72
Choosing Authoring Tools
ADL Instructional Design Team
Choosing Authoring Tools.docx
page 61 of 74
© 2009 CC: Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0
contribution). More and more, tools allow modeling of organization structures and processes, and
assignment of specific roles in the production process. These roles allow the tool to encompass a greater
scope of production and maintenance activities within the ADDIE model, such as analysis and evaluation.
8.2.
Use of XML or JSON
Like the software arena in general, tools are moving towards use of XML (Extensible Markup Language)
or JSON (Javascript Object Notation) as an output format and/or as the internal authoring source code.
XML is a universal, durable markup language that is relatively easy to learn and use, and is a robust
means for storing structured data. Because of these characteristics, some training organizations are
requiring that their learning content be stored in its raw form in this format. Using a transformation
application, XML stored in this format can then be output into many different formats, including all kinds
of documentation that is not related to eLearning.
JSON is not a markup language, but functions similar to XML in that it is a universal data interchange file
format. It has advantages over XML in that:
•
It can be directly read in and
“
understood
”
by browsers, since it is part of the Javascript
specification. XML requires some sort of transformation code or middleware in order to be
understood by browsers.
•
Its syntax is significantly simpler than XML.
•
It is more compact than XML.
Similarly, tools are starting to appear that use XML or JSON as the means of storing the authored content
internally. This XML or JSON content can then be compiled into an eLearning runtime file or set of files
using, again, a transformation application. This
“
open architecture
”
approach achieves three goals:
•
It separates content from appearance (see 8.3. Separation of content and appearance), which
promotes greater flexibility in content maintenance, and more delivery options.
•
In line with the term
“
open architecture,
”
using an open, universal format (XML or JSON) for
storing content allows the possibility of using that content in different output formats,
applications, and contexts, depending on the transformation engine used, which could be a COTS
(commercial off-the-shelf) application or custom one. In other words, use of XML or JSON takes
the content data out of proprietary code objects and puts it into a universal file format, increasing
the interoperability of this data with other (proprietary) applications and systems. For instance,
some authoring tools (such as Flash) have the ability to read in data from external XML or JSON
files, either at runtime or during the authoring process.
•
In addition to allowing a variety of output formats as described above, it can free the authoring
capabilities (which determine the complexity of learning interactions) from the typical constraints
of feature sets presented by authoring tools with
“
canned
”
(i.e., non-scripted) feature sets. Custom
scripts and code can be written to manipulate the stored content in various creative and complex
ways, without interfering with the content itself.
One technically difficult feat for an authoring tool is to import courses created in other authoring tools
such that they are fully editable. Unless the course is 100% free of proprietary code, it may be difficult or
impossible for the tool that is importing these externally-created courses to understand and interpret this
code. One solution is to use XML or JSON, which avoids using proprietary code for storing the content
(the modules that transforms the content may however be proprietary), thus making importing and editing
content between tools more interoperable. This relies on tools being able to import XML or JSON files. It
would then be up to the authoring tool to apply the correct transform to the XML or JSON data to output
into screens.
59
Choosing Authoring Tools
ADL Instructional Design Team
Choosing Authoring Tools.docx
page 62 of 74
© 2009 CC: Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0
Though the content data may not be imported into the tool in the form of XML or JSON files, and XML
or JSON may not be used internally as the means for storing content, the tool may still have an option of
compiling the content portion of it into XML or JSON output. This XML or JSON output can be used as
part of the runtime file set (i.e., data is read in from it by the runtime engine to assemble screens), or it can
be imported into other tools or used to create other formats, as described above.
A further advantage of using XML or JSON is that it enables direct editing of content in a text editor or
—
through using an XML or JSON interface application
—
a web form in order to update content, making the
content updating process simpler. In this case, the content updaters (who may be SMEs or instructors) can
make changes to text, change URLs, etc., without needing access to or experience with the primary
authoring tool.
8.3.
