Evaluating the suitability of current Authoring Tools for developing e-learning Resources. Ashley Hand H August 2012

Transcription

1 Evaluating the suitability of current Authoring Tools for developing e-learning Resources Ashley Hand H 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)

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:... MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 2

3 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. MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 3

4 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. MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 4

5 Table of Contents Declaration... 2 Abstract... 3 Acknowledgements:... 4 Chapter 1: Introduction Aims, Objectives and Project Description: Introduction:... 9 Chapter 2: Literature Review: Authoring Tools: E-Learning: Learning styles and Needs: Usability Characteristics of a Suitable Authoring Tool: Web content Accessibility guidelines and Authoring tools accessibility guidelines: Other Important Standards which must be adhered to by Authoring tools and e-learning resources: The authoring tools: Literature Review Conclusion: Chapter 3 Research Requirements and Methods Requirements Analysis / Methodology Discussion of Professional Legal and Ethical issues Risk Management Plan: Chapter 4 Methods and Results Methodology / Gathering of data: Findings Staff / Subject Experts Interviews and Questionnaires: Analysis of Results: Chapter 5: Development of the Framework Definition of Requirements: MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 5

6 5.2 Stages of Development: Beginners Framework: Intermediate Framework: Experienced Programmers Framework Evaluation of the Framework Chapter 6: Conclusions and Future Recommendations Summary Recommendations for further research and developments References: Websites Accessed: Bibliography: Appendices: Appendix A: Interview/ Survey Questions to ask members of staff Appendix B: Survey for Students involved with the use of authoring tools and the development of online resources Appendix C: Project Plan MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 6

7 Table of Figures: Figure 1: Model for learning Activity Figure 2: Kolb s Experiential Learning Cycle Figure 3: Resources to encourage a multiple approach to learning Figure 4: Authoring tools used for development Figure 5: Level of Programming Skills Figure 6: Resources used when choosing tools Figure 7: Resource Accessibility Figure 8: Would you use your chosen tool again Figure 9: Perceptions of the Framework Tables: Table 1- Accessibility Guidelines Table 2: Authoring tools Accessibility Guidelines Table 3: Risk Management Matrix Table 4: Authoring tools - Features and Properties Table 5: Authoring tools - Features and Properties MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 7

8 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. MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 8

9 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. MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 9

10 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. MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 10

11 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: MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 11

12 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 MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 12

13 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. MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 13

14 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: MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 14

15 - 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 MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 15

16 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 Identities: preferences, needs, motivations. Competences: skills, knowledge, abilities Roles: approaches and modes of participating Learners Learning Environment: Tools, resources artefacts. Affordances of the physical and virtual environment for learning. Specific interaction of learner(s) with other people, using specific tools and resources, oriented towards specific outcomes Learning Activity Learning Outcomes: New knowledge skills and abilities. Evidence of the learning process. Others Other people involved and the specific role they play in the interaction eg. support, mediate, challenge, guide. 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. MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 16

17 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: MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 17

18 Figure 2: Kolb s Experiential Learning Cycle Active experimentation Concrete experence (practice, trail and error) Abstract conceptualization (making sense of what youve experienced) Reflective observation (self assement, seeing results) 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 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. MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 18

19 Figure 3: Resources to encourage a multiple approach to learning Structured Resources Tutorials Exercises Quizzes Guides Structured learning Research Learning Primary Resources Text Video Sound Images Experiential Learning Experience- Based Resources Case-based Problem-based Evidencebased Role plays Field work Practicals Simulation MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 19

20 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. MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 20

21 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. MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 21

22 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. MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 22

23 - 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. MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 23

24 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. MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 24

25 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. MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 25

26 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 ( 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. MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 26

27 Table 2: Authoring tools Accessibility Guidelines Principle A.1: Authoring tool user interfaces must follow applicable accessibility guidelines Guideline Description 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 MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 27

28 Guideline Description 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 ( and edited by WC3 & Spellman, J et al. (2011) MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 28

29 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 SCORMconformant 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. MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 29

30 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).( 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) MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 30

31 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 MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 31

32 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. MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 32

33 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. MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 33

34 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 MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 34

35 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 . 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 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 MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 35

36 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. MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 36

37 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 o Breaches of these principles include areas of research misconduct such as fabrication, falsification and plagiarism. 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 MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 37

38 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. MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 38

39 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 Time estimates too optimistic Poor communication Requirements changing Tools unavailable 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. The estimates of time in this plan may be too optimistic and some tasks may not be completed on time delaying the project Results in misunderstandings, delays in meetings and a delay in the project schedule Lack of time to fix problems, investigate issues, develop solutions Delay the project and change becomes necessary. 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 s to respondents. 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. Low possibility of Occurrence as communication will take place face to face, by and over the phone therefore there should be no problem contacting the various parties required. 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. Low possibility of occurrence. There are a number of open source tools available online MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 39

