DOCUMENT RESUME ED 319 468 JC 900 318 AUTHOR Kendra, Lawrence M.; Clavner, Jerry B. TITLE Coding Language vs. Authoring System: To Code or Author--That Is the Question. PUB DATE Jun 90 NOTE 15p.; Paper presented at the National Education Computing Conference (Nashville, TN, Jule 25-27, 1990. Coding for computer programs (p.10-14) will not reproduce adequately. PUB TYPE Speeches/Conference Papers (150) -- Viewpoints (120) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Authoring Aids (Programing); *Computer Assisted Instruction; *Computer Software DevelopmeLt; *Teacher Developed Materials IDENTIFIERS *Storyboard Programs ABSTRACT Drawing from experiences at Cuyahoga Community College, this paper offer guidance on the use of storyboard packages and authoring languages to develop interactive instructional materials. Introductory comments reveal that the greatest use of computers in courses other than computer and information sciences is still in drills, tutorials, writing composition, and simulations; and that there is little research-based data on the effectiveness of computers as a method of instruction or on the time, energy, and resources required to prepare to use ..:omputers in instruction. Next, the paper lists several requirements for interactive instructional materials, e.g., the lesson must extend from or reinforce classroom activities; a three-way, ongoing, systematized interaction must take place among the student, instructor, and material in the computer; the material available to the student must give clear fail-safe instructions, use a developmental/incremental process toward mastery of concepts, and draw forth questions that the student will bring to the instructor. Tips about storyboard lesson planning are presented next, suggesting that the approach is best suited to the visually oriented, that it often requires considerable tinkering and time, and that it tempts the instructor to include too many sub-menus. Next, arthoring systems, which are designed for i-struction based on lecturing-demonstrating-exampling, are discussed and five drawbacks are identified. Attachments include outlines of the curriculum and lesson development processes, and a basic language program for an emlLoyment theory lesson. (WJT) * * Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document.
Transcript
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 319 468 JC 900 318
AUTHOR Kendra, Lawrence M.; Clavner, Jerry B.TITLE Coding Language vs. Authoring System: To Code or
Author--That Is the Question.PUB DATE Jun 90NOTE 15p.; Paper presented at the National Education
Computing Conference (Nashville, TN, Jule 25-27,1990. Coding for computer programs (p.10-14) will notreproduce adequately.
PUB TYPE Speeches/Conference Papers (150) -- Viewpoints (120)
EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Authoring Aids (Programing); *Computer Assisted
ABSTRACTDrawing from experiences at Cuyahoga Community
College, this paper offer guidance on the use of storyboard packagesand authoring languages to develop interactive instructional
materials. Introductory comments reveal that the greatest use ofcomputers in courses other than computer and information sciences isstill in drills, tutorials, writing composition, and simulations; andthat there is little research-based data on the effectiveness ofcomputers as a method of instruction or on the time, energy, andresources required to prepare to use ..:omputers in instruction. Next,the paper lists several requirements for interactive instructionalmaterials, e.g., the lesson must extend from or reinforce classroomactivities; a three-way, ongoing, systematized interaction must takeplace among the student, instructor, and material in the computer;the material available to the student must give clear fail-safeinstructions, use a developmental/incremental process toward masteryof concepts, and draw forth questions that the student will bring tothe instructor. Tips about storyboard lesson planning are presentednext, suggesting that the approach is best suited to the visuallyoriented, that it often requires considerable tinkering and time, andthat it tempts the instructor to include too many sub-menus. Next,arthoring systems, which are designed for i-struction based onlecturing-demonstrating-exampling, are discussed and five drawbacksare identified. Attachments include outlines of the curriculum andlesson development processes, and a basic language program for anemlLoyment theory lesson. (WJT)
* *
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.
CODING LANGUAGE VS. AUTHORING SYSTEM
To Code or Author - That is the Question
National Education Computing ConferenceNashville, Tennessee
June 25 - 27,1994
U.$ DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educahcrua Resserth and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)
XEThe document has been reproduced asevened from the person or 0%41'11:Moon
on9nahng stC motor changes have been made to omprove
regrOduchon gamy
Pomts of vsew opt mons stated in the docu-ment do not necessary represent of coatOERI pc:whorl or policy
"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
J. Ctavnpr
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."
Lawrence M. Kendra, Ph. D.Economics, Computer Science, and General Business
Cuyahoga Community College
andJerry B. Clavner, Ph. D.
Sociology, Social Science, and AnthropologyCuyahoga Community College
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
We need computers to halp students learn.The new principles are clear.
Cybernetics is/are hors. The future can bedemonstrated.
The visual grooves the audio.Concepts, processes, sequencing,
branching. So where's the loop for the teacher.
In all the discussions about computers in the classroom verylittle attention has been directed to whether it assists inmaking teaching for the instructor more efficient oreffective. (If computers are so good, why can't they go toour committee meetings for us.)
Several things stand out in the literature that indicate ageneral lack of knowledge in this area, i.e.:
Good teachers (whatever they are) feel that computersmake them better teachers (however that is measured).
