Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1145/3266237.3266255acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessbesConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

What are the differences between group and individual modeling when learning UML?

Published: 17 September 2018 Publication History

Abstract

Unified Modeling Language (UML) is a widely used modeling language in the software industry. However, students face difficulties while learning how to model complete and correct UML diagrams. In order to minimize these difficulties, educators perform individual and/or group modeling activities during class. Despite the importance of this problem, there are few experience reports comparing students' performance on these two forms of practicing modeling exercises in the classroom. In this context, this paper describes an empirical study aiming to compare the effects of modeling exercises carried out individually and in group. We evaluated the correctness and completeness of the UML diagrams and use case specification produced by the students and their perceptions about both forms of organization. The results showed that although the students presented difficulties in understanding the syntax, they modeled the use case specification and the class diagram more correctly individually. On the other hand, the students modeled the diagram and use case specification, and the sequence diagram more completely in group. Differently from what we expected, these results suggest that if the instructor's goal is for students to learn to design more correct and complete models, performing group activities not always show more positive learning outcomes. Instead, in some cases, individual modeling is likely to yield better results.

References

[1]
Orit Hazzan and Jef Kramer. 2007. Abstraction in computer science & software engineering: A pedagogical perspective. In Frontier Journal, v. 4, n. 1, 6--14.
[2]
Ven Yu Sien. 2010. Teaching Object-Oriented Modelling using Concept Maps. In Journal Electronic Communications of the European Association of Software Science and Technology, v. 34, 1--13.
[3]
Zakarya A. Alzamil. 2013. Influence of Software Modeling and Design on Domain-Specific Abstract Thinking: Student's Perspective. In Journal of Software Engineering and Applications, v. 6, n. 10, 543--553.
[4]
Anke Dittmar, Gregor Buchholz and Mathias Kühn. 2017. Effects of facilitation on collaborative modeling sessions with a multi-touch UML editor. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 39th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering and Education Track (ICSE-SEET), Buenos Aires, Argentina, 97--106.
[5]
Dimitris Dranidis, Ioanna Stamatopoulou and Marina Ntika. 2015. Learning and Practicing Systems Analysis and Design with StudentUML. In Proceedings of the ACM 7th Balkan Conference on Informatics, Craiova, Romania, 41--50.
[6]
Jonas Boustedt. 2012. Students' different understandings of class diagrams. In Journal of Computer Science Education. TAYLOR & FRANCIS ONLINE v. 22, n. 1, 29--62.
[7]
Keng Siau and Poi-Peng Loo. 2006. Identifying difficulties in learning UML. In Journal of Information Systems Management, v. 23, n. 3, 43--51.
[8]
Adriano Santos, Gustavo Vale and Eduardo Figueiredo. 2015. Does Online Content Support UML Learning? An Empirical Study. In Proceedings of the VIII Fórum de Educação em Engenharia de Software (FEES), Belo Horizonte, Brazil, 36--47.
[9]
Zhiyi Ma. 2017. An approach to improve the quality of object-oriented models from novice modelers through project practice. In Frontiers of Computer Science, v. 11, n. 3, 485--498.
[10]
Rita Francese, Carmine Gravino, Michele Risi, Giuseppe Scanniello and Genoveffa Tortora. 2015. Using Project-Based-Learning in a mobile application development course --- An experience report. In Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, ELSEVIER, v. 31, 196--205.
[11]
Kenneth R. Koedinger, Julie L. Booth and David Klahr. 2013. Instructional complexity and the science to constrain it. In Science, v. 342, n° 6161, 935--937.
[12]
Michelene T. H. Chi and Ruth Wylie. 2014. The ICAP Framework: Linking Cognitive Engagement to Active Learning Outcomes. In Journal of Educational Psychologist, v. 49, n. 4, 219--243.
[13]
Kenneth R. Koedinger, Albert T. Corbett and Charles Perfetti. 2012. The Knowledge-Learning-Instruction (KLI) framework: Bridging the science-practice chasm to enhance robust student learning. In Journal of Cognitive Science, v. 36, n. 5, 757--798.
[14]
Dejana Diziol, Nikol Rummel and Hans Spada. 2009. Procedural and conceptual knowledge acquisition in mathematics: where is collaboration helpful?. In Proceedings of the ACM 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, Rhodes, Greece, v. 1, 178--187.
[15]
Dejana Mullins, Nikol Rummel and Hans Spada. 2011. Are two heads always better than one? Differential effects of collaboration on students' computer-supported learning in mathematics. In Internacional Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, SPRINGER, v. 6, n. 3, 421--443.
[16]
Robert G. M. Hausmann, Michelene T. H. Chi and Marguerite Roy. 2004. Learning from collaborative problem solving: An analysis of three hypothesized mechanisms. In Proceedings of the 26<sup>nd</sup> Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Mahwah, NJ, USA, 547--552.
[17]
Femke Kirschner, Fred Paas and Paul A. Kirschner. 2009. Individual and group-based learning from complex cognitive tasks: Effects on retention and transfer efficiency. In Computers in Human Behavior, ELSEVIER, v. 25, 306--314.
[18]
Jennifer K. Olsen, Nikol Rummel and Vicent Aleven. 2017. Learning Alone or Together? A Combination Can Be Best!. In International Society of the Learning Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 95--102.
[19]
Alan R. Dennis, Glenda S. Hayes and Robert M. Daniels Jr. 1999. Business process modeling with group support systems. In Journal of Management Information Systems, v. 15, 115--142.
[20]
Alan R. Dennis, Glenda S. Hayes and Robert M. Daniels Jr. 1994. Re-engineering Business Process Modeling. In Proceedings of the IEEE Twenty-Seventh Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 1994), Wailea, USA, 244 -- 253.