Separation of content and appearance
For quite a while now, there has been a trend towards separation of content and appearance. Examples of
this are tools that use technologies like Cold Fusion and server technologies like ASP. This trend has
permeated deeper and deeper into application architecture. Separation of content and appearance
facilitates flexible updating of text, media files, etc. without recoding the screens they appear on. Some
tools that use this principle rely on dynamic assembly of eLearning at runtime (which requires server
software); others assemble and solidify the final product at the time files are published (handled within
the authoring tool). XML or JSON are common means for storing the
“
content
”
portion of the equation
(see 8.2. Use of XML or JSON).
Another way that separation of content and appearance manifests is the separation of the course interface
from the content. Most often this involves use of skins, which are interface designs (possibly including
functionality as well as visual design) that can be swapped out easily.
8.4.
Support for ISD Process
Some tools are adding support for the ISD process
—
in other words, the activities that led up to (and
possibly come after) the design of the course that is rendered in the authoring tool. This usually includes
wizards, coaches, and templates, as well as checklists for doing training needs analysis, writing design
documents, determining instructional strategies, writing learning objectives, etc. This ISD support is often
targeted at non-instructional designers, i.e., SMEs who know little or nothing about instructional design.
8.5.
Integration and complexity of templates and skins
Templates and skins were discussed in 5.5. Templates, themes, and skins. Templates and skins have
always been a part of authoring tools, but they are becoming much more integral to the tools, and are
becoming more complex. The tools to build and manage templates are also becoming more complex to
keep pace with the templates themselves. This trend has the overall effect of simplifying the authoring
process, so that the author only needs to focus on the information to be presented and instructional
strategy, rather than format and function (which are automatically taken care of by the template).
8.6.
Learning object-centric architecture
Authoring systems that are integrated with LCMSs or content repositories best exemplify this principle.
They give developers the flexibility to develop all kinds of content objects (not just explicitly designed for
learning purposes) and assemble and reassemble them in different combinations (often relying on
SCORM to do this) for learning modules either at runtime or when courses are published. This trend
reflects the growing popularity and movement towards knowledge management practices.
60
Choosing Authoring Tools
ADL Instructional Design Team
Choosing Authoring Tools.docx
page 63 of 74
© 2009 CC: Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0
8.7.
Embedded best practice design principles
Tools are integrating visual and instructional design principles more and more, as these principles are
more accepted and standardized, and become the default working principles for eLearning.
8.8.
Automated metadata generation/extraction
Tools are making the onerous task of determining and entering metadata (particularly for SCORM
courses) easier by extracting directly or intelligently inferring (using latent semantic analysis [LSA]
technologies) data for certain metadata fields such as keywords, learning time, reading level, etc.
8.9.
Open architectures
“
Open architecture
”
infers that the tool has APIs that allow integration of external applications and
systems into the tool, including, in some cases, swapping a tool vendor-provided function with an
externally produced one. Open architectures imply a relaxation of proprietary control and constraints on
the part of the tool vendor, allowing potential users to
“
look under the hood
”
at their implementation.
To enable open architecture, the vendor usually must share all or parts of its architecture with add-
on/system integration developers. This may require some license agreements between entities sharing the
architecture information.
In spite of the potential for competitive disadvantages resulting from publicly exposing the inner
workings of their system, some vendors favor them because their customers want to be able to easily
customize the system by purchasing additions that the tool vendor may not feel are important enough to
develop themselves.
Open architectures have driven the creation of a marketplace for third-party applications that can be
integrated into the core tool as modules. These modules can provide all sorts of functions, mostly
revolving around advanced types of interactions and assessments.
8.10.
Support for team-based learning
True team-based learning implies more than a group of learners in a meeting room taking a course
together under one login, presenting themselves to the LMS as if they are one learner and making group
decisions about how to complete course activities, or synchronously progressing through a course from
different locations and being scored by the average of their individual scores. Team-based learning
revolves around the idea of learning activities that both affect other team members
’
activities and are
affected in turn by the actions of others in their team, who may be using a different version or part of the
course based on their individual role in the team.
