Feedback-Enabled MDA-Prototyping Effects on Modeling Knowledge

  • Gayane Sedrakyan
  • Monique Snoeck
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 147)

Abstract

This paper describes the effects of a feedback-enabled MDA prototyping tool on the validation cycle for conceptual models. We observe the effects of such prototyping method on learning outcomes of novice modelers. The impact is assessed based on the quality dimensions introduced by Conceptual Modeling Quality Framework (CMQF), more specifically with respect to semantic quality being affected by modeling knowledge. The current work proposes an extension to the techniques introduced in previous work in particular, experimenting with the prototyping tool by novice modelers. A positive impact has been observed on the learning achievements of novice modelers improving both modeling and language knowledge.

Keywords

teaching/learning conceptual modeling model validation conceptual model quality model driven architecture/engineering prototyping executable model UML 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Snoeck, M., Dedene, G., Verhelst, M., Depuydt, A.: Object-oriented enterprise modelling with MERODE. Leuvense Universitaire Pers, Leuven (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nelson, H.J., Poels, G., Genero, M., Piattini, M.: A conceptual modeling quality framework. Software Qual. J. 20, 201–228 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Merrill, D., Collofello, J.S.: Improving Software Project Management Skills Using a Software Project Simulator. In: Frontiers in Education Conference (1997)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Neu, H., Becker-Kornstaedt, U.: Learning and Understanding a Software Process through Simulation of Its Underlying Model. In: Proceedings of LSO, pp. 81–93 (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sedrakyan, G., Snoeck, M.: Technology-enhanced support for learning conceptual modeling. In: Bider, I., Halpin, T., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Soffer, P., Wrycza, S. (eds.) BPMDS 2012 and EMMSAD 2012. LNBIP, vol. 113, pp. 435–449. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Snoeck, M., Haesen, R., Buelens, H., De Backer, M., Monsieur, G.: Computer Aided Modelling Exercises. Journal Informatics in Education 6(1), 231–248 (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Snoeck, M., Michiels, C., Dedene, G.: Consistency by construction: The case of MERODE. In: Jeusfeld, M.A., Pastor, Ó. (eds.) ER Workshops 2003. LNCS, vol. 2814, pp. 105–117. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haesen, R., Snoeck, M.: Implementing Consistency Management Techniques for Conceptual Modeling. Accepted for UML 2004: 7th Conference in the UML Series, Lisbon, Portugal, October 10-15 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zikra, I., Stirna, J., Zdravkovic, J.: Analyzing the Integration between Requirements and Models in Model Driven Development. In: Halpin, T., Nurcan, S., Krogstie, J., Soffer, P., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Bider, I. (eds.) BPMDS 2011 and EMMSAD 2011. LNBIP, vol. 81, pp. 342–356. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ince, D.C., Hekmatpour, S.: Software prototyping – progress and prospects. Information and Software Technology 29(1), 8–14 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Klingstam, P., Gullander, P.: Overview of simulation tools for computer-aided production engineering. Computers in Industry 38, 173–186 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    OMG, Model-Driven Architecture, http://www.omg.org/mda/
  13. 13.
    Conn, S.S., Forrester, L.: Model Driven Architecture: A Research Review for Information Systems Educators Teaching Software Development. Information Systems Education Journal 4(43) (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang, W., Brooks, R.J.: Empirical investigations of conceptual modeling and the modeling process. In: Henderson, S.G., Biller, B., Hsieh, M.H. (eds.) Proceedings of the 39th Conference on Winter Simulation, pp. 762–770. IEEE, Washington, DC (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R.: User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science 35, 982–1003 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zimmerman, B.J.: Investigating Self-Regulation and Motivation: Historical Background, Methodological Developments, and Future Prospects. American Educational Research Journal 45, 166–183 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nicol, D.J., Macfarlane-Dick, D.: Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education 31(2), 199–218 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Barber, L.K., Bagsby, P.G., Grawitch, M.J., Buerck, J.P.: Facilitating self-regulated learning with technology: Evidence for student motivation and exam improvement. Teaching of Psychology (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Buthler, D.L., Winne, P.H.: Feedback and Self-Regulated Learning: A Theoretical Synthesis. Review of Educational Research 65, 245–281 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Buckl, S., Matthes, F., Schweda, C.M.: A Meta-language for EA Information Modeling - State-of-the-Art and Requirements Elicitation. In: Bider, I., Halpin, T., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Ukor, R. (eds.) BPMDS 2010 and EMMSAD 2010. LNBIP, vol. 50, pp. 169–181. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Foundational Subset for Executable UML Models (FUML), Version 1.0., http://www.omg.org/spec/FUML/1.0/
  22. 22.
    Alf 1.0 Specification, http://www.omg.org/spec/ALF/Current
  23. 23.
    Siau, K., Loo, P.-P.: Identifying difficulties in learning UML. Information Systems Management 23(3), 43–51 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moisan, S., Rigault, J.-P.: Teaching Object-Oriented Modeling and UML to Various Audiences. In: Ghosh, S. (ed.) MODELS 2009. LNCS, vol. 6002, pp. 40–54. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Erickson, J., Siau, K.: Can UML Be Simplified? Practitioner Use of UML in Separate Domains. In: Proceedings EMMSAD 2007, Trondheim, Norway, pp. 87–96 (2007)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gustas, R.: Conceptual Modeling and Integration of Static and Dynamic Aspects of Service Architectures. In: Sicilia, M.-A., Kop, C., Sartori, F. (eds.) ONTOSE 2010. LNBIP, vol. 62, pp. 17–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Snoeck, M., Dedene, G.: Existence dependency: the key to semantic integrity between structural and behavioural aspects of object types. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 24(4), 233–251 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Recker, J., Safrudin, N., Rosemann, M.: How Novices Model Business Processes. In: Hull, R., Mendling, J., Tai, S. (eds.) BPM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6336, pp. 29–44. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Moody, D.L.: The “physics” of notations: a scientific approach to designing visual notations in software engineering. In: Proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering, New York, NY, USA, vol. 2, pp. 485–486 (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gayane Sedrakyan
    • 1
  • Monique Snoeck
    • 1
  1. 1.Management Information SystemsKatholieke Universiteit LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations