Veruska De Caro-Barek
email: veruska.de.caro@ntnu.no

Innovation in Language Teaching and Learning What do we need to make a Massive Open Online Course (MooC) for Language Learning genuinely innovative?

Keywords: MooC, language teaching and learning, oral interaction, WebRTC technology

By sharing experiences from the process of making Massive Open Online Courses (MooCs) in second language at NTNU, this paper aims to raise awareness about the need for improved technology solutions with a critical look at how course developers can build more innovative and interactive language MooCs within the frame of self-instructed courses using new convergent technologies such as Web Real Time Communication (WebRTC).

Introduction

In 2005, George Siemens argued the need for a new theory of learning in the digital age [START_REF] Siemens | Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age[END_REF]. In the past decade, access to worldwide information in the form of continuous streaming from social media and fast developing new convergent technologies have radically changed our way to connect and interact with the world around us and our approach to learning. New emergent technologies offer different models and structures to support learning, and disrupt the notion that learning should be controlled by educators and educational institutions [START_REF] Fournier | Challenges to Research in MOOCs[END_REF].

Following the enthusiasm for "The year of the MooC" (Massive Open Online Courses) as highlighted in a well-known article in the New York Times in 2012 [START_REF] Pappano | The Year of the Mooc[END_REF], we have seen a fast-growing interest in MooCs connected to language learning. For example, the MooC provider FutureLearn enrolled over 370,000 students on the preparatory course to the English language proficiency test, IELTS. This is so far the biggest MooC in the world [START_REF] Perifanou | Worldwide state of language MOOCs[END_REF].

While the general research literature on MooCs is fast-growing, the emergent body of specific research literature on MooCs for language learning is still very limited [START_REF] Kennedy | Characteristics of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs): A Research Review, 2009-2012[END_REF][START_REF] Ebben | Unpacking MOOC scholarly discourse: a review of nascent MOOC scholarship[END_REF]. MooCs is a 'hot topic' in the context of online teaching and learning research and practice, with numerous ardent supporters as well as fervent opponents.

Among the arguments set forth by the opponents, high dropout rates have, for instance, been interpreted as an indication that barriers to persistent learning in MooC environments are present and are a steep wall to climb and conquer for course developers, independent of the subject field [START_REF] Kennedy | Characteristics of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs): A Research Review, 2009-2012[END_REF]. The wider lay-audience of the general public has also argued that this situation could well manifest a symptom of an exaggerated hype around MooCs and an overrated and overestimated focus on supposed teaching and learning innovations [START_REF] Waldrop | Massive Open Online Courses, aka MOOCs, Transform Higher Education and Science[END_REF][START_REF] Konnikova | Will MOOCs be flukes? The New Yorker[END_REF].

This paper is framed within the field of second language didactics and is a result of my work on two Language MooC projects at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU). The first project (2016) was a collaboration with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to produce a self-instructed introductory Norwegian language MooC on Open EdX for the foreign embassy employees around the world. The second project (2017-18) was a wider and updated version of the Norwegian MooC, which has now been launched internationally on FutureLearn.

In this paper, I wish to readdress the topic of innovation in language teaching and learning that supporters of MooCs and providers of MooC platforms predicate. Working with both Open EdX and FutureLearn, I experienced that the provided technology can limit the possibilities for a developer to construct a MooC for language learning, defining and somehow constricting the teaching approach in a more traditional manner. Specifically, I will try to raise awareness about the technological limitations for language MooCs' development as presented by most MooC platform providers, with special attention to oral production and interaction. I will then address the need for improved technology solutions, with a critical look at how MooC platform providers and course developers can build more innovative and interactive language courses by integrating new convergent technology such as Web Real Time Communication (WebRTC) in order to promote genuine oral interaction, especially in the case of self-directed learning.

Are MooCs really just a hype?

The challenges facing the higher education (HE) sector in meeting technology are multiple, the foremost being how to adapt a static institutional system and traditional teaching and learning patterns to the new dynamics offered by technology services. The paradoxical result is that even in the presence of technological availability for implementing newer and more effective learning processes, historical and cultural barriers from a bygone era of education philosophy and practice create hindrances to innovation processes [9 -11]. This creates somewhat dysfunctional learning and teaching environments where technology is applied, yet not fully understood, nor is it used to its fullest [ibid].

The journey to real innovation in MooC developmental technology is just at its beginning [START_REF] Singh | Learning through Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). A case of the first international MOOC offered by University of Oslo in[END_REF]. In the words of George Siemens [START_REF] Singh | Learning through Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). A case of the first international MOOC offered by University of Oslo in[END_REF][START_REF] Siemens | MOOCs are really a platform[END_REF], there are two types of MooCs: cMooCs and xMooCs. The "cMooC model emphasizes creation, creativity, autonomy and social networking learning" while the xMooC model emphasises "a more traditional learning approach through video presentations and short quizzes and testing. Put another way, cMooCs focus on knowledge creation and generation whereas xMooCs focus on knowledge duplication" [ibid.].

However, despite the claims of innovation, disruptive learning technology methods and a revolution in learning approaches, several meta-studies [START_REF] Singh | Learning through Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). A case of the first international MOOC offered by University of Oslo in[END_REF][START_REF]Language MOOCs: Providing Learning, Transcending Boundaries[END_REF][START_REF] Perifanou | Moocs for foreign language learning: An effort to explore and evaluate the first practices[END_REF] reviewing the existing research literature on MooCs and investigating the pedagogical approaches applied seem to confirm that the pedagogical practices in MooCs are neither entirely new nor radically innovative [START_REF] Perifanou | Moocs for foreign language learning: An effort to explore and evaluate the first practices[END_REF]. The general teaching setups in most MOOCs seem to rely on a classic behaviouristic teaching paradigm, with pre-produced and teacher supervised study paths and fairly linear learning sequences. Knowledge is passed on to a mostly passive audience through video presentations or streaming from classroom practices. This seems to occur both in teacher-supervised learning environments, as in most xMooCs, and in self-teaching or autonomous learning environments oriented to a more connectivist approach, as in cMooCs -the connectivist side being the student fora available on the MooC platform [START_REF]Language MOOCs: Providing Learning, Transcending Boundaries[END_REF][START_REF] Perifanou | Moocs for foreign language learning: An effort to explore and evaluate the first practices[END_REF].

The above-mentioned problems are certainly true for language courses as well.

The case of Language MooCs

With regard to the worldwide development of 'Language Massive Open Online Courses' or 'Language MooCs' (as termed hereafter), Spain and the United States of Amercia (USA) are in the lead with a solid academic legitimacy but also an extensive commercial production. It is therefore not surprising that the most prolific Language MooCs are in Spanish and English. In the rest of Europe, including Norway [START_REF]MOOCs for Norway -New digital learning methods in higher education[END_REF][START_REF]Kunnskapsdepartementet Strategidokument: Digitaliseringsstrategi for universitets-og høyskolesektoren[END_REF], the situation is quite different and Language MooCs are often developed under the umbrella of smaller, specific research projects. Platform selection and technical functionality vary greatly according to funding and this impacts correspondingly on the final product. The kind of Language MooCs which have been developed, whether these are meant to be self-instructed courses or tutored, also imposes specific didactical and technical choices, along with cost management strategies.

