=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1717/paper9
|storemode=property
|title=A Model-Driven Approach for the Development of CSCL Tools that Considers Pedagogical Usability
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1717/paper9.pdf
|volume=Vol-1717
|authors=Ana Isabel Molina,Jesus Gallardo,Christian Xavier Navarro,Miguel Angel Redondo
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/models/DiazGCD16
}}
==A Model-Driven Approach for the Development of CSCL Tools that Considers Pedagogical Usability==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1717/paper9.pdf
A Model-Driven Approach for the Development of CSCL
Tools that Considers Pedagogical Usability
Ana Isabel Molina Jesús Gallardo Christian Xavier Navarro
Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha Universidad de Zaragoza Universidad Autónoma de Baja
Escuela Superior de Informática E.U. Politécnica de Teruel California
Departamento de Tecnologías y Departamento de Informática e Facultad de Ingeniería, Arquitectura y
Sistemas de Información Ingeniería de Sistemas Diseño
(+34) 926 29 53 00 (+34) 978 645 387 cnavarro@uabc.edu.mx
anaisabel.molina@uclm.es jesus.gallardo@unizar.es
Miguel Ángel Redondo
Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha
Escuela Superior de Informática
Departamento de Tecnologías y Sistemas de Información
(+34) 926 29 53 00
miguel.redondo@uclm.es
ABSTRACT Considering the spectrum of possible CSCL systems, in this work
The application of the collaboration paradigm in software for we will focus on systems that support activities of graphical
teaching has resulted of a great help to increase motivation and modeling in groups. This type of systems is useful in disciplines
participation of students. However, the development of such where graphical notations or visual languages are frequently used.
software is not an easy task. Model-driven development can be a In the scope of Computer Science, numerous notations can be
help in this sense, provided that the peculiarities of collaborative taught through such tools. For example, we could mention UML
learning systems are taken into account. In this paper, we diagrams or network topologies. In other fields, there are also
introduce a model-driven development method for collaborative notations that can be learned using such systems. For example,
learning systems that gives support to group graphical modeling. digital circuits or concept maps fit perfectly into this approach.
The method is based on the use of models by different roles all However, the development of collaborative systems, in general,
over the development, and it also considers pedagogical usability and the CSCL systems, in particular, is not a simple task [11].
factors to guarantee that the generated systems have into account There are aspects such as the support to model collaborative
the factors that are typical in the learning field. In order to have a procedures, the roles supported by the system or the existence of
measure of the usefulness of the method, we have applied it to spaces for sharing information, that they become in key design
create a series of collaborative modeling tools. These systems and and implement requirements.
the method have been evaluated by teachers/professors of
In recent years, our interest has focused on providing a
different fields, who have stated a favorable opinion regarding the
methodological support, aligned with the principles of MDD
proposed approach.
(Model Driven Development), for the development of these
CCS Concepts applications [23].
· Software and its engineering → Model-driven software As a consequence, the CIAM [18] methodology was developed.
engineering This methodology proposes a series of notations [22] and stages to
design collaborative systems that meet usability requirements (i.e.,
· Applied computing → Collaborative learning a design based on models of users and tasks), as well as the
· Human-centered computing → Usability testing principles of groupware usability [1, 29] (role modeling,
incorporating coordination and communication tools, access
Keywords control mechanisms to share context, etc.).
Pedagogical usability, CSCL, Collaborative system design, Nevertheless, CIAM only supports the phases of analysis and
Model-driven development. design of such systems, even though allows automatically
generate the presentation layer of applications, i.e., the user
1. INTRODUCTION interfaces. This process is supported by CIAT-GUI tool [21].
One of the objectives of the Computer Supported Cooperative However, aspects such as the implementation of communication
Learning (CSCL) [13] is to exploit the advantages provided by mechanism (specially, synchronous mechanism), the access
groupware systems in the field of eLearning [5]. control to shared resources, the support to coordination (by mean
The application of CSCL paradigm favors the motivation and chats or decision support systems), the management of sessions or
involvement of learners, and the exchange of ideas, knowledge the inclusion of awareness elements (tele-pointers, user
and points of view, stimulating the creativity. On the other hand, identification by color, etc.) are not technologically supported by
its use allows developing skills such as decision-making in a the CIAM approach.
group, argumentation, or the ability to communicate and transmit This lack could be solved by integrating the CIAM approach with
knowledge and opinions; all of them are necessary skills for the the SpacEclipse framework [7], which allows semi-automatic
professional future of the learners. generation of synchronous collaborative systems for modeling.
