Allowing procedural constructs (branches, rules, loops, recursion) in an authoring tool dramatically raises authoring complexity and demands debugging support¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · theoreticalr2·q1
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q1 i? If an authoring tool allows branches, if/then rules, procedures, loops, parameterized subroutines, or recursion, the level of authoring complexity jumps dramatically, effectively making the author a software programmer. → Tom Murray 2015
Evidence¶
Tom Murray 2015¶
Tom Murray. (2015). Coordinating the Complexity of Tools, Tasks, and Users: On Theory-based Approaches to Authoring Tool Usability. Int J Artif Intell Educ 26:37–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-015-0076-6
q1 · i? · theoretical · r2
Analytical discussion of runnable artifacts and dynamic complexity in authoring tools. The article argues ITSs are dynamic systems that must be run to test, with unpredictable behaviors, so creators of tools allowing this task complexity must not overestimate user skill and must "provide real debugging and tracing tools" for the systems to be viable.
"If an authoring tool allows branches, if/then rules, procedures, loops, parameterized subroutines, or recursion (in rough order of difficulty) the level of authoring complexity jumps dramatically"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Astus prunes the episodic-tree interpolation search using two pre-computed methods to keep error diagnosis tractable despite exponential growth of interpolated branches in the worst case — related
- Novice AI users showed a Trust-but-Can't-Verify pattern: accepting unfamiliar constructs they could not assess, then symptom-level debugging — related
- Robot embodiment changes verification and debugging: learners treat robot execution as perceptual evidence for hypothesis-driven revisions, while AI-Only learners rely on generic help-seeking — related
- Text-based rubrics alone provide insufficient contextual, dynamic and procedural information to support rich mental model development of complex skills — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
procedural-authoring-constructs-raise-complexity |
title |
Allowing procedural constructs (branches, rules, loops, recursion) in an authoring tool dramatically raises authoring complexity and demands debugging support |
description |
Allowing procedural constructs (branches, rules, loops, recursion) in an authoring tool dramatically raises authoring complexity and demands debugging support |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2015 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-27 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — tom-murray-2015 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.