正因为如此，辅导型软件非常复杂，设计很困.ppt

Hardware and software: authoring Both the choice of computer hardware and computer software can contribute to the formation of an author’s conceptualization of CALL (Mackay 1988; Lian 1991). Software authoring tools give the CALL author the scope to design and write original CALL materials, although within a given framework. Mackay maintains that an authoring system reflects an educational philosophy to the extent that, ‘A quick glance at the screen is often sufficient to determine which authoring language was used to create which course’ (Mackay 1988: 329). Any authoring system carries a certain conceptualization of CALL that is inherent in its presentational scheme and in the range of options that it offers the author, particularly with the interaction options that it makes available. Only the most flexible option, the high-level programming language, is relatively free of such constraints. Anything less than a high-level programming language carries with it predetermined structures. Such constraints have the effect of filtering the author’s initial conceptualization. Usually some compromise has to be reached between the original conceptualization and the final implementation because of intrinsic limitations in the hardware or software, or simply because the complexity of the programming required to create a certain functionality is beyond reach: contemporary limitations on voice recognition and natural language processing exemplify this point. Hardware and software considerations, therefore, are going to have some effect on the nature of any CALL materials produced, beyond that planned for at the outset. With hardware the CALL author’s primary decision is whether to work within the constraints of existing hardware, or to ‘stretch’ the capabilities of the hardware so that it may more nearly approximate the author’s requirements. In discussing this issue, Morgenstern (1986: 23) says too many CALL programs are ‘technology driven’, an approach which ‘concentrates