40 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. MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 40

41 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 . 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. MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 41

42 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. MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 42

43 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 students was expected for this survey and 28 students responded. MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 43

44 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 When developing your online learning resource what authoring tool did you use? Other Authorware Google Sites C++ FrontPage Dreamweaver Dreamweaver FrontPage C++ Google Sites Authorware Other Authoring tools MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 44

45 Respondents 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 What level of programming skills do you have? Very experienced Some previous experience Programming Experience level No previous experience 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. MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 45

46 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. MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 46

47 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 Did you use any blogs/resources/ manuals / instructions for guidance when using your chosen tool? No I found the programme easy to use without instructions 3 No I had previous experience using the tool 5 Yes YouTube videos 6 Yes - Online website instructions 7 Yes Authoring programme Manual 3 Yes - Online blogs 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. MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 47

48 Respondents 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 How accessible did you make your learning resource? Very Accessible (WCAG) Somewhat accessible (sound text and images) No accessiblilty modifications made 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. MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 48

49 Respondents 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 Would you use your chosen tool again? Yes No MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 49

50 Would you use your chosen tool again? Dreamweaver FrontPage Google Sites Authorware C++ Yes No 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 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? No, I already have familiar tools Yes, very helpful MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 50

51 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. MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 51

52 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. MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 52

53 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. MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 53

54 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. MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 54

55 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. MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 55

56 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 MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 56

57 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. MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 57

58 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. MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 58

59 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. MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 59

60 Table 4: Authoring tools - Features and Properties Features of the tool Dreamweaver -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 FrontPage / Microsoft expression Studio 4 Web -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 Authorware Google Sites Articulate 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. MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 60

61 Benefits of its use Level of support available Interoperability/ incorporate media Dreamweaver -Extended Dreamweaver community Access the online Adobe Design Centre and Adobe Developer Connection, training and seminars, developer certification programs, and user forums. -Supports most leading web development technologies, including HTML, XHTML, CSS, XML, JavaScript, Ajax, FrontPage / Microsoft expression Studio 4 Web -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. -Community Web site and forums for all the Expression products where you can solicit -Technical support available online from Microsoft -Ability to incorporate various media such as sound images and hyperlinks Authorware Google Sites Articulate - 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 -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 - Offer a range of technical support programs for Authorware 7, including many free online options. -Create dynamic, datadriven applications by importing or exporting Web-standard XML files -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 -Support available online through the use of Google - Google Sites is integrated with other Google products, so you can insert videos, docs, spread sheets, - Build your course once, then publish it with a single click to multiple formats -Excellent Interactivity properties. -Watch tutorials and get practical tips, free downloads, expert advice, and more from the online community. Build your course once, and then publish it with a single click to multiple formats so learners can interact with it MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 61

62 Accessibility Usability Dreamweaver PHP, Adobe ColdFusion software, and ASP. -Use the online W3C Markup Validation Service to help ensure the accuracy of your standards-based web designs. Excellent Usability for novice programmers FrontPage / Microsoft expression Studio 4 Web 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. -Built-in support for today's modern Web standards makes it easy to optimize your sites for accessibility and crossbrowser compatibility. Authorware Google Sites Articulate into other applications -Create courseware that can connect to LMS systems -Active X support -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. presentations, photo slide shows, and calendars directly onto your Google Sites pages. -Moderate Accessibility Ability to incorporate sound text and images however does not follow any industry wide standards. Excellent Usability Moderate Usability Excellent Usability aimed at users with no previous experience 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. -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 Simple enough for beginners, powerful enough for experts. Good Usability MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 62

63 Dreamweaver FrontPage / Microsoft expression Studio 4 Web Free Open Free trial period Further 60 day free trial Source/ Cost Cost to purchase Further Cost to purchase Version CS6 most recent version Expression Web 4 most recent version Level of Prerequisite Knowledge required Does it offer templates Minor prerequisite knowledge required Offers a wide range of templates Minor prerequisite knowledge required Multiple themes offered` Templates available from Expression Design 4 Authorware Google Sites Articulate 30 day free trial Further Cost to purchase Authorware 7 most recent version Some previous knowledge of programmes or developing would be beneficial however not essential. Templates available along with drag and drop items Free Open Source tool. Accessed through Google constantly updated No prerequisite knowledge required Dozens of pre-built templates 30 days free trial Further Cost to purchase Articulate Storyline programme No prerequisite knowledge required templates with interactivity common to e- learning courses already built in. MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 63

