, Volume 59, Issue 4, pp 62–70 | Cite as

Capitalizing on App Development Tools and Technologies

  • Kenneth J. LuterbachEmail author
  • Kenneth R. Hubbell


Instructional developers and others creating apps must choose from a wide variety of app development tools and technologies. Some app development tools have incorporated visual programming features, which enable some drag and drop coding and contextual programming. While those features help novices begin programming with greater ease, questions arise about the overall utility of visual tools for app development. Analyses and comparisons of app development tools and technologies would make their advantages and disadvantages apparent, enabling instructional technologists to make informed decisions about tool selection. Toward that end, this work generated a new fram ework for comparing app development tools. The criteria that comprise the framework were then used to compare multiple authoring tools and technologies for creating apps. Three app development tools, namely Corona, LiveCode and MoSync, emerged as particularly noteworthy for their utility and flexibility, and because they are free of monetary cost or have a free version.


app development tools computational thinking instructional apps 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abelson, H., Turbak, L. Morelli, R., Martin, F., & Wolber, D. (2012). NSF awards grant for App Inventor Teaching Project. Retrieved January 11, 2014, from
  2. ABI Research (2014). Android will account for 58% of smartphone app downloads in 2013, with iOS commanding a market share of 75% in tablet apps. Retrieved May 12, 2014, from
  3. Adobe (2013). Adobe captivate app packager. Retrieved January 11, 2014, from
  4. Demaine, E. D., Demaine, M. L., & Verrill, H. A. (2002). Coin-moving puzzles. More games of no chance, 42, 405431.Google Scholar
  5. Grover, S. & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K-12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42 (1), 38–43.Google Scholar
  6. Holden, C. (2014). The local games lab ABQ: Homegrown augmented reality. TechTrends, 58 (1), 42–48.Google Scholar
  7. Hsu, Y -C., & Ching, Y. -H. (2013). Mobile app design for teaching and learning: Educators’ experiences in an online graduate course. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(4), 117–139.Google Scholar
  8. Luterbach, K. J. (2013a). Building software development capacity to advance the state of educational technology. Educational Technology, 53 (2), 21–27.Google Scholar
  9. Luterbach, K. J. (2013b). Elegant Instruction. Journal of Educational Technology Systems. 41 (2), 183–204.Google Scholar
  10. Manovich, L. (2013). Software takes command. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  11. Martin, F., Pastore, R., & Snider, J. (2012). Developing mobile based instruction. TechTrends, 56 (5), 46–51.Google Scholar
  12. Martin, J., Dikkers, S., Squire, K., & Gagnon, D. (2014). Participatory scaling through augmented reality learning through local games. TechTrends, 58 (1), 35–41.Google Scholar
  13. Prensky, M. (2008). Programming is the new literacy. Edutopia. Retrieved January 11, 2014, from
  14. Resnick, M. (2012). Reviving Papert’s dream. Educational Technology, 52 (4), 42–46.Google Scholar
  15. Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th edition). New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
  16. Wellesley College (2013). The hour of code. Retrieved January 11, 2014, from and

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.East Carolina UniversityGreenvilleUSA
  2. 2.Ingersoll Rand UniversityDavidsonUSA

Personalised recommendations