Teachers who go from no usage to some usage of computersview the computer as a useful teaching tool.
Most teachers using computers in the classroom use themas audio-visual aids.
Rarely are computers used interactively in theteaching/learning process (by students and teacherstogether) even in WAN and LAN configurations.
Rarely are they used to assist in model or paradigmdevelopment, .11- even to develop complex computationaloperations.
Our investigation at our college indicates that the greatestuse of computers in and outside the classroom in coursesother than computer and information sciences is still indrill, tutorial, writing composition, and simulation. We'reafraid that this may be the case even in computer coursesalso. The .se of the computer as a high tech student guideor lab manual is as fraught with the problems those earlyprimitive learning tools had, and more (we know; we wroteone)!
Analyses of the effectiveness and efficiency of computers inthe classroom as a method of instruction or adjunct toinstruction still remain mostly anecdotal. It may be thatco'leges and universities give material support to thepreparation of materials for teaching computers, but do nctsupport the "write ups", but we doubt it! The development ormodification of packages by teaching faculty is a timeconsuming task in and of itself. Note, introducing computersinto one's teaching involves the .*tress of changing behaviorsand dealing with both old beliefs and new ideas that can only
-,.
3
be validated after significant successes.
It is also interesting in light of the technology and theprogramming capabilities that very little has been written ontime and energy and resources (read: money) involved inassessing different configurations of preparing for teachingwith computers as opposed to preparing in other ways. Thissection of the paper addresses some of the issues involved instudying this matter. The complete research will await thetime, energy, and money needed to complete the project; rightnow we are too busy teaching.
Our framework here is to set out a paradigm by which teachingfaculty can intelligently make some choices as to how theyare going to use the computer. We feel it is necessary tostipulate that the decision whether to use a computer nolonger optional. Peers and even some administrations naveconvinced themselves that computers are essential componentsto "proper" and appropriate teaching. Many of these sameadministrators though seem to think that verbal support issufficient.
Our report is based of. our personal experience in using thecomputers to: generate individualized (essay and multipleguess tests), having students answer and proof theirmaterials on the computer in a variety of disciplines, gamesand simulations, assisting in setting up a program in ArtGraphics, writing a student interactive study guide with allthe programs, and hours of debugging.
This report grew out of an ..ttempt to prepare trulyinteractive material for students in Economics, SocialScience, and Business courses to help them understand thecore concepts and processes of micro and macro Economics. Wetried several computer languages, several story boardsoftware packages, and different authoring systems. All ofthese tools take tine to learn and use. Not just the time infront of the CRT, but the time in arranging the material andlessons in a manner that reflects cybernetic principles. Allinvolve the same learning time, and th.re is no transfer oflearning from one system to another; they design it that way!
It should be understood at the outset that simplytransferring a lesson/unit/course to a computer is disastrousin terms of the educational process. It compares to thetalking heads in some of the telecourses we have all seen.The rationale for any computer based instruction must be thatthe student learns best when he/she does whatever it is wesay the processes of the field(s) are. Beware though, itisn't simply providing student-computer interaction thatmakes for learning that is actually augmented by thecomputer. The lesson must extend from or reinforce theclassroom activities. The student needs to be in a three wayinteraction among him/herself, the instructor, and the
4
material in/on the computer. This interaction must be on-going and systemized.
The material available to the student through the computermust, in addition to giving clear fail safe instructions, setparameters within paradigms that encourage mastery of theconcepts through a developmental process; it cannot be, atleast for the beginning student, an unlimited "field" thatconfuses and confounds. Incremental advances should spursubstantive questioning of breadth and depth that the studentwill take to the instructor individually, even by E Mail, butpreferably in the classroom situation, where others can learnalso. This questioning can then be utilized in aLancasterian manner to encourage synergy, that when it occursis worth almost any effort an instructor could expend. Whichbrings us full circle.
The processes and advantages for the student of both thestoryboard and authoring systems are discussed elsewhere.Here, we wish to rehearse the cognitive and psychomoter, andwe would argue, the affective components of the inputingprocesses to determine the best fit for instructor and methodof material preparation.
Storyboard lesson planning is best done by and for those whoare visually oriented. To roughly compare it to a sat ofcartoon panels does not do it an injustice, but is reallyquite a good metaphor. In the making of a movie orcommercial, storyboards are constructed (and revised) toinsure the development and flow of whatever is beingproduced. The storyboard approach often requiresconsiderable tinkering, but has the distinct advantage ofallowing the director/producer to start and restart anywhereat the beginning, middle, or end. Some authoring packagesare almost impossible to edit.
Whole units can be substituted without disrupting the flow ifdone very carefully. Storyboard construction takes a longtime even with user friendly/menu driven programs andexperience doing one or more sets does not make the next setany easier if the material is discrepant. Storyboardprograms are slightly easier to use for developing sub-menudirections and materials. We have not found, though, anysignificant difference in student inclination to reviewmaterial that is insufficiently learned (with sel.f-testsincluded). In fact, students appear frustrated with too manyalternatives which the storyboard producer/director ofteneels compelled to insert, simply because it can be done!
