner, given

his or her current level of expertise. E-Learning has moved through a number of phases from

computer based management to Learning Management Systems and Courseware

Management Systems. It now encompasses broader scope of learning applications and

activities. JISC have provided a list of factors which are important to note in the evolving e-

learning landscape some of which I have summarized below:


- Ongoing development in dedicated e-learning software applications, commonly

known as learning management systems (LMS) has evolved where many of the early

LMS vendors now offer their LMS as one application within a suite of products.

- -E-learning is now facilitated by an increasing range of specialised e-learning

applications within the wider infrastructure and is not necessarily delivered by LMS’s.

- Portals are widely adopted in e-learning.

- ‘M-learning’, or mobile learning, has become established as a significant area of

research and development. However, it also brings with it a new set of constraints that

impact the design of e-learning content and applications.

- Preservation and “future proofing” of e-learning content is not just an archival issue

but also involves longer term value on investment. Just as content is being created in

larger volumes than before it is also being lost through format obsolescence and poor

information management practices. There needs to be consideration given toward

backward compatibility and access to content in older or ageing formats.

- Performance support – particularly within the workplace – is shaping the design and

delivery of e-learning and training. Performance support takes the form of a range of

tools, including online Help, virtual reference, workflow facilitation, and productivity

software, etc.

These factors outline some of the evolving factors of e-learning and the changes that have

been made to date. It is a platform which is constantly evolving therefore the tools must also

be updated to meet the changing needs. When designing for e-learning it is important to

implement effective practice. As with all traditional learning, e-learning must be planned.

Ardito, C (2006) describe one of the main goals of any learning system is to avoid any

distraction, to keep all the content fresh in the learners minds as they accommodate new and

foreign concepts. In order to select the most appropriate tool the developer must be aware of

what functions it needs the authoring tool to perform. Bringing about effective learning is a

complex process which involves identifying objectives and recognising the needs of the

learner, selecting the most suitable approach and then striking an appropriate balance

between e-learning and other modes of delivery. JISC has defined this process as ‘designing

for learning’. Peter Findlay from the JISC Learning and Teaching committee states that ‘the

focus is on understanding learning activity, moving beyond an understanding of e-learning as

simply providing content and ‘learning objects’ to thinking about technology as central to

contemporary teaching and learning processes, and seeing e-learning as part of a range of


resources available to the professional practitioner’. This statement shows that without e-

learning technology has now become a large part of the educational process and is

responsible for the development and implementation of it.

When planning a learning activity and its design there are three essential elements at the heart

of the design: Learners, The Learning Environment and the Intended outcomes. Beetham, H

2007 has developed a model for learning activity as shown below:

Figure 1: Model for learning Activity

The Interactions between these factors will be dynamic and may influence decisions in an

unequal way. The decisions that underpin designing for learning in any particular context and

in any given pedagogical approach will involve a selection from both new and established

practices. These practices are based on the learners needs, the nature of the environment and

the intended outcomes as the developers seek to coordinate effective learning by seeking the

most appropriate authoring tools. (JISC handout) This effectively shows the great role the

authoring tool plays in not only developing e-learning resources but delivering them also.

Without a suitable tool the learning resources cannot be developed effectively therefore the

learning potential of all learners is minimised.

Learning

Environment: Tools, resources

artefacts.

Affordances of

the physical and

virtual

environment for

learning.

Learning

Outcomes: New knowledge

skills and

abilities.

Evidence of the

learning process.

Specific interaction of learner(s) with other

people, using specific tools and resources,

oriented towards specific outcomes

Learning Activity

Others Other people involved and the specific role they play in the interaction eg. support, mediate, challenge, guide.

Identities: preferences, needs, motivations. Competences: skills, knowledge, abilities

Roles: approaches and modes of participating

Learners


2.3 Learning styles and Needs: Learners need flexible, self-paced learning that takes into account their individual

characteristics and learning styles. Learning platforms must be adaptable to meet the various

learning styles and needs and therefore the authoring tools must support this flexibility.

There are various styles of learning which an individual learner could adopt.

Honey and Mumford 1982 identified four learning styles based on Kolb’s experiential

learning theory:

Activists - ‘here and now’, learners are gregarious, they seek a challenge and an

immediate experience, they are open minded and get easily bored with

implementation.

Reflectors – ‘stand back’ and gather data, they ponder and analyse and delay reaching

conclusions, these types of learners listen before speaking.

Theorists – think things through in logical steps, assimilate disparate facts into

coherent theories, they are rationally objective and reject subjectivity and flippancy.

Pragmatists – seek and try out new ideas, they are practical and down-to earth. These

types of learners enjoy problem solving and make decisions quickly. They get bored

with long discussions. (thelearningstyles.com)

By categorising learners into learner styles it can provide the learner with suitable materials

thus possible enhancing their overall potential for learning. The styles can also provide

direction for developers into the type of materials the tools should be able to author.

E-learning resources will vary depending on the style of learning of the learner and also the

audience the author is targeting. A simple resource which disseminates information but does

not involve any practical aspects such as CAA or problem solving may be suited to certain

learning styles and needs and would be easier to develop however it may not be as effective.

Experiential learning encourages learners to apply the knowledge they have acquired and

developed through using their experiences and evidence based learning. Kolb developed an

experiential learning cycle which has 4 steps as shown below:


Figure 2: Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle

When developing an e-learning resource the developer must relate to models such as the

above and take into consideration that learning occurs in different ways depending on the

individual. Deeper learning takes place when individuals process the knowledge and add their

own experience and information Maier P, Warren A 2000. In the context of this project the

author can allow for greater learning if the resource encourages critical thinking, gives good

feedback, allows the student to undertake some method of assessment and also to take

responsibility for their own learning.

Maier. P and Warren. A 2000 developed a diagram which incorporates the various learning

styles such as structured learning, research learning and experiential learning. They have

stated the ability to incorporate both structured and unstructured knowledge domains makes

resource bases a very rich learning environment for a wide variety of learners. It also makes

the shelf life of a system a lot longer. When the structured environment of a resource

becomes exhausted the user can then move to a more research based style of learning. An

author of an e-learning resource must ensure to include assignments, exercises and quizzes

that allow students to progress and also receive feedback. By developing a resource similar to

this that addresses many needs this can then also be updated as it is used and developed. It

begins with primary resources and be developed further at a later stage.

Concrete experence

(practice, trail and error)

Reflective observation (self

assement , seeing results)

Abstract conceptualization (making sense of

what youve experienced)

Active experimentation


Figure 3: Resources to encourage a multiple approach to learning

Structured

Resources

Tutorials

Exercises

Quizzes

Guides

Experience- Based Resources Case-based Problem-based Evidence- based Role plays Field work Practicals Simulation

Primary Resources Text Video Sound Images

Structured learning

Experiential Learning

Research Learning


2.4 Usability- The ISO 9241 standards define usability as “The extent to which a product can be used by

specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction in a

specified context of use”

When considering the evaluation of e-learning its usability must first be considered. Ardito, C

et al (2006) states that ensuring usability and accessibility of the largest number of users

should be one of the main goals of e-learning application developers, as well as a prerequisite

that should allow users to profitably exploit such applications. Applications must have a high

degree of usability in order to be a successful e-learning resource. If the interface is too slow

or difficult to use or if the user has to spend more time learning to use the interface than they

do on the resource than this is ineffective and will lead to frustration. Educational software is

used to support learning. One of the major challenges which face designers is to develop

software tools which are able to engage novice learners and to support their learning even at a

distance. Ardito, C et al (2006) also state that Usability features should not only allow people

to efficiently manipulate the interactive software, but should also be appropriate for the

intended learning task. Technology should not become a barrier to learning; it should support

the learning and become the teacher in some aspects of the learning. Granic, A (2008)

outlines the main issues regarding universal design relating to e-learning systems which

include:

o Learner centred design paradigm: the HCI practices must be followed in order to

ensure learnability.

o Context of use approach: in order to match user’s needs in the natural working

environment, e-learning system should evaluate whether the user can use it with

acceptable levels of usability and accessibility for the task s/he needs to do, in the

local environment in which these tasks take place, using the available technologies.

o Individualized approach: the consideration of user’s different individual

characteristics relevant to learning styles and preferences fosters individualization and

end-user acceptability.

o Pedagogical framework: the support of pedagogical approaches that blend new and

old ways of learning in order to maximise the learning potential of technology.

o Guideline framework: the employment of usability and accessibility guidelines for e-

learning quality assessment.


There are a number of general guidelines that have been written by many researchers into

usability. It is difficult to apply a small set of guidelines to a large number of systems. Some

of the most common guidelines applicable to the majority of systems are listed below, Ardito,

C (2006) references Nielsen and Shneiderman’s guidelines as follows:

- Strive for consistency

- Minimise user memory load

- Provide informative feedback and clearly marked exists

- Provide shortcuts, prevent errors, provide help and documentation

- Provide ease of use and ease of the learning system

- Achieve aesthetic appeal of the interface,

- Provide controls for parallel and group communication

Ardito, C (2006) also quote the checklist of Ravden and Johnson that emphasises visual

clarity , consistency, appropriate functionalities, flexibility and control, error prevention and

correction, user guidance and support.

Effective e-learning systems should include sophisticated and advanced functions, yet their

interface should hide their complexity, providing an easy and flexible interaction suited to

each student’s interest. In particular, personalization and integration of learning paths and

Communication media should be provided and all content should comply with usability

guidelines.


2.5 Characteristics of a ‘Suitable’ Authoring Tool: As the abstract outlines one of the main focuses of this research is to determine what features

a suitable authoring tool incorporates. As a result of my research into authoring tools, e-

learning, designing for effective e-learning, individuals needs and learning styles and also

usability and evaluation into e-learning I have comprised the below set of guidelines which

details the elements that a suitable authoring tool should comprise. It is not realistic that any

tool will contain all of the elements listed below however a good tool will contain the

majority or similar properties to these elements.

- Be able to fully utilize content resources, use both physical and digital contents

simultaneously. The advantages of physical contents include easy thinking and

comfortable reading whereas digital content has advantages such as fast searching,

easy sharing, supporting interesting multimedia and high interactivity. (Wang, T and

Chang,F 2007)

- Shareability and reusability of learning content allowing for cost saving in terms of

building e-learning materials.

- Adhere to all WCAG and SCORM guidelines to enable interoperability among

systems eg. Learning content and learning management systems. It should help

support organisation wide principles and governing principles.

Papastergiou, M (2006) outlines that elements of the constructivist educational model

should be implemented. Constructivism emphasizes the active and personal

construction of knowledge by the student through his or her experiences and social

interaction with the learning environment. These principles place importance on,

negotiation, student control over their on learning, authenticity, purposeful and

contextual learning, problem solving, collaborative learning, knowledge construction

and validation through action and discourse and also the development of

metacognitive skills (Heinecke et al 2001).

- Endeavour to create content that make learning compelling, engaging and relevant to

the target audience needs.

- Have the functionality to support individual learner profiles.

- A technical architecture that can link to existing systems and be accessed efficiently.

- Provide robust support for users. This could take the form of a user guide, online

forums, online assistance or a helpline where questions can be addressed.


- Allow content to be update and changed even after the system has been used and is

published. The tool could also be used for editing existing resources.

- Incorporate elements of real time applications eg. Instant chat or discussion boards.

- Ensure the platform supports all types of applications and media such as Audio,

Video, Text, Images and Equations.

- Hold a repository of reusable templates for future design and projects.