In a very first attempt to gather and categorise research on learning and teaching experiences in the emerging field of Language MooCs, Bárcena and Martín Monje have edited a pioneering and insightful meta-study that covers paramount topics relevant to any language MooC developer. The conundrum for language courses, irrespective of their possible categorisation as cMooCs or xMooCs, is defined as follows:

"language learning is not only knowledge-based, in the sense that it requires the rather passive assimilation of vocabulary items and combinatory rules, but is mainly skill-based, in that it involves putting into practice an intricate array of receptive, productive and interactive verbal (and non-verbal) functional capabilities, whose role in the overall success of the communicative act is generally considered to be more prominent than that of the formal or organizational elements" [START_REF]Language MOOCs: Providing Learning, Transcending Boundaries[END_REF].

How does the technology available on MooC platforms cater with such a challenge? Even if MooC platforms in general undoubtedly offer a considerable improvement on online language course development, the technological advancements are not sufficiently developed to meet the specific requirements of language didactics. For example, it is a fact that none of the existing platforms has embedded technology which can enable course participants to fully develop their oral interaction skills. Most of the course content relies on written interaction, with the exception of fully-tutored Language MooCs, where feedback on the participants' oral performance takes place with the aid of external technological resources such as videoconferencing. In self-instructed courses there is neither the possibility for oral interaction nor external feedback on the platform [START_REF]Language MOOCs: Providing Learning, Transcending Boundaries[END_REF][START_REF] Perifanou | Moocs for foreign language learning: An effort to explore and evaluate the first practices[END_REF].

Oral interaction issues in Language MooCs

According to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), which is increasingly also being used in countries outside Europe, the categorisation of the language learner and user's linguistic competence is based on real-life language use and grounded in interaction and co-construction of meaning. Activities are presented under four modes of communication: reception, production, interaction and mediation in written and oral context [START_REF]The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Companion Volume with new Descriptors[END_REF].

In the CEFR, proficiency is a term encompassing the ability to perform communicative language activities stated as "can do-s", while drawing upon communicative language competences (linguistic, sociolinguistic, and pragmatic), and appropriate communicative strategies [ibid.]. When one of these primary competences fails to be represented within the language learning environment, as for instance in the case of the technological inadequacy of MooC platforms to support solutions which cover oral production and interaction, a question arises concerning the learner's actual possibility for fully developing the range of linguistic competences necessary in order to master the target language. Similarly, a concern becomes apparent about the integrity and validity of the language course and the possibility for future assessment and accreditation. These are indeed pressing demands which need to be addressed by MooC-developing institutions and MooC platform providers for and within HE.

Regarding the allegedly interactive environment present on MooC platform solutions, there is a growing consensus that "most of the MooLC (language MooCs) initiatives don't offer a highly interactive environment where the learners are interconnected to a language learning community and collectively build their language skills" [START_REF] Perifanou | Moocs for foreign language learning: An effort to explore and evaluate the first practices[END_REF]. Learners are still studying language in a traditional way, following courses based on a cognitive behavioural pedagogical model with extended use of instructional videos and pre-formatted learning sequences [START_REF] Perifanou | Moocs for foreign language learning: An effort to explore and evaluate the first practices[END_REF][START_REF] De Larreta-Azelain | Chapter 5: Language Teaching in MOOCs: The Integral Role of the Instructor[END_REF].

Even in the case of two of the largest and most successful MooC providers, Open EdX and FutureLearn, platform limitations in structure and functionalities are present. Especially, FutureLearn is constricted by a rigid platform setup and few functionality options (video, article, audio, quiz and poll/discussion). The underlying connectivist pedagogy, enhanced in the form of supported collaborative learning tasks among student participants, also seemed to be limited too frequently by the technology options available on the platforms and solely bound to discussion fora. The inspirational vision of connectivist MooCs is too often proving elusive. While it is possible to follow the course participants' interaction on tutored Language MooCs, it is very difficult to monitor whether the course participants will interact with each other in a self-instructed Language MooC [START_REF] De Larreta-Azelain | Chapter 5: Language Teaching in MOOCs: The Integral Role of the Instructor[END_REF][START_REF] Kop | The challenges to connectivist learning on open online networks: learning experiences during a massive open online course[END_REF]. Neither is it possible to know for certain whether the participants will be able to build a learning community outside the platform and beyond the platform resources by utilising external digital services for language learning to instigate collaborative knowledge building [START_REF] Kop | The challenges to connectivist learning on open online networks: learning experiences during a massive open online course[END_REF]. It is important to note that many Language MooCs are indeed self-instructed and based on the concepts of autonomous learning. In this case, platform technology is not necessarily synonymous with better teaching or learning. For instance, even the use of synchronous tools for written communication on MooC platforms can be counterproductive. It is indeed extremely difficult to foster high-level cognitive interactions in long multiple-threaded forum conversations on a MooC platform; it is even more difficult to keep track of participants' actions when compulsory tasks, based on communicative or collaborative tools, are external to the platform [18, in 13, 19]. Who is doing what, why and how are crucial questions to ask when in the process of learning a language. It is already a challenging task for the course facilitator/instructor trained in language didactics to create a sense of logic communication flow on the platform for tutored Language MooCs. It could be a virtually impossible task for the well-intentioned but not necessarily trained volunteer mentors and curators possibly emerging from the learning community of a self-instructed Language MooC.

Is it then possible to create better learning environments on MooC platforms which can support the development of oral interaction so critically important to language teaching and learning?

Towards better technological solutions

It is not easy to answer why such an important feature like oral interaction on Language MooCs has yet not been a priority for MooC platform developers. Especially so, since the technology which could make this possible is ready available and in use on popular Language Exchange Apps like Bilingua, HiNative and HelloTalk.

Language Exchange Apps like the ones mentioned above offer the opportunity to communicate with other language learners as well as native speakers through chat and videoconferencing. Using matching algorithms, they select the best possible learning matches to your profile. As a common denominator, these apps display integrated learning tools like translator, vocabulary lists and grammar checker, but foremost they make language learning a pleasant experience keeping learners motivated. Bilingua has even included gamification features in the app with a reward system to stimulate language learning through gaming and competitions among learners.

Would it be possible to recreate this kind of productive and interconnected learning environment on Language MooC platforms? Would it be possible, for instance, to integrate videoconferencing technology on OpenEdX or FutureLearn and open up for oral communication directly on the platform, without having to rely on external programs and resources?

WebRTC technology

Videoconferencing has traditionally required installing a dedicated application, such as Skype. In 2011, Google released WebRTC (Web Real Time Communication) as an open source project to bring video conferencing to browsers. As a result of its addition in popular browsers such as Chrome and Firefox, numerous web-based videoconferencing services were launched.

WebRTC enables real-time communication over peer-to-peer connections and applications such as video conferencing, file transfer, chat, or desktop sharing without the need of either internal or external browser plugins or external software. As an example, Appear.in was launched in Norway by the national telecommunication company Telenor as an online collaboration tool that supports videoconferencing with multiple participants (up to 12) with no required registration. At the core of its functionality is WebRTC.

In order to integrate this technology on a MooC platform, the platform itself must support customisation using HTML and Javascript. An example is the Xblockfunctionality on OpenEdX.