This framework is based in Graphical Modeling Framework The principles of model-driven development have been applied, in
(GMF) of the Eclipse platform. In a simple way, its use allows the discipline of Computer-Human Interaction (CHI), mainly for
designers to generate a collaborative modeling tool adapted to any the design and development of the user interface [32], giving birth
domain or type of diagram. This requires the definition of the to the area of Model-Based User Interface Development (MBUID)
elements or nodes that make up the models to create as well as the [15]. The modeling of group work has also been an area of
type of relationships or connections that may exist between them. interest in the field of CHI. There exist some proposals that have
Similarly, it is necessary the configuration of other collaboration faced that challenge [20]. Among them, we propose the use of
features (to be included in the user interface), such as the type of CIAM [18, 22], which faces the modeling of the interactive and
communication and coordination mechanism, the awareness group work factors. However, CIAM does not take into account
elements, etc. The result obtained is a collaborative synchronous the peculiarities of the design of collaborative learning systems.
modeling tool specialized for the domain of application chosen Concerning the design and development of CSCL systems, there
and conveniently specified and modeled. Currently, there exist exist many proposals in that sense, but few of them adopt a
tools like Eugenia [30] that make a similar job for using GMF in a model-driven approach [31, 34]. Most of them consider as a
simple way. However, our SpacEclipse proposal was developed conceptual model of reference the one supported by the standard
when such tools were not still published and GMF had to be used for instructional model IMS-LD [26], as well as a pattern and
with all its complexity. In addition, SpacEclipse is oriented component based design [2] or scripts for teaching [12]. Although
towards a specific kind of modeling tools, which are graphical IMS-LD includes concepts that allow specifying group behavior,
editing tools, so it can be more specific and not so generic. such as roles or notifications, it does not consider other factors to
Thus, by integrating CIAM (to support the analysis and design take into account when designing systems of collaborative
phases) with the SpacEclipse framework (to support the learning [17], and even less if they are of a synchronous nature.
implementation phase), full support for the development of What is more, basing the design of CSCL systems in scripts has
groupware modeling tools may be obtained. A first approach to its own limitations [4]. While many of those contributions follow
integrate these two methods is described in [8]. a pedagogical approach, they use to be focused on specific
However, if we expect to support the development of teaching scenarios, such as the one of Problem-Based Learning
collaborative learning systems (CSCL) it is necessary to consider (PBL) [16] or do not really generate fully functional CSCL
its educational and pedagogical dimension. The pedagogical systems [33].
aspects should be taken into account during the design of this type Thus, the proposal we outline in this paper is distinguished by
of interactive applications. Some authors address the treatment of being a model-driven method that allows the automatic generation
these aspects by introducing the Pedagogical Usability term [10, of a CSCL application in a way in which collaborative, interactive
14, 25]. This concept would be related with all aspects of usability and pedagogical design factors are considered all over the
that positively influence the teaching/learning process. development process. All these considerations have an effect in
Nevertheless, for the integration of the pedagogical usability it is the final product, causing that it covers all those dimensions.
necessary to characterize what are the criteria and/or dimensions
that define it. For this objective, we take as reference the MoLEF
3. METHODOLOGICAL PROPOSAL FOR
proposal (Mobile Learning Evaluation Framework) [24]. MoLEF THE MODEL-DRIVEN DEVELOPMENT
is a framework for evaluating the usability of mobile learning OF COLLABORATIVE LEARNING TOOLS
systems and deals with the technological usability (for mobile In this section, we describe how we have carried out the
interfaces) and pedagogical usability (in a general point of view). integration of the three initial proposals: the CIAM methodology,
In this work, we will use the part that allows validating the the technological support provided by SpacEclipse and lastly, the
pedagogical usability. steps of evaluation and guidelines provided by the MoLEF
Therefore, in this research we address a new evolution of the framework.
integration of CIAM with SpacEclipse in order to consider the 3.1. A model-driven method for developing
criteria and guidelines for pedagogical usability that are proposed
in MoLEF. Thus, the final goal is to propose a model-driven collaborative tools: CIAM+SpacEclipse integration
process for development of CSCL tools. This process will be task- The first point that is going to be faced is to analyze the
oriented and will take into account aspects of pedagogical complementarity of both proposals, CIAM and SpacEclipse. Both
usability. of proposals are aligned with the model-driven paradigm. In Table
1, factors that are supported by CIAM and SpacEclipse are shown
Finally, we present a case of study that shows how this approach so that it gets clear the support they share and the one they lack.
has been applied to generate some collaborative modeling tools
(for students of Computer Science degree) and a first validation of As it can be seen in the comparison, both proposals are
the method and of products that can be generated. complemented in most factors. Thus, CIAM supports the phase of
requirements specification of the groupware system by means of
2. RELATED WORK graphical notations, but it only supports the automatic generation
The development of CSCL systems is a complex task [35]. In this of the presentation layer of the application.