- Allow for interactivity and built in assessment or allow computer aided assessment

developed by another tool to be included in any systems developed.

- Ensure the course will be able to be delivered by CD-Rom if necessary.

- Support delivery on a PDA or Mobile phone. – (at present not many systems

implement this but if a develop was developing a new tool for creating e-learning

resources it would be beneficial if the resulting resource could be supported on these

devices).

- Ease of use and Functionality – The tool must be easy to use by developers with little

experience unless specified otherwise. It must perform all the basic functionalities in

order to be suitable for the development of any e-learning resource, even the most

basic of them.

- Motivate users, communicating a continuous sensation of challenge (Ardito, C et al,

2006)

- Supportiveness for communication, personalization and access for the users.

- Enables assessment to be created with the authoring tool or be incorporated into the

system from another platform.

- Ensure all design principles can be met such as, adequate use of white space, loosely

structured navigation, good quality audio and visual files, zoom tool available to

enlarge font or images for certain users etc.


2.6 Web content Accessibility guidelines and Authoring tools accessibility

guidelines: No single authoring tool meets all requirements and guidelines that fully support the

production of accessible websites and e-learning resources. The Web Content Accessibility

Guidelines (WCAG) explain how to make Web content more accessible to people with

disabilities. Web ‘content’’ generally refers to the information on a web page or Web

application, including text, images, forms and sounds. These guidelines which for the purpose

of this report I will refer to as WCAG were developed primarily for web content developers,

web authoring tool developers, web accessibility evaluation tool developers and others who

may need a technical standard for Web accessibility. Web accessibility depends not only on

accessible content but also on accessible Web browsers and other user agents. Authoring

tools also have an important role in Web accessibility. A specific set of guidelines have been

devised for authoring tools, I will examine these guidelines in more detail later in the

text.WC3 has organised the guidelines into four principals which lay the foundation

necessary for anyone to access and use web content. The four principals set out by WC3 &

Cooper, M et al. (2008) are listed below:

1) Perceivable -Information and content must be presented to users in a way that they

can perceive ie. The information must be visible to their senses.

2) Operable- Users must be able to operate the interface without difficulty.

3) Understandable- The user must be able to understand the information and understand

how to operate it.

4) Robust- Content must be robust enough that it can be usable by a wide variety of user

agents and assistive technologies. As technologies develop and advance the content

must remain accessible by the user.

A number of guidelines and success criteria fall under each of these four headings. Without

all four of the above principals it will be impossible for a user with a disability to use the

content appropriately. The table below outlines the accessibility guidelines which fall under

each heading.


Table 1- Accessibility Guidelines

Principle 1: Perceivable - Information and user interface components must be presentable to users in ways they can

perceive.

Guideline Description

1.1 Text Alternatives Provide text alternatives for any non-text content so that it can be changed into other forms people need, such as

large print, Braille, speech, symbols or simpler language.

1.2 Time-based Media

Provide alternatives for time-based media such as audio video and captions and sign language.

1.3 Adaptable

Create content that can be presented in different ways (for example simpler layout) without losing information

or structure.

1.4 Distinguishable

Make it easier for users to see and hear content including separating foreground from background.

Ensure text can be resized. Ensure the visual presentation of text and images has a contrast of at least 4:5:1.

Ensure a mechanism is inserted to allow audio to be paused or stopped.

Principle 2: Operable - User interface components and navigation must be operable.

2.1 Key board accessible Make all functionality available from a keyboard without requiring specific timings for individual keystrokes.

2.2 Enough Time Provide users enough time to read and use content.

Ensure users can adjust, extend or turn off any time limits.

2.3 Seizures Do not design content in a way that is known to cause seizures. Ensure content does not contain anything that

flashes more than three times in any one second period, or the flash is below the general flash and red flash

thresholds.

2.4 Navigable Provide ways to help users navigate to find content and determine where they are. Use clear headings and links

to link content.

http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#webpagedef

http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#flash-def

http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#general-thresholddef

http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#general-thresholddef


Principle 3: Understandable - Information and the operation of user interface must be understandable.

3.1 Readable Make text content readable and understandable.

3.2 Predictable Make Web pages appear and operate in predictable ways.

Ensure navigation and Identification is consistent.

3.3 Input Assistance Help users avoid and correct mistakes. If an input error is automatically detected, the item that is in error is

identified and the error is described to the user in text.

Principle 4: Robust - Content must be robust enough that it can be interpreted reliably by a wide variety of user

agents, including assistive technologies

4.1 Compatible

Maximize compatibility with current and future user agents, including assistive technologies.

*This table has been taken and adapted from the materials available at (http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/)

Authoring tools Accessibility Guidelines: (ATAG)

As previously defined Authoring tools are software and services that people use to produce Web pages and Web content including e-learning

content. These guidelines have been devised by WC3 to show developers how to use authoring tools to design content that is accessible and

conform to standards. It also explains how to make the tools accessible so that people with disabilities can use them. These guidelines are split

into two parts A and B. Part A is concerned with making the tool user interface accessible and part B supports the production of accessible

content. The table below and its content which is adapted from the information available on the W3C accessibility site outlines the principles

involved in ensuring authoring tools are accessible for all users.


Table 2: Authoring tools Accessibility Guidelines

Principle A.1: Authoring tool user interfaces must follow applicable accessibility guidelines


A 1.1 (For the authoring tool user interface) Ensure that web-based functionality is accessible

A.1.2 (For the authoring tool user interface) Ensure that non-web-based functionality is accessible

Principle A.2: Editing-views must be perceivable

A.2.1 (For the authoring tool user interface) Make alternative content available to authors.

A.2.2 (For the authoring tool user interface) Editing-view presentation can be programmatically determined

Principle A.3: Editing-views must be operable

A.3.1 (For the authoring tool user interface) Provide keyboard access to authoring features.

A.3.2 (For the authoring tool user interface) Provide authors with enough time

A.3.3 (For the authoring tool user interface) Help authors avoid flashing that could cause seizures

A.3.4 (For the authoring tool user interface) Enhance navigation and editing via content structure

A.3.5 (For the authoring tool user interface) Provide text search of the content.

A.3.6 (For the authoring tool user interface) Manage preference settings.

A.3.7 (For the authoring tool user interface) Ensure that previews are as accessible as existing user agents.

Principal A.4: Editing-views must be understandable

A.4.1 (For the authoring tool user interface) Help authors avoid and correct mistakes

A.4.2 (For the authoring tool user interface) Document the user interface including all accessibility features

Principle B.1: Fully automatic processes must produce accessible content



B.1.1 Ensure automatically specified content is accessible.

B.1.2 Ensure accessibility information is preserved

Principal B.2: Authors must be supported in producing accessible content

B.2.1 Ensure accessible content production is possible.

B.2.2 Guide authors to produce accessible content.

B.2.3 Assist authors with managing alternative content for non-text content.

B.2.4 Assist authors with accessible templates.

B.2.5 Assist authors with accessible pre-authored content

Principle B.3: Authors must be supported in improving the accessibility of existing content

B.3.1 Assist authors in checking for accessibility problems.

B.3.2 Assist authors in repairing accessibility problems.

Principle B.4: Authoring tools must promote and integrate their accessibility features

B.4.1 Ensure the availability of features that support the production of accessible content.

B.4.2 Ensure that documentation promotes the production of accessible content.

*The above table is adapted from the materials available at (http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/) and edited by WC3 & Spellman, J et al. (2011)


2.7 Other Important Standards which must be adhered to by Authoring

tools and e-Learning resources: SCORM –Sharable Content Reference Model – This is a collection of standards and

specifications for web based e-learning. It is the industry recognised standard for e-learning

interoperability. It enables learning objects based on Reusability, Durability, Interoperability

and Accessibility. This web-based reference model defines how learning object components,

data models, and protocols interrelate. It abstracts learning object runtime constraints and

defines a common interface and data schema for reusable content, making SCORM-

conformant learning objects shareable across any learning management system that supports

the same model. These guidelines are a specification of the Advanced Distributed Learning

(ADL) Initiative. Wang, T and Chang, F (2007) explain how SCORM has three parts: the

content aggregation model (CAM), the run time environment (RTE) for the protocol of

courseware running and the sequencing and navigation model (SN) for the learning status

tracking, sequencing rules and the application program interfaces. The first two parts are

responsible for learning objects to support adaptive instruction and the last part serves the

dynamic presentation of learning content based on learner needs. The model helps to save

costs by being reusable and shareable.

The CAM contains the content model, the metadata, and the content packaging. The content

model represents different components for learning experiences. The metadata represents a

form of labelling for each learning resource and provides an easy way for learning content

identifying and searching. Content packaging provides a standard way to exchange learning

content between tools and different systems. The RTE can be used to establish a standard

protocol for the learning content to communicate with the back end LMS. The SN is defined

to provide a standard way to specify the navigation of course content browsing and the

behaviour of the individual learner. Some of the sequencing can be applied to the delivery of

the course and also allow for updating the learning activity status of each individual learner.


2.8 The authoring tools: There are an abundance of tools available for creating content and e-learning resources.

These tools are widely used on a daily basis by all types of developers. Certain tools require

different degrees of experience with developing resources and require different levels of

interactivity. Each tool varies in complexity and capabilities. A number of the most common

authoring tools are outlined below with the functionalities. This is a brief outline of some of

the tools; A more in dept investigation is carried out in the following chapters. Investigation

is carried out regarding the interoperability of authoring tools and what authoring tools

complement each other throughout the design process.

Learning Management Systems:

A LMS is a software application used for the administration, documentation and reporting of

online and e-learning programs. They can also be known as Virtual Learning Environments.

The LMS provides an instructor with a way to create and deliver content, monitor student

participation, and assess student performance. A learning management system may also

provide students with the ability to use interactive features such as discussion boards, instant

chat, video conferencing, and discussion forums. LMS are not classified as typical authoring

tools but some systems have authoring capabilities built in. These LMS’s allow learners to

have flexible self-paced learning that takes into account their individual characteristics and

learning styles. Example of LMS and VLE’s are listed below:

Moodle: This is a popular LMS which can be used on the web. It is provided freely as Open

Source software. This tool supports a diversity of content types including audio, video, text,

equations and Images. It is also capable of supporting interactive media such as quizzes and

questionnaires. Many institutions use it as their platform to conduct fully online courses,

while some use it simply as an extra to face-to-face courses (known as blended

learning).(www.moodle.org) This site provides support for its users in terms of

documentation, user guides, forums and also commercial support through the use of various

companies. Moodle has advantages that it is open source and highly extensible however it is

also exposed to a large amount of bugs. Moodle has an inability to export content in a format

that is suitable for other LMS or to print in digital formats. (Blackhall, L)


Blackboard: Much like Moodle Blackboard is a web based LMS which is used by

educational institutes to provide an online learning platform for staff and students alike.

This tool allows resources to be added online in a variety of mixed content such as

multimedia, PowerPoint, documents, videos, text, images, sounds and animations. It also

supports content such as games as quizzes much like Moodle. Virtual Classroom tools, Group

tools and Simulations can also be made available by this system. This tool is not free and can

be quite costly depending on the amount of capabilities a user needs it to perform.

WebCT is an extension of the blackboard system and offers the same capabilities. Each

educational institute which use this VLE customize the interface to make it personal to their

organisation. Eg Heriot Watt uses Vision which is based on the blackboard system platform

and The University of Edinburg use WebCT and EASE which is also similar. Blackboard

supports mobile devices and can be used on these hand held device.

