Systematic Review of UML Diagramming Software Tools for Higher Education Software Engineering Courses
Article No.: 4, Pages 1 - 7
Abstract
The Unified Modelling Language (UML) is a set of graphical notations underpinned by a single meta-model that aid in the description and design of software systems. Learning to draw UML diagrams is an important objective of higher education (HE) software engineering (SE) courses. To this end, UML diagramming software tools can facilitate the application of the UML notation in drawing complex diagrams collaboratively between students. Numerous UML diagramming tools are available on the market nowadays, which makes it difficult for academics and students to choose the best tool for their needs, and no thorough evaluation of such tools for education is available. This project conducted a systematic review of UML diagramming tools that are freely available or available for a trial, from the point of view of meeting desirable diagramming and collaboration features for use in HE SE courses. This paper presents the methodology and results of this systematic review, before concluding on the best tools overall and for different features, and proposing a set of guidelines for the design of better UML diagramming tools for HE SE courses.
References
[1]
2023. Archi. https://www.archimatetool.com/ Accessed on 23 May 2023.
[2]
2023. Cacoo. https://nulab.com/cacoo/ Accessed on 23 May 2023.
[3]
2023. ConceptDraw DIAGRAM. https://www.conceptdraw.com/products/drawing-tool Accessed on 23 May 2023.
[4]
2023. Creately. https://creately.com/ Accessed on 23 May 2023.
[5]
2023. Draw.io. https://app.diagrams.net/ Accessed on 23 May 2023.
[6]
2023. EDraw. https://www.edrawsoft.com/ Accessed on 23 May 2023.
[7]
2023. Gaphor. https://gaphor.org/en/ Accessed on 23 May 2023.
[8]
2023. GenMyModel. https://www.genmymodel.com/ Accessed on 23 May 2023.
[9]
2023. Git Mind. https://gitmind.com/ Accessed on 23 May 2023.
[10]
2023. Gliffy. https://www.gliffy.com/ Accessed on 23 May 2023.
[11]
2023. Google. https://www.google.com/ Accessed on 23 May 2023.
[12]
2023. Google Scholar. https://scholar.google.com/ Accessed on 23 May 2023.
[13]
2023. Lucidchart. https://www.lucidchart.com/pages/ Accessed on 23 May 2023.
[14]
2023. MagicDraw. https://www.3ds.com/products-services/catia/products/no-magic/magicdraw/ Accessed on 23 May 2023.
[15]
2023. Microsoft Visio. https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/microsoft-365/visio/flowchart-software Accessed on 23 May 2023.
[16]
2023. Moqups. https://moqups.com/ Accessed on 23 May 2023.
[17]
2023. OmniGraffle. https://www.omnigroup.com/omnigraffle Accessed on 23 May 2023.
[18]
2023. Sketchboard. https://sketchboard.io/ Accessed on 23 May 2023.
[19]
2023. SmartDraw. https://www.smartdraw.com/ Accessed on 23 May 2023.
[20]
2023. UMLetino. https://www.umletino.com/ Accessed on 23 May 2023.
[21]
2023. Visual Paradigm. https://www.visual-paradigm.com/ Accessed on 23 May 2023.
[22]
2023. yEd. https://www.yworks.com/products/yed Accessed on 23 May 2023.
[23]
Anna E Bobkowska and Krzysztof Reszke. 2005. Usability of UML Modeling Tools.Software engineering: evolution and emerging technologies 5 (2005).
[24]
Meghan E Borg, Kaitlyn M Butterfield, Eileen Wood, Huan Huan Zhang, and Sabrina Pinto. 2021. Investigating the impacts of personality on the use and perceptions of online collaborative platforms in higher education. SN Social Sciences 1 (2021), 1–22.
[25]
Loli Burgueño, Antonio Vallecillo, and Martin Gogolla. 2018. Teaching UML and OCL models and their validation to software engineering students: an experience report. Computer Science Education 28, 1 (2018), 23–41.
[26]
Shailey Chawla. 2019. Collaborative learning strategies in software engineering course. (2019).
[27]
Ming Cheng, Olalekan Adekola, JoClarisse Albia, and Sanfa Cai. 2022. Employability in higher education: a review of key stakeholders’ perspectives. Higher Education Evaluation and Development 16, 1 (2022), 16–31.
[28]
Holger Eichelberger, Yilmaz Eldogan, and Klaus Schmid. 2009. A comprehensive survey of UML compliance in current modelling tools. Software Engineering 2009 (2009).
[29]
Gregor Engels, Jan Hendrik Hausmann, Marc Lohmann, and Stefan Sauer. 2006. Teaching UML is teaching software engineering is teaching abstraction. In Satellite Events at the MoDELS 2005 Conference: MoDELS 2005 International Workshops Doctoral Symposium, Educators Symposium Montego Bay, Jamaica, October 2-7, 2005 Revised Selected Papers 8. Springer, 306–319.
[30]
Ana M Fernández-Sáez, Danilo Caivano, Marcela Genero, and Michel RV Chaudron. 2015. On the use of UML documentation in software maintenance: Results from a survey in industry. In 2015 ACM/IEEE 18th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS). IEEE, 292–301.
[31]
Heena and Ranjna Garg. 2011. A comparative study of UML tools. In ACAI. 1–4.
[32]
Lena Khaled. 2009. A comparison between UML tools. In 2009 second international conference on environmental and computer science. IEEE, 111–114.
[33]
Ann L Kieser and Fay Ortiz Golden. 2009. Using online office applications: Collaboration tools for learning. Distance Learning 6, 1 (2009), 41.
