Challenges of Interactive Worked Examples 47

ADbC demonstrates the potential value of interactive worked examples; however, there are challenges to produce them for the typical class environment as will be discussed in this section. Two particular issues are the ease of production and the ease of customization.

2.7.1 Productivity and Customization in Learning Objects

Typical e-learning objects are one-off examples with a fixed sequence of processes, developed externally at high cost for a particular teaching context.

This means if the students’ expectations rise, or the learning object does not quite fit the education sequence they have followed, it is hard to change the examples. This is because such changes would require reprogramming and recreating examples which are costly for a developer and probably impossible for a teacher with little or no programming expertise. The issue is how easily e- learning objects can be created (productivity) and how easily can they be evolved (customization).

Productivity is one common problem of creating current existing learning objects. Productivity is defined as achieving higher quality and more effective learning in affordable and acceptable ways. Technology has the potential to increase teachers’ and learners’ productivity. For example, it can help design software that reduces teachers’ time and effort to create learning objects and speeds up accessing learning objects for learners and benefits learning

outcomes. It is can be understood as an increase in the value of output per unit of resource input. In the context of education, the value of the output is usually thought of as the level of achievement of the learner (sometimes the value added by the institution), and the number of learners achieving at that level. The main unit of resource that concerns us is time: teacher time and learner time. [57]

Based on this definition, the productivity of typical e-learning objects can only be acceptable when the high initial cost of creation is amortised across a large number of learners using the same object.

Customization is defined as allowing the teacher to develop their own, or to evolve existing, learning objects to fit their teaching targets. This means that the learning objects should be flexible and inclusive enough for each individual teacher to use or to modify.

Valentine’s survey [58] classified papers on topics related to CS1 and CS2 presented at the SIGCSE Technical Symposium conferences between 1984 and 2003. 22% of these papers (99 out of 444) presented software tools designed to aid teachers and/or students. In spite of this large body of research and

development work, only a small number of tools were used outside their home institutions. Very few tools were widely adopted, even though most important

tools can now be downloaded from websites. Pears et al. [59] claimed two possible reasons in their survey. First, tool research projects often originate in a desire to solve a local problem, either in a specific institution or a specific course. As a result, multiple tools were developed for similar purposes, like using algorithm animation tools to demonstrate the execution of code by a computer. Furthermore, local differences in instruction made it difficult for other teachers to adapt tools to their specific needs and support for tool modification was rare. Second, tools were often developed as research

prototypes, and the usability of these tools was in the laboratory level, which was not good enough for realistic education contexts.

In summary, the productivity and customization involved in the current creation and evolution methods for e-learning objects are a major challenge to

widespread use of e-learning objects.

2.7.2 TPACK Framework

As noted above, building effective interactive learning objects is expensive. It requires subject experts, computer graphics experts, programmers and

instructional design experts working together. For example, Murray reported that ADbC required an 11 person development team working from 2007 to 2011 to build [56]. The researcher contacted Murray and asked for further details of developing time for ADbC, her reply stated that “ADbC was developed

completely by students (undergraduates and Master level students) at my university. Some modules were done as class projects, others as paid student assistants. The length of time to develop any individual module, therefore, varied greatly - mostly depending on the skill level of the student developer. In general though, we have produced each sub-module in about one semester (16 weeks).” [60] In order to produce such interactive worked examples in a digital approach, much time is spent. Meanwhile, facilitating pedagogical experts and computer scientists (i.e. content experts) need to reshape each other’s models in order to design a successful digital learning object.

Mishra and Koehler [61] introduced a framework called Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK), based on the idea of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) first introduced by Lee Shulman in 1986 [62], extended

with the inclusion of technology. The TPACK framework was designed to understand and describe the kinds of knowledge needed by a teacher for

effective pedagogical practice in a technology enhanced learning environment. The TPACK framework describes the relationship between pedagogical

knowledge, content knowledge and technological knowledge and how teachers could integrate technology in their teaching to enhance the quality of their teaching. It argues that effective technology integration for teaching specific content or subject matter requires understanding and negotiating the

relationships between these three components: Technology, Pedagogy, and

Content. A teacher capable of negotiating these relationships represents a form

of expertise different from, and (perhaps) broader than, the knowledge of a disciplinary expert (say a scientist or a musician or sociologist), a technology expert (a software developer) or an expert at teaching/pedagogy (an

experienced educator).

Harris et al. [63] adapted TPACK and added the knowledge components inside the framework. This is shown in Figure 2.5. They claim it is important that TPACK based professional development for teachers is flexible and inclusive enough to accommodate the full range of teaching philosophies, styles and approaches. Hence, they proposed a new approach based on the TPACK framework that can help teachers successfully integrate technology into their practice. This approach goes beyond technological strategies and emphasizes the importance of helping teachers develop and apply integrated and

Figure 2.5 TPACK Framework Diagram [63]

Archambault and Crippen [64] highlighted complex relationships that exist between content, pedagogy and technology knowledge areas and pointed out that the TPACK may be a useful organizational structure for defining what it was that teachers need to know to integrate technology effectively. They examined teachers and measured their knowledge, which included pedagogy, content, technology and the combination of each of these areas. The results indicated that teachers felt good about their knowledge related domains and were less confident when it came to technology. Correlations among each of the domains within the TPACK framework revealed a small relationship between the domains of technology and pedagogy, as well as technology and content. However, there was a large correlation between pedagogy and content. Hence, lowering the threshold for technology entry for teachers is clearly necessary for increased E- Learning. It is the key point for making E-Learning become possible and available to most of the teachers.

Given the key importance of lowering the technology threshold, so that teachers can create computer-based activities, the next section explores authoring

environments and tools as a way to remove or reduce the technology factor in the TPACK model.