sense, several points of view for their development can be taken: Regarding technological issues, the integration is possible as both
ad hoc development, the use of patterns and/or components, or the proposals include the same model-driven approach and share most
use of model-driven approaches. In this work, we are using the technologies. This makes easy to integrate the meta-models of
model-driven paradigm to develop CSCL models. Therefore, we both proposals, which have many concepts in common.
propose to apply the models proposed by CIAM in the first steps
The main problem for this integration is that SpacEclipse is
of the development, and to use the software components
oriented towards a very specific kind of applications, which are
supported by SpacEclipse in further steps.
the ones for developing diagrams and models, whilst CIAM aims
to give support to any kind of group work task. Therefore, our
integration proposal will only give support to the creation of As an example, we show in Table 2 the definition of the elements
synchronous modeling CSCL applications in its first version. related to tasks or activities and social interaction.
Table 1. Analysis of the complementarity of the CIAM and Table 2. Elements for evaluation in two sub-dimensions of the
SpacEclipse proposals MoLEF framework
CIAM SpacEclipse Tasks or activities
Kind of systems it Collaborative Collaborative modeling Aligning with Tasks or activities must have a strong connection to the
supports systems systems objectives objectives.
1 Tasks must allow students to integrate new information
Specification techniques CIAN notation, CTT EMF Sequencing
with prior learning to generate knowledge.
Support for requirements Problem-based Tasks should require students to compare and classify
analysis and techniques learning information, make deductions, and promote creativity.
for requirements Yes No The task should reflect real-world practice, relevant
specification to professional practice, generating interest and
Authenticity engagement in students. They must support transference
Support for the definition
Partial Yes of skillsbeyond the learning environment and critical
of the application domain
thinking.
Support for task Tasks should engage students in problems to solve, that
Yes No
definition take advantage of state of the art mobile design (field
Interactivity
Support for the modeling Only for collaborative investigations, taking pictures, videos, augmented reality,
of interactive issues Yes QR codes).
modeling tasks
Tasks should be congruent with the content and
Only for the user Adequacy
capabilities of the target audience.
Support for automatic interface; supported
Yes Software should allow opportunities wherever
code generation by the CIAT-GUI
Self-evaluation appropriate for self-assessment that advance students’
tool [21]
achievement.
Incorporation of elements Social interaction
for awareness support in No Yes The m-learning application should allow students to
the generated GUI Dialogue communicate with their classmates or teachers (chat,
Incorporation of elements Yes (communication notice board or social networks).
for communication and No tools, decision making The mobile learning environment should allow students
coordination Collaboration
tools, etc.) to do group work with their classmates.
Support for the definition The mobile learning environment should provide
and configuration of No Yes Discussion opportunities to support learning through interaction,
workspaces and sessions discussion and other collaborative activities.
The m-learning application should allow students to
Sharing share photos, videos or any other documents related to
their work.
3.2. MoLEF: Framework for pedagogical usability
As we mentioned in the introduction, although the integration of
CIAM and SpacEclipse allows generating fully functional In Figure 1, we detail all sub-dimensions and elements that
collaborative modeling tools, there is no way to guarantee that describe pedagogical usability in MoLEF.
such systems cover pedagogical issues when generating CSCL One of the main contributions of MoLEF, together with defining
systems. In order to cover that, we have used the MoLEF specifically each element as a guideline for the design of learning
framework [24]. MoLEF allows us to give support to the systems, is that it includes a mechanism for their evaluation: the
evaluation of m-learning applications. In order to achieve that, it CECAM questionnaire (Cuestionario de Evaluación de la
defines a series of dimensions and sub-dimension for the Calidad de Aplicaciones M-learning: questionnaire for the
evaluation of the usability factors that an application of this kind evaluation of the quality of m-learning applications), which is
should support. Therefore, MoLEF can be used for both made up of 56 items. The questions that it includes can be used as
evaluating and designing m-learning systems. heuristics for the design of m-learning systems or as an evaluation
Between the higher level dimensions, the framework differentiates checklist. 29 out of the 56 items in the questionnaire refer to
between the design and evaluation of technological usability (the pedagogical usability. CECAM has undergone a refinement
one of the user interface, centered on mobile computation factors) process in which its validity and its reliability have been analyzed.
and pedagogical usability (the one which includes criteria related Thus, it can be considered a quality and reliable mechanism.
with learning factors). In our integration proposal, we will just Moreover, a software tool (Figure 2) has been developed for its
consider the latter, as it can be applied to any learning application, application and the subsequent analysis of the results obtained.
not only to m-learning applications. In Figure 2 it can be seen a screenshot of the analysis module of
The MoLEF framework defines the pedagogical usability the tool that supports the application of the CECAL questionnaire.
dimension by dividing it in five sub-dimensions: content, In this module, the results of the application of the questionnaire
multimedia, tasks or activities, social interaction and can be analyzed in three ways: with the numeric values, with a bar
personalization. As it can be seen, the social dimension of the graph and with a star graph.
learning process, which is also faced by CIAM, is considered by
MoLEF. Each sub-dimension includes some elements to consider
when designing and evaluating a learning application.