Xblocks are fully-customisable extensions or plug-ins that add functionality to OpenEdX platform and can provide interactive content to the learning objects in the course. In this case, a bespoke Xblock provides access to an external WebRTC platform through an Application Program Interface (API). The implementation of WebRTC can be done by integrating existing conferencing services. Suppliers of such services are, for instance, the American Tokbox, the Singapore-based Temasys or open source providers like Jitsi. These suppliers offer Javascript APIs which are used on web sites together with a "conference bridge" which browsers will then connect to in order to deploy videoconference functionality. At NTNU, we are currently experimenting with building XBlocks to implement WebRTC (by using Jitsi) on our Open EdX installation, so that we will be able to provide Language MooCs with real-time oral interaction for our learners.

It is, however, important to underline that even in the case of Open EdX, this is not something course designers will be able to do on their own. This bespoke functionality requires the dedicated efforts of a team, including computer programmers and web designers, and it comes with a cost that will impact on the project budget. Nonetheless, OpenEdX is the only platform that allows the necessary customisation to integrate this technology.

Unfortunately, at the moment, FutureLearn does not offer course developers the possibility to include such convergent technology for tailoring learning objects' functionalities, as the platform is rigidly preformatted and does not support custom extensions. In this respect, any attempt to include oral interaction in the course design of self-instructed language courses on FutureLearn is currently precluded.

WebRTC for Language MooCs

Integrating ad hoc technology to enable oral interaction on MooC platforms is a first step. Most crucial, though, is integrating the technology in the language course design. How is it possible to use WebRTC technology in a meaningful way for large classes that are common to MooCs? And how can such activities be assessed fairly and equally?

The implementation of WebRTC on Language MooCs could give rise to different learning scenarios and entail different levels of cooperation. In the following, I will describe some possible courses of action that can work on Open EdX, as this is currently the MooC platform which offers the best technological functionality.

The participants

The first logical approach will be to match the existing course participants so that they can start to practice their oral skills with each other. In the matching process different variables must be considered as with Language Exchange Apps mentioned in previous paragraphs. Such variables include personal interests, level of proficiency in the target language, time of dedicated effort a week and different time zones.

In language didactics, there is an unequivocal consensus that small groups work better than large classes. The platform should therefore include functionality for creating smaller learner groups, such as "cohorts" on Open EdX. Cohorts will then be assigned language tasks according to their level of proficiency. It will be possible, for instance, to create guided video-chats where learners have to solve problems or enact a role play in the target language.

In order to foster genuine oral interaction on Language MooCs, though, the pivotal feature of the course design will be to open up for interaction with native speakers. Only through feedback provided by native speakers can a language learner fully develop his/her range of communication skills. It is then necessary to build a database of participants which comprises native speakers willing to learn and help others learn languages. But how to recruit such participants?

On Open EdX, for instance, it is possible to recruit in interdisciplinary ways, from other courses on the platform, during the enrollment process. When the participants receive their enrolling mail to a course, it is possible to ask them whether they want to join the platform's tandem language learning community. It is also possible to create a separate enrollment dedicated only to the platform's tandem language community. This could have been displayed as a platform feature on an institution's main page. Educational institutions could cooperate with local community initiatives, or themselves initiate local community projects, like inviting retired language teachers to the tandem community. In this way, language courses can be guaranteed the necessary experience of native speakers and at the same time the language tandem project can have a positive impact on a segment of society whose resources are underestimated.

Assessment, certification and accreditation

Certification and accreditation are notoriously a challenge for MooCs. In Language MooCs, I think the challenge is even greater.

Utilising existing technology and integrating functionalities on MooC platforms to support linguistic oral interaction have simply not been a priority for MooC providers so far. However, this is certainly something that they will need to take into consideration in the future, especially when having to front the pressing demand for course accreditation in the HE sector. How is it possible to give credits or provide certificates of accomplishments when a course is simply not teaching the learners one of the most important skills they need to know when learning a language?

When integrating WebRTC in Language MooCs, new forms of assessment can come to light and offer interesting solutions, particularly in self-instructed courses.

Open Response Assessments (ORA) are, for example, flexible assignment types on Open EdX in which learners submit different text responses to open questions or assignments. Responses can be submitted in different file formats and learners are guided through a series of assessment steps that can include a training step, peer assessment, self-assessment, and even staff assessment in fully tutored courses. In selfinstructed courses, course designers set forth constraints and conditions and can define the assignments in ORA. For instance, a learner can be required to deliver 30 to 45 minutes of work/week in oral communication skills. In this case, each video conference session is recorded in the MooC platform's analytics system, which means that the platform registers the learner's participation, and the learning task is then marked as completed for future certification/accreditation. In the same way as other language exercises, it will be possible to integrate several video conferences in the curriculum and adjust these according to language learners' level and progression.

What ORA functionality allows particularly in self-instructed courses is the emergence of a learning community, where learner's tasks are not simply collected and stored in analytics, as happens with regular multiple-choice or predefined exercises, but it is an intrinsic part of a learner's development. The ORA's cornerstone on a Language Mooc is peer-to-peer assessment. The learner is required to perform a language task and get peer evaluation on his/her performance while at the same time having to evaluate the responses of other course participants. In addition, the learner also gets evaluation from his/her virtual tandem partner (VTP), that is, the native speaker or speakers with whom he/she regularly engages in conversations. In this way, the scaffolding so crucial to language learning [START_REF] Gibbons | Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: teaching English language learners in the mainstream classroom[END_REF] fluctuates organically between the expert support given by the native speakers and the peer support presented by other course participants, offering the learner the possibility to explore and test language skills in his/her zone of proximal development [ibid.]. In the same way, the rigid boundaries between informal and formal assessment fluctuate; the learner's assessment of his/her own achievements is continuous and progressive thanks to the feedback from the VTP, the learning community and the automated analytics functionality on the platform.

Only when platform functionality and course design are able to cover for all these aspects can a Language MooC genuinely claim to foster language learning.

Discussion and conclusion

The need for successful Language MooCs, which can present learners with quality ad hoc technological solutions and appropriate language didactics, is high, due to multilingualism and multiculturalism being paramount aspects in our modern globalised society. The journey to reach that target is just at the beginning; there are still issues which are neither being fully addressed nor perhaps fully understood in the MooC-platform providers' community.

Language MooCs have to deal with the same ontological, conceptual and practical challenges of regular MooCs, like the evolving nature of teaching and learning in digital networks, the redefinition of the teacher's role as facilitator, time and implementation costs, as well as assessment and accreditation issues. In addition, Language MooCs necessarily face specific challenges intrinsic to language didactics, such as how to enable oral interaction on the platform among the course participants but also within the authentic context of oral communication with native speakers. This is particularly important for self-instructed Language MooCs. However, most Language MooCs so far do not offer oral interaction functionality.

Without pretending to have a solution to a complicated matter, which involves several levels of theoretical and technological understanding, I wish, however, to conclude this paper by mentioning that it is indeed possible to utilise existing convergent technology such as WebRTC and integrate functionalities on MooC platforms to support linguistic oral interaction. This aspect has simply not been a priority for MooC providers so far, but it certainly is an issue which needs to be addressed, especially concerning the pressing demands for course accreditation in HE. MooC platform providers and language course designers could find inspiration in their search for a solution to this problem by looking at developments in non-MooC language learning environments, such as in the case of Language Exchange Apps.

Implementation of WebRTC technology on MooC platforms could challenge the classic teaching paradigm still predominant even in advanced technological learning environments, and could open the way for assessment processes more suitable to learning in the digital age.

