![](bga.png)
modelling is supplemented by extracting the underly-
ing model for further analysis or processing in other
tools. Our approach focuses on a high-level view
of professional education programmes by modelling
programme entities, their dependencies and temporal
order. It assists in aligning the understanding of a pro-
fessional education programme’s design between dif-
ferent stakeholders and coordinating design and man-
agement activities. Our modelling approach supports
process enactment by allowing users to define tasks
for any part of a programme and by integrating with
project management tooling. Task invariants can be
defined to ensure that models stay consistent and up-
to-date. While there are minor limitations, our tooling
shows the feasibility of using Miro for building tool
support for visual modelling languages.
For future work, we plan to conduct a user study
to evaluate PEPML and our tooling. Simultaneously,
we plan to develop integrations with additional tools
and use PEPML as the basis for a situational method
engineering approach for instructional design.
REFERENCES
Allen, M. W. and Sites, R. (2012). Leaving ADDIE for
SAM. American Society for Training and Develop-
ment.
Auvinen, T., Paavola, J., and Hartikainen, J. (2014).
STOPS: A Graph-based Study Planning and Curricu-
lum Development Tool. In Koli Calling ’14, pages
25–34. ACM.
Botturi, L. (2008). Handbook of Visual Languages for In-
structional Design: Theories and Practices. Informa-
tion Science Reference.
Branch, R. M. (2009). Instructional Design: The ADDIE
Approach. Springer.
Branch, R. M. and Kopcha, T. J. (2014). Instructional De-
sign Models. In Handbook of Research on Educa-
tional Communications and Technology, pages 77–87.
Springer.
Brandao, E., Adelfio, M., Hagy, S., and Thuvander, L.
(2021). Collaborative Pedagogy for Co-creation and
Community Outreach: An Experience from Architec-
tural Education in Social Inclusion Using the Miro
Tool. In Advances in Human Dynamics for the De-
velopment of Contemporary Societies, volume 277 of
LNNS, pages 118–126. Springer.
Conole, G. (2009). The Role of Mediating Artefacts in
Learning Design. In Handbook of Research on Learn-
ing Design and Learning Objects: Issues, Applica-
tions, and Technologies, pages 188–208. IGI Global.
Dick, W., Carey, L., and Carey, J. O. (2005). The Systematic
Design of Instruction. Pearson Education Ltd.
Gagne, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. C., Keller, J. M.,
and Russell, J. D. (2005). Principles of Instructional
Design. Wiley Online Library.
IMS Global Learning Consortium (2003). Learning Design
Specification Version 1.
Jurado, F., Molina, A. I., Giraldo, W. J., Redondo, M. A.,
and Ortega, M. (2008). Using CIAN for Specifying
Collaborative Scripts in Learning Design. In Cooper-
ative Design, Visualization, and Engineering, volume
5220 of LNCS, pages 204–211. Springer.
Kyndt, E., Dochy, F., Michielsen, M., and Moeyaert,
B. (2009). Employee Retention: Organisational
and Personal Perspectives. Vocations and Learning,
2(3):195–215.
Li, Q., Zhang, J., Xie, X., and Luximon, Y. (2021). How
Shared Online Whiteboard Supports Online Collab-
orative Design Activities: A Social Interaction Per-
spective. In Advances in Creativity, Innovation, En-
trepreneurship and Communication of Design, vol-
ume 1218 of AISC, pages 285–293. Springer.
Mancl, D. and Fraser, S. D. (2020). COVID-19’s Influence
on the Future of Agile. In Agile Processes in Software
Engineering and Extreme Programming – Workshops,
volume 396 of LNBIP, pages 309–316. Springer.
Molina, A. I., Jurado, F., de la Cruz, I., Redondo, M. A., and
Ortega, M. (2009). Tools to Support the Design, Ex-
ecution and Visualization of Instructional Designs. In
Cooperative Design, Visualization, and Engineering,
volume 5738 of LNCS, pages 232–235. Springer.
M
¨
uller, C. and Erlemann, J. (2022). Educational Design for
Digital Learning with myScripting. In EDEN Confer-
ence’22, pages 128–134.
Neumann, S., Oberhuemer, P., and Derntl, M. (2009). Vi-
sualizing Learning Designs Using IMS Learning De-
sign: The Position of the Graphical Learning Mod-
eller. In ICALT’09, pages 732–733. IEEE.
Nieveen, N. and Gustafson, K. (1999). Characteristics
of Computer-based Tools for Education and Train-
ing Development: An Introduction. In Design Ap-
proaches and Tools in Education and Training, pages
155–174. Springer.
Nunes, I. D. and Schiel, U. (2014). Using High Level Ac-
tivities Net for Learning Analytics of Instructional De-
sign. In ICALT’14, pages 383–385. IEEE.
Paquette, G., de la Teja, I., L
´
eonard, M., Lundgren-Cayrol,
K., and Marino, O. (2005). An Instructional Engineer-
ing Method and Tool for the Design of Units of Learn-
ing. In Learning Design: A Handbook on Modelling
and Delivering Networked Education and Training,
pages 161–184. Springer.
Petre, M. (2013). UML in Practice. In ICSE ’13, pages
722–731. IEEE.
Tenorio de Menezes, D. A., Florencio, D. L., Silva, R.
E. D., Nunes, I. D., Schiel, U., and de Aquino, M. S.
(2017). DaVID — A Model of Data Visualization for
the Instructional Design. In ICALT’17, pages 281–
285. IEEE.
UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2011). International stan-
dard classification of education: ISCED 2011.
Wolters, D. and Engels, G. (2022). Model-driven De-
sign and Management of Professional Education Pro-
grammes. In ICSOB’22 Companion Proceedings,
CEUR Workshop Proceedings. (in press).
MODELSWARD 2023 - 11th International Conference on Model-Based Software and Systems Engineering
142