Hallworth, Herbert J.Kopp, Gail D.2005-07-212005-07-211988Kopp, G. D. (1988). Software authoring facilities for computer assisted learning (Master's thesis, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada). Retrieved from https://prism.ucalgary.ca. doi:10.11575/PRISM/156080315503203http://hdl.handle.net/1880/21624Bibliography: p. 106-112Authoring languages for Computer Assisted Learning (CAL) have undergone significant developments during the last 25 years. The languages used in the early mainframe computer and minicomputer CAL projects were initially limited by available hardware facilities. Nevertheless, attempts were made to provide authoring flexibility and to implement desirable instructional paradigms. Many CAL programs for the early microcomputers were written in general purpose programming languages. However, the difficulty of using these and their limitations led to the development of CAL application languages, some converted from mainframe counterparts and others produced especially for microcomputer courseware authoring. With limitations of processing speed, memory, and inflexible authoring features, these application languages were frequently perceived by authors as being too restricted. As microcomputers have become more powerful and as they have acquired extensive memory on hard disk, they have also become capable of supporting languages more suitable for CAL authoring. In effect, these languages may be classified into three types: more powerful general purpose programming languages, object oriented languages, and graphics oriented languages. In order to assess the value of such languages in a variety of teaching/ learning applications, three CAL programs were written. The first, written in a general purpose language extended by means of templates, macros, and a shell, was concerned with English grammar. The second, written in a powerful object oriented language, was intended to teach the process of creating an outline. The third, written in a graphics oriented language with built­in utilities, was concerned with the teaching of higher level cognitive skills. The analysis of results from the writing and use of the three programs indicates the strengths and weaknesses of each of the three types when used for CAL. It is clear that further facilities are required which are not provided by any of the three; however, it is also concluded that the field is not sufficiently mature for an attempt to be made to provide any one language which will meet all needs.viii, 112 leaves ; 30 cm.engUniversity of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission.LB 1028.66 K66 1988Computer-assisted instruction - Authoring programsProgramming languages (Electronic computers)master thesishttp://dx.doi.org/10.11575/PRISM/15608LB 1028.66 K66 1988