1
Eclipse Modeling Framework: www.eclipse.org/modeling/emf/
Figure 1. Elements of pedagogical usability in the MoLEF framework.
3.3. A new model-driven method for the development
of CSCL tools
The methodological framework of the method is made up of a
series of phases to be followed when it is applied, the roles that
users may play in those phases and the models used. Several users
can take part in the development method at the same time, so they
will handle those models depending on the role they play. Thus,
users taking part in the development method may play any of
these roles:
- The teacher is the person who states the need to have a
collaborative CSCL tool available. He has lots of experience
in the domain over which the tool that he is going to teach
will work.
- The software engineer may participate in all phases in which
software development tools are manipulated. He or she will
have knowledge of the development method, its basis and its
notations.
- The student will use the collaborative CSCL tools. Such tools
are generated in the scope of the teaching/learning process of
a certain subject. Usually, students get organized in groups
are work in class sessions.
In Figure 3, the global diagram of integration of proposals that has
been mentioned is shown. Next, each one of the phases that
integrate the method is explained in detail.
Phase 1: Organization Specification. This phase is carried out
by the teacher, and it is composed by two sub-phases:
- Sociogram Development. This phase comes from the CIAM
methodological proposal. In it, the sociogram is generated in
order to depict the structure of the organization to which the
collaborative system will give support, as well as the
relationship among its members. Thus, actors, roles, groups,
work teams and software agents will be defined. Elements in
these diagrams might be interconnected by means of three
kinds of relationships: (a) inheritance relationship (for
specifying responsibilities inheritance between roles); (b)
Figure 2. Screenshot of the tool that allow applying the acting relationship (between actors and roles) and (c)
CECAL questionnaire. association relationship, for specifying situations in which
some roles collaborate to carry out a joint task. In the case of
CSCL applications, the main roles will be the ones of teacher
and student. They may be specialized in sub-roles depending
on their contribution to the group work.
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase 6
Social
interaction
Organization Detailed Interaction
specification specification of modeling Production of
Class diagram
group work tasks the CSCL tool
Ethnographic
analysis
Process modeling Use of the CSCL
(Instructional Shared Context tool
Domain and Workspace
specification design) Modeling Generation of
the collaborative
workspaces and
the awareness,
coordination
and
collaboration
Learning support
goals (SpacEclipse)
Sociogram Task modeling
Use case
development (CTT)
diagram
Learning tasks
GUI automatic
generation
(CIAT-GUI)
Content
Manual step CIAM Phase
Automatic step
SpacEclipse Phase
Personalization
Semi-automatic step
MoLEF Phase
Figure 3. Methodological framework for the integration of the CIAM, SpacEclipse and MoLEF proposals.
- Domain Specification. In this step, the main elements and relationship), data dependencies (when tasks need data
concepts of the application domain are identified and manipulated by previous tasks) and notification dependencies
defined, just as it is shown in the SpacEclipse method. The (when it is necessary for a certain event to occur so that the
teaching task will consist on the students designing and workflow continues). The model including all this information
creating a model or diagram in a collaborative way. will be the deliverable of this phase.
In this phase, when the responsibilities of the roles are defined and In this phase of specification of the instructional design, or
the initial specification of the domain of the teaching task is sequencing of the learning activities, the section of the CECAM
specified, is when the first checklist of pedagogical factors is questionnaire that would be applied would be the one that allows
applied: the one related to the content. Two models are generated validating the pedagogical factors of the activities, which is called
in this step: the sociogram and the domain model, which usually learning activities.
