Authoring Languages

Members

Faculty Chair: Bernie Combs, SCC
Co-Chair: Alan Levine, DIST

Sharon, Blanton, SCC
Ron Bleed, DIST
Elizabeth Cooper, GCC
Miguel Corzo, GCC
Ken Costello, MCC
Michael Farabee, EMCCC
Betsy Frank, RSCC
Rod Freeman, EMCCC
Jim Hogan, SCC
Dorothy McKay, PC
Donna Rebadow, PVCC
Jim Tipton, MCC
Emma Walters, SCC
David Weaver, CGCC
Sandra Wells, SCC
Yvonne Zeka, GWCC

Charge

The Authoring Languages Committee is charged with identifying the issues, requirements, and alternatives associated with technology-based learning packages. The group will investigate various development tools, discuss when to use or adapt commercial packages, discuss when and how faculty would develop their own courseware, and may recommend authoring languages which should be pursued for use within the Maricopa system.

Introduction

Two central directives can be distilled from the above charge:

  1. Identify important issues of authoring within our District.
  2. Decide which authoring tools/languages the Maricopa system should support.

The committee decided to pursue the first directive. Most developers are using HyperCard, Toolbook, Macromedia Director, and, to a lessor extent, Course Builder, Authorware Professional, and Interface Builder (for the NeXT platform). To borrow from the metaphor of Alan Jacobs' 1994 report on instructional technology, It's a River, Not a Lake, the popular tools themselves are just currents in the river. To view our central task as one of supporting certain authoring languages does not address real issues related to the use of authoring languages. Our task is to vie development as a lake, not a river. And so, the committee chose to examine the more global issues related to development using authoring languages.

Year in Review

The Authoring committee held five meetings in 1993-1994 at different locations. The meeting sites provided an opportunity to see the authoring environment at Phoenix College, Glendale Community College, and the MCLI. Several committee members participated in the Copyright Issues video conference with lawyer Ivan Bender. Our committee also secured a detailed authoring system evaluation document from Northern Arizona University. In addition, the committee conducted a survey to gather data on the present perceptions and uses of authoring systems within the Maricopa system (See Appendix 1).

The following summary presents the results of our discussions. It is divided into four categories:

Development Requires Time and Money

For clarification, Appendix 2 describes the District's position on faculty ownership of developed products.

Models for Development - Team, Tool Kit, and Training

Communication/Collaboration

Distribution of Products and Access to Information/Image Bases

Conclusions/Future Goals/Specific Recommendations

  1. If we want to be leaders in instructional technology, we must grant innovators continuous blocks of time (such as summer sabbaticals or temporary reassignments) and fund development efforts. In his article, "What's Wrong With Multimedia in Higher Education," Dr. Martin Solomon (1994) points out that the teaching load is so high (normally 15 or 18 contact hours per semester) in teaching institutions that there is insufficient time for faculty development efforts. He further states that it requires 100 different people at a cost of about $15 million to produce 120 minutes of interesting material (a movies), while a typical higher education semester comprises over 2,000 minutes. Alan Jacobs (1994) as one of his final recommendations calls for increased funding for instructional technology development for innovative projects. From our experiences, authoring is an intense exercise that cannot be dabbled in with an hour here and there.

  2. We must encourage colleges, in conjunction with District, to develop the "team and tool kit" concept as an instructional technology stimulus. Development teams should include content experts, a technologist (hardware expert), an instructional designer, programmers, and perhaps a graphics/video artist. Tool kits should include "appropriate" authoring tools and hardware for development. One way to develop the "team and tool kit" concept is through training.

    In keeping with this team approach, we should develop a needs assessment process/form that begins first with the definition of an instructional problem and ends with recommendation of a solution that may or may not be technological. This should be designed with input from other colleges and collaboration with MCLI.

  3. We must find creative ways to promote communication and collaboration. Solomon (1984) points out that multimedia has failed to spread, in part, because of the "NIH (not invented here)" syndrome. Each faculty member wants to tailor the course to fit precisely his or her notion. Only by identifying common needs and by working toward common solutions can we hope to overcome the NIH syndrome. We also need to forgo our pride and take a closer look at using commercially available software.

  4. We must work to facilitate developers' access to the raw materials of multimedia production. This includes forging new relationships with the purveyors of information (publishers, news agencies, sources of video and graphic materials, and electronic networks and sources), as well as doing more sharing among ourselves.

  5. Our committee should organize and promote different "users groups" in order to share ideas and techniques. With just our meetings this has already started to happen on an informal basis. We would like to see a periodic gathering for a developers' workshop, in which we can exchange ideas rather than just show off the final products.

  6. We recommend more District support for external grants writing so that developers may be more successful in obtaining outside funding sources.

References

  1. Jacobs, Alan. (1994) "It's a River, Not a Lake: A Report on Instructional Technology for the Maricopa Community Colleges." Tempe, AZ: Maricopa Community Colleges, Maricopa Center for Learning and Instruction.

  2. Soloman, M.B. (1994), "What's Wrong with Multimedia in Higher Education?" T.H.E. Journal, 21 (7), 81-83.

Appendix 1

Note: the full report is available from MCLI

Ocotillo Authoring Languages Survey, Fall 1993

Executive Summary: Ten of the 18 initial responses to the Fall 1993 Ocotillo Authoring Languages Survey were from Scottsdale Community College. Four responses came from Chandler-Gilbert Community College, two from Paradise Valley Community College, and one each from Mesa and South Mountain Community Colleges. Respondents represented 11 disciplines.

Results from the survey indicate:

Appendix 2

Excerpt from a memo from Janice Bradshaw, MCCCD General Counsel, December 14, 1993.

"Software developed by a faculty member on his/her own time belongs to the faculty member, and he/she can sell it commercially with no strings attached.

"Section A.4.10 and Section C.8 of the RFP refer to materials generated during a sabbatical and pursuant to an Educational Development and/or Professional Growth Project. If materials are developed under one of these sections, the faculty member owns the copyright and can sell it commercially. The district does retain the right to use the materials without payment of royalties.

"There are, however, many circumstances which faculty members develop materials, and often the material is not created under one of the above sections. In these instances, it is advisable for the faculty member, through his/her Dean of Instruction, to contact Legal Services Department to analyze the extent of the faculty member's rights."

Appendix 3

A Tentative Summary of District and Campus Roles and Support of Faculty Authoring Efforts

Some basic assumptions defined by the committee:

The committee also defined the different roles that colleges and District seem to have concerning support for multimedia development.

College Roles

District Roles

Index

Ocotillo Report '94- Authoring Languages
back next
c 1994, Maricopa Center for Learning and Instruction (MCLI) Maricopa County Community College District, Arizona