Design and evaluation of extensions to UML sequence diagrams for modeling multithreaded interactions

Information Visualization

Volumn 8, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 120-136

  Xie, Shaohua ^a   Kraemer, Eileen ^a   Stirewalt, R E K ^b   Dillon, Laura K ^b   Fleming, Scott D ^b  

^a University of Georgia ^*  (United States)

^b Michigan State University   (United States)

Author keywords

Concurrency and synchronization; Empirical evaluation; UML

Indexed keywords

COMPARATIVE STUDIES; COMPREHENSION TASKS; CONCURRENCY AND SYNCHRONIZATION; CONCURRENT BEHAVIOR; EMPIRICAL EVALUATION; EMPIRICAL STUDIES; MULTIPLE THREADS; MULTITHREADED; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; SEQUENCE DIAGRAMS; SYNCHRONIZATION COMPLEXITY; TEACHING AND LEARNING; UML; UML SEQUENCE DIAGRAMS;

EDUCATION; GRAPHIC METHODS; SAILING VESSELS; SYNCHRONIZATION;

USER INTERFACES;

EID: 67650705455     PISSN: 14738716     EISSN: 14738724     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1057/ivs.2009.6     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (31)

1. Choi S.-E., and Lewis E.C. (2000). A Study of Common Pitfalls in Simple Multi-threaded Programs. Proceedings of the 31st SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2000). New York: ACM, pp. 325-329.
2. Ben-David Kolikant, Y. (2004). Learning concurrency: Evolution of students' understanding of synchronization. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 60(2): 243-268.
3. Kramer, J. (2007). Is abstraction the key to computing? Communications of the ACM 50(4): 36-42.
4. Schader M., and Korthaus A. (1998). Modeling Java threads in UML. In: M. Schader and A. Korthaus (eds.), The Unified Modeling Language - Technical Aspects and Applications. Heidelberg, Germany: Physica-Verlag, pp. 122-143.
5. Mehner K., and Wagner A. (2000). Visualizing the Synchronization of Java-threads with UML. Proceedings of 2000 IEEE International Symposium on Visual Languages (VL 2000). Washington DC: IEEE Computer Society, pp. 199-206.
6. Ober I., and Stan I. (1999). On the Concurrent Object Model of UML. Proceedings of the 5th International Euro-Par Conference on Parallel Process. (Euro-Par 1999). Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Germany: Springer-Verlag, pp. 1377-1384.
7. Stevens, P. (2003). UML and concurrency. Abstract State Machines. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Germany: Springer-Verlag, pp. 151-165.
8. Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I. and Booch, G. (2004). The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual, 2nd edn., Boston, Addison-Wesley.
9. Xie S., Kraemer E., and Stirewalt R.E.K. (2007a). In: Design and Evaluation of a Diagrammatic Notation to Aid in the Understanding of Concurrency Concepts. Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2007). Washington DC: IEEE Computer Society, pp. 727-731.
10. Xie, S., Kraemer, E., and Stirewalt, R.E.K. (2007b). Empirical Evaluation of a UML Sequence Diagram with Adornments to Support Understanding of Thread Interactions. Proceedings of the 15th IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC 2007). Washington DC: IEEE Computer Society, pp. 123-134.
11. Xie, S., Kraemer, E., Stirewalt, R.E.K., Dillon, L.K., and Fleming, S.D. (2008). Assessing the Benefits of Synchronizationadorned Sequence Diagrams: Two Controlled Experiments. SoftVis'08: Proceedings of the 4th ACM Symposium on Software visualization. New York: ACM, pp. 9-18.
12. Higginbotham, C.W., and Morelli, R. (1991). A System for Teaching Concurrent Programming. Proceedings of the 22nd SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 1991). New York: ACM, pp. 309-316.
13. Carr, S., Mayo, J. and Shene, C.-K. (2003). ThreadMentor: A pedagogical tool for multithreaded programming. Journal of Educational Resources in Computing, 3(1), 1.
14. Mehner, K. (2002). JaVis: A UML-based visualization and debugging environment for concurrent Java programs. In: S. Diehl (ed.) Software Visualization. Vol. 2269 of LNCS. London: Springer, pp. 163-175.
15. Newman, E., Greenhouse, A., and Scherlis, W.L. (2001). Annotation-based Diagrams for Shareddata Concurrency. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Concurrency Issues in UML at UML 2001. Unpublished, http://wooddes.intranet.gr/ uml2001/Home.htm.
16. McDowell, C.E. and Helmbold, D.P. (1989). Debugging concurrent programs. ACM Computing Surveys 21(4): 593-622.
17. Leroux, H., Réquilé-Romanczuk, A., and Mingins, C. (2003). In: Jacot: A tool to Dynamically Visualise the Execution of Concurrent Java Programs. PPPJ '03: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Principles and Practice of Programming in Java. New York: Computer Science Press, Inc., pp. 201-206.
18. Kutar, M., Britton, C., and Barker, T. (2002). A Comparison of Empirical Study and Cognitive Dimensions Analysis in the Evaluation of UML Diagrams. Proceedings of the 14th Psychology of Programming Interest Group (PP1G.14) Brunel University, pp. 1-14.
19. Swan, J., Barker, T., Britton, C., and Kutar, M. (2005). An Empirical Study of Factors that Affect User Performance When Using UML Interaction Diagrams. Proceedings, 2005 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering. Hatfield: Hertfordshire University, p. 10.
20. Torchiano, M. (2004). Empirical Assessment of UML Static Object Diagrams. Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Workshop on Program Comprehension. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society, pp. 226-230.
21. Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R. and Vlissides, J. (1995). Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing.
22. Tilley, S., and Huang, S. (2003). A Qualitative Assessment of the Efficacy of UML Diagrams as a Form of Graphical Documentation in Aiding Program Understanding. Proceedings of the 21st Annual International Conference on Documentation, New York: ACM, pp. 184-191.
23. Arisholm, E., Briand, L. C., Hove, S. E. and Labiche, Y. (2006). The impact of UML documentation on software maintenance: An experimental evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 32(6): 365-381.
24. Purchase, H.C., McGill, M.,Colpoys, L., and Carrington, D. (2001). Graph Drawing Aesthetics and the Comprehension of UML Class Diagrams: An Empirical Study. Proceedings, 2001 Asia-Pacific Symposium on Information Visualization. Vol. 9, Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society, Inc., pp. 129-137.
25. Kuzniarz L., Staron M., and Wohlin C. (2004). In: An Empirical Study on Using Stereotypes to Improve Understanding of UML Models. Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Workshop on Program Comprehension. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society, pp. 14-23.
26. Shene, C.-K. and Carr, S. (1998). The design of a multithreaded programming course and its accompanying Software Tools. The Journal of Computing in Small Colleges, 14: 12-24.
27. Magee, J. and Kramer, J. (2007). Concurrency: State Models and Java Programs. 2nd ed., New York, NY: Wiley.
28. Pancake, C.M. (1994). Visualization techniques for parallel debugging and performance tuning tools. In: Technical Representation. Corvallis, OR: Oregan State University.
29. Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist 32(1): 1-19.
30. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: McKay.
31. Lamport, L. (1977). Concurrent reading and writing. Communications of the ACM 20(11): 806-811.