will consist of UML class diagrams. Users playing the teacher Phase 3: Detailed Specification of Group Work Tasks. In this
and software engineer roles may have access to those models in stage, the main collaborative tasks identified in the previous stage
order to generate and modify them. are described in detail, as it is originally done in the CIAM
Phase 2: Process Modeling (Instructional Design). In this stage, methodology. We classify the collaborative tasks in two main
the main tasks defining the group work developed in the types: (a) Tasks for supporting communication and coordination
organization are described. A collaborative process consists of a factors (decision-making tasks, work distribution tasks,
set of tasks carried out in a certain order, taking into consideration asynchronous and synchronous communication support tasks,
certain data or temporal restrictions among them. For each task, etc); and (b) Tasks for supporting collaborative creation of shared
the roles involved, the data manipulated and the product obtained artifacts (which can be of a different nature: textual, graphical,
in the task, are specified. For the data specified in the context of a etc.). In this proposal we support the obtainment of tools for
task, the access modifiers to the objects are defined, which can be supporting tasks of the first type (supported by SpacEclipse), and,
reading, writing or creation. Each task must be classified in one among the tasks in the second type, we support tasks for
of the following categories: group work task or individual task. supporting collaborative visualization of shared information
The tasks in the process will be interconnected by means of (supported by CIAM method) and tasks for supporting
several kinds of relationships: temporal dependencies (order
collaborative visualization and editing of graphical information method is supported by a tool called CIAT-GUI implemented
(supported by the SpacEclipse method). using MDE technologies such as EMF, GMF, ATL and
For specifying tasks for supporting collaborative access to shared MofScript.
information, we use the models provided by CIAM, in particular, - Workspace Generation in Collaborative Tasks with
those for collaborative task modeling. Collaborative task Shared Context (SpacEclipse). In the case of collaborative
modeling requires the specification of the roles involved in its tasks with shared context, a set of M2M transformations are
execution, as well as the objects of the data model manipulated applied. The models required by GMF in order to generate a
and shared by the work team, that is, the specification of the graphical editor are generated from the shared context
shared context [5]. The shared context is defined as the set of specification. These transformations were developed by us
objects that is visible to users, as well as the actions that can be using the ATL language [6]. Next, a set of M2T
executed on those objects. transformations allows the final tools for supporting
Both in the previous phase (process modeling) as in the current visualization of shared context to be generated and, in the
one, the checklist in MoLEF about the support to social case of graphical shared artifacts, for collaborative edition of
interaction factors would be applied. models to be supported. The specific M2T transformations
being carried out are an extension of the original GMF
Phase 4: Interaction Modeling. In this phase, the teacher and the transformations that make up the final tool [6].
software engineer specify the human-computer interaction issues,
that is, the models related to the most external part of the Once the final user interface of the application has been obtained,
collaborative application: its graphical user interface. For the factors related to personalization supported by the application
modeling the interaction issues, we propose several specification can be evaluated.
techniques, joining what was proposed in the methods being Phase 6: Use of the CSCL System. Once the tool has been
integrated: generated, students can work collaboratively using the CSCL
- Task Modeling (CTT). For specifying interaction issues of system.
individual and collaborative tasks, we propose the use of task As it has been previously stated, the integration with SpacEclipse
models. The task models are logical descriptions of the tasks implies that, up to this moment, the kind of activity that is
that users must carry out in order to achieve their objectives supported by the framework is a synchronous collaborative
while interacting with the application [27]. We propose the modeling one. In future works our aim is to include some other
use of the ConcurTaskTrees (CTT) notation [28] for task kinds of collaborative tasks, as group edition of text information
modeling. In the case of the individual tasks, the CTT model or similar ones. The fact that the domain is restricted to this kind
has to be built, but, in the case of the collaborative tasks, the of tasks also makes that some dimensions in the MoLEF
CTT interaction model can be extracted directly from the framework cannot be applied up to this moment, as is the case of
shared context definition. The algorithm used to extract the the multimedia dimension.
CTT model is described in [19].
- Shared Context and Workspace Modeling. Once 4. A FIRST VALIDATION OF THE
processes, roles and tasks are identified and modeled, in the APPROACH
case of collaborative tasks in which there is a shared context, In order to test the usefulness and versatility of the method
a more detailed specification of these shared artifacts is described, we have applied it to several domains. In particular, it
required. In addition, the workspace issues and the has been applied to domains related with subjects in the Degree of
awareness and collaboration support elements to be included Computer Science and Engineering. During their studies, students
in the final tool must be specified. A set of widgets and face several subjects in which they need to create specification of
support tools that are supported by the technological a graphical nature, that is, diagrams or models. This is the case of
framework may be included in the workspace, such as a chat, subjects such as Software Engineering, Network Design or
a session panel, a floor control tool, a radar view, tele- Computer-Human Interaction, among other ones. Many works
pointers, etc. The teacher and the software engineer are have to be carried out arranged in groups, but the existing tools do
responsible for modeling these factors. They must build the not support synchronous collaborative modeling. Thus, the use of
set of meta-models needed for the subsequent automatic such applications can be of great interest in this field. Moreover,
generation of the final tool. students will also work in groups in their professional future, as
Phase 5: Production of the CSCL tool. Once the shared context they may carry out group tasks or take part in projects arranged in
and the workspaces definition have been formalized, some work groups. Therefore, we find useful that students of Computer
automatic steps take place resulting in the generation of the final Science and Engineering acquire competences such as
collaborative tool. In this phase, the graphical user interface (GUI) negotiation, coordination and group diagram creation. These
and the collaborative tools are generated applying a set of M2M factors are related with the Authenticity element in the MoLEF
and M2T transformation processes. This phase consists of the framework.