Thus, authoring tool support for team-based learning involves more than just providing communication
functions in the content in order to provide collaboration and peer review by multiple learners.
Complicated assessment and sequencing paradigms must be possible, with intelligent agents or
middleware automatically tracking and mediating the activities and performance of each team member,
and reporting rollup progress as well as an audit trail for how these scores were generated (based on
individuals
’
performance) to the LMS.
The technological challenges in this type of learning are now being worked out, but there is no universally
accepted solution, so no prominent authoring solutions to support it have appeared yet. But as soon as the
team-based learning paradigm becomes an established part of the training and education space, authoring
tool and LMSs will surely move to support it.
99
Choosing Authoring Tools
ADL Instructional Design Team
Choosing Authoring Tools.docx
page 64 of 74
© 2009 CC: Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0
8.11.
“Gadget”-based interface
Gadgets (aka
“
widgets
”
or
“
applets
”
) are functionalities that are presented as separate items on a page.
They are used in many commercial e-mail
“
My Page
”
interfaces, and in many enterprise portal interfaces.
They make it possible to completely customize the user interface; gadgets can be turned off so they do not
appear on the interface, and can be moved to any location on the page. They can be associated with a
specific role so that users only see the ones that are relevant or permitted for their role.
This type of portal-like interface has gained traction with some vendors, simply because users are more
comfortable with this type of modern interface, and it allows a high degree of interface tailoring to suit
their needs.
8.12.
Support for social media
Learning experiences are now being designed to include elements outside of the traditional didactic
eLearning model. They often involve user-generated, and decentralized sources. These elements are
generally termed
“
social media.
”
The list of types includes:
•
Wikis (for example, Wikipedia)
•
Social networking (for example, Facebook
®
)
•
Blogs (for example, Blogger
®
)
•
Micro-blogs (for example, Twitter
®
)
•
Social bookmarking (for example, Delicious
®
)
•
Social news (for example, Digg
®
)
•
Picture sharing (for example, Flickr
®
)
•
Video sharing (for example, YouTube
®
)
•
Communities of practice (CoPs)
Courses can be authored to include these elements, as APIs; a learner could, for example, be given an
assignment to research a topic in some of these tools. The API would embed the functionality into the
content as a
“
widget
”
on a course screen. However, access to these social media elements is usually not
provided within the content, but rather, the course author configures the LMS to provide the access to the
social media site or function through the LMS interface.
A recent emerging trend in social media-based courses are
“
massive open online courses
”
(MOOCs).
These are courses where both participants and course materials are distributed across the Internet. They
are usually based on informal learning principles, relying heavily on social media. Learners participate at
their own level of time and interest, and there is no cost. Universities are usually the sponsors of MOOCs.
Rather than author and deliver original content, you may be able to leverage content or curriculum
components that are already offered in an MOOC. For more information on MOOCs, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mooc.
8.13.
Support for immersive learning technologies
There is growing interest in developing learning for serious games and virtual worlds. Tools are now
appearing to support developing learning experiences for these, although the authoring paradigms are
very different in the sense that you are not authoring screens as in an eLearning course; you are creating
3D environments that have particular interaction nodes, and, in the case of games, a narrative that drives
the sequence of activities, as well as competitive and incentivizing elements such as rewards, points, and
leaderboards.
With these technologies, authors do not create course packages and learning objects that can be uploaded
to and delivered from an LMS. They require special players and extensive server software to enable them.
Most virtual worlds require development to take place inside the environment itself. Assets (3D objects)
61
Choosing Authoring Tools
ADL Instructional Design Team
Choosing Authoring Tools.docx
page 65 of 74
© 2009 CC: Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0
can usually be created inside or outside of the virtual world, but assembling the assets into a learning
scenario requires tools and techniques within the platform.
Most virtual world learning implementations involve synchronous learning exercises using live avatars.