Questionmark- is an authoring manager which allows a user to author questions, organize

them into assessments and store and edit them within local or remote databases repositories.

This application permits feedback and the creation of assessments. It is available in many

languages and also templates can be edited using this application. One limitation of this type

of system is it cannot be integrated onto moodle or blackboard unless using the Questionmark

Live application which is slightly more advanced.

Editors: eg. XML, Adobe C++, HTML, Java

E-learning resources can be designed using complex editors which are aimed at experienced

authors. There are a number of editors available for writing code including plain text editors

such as notepad. This information can then be translated using a web browser and displayed

online. Notepad ++ is a HTML editor used to write code for designing websites or learning

resources to be used online. These editors combined with programming tools such as Java

and PHP and C++ allow the content to become dynamic and interactive. A greater discussion

of these tools and how they work together will be provided.

WYSIWYG: What You See Is What You Get tools are tools which are suitable for more

novice designers. These types of systems allow the user to view something very similar to

what the end result will be on the resource that is being created. The results will be what will

appear on the web browser. These types of editors are good for developers who do not have a


lot of experience or knowledge in the area of programming or web development as they are

easy to navigate through and also help is available in the form of tutorials and manuals to

shoe users how to use them.

Dreamweaver,

Adobe Dreamweaver CS5.5 is a web authoring and editing software that provides both visual

and code-level capabilities for creating standards-based websites and designs for the desktop,

Smartphones, tablets, and other devices. This programme can be used to author e-learning

resources and present them on the web and other platforms. It can be used in a variety of

languages and offers a range of authoring features supporting all the usual content such as

text, audio, video, file transfer and templates. This program offers a range of templates which

is beneficial for users who are inexperienced with HTML and CSS.

FrontPage,

FrontPage is also a WYSIWYG editor which is designed to hide the details of each pages

HTML code from the user making it easier to create web pages and sites that will appear the

way they will in the browser. It works similarly to Dreamweaver in that it users a split view

option to allow the user view the code in Code View and preview the design. This application

also supports novice users through the provision of templates allowing the user to select a

code dynamic web template and apply it to the design. This tool also supports Java and

Active X along with push technology. One disadvantage is that some features of FrontPage

will only work with Internet Explorer.

A number of other tools are available which are similar to the above, used for authoring e-

learning resources such as, Authorware, Toolbook, Articulate, Coursebuilder and Google

Sites. These tools will be examined in more detail in the next section of the report.


2.9 Literature Review Conclusion: To conclude, the above is a comprehensive review of the literature associated with my topic

area for the purpose of this MSc Dissertation. The review was divided into various topic areas

each with their own significance to this topic. In order to fulfil my aims and identify the

suitable authoring tools and establish a mechanism for evaluating these tools it was

imperative to be aware of the different types of tools and also the different environments

which these tools may be operated in. An authoring tool is usually considered to be

responsible for the creation of all elements of the learning environment, therefore it is

essential that I am aware of these elements including the learners, their needs, the various

learning styles and also the environments in which they choose to learn. E-learning design

and development today relies more on technological tools than ever before. Often times the

authors of these learning resources do not have highly technical backgrounds therefore

support is essential in order to ensure resources developed are sophisticated and do not lose

their educational value. The research above has paved a path for the remainder of this

dissertation project; it has enabled me to get a greater and deeper understanding into the

complex task that developing learning resources using authoring tools is. This paper does not

answer questions about authoring tools and the varying platforms which exist today such as

mobile, PDA’s and IPad. The areas of research which need further exploration such as the

authoring tools and there abundance of properties are explained later in the document. The

plan which is included as Appendix 3.outlines the schedule that I have followed in order to

successfully achieve my aims and objects and create the effective framework for evaluating

the various authoring tools.


Chapter 3 – Research Requirements and Methods

3.1 Requirements Analysis / Methodology

The Nature of this project is not highly technical; therefore there are not a large number of

technical requirements. However there are still a number of requirements which are necessary

for the collection of information, in order to evaluate the authoring tools and develop the

framework. The literature review as above will form the basis of the theoretical research

associated with this project. It was necessary to develop this further and conduct more

research on the relating topics. This was conducted through field research and also theoretical

academic papers.

The main deliverable of this Dissertation will be to develop the framework as outlined above.

There are a number of requirements which must be fulfilled in order to do this, these are

outlined below:

1) Investigate what properties developers want authoring tools to contain. It is essential

to find out what exactly a developer wants from the tool and what they would deem a

suitable authoring tool to be.

2) What do users of authoring tools think about the current authoring tools and their

usability and functionality?

3) It is essential to know all the functions which each individual tool offers in order to

evaluate them.

4) Create an effective way of portraying the framework either through use of tables or a

structure which will be suitable to display information and be aesthetically pleasing to

the user.

In order to get the answers to and implement the steps above there are a number of

methodologies which I planned to carry out in preparation for the writing of my Dissertation.

Firstly I aimed to do several interviews with members of staff in the Computer Science

Department at Heriot Watt. The staff who are involved with developing resources and in

particular e-learning were contacted for these interviews. The following staff were contacted:

Lisa Scott, Sandy Louchart, Roger Rist, Santiago Chumbe, Helen Hastie and Judy Robertson.

The above staff are all part of the Computer Science department and their insight and

information was essential for this project. Also a number of staff from my previous university

in Dublin (DCU) were contacted to get their insight into my topic. A similar process was

conducted with interviews and the online survey method for them to complete at their


convenience. The human resource plays a huge role in this project as it is required for both

the development and evaluation of the framework. The information which was collected

during these interviews was related to the first requirement above. These interviews were

comprised of questions about the current tools that these staff members use when creating

online resources or e-learning resources. This time was used to find out their opinions on the

tools that are available today and the positives and negatives associated with each tool. It was

also asked what they think a suitable authoring tool should contain by giving them a list of

possible elements which it could contain and then asking them to simply select the ones they

feel are essential. This information allowed me to develop strong criteria for suitable tools

and also evaluate the tools from the perspective of a developer as well as a user. I contacted

the various members of staff to ask if they would be available to assist me in collecting data

for my project and also to arrange the interviews or online surveys which were conducted.

Secondly a survey/questionnaire of students within the MACS school that have previous

experience with using some of these authoring tools was conducted. The survey was designed

and created using survey monkey online and then distributed to the students through the

medium of email. It was aimed to collect information about their own personal experience

using the tools and particularly around the area of support and how they learnt to use it. The

responses of these students were highly valuable as they contributed to the makings of the

framework usable by both staff and students. As this area is specialised it is important that the

students from the MACS school responded to my survey as only an individual with

experience and knowledge in this field could provide this information. I also contacted a

number of students who I previously completed my undergraduate degree with. These

individuals are undertaking a masters in E-Commerce therefore they understood this topic

and could contribute to the survey; I contacted these individuals through the use of email and

also social networking such as Facebook.

In response to the third requirement I familiarised myself with the various authoring tools.

Each tool was investigated in detail and some tasks were performed with each tool to ensure I

was fully aware of the functionalities they could perform. It was essential to fully understand

each tool in order to make a valid judgement and evaluation of each tool.

When all the information as above along with the literature review and further investigation

which was required these resources were then used to develop the framework for evaluating

the suitability of these tools. Prior to the development an evaluation of the tools was

conducted from my perspective as well as that of a developer/user. This information formed


the basis for the information which is displayed on the framework. To fulfil the fourth

requirement a suitable structure was designed along with tables to display the framework. It

was decided to use the Smart Art feature on Microsoft to develop the decision trees for the

framework.

After the framework was developed it was necessary to evaluate it to ensure it is effective and

meets the aims and objectives it set out to meet. In order to evaluate the framework members

of staff who develop learning resources and use authoring tools on a daily basis were asked to

give their opinions on the framework and its suitability for selecting an authoring tool along

with the students who responded to the initial surveys. An evaluative criterion was developed

and they were then asked to assess the framework against this criterion in order to get

constructive feedback. The framework was also tested with the students to see if they would

find this a useful tool and they were asked if they would use when they were selecting tools

for authoring resources. The feedback received was used to make amendments where

necessary to improve the framework.


3.2 Discussion of Professional Legal and Ethical issues - As with all projects it is highly important to research and discuss the Professional, Legal and

Ethical issues which relate to the project and topic at hand. Heriot Watt University has an

established set of guidelines and principles which must be adhered to and which act as an

outline for ethical approval of a project.

The University states that:

No field of human activity can be considered exempt from ethical concerns. Increased

accountability means that all student projects are open to public scrutiny and must be

seen to be subject to the highest ethical standards.

Projects should conform to generally accepted moral and scientific principles. There

are:

1. Obligations to society: - for example, conforming to responsible, moral and legal

practice; maintenance of high scientific standards and impartial assessment and

dissemination of findings.

2. Obligations to colleagues: - the maintenance of standards and appropriate professional

behaviour with methods, procedures and findings open to review.

o Breaches of these principles include areas of research misconduct such as

fabrication, falsification and plagiarism.

o The well-being of all involved in research is of central concern in ethical

considerations. All staff are therefore obliged to comply with health and safety

guidelines and to carry out a risk assessment of the research whatever its

nature (for example, laboratory work, field work, testing of subjects).

For the purpose of this Dissertation it is imperative to meet these standards as set out above.

This project doesn’t not include a large amount of sensitive data or confidential information

therefore ethics and legal issues are not a major feature. However there are some areas which

must still be considered. The university also sets out specific guidelines relating to projects

which involve human subjects. This is important when people are involved in any part of the

research or methods and also the evaluation. Human Subjects will be used for the

methodologies in this project such as the interviews and surveys and also for the evaluation

and testing of the new proposed framework at the end of the project. Majority of these

subjects will be staff and students at the university.

I abided by these guidelines by ensuring that all participation by subjects was voluntary and

that they are fully informed about how the information they are provided will be used. The


university provides forms that were given to the subjects prior to participation to ensure they

are fully aware of the study and also their right to withdraw at any time. I also ensured that

the privacy and integrity of each participant was maintained. When carrying out this project

no vulnerable participants were required (children or intellectually disabled) therefore the

ethical considerations relating to this area do not apply.

When conducting Interviews or surveys I ensured that no respondent is misled at any stage of

the research and that they are fully aware of the procedures and their rights. To ensure Data

Protection Laws are enforced no personal data will be kept any longer than it is required. For

this project a great amount of personal data was not needed only personal opinion and views

on the various tools and their uses.

Copyright issues must also be adhered to particularly in the areas of plagiarism. Intellectual

Property law protects this area ensuring any original sources and information obtained are

referenced correctly. I have thoroughly referenced and cited all work and have included all

these references and the bibliography at the end of the report.

Throughout the project situations may arise where the need for ethical approval is required, in

this case I will always ensure that I receive this approval before taking any action.


3.3 Risk Management Plan: A risk management plan outlines events which may occur throughout the course of the

project which are usually unforeseen. Each risk has a different degree of severity. This

project does not contain any high impact risks. The following risks could occur throughout

the project and must be mitigated or dealt with:

Table 3: Risk Management Matrix Risk Impact Possibility of Occurrence

Survey response time too

slow

This will delay the project

schedule as the responses are

essential for developing the

framework. The project will be

developed during the course of

the summer months therefore

there is a risk that staff and

students will not respond as

quick as required due to

holidays and other

commitments.

There is a high possibility of

this risk occurring as both Staff

and students may not be

present in the university as

often as during term time. In

order to mitigate this risk

Interviews can be conducted

face to face and I will also send

a number of reminder emails to

respondents.

Time estimates too

optimistic

The estimates of time in this

plan may be too optimistic and

some tasks may not be

completed on time delaying the

project

There is a low possibility of

this occurring as I have set a

realistic timeline, however in

the unlikely event that it occurs

I have given extra time for

each task that may be used to

complete another task if spare.

Poor communication Results in misunderstandings,

delays in meetings and a delay

in the project schedule

Low possibility of Occurrence

as communication will take

place face to face, by email and

over the phone therefore there

should be no problem

contacting the various parties

required.

Requirements changing Lack of time to fix problems,

investigate issues, develop

solutions

Moderate possibility of

occurrence. As the project

develops there is a possibility

that the scope may change over

time and new ideas may

change the requirements. In

order to mitigate this risk

changing requirements must be

identified early therefore the

scope of the project must be

clearly documented.

Tools unavailable

Delay the project and change

becomes necessary.

Low possibility of occurrence.

There are a number of open

source tools available online


and also majority of tools

required for this project are

available in the university

therefore there is a low

probability that this will occur.

In the event a tool is

unavailable I will contact the

university IT services to

enquire if it can be sourced and

there is also the option of free

trials and downloads online.

These risks can be mitigated through careful planning and preparation. It is almost certain

that no project will run according to plan but it is still essential to try to stick closely to the

plan in order to for it to be effective and cohesive.


Chapter 4 – Methods and Results

4.1 Methodology / Gathering of data:

In order to evaluate the current authoring tools in terms of their suitability for development of

e-learning resources a number of steps were carried out:

1) Research into the suitability, usability and the features of each authoring tool which

will feature on the framework.

2) Contact members of staff and subject experts in order to arrange interviews or online

surveys regarding the topic area.

3) Contact fellow students to ask them to complete a short questionnaire regarding their

experiences with the various authoring tools.

The above three steps are necessary in order to get information which will form the basis of

the analysis and development of the framework along with the theoretical evidence which

supports it.

Interviews and online questionnaires were conducted with subject experts including Lisa

Scott, Roger Rist, Santiago Chumbe and Sandy Louchart from the Institute of computer

based learning at Heriot- Watt University. A number of lecturers from Dublin City University

who also work within this field were also contacted by means of email. I informed them of

the topic area and my aims and objectives of this project and asked if they could fill out the

online questionnaire which is the same as the interview questions. These actions were carried

out in order to get a diverse range of opinions across more than one university. These

members of staff have different backgrounds and specialism so a wide variety of opinion is

gathered from the responses. These methods were used in an attempt to appraise the quality

and suitability of the authoring tools.

A similar online questionnaire was developed and distributed to fellow students who have

previous experience with developing a learning resource or an online resource using a

number of authoring tools. The aim was to get 20 or more responses to the questionnaire

which addressed a number of questions which I will go into more detail about in the next

section. Through obtaining the perspectives of students a clear comparison could be made

with the results of the experienced developers (staff/lecturers). These studies and the results

obtained lay the foundations for the content of the evaluating framework.


When developing the questionnaires / interview scripts for the lecturers a number of

questions were asked to meet the following purposes:

- Establish which tools the respondent uses most often when developing an online

learning resource

- Get an understanding on how WYSIWYG versus hard code editor’s rank in terms of

usability and the audience which use them.

- Investigate what methods are used when selecting a tool for developing resources, do

developers use the same one all the time or is a certain tool good for performing

certain tasks.

- Investigate issues surrounding accessibility to identify if this important issue is taken

into consideration when a tool is being selected.

- Investigate whether experienced programmers such as the staff at Heriot Watt

University, think a framework which will help in the selection of tools would be of

assistance to them.

In order to provoke wider debate and discussion semi-structured questions were used within

the script. This allowed for free flowing conversation and in the case of the online survey a

large blank space was given to allow the lecturer to add whatever response they wished. This

differs from the student survey which gave a number of answers to the respondents and

allowed them to choose. The student questionnaire is more tightly structured however

generally fellow students prefer a quick response survey to one which requires a lot of time to

complete. The student questionnaire is more specific and aims to gather responses

surrounding the following types of questions:

- Find out what programs are most commonly used by novice programmers

- Find out the level of programming skills of the individual to see if there is any

comparison between the programs used and the level of skills of the programmer.

- Obtain information regarding the factors that students take into consideration when

choosing a tool.

- Is help and guidance necessary when using the tools?

- Investigate issues surrounding accessibility to identify if this important issue is taken

into consideration when a tool is being selected.

- Rate the chosen tool in terms of usability and functionality

- Investigate what supporting tools are used alongside the chosen tool

- Gather opinions regarding the use of a framework to select an authoring tool.


This survey was made a lot more specific as students may not have a wide variety of

experience similar to the staff. Therefore it was more beneficial to get opinions on each tool

that is used and also to see which tool is most commonly used and which is least. Questions

were tightly structured and require an answer. If a survey had missing values this would be

ineffective. A response rate of up to 25-30 students was expected for this survey and 28

students responded.


4.2 Findings

Student Survey:

This survey was targeted at students with IT specialisms and with knowledge in the area of

programming and online learning resource development. This leads to the topic being very

specific therefore respondents had to be carefully selected. The response rate was quite high

given the degree of specificity required. The goal of this survey was to get an insight into

how novice programmers view the various authoring tools and to see what method they

choose and what is important when they are selecting a tool to work with. The results

produced are significant in that they will form the basis for what will be included in the

framework.

Below are the findings from the student survey which contribute to the framework:

Question 1) when developing your online learning resource what authoring tool did you use?

Rationale for the question: The aim of this question was to determine what tools are most

frequently used and also to allow respondents to specify other tools which I had not included

in my original research. The list provided of authoring tools is not exhaustive therefore the

other column has been added. The framework will provide information on a number of tools

therefore these tools must be identified.

A total of 28 respondents answered this question with 5 respondents choosing the other field

and adding their chosen tool.

Figure 4: Authoring tools used for development

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dreamweaver

FrontPage

C++

Google Sites

Authorware

Other

Dreamweaver FrontPage C++ Google Sites Authorware Other

Authoring tools 7 5 4 3 4 5

When developing your online learning resource what authoring tool did you use?


Other suggestions from respondents included programs such as PHP MySQL Apache,

NuSphere PhpED and also Visual Studio.

Question 2) what level of programming skills do you have?

Rationale for the Question: This question is required to see the degree of experience the

respondents had with programming and using authoring tools. It is also used to emphasise the

theory that less experienced programmers prefer WYSIWYG editor. A clear correlation

between novice programmers and the use of tools such as Dreamweaver and FrontPage can

be seen, this is likewise with hard code editors and experienced programmers.

Results:

Figure 5: Level of Programming Skills

Question 3) A WYSIWYG (What you see is what you get editor) allows the developer to see

the resource as it will appear on screen while creating it , this is different to editors which

show only code such as HTML Do you think this type of authoring tool is easier to use than a

pure code editor such as notepad ++ ?

Rationale for the Question: Depending on the degree of experience the programmer has a

WYSIWYG editor may be easier to use whereas some programmers are not concerned with

the aesthetics and design of a program and therefore prefer plain text editors such as notepad

++ and C ++. This question is asked to get students opinions so it can be then compared to

the opinion of the staff and more experienced programmers to see which is favoured.

0

5

10

15

Very experienced Some previous

experience No previous experience

Re

spo

nd

en

ts

Programming Experience level

What level of programming skills do you have?


Results: Majority of respondents to this question answered Yes – 65%, 23% - answered No

and 12% of respondents had No preference. A comments box was added to allow for

additional comments and opinions.

Respondents comments include: Without WYSIWYG editors I would not be able to develop

resources.

It may be easier for layout but hard code is easier for content.

Split screens on WYSIWYG tools are excellent and easier to work with.

Question 4) When deciding what tool to use for authoring your learning resource what

factors did you consider? (You can select more than one)

The level of support available

Ability to incorporate various different media (text, pictures, videos)

Interoperability with other programmes

A programme which offers templates

the popularity of the programme

navigation structures

features which allow to design the site to make it aesthetically pleasing (backgrounds,

themes, image upload)

support for linking content together therefore making a course

Rationale for the Question: This question was asked in order to determine why the

respondents choose the tools that they choose and what is important to them when making

that choice. This information is essential when defining the features of each tool for the

framework and what is important that must be included.

Results: The most popular response was the first answer: the level of support available.

Templates, Interoperability and support for linking material together to make a course were

all chosen by the same amount of respondents and became the second most popular choices.

The ability to incorporate different media and to make the programme aesthetically pleasing

was also highly ranked with the popularity of the programme being the lowest ranked option

on the list.


Question 5) Did you use any blogs/resources/ manuals / instructions for guidance when using

your chosen tool?

Rationale for the Question: This question was included to find out what methods the

students use to get support when they are using the tool. The framework aims to highlight the

features and benefits of each tool and could be a one stop place for users when using the tool

therefore it was important to see what current methods are used. It may also incorporate links

or directions to these supporting resources.

Results:

Figure 6: Resources used when choosing tools

Question 6) How accessible did you make your learning resource? Did you consult any

accessibility guidelines please specify in the box provided?

Rationale for the Question: This question was included in order to obtain information on

how accessibility is perceived among students. Depending on its importance it will be

included in the framework under features. It also helps to show how each tool accommodates

accessibility and making resources accessible. A space was left for the accessibility

guidelines consulted to allow for research into any other guidelines which are being used but

may not have been looked at before.

Results:

As shown on the graph below.

4

3

7

6

5

3

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Yes - Online blogs

Yes – Authoring programme Manual

Yes - Online website instructions

Yes – YouTube videos

No – I had previous experience using the tool

No – I found the programme easy to use without instructions

Did you use any blogs/resources/ manuals / instructions for guidance when using your chosen tool?


Majority of comments left included that WCAG was reviewed prior to making the resource.

Respondents also commented that they were authoring simple learning resources and did not

bring accessibility into it. No further guidelines were recommended.

Figure 7: Resource Accessibility

Question 7) Please indicate the level of usability of your chosen tool?

Easy to use

Moderate Usability

Difficult to use

Rationale for the Question: This question was included to get an indication of the usability

levels of the chosen tool by the respondent. For this to be effective each survey had to be

taken individually and determine which tool was picked against the level of usability.

Results: Majority of respondents answered moderate usability to this question. Majority of

Students do not have prior experience with programming therefore the 58% moderate

usability is in line with this. 32% of respondents said the tools were easy to use majority of

these respondents used Dreamweaver and FrontPage. 10% of users found the tools difficult to

use and rated them poor usability.

Question 8) Please rate your chosen tool in terms of functionality - did it include all the

functions which you required or did you use any supporting tools?

Provided all functions necessary

Provided the majority of functions needed

Did not meet all functional requirements, additional tools used.

Very Accessible (WCAG)

Somewhat accessible (sound text and

images)

No accessiblilty modifications made

Accessibility 7 14 7

0 2 4 6 8

10 12 14 16

Re

spo

nd

en

ts

How accessible did you make your learning resource?


Rationale for the Question: This question was included to determine if each tool provided

the necessary functions and met the requirements for developing an online learning resource.

These functionalities will be included in the framework.

Results: The most popular answer was the second answer (52%): Provided most of the

functions needed. This answer corresponded mostly to Dreamweaver and Front page.

35% said these programs provided all functions necessary, this will be dependent on what

functions are needed for the particular resource. Whilst 12% said it did not meet all the

functional requirements, this corresponded with programs such as C++ and Google sites.

Additional comments were made which included: The tools did not support some programs

such as Google sites, which does not support the embedding of Hot Potato Software for

CAA.

Question 9) Would you use your chosen tool again?

Rationale for the Question: This question determines the popularity of the various tools and

in what order they are favoured. Again surveys had to be taken individually to determine

which tool the respondent used and if they would use it again. Positive feedback can be added

to the framework and the tools which receive large negative feedback may be omitted as they

would not be deemed suitable authoring tools.

Results:

Figure 8: Would you use your chosen tool again

0

5

10

15

20

25

Yes

No

Re

spo

nd

en

ts

Would you use your chosen tool again?


Some additional comments followed suggesting that they may use an alternative tool such as

Dreamweaver or FrontPage. One comment also included that they would not use Google

Sites for an advanced resource.

Question 10) Do you think a framework which outlines the features of each tool and their

capabilities would assist you in the future when selecting an authoring tool?

Yes I think it would be very helpful and quicker when deciding what tool to use

No I am already familiar with all the tools which are available and their properties

Rationale for the Question: This question is important to evaluate if the respondents would

be in favour of the framework which centres the project. This will determine if the

information collected when put into a framework and compiled will benefit the users.

Results:

Figure 9: Perceptions of the Framework

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Dreamweaver FrontPage Google Sites Authorware C++

Would you use your chosen tool again?

Yes

No

0 5 10 15 20 25

Yes, very helpful

No, I already have familiar tools

Do you think a framework which outlines the features of each tool and their capabilities would assist you in the future when

selecting an authoring tool?


This proves that majority of respondents believe the framework would be beneficial and

would use this if it was available. Additional comments were made as below:

-I am an experienced programme and prefer to write code alone, I always choose the same

tool however for inexperienced programmers it may be useful.

- I think this would be very beneficial as I spent a lot of time in the beginning trying to figure

out which tool was best and found it hard to get information on the tools.

- This would be good as I wouldn’t have used C++ if I had of had more information on the

tools.


4.3 Staff / Subject Experts Interviews and Questionnaires: Staff interviews and Questionnaires were conducted with 5 members of staff who are

specialists in this area and have knowledge of the topic at hand. The Questions whilst similar

in nature to that of the student survey were addressed in a different manner. They are loosely

structured to allow for discussion and opinion. The objective of this part of the research is to

get a professional opinion regarding authoring tools and their uses and also the development

of e-learning resources. The outcome of this research can be compared to that of the students.

Both parties have different levels of experience and knowledge therefore this should reflect in

the responses. The results produced from the interviews combined with the results from the

student surveys will form some of the basis of the framework and its contents.

Below is a summary of the main findings from the staff interviews/Questionnaires:

1) Are you involved with the development of e-learning resources or the use of

authoring tools, if no please state your reasons for not using them (eg. Too timely, too

complicated etc.)

All academics interviews were involved with teams of academics and developers either for

the purpose of developing online resources or (MOOC) Massive Open Online Courses. One

particular academic had worked on projects repurposing existing learning resources in order

to make them available as open educational resources. Heriot Watt has a number of approved

learning partners and one academic is involved in developing the online resources to be used

by these tutors at the approved learning partner institutions. This question was asked to

ensure the staff was familiar with the topic area. No response was received from academic

staff that are not involved in this area.

2) What tools do you use most often when developing learning resources (Dreamweaver,

FrontPage, C++, Google Sites and Macromedia Flash etc.)

This question aims to compile a list of tools in addition to that of the list provided by students

that will be included in the framework. It also aims to reveal if there is a difference between

the tools used by professionals and that of inexperienced programmers.

A diverse range of tools are used by the academics. Most of which are listed here: Adobe

Web premier suite CS5, Open source tools from HTML to Cam Studio, Multimedia Learning

Object Authoring Tool, Dreamweaver, Flash, PowerPoint, MS Word, Front page,

Blackboard, Macromedia Flash and HTML 5. All academics use a variety of tools. FrontPage

and Blackboard are used specifically when developing learning resource by one respondent.


3) What are your thoughts on developing resources with pure code editors and

WYSIWYG versus tools such as Dreamweaver? Do you prefer the use of templates or

writing your own code?

This Question is included in the script to investigate what preference subject experts have

when it comes to the various tools. Majority of students prefer WYSIWYG editors however

this can differ when expertise are greater.

The question yielded a mixed response. Some academics prefer to use hard code editors as

they suggested WYSIWYG should not be used by expert developers as they need full

flexibility and access to their software codes. Other respondents preferred the use of

WYSIWYG editors so they can see what the end product/ page should look like. It was

suggested that templates and style guides are an important way of ensuring consistency

throughout the resource and are efficient for developers who are not involved in writing code.

Majority of the experts do not write code all the time but have the expertise to write code if

necessary and can also use a WYSIWYG editor such as FrontPage and Dreamweaver and

modify the code and template if necessary.

4) Do you use any particular method when choosing what tool to use for developing e-

learning resources?

This question is included in order to determine what factors influence the choice of an

authoring tool and if they use different tools for different purposes or only ones which they

are familiar with. This also gives some of the features of the tools which are used.

The choice of tool depended on the task at hand; some very experienced developers chose

whatever tool will get the job done at the quickest time. Open source tools are used quite a lot

especially when money is a constraint as they are freely available.

Other academics use different tools depending on the nature of the learning resource. Flash

tools are useful for animation and interactivity whereas HTML is best for web based

resources. PowerPoint was also mentioned for tutor presentations and more basic resources.

All respondents were open to experimentation especially upon recommendation of a tool

from a colleague as they all have similar knowledge in the field.


5) Which tool do you think provides the best features for making an e-learning resource

accessible? Do you think accessibility features are important?

Accessibility is a very important issue with today’s technology. Tools must facilitate

accessibility and allow the developer to make the resource accessible to people with

disabilities through the use of sound images, larger font a zoom function etc. It is important to

determine what the developer’s opinions about accessibility are and if they feature in the

tools they use as this will form part of the functions of the tools on the framework.

Overall responses accessibility featured as an important function. It was said e-learning

resources should be created with sophistication and be made appealing for the audience but

they should also include in the resources alternative optional points of accesses for the users.

Examples of this is screen reading software to read the text aloud along with screen

magnification software to make the text larger and graphics displayed in a customized way.

Other opinions suggest properly written HTML offers the most accessible resources.

Dreamweaver helps with this somewhat. It is advised that the developer research accessibility

and has a strong knowledge of it and doesn’t rely solely on the tools. For good accessibility a

combination of tools is needed and all parties agree accessibility is very important.

6) I am looking at developing a framework which can be used to select a suitable

authoring tool when deciding what tool to use to design an e-learning resource. This

framework will show the features and benefits of each tool along with the things which

are the authoring tool cannot do. Do you think this would be of assistance to you?

The framework is a large part of the research into evaluating the suitability of current

authoring tools for developing e-learning resources therefore it is essential to ensure this

framework will be successful in achieving its aim. This question addresses the aims of the

framework and seeks opinions on it.

As some developers are more experienced the responses varied. In the case of one developer

who has extensive knowledge in this area the result was unclear as to whether the respondent

felt it would be beneficial. The response said information is usually collected on the internet

or from direct contacts; however positive feedback was also contributed saying it would be

very useful for less experienced programmers. Issues about keeping it up to date also arose

and the framework would have to be maintained and changed where necessary.

It was also suggested that the framework should lead the user through the various decision

points and end up with a recommendation.


7) Can you suggest anything which you think this framework should include?

This is quiet a broad question which was included to get ideas on what need to be

incorporated in the framework. Below is a list of possible points of inclusion which were

collected:

The features, capabilities/functionalities of each tool,

Whether they are freely available or must be purchased for use

If they are interoperable across systems and if they allow other tools to be

incorporated with them.

If they are customisable and personalised (PA) to a particular field.

It must be kept really up-to-date

Determine if the tools are open source or not.

A possible link to demos and samples and real-life applications

What pre requisite knowledge is required for its use

Usability/Ease of use

Be easy to understand and answer any FAQ’s.

8) Would you be willing to review the framework upon completion and offer comments

and judgments on it?

All respondents answered yes and are willing to review the framework upon the evaluation

stage.


4.4 Analysis of Results: This chapter has detailed the questions and responses from the field work associated with this

project. The methods used to gather data have been explained above along with the resulting

data. This data can now be taken and analysed to draw conclusions which will contribute to

the development of the framework and its contents. Differing results were obtained from both

survey samples (students/staff). The core findings are as follows:

A list of tools which will be included in the framework are as follows:

- Dreamweaver

- FrontPage

- Authorware

- Google Sites

- C++

- HTML 5

- Adobe Web premier CS5

- Blackboard / Moodle (LMS)

- Microsoft Office Suite

- PHP / Apache / MySQL

These are the most popular tools which have been identified as a result of the research.

Dreamweaver has stemmed as the most prevalent tool used by students when designing and

developing online learning resources. This was mirrored with staff also as it has been deemed

the tool which allows for consistency of both style and code. This was also challenged by

more experienced coders who feel it does not allow for enough flexibility when writing code.

FrontPage and Authorware are also quite popular tools and again form part of the

WYSIWYG editors. The hard code editors such as C++ and HTML do note feature highly

among inexperienced students which is an expected result. These tools will still feature on the

framework as they are widely used by staff and also as supporting tools.

The majority of student respondents are inexperienced and have not produced many e-

learning resources or are not familiar with writing code. Therefore there is a strong

preference for tools which use split screen content or which incorporate 2 views so the

developer can see how the finished product will appear on screen.

Through obtaining information about the factors which are considered when choosing a tool

this aided research into which factors should each tool be investigated for to include in the

framework. The framework will provide information on the level of support available for the

tool, The interoperability of the tool along with its ability to incorporate various media


sources (images, sound), if templates are available, its features, benefits, what features it does

not offer and how the tool caters for accessibility.

It is clear from the results majority of respondents seek help online when using a tool either

through use of blogs, YouTube or online manuals. It will be beneficial to the user to add links

to these resources within the framework to add extra support.

In terms of Accessibility the results highlight the importance of making resources accessible

and following guidelines. The degree of accessibility will be included along with a link to the

WCAG guidelines. By making tools and resources accessible it incorporates more functions

such as sound, text and images and also makes the resources more interactive.

Usability can be compared to degree of experience of the developer, the results clearly echo

the degree of experience, for example a student who used C++ found the tool difficult to use

whereas Dreamweaver was a preference. This is not the case for more experienced personnel

who prefer the flexibility of writing their own code. The framework aims to combat this

problem by matching the users experience and requirements with the correct tool and then

finally recommend this tool to them.

The functionalities of the tools were investigated in detail. This research contributes to the

functions part of the framework which outlines what each tool can achieve. These responses

also obtained information on the functionalities that tools cannot achieve such as embedding

a CAA into Google Sites. It appears that Dreamweaver and FrontPage meet the majority of

functional requirements which again emphasises their popularity.

The findings suggest that a framework which evaluates the suitability of each tool and

conveys this to the developer would be beneficial. The implications of this research form the

basis for the contents of the framework and what users would like it to include. The above

research is taken from a mixed sample of both males and females, staff and students who are

experienced and inexperience. This allowed for a great diversity of opinion and knowledge

yielding more fruitful results.


Chapter 5: Development of the Framework This chapter details the Framework and the stages of development that were undertaken as

part of this study. The framework was built based on the information obtained in the literature

review and the interview/survey findings which is documented in the preceding chapters.