following two sub-phases: Thus, we have applied the method to create several instances in
- GUI Automatic Generation (CIAT-GUI). In the case of various domains. In particular, we have instantiated it for the
individual tasks and collaborative tasks without shared collaborative edition of UML diagrams, CTT diagrams and
context, the GUI is semi-automatically obtained by applying network design (Figure 4).
the method described in [21]. This is a model-based user
interface development (MBUID) method that allows final
GUIs to be obtained from declarative models (a task model in
CTT notation and a domain model in UML notation). This
B A
D
C
D
A
B
E
C
A D
B
F
C
Figure 4. Instances of tools generated by applying the method for several domains
In Figure 4, we can also see how the different widgets that make from one to five their degree of agreement with a series of
up the user interface of each tool. In the figure, we have identified statements.
the following widgets: (A) graphical editor, (B) session panel, (C) In the second part of the questionnaire, we included some
chat, (D), turn taking tool, (E) collaboration protocol tool, and (F) statements about the perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness
outline. It can be seen how not all tools own the same widgets, as and intention to use of the participants in relation to the generated
such configuration is specified in one of the models that are tools. The questions were adapted from the Technology
defined in Phase 4. Acceptance Model (TAM) [3], which is often used to know the
Once the instances of the tool were created, we carried out a first subjective opinion of user about an artifact or technology. We also
evaluation with professors of several subjects in which it is usual included a question that allowed evaluating the communication
to carry out modeling tasks. The goal of this first evaluation was mechanisms provided by the tool. Lastly, two open-answer
to catch their opinion about the method proposed and the tools questions allowed collecting some other comments related to the
generated by means of it. Therefore, we carried out a study with tool and the development approach.
some professors about the global approach, as well as about the Most participants considered the generated tools useful for their
use of this kind of visual modeling collaborative tools in their subjects, with an average value of 4,7 (σ = 0,5) in the evaluation
teaching tasks. A full description of the study can be found in [9]. scale. This was the same score obtained by the global approach (µ
In the evaluation, 10 professors took part. They belonged to the = 4,7; σ = 0,5), although some professors considered that the
Escuela Superior de Informática in Ciudad Real (University of number of domain in which the approach and the tool can be used
Castilla-La Mancha) and the Escuela Universitaria Politécnica in is not so high (µ= 4,1; σ = 0,7).
Teruel (University of Zaragoza). Professors received a brief Concerning the answers given about subjective perception (TAM
seminar about the tools and the development approach and then evaluation framework), the tool was considered as very easy to
they answered a questionnaire about the tools generated by the use (µ = 4,6; σ = 0,5) and learn (µ = 4,7; σ = 0,5). Although the
development method. Professors had to indicate in a Likert scale professors considered the tool useful to improve the competence
of group work of the students (µ = 4,5; σ = 0,7), they did not domains, which could suppose a kind of inheritance of elements,
consider it so useful for their teaching task (µ = 3,8; σ = 0,8). properties and relationships among the domains.
Even so, they showed a receptive attitude over its use, as most of
them would use it in his classes (µ = 3,9; σ = 0,3) of would 6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
recommend it to other professors for it use (µ = 4,2; σ = 0,6). This work has been partially supported by the PPII-2014-021-P
project, funded by the Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-La
Regarding the last questions, most participants valued the
Mancha (Spain) and by the TIN2015-66731-C2-2-R project,
approach, mainly its versatility and its adaptation to several
funded by the Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (Spain).
domains. They also made some remarks towards the improvement
of the communication and coordination mechanisms that are 7. REFERENCES
supported, and they proposed the possibility of simulation or code [1] Baker, K., Greenberg, S. and Gutwin, C. 2001. Heuristic
generation from the models developed. This would imply a lot of
Evaluation of Groupware Based on the Mechanics of
work, as that functionality is very close to the application domain.