[34]
Hatice Koç, Ali Mert Erdoğan, Yousef Barjakly, and Serhat Peker. 2021. UML diagrams in software engineering research: a systematic literature review. In Proceedings, Vol. 74. MDPI, 13.
[35]
Ludwik Kuzniarz and Miroslaw Staron. 2006. Best practices for teaching UML based software development. In Satellite Events at the MoDELS 2005 Conference: MoDELS 2005 International Workshops Doctoral Symposium, Educators Symposium Montego Bay, Jamaica, October 2-7, 2005 Revised Selected Papers 8. Springer, 320–332.
[36]
Cyprien Lomas, Michael Burke, and Carie L Page. 2008. Collaboration tools. Educause learning initiative 2, 11 (2008).
[37]
Elina Michaelidou. 2019. Review of Web-Based Audience Response Systems Used in Higher Education. Master’s thesis. School of Informatics University of Edinburgh.
[38]
David Moher, Alessandro Liberati, Jennifer Tetzlaff, Douglas G Altman, and the PRISMA Group*. 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of internal medicine 151, 4 (2009), 264–269.
[39]
Jeff Offutt. 2013. Putting the engineering into software engineering education. IEEE software 30, 1 (2013), 96–96.
[40]
Mert Ozkaya. 2016. What is software architecture to practitioners: A survey. In 2016 4th International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development (MODELSWARD). Ieee, 677–686.
[41]
Mert Ozkaya. 2018. Do the informal & formal software modeling notations satisfy practitioners for software architecture modeling?Information and Software Technology 95 (2018), 15–33.
[42]
Mert Ozkaya. 2019. Are the UML modelling tools powerful enough for practitioners? A literature review. IET Software 13, 5 (2019), 338–354.
[43]
Matthew J Page, Joanne E McKenzie, Patrick M Bossuyt, Isabelle Boutron, Tammy C Hoffmann, Cynthia D Mulrow, Larissa Shamseer, Jennifer M Tetzlaff, Elie A Akl, Sue E Brennan, 2021. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. International journal of surgery 88 (2021), 105906.
[44]
Amy T Peterson, Patrick N Beymer, and Ralph T Putnam. 2018. Synchronous and asynchronous discussions: Effects on cooperation, belonging, and affect.Online Learning 22, 4 (2018), 7–25.
[45]
Neil Pitman. 2005. UML 2.0 in a Nutshell: A Desktop Quick Reference. O’Reilly.
[46]
T Rani and S Garg. 2013. Comparison of different UML tool: Tool approach. International Journal Of Engineering And Computer Science 2, 6 (2013), 1900–1908.
[47]
Gianna Reggio, Maurizio Leotta, and Filippo Ricca. 2014. Who knows/uses what of the UML: A personal opinion survey. In Model-Driven Engineering Languages and Systems: 17th International Conference, MODELS 2014, Valencia, Spain, September 28–October 3, 2014. Proceedings 17. Springer, 149–165.
[48]
Gianna Reggio, Maurizio Leotta, Filippo Ricca, and Diego Clerissi. 2013. What are the used UML diagrams? A Preliminary Survey. In EESSMod@ MoDELS. 3–12.
[49]
Rebecca Reuter, Theresa Stark, Yvonne Sedelmaier, Dieter Landes, Jürgen Mottok, and Christian Wolff. 2020. Insights in students’ problems during UML modeling. In 2020 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON). IEEE, 592–600.
[50]
Safdar Aqeel Safdar, Muhammad Zohaib Iqbal, and Muhammad Uzair Khan. 2015. Empirical evaluation of UML modeling tools–a controlled experiment. In Modelling Foundations and Applications: 11th European Conference, ECMFA 2015, Held as Part of STAF 2015, LAquila, Italy, July 20-24, 2015. Proceedings 11. Springer, 33–44.
[51]
B Selic, C Bock, S Cook, P Rivett, T Rutt, E Seidewitz, and D Tolbert. 2015. OMG Unified Modeling Language (Version 2.5). Object Management Group, MA, USA (2015).
[52]
Harold H Smith. 2004. On tool selection for illustrating the use of UML in system development. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges 19, 5 (2004), 53–63.
[53]
Suriya Sundaramoorthy. 2022. UML Diagramming: A Case Study Approach. CRC Press.
[54]
Weng Jie Thong and Mohamed Ariff Ameedeen. 2019. A survey of UML tools. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Data Engineering 2015 (DaEng-2015). Springer, 61–70.
Index Terms
- Systematic Review of UML Diagramming Software Tools for Higher Education Software Engineering Courses
Recommendations
UML for systems engineering
The paper provides an introduction to the employment of Unified Modeling Language (UML) in systems engineering. The standard being developed for this purpose is the Systems Modeling Language (SysML) specification. This paper, while not dealing with ...
A systematic review of the use of requirements engineering techniques in model-driven development
MODELS'10: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Model driven engineering languages and systems: Part IIModel-Driven Development (MDD) emphasizes the use of models at a higher abstraction level in the software development process and argues in favor of automation via model execution, transformation, and code generation. However, one current challenge is ...
Round-trip Engineering UML Class Models and Java Models: A Real-world Use Case for Bidirectional Transformations with QVT-R
Model transformations constitute the key technology for model-driven software development, a software engineering discipline which became more and more important during the last decade. While tool support for unidirectional batch transformations is ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
September 2023
107 pages
Copyright © 2023 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 25 September 2023
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Conference
UKICER 2023
UKICER 2023: The United Kingdom and Ireland Computing Education Research conference
September 7 - 8, 2023
Swansea, Wales Uk
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 88Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)77
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)10
Reflects downloads up to 19 Nov 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
Cited By
View allView Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign inFull Access
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML Format