# Learn-CIAM: A Model-Driven Approach for the Development of Collaborative Learning Tools
## 3 The Learn-CIAM Proposal: Supporting Model-Driven Development of Collaborative Learning Tools
### Conceptual Framework and Specification Language
#### 3.1.3 Pedagogical Usability Aspects  
The integration of the Learn-CIAN notation including the aspects presented before would allow the automatic generation of collaborative tools with an adequate awareness support. Nonetheless, the aspects related to learning, the so-called pedagogical usability [15], are still not covered. With the aim of guiding the design process, the Learn-CIAN notation should also include a series of learning issues or criteria that could be reflected in both learning flows and user interfaces of the collaborative tools generated. Thus, we used a set of heuristics included in an evaluation instrument called CECAM (M-learning Applications Quality Evaluation Questionnaire). CECAM has been refined [48] to analyze its validity and reliability, so that it can be considered a fairly reliable instrument. It is a questionnaire for the design and evaluation of mobile-learning applications that proposes a series of dimensions and sub-dimensions for the evaluation of the usability factors that must support these kinds of applications. In the higher-level dimensions, it makes a distinction between pedagogical usability (which includes criteria related to learning factors) and technological usability (that of the user interface focused on mobile computing factors). Because the aim of this work is to design learning courses and generate some desktop collaborative learning tools, only the pedagogical dimension will be considered. In particular, CECAM comprises a total of 56 items, 28 of which refer to pedagogical usability, splitting it into five sub-dimensions: content, task and activities, social interaction, personalization and multimedia, which, in turn, are divided into a series of criteria. These items (Table 3) have been included in Learn-CIAM. It is noteworthy that there are criteria that could not fit very well in the generation of the collaborative tool initially but could fit in the design and configuration of the learning activities that constitute a course. In other words, and as stated at the beginning, the aim of this work is not only to generate collaborative learning tools, but to provide a set of heuristics that help in the design and configuration of the learning courses. For example, when modeling a collaborative learning tool, the professor would be able to declare a collaborative, computer-supported and productive learning activity, selecting a code editor as tool and including a chat in its workspace. This way, the activity would be allowing communication between the users through the chat (S2 criterion), and the same activity would be presenting a work environment that reflects a real practice of their future professional life (T5 criterion). As a final example, let us imagine a professor that would define a Moodle activity as support of one of the learning tasks. The professor would be able to define an online activity, organizing the modules and material by levels of difficulty (C5 criterion), and including multimedia resources with a duration less of than 7 min (M3 criterion). To summarize, following these heuristics the professor will be guided through the design process of their courses and some of the collaborative learning tools that we already support.