Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:37:34.428Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Juggling hot potatoes: decisions and compromises in creating authoring tools for the Web

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

Stewart Arneil  and
Martin Holmes
Stewart Arneil
Affiliation:
University of Victoria, Canada
Martin Holmes
Affiliation:
University of Victoria, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This discussion paper outlines some of the decisions and issues involved in creating and using authoring tools for language learning through the World Wide Web. In it, we outline the development of Hot Potatoes, our suite of authoring tools, and attempt to draw conclusions from our experience that will be valuable not only to other developers but also to evaluators and users of authoring software. Areas addressed include exercise design, ability to customise and control the output, support for different browser versions, user-interface design, ancillary technology and technical support.

Type
Research Article
Information
ReCALL , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , September 1999 , pp. 12 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

We state very clearly in our documentation that Hot Potatoes is not a testing tool. In our user feedback, though, we have been consistently surprised by the number of people who request some kind of ‘secure testing’, password protection, or the encryption of answers in source code. It has become clear that a large segment of. users cannot or do not distinguish between testing and self-access learning materials. This is unfortunate. Even if a ‘secure testing’ solution is implemented, there is no way to know who is sitting at the client computer taking a particular test, unless someone is present to verify identity. This also implies that online education is perhaps too frequently equated with testing. One result of this may be the prevalence of ‘interactive’ quiz exercises available on the Web in which feedback consists merely of ‘Correct!’ or ‘Wrong!’ responses, rather than useful hints or diagnostic help.