[21]
Breno Bernad N. de França, Talita V. Ribeiro, Paulo Sérgio M. dos Santos and Guilherme H. Travassos. 2015. Using focus group in software engineering: lessons learned on characterizing software technologies in academia and industry. In Proceedings of the XVIII Ibero-American Conference on Software Engineering (CIbSE 2015) - Workshop de Engenharia de Software Experimental (ESELAW 2015), Lima, Peru, 351--364.
[22]
Jyrki Kontio, Laura Lehtola and Johanna Bragge. 2004. Using the focus group method in software engineering: obtaining practitioner and user experiences. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering (ISESE'04), Redondo Beach, CA, USA, 271--280.
[23]
Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 2<sup>nd</sup> ed. SAGE Publications, London.
[24]
Jürgen Börstler, Ludwik Kuzniarz, Carl Alphonce, Bill Sanders and Michal Smialek. 2012. Teaching software modeling in computing curricula. In Proceedings of the ACM 17th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE'12), Haifa, Israel, 39--50.
[25]
Sabine Moisan and Jean-Paul Rigault. 2010. Teaching object-oriented modeling and UML to various audiences. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS 2009), 40--54.
[26]
Andrew Gemino and Yair Wand. 2004. A framework for empirical evaluation of conceptual modeling techniques. In Requirements Engineering, v. 9, 248--260.
[27]
Nilufar Baghaei, Antonija Mitrovic and Warwick Irwin. 2007. Supporting collaborative learning and problem-solving in a constraint-based CSCL environment for UML class diagrams. In International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, v. 2, n. 2, 159--190.
[28]
Danijela Boberic-Krsticev and Danijela Tesendic. 2013. Experience in teaching OOAD to various students. In Informatics in Education, v. 12, n. 1, 43--58.
[29]
Giuseppe Scanniello and Ugo Erra. 2014. Distributed modeling of use case diagrams with a method based on think-pair-square: Results from two controlled experiments. In Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, v. 25, n° 4, 494--517.
[30]
Williamson Silva, Igor Steinmacher and Tayana Conte. 2017. Mapeamento Sistemático da Literatura sobre as dificuldades relacionadas ao Ensino de Diagramas da UML. In TR-USES-2017-019. Disponível em: http://uses.icomp.ufam.edu.br/relatorios-tecnicos/.
[31]
Mohammed Misbhauddin and Mohammed Alshayeb. 2017. An integrated metamodel-based approach to software model refactoring. In Journal of Software & Systems Modeling, 1--38.
[32]
Alistair Cockburn, 2000. Writing Effective Use Cases, Vol. 1, Addison-Wesley, Boston.
[33]
Williamson Silva, Bruno Gadelha, Igor Steinmacher and Tayana Conte. 2018. Relatório Técnico com os artefatos do estudo sobre realizar práticas de modelagem individual e em grupo. In TR-USES-2017-009. Disponível em: http://uses.icomp.ufam.edu.br/relatorios-tecnicos/.
[34]
Maria Fernanda Granda, Nelly Condori-Fernández, Tanja E. J. Vos and Oscar Pastor. 2015. What do we know about the defect types detected in conceptual models?. In Proceedings of the IEEE 9<sup>th</sup> International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS), Athens, Greece, 88--99.
[35]
Ana Luisa Medeiros, Lyrene Fernandes Silva, Thais Batista and Leonardo Minora. 2007. Requisitos e Arquitetura de Software Orientada a Aspectos: Uma Integração Sinérgica. In Proceedings of the XXI Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering (SBES 2007), João Pessoa, Paraíba, Brazil, 199--215.
[36]
Williamson Silva, Igor Steinmacher and Tayana Conte. 2017. Is it Better to Learn from Problems or Erroneous Examples?. In Proceedings of the IEEE 30th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE&T 2017), Savannah, GA, USA, 222-- 231.
[37]
Heiko Koziolek and Viktoria Firus. 2005. Empirical evaluation of model-based performance prediction methods in software development. In Proceedings of the International Conference on the Quality of Software Architectures and Software Quality, 188--202.
[38]
Claes Wöhlin, Per Runeson, Martin Höst, Magnus. C. Ohlsson, Bjorn. Regnell and Anders Wesslén. 2012. Experimentation in software engineering, Springer Science & Business Media.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Training software architects suiting software industry needs: A literature reviewEducation and Information Technologies10.1007/s10639-023-12149-x29:9(10931-10994)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2024

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
SBES '18: Proceedings of the XXXII Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering
September 2018
379 pages
ISBN:9781450365031
DOI:10.1145/3266237
Publication rights licensed to ACM. ACM acknowledges that this contribution was authored or co-authored by an employee, contractor or affiliate of a national government. As such, the Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free right to publish or reproduce this article, or to allow others to do so, for Government purposes only.

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 17 September 2018

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. collaborative modeling
  2. empirical study
  3. individual modeling
  4. software modeling education
  5. teaching UML

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

SBES '18
SBES '18: XXXII BRAZILIAN SYMPOSIUM ON SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
September 17 - 21, 2018
Sao Carlos, Brazil

Acceptance Rates

SBES '18 Paper Acceptance Rate 38 of 140 submissions, 27%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 147 of 427 submissions, 34%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)9
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 30 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Training software architects suiting software industry needs: A literature reviewEducation and Information Technologies10.1007/s10639-023-12149-x29:9(10931-10994)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2024

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media