Collaboration. In: Proceedings of the 8th IFIP Working
Thus, we have not included that line as a priority one in our future
Conference on Engineering for Human-Computer
work. Lastly, we found some comment about the higher
Interaction (EHCI'01), 123-140.
usefulness that the tools may have in the first steps of the teaching
of the specific modeling domains. [2] Calvo, A. and Turani, A. 2010. E-Learning Frameworks =
(Design Patterns + Software Components). In: E-learning,
5. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK design patterns and pattern languages. Sense Publishers. 49-
In this paper, we have introduced a model-driven approach for the 64.
development of graphical modeling CSCL tools. The method has
[3] Davis, F.D. 1993. User acceptance of information
been developed from the authors’ previous experience in model-
technology: System characteristics, user perceptions and
driven development methods for groupware. The main novelty of
behavioural impacts. International Journal of Man–Machine
this work is the integration that has been carried out in order to
Studies 38, 3, 475–487.
obtain a method that considers technological factors as well as
those about pedagogical usability. This way, the method is applied [4] Dillenbourg, P. 2002. Over-scripting CSCL: the risks of
to CSCL tools, not to any CSCW tool. The development method blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In:
implies several users playing different roles working over Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL? Open
different models during the application models of the method. Universiteit Nederland, Heerlen, 61–91.
Models used include Ecore models that are used in the scope of [5] Ellis, C., Gibbs, S. and Rein, G. 1991. Groupware: Some
the Eclipse Modeling Framework and other conceptual models Issues and Experiences. Communications of ACM 34, 1, 39-
such as CTT models for task modeling or UML class diagrams for 58.
domain modeling.
[6] Gallardo, J., Bravo, C. and Redondo, M.A. 2011. A domain
Pedagogical and teaching factors are covered in the method by definition and transformation approach for the generation of
considering the evaluation guidelines proposed by a pedagogical GMF-based modeling tools. 3rd International Workshop on
usability framework (MoLEF) during the different phases of the Model-Based Software and Data Integration (MBSDI 2011).
method. The global approach that the method proposes has been June 6th, 2011. Birmingham, UK
evaluated by means of some questionnaires fulfilled by university
professors. The evaluation generated some good results. [7] Gallardo, J., Bravo, C. and Redondo, M.A. 2012. A model-
driven development method for collaborative modeling tools.
As a first line of future work, we intend to go deeper in the Journal of Network and Computer Applications 35,1086-
development of the method, providing it with a full technological 1105.
support that makes up its technological framework. Therefore, our
goal is to get the CSCL tools implemented with as less [8] Gallardo, J., Molina, A.I,, Bravo, C. and Redondo, M.A.
programming effort as possible. In addition, pedagogical issues 2013. A model-driven and task-oriented method for the
will be integrated in the final tools in a better way when this development of collaborative systems. J. Network and
technological support is finished. Computer Applications 36, 6, 1551-1565.
In the same way, we aim to continue with the evaluation of the [9] Gallardo, J. and Molina, A.I. 2014. Experiencia de uso de
approach by carrying out studies that are more exhaustive and una herramienta de modelado colaborativo síncrono multi-
putting it into practice in real teaching environments. In fact, the dominio en el Grado en Ingeniería Informática. In: Actas de
validation that we have described in this work is a very las XX Jornadas sobre la Enseñanza Universitaria de la
preliminary one. Further evaluations will include comparisons Informática (JENUI 2014). 67-74.
between tools developed using the method and without using it, [10] Gebera, O.W.T. 2012. Criterios de valoración sobre la
and comparisons between tools generated using different usabilidad pedagógica en la formación continua docente.
characteristics of the method. Razón y palabra 80, 48-22.
Another line of future work, in order to go deeper in the CSCL [11] Grudin, J. 1992. Why CSCW Applications Fail: Problems in
integration, is to study a possible integration with the Tin Can the Design and Evaluation of Organizational Interfaces. En
API, also known as eXperience API 2. In addition, we will work Groupware: Software for Computer Supported Cooperative
over the conceptual framework of the approach in order to Work. IEEE Press: Los Alamitos, CA. 552--560.
consider improvements such as the addition of families of
[12] Hernández, D., Asensio, J.I., Dimitriadis, Y. and
Villasclaras, E.D. 2010. Pattern languages for generating
CSCL scripts: from a conceptual model to the design of a
real situation. In: E-learning, design patterns and pattern
2
https://tincanapi.com/ languages. Sense Publishers. 49– 64.
[13] Koschmann, T. 1996. CSCL: Theory and Practice of an Systems: A Technological and Pedagogical Approach. IEEE-
emerging paradigm. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, RITA 11, 1, 33-40.
Mahwah, NJ. [25] Nokelainen, P. 2006. An empirical assessment of
[14] Mayes, J. T. and Fowler, C. J. 1999. Learning technology pedagogical usability criteria for digital learning material
and usability: a framework for understanding courseware. with elementary school students. Educational Technology &
Interacting with computers 11, 5, 485-497. Society 9, 2, 178-197.
