CaMeLOT: An educational framework for conceptual data modelling

Abstract Context Teaching conceptual data modelling (CDM) remains a challenging task for educators. Despite the fact that CDM is an integral part of software engineering curricula, there is no generally accepted educational framework for the subject. Moreover, the existing educational literature shows significant gaps when it comes to pursued learning outcomes and their assessment. Objective In this paper, we propose an educational framework for conceptual data modelling, based on the revised Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives, and provide necessary examples of systemized learning outcomes. Method We utilized the revised Bloom's taxonomy to develop an adapted framework specifically for learning outcomes related to CDM. We validated the framework by mapping learning outcomes distilled from the existing course material to the framework, by presenting the framework for feedback to the experts in the field and further elaborating and refining it based on the feedback and experiences from these validation activities. Results CaMeLOT is an adaptation of the Bloom's taxonomy specifically for learning outcomes related to CDM. We identified different content areas and indicated the necessary scaffolding. Based on the framework, we worked out 17 example tables of learning outcomes related to content areas at different levels of scaffolding, exemplifying the different knowledge and cognitive levels. We clarify the differences in learning outcomes related to different knowledge and cognitive levels and thereby provide a domain specific clarification of the classification guidelines. Conclusion CaMeLOT gives educators an opportunity to enhance the CDM part of software engineering curricula with a systemized set of learning outcomes to be pursued, and open the path for creating more complete, useful and effective assessment packages. The adoption of our educational framework may reduce the time spent on designing educational material and, at the same time, improve its quality.

[1]  Stephen G. Powell,et al.  How novices formulate models. Part I: qualitative insights and implications for teaching , 2007, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[2]  S. Chatterjee,et al.  Design Science Research in Information Systems , 2010 .

[3]  Michael R. Blaha,et al.  Object-Oriented Modeling and Design for Database Applications , 1997 .

[4]  Alison Crowe,et al.  Biology in bloom: implementing Bloom's Taxonomy to enhance student learning in biology. , 2008, CBE life sciences education.

[5]  Edward S. Buckler,et al.  Software engineering the mixed model for genome-wide association studies on large samples , 2009, Briefings Bioinform..

[6]  Axel van Lamsweerde,et al.  Requirements Engineering: From System Goals to UML Models to Software Specifications , 2009 .

[7]  Jonathan Lee,et al.  Change the face of software engineering education: A field report from Taiwan , 2011, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[8]  Makoto Otani,et al.  A Practical Conceptual Modeling Teaching Method Based on Quantitative Error Analyses for Novices Learning to Create Error-Free Simple Class Diagrams , 2014, 2014 IIAI 3rd International Conference on Advanced Applied Informatics.

[9]  Valerie Dean O'Loughlin,et al.  The Blooming Anatomy Tool (BAT): A discipline‐specific rubric for utilizing Bloom's taxonomy in the design and evaluation of assessments in the anatomical sciences , 2015, Anatomical sciences education.

[10]  Joseph S. Valacich,et al.  MSIS 2006: model curriculum and guidelines for graduate degree programs in information systems , 2000, SGCS.

[11]  J. R. Venable,et al.  Teaching novice conceptual data modellers to become experts , 1996, Proceedings 1996 International Conference Software Engineering: Education and Practice.

[12]  Fred D. Davis.  Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[13]  Peter Dolog,et al.  Assessing Problem-Based Learning in a Software Engineering Curriculum Using Bloom’s Taxonomy and the IEEE Software Engineering Body of Knowledge , 2016, ACM Trans. Comput. Educ..

[14]  Monique Snoeck,et al.  Domain Modelling in Bloom: Deciphering How We Teach It , 2017, PoEM.

[15]  M. Blanton.  Bloom's Taxonomy Revisited , 1982 .

[16]  Bill Z. Manaris,et al.  Bloom's taxonomy revisited: specifying assessable learning objectives in computer science , 2008, SIGCSE '08.

[17]  David H. Jonassen,et al.  Instructional design models for well-structured and III-structured problem-solving learning outcomes , 1997 .

[18]  Daniel L. Moody,et al.  The “Physics” of Notations: Toward a Scientific Basis for Constructing Visual Notations in Software Engineering , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[19]  Dinesh Batra,et al.  Novice errors in conceptual database design , 1994 .

[20]  Dinesh Batra,et al.  Conceptual data modelling in theory and practice , 1995 .

[21]  Arne Sølvberg,et al.  Understanding quality in conceptual modeling , 1994, IEEE Software.

[22]  Monique Snoeck,et al.  Enterprise Information Systems Engineering : The MERODE Approach , 2014 .

[23]  Michael Hortsch,et al.  Climbing Bloom's taxonomy pyramid: Lessons from a graduate histology course , 2017, Anatomical sciences education.

[24]  Monique Snoeck,et al.  Process mining analysis of conceptual modeling behavior of novices - empirical study using JMermaid modeling and experimental logging environment , 2014, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[25]  Daniel L. Moody,et al.  The method evaluation model: a theoretical model for validating information systems design methods , 2003, ECIS.

[26]  Mario Piattini,et al.  A conceptual modeling quality framework , 2011, Software Quality Journal.

[27]  Alan R. Hevner,et al.  Design Science in Information Systems Research , 2004, MIS Q..

[28]  F. Paas,et al.  Teaching complex rather than simple tasks: balancing intrinsic and germane load to enhance transfer of learning , 2006 .

[29]  Benjamin S. Bloom,et al.  Handbook On Formative and Summative Evaluation of Student Learning , 1971 .

[30]  A. J. Cowling,et al.  The role of modelling in the software engineering curriculum , 2005, J. Syst. Softw..

[31]  ChenPeter Pin-Shan.  The entity-relationship modeltoward a unified view of data , 1976 .

[32]  J. Biggs.  Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment , 1996 .

[33]  R M Harden,et al.  Learning outcomes and instructional objectives: is there a difference? , 2002, Medical teacher.

[34]  Scott Freeman,et al.  Application of Bloom's Taxonomy Debunks the "MCAT Myth" , 2008, Science.