COURSEWARE - SOFTWARE INTERFACES
SOME DESIGNS AND SOME PROBLEMS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v1i3.4-6Keywords:
COURSEWARE, SOFTWARE INTERFACES, SOFTWARE, INTERFACES, SOME DESIGNS AND SOME PROBLEMS, SOME DESIGNS, SOME PROBLEMS, PROBLEMS, DESIGNSAbstract
When designing a free-form remedial/tutorial program for second language learning, several principles are essential to insure pedagogically sound courseware. These include adaptability in terms of instructor requirements and user population needs; user friendliness to reduce machine-induced phobias and compensate for mechanical ignorance; sophistication in error analysis through extensive branching in order to produce comments which will help the user to learn through his/her errors; and flexibility, which gives the user control over both the content and the pace of learning. There are some disadvantages to such a program, but newer projects aim to overcome these disadvantages by allowing the individual instructor more freedom in creating materials for specific needs. Finally, evaluation through statistical records is discussed as a point of contention.
References
Harley, R. E., H. Heller and G. Holmes “Input Analysis and Feedback in a CAI SYSTEM for Languages,” in 1981 Conference Proceedings of the Association for the Development of Computer-Based Instructional Systems (ADCIS): Computer-Based Instruction: Frontiers of Thought. Computer Centre, Western Washington University: Bellingham, WA, 98225 U.S.A.
Kidd, M.E. and G. Holmes, “Realizing the Potential of the Computer in the Learning of Modern Languages,” in Proceedings of the Third Canadian Symposium on International Technology, National Research Council Canada. Ottawa. 1980.
Holmes, G. and M. Kidd, “Servicing Learner Needs: From Teletype to Micro,” in Proceedings of the 11th Ontario Universities Computing Conference: Interface, the Challenge of the Eighties.
Queen’s University: Kingston, Ont., 1980. Also to appear in System. 1981.
Kidd, M. E. and G. Holmes, “CAI for Language Remediation at the University Level,” in Proceedings of the Western Educational Computing Conference 1980. California Educational Computing Consortium: 1982.
Holmes, Glyn and Marilyn Kidd, “The Evolving Case for Computers in the Study of Modern Languages” in ALLC (Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing) Journal I, 1, pp. 7-11.
Paramskas, D. M. and Nicole Rolland-Vassiliadis, “An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Micro-computer based CAI for Second Language Teaching,” paper read at the Sixth International Congress of Applied Linguistics (AILA) Lund, Sweden, 1981.
Holmes, Glyn and Marilyn Kidd, “Computer-assisted Learning: Design and Implementation,” in SPEAQ Journal IV, 3-4, 1980. pp. 83-96.
Mydlarski, D. “So you Want to Do Your Own CAI Program; the Experience at the University of Calgary” in ibid, pp. 119-128.
Paramskas, D. M. “CLEF: A CAI Project for Elementary French”: Paper read at the 1982 ECOO Conference, Toronto, Ontario. May 1982.
Holmes, Glyn and Marilyn Kidd, “The CLEF Project: Learning French on Color Micros” in Conference Proceedings, ADCIS. Bellingham: Western Washington University, 1982. pp. 245-251.
Holmes, Glyn, Donna Mydlarski and D. M. Paramskas, “Co-operative Courseware Production: A Solution to the Problems of CAI?” in ibid, pp. 252-258.