Asynchronous implementations are currently mostly just rendering of traditional 2D eLearning through a
web browser either inside of the virtual world or in a daughter window of the virtual world application.
This type of implementation can be created using traditional eLearning authoring tools. Asynchronous
multiplayer implementations involve
“
bots
”
(scripted avatars that operate autonomously). These are
slowly appearing in learning implementations, but are technically advanced to develop and implement.
For synchronous learning experiences in virtual worlds and games, the authored
“
course
”
consists of three
parts:
1. Building out the environment in which participants are to learn in.
2. Scripts for the avatars who take part in the learning exercise.
3. Assignments or challenges for the learner avatars.
A combination of authoring tools is needed to create all three parts. These tools are usually platform-
specific, and offered only by the platform vendor.
8.14.
Support for online assessment of performance tasks
With the growth and acceptance of informal learning approaches, there has been a growing consensus
among educators and trainers that assessment needs to focus more on observation of student target
performance and products thereof. The trend is away from relying on traditional multiple choice tests,
whose relationship to the target performance may be tenuous at best.
Until recently, there was not much attention paid to designing special authoring software to create these
types of assessments, since all this type of assessment really required was thoughtfully-prepared
product/project assignments and evaluation rubrics. However, this area is starting to become
systematized, formalized, and standardized via specialized authoring software, particularly in the K-12
education arena. An example of this is the Acuity Performance Task System
®
(see
http://thejournal.com/articles/2012/11/14/new-acuity-tool-tackles-online-assessment-of-performance-
tasks.aspx?m=1).
These systems allow users to create and assign performance tasks that mimic the complexity of real-world
situations and draw upon interdisciplinary knowledge. The tasks are instructional tools as well as
assessment vehicles. Scoring can focus on overall product/project performance as well as individual tasks
involved within a performance product/project. In K-12 education, these authoring tools include a library
of common performance task scenarios in English, math, science, etc.
8.15.
Support for semantic web/Web 3.0 technologies
Tozman (2012) argues that both online and offline learning presented as a formal event that requires some
form of attendance (i.e., away from one
’
s current tasks) is a dying breed. It is being replaced (rightly so,
he says) by the just-in-time, just-in-place performance support paradigm.
Tozman says that the advent of semantic web/Web 3.0 technology (as exemplified in web sites such as
Wolfram/Alpha and Open Cyc) will revolutionize learning such that appropriate content and curricula
will be generated on-the spot, in accordance with the performance needs of the user at the moment of
need. Semantic web technologies will apply human-like reasoning and ontologies of meaning to directly
answer factual questions and recommend the correct action or decision. Event-driven learning may not
entirely disappear; it could remain as one of many performance support options.
57
Choosing Authoring Tools
ADL Instructional Design Team
Choosing Authoring Tools.docx
page 66 of 74
© 2009 CC: Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0
To sync up with this trend, he says, authoring tools will need to produce content in a form that is
consistent with the evolution of web technologies like semantic web/Web 3.0. The content must be
transparent and structured (for example, with XML) to allow semantic processing engines to understand
its meaning and utility to learners. The authoring tool would not be designed to assign any specifics to the
packaging and formatting of content at the outset; it would be designed to set up the rules for semantic
web applications to package and format content.
The authoring process will, he says, need to include creating taxonomies to help a computer understand
the content, its context, and appropriate formats for display of it, and store this in a schema. It then needs
to have the ability to create processing rules that dictate how to process content of a specific type into a
defined format.
8.16.
Authoring performance support applications
Performance support application development is surging, especially for the mobile platform, due the
“always
on, always with
you”
nature. Although the instructional design process and end-use is different
for performance support vs eLearning, there are no reasons why standard eLearning tools and techniques
cannot be used to develop performance support. However, some of the differences between performance
support tools and eLearning can drive emphasis of the following features when choosing an authoring
tool:
•
Robust search capability. This can include content stored locally in the application as well as
repositories of web-based content.