Research in this specific field is not yet available, and an array of research possibilities therefore lie ahead for genuine innovative language didactics in MooCs.


Jaana Holvikivi
email: jaana.holvikivi@gmail.com

Maija Nuorteva
email: maija.nuorteva@helsinki.fi

Collaboration Platform for Public and Private Actors in Educational Games Development

Keywords: Serious games, co-creation, innovation platforms, games firms

de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

Introduction

This paper aims at analysing conditions and boundaries for collaboration between various stakeholders on an intended innovation platform for development of educational games. This research follows the methods of innovation action research [START_REF] Kaplan | Innovation action research: Creating new management theory and practice[END_REF], which is an obvious choice for a study where researchers follow and act as part of the development. The data are based on several projects and experiments that have been implemented in Metropolia and Oulu Universities of Applied Sciences, the University of Helsinki, and the science centres Heureka and Tietomaa in Finland. The efforts of the Edudigi project to create an innovation platform are analysed, and data from similar endeavours are compared with this particular process. The main focus is on collaboration patterns and how successful different ways of implementing co-creation have been.

There is already many years of accumulated experience of development of serious games with various partners in these institutions, but the changing situation in the games and mobile applications marketplace needs continuous reassessment.

The project has been implemented as part of the European Union (EU) sponsored Six City strategy, which is described as follows: "The Six City Strategy runs between 2014 and 2020 with the aim of creating new know-how, business and jobs in Finland. It is funded by European Regional Development Fund, European Social Fund, the Finnish Government and the participating cities. The Six City Strategy has three focus areas: open innovation platforms, opendata and interfaces, and open participation and customership" (p. n.p.) [START_REF]6Aika: Smart Cities Work Together[END_REF].

This paper first briefly discusses use of games in the classroom and the current research on educational games. Next, the idea of an innovation platform and different stakeholders in educational games development are presented, and the current situation for each stakeholder is analysed. Next, several efforts in collaboration between public and private actors in forms of projects are described, major obstacles are analysed, and some lessons learnt during the projects are listed. Finally, conclusions on collaboration patterns are drafted.

Educational games in the classroom -current research

In Finland, the new National Core Curriculum (2014) emphasises using games and gamification in learning [START_REF]Ministry of Education and Culture: Homepage[END_REF][START_REF] Krokfors | Learning. Creatively. Together. Educational Change Report[END_REF]. Playful learning is seen to advance learning and as a motivational factor in both information and communications technology (ICT) skills and in different subjects such as mathematics or languages. While digitalisation has entered children's lives, there is still a huge variation in how digitalisation and digital games are being used in classrooms: more than 80% of the teachers report that they need additional training for ICT use [START_REF] Jalava | Peruskoulujen ja lukioiden tietotekniikkakartoitus 2013. Kysely kunnille ja kuntayhtymille[END_REF]. Many teachers are having difficulties in implementing digitalisation in schools so that it would truly support and advance the ways that the students use ICT. However, gaming has been shown to motivate students, spark interest towards new knowledge, as well as to build bridges between formal and informal learning [START_REF] Plass | Foundations of Game-Based Learning[END_REF]. The use of educational games is increasing both in primary schools and in higher education. Additionally, many virtual learning environments increasingly offer "gamified" features such as badges and points, without really ensuring that they enhance learning. The assumption has been that gamification is good as such, because it is presumed to motivate students. Several studies on the usefulness of games in learning have been published, including a meta-study in 2012 by Kapp [START_REF] Kapp | The Gamification of Learning and Instruction: Game-Based Methods and Strategies for Training and Education[END_REF]. Kapp had collected six carefully chosen meta-analysis studies that each examined a large amount of studies that attempted to resolve the issue of effectiveness of games in education. The studies compared reported learning outcomes of game use to other methods, but the result was inconclusive. Overall, in more than half of the cases games were found somewhat beneficial. Kangas et al. conducted a meta-study on teacher involvement in game-based learning in 2017, noticing that there still is a scarcity of research in this field [START_REF] Kangas | A qualitative literature review of educational games in the classroom: the teacher's pedagogical activities[END_REF]. Plass et al. recently presented ideas for viewing game-based and playful learning through cognitive, affective, behavioural and sociocultural levels of learner engagements, which offer foundations for analysing successful learning both from the features of the game and its pedagogical context [START_REF] Plass | Foundations of Game-Based Learning[END_REF]. Much depends on the type of game, how it is supported in the classroom, and what kind of learning it is designed to produce.

Research in serious games and gamification spans various disciplines, and it is still at a nascent stage, as concluded above. There are journals that are inclusive to games research such as the International Journal of Serious Games (online) but most research is published across various platforms including educational technology conferences. The research results from academia are therefore hard to locate, and have not yet fully reached the commercial world or schools.

Methods

Robert Kaplan [START_REF] Kaplan | Innovation action research: Creating new management theory and practice[END_REF] outlined a version of action research that engaged the researcher in an explicit programme to develop new solutions, and to evaluate and improve the solution in a research cycle that he called innovation action research. In the research that is presented in this paper, the method seems a natural choice, as the researchers follow and act as part of the development effort, where publishing intermediate steps also works as an evaluation tool. Action research is a form of field research, largely descriptive and qualitative, consisting of a set of cases for analysis and testing theories. The data in this study are based on several projects and experiments that have been implemented in three universities in Finland, with the authors as members of development teams or observers.

Stakeholders on innovation platforms

Innovation platforms

Innovation platforms are defined as environments that enable the development of new products, services and markets, allowing the entire city community to work together to create new services, solutions and businesses. This indicates that innovation platforms are tools that cover the entire life cycle of a service, from idea to testing and from testing to product. Innovation platforms were created to offer effective and functional services for agile trials, user-oriented joint development, and controlled user-testing of new innovations and technologies [START_REF]6Aika: Smart Cities Work Together[END_REF]. The Edudigi project in the cities of Espoo, Vantaa, and Oulu is an experiment to create a platform for collaborative development of educational games. The actors of the project are three universities and two science centres in those geographical areas. Several modes for collaboration have been tried and analysed in order to discover permanent structures that would benefit various stakeholders, including universities, primary schools, games companies, and science centres. Figure 1 explains the intended setup of the innovation platform, showing the stakeholders in the city of Oulu.

Games companies

Games companies are predominantly small, often start-ups. According to a survey by the national Finnish funding agency TEKES, there were around 80 companies that were developing serious games in 2016 [START_REF]The Finnish Serious Games Industry Report[END_REF]. However, in an effort to map their activities in 2017, only less than ten firms were found to be continuously developing and selling games for public use. Most were producing games and other software as a service, or had stopped functioning. On the other hand, over 30 other companies have started since then. Many firms are start-ups with one game or a family of games. About a half of the games that were brought to the market were free, whereas 26% were sold as a direct purchase (premium model). Some of the games had a more complex earning model such as yearly or monthly subscription, school licence or a freemium model. The freemium model is dominant with commercial mobile games where players pay for extra services or goodies during the game. These games have been developed to hold the attention of the player, or even to create an addiction. This kind of model is seen as unethical when children are concerned, and therefore should be avoided in educational games [START_REF] Kimppa | First dose is always freemium[END_REF]. According to the above-mentioned survey, financial problems are the most important impediment for the growing of the firms. One large problem is with the earning model compared to developers of entertainment games, where the players are customers and pay for the games. The question arises, who is the paying client when a game is used in school? Schools favour open source, free software because of lack of funds. Most of the above-mentioned free games had been developed in some project with public funding. Unfortunately, the development and maintenance of the game usually stops when project funding ends, and the products soon disappear from the market. A few financially successful products have been developed without a connection to school curricula, such as Yousician (where you can learn to play a musical instrument) and the language game WordDive. Language teaching applications abound for mobile devices and personal computers (PCs) also globally. Additionally, there is a category of educational games that has been developed by enthusiastic school teachers or university educators. Many mathematical and science games belong to this category, as well as learning environments based on map-related activities [START_REF] Kiili | Using video games to combine learning and assessment in mathematics education[END_REF].