This chapter defines the requirements of the framework, identifies the features, benefits and

points of inclusion within the framework, it outlines the development of the framework and

finally the user evaluation.

5.1 Definition of Requirements: In order to develop the framework a number of principles were adhered to:

-The framework should be flexible in its structure as all users will have different experience

and backgrounds therefore it should cater to all users.

- Avoid very technical language as the framework will be used by both experienced and

inexperienced programmers. The terminology used should be user friendly in order to

encourage users and not discourage them due to lack of understanding. Any highly technical

words which must be included should be defined.

- The framework will be expressed in a diagrammatic format which incorporates simplicity

and ease of use. Headings and directions should be clearly identified and visible to the user.

-In terms of aesthetics the aim is for precision and simplicity in order to be more effective

and pleasing to the eye of the user.

- Ensure the framework relates the features of the tools directly to the development of e-

learning resources.

- In terms of contents the following information is required and must be included: Features,

benefits, level of interoperability, level of support, accessibility, usability relating to

experience, versions/updates and prerequisite knowledge required.


5.2 Stages of Development: In order to develop an effective framework which is based on a series of questions and offers

recommendations information was collected about the various authoring tools. The findings

consisted of that collected from the field research and also information which was obtained

online about the individual tools.

These findings were summarised in comprehensive tables which were arranged according to

the tool and the following headings: Features of the tool, Benefits of its use, Level of Support

available for the tool, degree of interoperability and ability to incorporate various media

forms, Accessibility, Usability, Open source/ Free tool, Versions available, Level of

prerequisite knowledge required and finally if templates are offered with the tool.

The tables summarise all the above in a neat and easily readable format. Due to the amount of

tools being evaluated it was necessary to create two separate tables for presentation purposes.

Both tables include the same headings and information.

The information contained in the tables is a comprehensive version of the features associated

with each tool. In order to break this down into a more user friendly framework the important

aspects were extracted.

As there are an abundance of tools and many properties associated with each tool it was

difficult to develop a framework which is easily readable and addresses all the questions

which a potential user of the tool might have. It was therefore decided to split the framework

into three decision trees. These were divided in accordance to the degree of experience and

knowledge of the programmer. A user consulting the framework would first decide which

category they fall under - Beginner, Intermediate or advanced programming skills and then

choose the correct framework for them to follow. These decision trees were developed using

Microsoft Smart Art. The sequential flows address the majority of the headings from the

tables below. When the user reaches the end of the framework recommendations are made as

to what tools they should consider. The user is then advised to investigate the features and

benefits of each proposed tool using the tables, in order to make a decision on which one is

most suitable.


Table 4: Authoring tools - Features and Properties

Dreamweaver FrontPage / Microsoft expression Studio 4 Web

Authorware Google Sites Articulate

Features of the tool

-FTP performance for transferring files. -Multiscreen preview panels -Visually construct complex web designs and page layouts without getting buried in code. -Built in Website builder - Supports Animation of resources and sites -Live view functionality to all test pages be generated before going live with the site

-Cross-Browser Enhanced Drawing Tools -incorporate Discussion Boards -Incorporate surveys and CAA -Page Tabs This feature allows you to edit many features at once. -Handwriting and speech recognition features -WYSIWYG editor -Split screen view -Multiple Navigation structures -Themes -Updated media Gallery -Recently replaced by Expression Web Studio 4 similar features

Visual authoring tool for creating rich-media e-learning applications -Leverage existing PowerPoint presentations to create rich multimedia e-learning content. -The calculation editor provides syntax highlighting, formatting, and other useful features. -Alpha channels let you add rich transparency effects to graphics for a more professional appearance -The RTF (Rich Text Format) Objects Editor allows you import RTF files; embed graphics, shapes, symbols, and linked text; and apply advanced text formatting. -ability to track results of CAA - Templates and wizards that address common learning functionality, such as student logons, course frameworks, questions, quizzes

-Single-click page creation -Customizable look and feel - Settings for accessing and sharing information - No HTML required - Supports the Upload of files and attachments -Allows for collaborative working, sharing the sit and its documents among a number of people

- Build complex interactions using a set of simple features - Slide layers let you quickly and easily overlay objects -Manage multiple interactions on one slide. - Storyline is packed with powerful yet simple tools for creating virtually any type of assessment. -Screen recording option -Easily translate your courses into any language to localize your content. -Wide range if templates available which can be shared on the user community.




- Built-In Interactivity: choose from 11 response types to bring your content to life. - Create complex paging and navigation structures with the framework and navigation icon

Benefits of its use -Super Preview shows a high-fidelity rendering of how pages will look on different browsers -Adds interactive mode to Snapshot so you can preview your working code while you're authoring. -Included SEO (Search engine optimisation tools) to get your site noticed.

-Deliver e-learning applications with the click of a button to an LMS. This feature integrates and automates all the steps in the packaging and uploading of your content to LMS -Specifically aimed at creating e-learning content

-Quick, up-to-date access - People can work together on a Site to add file attachments, information from other Google applications - Customization options let you give your Google Site your own look and feel

- Build your course once, then publish it with a single click to multiple formats -Excellent Interactivity properties.

Level of support available

-Extended Dreamweaver community Access the online Adobe Design Centre and Adobe Developer Connection, training and seminars, developer certification programs, and user forums.

-Community Web site and forums for all the Expression products where you can solicit -Technical support available online from Microsoft

- Offer a range of technical support programs for Authorware 7, including many free online options.

-Support available online through the use of Google

-Watch tutorials and get practical tips, free downloads, expert advice, and more from the online community.

Interoperability/ incorporate media

-Supports most leading web development technologies, including HTML, XHTML, CSS, XML, JavaScript, Ajax,

-Ability to incorporate various media such as sound images and hyperlinks

-Create dynamic, data-driven applications by importing or exporting Web-standard XML files

- Google Sites is integrated with other Google products, so you can insert videos, docs, spread sheets,

Build your course once, and then publish it with a single click to multiple formats so learners can interact with it




PHP, Adobe ColdFusion® software, and ASP.

Interoperable across many platforms -rich graphics support -support for a broad range of scripting and server-side technologies, Expression Web supports PHP, HTML/XHTML, XML/XSLT, CSS, JavaScript, ASP.NET or ASP.NET AJAX, Silverlight, Flash, Windows Media, and Photoshop, as well as integration with Microsoft Visual Studio and Expression Studio.

into other applications -Create courseware that can connect to LMS systems -Active X support

presentations, photo slide shows, and calendars directly onto your Google Sites pages.

on a number of devices. -Storyline also publishes to HTML5, an increasingly popular format for delivering content with rich multimedia and interactivity - Excellent graphic support incorporates all aspects of media.

Accessibility -Use the online W3C Mark-up Validation Service to help ensure the accuracy of your standards-based web designs.

-Built-in support for today's modern Web standards makes it easy to optimize your sites for accessibility and cross-browser compatibility.

-Generate tab navigation and captions, and turn text into speech. -SCORM standards adhered to. - Build reusable e-learning content that complies with AICC, IMS, and ADL standards.

-Moderate Accessibility Ability to incorporate sound text and images however does not follow any industry wide standards.

-Storyline publishes Tin Can-, SCORM- and AICC-compliant content, so it works seamlessly with your learning management system (LMS) - Localize your content with Storyline's right-to-left language support. -Very accessible

Usability Excellent Usability for novice programmers

Excellent Usability

Moderate Usability Excellent Usability – aimed at users with no previous experience

Simple enough for beginners, powerful enough for experts. Good Usability




Free Open Source/ Cost

Free trial period – Further Cost to purchase

60 day free trial – Further Cost to purchase

30 day free trial – Further Cost to purchase

Free – Open Source tool. 30 days free trial – Further Cost to purchase

Version CS6 – most recent version Expression Web 4 – most recent version

Authorware 7 – most recent version

Accessed through Google – constantly updated

Articulate – Storyline programme

Level of Prerequisite Knowledge required

Minor prerequisite knowledge required

Minor prerequisite knowledge required

Some previous knowledge of programmes or developing would be beneficial however not essential.

No prerequisite knowledge required

No prerequisite knowledge required

Does it offer templates

Offers a wide range of templates

Multiple themes offered` Templates available from Expression Design 4

Templates available along with drag and drop items

Dozens of pre-built templates

templates with interactivity common to e- learning courses already built in.


Table 5: Authoring tools - Features and Properties

Adobe CS6 Design and Web Premium

LMS (Blackboard/ Moodle)

Course Lab PHP/ Apache/MYSQL combination C++

HTML 5

Features of the tool

This suite is the ultimate toolkit for the design and development of professional design and web development. It incorporates Photoshop CS6, Illustrator CS6, Flash, Acrobat and Dreamweaver CS6. -Enhanced Photoshop capabilities. -Professional layout in design - Adaptive web layouts in Dreamweaver -Improved FTP performance -Multi screen design in Dreamweaver -

Both Blackboard and Moodle are not typical authoring tools but Learning management systems which support the resources created and can also facilitate e-learning. -Deliver access from virtually anywhere -Promote collaboration in and beyond the classroom -Centrally store share and collaborate around content easily. -Fast grading system -Build and reuse online assessments -Easy update and management of files.

-Programming-free WYSIWYG environment for creating high-quality interactive e-learning content which can be published on the Internet and Learning Management Systems (LMS) - Familiar PowerPoint-like authoring environment - Visual Frame Timeline; -Multipurpose Object Pane - Embedded Rich Text editor enables formatting text to a specific font, colour, font size, including hyperlinks, tables, lists and pictures; -Built-in test creation capability -allows special effects to be added eg. Click and drag, rotation of objects

These tools form part of various programming languages and can be combined to write code which allow programmers to write programs and develop resources. - C++ makes it easier to manage memory and adds several features to allow "object-oriented" programming and "generic" programming. -Apache, PHP and MYSQL can be combined in a program known as WAMP sever which is a web development environment. - C++ maintains all aspects

of the C language, while providing new features to programmers that make it

easier to write useful and sophisticated programs.

-HTML5 will be the new standard for HTML.

Html5 is a mark-up language for structuring and presenting content for the Web. - new features in HTML5: - The <canvas> element for 2D drawing - The <video> and <audio> elements for media playback - Support for local storage - New content-specific elements, like <article>, <footer>, <header>, <nav>, <section> - New form controls, like calendar, date, time, email, url, search.





HTML 5

Benefits of its use

Efficient Multiscreen delivery with enhanced Adobe Media Encoder -Benefit from a flexible, connected workflow Incorporates an abundance of tools for design and development: Dreamweaver, Photoshop, Fireworks etc.

Management of course is easy through course relationship management tools.

-Import PowerPoint® presentations into the learning material -Compatible with all major LMS learning management systems -Open source free tool available in many languages

-Open Source commonly used tool -. Provides a system of content management that allows you to easily update the content even without prior notice of HTML.

New features are designed to make it easy to include and handle multimedia and graphical content on the web without having to resort to proprietary plug-in’s and APIs.

Level of support available

Online support available Online communities and tutorials

Support available both online and through the institution. Comprehensive online support also via telephone and email.

High level of support, online developer’s zone and community. -How to modules and user guide available online also.

Online support available through the use of online forums and websites. YouTube tutorials also available online.

-Extensive support available on W3C schools website. -Additional online support available through tutorials.

Interoperability/ incorporate media

-Ability to incorporate media across a number of different software programmes in the suite. -Text images sound and video also embedded in the programme.