•
Lack of need for assessments, with the possible exception of self-assessments.
•
Workflow, checklist, and timeline-based screen templates may be needed. Decision support trees
may also be helpful.
•
The ability to use the tool in either standalone disconnected or connected mode, if users will be in
field environments where connectivity is absent.
•
The ability to send usage data to a web service to enable stakeholders to easily evaluate tool
effectiveness and diagnose performance gaps (where performance support tool emphasis may be
needed).
If your organization is involved in building performance support applications, you may want to limit your
choice of authoring tools to those that robustly support these features.
Currently, there are no authoring tools advertised or designed specifically for authoring performance
support, although this may change due to the popularity of performance support in the workplace.
8.17.
HTML5 format
The Adobe Flash
®
format has dominated the interactive multimedia and eLearning landscape since 1996.
It has been used to create countless media-rich, interactive Level 3 and Level 4 eLearning courses, as well
as animations and videos appearing as media assets within a variety of learning objects. Many authoring
tools output to Flash format simply because of its near unlimited ability, via its ActionScript scripting
language, to handle extensive interactivity in Rich Internet Applications (RIAs). It has also been the
format of choice for Internet videos (via .flv format).
Flash has recently experienced a downturn in popularity and support, however, in favor of what is known
as HTML5 (the combination of CSS3, HTML v.5, and JavaScript) for a variety of reasons:
75
Choosing Authoring Tools
ADL Instructional Design Team
Choosing Authoring Tools.docx
page 67 of 74
© 2009 CC: Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0
•
Apple has never supported Flash on its iOS mobile devices, and these devices (especially iPads,
where rich media content is less constrained by a smaller screen) have become vastly more
popular (including for mLearning).
•
Performance and instability issues with Flash.
•
Security issues with Flash that inherently limit the ability of a plug-in application-based web
object (like Flash) to control and communicate with web pages and the browser (especially its
parent web page).
•
Usability issues with Flash in a browser context that, for instance, renders use of the Back and
Forward buttons confusing.
•
The steep learning curve to learn Adobe Flash authoring. Many programs simpler than Flash are
available to create Flash objects, but to fully take advantage of its features, it is necessary to learn
the Flash program.
Adobe started going down a path of deprecating Flash in 2011, culminating with their withdrawal of
support for Flash Mobile (for Android devices) in June 2012.
HTML5 is now widely touted (and seemingly accepted by Adobe) as the replacement for Flash due to the
fact that it is designed as the new native web authoring language. It is not a fully completed
specification
—
it will probably remain in progress for a number of years
—
but browsers have nevertheless
adopted many parts of the draft spec already.
There are fundamental advantages to using a native web language (HTML) vs a plug-in application
language, as follows:
•
HTML content can more easily be made accessible to screen readers.
•
There is no plug-in application that needs to be continuously updated. This can be a problem in
managed IT environments where new versions must go through lengthy approval processes and
users must rely on IT staff to upgrade their system.
•
HTML content is far easier to edit. HTML only requires a text editor. In Flash, editing requires
making changes to the source files in the source application. The output files (.swf) and the
editing files (.fla) are different formats, and you cannot edit the output files in the Flash software.
In HTML, there does not necessarily need to be a different source file format from the output file
format; if you use a
“
round trip
”
WYSIWYG web page editor such as Dreamweaver
®
, you can
reimport outputted files into the web page editor and edit them at any time.
•
HTML is generally easier to hand code than a plug-in language like ActionScript (though this
depends on how much JavaScript is used), reducing development costs.
•
Security issues are lessened because the browser does not see HTML code as coming from a
“
foreign
”
application.
•
It is difficult to configure plug-in content to be searchable by external search engines, whereas
HTML code is always searchable by default.
•
It is easier to translate native HTML code, or at least expose the contents of the web page to
translation engines.
•
In general, it is harder to create a seamless user experience when users navigate from the browser
environment to the plug-in environment; the plug-in environment tends to be more functionally
self-contained (it needs to be since the code base is different).