64 Table 5: Authoring tools - Features and Properties Features of the tool Adobe CS6 Design and Web Premium 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 - LMS (Blackboard/ Moodle) 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. Course Lab -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 PHP/ Apache/MYSQL combination C++ 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. HTML 5 -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, , url, search. MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 64

65 Benefits of its use Level of support available Interoperabilit y/ incorporate media Adobe CS6 Design and Web Premium 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. Online support available Online communities and tutorials -Ability to incorporate media across a number of different software programmes in the suite. -Text images sound and video also embedded in the programme. LMS (Blackboard/ Moodle) Management of course is easy through course relationship management tools. Support available both online and through the institution. Comprehensive online support also via telephone and . Ability to incorporate a wide range of media from files to videos, pictures, speech and text. Supports a large platform of media rich context. Course Lab -Import PowerPoint presentations into the learning material -Compatible with all major LMS learning management systems -Open source free tool available in many languages High level of support, online developer s zone and community. -How to modules and user guide available online also. -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/MYSQL combination C++ -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. Online support available through the use of online forums and websites. YouTube tutorials also available online. PHP, Apache and MYSQL are interoperable across many servers. WAMP server combines all there tools creating a web development environment. HTML 5 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. -Extensive support available on W3C schools website. -Additional online support available through tutorials. 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 MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 65

66 Usability Free Open Source/ Cost Adobe CS6 Design and Web Premium Mark-up Validation Service to help ensure the accuracy of your standards-based web designs. Moderate Usability, some degree of previous experience required. Free trial available Cost to purchase LMS (Blackboard/ Moodle) (SCORM) standards GPL an open source certification used by Moodle. Ability to make the LMS accessible to all users. Very user friendly Licence fee to pay for Blackboard Moodle open source free tool Version CS6 latest Version Blackberry release 9.1 Moodle release available online Level of Prerequisite Knowledge required Does it offer templates Medium degree of prerequisite knowledge required to operate a number of programmes across the suite Yes templates offered through Dreamweaver Moderate degree of prerequisite knowledge as it is a user friendly interface. Course themes and structures included allowing for quicker and easier customization Course Lab such as SCORM and AICC User friendly designed to facilitate all degrees of experience Free Open source tool no cost Open source online download Low level of prerequisite knowledge needed as it is a WYSIWYG editor Large (and user-expandable) set of ready-to-use module templates PHP/ Apache/MYSQL combination C++ Accessibility issues when developing. Programs provide the ability to create sound text and images. Difficult to use without prior experience and advanced programming knowledge Free Open Source Tool WAMP can be downloaded online. C++ is an updated version of C. High level of prerequisite knowledge is required for these programs. No templates offered by these tools. Colours codes are available for design purposes. HTML 5 through new media and canvas elements. Difficult to use without existing knowledge of HTML or coding. User friendly for experienced programmers. Open Source programming language HTML5 not yet fully supported version like HTML 4.01 High level of prerequisite knowledge is required when using this language. Knowledge of HTML 4.01 is an advantage Comprehensive list of codes and tags offered for design purposes. MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 66

67 5.3 Beginners Framework: Novice Programmers Little or no prerequiste Knnowledge Programming Experience Usability Easy to Moderate usability User friendly Interface Online support available Online communities and tutorials and telephone Services Level of Support available Interoperability Compatible with a number of operating systems Ability to incorporate media such as sound text images and video W3C Mark-up Validation Service e-learning standards SCORM and AICC Accessibility Templates Course themes and structures included Large (and userexpandable) set of ready-to-use module templates Availability Open Source - freely Available Free Trial period - Cost to purchase *Framework for Novice Programmers / Beginners. Dreamweaver -Articulate -FrontPage See tables for more details Follow the path for guidance on choosing a tool by obtaining information at each point on the important aspects which affect decision making. -Google Sites - Course Lab See tables for more details 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. MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 67

68 5.4 Intermediate Framework: Intermediate Programmers Mooderate prerequiste Knnowledge Programming Experience Usability Moderate usability - Experience Required Good Navigation throughout the tool Online support available Online communities and tutorials Range of technical support programs for Authorware 7 Level of Support available Interoperability 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 W3C Mark-up Validation Service e-learning standards SCORM and AICC Generate tab navigation and turn text into speech Accessibility Templates Large (and userexpandable) set of ready-to-use module templates along with drag and drop items Availability Free Trial period - Cost to purchase -Authorware -Adobe Premier CS6 See table for more details *Framework for Intermediate Programmers. 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. MSc IT (Business) 2012 Page 68