Representations of instructional purpose in courseware requirements engineering

  • Byung-Hee (Benny) Kang
  • Peter Goodyear
Authoring and Development Tools and Techniques
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1108)


This paper reports work in progress in the field of courseware requirements engineering. Capture of the educational requirements for a new piece of courseware is a complex, time consuming, error prone activity and yet it is key to the success or failure of the courseware development project. If the requirements have been misunderstood, however technically excellent the courseware, it will not meet its purposes. Because the elicitation and specification of requirements is so complex and vital, researchers have been working on new methods and tools which can help reduce the complexity and error rate. Such research and development work goes under the heading ‘courseware requirements engineering’. The present study is part of a programme of work intended to develop tools which can help relatively inexperienced courseware designers (a) capture courseware requirements (b) relate these to units of learning material (ULMs) in the courseware while it is under development: maintaining an up to date record of linkages between requirements and ULMs — the so-called ‘requirements tracing’ process — and (c) use instructional design constructs which have a firm basis in contemporary research on learning. We envisage a workbench of inter-operable computer-based tools which can assist in courseware requirements engineering. The study reported here — at the risk of confusing the reader — is part of a requirements elicitation process for tools for courseware requirements engineering. We present some data from two experimental studies which illustrate issues arising in a user-centered approach to requirements elicitation, where the tasks carried out by the users involve representations of instructional purpose.


educational software development methods courseware engineering courseware requirements 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baker, M. (1992) Evaluation of the SHIVA project, paper at NATO ARW on the Automation of Instructional Design, Sitges, Spain.Google Scholar
  2. de Diana, I. & van Schaik, P. (1993) Courseware engineering outlined: an overview of some research issues. Educational and Training Technology International, 30, 191–211.Google Scholar
  3. DELTA Office (1992) Research and technology development of telematic systems for flexible and distance learning, Brussels: Delta Office.Google Scholar
  4. Dobson, M., Rada, R., Chen, C., Michailidis, A. & Ulloa, A. (1993) Towards a consolidated model for a collaborative courseware authoring system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 9, 34–50.Google Scholar
  5. Derks, M. & Bulthuis, W. (1992) A framework for authoring tool integration, In Precise Consortium (1992) Learning technology in the European Communities, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 549–562.Google Scholar
  6. Elsom-Cook, M. (1992) The ECAL teaching engine: pragmatic AI for education, In Precise Consortium (1992) Learning technology in the European Communities, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 329–340.Google Scholar
  7. Goodyear, P. (1994) Foundations for courseware engineering. In Tennyson, R. (Ed) Automating instructional design, development and delivery (pp. 7–28). Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  8. Goodyear, P. (1995) Infrastructure for courseware engineering. In Tennyson, R. & Barron, A. (Eds) Automating instructional design: computer-based development and delivery tools (pp. 11–32). Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  9. Goodyear, P. (in press) Instructional design environments: methods and tools for the design of complex instructional systems, In Dijkstra, S & Seel, N (Eds) Instructional design: international perspectives, Lawrence Erlbaum: New Jersey.Google Scholar
  10. Kang, B. (1996) Requirements for an integrated environment for instructional systems development, draft PhD thesis, CSALT, Lancaster University.Google Scholar
  11. Ladhani, A-N (1995) Modelling and using performance knowledge for courseware design, PhD thesis, University of Twente, Netherlands, ISBN 9-090-08503-3.Google Scholar
  12. Olimpo, G. et al. (1992) On the concept of reusability in educational design, In Precise Consortium (1992) Learning technology in the European Communities, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 535–545.Google Scholar
  13. Shuell, T. (1992). Designing instructional computing systems for meaningful learning. In Winnie, P., & Jones, M. (Eds), Adaptive learning environments: foundations and frontiers (pp. 19–54). New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  14. Spector, M., Poison, M. & Muraida, D. (1993) (Eds.): Automating Instructional Design: Concepts and Issues, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  15. van Marcke, K. (in press) GTE: an epistemological approach to instructional modelling, Instructional Science.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Byung-Hee (Benny) Kang
    • 1
  • Peter Goodyear
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Studies in Advanced Learning Technology (CSALT) Department of Educational ResearchLancaster UniversityLancasterEngland

Personalised recommendations