Ability to incorporate a wide range of media from files to videos, pictures, speech and text. Supports a large platform of media rich context.

-Pictures in various formats; -Simple inserting and synchronization of audio files in various formats; -Adobe® Flash® movies; -Adobe® Shockwave® applications; -Java® applets; -Video clips in various formats.

PHP, Apache and MYSQL are interoperable across many servers. WAMP server combines all there tools creating a web development environment.

Major browsers support many of the new HTML5 elements and APIs.

Accessibility Use the online W3C Certified by the ACL Follows e-learning standards Programmer must adhere to Support for accessibility issues

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_(computing)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_programming_interface





HTML 5

Mark-up Validation Service to help ensure the accuracy of your standards-based web designs.

(SCORM) standards GPL an open source certification used by Moodle. Ability to make the LMS accessible to all users.

such as SCORM and AICC Accessibility issues when developing. Programs provide the ability to create sound text and images.

through new media and canvas elements.

Usability Moderate Usability, some degree of previous experience required.

Very user friendly User friendly designed to facilitate all degrees of experience

Difficult to use without prior experience and advanced programming knowledge

Difficult to use without existing knowledge of HTML or coding. User friendly for experienced programmers.

Free Open Source/ Cost

Free trial available – Cost to purchase

Licence fee to pay for Blackboard Moodle – open source free tool

Free Open source tool no cost

Free Open Source Tool WAMP can be downloaded online.

Open Source programming language

Version CS6 – latest Version Blackberry release 9.1 Moodle 2.3.1+ release available online

Open source online download

C++ is an updated version of C.

HTML5 – not yet fully supported version like HTML 4.01

Level of Prerequisite Knowledge required

Medium degree of prerequisite knowledge required to operate a number of programmes across the suite

Moderate degree of prerequisite knowledge as it is a user friendly interface.

Low level of prerequisite knowledge needed as it is a WYSIWYG editor

High level of prerequisite knowledge is required for these programs.

High level of prerequisite knowledge is required when using this language. Knowledge of HTML 4.01 is an advantage

Does it offer templates

Yes templates offered through Dreamweaver

Course themes and structures included allowing for quicker and easier customization

Large (and user-expandable) set of ready-to-use module templates

No templates offered by these tools. Colours codes are available for design purposes.

Comprehensive list of codes and tags offered for design purposes.


5.3 Beginners Framework:

*Framework for Novice Programmers / Beginners.

Follow the path for guidance on choosing a tool by obtaining information at each point on the important aspects which affect decision making.

At the end of each decision framework a number of tools are given to the user. These tools are the recommendations which best suit the user in terms of prior

experience and Usability. This framework is a summarised version of the tables which are given above. When deciding on which tool to choose from the

recommendation the user should consult the tables for a comprehensive list of the features and benefits and then choose the most appropriate tool.

•Novice Programmers

•Little or no prerequiste Knnowledge

Programming Experience

•Easy to Moderate usability

•User friendly Interface

Usability

•Online support available

•Online communities and tutorials

•Email and telephone Services

Level of Support available

•Compatible with a number of operating systems

•Ability to incorporate media such as sound text images and video

Interoperability •W3C Mark-up Validation Service

•e-learning standards SCORM and AICC

Accessibility

•Course themes and structures included

•Large (and user-expandable) set of ready-to-use module templates

Templates

•Open Source - freely Available

•Free Trial period - Cost to purchase

Availability

Dreamweaver

-Articulate

-FrontPage

See tables for

more details

-Google

Sites

- Course

Lab

See tables

for more

details


5.4 Intermediate Framework:

*Framework for Intermediate Programmers.





•Intermediate Programmers

•Mooderate prerequiste Knnowledge


•Moderate usability - Experience Required

•Good Navigation throughout the tool

Usability

•Online support available

•Online communities and tutorials

•Range of technical support programs for Authorware 7


•rich graphics support

•support for a broad range of scripting and server-side technologies,

•Ability to incorporate media such as sound text images and video

Interoperability •W3C Mark-up Validation Service


•Generate tab navigation and turn text into speech

Accessibility

•Large (and user-expandable) set of ready-to-use module templates along with drag and drop items

Templates

•Free Trial period - Cost to purchase

Availability

-Authorware

-Adobe Premier

CS6

See table for more

details


5.5 Experienced Programmers Framework

*Framework for Experienced Programmers.





•Experienced Programmers

•Comprehensive prerequisite knowledge required


•Difficult to use without experience

•User friendly Interface for experienced programmers

Usability •Online support

available

•Online communities

•Online tutorials - Youtube videos


•Compatible with a number of operating systems and browsers

•PHP, MYSQL and Apahe operate under WAMP.

Interoperability •Developer needs to adhere to standards


Accessibility

•No templates

•Pure code editors

•Advanced programming skills required

Templates

•Available to download free online

•Open Source Tools

Availability

PHP, Apache,

MySQL

combination

C++

HTML 5

See table for more

details


5.6 Evaluation of the Framework After the framework and tables were developed it was necessary to evaluate them in order to

see if they met the objectives which were set out in the beginning. The main aim of the

framework was to aid the user when choosing an authoring tool. In order to evaluate the

effectiveness of the framework in meeting the objectives user participation was necessary.

The initial requirement to develop a flexible framework which is expressed in diagrammatic

structure was achieved. Overly technical language was avoided when completing the

framework and tables. A user of these resources should have sufficient knowledge to

understand the terminology which is used. In terms of aesthetics the framework was designed

with ease of use and simplicity in mind. All headings are clearly labelled and font size and

colour are easy to read. The decision trees flow sequentially and are easy to follow. Colour

was incorporated with these parts of the framework as it is brighter and more aesthetically

pleasing to the user’s eye. The colour helps to distinguish the various steps involved in each

decision tree. The recommended program is clearly labelled at the end of each framework in

bold text. Additional notes are after the framework to guide the user back to the tables for a

more comprehensive list of features and benefits.

In order to evaluate the framework from an external point of view and the eyes of a potential

user some respondents from the surveys were asked to take part. The participants in the

evaluation were presented with the tables which are above and the appropriate decision tree

depending on the degree of experience of the developer. Below are some points that arouse as

a result of the evaluation.

- The tables are very comprehensive and provide an excellent insight into each tool.

They are a good addition to the decision tree as the information available on these is

useful but when making the final decision between the recommended tools further

guidance is needed.

- It is very user friendly with no over complicated technical terms and it is easy

readable and understandable.

- The decision trees are visually attractive and easy to use and follow. They provide

adequate information to make a quick decision if needed.

- The tables carry an abundance of information which may be over whelming for some

users. The presence of a wide range of text can sometimes overwhelm the reader

however the fact that the decision trees are available is a positive addition.


- A number of respondents would like to use the framework when it comes to

coursework and choosing tools for developing e-learning resources. This is not

feasible with this project however it could become possible future research.

Overall positive feedback was received regarding the framework and its use and aesthetic

value. Ideally it would be better to further use and test the framework for a longer duration

however with the constraints of the project this was not possible. This is highlighted in the

following sections, Limitations and future research.


Chapter 6: Conclusions and Future Recommendations

6.1 Summary This Dissertation has presented an approach to evaluating the suitability of current authoring

tools for the development of e-learning resources. At the beginning of the paper a number of

objectives were set out. The majority of these objectives have been widely met throughout

the course of this project. The authoring tools and literature surrounding them were clearly

identified within the literature review (objective 1). Learning styles and needs were

researched giving a clearer idea of what an e-learning resource must incorporate. (Objective

5). A criterion which defines what a suitable authoring tool should contain was also

developed through both the tables and the frameworks which are presented in the findings.

(Objective 6). The dissertation followed a suitable and achievable plan which was outlined in

the Research Report. (Objective 7). Extensive research was conducted into what a developer

deems a suitable tool. The results of the interviews and surveys provided this information for

the dissertation. (Objective 8). The main objective was to create a framework for evaluating

the various authoring tools. The framework must be able to be understood by the author when

deciding on what tool to use and provide a fast method of evaluating and selecting a tool.

This objective was clearly met throughout the events of the project with resulting tables and a

framework being produced. The tables provide a comprehensive summary of the tools

whereas the framework is more specific and brief to allow for quick consultation. Evaluation

results show that the framework successfully points the user in the correct direction and

greatly assists their choice of tool.

On completion of this project there are a number of conclusions I have drawn. From

conducting extensive research into the area of online learning and developing online learning

resources it is clear that this is a huge phenomenum. There is a massive shift towards the use

of Open Educational Resources which are available free online. Universities are increasingly

uploading their materials onto the internet and allowing for them to be open to the public.

This has also led to the increasing number of MOOC (Massively Open Online Courses). This

is when the participants and the materials are distributed across the web similar to distance

learning. It is important to monitor these new uses of technology as developers will need to

author courseware to meet these demands. This is where the potential for this framework to

be further developed and improved lies. E-learning, authoring tools and development are at

the heart of these new concepts and therefore this topic is very current and will not become

obsolete in the near future. Developers could potentially use this framework to select the


appropriate tools to create these e-learning resources. E-learning is not only exclusive to

education but to a number of tasks in daily life. Businesses increasingly use e-learning as a

method of training staff, e-learning courses are available for learner drivers in order to pass

the theory test, it is clear that it has become a widespread phenomenum and is continuing to

grow. The number of authoring tools available will also increase to meet these demands. In

order for this framework to be successful it would need to be updated regularly and also

expanded when new tools come to market.


6.2 Limitations and Recommendations for further Research.

For the majority this project was successful in meeting its research aims and also developing

the framework. However like all comprehensive studies it is not without its limitations and

opportunities for further research and expansion. In order for the framework to be developed

further and become more efficient there are a number of steps which could be undertaken. As

time was a constraint within this project it was difficult to thoroughly evaluate the

framework. If the project duration was longer a comprehensive evaluation conducted over a

longer period such as three months would be advisable. The researcher would then be able to

monitor the developers using the framework and also get more detailed feedback on it. It

would also be beneficial if the framework was piloted within a class of students who are

developing e-learning resources to see if they found it easier to choose and operate the tools

with or without the framework. As the Dissertation is conducted over the summer months it

was not possible to do this however it would be an interesting line of research.

Secondly a larger number of subject experts could be contacted to participate in the research.

The sample size of 4 staff members is quite small therefore it has been more difficult to

generalise any findings. Additionally the framework could be developed further and

expanded by including participation from various business organisations. There is a huge

shift to in-house training within organisations and majority of training courses are now

offered online. This is an area which has massive potential to be explored. Authoring tools

which are used to create the online learning environments in organisations could be

discovered and added to the tools above, further expanding the study.

The framework itself would benefit greatly from being interactive. It was difficult to develop

one large framework which incorporated all of the features, benefits and other points of

inclusion within a word document. It was therefore split into three smaller frameworks in the

form of a decision tree. If the framework was developed using interactive software it would

be possible to hide all the lengthy text and only reveal them when the property is clicked on.

Interactivity also better captures the attention of many users and gives the tool greater appeal.

It would also be easier to update the framework through the use of a software program.

Social networks such as Twitter and Facebook are becoming the way of the future therefore it

could be beneficial to incorporate these social networks in the framework to evaluate their

properties and investigate if the various tools will be interoperable with these networks.


References:

Ardito, C, et al. (2006). An approach to usability evaluation of e-learning

applications. Universal Access in the Information Society. 4 (3), p270-283.

Beetham, H. (2007). An approach to learning activity design. In: Beetham, H &

Sharpe, R Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age: Designing and Delivering E-

Learning. Oxon: Routledge. P26-39.

