Domain Modelling in Bloom: Deciphering How We Teach It

Transcription

1 1 Domain Modelling in Bloom: Deciphering How We Teach It Daria Bogdanova, Monique Snoeck LIRIS, Research Center for Management Informatics, KU Leuven, Belgium

2 Domain modelling pedagogy: current challenges 2 Ill-structured nature of the problems and tasks No existing generally accepted framework for modelling pedagogy Terminology Babylon : various terms address the same notions across the modelling community Undefined portrait of a good modeler

3 Research goals and scope 3 The ultimate goal: To develop the systematic educational framework for enterprise modelling. The study goal: To take the first step towards the systematic educational framework; To identify and categorize the existing learning outcomes in domain modelling education. Scope: Data modelling aspect of enterprise modelling. Business processes, goals and business object behavior -> future research.

4 Research questions 4 RQ1: What learning outcomes can be identified in current domain modelling education? RQ2: What is the positioning of the identified learning outcomes in the revised Bloom s taxonomy of educational objectives? RQ2a: How are the learning outcomes distributed among various knowledge levels? RQ2b: What are the most frequently appearing types of tasks? RQ3: What is the range of domain modelling concepts addressed by the educators?

5 Methodology: materials 5 Books MOOCs University courses 4 books from different communities: - OO modelling - Conceptual data modelling - Database design Inclusion criteria: - more than 100 references on ResearchGate - contain exercises 3 MOOCs (all openly available) - higher-education level Platforms: - edx - Open University - Stanford Lagunita 5 university courses from 3 universities in Belgium - KU Leuven - Université Catholique de Louvain - University of Namur 291 assessment tasks from 12 sources analysed

6 Methodology: revised Bloom s taxonomy 6 Cognitive dimension Create Evaluate Analyze Apply Understand Remember Design, Build, Improve Check, Verify, Critique Examine, Analyze, Compare Use, Practice, Execute Discuss, Explain, Match Define, Recall, Identify Adapted from Krathwohl, David R. "A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview." Theory into practice 41.4 (2002), pp

7 Methodology: revised Bloom s taxonomy 7 Knowledge dimension Create Evaluate Analyze Apply Understand Remember Adapted from Krathwohl, David R. "A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview." Theory into practice 41.4 (2002), pp

8 Methodology: scaffolding levels 8 G E N E R A L Class level Object Inheritance Class Association Class Aggregation Attribute Binary Association K N O W L E D G E Relationships level: generalization Complex Model Recursive Association Relationships level: association Pattern N-ary Association Simple Model Model level: complex Model level: simple

9 Results: illustration 9 Knowledge Dimension Factual Cognitive Process Dimension Remember Understand Apply Analyse Evaluate Create LO2 Conceptual (LO2) LO5 LO1 LO6 Procedural LO3 LO4 (LO3) Metacognitive LO1: Analyze the lifecycle of a given object. LO2: Identify a false statement in the list of term definitions. LO3: Show an alternative design for a model using a given modelling technique. LO4: Check if the cardinality constraints satisfy the consistency rules. LO5: Explain the given class diagram. LO6: Extend the model according to the new given specifications.

10 Results: Bloom s taxonomy 10 Books give the most evenly distributed tasks among the cognitive levels MOOCs are focused on understanding and analysing Exams are focused on applying conceptual knowledge, analyzing and creating Metacognitive knowledge is not represented

11 Results: Bloom s taxonomy 11 Books give the most evenly distributed tasks among the cognitive levels MOOCs are focused on understanding and analysing Exams are focused on applying conceptual knowledge, analyzing and creating Metacognitive knowledge is not represented

12 Results: scaffolding 12

13 Results: frequent tasks* *more than two appearances of a learning outcome of this type in two or more resources 13 Cognitive Process Dimension Knowledge Dimension Remember Understand Apply Analyse Evaluate Create Factual Conceptual Type 5 Type 10 Type 12 Type 3 Type 4 Type 6 Type 7 Type 1 Type 2 Type 9 Procedural Metacognitive Type8 Type 1a Type 11 E.g., Type 3: Elicit all the possible classes from a given requirements document.

14 Conclusion 14 The core gaps identified in educational materials: - Lack of Factual level tasks (might be explained by the nature of the subject) - Absence of Metacognitive level tasks - MOOCs address lower level cognitive dimensions - Books have the widest coverage of learning outcomes - Remember and Evaluate levels are underrepresented in all types of learning materials Limitations - Studied literature sources cannot be considered fully representative for the entire field of domain modelling - More formal rating system should be implemented for the classification in the future

15 Future work 15 - Development of categorization guidelines for learning outcomes in domain modelling education - Development of a systematic educational framework for enterprise modelling - Enhancement of categorisation further adaptation of the revised Bloom s taxonomy

16 Thank you for your attention! 16