One of the ideas of the innovation platform for serious game development was to connect educators and pedagogical experts with game developers. However, the games firms do not seem to feel a strong desire to get help neither in usability or pedagogical issues, nor in game development as such. This was obvious in the TEKES survey [START_REF]The Finnish Serious Games Industry Report[END_REF], and it is illustrated by responses to later efforts to contact the firms and to market pedagogical knowledge to them. Money matters are most urgent for small businesses. Moreover, the market for classroom materials and textbooks is dominated by a couple of large publishers who can also provide gamification as part of the teaching material.

Schools and teachers

Education departments in municipalities have an active policy to encourage digitalisation of schools according to national strategies [START_REF]Ministry of Education and Culture: Homepage[END_REF]. In practice, the most popular measurements locally have been purchases of tablets, computers, and other hardware. On the national level, there are several government funded projects to enhance digitalisation, such as trials of virtual reality gear in some school districts. Teacher unions have conducted surveys among their members and complain that teacher training in digitalisation has not been a priority, and very little time has been allocated to the training [START_REF] Oaj | Trade Union of Education[END_REF]. Recent studies show that teachers have difficulties in implementing new practises of ICT in schools [START_REF] Theseus | OKM: Tilannekatsaus perusopetuksen digitalisaatioon julkaistu[END_REF]. In fact, even though teachers reported to use ICT in schools, most of the use in classrooms is teacher-driven and the main aim has only been to show students facts, for example, using Microsoft (MS) Power Point. Internet is mainly used as a source of information. According to the students, ICT was used less than what the teachers reported. However, an active cohort of teachers participates in networks that develop uses of virtual and digital tools. Some act as mentors for their colleagues, who are less knowledgeable. Teachers who are willing to participate in development efforts, can be found through the existing networks.

Educational institutions: higher and vocational education

Since the remarkable global success of the local commercial entertainment games industry in 2010, universities in Finland have been involved in game developer education and various projects to develop new games. The ministry of education as well as the board of education have granted funds for the projects, many of which are also funded from European sources. Currently, 6 universities and 11 universities of applied sciences have some kind of degree specialisation that has "game" in its name. The first students from these programmes graduated in 2016 [14,[START_REF]Neogames: Hub of the Finnish Game Industry[END_REF]. Additionally, education is provided by 10 vocational schools. The games industry was worth 2,400 million euros in 2015 (turnover). However, it only employed 2,700 people [START_REF]Neogames: Hub of the Finnish Game Industry[END_REF]. Those figures indicate that the investment in the education for professionals in that field is very strong. Despite the strong interest in educating games experts and creating company contacts, universities have not shown that much interest in using games as part of the educational toolkit. Exceptions are business and industry games that are widely used in business schools and other universities. Fields that evidently would be suitable for educational games such as engineering, have developed astonishingly few educational games.

A thesis that surveyed the attitudes of vocational school teachers and students in construction, heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) teachers in particular, found that the instructors did not see any use for mobile game applications in their education, even though most students expressed interest in learning through the games. Teacher answers showed lack of knowledge of mobile application use, and reluctance to devote time to something new and unknown. If the games were part of the textbook materials, they would have accepted them. The respondent population in this survey covered about half of the vocational teachers in HVAC in Finland, 96 people [START_REF] Haavisto | Kartoitus mobiilioppimisen soveltamismahdollisuuksista toisen asteen talotekniikan koulutuksessa[END_REF]. A newly-designed game prototype in a related area, namely electric installations, has just been released and was tested by two groups of students, vocational and engineering students. The six engineering students who were already certified electricians found this three-dimensional (3D) game on PCs useful and interesting. According to the electricians, practicing electric installations in reality is slow, and going through alternative solutions takes considerable time. A game offers quickly many challenges and a safe environment to fail and retry.

Students

Currently, most young people play mobile or computer games daily, at least in Finland.

According to the nationwide survey on playing habits, 80% of the population between 10 and 30 years play some kind of digital games regularly [START_REF] Mäyrä | Pelaajabarometri 2015: Lajityyppien suosio[END_REF]. The age group 10 to 19 years is most active, and 52.2 % of respondents from that group play some kind of digital game daily, and 81.6 % weekly. This part of the population plays digital games on average 12 hours per week. In fact, 25% of them report having some kind of time management problems because of the game playing. The modes of playing vary between ages and gender, as girls and young women play more mobile or social games such as Candy Crush and Hay Day, whereas boys and young men play more car driving and fighting games on game consoles. However, it seems clear that playing digital games is a common activity among the student population, also internationally [START_REF] Plass | Foundations of Game-Based Learning[END_REF], and young people have no aversion against games.

Modes of collaboration in game development

Co-creation of games in science centres

School groups regularly visit science centres to heighten interest in science. Science centre exhibitions are planned to support active learning and participation. New modes of presentation and latest innovations in science and technology are attractively presented. Nowadays, tinkering is an important aspect of the ideology of a modern science centre; challenges in the exhibition are open-ended, and visitors can create and experiment with various alternative solutions. Therefore, science centres are well suited to be collaboration hubs for co-creation in game development.

The two science centres in this project have developed a procedure to contact games companies and schools in their surrounding areas, and have created a platform for testing and collaboration sessions. School groups can combine a game session to the science centre visit, or they come particularly for a game development and evaluation session. Game companies can pose their questions to the students, let them try to use their prototype applications, or generate ideas for new educational games. The companies have direct access to young people's feelings, and moreover, they get teacher insights into the educational value of their products. The types of games have not been limited into any particular variety and have included mobile applications as well as virtual reality games. This service has proven to be popular among game companies as they can avoid the bureaucratic procedures of contacting schools and acquiring permissions from parents for evaluation sessions. The facilitators of the science centre support the co-creation process by motivating the school group. Students learn about the innovation process by practicing it themselves. Different kinds of brainstorming tasks are an essential element in the session. It has to be emphasised that the students are the actual experts in the cocreation process (see Table 1).

Around 700 school students have participated in co-creating products of 15 different companies in one science centre. The evaluation methods have been tailored for each company. Sessions have been observed and sometimes videotaped, and participants have answered questionnaires after the session. This has given the researchers a great amount of data on children's approaches to games. The companies have participated in co-creation sessions to a varied degree. Additionally, they have received summary reports of the findings from the facilitators. The service has been provided for free due to various sources of project funding. Whether companies will be willing to continue to use the service when they will be charged, is yet an open question.

Student eagerness to participate in co-creation has been positive, even though their learning has not been ensured. Students have been offered a glimpse into the game development process, and a chance to influence the resulting products, which they have found inspiring. The real interaction between the entrepreneur and the student is a cornerstone of the process. If the entrepreneur is deeply interested in the feedback, the cocreation process is an empowering experience for students. Evaluations by teachers reveal what kind of skills teachers believe their students learned during the process. Product development process, teamwork, brainstorming, causal relationships, and argumentation are often mentioned.

Games development in universities

Universities have a variety of collaboration units, some with purely educational goals, and some with commercial interest. There are separate development laboratories, called Game labs, Games Studios, or the like, which offer students a chance to get involved in real projects ordered by outside firms or organisations. In those laboratories, methods of team software or games development are applied, and students have an opportunity to learn industry practices [START_REF]Neogames: Hub of the Finnish Game Industry[END_REF]. They might also get support in founding start-up businesses, which usually takes place in business incubators that are attached to universities. One university also has a game-related learning centre that gives start-up businesses a chance to participate in a couched six-month accelerator programme.

As long as the game development activities are mainly geared towards educational goals, the experiences and outcomes have been positive. However, when commercial interests are counted, more ambiguous results are shown. University projects seldom can produce outcomes that fulfil commercial requirements, and they function best for idea generation and prototype creation.

Universities have been involved in various student projects where gamification of educational content has been explored in collaborative settings [START_REF] Holvikivi | Health-game development in university -lower secondary school collaboration[END_REF]. We have earlier reported trials of collaboration between primary schools and various groups of university students, which have been successful in educational terms, but no commercial product was ever delivered. Additionally, there has been educational game development together with large enterprises and, on the other hand, with start-up companies. The fields of application involved health care and health education, engineering education and simulations [START_REF] Koivisto | Learning clinical reasoning through game-based simulation: Design principles for simulation games[END_REF].

Discussion

Crucial problems that prevent efficient collaboration have been identified, such as different timespans and periods of activity in educational institutions and private companies. Large enterprises are more tolerant with time issues, as the activity is only of minor importance for them, and they can afford a small investment without quick turnover. Small start-ups work on very short timespans, and the delays that are caused by school semesters and terms, and timing of project activities, can be restrictive. Experience has shown that when the school or university was ready for the collaboration, the start-up had already been engaged in something else. On the other hand, financial issues are always central. Firms have to take the most lucrative deals, therefore they might abandon a school project that had been started in favour of a well-paid project.

Another set of difficulties involves questions concerning privacy, especially when minors are involved. Public projects and institutions have to act openly, and the intellectual property rights are granted to students when they are involved; moreover, public grants demand open sharing of results. Companies would like to keep business secrets and secure their own intellectual property rights (IPRs). However, these could be seen as practical problems that can be solved by careful drafting of contracts. Many universities have developed their own contract forms for these situations. In case of underage children, permissions need to be acquired from parents for activities that make them test subjects or targets for photographing or videos. Because school districts act locally, there are many different models for this.

Aside from these general concerns in collaboration, some more game-specific issues have been identified: the understanding of use of games in education and pedagogical goals and methods are not necessarily shared between game developers and educators. Moreover, organisational cultures in the game development world and in public education are far apart. The views could be summarised simply as follows: game developers seek to create games that are addictive and fun whereas educators want tools that support curriculum goals and enhance learning. For example, a new educational game Big Bang Legends has many entertaining and addictive elements, but it offers high school physics to primary school age children. Therefore, schools have little interest in it, but it might function as a commercial success as a game.

Conclusion

Certain basic requirements have to be met in order to have a functional innovation platform for co-creation. Before creating or maintaining the platform itself, there has to be a clear shared vision across all parties. How are the different parts of the concept seen and how have the meanings been negotiated? The main actor or centre for the platform has to be reliable and easy to reach by all parties. The platform needs constancy and continuity, which is achieved when there is a strong commitment to it among the major parties. As was detected in this study, personal relations and individual interests cannot be forgotten as, after all, everything works through people. Finally, a sound earning or funding model has to be established, otherwise financial pressures will make the operation impossible.

Figure 1 .

 1 Figure 1. Oulu educational game development platform

  1st visit Science centre facilitators motivate pilot users; problem solving tasks; pilot groups' own innovation process begins Introduction to co-creation session, start-up presentation, co-creation and feedback 2-3 weeks break Schools: Homework Start-up: Further development based on feedback 2nd visit Pilot groups' own innovation process continues; presentations Introduction to co-creation session, start-up's greetings, co-creation and feedback

Table 1 .

 1 Structure of the co-creation process


Riko Kelter
email: riko.kelter@uni-siegen.de

Matthias Kramer
email: matthias.kramer@uni-due.de

Torsten Brinda
email: torsten.brinda@uni-due.de

Teachers' Perspectives on Learning and Programming Environments for Secondary Education

Keywords: Educational programming environments, teaching and learning programming, object-oriented-programming

Teaching and learning programming is a challenge. Although several learning and programming environments have been proposed for classes, there seems to be more dissent than consensus as to which tools are preferable over others. This paper investigates teachers' perspectives on popular learning and programming environments used in secondary computer science education in Germany. The environments investigated are: BlueJ, Scratch, Greenfoot, Eclipse, MIT App Inventor, Processing IDE, and Alice. Based on prior research, a catalogue of environment features supporting the learning processes of students was constructed. Using these criteria, an online-survey was conducted with computer science teachers in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. In the survey, the participating teachers evaluated the selected tools' adequacy for teaching object-oriented programming. The findings support the results of prior research conducted with students, stressing the importance of a simple and user-friendly graphical user interface (GUI) as well as the option to visualise classes and objects. Contrary to prior studies, the results show that teachers do not see the editor as equally important, as students do, and that there is no consensus about the role of the area of application for choosing an integrated development environment (IDE). Student-friendly debugging messages as well as a step-bystep execution of programs were identified as important features. Although no tool excelled for every criterion, the clear favourite was BlueJ.

Introduction

Teaching and learning programming constitute a challenge. In Germany, a focus in secondary computer science education lies on object-oriented programming (OOP) in Java. While there is a variety of suitable learning and programming environments for this task, teachers are free to choose what best fits their personal preference. Given this situation, it is important to find out what exactly constitutes a beginner-friendly environment that supports the learning process. The advantages and problems of common integrated development environments (IDEs) have been discussed by Xinogalos et al. [START_REF] Xinogalos | Microworlds, games, animations, mobile apps, puzzle editors and more: What is important for an introductory programming environment[END_REF], Georgantaki [START_REF] Georgantak | Using Educational Tools for Teaching Object Oriented Design and Programming[END_REF] and Uysal [START_REF] Uysal | Interviews With College Students: Evaluating Computer Programming Environments For Introductory Courses[END_REF], all of them focusing on students' perspectives. While the results show important features from the students' points of view, there is no information available about which features teachers regard as necessary to enhance the learning process. While students' perspectives are often based on a short period of use, most teachers use such environments for a long period of time and therefore have valuable knowledge about common fallacies or benefits of a given environment from a currently uninvestigated perspective. Therefore, teachers' perspectives are investigated in this paper, adding a new perspective to the debate about which aspects are important when selecting an educational OOP environment.