College of Engineering and Computer Science, The Australian National University,

Blackhall, L : Educational Content Authoring Tools[Pdf] Available at:

http://17dynamics.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/educational_content_authoring_tools

_report_distribution.pdf [Accessed 20 March 2012]

Descy, D. (1998). All Aboard the Internet- Web based Course Authoring

Tools. TechTrends. 43 (1), p43.

Granic, A. (2008). Experience usability evaluation of e-learning systems. Universal

Access in the Information Society. 7 (4), p209-221.

Hetrick, T. (2011). An Overview of Free Course Authoring Tools. ICT International-

Tech Trends. 55 (6), p11-12.

Ismail, J. (2002). The design of an e-learning system beyond the hype. Internet and

Higher Education. 4, p329-336.

JISC Effective Practice with e-Learning, a good guide in designing for learning.

(handout)

Kuo, Y-H, Huang, Y-M. (2009). MEAT-An Authoring tool for Generating Adaptable

Learning Resources. Journal of Educational Technology and Society. 12 (2), p51-68.

Oncu, Semiral. (2011). Research in online learning environments: Priorities and

methodologies. Computers and Education. 57 (1), p1098

Papastergiou, M. (2006). Course Management Systems as tools for the Creation of

Online Learning Environments: Evaluation from a Social Constructivist Perspective

and Implications for their Design.International Jl. on E-Learning. 5 (4), p593-622.

Rist, R Hewer, S. (1996). What is learning technology? Some definitions. In: Stoner,

G IMPLEMENTING LEARNING TECHNOLOGY. Scotland: Institute for Computer

Based Learning Heriot-Watt University. P3-6. Can be accessed at

[http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/ltdi/ltdi-pub.htm]


Ritter, S, Blessing, S. (1998). Authoring Tools for Component-Based Learning

Environments. The Journal of the Learning Sciences. 7 (1), p107-132

Wang, T, Chang, F. (2007). A SCORM Compliant Courseware Authoring tool for

Supporting Pervasive Learning. International Journal of Distance Education

technologies. 5 (3), p67-90.

Wilde, R. (2004). Technical Evaluation Report 33: Evaluating Digital Authoring

Tools. The International review of research in open and distance learning. 5 (2),

Available at: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewArticle/178/260.

WC3 & Spellman, J et al. (2011). Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG)

2.0. Available: http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/. Last accessed 22 March 2012

WC3 & Cooper, M et al. (2008). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)

2.0. Available: http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/. Last

accessed 22 March 3012.

Websites Accessed:

Blackboard 2012 [Online] Available at

http://blackboardsupport.calpoly.edu/content/about/whatis.html [Accessed March

2012] [Last accessed August 2012}

Moodle 2012 [Online] Available at: http://www.moodle.org [Accessed March 2012]

[Last accessed August 201]

Microsoft FrontPage [Online] Available at

http://webdesign.about.com/od/frontpage/Microsoft_FrontPage.htm [Accessed March

2012/

Heriot Watt University MACS Ethical Guidelines: [Online] Available at:

http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/~pjbk/cs4/EthicsApproval.html [Accessed March 2012]

Learning styles: [Online] Available at http://thelearningstyles.com/honey-and-

mumford-learning-styles/ [Accessed March 2012].

Microsoft Expression [Online]Available at: http//www.microsoft.com/expression/

[Accessed August 2012]

Adobe: [Online] Available at: http//www.adobe.com/products/dreamweaver.html


Adobe: [Online] Available at: http//www.adobe.com/products/authorware.html



Articulate: [Online] Available at http//www.articulate.com/ [Accessed August 2012]

Course Lab: [Online] Available at http//www.courselab.com/db/cle/default.html


C++: [Online] Available at http//www.cplusplus.com/doc [Accessed August 2012]

HTML 5: [Online] Available at http//www.w3schools.com/html5/default [Accessed

August 2012]

Bibliography: - T. Murray, S. Blessing and S. Ainsworth (2003). Authoring Tools for Advanced

Technology Learning Environments: Toward Cost-Effective Adaptive, Interactive and

Intelligent Educational Software. ,: Kluwer Academic Publishers

- William Horton, Katherine Horton (2003). E-learning tools and technologies: a

consumer's guide for trainers, teachers and instructional designers. Indiana: Wiley

Publishers.

- P. Maier and A. Warren (2000) Integrating technology in learning and teaching: a

practical guide for educators. Kogan Page Publishers


Appendices:

Appendix A: Interview/ Survey Questions to ask members of staff.

I am currently undertaking research for my MSc Dissertation entitled –

“Evaluating the Suitability of current authoring tools for the development of e-Learning

resources”.

As part of my research I aim to get information from individuals who are involved with

developing e-Learning resources and the use of authoring tools and also people who do not

work with them to find out why not. I have contacted my fellow class mates about their

experiences with the various tools which are available and therefore I would be grateful if

you could help me by giving me some information on your experience when developing

online learning resources. Below are a number of questions which will aid my research.

1) What tools do you use most often when developing learning resources (Dreamweaver,

FrontPage, C++, Google Sites, Macromedia Flash etc)

2) What are your thoughts on developing resources with pure code editors and

WYSIWYG tools such as Dreamweaver?

3) Do you use any particular method when choosing what tool to use for developing e-

learning resources?

4) Which tool do you think provides the best features for making an e-learning resource

accessible? Do you think accessibility features are important?

5) I am looking at developing a framework which can be used to select a suitable

authoring tool when deciding what tool to use to design an e-learning resource. This


framework will show the features and benefits of each tool along with the things

which are the authoring tool cannot do. It aims to act as a comprehensive summary of

tools which can be quickly consulted when trying to choose. Do you think this would

be of assistance to you? Please give any comments or ideas about the above.

6) Can you suggest anything which you think this framework should include beside from

:

-the features, capabilities/functionalities of each tool,

-whether they are freely available or must be purchased for use

- If they are interoperable across systems and if they allow other tools to be

incorporated with them

7) Would you be willing to review the framework upon completion and offer comments

and judgments on it?

Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire, your contributions are greatly

appreciated. Please be aware the information you have provided will be used solely for the

purpose of this study and will be kept confidential.

Survey Available Online at: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/3QRFPJL


Appendix B: Survey for Students involved with the use of authoring tools

and the development of online resources.

1) When developing your online learning resource what authoring tool did you use?

- Dreamweaver

- FrontPage

- Google Sites

- C++

- Authorware

- Other , if so please state _______________

2) What level of programming skills do you have?

- Very experienced

- Some previous experience with writing code or authoring courses

- No prior experience with designing and authoring an online learning resource

3) A WYSIWYG (What you see is what you get editor) allows the developer to see the

resource as it will appear on screen while creating it , this is different to editors which

show only code such as HTML

Do you think this type of authoring tool is easier to use than a pure code editor such as notepad ++

- Yes

- No

- No preference

4) When deciding what tool to use for authoring your learning resource what factors did u

consider? (You can select more than one)

- The level of support available

- Ability to incorporate various different media (text, pictures, videos)

-Interoperability with other programmes

- A programme which offers templates

- The popularity of the programme

-navigation structures

- features which allow to design the site to make it aesthetically pleasing (backgrounds, themes,

image upload etc)

- Support for linking content together therefore making a course

5) Did you use any blogs/resources/ manuals / instructions for guidance when using your chosen

tool?

- Yes - Online blogs

- Yes – Authoring programme Manual

- Yes - Online website instructions

- Yes – YouTube videos

- No – I had previous experience using the tool


- No – I found the programme easy to use without instructions

6) How accessible did you make your learning resource? Did you consult any accessibility

guidelines?

- Very accessible ( I used WCAG guidelines)

- Somewhat accessible – I used both sound, text and images

- I did not include accessibility issues in my resource.

7) Please rate your chosen tool in terms of Usability (1 = Easy to use) (2= Moderate usability) (3=

Complicated to use)

1 ____

2 ____

3 ____

8) Please rate your chosen tool in terms of functionality - did it include all the functions which you

required or did you use any supporting tools

(1 – Provided all functions necessary)

(2 = Provided the majority of functions needed)

(3= Did not meet all functional requirements , additional tools used)

If you answered 3 please state what additional tool you used _____________

9) Would you use your chosen tool again?

- Yes

- No

If no why not _______________

10) Do you think a framework which outlines the features of each tool and their capabilities would

assist you in the future when selecting an authoring tool?

- Yes I think it would be very helpful and quicker when deciding what tool to use

-No I am already familiar with all the tools which are available.

**Please feel free to give any additional comments which you feel may be of use to this subject.

Survey Available Online at : http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/3KTDQHH


Appendix C: Project Plan This project has a deliverable date of August 16

th 2012. The main goal of the project is to

complete the project within the specified time zone at the best quality in order to achieve the

highest grade possible. In order to achieve this aim it is necessary to plan. Planning helps to

deliver the project on time and at a high standard. It also enables communication in a timely

manner and it also will allow for any problems which may arise to be identified and solved

early. There are 4 steps to creating a good project plan as outlined below:

Step 1: Project Goals

Step 2: Project Deliverables and Tasks

Step 3 : Supporting Plans and Risk Management

Step 1: The project goals must be SMART – Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and

Timely. The main goal of the project is as above, to complete the project within the specified

time zone at the best quality in order to achieve the highest grade possible. This project also

aims to determine the suitability of current authoring tools used to develop e-learning

resources and develop a framework to display this. The key stakeholders in this project are

my Supervisor and I. If the deliverable is not met I will be negatively affected in terms of my

grades. It is therefore essential to prioritise the needs and requirements of the project and plan

effectively.

Step 2: Project Deliverables and Tasks.

The Work Breakdown Structure below breaks the deliverable down into individual tasks and

organises the project into the resources necessary and the schedule and dependencies.

Work Breakdown Structure

Planning

–Collect feedback from Research report and Make changes to the Literature review

–Begin to contact Lecturers regarding interviews

–Compile questions suitable for the student survey

–Research further literature relating to the topic area and the field experiments

–Develop Interview templates of questions that will be asked and also the resources needed

for the respondents to choose features they find suitable for tools.

–Develop Project Plan.

Plan chapters for the Dissertation Report

Plan Supervisor Meetings

Execution


2.1 – Conduct Interviews with the relevant members of staff

2.2- Distribute Surveys to students and collect responses.

2.3 –Analyse Information Collected from field work

2.4-Research further Information into the relevant topic areas

2.5 -Begin writing the Dissertation Chapters

2.6- Design the framework

2.7 -Develop the framework for determining the suitability of the tools.

2.8- Allow staff to evaluate the framework and provide feedback

2.9 -Evaluate the framework in terms of aesthetics, effectiveness, and usability and ensure it

is understandable.

2.10- Testing Phase after feedback

2.11 – Ensure to meet with supervisor for feedback and comments.

2.12 – Respond to any changes or problems which may arise

2.13 - Complete the report.

Step 3: Supporting Plans

Communications Plan:

The main communication which will take place throughout this project will be through the

use of email and face to face meetings with the supervisor. These supervisor meetings will

take place weekly in order to check progress and make decisions regarding the project. I will

also consult my supervisor when I need to make any changes to this proposed plan.

Communication will also occur between other members of staff and students which will

occur through the medium of email. This communication will be in order to arrange meetings

and also collect feedback.

Documents

‘Evaluating the suitability of current Authoring Tools for ... · authoring tools therefore an evaluation needs to be planned. Extensive research will be conducted into the suitability