Criteria for Selection of a Web 2.0 Tool for Process Modeling Education

  • Martina Holenko Dlab
  • Sanja Candrlic
  • Sandra Sabranovic
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 544)

Abstract

Collaborative learning activities can raise students’ motivation and help them to achieve better results. Faced with many available tools that support these activities, teachers need to choose the most suitable one. This paper presents a criterion-based procedure for selection of a Web 2.0 tool for collaborative activities in the domain of process modeling. The procedure defined a set consisting of domain specific criteria and general criteria important for assessing Web 2.0 tools for any application domain. The importance of each attribute included in the criteria is expressed numerically using weights. The established criteria are applied to nine Web 2.0 tools intended for diagramming in order to select a tool that will be used for process modeling education as part of the e-learning environment consisting of Moodle LMS and the educational recommender system ELARS.

Keywords

Collaborative learning activities e-learning Web 2.0 Process model ELARS 

References

  1. 1.
    Redondo, R.D., Fernández Vilas, A., Pazos Arias, J.J., Gil Solla, A.: Collaborative and role play strategies in software engineering learning with Web 2.0 tools. Appl. Eng. Educ. 22, 658–668 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gallardo, J., Bravo, C., Redondo, M.A.: A model-driven development method for collaborative modeling tools. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 35, 1086–1105 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Harris, A.L., Rea, A.: Web 2.0 and virtual world technologies: a growing impact on IS education. J. Inf. Syst. Educ. 20, 137–144 (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    ELARS Home page (2015). http://elars.uniri.hr/elars. Accessed 30 Jan 2016
  5. 5.
    Rittgen, P.: The role of editor in collaborative modeling. In: Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 1474–1479. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Recker, J., Mendling, J., Hahn, C.: How collaborative technology supports cognitive processes in collaborative process modeling: a capabilities-gains-outcome model. Inf. Syst. 38, 1031–1045 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    SmartDraw (2016). www.smartdraw.com/. Accessed 30 Jan 2016
  9. 9.
    Flowcharter (2016). www.igrafx.com/products/process-modeling-analysis/flowcharter. Accessed 30 Jan 2016
  10. 10.
    Edraw (2016). https://www.edrawsoft.com/. Accessed 30 Jan 2016
  11. 11.
    Holenko Dlab, M., Hoic-Bozic, N.: An approach to adaptivity and collaboration support in a web-based learning environment. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 4, 28–30 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hoic-Bozic, N., Holenko Dlab, M., Mornar, V.: Recommender system and Web 2.0 tools to enhance a blended learning model. IEEE Trans. Educ. 59, 39–44 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    O’Reilly, T.: What is Web 2.0: design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Commun. Strateg. 65, 17–37 (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yoo, S.J., Huang, W.D.: Comparison of Web 2.0 technology acceptance level based on cultural differences. Educ. Technol. Soc. 14, 241–252 (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    De Marco, T.: Structured Analysis and System Specification. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1979)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yourdon, E., Constantine, L.L.: Structured Design: Fundamentals of a Discipline of Computer Program and Systems Design. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1979)MATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gliffy (2016). https://www.gliffy.com/. Accessed 30 Jan 2016
  18. 18.
    Creately (2016). http://creately.com/. Accessed 30 Jan 2016
  19. 19.
    Cacoo (2016). https://cacoo.com/lang/en/home. Accessed 30 Jan 2016
  20. 20.
    Draw.io (2016). https://drive.draw.io/. Accessed 30 Jan 2016
  21. 21.
    Lovely Charts (2016). http://www.lovelycharts.com/. Accessed 30 Jan 2016
  22. 22.
    Flowchart.com (2016). http://flowchart.com/. Accessed 30 Jan 2016
  23. 23.
    GenMyModel (2016). https://www.genmymodel.com/. Accessed 30 Jan 2016
  24. 24.
    ProcessOn (2016). https://www.processon.com/. Accessed 30 Jan 2016
  25. 25.
    Diagramo (2016). http://diagramo.com/. Accessed 30 Jan 2016

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martina Holenko Dlab
    • 1
  • Sanja Candrlic
    • 1
  • Sandra Sabranovic
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of InformaticsUniversity of RijekaRijekaCroatia

Personalised recommendations