Furthermore, there are particular advantages offered by HTML5 (vs earlier versions of HTML):
•
Audio and video can be streamed natively in HTML5.
65
Choosing Authoring Tools
ADL Instructional Design Team
Choosing Authoring Tools.docx
page 68 of 74
© 2009 CC: Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0
•
Programmers have new structural elements in HTML5 that allow code to be more efficiently
organized, as well as features that improve interoperability.
•
Validation of user input in forms is a built-in feature.
•
Bandwidth-efficient vector graphics (via SVG format) are natively supported.
•
HTML5 allows local data storage, which can be accessed to support the web application.
•
Drag and drop interactions are natively supported.
•
Geolocation features of a mobile device can be leveraged.
Perhaps the biggest advantage of HTML5 to eLearning is that it allows
“
responsive design
”
for mobile
devices, meaning that the content is dynamically resized based on the size of the browser window. Add to
this the fact that it is supported by iOS, and it is clearly the best strategy for delivering eLearning to many
mobile audiences.
Should you look for an authoring tool that outputs HTML5? It depends on your audience. If you are
delivering eLearning to users outside of your organization (i.e., you cannot easily baseline the browsers
that will be used), you may want to err on the conservative side and skip it for now, since users may not
have a browser that can handle it (or certain parts of the spec at least). But the day is fast approaching
when browsers will support it fully in its current draft state.
For further information on the impact of HTML5 on eLearning and how to make the decision as to
whether to adopt it as your eLearning format (and consequently choose an authoring tool to support it),
see the Elearning Guild report on HTML5 at
http://www.elearningguild.com/content.cfm?selection=doc.2574.
As of this writing there are very few authoring tools that support output to HTML5. The ones that do may
not offer all of the features and advantages of HTML5 that are implemented by browsers. Check with a
vendor to specifically identify which features of HTML5 are supported and which are not before you
purchase a tool that advertises the ability to output in HTML5 format. The following is a preliminary list
of authoring tools that support HTML5 from Ganci (2013):
•
Adobe Captivate 7
•
Articulate Storyline 1, Update 3
•
Composica Enterprise 6
•
Claro
•
iSpring Suite
•
Landmark Liquid
•
Lectora Inspire 11.1
•
ReadyGo
•
SmartBuilder
8.18.
Interactive video
Interactive video is quickly becoming a mainstream type of content object for learning applications. It
leverages the popularity of video as an effective medium for learning by adding interactivity to the video.
The idea of associating menus, links, and (semitransparent or opaque) buttons/hotspots with a video has
always been possible within web pages that launch videos. However, in interactive video, the navigation
controls are superimposed over areas of the video itself while it is running, appearing at strategic points,
72
Choosing Authoring Tools
ADL Instructional Design Team
Choosing Authoring Tools.docx
page 69 of 74
© 2009 CC: Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0
rather than placed around the video on the web page. The navigation controls can navigate to other related
video clips (including other interactive videos), other types of content (such as PDFs), or web sites.
Forms, text entry fields, and assessments can also be overlaid on the video.
Interactive video provides a seamless, immersive experience for the user and makes
“
choose your own
adventure
”
adaptive learning scenarios, as well as
“
drill down
”
options for more detailed or relevant
information, more user friendly. It also makes tracking the user
’
s interactions with the video easier.
Interactive video usually connotes use on mobile devices, since that is the main platform for videos for
learning currently. One especially compelling implementation for mobile is to superimpose semi-
transparent hot spots that allow such things as scrubbing quickly forwards or backwards through the
video, as a convenience for
“
fat finger
”
mobile phone navigation (via thumbs, etc.), rather than traditional
small buttons in the interface.
8.19.
Crowd sourced authoring systems
Crowd-sourced authoring systems are emerging (for example, Oppia
®
) that gather and compile data on
how learners interact with it, making it easy for authors to spot and fix shortcomings in a lesson. These
systems identify responses that learners are giving to questions that the system is not responding to
adequately, allowing authors to create a new learning path for it based on what they would actually say if
they were interacting in-person with the learner. This allows the system to accumulate the collective
wisdom of course authors and incrementally improve the learning.
Systems have been available for some time now in which interaction widgets can be uploaded and made
available to the community of authors using that tool (for example, ZebraZapps
®
). The crowd sourcing
referred to here is different in that it deals with the pedagogical aspect of the content, rather than the
technical mechanics of rendering it.
9.
For more information about authoring tools
Bersin & Associates
www.bersin.com
This company offers a variety of reports on aspects of eLearning, including authoring tools.
Brandon Hall Group
http://www.brandon-hall.com
This company sells research reports containing trends and profiles of authoring tool products, a
selection utility, and a comparison utility.
Centre for Learning and Performance Technologies. Directory of Learning Tools.
http://c4lpt.co.uk/directory-of-learning-performance-tools/instructional-tools/.
This web site contains a detailed list of available authoring tools, with abstracts describing each.
ELearning Centre (UK).
http://www.e-learningcentre.co.uk/eclipse/vendors/authoring.htm.
Web site that contains a detailed list of available authoring tools with abstracts describing each.
ELearning Guild
http://www.elearningguild.com
This trade association offers buyer
’
s guides and trend reports on authoring tools and other aspects
of eLearning.
58
Choosing Authoring Tools
ADL Instructional Design Team
Choosing Authoring Tools.docx
page 70 of 74
© 2009 CC: Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0
Fenrich, P. (2005). Creating Instructional Multimedia Solutions: Practical Guidelines for the Real
World. Santa Rosa, CA: Informing Science Institute.
This book contains a chapter about comparing, contrasting, and evaluating authoring tools.
•
TRADOC Capability Manager for the Army Distributed Learning Program (TCM-TADLP)
http://www.atsc.army.mil/tadlp/index.asp.
This web site contains comprehensive information for anyone involved in designing and
developing technology-based training for the U.S. Army.
•
Training & Education Developer Toolbox (TED-T)
https://atn.army.mil/TreeViewCStab.aspx?loadTierID=2904&docID=35.
This site is not an authoring tool itself, but has helpful technical information for U.S. DoD
developers. It is available to U.S. DoD users only. It requires a Common Access Card (CAC) to
log in since it is on the Army Training Network (ATN).
•
Trainer
’
s Guide to Authoring Tools (Training Media Review)
http://www.tmreview.com/ResearchReports/ .
Contains ratings of tools.
10.
References cited in this paper
•
Allen, M. (2012). Michael Allen
’
s ELearning Annual 2012. San Francisco: Pfeiffer Publishing.
•
Haag, J. (2011). ADL Mobile Learning Workshop 29 Aug 2011. (presentation slides)
•
Lee, C.S. (2014). Why Responsive Design? Elearning Magazine July/August 2014. 6(2), 40.
Retrieved 12/17/14 from http://gelmezine.epubxp.com/i/350882/40.
•
Quinn (2011). Designing mLearning. San Francisco: Pfeiffer Publishing.
•
Shank, P., & Ganci, J. (2013). eLearning Authoring Tools 2013: What We
’
re Using, What We
Want (eLearning Guild Survey Report 2013). Available at
http://www.elearningguild.com/research/archives/index.cfm?id=170&action=viewonly&from=ho
me
•
Tozman, R. (2012). Why ELearning Must Change: A Call to End Rapid Development
.
In M.
Allen (Ed.) Michael Allen
’
s ELearning Annual 2012. San Francisco: Pfeiffer Publishing.
•
Udell (2012). Learning Everywhere. Nashville: Rockbench Publishing.
•
Weigers (2000). Karl Wiegers Describes 10 Requirements Traps to Avoid. Web article retrieved
12/16/14 from http://processimpact.com/articles/reqtraps.html
Documents you may be interested
Documents you may be interested