Background and related work

Extended research has been carried out investigating educational IDEs. To give a framework for orientation in computer science education research, Hubwieser et al. [START_REF] Hubwieser | Perspectives and Visions of Computer Science Education in Primary and Secondary (K-12) Schools[END_REF] constructed the so-called Darmstadt model, which defines "educational relevant areas". According to this paper, teaching methods and media are two crucial research areas in computer science education. Hubwieser et al. [5, p. 7] give a definition of what constitutes these areas: "(12) Media: Technical Infrastructure, (…), Tools, Didactical Software, (…). Which (…) programming languages or environments, personal learning environments were found to support motivation ( 5), (…)?" Nevertheless, no consensus has been established on what makes a good educational IDE. Xinogalos et al. [START_REF] Xinogalos | Microworlds, games, animations, mobile apps, puzzle editors and more: What is important for an introductory programming environment[END_REF] stress that there is no universally accepted framework for evaluating educational IDEs. Already in 2002, McIver [START_REF] Mciver | Evaluating languages and environments for novice programmers[END_REF] discussed how educational IDEs should be analysed.

McIver [6, p. 2] points out that while there "is some evidence that a well-designed programming environment can assist students learning to program (...) there have been few, if any, direct evaluations of whether the choice, or design, of programming development environments has a real impact on learning". Gross and Powers [START_REF] Gross | Evaluating Assessments of Novice Programming Environments[END_REF] additionally showed that the results even for environments which have been evaluated, cannot be replicated in a lot of cases. Georgantaki [START_REF] Georgantak | Using Educational Tools for Teaching Object Oriented Design and Programming[END_REF] built upon McIver [START_REF] Mciver | Evaluating languages and environments for novice programmers[END_REF] and investigated important features of IDEs. The results showed that the graphical user interface (GUI) and visualisation of program dynamics is important to students. Xinogalos ([8, 9]) showed in multiple studies that the educational IDE used does have an impact on learners' outcomes. To make analyses of environments more standardised, Uysal [START_REF] Uysal | Interviews With College Students: Evaluating Computer Programming Environments For Introductory Courses[END_REF] proposed a framework for evaluating educational IDEs. Xinogalos [START_REF] Xinogalos | Object-Oriented Design and Programming: An Investigation of Novices' Conceptions on Objects and Classes[END_REF] also isolated multiple important features of programming environments by conducting a study in which students compared a selection of IDEs in terms of effectivity and adequacy for different goals like programming in general, OOP or fundamental object-oriented concepts.

Goals

One key aspect missing in prior research is the influence of the learning or programming environment used on students' success compared to other factors. To judge the relevance of results, it is important to know which role the environment used plays at all. Also, while prior studies focused on isolating important features of such tools based upon students' views, the perspective of teachers has not currently been investigated. Therefore, direct evaluations of learning and programming environments -exploring which framework components are crucial, as well as benefits and disadvantages -from the perspective of teachers are missing. Additionally, there is a clear lack of knowledge about the spread and use of such tools in classrooms. Thus, four research questions have been formulated for the study:

• RQ1: What influence does the educational OOP environment have on students' learning success compared to other factors, according to teachers? • RQ2: What features should an educational OOP environment have, according to teachers? • RQ3: Which educational OOP environments are used and preferred for classrooms by teachers? • RQ4: Which benefits and disadvantages exist for selected educational OOP environments, according to teachers?

To investigate the influence of the environments on students' successes in relation to other factors, RQ1 was formulated. To answer RQ2, based upon the results from Xinogalos et al. [START_REF] Xinogalos | Microworlds, games, animations, mobile apps, puzzle editors and more: What is important for an introductory programming environment[END_REF], Uysal [START_REF] Uysal | Interviews With College Students: Evaluating Computer Programming Environments For Introductory Courses[END_REF] and Georgantaki [START_REF] Georgantak | Using Educational Tools for Teaching Object Oriented Design and Programming[END_REF], a framework of six components for an educational programming environment was constructed for the study: graphical user interface (GUI), visualisation tools (visual), editor (editor), compiler and error messages (compiler), execution system and debugger (debugger), and area of application (area). Based upon the evaluated tools previously listed [START_REF] Georgantak | Using Educational Tools for Teaching Object Oriented Design and Programming[END_REF][START_REF] Xinogalos | An Evaluation of Knowledge Transfer from Microworld Programming to Conventional Programming[END_REF][START_REF] Xinogalos | Object-Oriented Design and Programming: An Investigation of Novices' Conceptions on Objects and Classes[END_REF], six educational environments were then selected to answer RQ3 and RQ4: BlueJ, Greenfoot, Scratch, Eclipse, MIT App Inventor, Processing, and Alice.

The study

The chosen format of the study was an online survey, which was answered by 102 secondary education computer science teachers in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, from which 79 were filled out completely. The format was chosen to reach as many teachers as possible, as well as making the process of filling out the survey as easy as possible. The 79 questionnaires built the basis of the analysis, out of which 57 were filled in by male and 18 by female teachers (on 4 questionnaires no gender was selected). Fifty-two of the 79 teachers had mathematics as their second teaching subject, 12 had physics, with the rest split equally on other subjects.

Influence of the environment on learning success compared to other factors according to teachers

The target of RQ1 was to investigate whether, according to teachers, the environment plays a significant role for students' successes, compared to other factors. Teachers were asked to rate the importance of different factors for the learning success of students. The given factors were the used API, the used textbook, the used IDE as well as the student's (student) and teacher's personality (teacher). The used application programming interface (API) refers to the programming library used in class to enhance a student's learning process. Just as different textbooks and IDEs exist, there also exist a variety of available APIs for teaching OOP (e.g. GLOOP for Java), often with helpful examples and projects for classroom usage. Next to the IDE, teachers are free to choose an API for their lessons in Germany, so it is reasonable to investigate its influence compared to the selected IDE and textbook, as well as the personality of teachers and students. The answers were Likert-scaled, with 1 = unimportant, 2 = rather unimportant, 3 = rather important, and 4 = important. The results showed that while the used textbook seems to play a rather unimportant role according to the teachers, with a mean of 2.26, the used IDE and API have a definitive impact on students' outcomes (means of 2.84 and 2.90). In total, the student's and teacher's personality are the most important factors for teachers, with means of 3.60 and 3.69.

Evaluation of framework features

To answer RQ2, the identified framework features were evaluated. Teachers could agree or disagree to given statements about educational OOP environments on a Likertscale including 1 ( = don't agree), 2 ( = rather don't agree), 3 ( = rather agree) and 4 ( = agree). The statements were constructed based upon the six selected components, which were based on prior research (see section 3):

A programming environment for learning OOP should

• have a simple, intuitive user interface,

• have the option to visualise objects and classes,

• have the option to execute a program step-by-step,

• have a code editor, which allows next to the entry of text also puzzle-like code snippets, • provide comprehensive, beginner-friendly error messages instead of normal error messages of the compiler, • have a wide area of application and therefore allow the development of different kind of program type (e.g. animations, web applications, apps).

