# Learn-CIAM: A Model-Driven Approach for the Development of Collaborative Learning Tools
## 5 Validation
### Results of the Second Experiment  
In this experiment, we used the same questionnaire as in the first one, observing now the following results (Appendix A, Table A2). Again, we proceed to highlight the results of the items of the questionnaire, summarized in Figure 15.  
On this occasion, regarding the usefulness of proposing a new methodological framework to model, validate and generate collaborative tools (MET1), 75% of the ED and 100% of the CS experts considered it to be useful; 64% of the latter considered it to be really useful (**RQ1**). On the second question (MET2), in relation to following a Model-Driven Development paradigm, half of the respondents with an ED profile fully agreed, compared to 82% of the respondents with a CS profile who fully agreed (**RQ2**). When asked about the adequacy of the election of the Eclipse platform as support for the method (MET3), 50% of the respondents with an ED profile agreed, while 63% of the respondents with a CS profile agreed, from which 45% fully agreed, considering the election of the Eclipse platform solutions as support for the methodology adequate (**RQ3**). Furthermore, in relation with the questions about the subjective perception of Learn-CIAM, its division in different phases and stages, and the use of high-level languages, the answers were positive (**RQ4**) and only 18% of the CS experts disagreed on the division of the method in different phases and stages (MET4). Lastly, regarding the last question related to the methodological framework (MET6), in which it was asked whether they considered that a user with less advanced technical skills would be able to follow the steps of Learn-CIAM to generate collaborative tools, 75% of the ED experts would not know if a user without sufficient computer knowledge would be able to follow the steps and use the tool correctly, when scoring it with a three. On this same item, among the CS experts, there was more variation in the results, with 45% of them saying that they would not be able to generate collaborative learning tools, compared to 36% who agreed. These results denote doubts about the idea that a user with less technological experience can generate collaborative tools without help. However, we should highlight the marks of the ED experts as no one rated them below three (**RQ5**). According to the conceptual framework, about the Learn-CIAN notation (CON2), 100% of both ED and CS experts indicated that they considered it adequate or very adequate. While on the visual strain of this notation (CON3), again, 100% of the participants in both profiles gave it a score of four or five, which indicates that they agreed or strongly agreed with the number of elements chosen (**RQ6**). These results are very positive for such an important component as the Learn-CIAN notation within the Learn-CIAM methodological proposal. In addition, regarding the questions about the subjective perception of the potential users with respect to the suitability and completeness of the modeling elements related to awareness and pedagogical usability supported by the proposal, the answers were positive (**RQ7**) and only 25% of the ED experts and 9% of the CS experts disagreed on the adequacy of the pedagogical usability criteria included (CON6). With regard to the technological framework, with respect to the difficulty of applying the modeling, validation and generation stages of collaborative learning tools supported by Learn-CIAT (**RQ8**), again, as in the first experiment, a greater disparity in the results can be seen. On this occasion, on the modeling stage using Learn-CIAT (TEC1) ED experts show doubts and 75% did not know what to answer (scored three). In addition, the self-explanatory nature of the Learn-CIAT tool (TEC8) was criticized by both profiles, as 75% of the ED experts did not know what to answer, as well as 45% of the CS experts.