Authoring systems are designed for "lecturing-demonstrating-exampling" instruction. Using core concepts for the basis ofdiscrete lessons, the author writes much as he/she would iflesson plans were being constructed as part of a specificunit. The lesson is an independent entity, but builds on
5
previous learned material. Authoring systems are suited forthose instructors who have a comprehensive understanding ofprogramming and can utilize mathematical constructs andtranarorm them into verbal linear progressions.
The drawbacks are:1. These type of instructors are often unwilling to
"let go" and let the machine do the instruction. They feelthey have to be around to do the teaching and answer thequestions that the student has about the "whys." immediately.
2. Authoring systems are often designed to giveinformation and do not require the students to progress in amanner that causes the instructor to receive the feedback andreinforcement. We are not casting dispersions. In fact,part of the exercise programs that we developed wereinadvertently designed so that the instructor was givinghigh grades, not because students learned anything, butbecause they were clever, caught on easily, or hadmathematical talent.
3. Authoring systems require that the student (and theauthor) do a great deal of work on his/her own inpreparation for learning with the computer. There is muchthat can be inserted into the programs with an authoringsystem, but as much of it would turn out to be redundant, itis best left out. The instructor who relies on an authoringsystem to do all the work simply makes the machine as boringas the instructor who lectures exclusively and wonders whystudents don't come regularly. Like the afternoon soaps,more left to the imagination, the more viewers pay regularattention.
4. ',Mile program refinement and correction,particularly to allow for different parameters, is easy to dowith authoring systems, it should be noted that storyboardsare better suited for more extensive changes.
5. Directly related, errors of content that are notlinked to programming are more difficulty to spot; it isassumed that the student did something incorrectly.
Note that nowhere in the discussion have we addressed theissue of IBM vs. Apple [trademarks acknowledged]. Thequestion of machinery appears to be more a question of styleor perceived need for bells and whistles. Those interestedin this type of endeavor should understand machinelimitations and be concerned with "V.le lesson"; not marryinga machine to a system, program, or package. Several pointsthough should be made. Small screens on CRT's may impede."Compatibles" may not be so compatible. Signs and symbolsspecific to certain disciplines may be easier to access on anApple.
6
Curriculums, Development Process
g m. Write, test and implement levels1, 2 and 3 performance objective.
sop Select objective statements whichwill be used as basis of lesson.
Level 1 To be able to interpreta given Employmemt Theory
table with respect to anyspecified economic tendency.
Level 2 Given an Employment Theorytable, identify the respectiveconditions and recommendspecific strategies forreaching (continuing) equilibrium.
Level 3 Given an Employment Theorytable. write an essay in whichyou explain a specific economiccondition and reccmmend astrategy to achieve and/ormainta;n an equilibrium.
In conclusion, the instructor who wishes to enter into thedevelopment of interactive learning programs need not;re7invent the wheel. There are tools out these and they ,can,'actually assist the committed teacher in creatingteaching/learning materials that are not only beneficial tothe student, but stimulating and fulfilling to theinstructor. In turn, this process can help theteaching/learning process itself.
8
I esson Development Process
;Authoring Systems
Storyboard the lesson
. Pedagogyfeedback requiredlearning assumptionsintervention requirementsclassroom considerationsvariety of learning modes
. Lesson Operationbugs and breaks (free from)error handling (messages)directions (clear and correct)documentation
* teacher helpful* student helpful
bells and whistles (?)graphic display effective
Programming Languages
.. flowchart the program
. Pedagogyfeedback requiredlearning assumptionsintervention requirementsclassroom considerationsvariety of learning modes
9
Program Operation (Modules)alpha/beta testingerror handling routineswrite direction textwrite documentation (manual(s))
* for teacher* for student
determine sound and graphic needsselect appropriate graphics mode
`,......
Lesson DirjeLoar....nent Process
Authoring Systems Programming Languages
Storyboard the lesson
. Student OutcomesEase of lesson useadaptability to systemenhancement of learningenjoyabilitylearning measurementunintended learning resultshow does lesson compare with
other available softwareavailable support
... Flowchart the program
10
. Student OutcomesEase of lesson useadaptability to systemenhancement of learningenjoyabilitylearning measurementunintended learning resultshow does lesson compare with
other available softwareavailable support
Exhibit I. Basic Language Coding of Employment Theory Lesson.
CLS:SCREEN 0:KEY OFF:C:0
COLOR 3:PRINT ' Here is an example of how the Employment Theory model will work.'
COLOR 2:PRINT :PRINT ' AGGREGATE EQUILIBRIUM TABLE'
PRINT '
PRINT 'Aggregate Business Net Disposable House House Business Govrnment Aggregate'
GotolY( 1,13);Nrite('SECOND STAGE => Ye could lower interest on household saving:');
GotoIY(40,11);Write('142 91;GotoIY(75,11);Write(159');Stage;key := ' ';TextColor(9);CotoZY( 1,19);Vrite(' THUD STAGE =) Ye could encourage business investaent:');