The results are shown in Figure 1. The order of components on the x-axis in Figure 1 follows no specific logic. The highest agreement can be found in the categories GUI and visual with means of 3.73 and 3.61. Similar is the rating for a debugger that allows step-by-step execution of the program (debug), with a mean of 3.46. Beginner-friendly error messages have a mean rating of 3.16 and the rating for the area of application (area) has a mean of 2.66. Nearly half of the teachers rather agree here, and the other half rather does not agree, so the opinion is split. With a mean of 2.20, the editor component has the lowest mean of all six components. Therefore, an editor supporting puzzle-like code snippets is not seen as a necessary feature, according to the teachers' perspectives, contrary to the students' points of view described in Xinogalos et al. [START_REF] Xinogalos | Microworlds, games, animations, mobile apps, puzzle editors and more: What is important for an introductory programming environment[END_REF], Uysal [START_REF] Uysal | Interviews With College Students: Evaluating Computer Programming Environments For Introductory Courses[END_REF], and Georgantaki [START_REF] Georgantak | Using Educational Tools for Teaching Object Oriented Design and Programming[END_REF]. When asked for their personal preference for classroom use, teachers' answers showed the distribution in Figure 3. Clearly, BlueJ seems to be the most preferred OOP environment (48), while Eclipse (6) and Greenfoot ( 8) are preferred by a few teachers.

Evaluation of the selected environments

Depending on the environments they already used in class, teachers had to answer additional questions. If a teacher selected BlueJ, he or she had to rate the following statements on a 5-point Likert-scale using 1=do not agree, 2=rather do not agree, 3=neutral, 4=rather agree, 5=agree (and the same for every other environment, but with replacement of 'BlueJ' for the appropriate name in the following):

• BlueJ has a structured, student-friendly user interface.

• BlueJ offers the option to visualise objects and classes supporting the understanding of the program dynamics. • BlueJ offers the option to execute a program step-by-step to retrace the program flow. • BlueJ offers a code editor which allows the use of puzzle-like codeblocks, to write a program. • BlueJ shows student-friendly error messages easy to understand.

• BlueJ can be used for the development of a variety of program types, e. g. apps, web applications or animations. Table 1 shows the evaluation of the selected environments with regard to the framework components given in Figure 1.

Table 1.

Teachers' evaluation of the selected environments with regard to the framework components

Evaluation of BlueJ and Greenfoot

The evaluation of BlueJ and Greenfoot can be seen in Table 1. The mean of every framework component is listed for the selected environment as well as the mean for agreement to the framework components themselves, as shown in Figure 1.

BlueJ excels in most categories, especially the GUI, visualisation options and a stepby-step execution option. The environment lacks user-friendly compiler messages and a broad application area, but, especially in the last case, it is unclear if this component is necessary for a good educational OOP environment. BlueJ also offers no editor allowing puzzle-like statements, fitting into the results of Figure 1.

The results for Greenfoot show a similar picture. According to the teachers, Greenfoot has a good GUI, visualisation options and step-by-step execution option. The editor here also allows no puzzle-like code blocks and therefore is rated poorly. However, there seems to be a consensus that such a component is not necessary at all for a good educational OOP environment (see Figure 1). While the area of application is smaller than BlueJ's, the compiler seems to offer a degree of user-friendlier error messages.

Evaluation of Scratch and the MIT App Inventor

Scratch scores very high on the editor component with a mean of 4.78 (see Table 1). Offering its unique puzzle-like code-drag-and-drop system, it excels in this category. The GUI is structured and user-friendly according to the results. A weak point according to the teachers is the area of application (area). Taking a look at the step-bystep execution option (debugger), user-friendly error messages (compiler) and visualisation options for objects and classes (visual), Scratch is rated as 'good'.

The MIT App Inventor also has a very high rating in the Editor category, with a mean of 4.72 (see Table 1). However, it is only used by a few teachers, which may bias the results. The MIT App Inventor's editor seems to be highly capable of supporting students' learning successes by allowing the use of puzzle-like code blocks for building apps. Problematic indeed is the fact that most teachers do not see such an editor as a necessary feature for a good educational OOP environment (see Figure 1 and compare the mean). The GUI is still rated 'good', with a mean of 4.06. While the area of application (area) still has a mean of 3.11, there is a slight tendency of teachers not to agree with the fact that the MIT App Inventor allows step-by-step execution to support students' learning processes, as can be seen by the mean of 2.41 of the debugger component.

Evaluation of Eclipse, Processing and Alice

Eclipse differs a lot from the teachers' general rating for the different framework components, as can be seen in Table 1. While its GUI and debugger are rated high, with means of 4.84 and 4.44, the error-messages (compiler) seem not to be beginnerfriendly, with a mean of 2.42, and the visualisation options (visual) are also rated worse than every other environment with a mean of 3.00. The editor also is not capable of using puzzle-like code blocks; therefore its rating is quite low. A definitive strength can be seen with the high rating for the area of the application area, which has a mean of 4.84.

For Alice and Processing, there was so little data that summarising them would not have been useful. In total, 3 teachers gave feedback about the Processing environment. Alice was evaluated only by 2 teachers, who basically underlined that it is more appropriate for non-secondary education. Therefore, no data for Processing and Alice are included in Table 1.

Discussion and conclusions

The study presented in this paper investigated the perception of secondary-school computer science teachers regarding seven popular educational learning and programming environments, with a focus on OOP, and the features that an ideal introductory environment should have. The study findings were based on an online questionnaire filled in by 79 secondary education computer science teachers in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. The results can be summarised as follows. Measuring the influence of the educational programming environment for learners' successes in OOP according to teachers was the target of RQ1. The results showed that while the textbook is seen as rather unimportant, the educational IDE used and the API used are seen as rather important. However, the personality of the student and teacher are regarded as even more important. Future research should further investigate how exactly the educational programming environment plays a role for students' successes and how the influence can be separated by the influence of the API used.

The necessary features of educational OOP environments were the target of RQ2. The constructed framework of six components was evaluated by the teachers. In summary, teachers did agree with the fact that the GUI and visualisation options are highly relevant for a good educational OOP IDE. Additionally, a step-by-step execution system and understandable error messages are regarded as important. Contrary to the results from Xinogalos [START_REF] Xinogalos | Microworlds, games, animations, mobile apps, puzzle editors and more: What is important for an introductory programming environment[END_REF], Uysal [START_REF] Uysal | Interviews With College Students: Evaluating Computer Programming Environments For Introductory Courses[END_REF] and Georgantaki [START_REF] Georgantak | Using Educational Tools for Teaching Object Oriented Design and Programming[END_REF], the editor component was not seen as crucial and may not be a good candidate for the framework.

The use and preference of educational OOP environments was the target of RQ3. The most used OOP environment was BlueJ, but 42% of the teachers had also used other environments. When asked for preference in classrooms, the highest scorer was BlueJ.

The benefits and disadvantages of the environments were investigated in RQ4. Clearly, no single IDE excelled in every framework component. However, BlueJ and Greenfoot had 'good' to 'very good' ratings in most components. While Greenfoot seemed to be good as an introductory environment, BlueJ was also seen as a stable long-term solution by teachers, according to comments. Scratch (as well as the MIT App Inventor) were evaluated as 'good', especially with regard to the editor component, but they did not score as equally high as BlueJ or Greenfoot in other components. Eclipse was evaluated as the most professional, but also complex environment, and Alice and Processing had too few evaluations to construct meaningful results.

In the next step, the proposed framework of six components needs to be specified further by defining which features exactly make up a 'good' component. While an editor component supporting just puzzle-like code blocks is not regarded as necessary by teachers, there may be other features like auto-completion which may be regarded as helpful. Future work should further investigate these structures in detail.

Figure 1 .Figure 2 .

 12 Figure 1. Rating of framework components according to teachers

Figure 3 .

 3 Figure 3. Favourite programming environments of teachers for classroom use