[15] Meixner, G. Paternò, F. and Vanderdonckt, J. 2011. Past, [26] Paquette, G., Léonard, M., Ludgren-Cayrol, K., Mihaila, S.,
present and future of model-based user interface and Gareau, D. 2006. Learning design based on graphical
development. i-com 3/2011. modelling. Educational Technology & Society 9, 1, 97–112
[16] Miao, Y., Ally, M., Samaka, M. and Tsinakos, A.A. 2014. [27] Paternò, F. 1999. Model-based design and evaluation on
Towards pedagogy-driven learning design: a case study of interactive applications. London: Springer Verlag.
problem-based learning design. In: Advances in Web-Based [28] Paternò, F. 2004. ConcurTaskTrees: an engineered notation
Learning–ICWL 2014. Switzerland: Springer International for task models. In: Diaper D, Stanton NA, editors. The
Publishing. 179–189. handbook of task analysis for HCI. Mahwah, NJ: LEA
[17] Molina, A.I., Jurado, F., Giraldo, W.J., Redondo, M.A. and (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates); pp. 483–501.
Ortega, M. 2008. Specifying Scripts and Collaborative Tasks [29] Pinelle, D. and Gutwin, C. 2002. Groupware walkthrough:
in CSCL Environment Using IMS-LD and CIAN. En ICALT Adding context to groupware usability evaluation. In:
2008. 775-777 Proceedings of the 2002 SIGCHI Conference on Human
[18] Molina, A.I., Redondo, M.A., Ortega, M. and Hoppe, U. Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press. 455–462.
2008. CIAM: A Methodology for the Development of [30] Rose, L.M., Kolovos, D.S., and Paige, R.F. 2012. EuGENia
Groupware User Interfaces. J. UCS 14, 9, 1435-1446. live: a flexible graphical modelling tool. In: Proceedings of
[19] Molina, A.I., Redondo, M.A. and Ortega, M. 2009. A the 2012 Extreme Modeling Workshop (XM '12), Davide Di
methodological approach for user interface development of Ruscio, Alfonso Pierantonio, and Juan de Lara (Eds.). ACM,
collaborative applications: A case study. Sci. Comput. New York, NY, USA, 15-20.
Program. 74, 9, 754-776. [31] Sallaberry, C., Nodenot, T., Laforcade, T. and Marquesuzaa,
[20] Molina, A.I., Redondo, M.A. and Ortega, M. 2009. A C. 2005. Model driven development of cooperative Problem-
Review of Notations for Conceptual Modeling of Groupware Based Learning Situations. Implementing tools for teachers
Systems. In: New Trends on Human-Computer Interaction: and learners from pedagogical models. In: Proceedings of the
Research, Development, New Tools and Methods. Springer- 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
Verlag. [32] Vanderdonckt, J. 2008. Model-Driven Engineering of User
[21] Molina, A.I., Giraldo, W.J., Gallardo, J., Redondo, M.A., Interfaces: Promises, Successes, and Failures. In: Proc. of 5th
Ortega, M. and García, G. 2012. CIAT-GUI: A MDE- Annual Romanian Conf. on Human-Computer Interaction
compliant environment for developing Graphical User ROCHI’2008 ,Matrix ROM, Bucarest. 1-10.
Interfaces of information systems. Advances in Engineering [33] Wang, D., Miao, Y., Hoppe, U., and Samaka, M. 2014. A
Software 52, 10-29. domain-specific modeling language approach to support
[22] Molina, A.I., Gallardo, J., Redondo, M.A., Ortega, M. and various forms of online PBL. In: Proc. of the 14th IEEE
Giraldo, W.J. 2013. Metamodel-driven definition of a visual International Conference on Advanced Learning
modeling language for specifying interactive groupware Technologies - ICALT2014.
applications: An empirical study. Journal of Systems and [34] Wang, D., Samaka, M., Miao, Y., Ali, Z. and Hoppe, U.
Software 86, 7, 1772-1789. 2016. A model-driven PBL application to support the
[23] Molina, A.I., Giraldo, W.J., Ortega, M., Redondo, M.A. and authoring, delivery, and execution of PBL processes.
Collazos, C.A. 2014. Model-driven development of Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning
interactive groupware systems: Integration into the software 11,6.
development process. Sci. Comput. Program. 89, 320-349. [35] Wang, Q. 2009. Design and evaluation of a collaborative
[24] Navarro, C.X., Molina, A.I., Redondo, M.A., Juárez- learning environment. Computers & Education 53, 1138–
Ramírez, R. 2016. Framework to Evaluate M-Learning 1146.